Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [CreationTalk] Re: Noah's ark discovery claim (updates)

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    I have spent time the last few days studying this claim trying to get a feel it and their evidence. I am finally ready to comment on it in a meaning full way.
    Message 1 of 9 , May 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I have spent time the last few days studying this claim trying to get a feel
      it and their evidence. I am finally ready to comment on it in a meaning full
      way.



      http://www.noahsarksearch.net/eng/



      Above it the main site on this claim. Here is what I have concluded about
      it.



      1. As Terry already mentioned the first problem as already stated is the C14
      date. All known pre-flood material C14 dated so far as shown by RATE result
      in uniformitarian dates of 30-80 thousand years, So we should expect Wood
      from the Ark to be in that range. I saw this problem immediately upon
      hearing the date but wanted more information before I wrote about it.



      2. The wood is actually in too good of shape for a 4500 year old boat. It
      looks way too fresh. If it were really entombed it should look frozen. There
      is no real hint of this. A couple of pictures even show what looks like hay,
      Even if the wood survived any residual hey would have decayed before the
      Ark froze or been eaten by rats and the like.



      3. Also as stated by they really don't look dressed for the altitude.



      4. The above site has a lay out of where these pictures were suppose to be
      have been taken and frankly it dose not fit the Biblical description of the
      Ark. According the Bible the Ark had three decks and this diagram shows
      absolutely no indications of them.



      5. There are no external pictures by which on could get and idea as to the
      dimensions of the object eliminating the best data for making any
      determination about the site authenticity.



      6. This claim just does not pass the smell test.

      A, The C14 date of 4800 years is too convenient and lakes any
      margin of error a proper date statement would be 4800+- 100. It is exactly
      what one would expect from a hoaxer.

      B. The team is too closed mouthed about the site's location.
      While it could just be precaution against vandals and looters, it is a
      typical hoax pattern.

      C. The discovering group itself suspicious. There is no
      evidence of "Noah's Ark Ministries International" out side this claim. They
      have no ministry web site with position statements or any thing about them
      other than the above site about the claim and then it is not owned by
      "Noah's Ark Ministries International" but some Christian media company
      called "The Media Evangelism Limited."



      My collusion is unfortunately that this is no only erroneous, but a
      deliberate hoax. The goal seems to be discredit Christianity and Creation
      Science in particular, by presenting a false claim and hoping we all fall
      for it. While I will keep an open mind about it, but at this time it seems
      to be a hoax.



      ------ Charles Creager Jr.

      Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Mission

      Online <http://store.gscim.com/> Store

      _____

      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Temlakos
      Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 10:26 AM
      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: Noah's ark discovery claim (updates)





      Chris:

      Thanks for these links.

      Now you might want to have a look at mine:

      <http://www.examiner
      <http://www.examiner.com/x-35826-Creationism-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Noahs-ark-d
      iscoveredor-perhaps-not>
      .com/x-35826-Creationism-Examiner~y2010m4d27-Noahs-ark-discoveredor-perhaps-
      not>
      <http://www.examiner
      <http://www.examiner.com/x-35826-Creationism-Examiner~y2010m4d28-Noahs-ark-f
      ind-debate-continues>
      .com/x-35826-Creationism-Examiner~y2010m4d28-Noahs-ark-find-debate-continues
      >

      I anticipated the same concerns that Tas Walker raised--and I have a
      contact who received J. Randall Price's original memo saying that that
      discovery was a shuck from start to finish.

      More to the point, it occurred to me, ahead of anyone else, that:

      1. The radiometric date of 4800 years is just a bit too convenient.
      Why /wouldn't/ it be 20,000 years or more? That's what the RATE Group
      would certainly expect--so why hasn't anyone checked with them?

      2. Wood at that altitude wouldn't remain. It would rot away. (I don't
      think it would petrify; petrifaction requires total submersion in a rich
      mineral bath; that's what happened to America's Petrified Forest.)

      The only question I have, and I'd appeciate any insight:

      Somebody went to an awful lot of trouble to stage this. (To reply to one
      persistent question: we don't even know that that team actually climbed
      that mountain. I have a witness who says that after looking at those
      pictures, he doesn't believe that the expeditionaries pictured in it
      were dressed for such a climb, in such weather.) Prefabricating a
      structure, hauling it up from the Black Sea region--something's wrong.
      Surely there are easier ways even to run a scam for money.

      Or was money the object? The guide that Price accuses of being creative
      with the facts happens to be Kurdish. The Kurds have long sought
      independence and sovereignty for their tribal lands, which include
      pieces of Turkey, Iraq and Iran. I don't know exactly how an Ark
      discovery, or non-discovery, would further the cause of Kurdish
      independence--except that there was talk of turning the mountain into
      some kind of protected heritage site when that press conference went on;
      maybe the Kurds were setting things up for an attempt to lay a
      territorial claim to Ararat.

      Times like this make me wish I had the sort of unlimited budget that
      globetrotting international journalists have. I'd love to run down who
      set this up and why. Someone needs to start with Dr. Price and his
      witnesses.

      Terry





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck
      http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view &pageId=146941 Here is a link to a WND article showing this
      Message 2 of 9 , May 8, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view
        <http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=146941> &pageId=146941



        Here is a link to a WND article showing this Ark claim to be a fake.



        ------ Charles Creager Jr.

        Genesis Science <http://gscim.com/> Mission

        Online <http://store.gscim.com/> Store





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Lowell Baker
        It maybe a dumb observation, but the Bird like fossiles that are found have their wings streched out. My observation, as I have been working in a warehouse
        Message 3 of 9 , May 11, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          It maybe a dumb observation, but the Bird like fossiles that are found have
          their wings streched out. My observation, as I have been working in a
          warehouse that has been closed for over a year is that the birds that were
          trapped inside are dead with their wings tucked in. To me, is says that the
          birds in the fossile record were trying to fight for life and were strong
          and robust when they died. Birds that died from starvation or dehydration
          just fall to the ground with wings tucked in, just like a dieing person
          seems to return to a fetal position. Just and observation. Lowell



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Beata Smith
          Great observation! That could speak volumes--that if we find real bird fossils with wings outstretched, we are probably observing that the birds were pretty
          Message 4 of 9 , May 11, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Great observation! That could speak volumes--that if we find real bird
            fossils with wings outstretched, we are probably observing that the
            birds were pretty much buried alive. It could also be an indication
            that the fossils might not be authentic...What bird fossils are you
            talking about? (I think that archaeopteryx was not a bird at all and
            did not even have feathers. I think they were added into the fossil to
            make a fake, bird-looking creature.)

            Beata
          • Lowell Baker
            Archaeopteryx is what I was talking about. There are Bird footprints that I believe were on AIG web site at one time that matched perfectly our cranes of
            Message 5 of 9 , May 15, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Archaeopteryx is what I was talking about. There are "Bird" footprints that
              I believe were on AIG web site at one time that matched perfectly our cranes
              of today. Lowell

              -----Original Message-----
              From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of Beata Smith
              Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 6:48 AM
              To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [SPAM] [CreationTalk] Dead Birds



              Great observation! That could speak volumes--that if we find real bird
              fossils with wings outstretched, we are probably observing that the birds
              were pretty much buried alive. It could also be an indication that the
              fossils might not be authentic...What bird fossils are you talking about? (I
              think that archaeopteryx was not a bird at all and did not even have
              feathers. I think they were added into the fossil to make a fake,
              bird-looking creature.)

              Beata
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.