PDA

View Full Version : Noah's Ark



Jonathan Locke
14 Mar 05,, 01:36
What do you think of Mt. Arafa (i think is spelled that right :biggrin: )???????????? Do you think that Noah's Ark really is there?????????????????? ( if you belive in the Bible in the first place :biggrin: )




Personally, i think that this is quite unlikely, for the flood that consumed the world in the Genesis chpater of the Bible, must have at least have reached near the center of Turkey for it to reach the base of Mt. Arafa, and then it would have to have reached more than 1,500 feet up to reach the place where supposedly the Ark is located. Of course, im always open for discussion :)

Veni Vidi Vici
14 Mar 05,, 03:33
Mt. Arafa

Doesn't it have a t at the end.


I don't really place much stock in the bible. It will be interesting to what what comes of the reasearch being done.

lemontree
14 Mar 05,, 04:49
With the different type of animals that Noah carried, the Ark could have landed in Africa for all we know. Turkey does'nt have any legacy of the kind of wild life that was supposed to have been on the Ark.

Confed999
14 Mar 05,, 05:00
With the different type of animals that Noah carried, the Ark could have landed in Africa for all we know. Turkey does'nt have any legacy of the kind of wild life that was supposed to have been on the Ark.
How many species of living organisms, that cannot survive under water, are there on the Earth?

lemontree
14 Mar 05,, 05:10
How many species of living organisms, that cannot survive under water, are there on the Earth?
Would'nt know that off hand, but I'll check my daughter's bible story books and see how many species Noah carried on the Ark. :)

Bill
14 Mar 05,, 07:58
Heheheh, someone was watching History channel today?

I caught the same program, the CIA aspect of the story was interesting.

Jonathan Locke
14 Mar 05,, 20:19
Heheheh, someone was watching History channel today?

I caught the same program, the CIA aspect of the story was interesting.


Well Snipe us "old people" dont have much else to do :biggrin:

Parihaka
14 Mar 05,, 21:44
What do you think of Mt. Arafa (i think is spelled that right :biggrin: )???????????? Do you think that Noah's Ark really is there?????????????????? ( if you belive in the Bible in the first place :biggrin: )




Personally, i think that this is quite unlikely, for the flood that consumed the world in the Genesis chpater of the Bible, must have at least have reached near the center of Turkey for it to reach the base of Mt. Arafa, and then it would have to have reached more than 1,500 feet up to reach the place where supposedly the Ark is located. Of course, im always open for discussion :)
I don't know about the doco you saw on tv but I've seen one from some years ago that had a geological formation in the middle of an old volcanic mud flow or 'lahar' on Mt. Arafat that was in the shape of and length of the ark as described in the bible. Unfortunately it is just a mud flow. As to the Noah story, it's hardly suprising if there are prevalent stories of great floods since mankind has always lived where there is an abundant supply of fresh water. If an historical figure such as Noah was able to predict a flood, build a boat and take on board his family and livestock then that in itself is a story worth preserving as an example of wisdom, without the subsequent revisions. I mean the existence of Koala's, Moa's or Dodo's in biblical lands would be rather hard to demonstrate I'd imagine.

Jonathan Locke
14 Mar 05,, 22:13
Yeah they showed that formation, and apperantly they found more iron in that area that in other places in the mt.

Parihaka
14 Mar 05,, 22:20
Yeah they showed that formation, and apperantly they found more iron in that area that in other places in the mt.
Nah, same as the rest of the mountain
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/BoatShaped.html
and
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/
It's a cool looking site though...

jasonglh
14 Mar 05,, 22:22
I think Discovery did a show on it once and showed how the entire story (like much of the bible) had been borrowed from a much older cultures story. If I recall correctly he didnt go that far more like out into the red sea and survived on ale.

Jonathan Locke
14 Mar 05,, 22:23
Nah, same as the rest of the mountain



Not really, ask Sniper i think he saw it as well as i did. It showed the guys with some kind of metal detectors shaped like antenas.

