Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
jason777

Is It Noah’s Ark?

Recommended Posts

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.thenoahark.com/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

53937[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

54037[/snapback]

Credible links please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 fakeâ€ÂÂ

 

“were reputedâ€ÂÂ

 

“are said to haveâ€ÂÂ

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 fakeâ€ÂÂ

 

“were reputedâ€ÂÂ

 

“are said to haveâ€ÂÂ

 

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

54047[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

54048[/snapback]

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

54054[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eocene

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.

54048[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

54056[/snapback]

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

54059[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eocene

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.

54061[/snapback]

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

54062[/snapback]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

54061[/snapback]

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.

54037[/snapback]

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 Herringâ€ÂÂ, 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.â€ÂÂ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eocene

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?

54063[/snapback]

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a lot happens in China without the government's blessing

54072[/snapback]

Until they squash it under their jack-booted army; or are turning a blind eye because they are getting a cut of the take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Eocene

Why would the government get involved in a totally irrelevant glueing together of a couple of fossils anyway?

54072[/snapback]

Because that is the history of most all communist governments anyway. Besides Nazism, they (communists) are masters of "Propaganda (misleadings, fraud and deceit, lies, etc as this world's present ongoing news reporting from there bears out) Machines" and controlling of media and other informational outlets or channels for supposedly their peoples own good. It's also hardly irrelevant considering religion is considered an enemy of these states. Certainly I never heard of some chinese religious person or organization who created this hoax and conspired to make atheists look bad. And the question should be asked, "Why didn't National Geographic do a better job of policing the thing in the first place instead of an openly outrageous display of Euphoria of yet more imagined evolutionary proof ???????" :mellow:

 

Chinese communism is simply a different religious denomination of atheism. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because that is the history of most all communist governments anyway. Besides Nazism, they (communists) are masters of "Propaganda (misleadings, fraud and deceit, lies, etc as this world's present ongoing news reporting from there bears out) Machines" and controlling of media and other informational outlets or channels for supposedly their peoples own good. It's also hardly irrelevant considering religion is considered an enemy of these states. Certainly I never heard of some chinese religious person or organization who created this hoax and conspired to make atheists look bad. And the question should be asked, "Why didn't National Geographic do a better job of policing the thing in the first place instead of an openly outrageous display of Euphoria of yet more imagined evolutionary proof ???????" :mellow:

 

Chinese communism is simply a different religious denomination of atheism.  :lol:

54085[/snapback]

National Geographic is a layman magazine, not a science journal. Even before Nat Geo published that story, many scientists were very skeptical about the nature of archaeoraptor.

 

And to be honest you still didn't give a reason why the communist government would want to fake a fossil like that, especially since it was inevitable that it would be found out. Just selling it for a lot of money seems to be a far simpler explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National Geographic is a layman magazine, not a science journal. Even before Nat Geo published that story, many scientists were very skeptical about the nature of archaeoraptor.

 

And to be honest you still didn't give a reason why the communist government would want to fake a fossil like that, especially since it was inevitable that it would be found out. Just selling it for a lot of money seems to be a far simpler explanation.

54086[/snapback]

You provide no creditable links. Would not that be what you would require from us (creditable links)?

 

Then you say that NG is a layman magazine, not a science journal. And use a blog known for doing fake documentaries? That's making a oxymoron comment.

 

I hope you are not here to waste our time and derail threads with this stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You provide no creditable links. Would not that be what you would require from us (creditable links)?

54096[/snapback]

Excellent 2nd point that I didn't spotlight in my rebuttal.

 

 

Then you say that NG is a layman magazine, not a science journal.

54096[/snapback]

I would guess, since NG is a “layman magazineâ€ÂÂ, they don’t have the responsibility to insure their information is correct. After all, that would require their using credible sources wouldn’t it?

 

 

I hope you are not here to waste our time and derail threads with this stuff.

54096[/snapback]

It kind of seems that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms