Jump to content


Photo

Is It Noah’s Ark?


  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 April 2010 - 06:30 PM

On Sunday 25 April, a press conference was held in Hong Kong at 11 am local time. A local Christian organization, The Media Evangelism Ltd, announced that they had accessed and filmed an extremely interesting item 4,200 metres (14,000 ft) up on Ararat in an extremely dangerous and hard-to-access area. TMEL apparently has an evangelistic display in the large concrete full-size Ark replica on the way to the airport.

Buried in ice and rock, (well above the treeline) they were able to tunnel down and enter and film about seven accessible rooms (there were more) constructed out of what clearly appeared to be wood, including small doorways, a shelf, beams with pegs, and more.

As more information becomes available over the next few days, we should be able to flesh out some of these details, including more on the history of the find.

We have previously wondered in print how such a structure would survive the many volcanic eruptions and earthquakes evidenced by the mountain’s geology, and whether such an obvious source of structural timber and fuel would survive long after the Flood.

It is still early days and all believers need to be careful not to jump the gun, i.e. go beyond the evidence and announce it as the Ark for sure. There will obviously be a lot more work to be done to establish whether this apparently manmade structure is indeed the remains of Noah’s Ark, or a subsequent construction, perhaps to commemorate the Ark landing. The discoverers have indicated their desire to work closely with the major creation organizations to address the obvious questions that still need to be answered.

Even if this turns out not to be the Ark itself, this find (if genuine) and the ongoing investigations and interest will focus attention on the reality of the Flood in world history.



http://www.thenoahar...index.asp?pg=3a


The link above will access the actual site and you will be able to see pictures of the structure. Click ENG at the top of the page for english.





Enjoy.

#2 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 26 April 2010 - 07:19 PM

Well, this could very well be the find of the century. Anyways, I'm not going to jump the gun and call it Noah's ark just yet. Of course I have this gut feeling that it is actually the ark.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 April 2010 - 01:40 AM

I have heard the local flood put it up there LOL.

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 April 2010 - 03:00 AM

I have heard the local flood put it up there LOL.

View Post


A local flood that produced 14,000 ft. of water ;) . At least the global flood model has lower mountains before the flood, so nowhere near that much water is needed.






Enjoy.

#5 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 27 April 2010 - 08:06 AM

Personally, I believe it will not be a good thing if this truly is Noah's Ark (which I doubt, anyway).

I believe that God has hidden, or taken away, important artifacts from man's early history with Him in order that people would worship Him and not make idols out of "things."

That's why, for example, there is no Ark of the Covenant on earth to be discovered.

That's why we have no likeness of Christ, or even a detailed description of what He looks like. Look what the religion of Rome has done with their idols.

Likewise, I believe that Noah's Ark will be discovered in God's timing, not ours. Having said that, it's possible, I suppose, that this is now God's time for us to find the ark. However, I believe it will be a find that ushers in more of God's judgment prior to the end of times.

Only time will tell.

Dave

#6 dwillis

dwillis

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Salem, VA.

Posted 27 April 2010 - 12:51 PM

Exactly Dave, this is why the prohibition against idols is one of the top commandments. It is too easy to get so focused on the Stuff & Things of religion that the purpose of worship and the meaning of faith is lost.

#7 Jet Black

Jet Black

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 30 April 2010 - 03:25 AM

It has been exposed as a fraud by a company that makes fraudulent documentaries. Apparently the wood is old wood imported from the Black Sea Area. They've even found the people who moved the wood and the trucks they moved it with.

http://michaelsheise...eobabble-update

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:05 AM

It has been exposed as a fraud by a company that makes fraudulent documentaries. Apparently the wood is old wood imported from China. They've even found the people who moved the wood and the trucks they moved it with.

View Post


Credible links please...

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:36 AM

You do realize that the link you cited is rife with innuendo and hearsay accusations. No substantiation is provided for the accusations such as:

“this is all reported to be a fake”

“were reputed”

“are said to have”

These need to be supported in order to make the truth claim you have posited.

#10 Jet Black

Jet Black

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 30 April 2010 - 04:37 AM

You do realize that the link you cited is rife with innuendo and hearsay accusations. No substantiation is provided for the accusations such as:

“this is all reported to be a fake”

“were reputed”

“are said to have”

These need to be supported in order to make the truth claim you have posited.