Parihaka
14 Mar 05,, 22:49
Not really, ask Sniper i think he saw it as well as i did. It showed the guys with some kind of metal detectors shaped like antenas.
here's one of the guys with the antennas

Letter from John Baumgardner
Regarding the claims of Ron Wyatt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From: John Baumgardner <johnrb@terra.lanl.gov >
To: gamirault@vax2.rain.gen.mo.us
Cc:
Subject: Statement
Date: Thursday, September 26, 1996 7:13 PM

September 26, 1996

Dear Gary,

You recently requested that I formulate a statement that summarizes my conclusions regarding the boat-shaped formation located about 15 miles south of Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey which Ron Wyatt and David Fasold maintain represent the final resting place of Noah's Ark. Let me first reproduce a statement I provided for the CRSnet of the Creation Research Society about a year ago in response to a similar request:

Regarding my position on the Durupinar site, the core drilling we performed in 1988 settled the issue as far as I am concerned--the site is a natural formation, nothing more, produced by a mud slide as mud flowed around a ridge-shaped block of basement rock that is still present inside the resulting boat-shaped form. My position on the many other claims and questions is accurately represented in the article in the September 1992 issue of Creation Magazine, Volume 14, Number 4, entitled 'Amazing Ark Expose' by Dr. Andrew Snelling that critiqued assertions by Ron Wyatt, David Fasold, and others that the site indeed contained remains of the Ark. I refer people on the CRSnet who are interested in the controversy to this article. The footage of me in the video that has been shown several times on U.S. and British television during the last three years reflects my early enthusiasm about the possibility of a connection of the site with Noah's Ark, but it does not accurately represent my very firm conclusions reached after the extensive geophysical investigations we conducted at the site in 1987 and 1988. I realize this answer is brief, but I hope it is clear I am convinced the remains of the Ark must be somewhere else, that such remains are emphatically _not_ associated with this boat-shaped formation. The central claims Wyatt and Fasold have been making about the site are bogus.

Let me next reproduce some email I sent to Mr. Jim Pinkoski last May at your request. Mr. Pinkoski operates the 'Museum of God's Treasures' at Gatlinburg, Tennessee, which features the claimed discoveries of Ron Wyatt.

Gary Amirault called me this morning and mentioned the email exchange he has been having with you concerning the character and veracity of Ron Wyatt. He mentioned your remark that the reason I did not support Ron's position that the boat-shaped site did indeed contain the remains of Noah's ark was concern for my job. Gary suggested I contact you directly and set the record straight on this point. My reasons for concluding the site has nothing to do with the ark are based on the geophysical surveys my team performed in 1987 together with the core drilling we performed in 1988 which revealed a massive ridge of inside the site and aligned with the site's long axis. This ridge actually outcrops at the surface over about 40% of the length of the site. The ridge accounts for the stability of the site relative to the surrounding terrain as well as for its distinctive boatlike shape. The rock material that comprises the ridge matches that in nearby outcrops, especially that in the roadcut above the visitor's center. Furthermore, the material Ron claims is petrified wood is nothing but igneous rock of basaltic composition. We have analyzed many samples of it here at our laboratory, and Ron is aware of these analyses.

Ron's assertion that I take the position I do because I am afraid I will lose my job is a falsehood. I am very bold in my creationist convictions here. For example, in February I presented a public lecture entitled "Exposing Evolution as Intellectual Fraud" in our community center. This has since been aired several times on our local cable television station.

I just wanted to make you aware of some of these matters. I could share much more on a variety of claims that Ron continues to make. I encourage you not just to take Ron's word that his claims are honest and true but to make some independent checks yourself.

Mr. Pinkoski shortly thereafter forwarded my email to a friend of his, Joel Davenport, who lives in Graysville, Georgia. Mr. Davenport then sent me a list of questions, which I answered as follows:

Dear Joel,

Let me try to give you some quick answers to your most reasonable questions.

1. Did you witness evidence of the metal rivets in this "igneous rock?"



--none whatsoever.

I have seen pictures of these rivets and wonder, based on what you state above, if they're from another site or from that location. Do you have any comments on that?



--I am almost 100% certain that Ron 'planted' them.

2. As a layman, it sure looks like petrified wood that he found (and I've seen a sample of it in Nashville). Is it your contention that Ron Wyatt fabricated this evidence or that he brought it from another location?



--Yes. I have spent weeks at this site and never once saw any sample that even remotely resembled petrified wood.

3. Are the "beams" (or "rib timbers") which I have seen in the video and on pictures not actual formations there at the site?



--The dark, weather-resistant rocks are genuine parts of the formation. They are of igneous composition. Calling them "beams" or "rib timbers" is something that comes from (Wyatt's) human imagination.

4. Do you believe that the object at that site, which you yourself have tested, is a natural phenomenom, or is it man-made? (I ask you this as an expert in your field.)



--it is the natural product of a geological process (a catastrophic mud slide)

And if so, were there not metal rivets throughout the object?



--absolutely not!