View Post


well append my post with "apparently" - I did already put the word in there once. I wouldn't be suprised if this is a fraud though - there are lots of people out there who are quite happy to make stuff like this up, just to make money.

#11 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 April 2010 - 05:21 AM

well append my post with "apparently" - I did already put the word in there once. I wouldn't be suprised if this is a fraud though - there are lots of people out there who are quite happy to make stuff like this up, just to make money.

View Post


It wouldn't bother me one way or the other. There are plenty of frauds and hoaxes in the evolutionists play book as well. I prefer to stick with actual facts that I can verify...

#12 Jet Black

Jet Black

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 30 April 2010 - 05:30 AM

It wouldn't bother me one way or the other. There are plenty of frauds and hoaxes in the evolutionists play book as well. I prefer to stick with actual facts that I can verify...

View Post


I don't really see the point of the tu quoque, but ok.

#13 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2010 - 05:40 AM

well append my post with "apparently" - I did already put the word in there once. I wouldn't be suprised if this is a fraud though - there are lots of people out there who are quite happy to make stuff like this up, just to make money.

View Post

It has been my experience that both sides have done this equally well. From your link it seems the Chinese , whether claiming some form of Christianity or the Atheistic Red Chinese are both capable of giving us either Piltdown Chicken or Piltdown Ark.

I am also suspicious too however. First, I'm not a young earth believer, but I won't go into that as a debate. Let's just say it's not an issue with me. No having said that, they claim to have dated the wood around 4,800 years old, just about the actually biblical time of the floods occurance. For me, if proper dating and isotope studies were done, the wood would be more like perhaps 10,000+ years. (guessing) Noah would have cut down wood from old growth forests, which would have been some of the biggest healthiest forest to have existed. Those beams in the photo seemed small to me. Any actual Ark framing beams would have had to have been huge for tremendous structural integrity to withstand such a powerful global deluge especially considering the mechanisms employed.

I've also written recently to Dr Eric Cline of George Washington University expressing my doubt about this and that IF he EVER (and that's a big IF & EVER) can acquire some sample of that wood, a better test for authenticity would be to do isotope studies and testing for climate data. Trees obsorb their oxygen through water sources, and Oxygen18 and Oxygen16 levels would tell the Paleo-climatic weather story of whether the wood was of a pre-flood environment or post-flood hoax. The ancient hydological cycle would have lacked rainfall originating from storms created over oceans and seas and moving over continents releasing their water on the highly productive vegetated Earth.

I also think Dr Cline was correct in his comments that the Ark would have been scavenged for housing and other purposes for human needs as the landscape would have been devoid of any good sized trees, despite the fact the bible mentions an Olive leaf carried back by a dove in it's bill, denoting at least a young olive tree somewhere. But if anything the explorers could have recovered part of a shelter made. If anything there could have been great uplift in the tectonic plates as the area has a history of volcamism and it would have taken some settling down and later rise of an actual Mt Ararat.

That take me to another problem, and that is the biblical account never states that the Ark landed on Mount Ararat itself, because what Genesis 8:5 actually says is that, " . . the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat" and NOT Mt Ararat. Big difference. However the die-hards have always insisted it was Mt Ararat, which is of no surprise sinse going beyond what is said in the Biblical record by means of speculation has always been an imperfect human flaw.

#14 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 April 2010 - 05:42 AM

I don't really see the point of the tu quoque, but ok.

View Post


There was no tu quoque, I merely pointed out the fact that people of all walks will pull off hoaxes to prop up their argument. AND that we need to lean on the facts when making "factual" statements. But we also need to admit when we are leaning on faith when making "Faith statements". If you go back and read my entire post, you'd easily see that.

Please keep the context of the discussion within the whole parameter of the discussion (i.e. do not omit a part the whole of the statement, by simply focusing on that which you disagree with).

#15 Jet Black

Jet Black

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 30 April 2010 - 05:55 AM

There was no tu quoque, I merely pointed out the fact that people of all walks will pull off hoaxes to prop up their argument. AND that we need to lean on the facts when making "factual" statements. But we also need to admit when we are leaning on faith when making "Faith statements". If you go back and read my entire post, you'd easily see that.

Please keep the context of the discussion within the whole parameter of the discussion (i.e. do not omit a part the whole of the statement, by simply focusing on that which you disagree with).

View Post


ok, but the shot at evolutionists seemes rather unwarranted and irrelevant to the discussion of whether this is the ark or not.


oh and to Eocene: in China, the Communists (reds, if you like) are not necessarily atheists, and the atheists are not necessarily communists.

#16 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2010 - 06:27 AM

ok, but the shot at evolutionists seemes rather unwarranted and irrelevant to the discussion of whether this is the ark or not.

Yeah sure. :mellow:


oh and to Eocene: in China, the Communists (reds, if you like) are not necessarily atheists, and the atheists are not necessarily communists.

View Post

Atheism has just as many widely diverse religious denominations as any other religion on this planet and their stunt with Piltdown Chicken (which no doubt had the Red Chinese Atheist fingerprints and blessings all over it) I find to be every the equal of this Noah's ark stunt if found a hoax and I believe it will. There's no superior high moral ground here for either side. :lol:

#17 Jet Black

Jet Black

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 30 April 2010 - 06:33 AM

Yeah sure. :mellow:
Atheism has just as many widely diverse religious denominations as any other religion on this planet and their stunt with Piltdown Chicken (which no doubt had the Red Chinese Atheist fingerprints and blessings all over it) I find to be every the equal of this Noah's ark stunt if found a hoax and I believe it will. There's no superior high moral ground here for either side.  :lol:

View Post


I just wonder why you keep saying red and atheists though. The people who stuck two fossils together (which are actually interesting in their own right) could have been Buddhists right? I don't know, do you?

#18 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 30 April 2010 - 07:33 AM

ok, but the shot at evolutionists seemes rather unwarranted and irrelevant to the discussion of whether this is the ark or not.

View Post


Actually, it’s very relevant considering your unfounded and unsubstantiated accusation:

It has been exposed as a fraud by a company that makes fraudulent documentaries.

View Post


It wasn’t “exposed” in that link (the word “exposed” insinuates evidentiary substantiation); it was speculated with hearsay and innuendo. And your use of the word “exposed” was spurious at best.

And, as I “exposed” and expounded in my previous post; there is enough “actual” and “substantiated” Fraud by all quarters to claim. Therefore, your use of unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations could be construed as an attempt to derail this conversation, and could be considered a better example of a “Red Herring”, or even an “Tu quoque” fallacy in that it is used so as to “divert attention from the issue at hand, or to avoid or fail to respond to an argument that non-fallaciously gave one the burden of proof.”

#19 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2010 - 07:50 AM

I just wonder why you keep saying red and atheists though. The people who stuck two fossils together (which are actually interesting in their own right) could have been Buddhists right? I don't know, do you?

View Post

Definition shell games ???????? :lol:

Who cares, the point was nothing goes forward without that atheistic government's blessing. Such a hoax, is the usual norm for most communist governments anyway. Besides, it was National Geographic Science magazine , who although claim to be a treasure trove of scientific truth and justice are in reality are known for passionately embracing, with bias and dogmatic zeal any all atheistic Neo-Darwinian evolutionary worldview at every chance and they've done so ever since I was a kid in the late 50s early 60s.

In the end most people who posted here in this thread prior to your presence seem to be pretty much in agreement that the Noah's Ark story is no doubt a hoax especially because of the lack of openess and any outside verification by the leaders of this research group.

What's more, most here seemed to have had the appropriate view that such a find, even IF valid is nothing more than a materialist angle anyway and that Christians should focus on the spiritual side. If someone religious has a need of some type of physical amulet, symbol, statue, shroud of Turin, Holy shrine whatever, then they appear to have a faith based on something material anyway. Believe it or not most here agreed with you. It was simply stated that both sides of these debate issues have their Fraudsters to try and sway public opinion their way.
:mellow:

#20 Jet Black

Jet Black

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 41 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Ireland

Posted 30 April 2010 - 08:32 AM

Definition shell games ????????  :mellow:

Who cares, the point was nothing goes forward without that atheistic government's blessing.

a lot happens in China without the government's blessing

Such a hoax, is the usual norm for most communist governments anyway.


it is not likely that archaeoraptor had anything to do with the government - more just someone who wanted to make a lot of money from selling fossils. Why would the government get involved in a totally irrelevant glueing together of a couple of fossils anyway?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users