5. Were you misquoted or misrepresented in David Fasold's book which quoted you as testing the brackets and finding them at regular intervals throughout the formation?



--One sample we collected in June of 1985 was mostly iron oxide. But this was the only sample of this kind ever found there. And there was nothing about it to argue that it was not natural, especially given the fact that the underlying rock formation is a strip of igenous seafloor. 6. Was the article in that Fasold quotes in his book just a fabrication of David Fasold, or did you really "using a metal detector, Baumgardner has been able to confirm the existence of metal at regular intervals. Baumgardner says he believes that metal is at the points where these lines intersect, giving rise to the speculation metal was used in the infrastructure of this craft?"



--The method was a type of dowsing that David Fasold introduced and I naively copied. Upon discerning what it was, I forsook it.

Gary, I trust these excerpts of email from the last few months will give the visitors to your web site a better grasp of who is claiming what, regarding this boat-shaped formation. It should be evident that I, as a scientist with a Ph.D. in geophysics but also an earnest Christian, am absolutely convinced the site contains no remains of Noah's Ark. This conclusion was reached after eight trips to the area between 1985 and 1988 and two major geophysical investigations during the summers of 1987 and 1988 in collaboration with Dr. Salih Bayraktutan, a geologist, at Ataturk University in Erzurum, Turkey. In the 1987 effort we surveyed the site with ground penetrating radar that involved 72 separate traverses spaced two meters apart. We also took 1200 magnetometer readings in a detailed magnetometer survey. In addition we made several traverses with an exploration seismograph. In the 1988 effort we drilled four core holes and performed additional seismograph scans. It was the results of the core drilling that revealed, with no room for debate, that a long ridge-shaped block of rock lies along the centerline of the site. Mud flowing around this obstacle is responsible for the almond, or boat-like shape. The dark colored boulders are pieces of the igneous seafloor rocks that happen to underlie the site. The glaring absence of human artifacts of the sort implied by the visitation of multitudes of pilgrims reported by historians like Josephus is a final forceful argument against this being the true resting place of the Ark. Also from these excerpts it should be clear that I consider Wyatt's misrepresentation of my views as morally wrong and dishonest. But his deception of multitudes of Christians who have not had the opportunity to check his claims firsthand as I have is an even worse crime. I give you permission to use these words of mine to warn people of this snare.

Sincerely,

John Baumgardner
Los Alamos, New Mexico

Bill
14 Mar 05,, 23:52
"Not really, ask Sniper i think he saw it as well as i did. It showed the guys with some kind of metal detectors shaped like antenas."

This was a new show, with pretty much up to date information.

The new buzz is based on some CIA recon satellite photos that were taken of a mountain along the turkish-russian border about 20 years ago, and finally declassified.

Of the six CIA analysts that studied the photos, 4 said it was man made, one said it was a natural formation, and one said it was inconclusive.

Jonathan Locke
15 Mar 05,, 00:10
Of the six CIA analysts that studied the photos, 4 said it was man made, one said it was a natural formation, and one said it was inconclusive.


Actually, three said man-made, two said rock formation, and one said undisclosed

Bill
15 Mar 05,, 00:32
LOL, ok....close enough. ;)

Hehehehehe

Parihaka
15 Mar 05,, 08:57
"Not really, ask Sniper i think he saw it as well as i did. It showed the guys with some kind of metal detectors shaped like antenas."

This was a new show, with pretty much up to date information.

The new buzz is based on some CIA recon satellite photos that were taken of a mountain along the turkish-russian border about 20 years ago, and finally declassified.

Of the six CIA analysts that studied the photos, 4 said it was man made, one said it was a natural formation, and one said it was inconclusive.
I tend to think of this as a damning indictment on the CIA's ability to analyse rather than possible proof of the arafat site being the ark. Next they'll be saying the Apollo missions didn't take place because the lines on the camera's went behind the astronauts and there weren't any blast craters in the photos of the LEM's. :rolleyes: :biggrin:

Confed999
16 Mar 05,, 00:59
I tend to think of this as a damning indictment on the CIA's ability to analyse
"Intelligence" means educated guess...

TexasOutlaw
16 Mar 05,, 02:15
Finally...my mythology class can pay off..lol

According to what I have read, and been told..the story of the flood is/was told by just about every religion on this planet.
The Japanese refer to the ark as a giant egg in which a man put his 2 children into.
That is the only one I can remember because it sounded odd enough to stick in my head. :biggrin:
But, if most all religions refer to the same story at the same time in history, then there has to be some amount of credibility to that story in itself.