Noah's Ark Found?

Originally posted by loam
I don't suspect they had a geologist with them.

Heh, ya. I got a chuckle out of how the site promoted the 90* angles of their find as such a profound happening.

Earth has 90* angle rock formation all over the world.

NN

Originally posted by ben91069
so at least some of the wood could be buried and then petrified.

I'm sure its possible to come up with a situation in which it could work out, but it just doesn't seem plausible or reasonable to say that the ark rested atop what was the highest peak at the time, unloaded, then sank into loose sediment, got buried, petrified, and then all that sediment went away, without leaving a trace, and without ripping up the ark too.

I mean, glaciers could remove sediment from a hill, definitly, but they'd leave glacial scratching, glacial till perhaps, and they're remove the ark petrified or not, along with it.

Regardless, from the photos, there's nothing suggesting "planks of wood" more so than 'rock'. They say that there were tests done, and that it confirmed it was petrified wood.

Now, I doubt that they are lying and didn't do any tests, but its very telling that they don't report on what the test were, or who did them, or what they actually revealed, or anything else, just that they confirm their ideas.

I don't know what pictures everyone has been looking at, but some of them are clearly petrified wood. You wouldn't even have to have them lab tested to identify them. A visual analysis is all that is necessary.

Since I won't give the mods any reason to edit this post, even though copyrighted articles and pictures can be duplicated when being critiqued, I will link to this photo of one of the questioned stones.

CLEARLY A HEWN BEAM

You can see the annular rings in the end section as well as the splitting of the wood. You can also see the tool marks along the sides. This doesn't look anything like the basalt formations everyone else has been posting.

How about this....the ark measures 450 feet appx. If you were to take 2 of every species of animals (not just the Genus....because creationists disregard evolution)....that means, two chihuahas, two rottweilers, two dobermans...etc....plus food for forty days + (they need to keep feeding them until the earth recovers from the flood. The biblical measurments simply couldn't carry all those animals.

Also, wood is not viable for shipbuilding. The longest wooden ship we have today is no more than 300 feet and because of the flexibility of wood, even with metal straps holding every beam together require water to be constantly pumped out. 450 feet with "rivets" wouldn't cut it. also taking into consideration 2 termites....plus 40 days of mating....that boat wouldhave sunk. ummmm
oh yeah and did all the carnivores simply become vegetarian until all the other species caught up on their numbers? hahaha. or did we lose a few species to the lion after it got out.....then again we are dealing with "GOD" here so i guess any question is dum.

ARC could mean space ship for all we know. Dosnt have to be a boat. Maybe during the time of writting there were no words for Enterprise....or Milenium Falcon....

Originally posted by Nygdan
I'm sure its possible to come up with a situation in which it could work out, but it just doesn't seem plausible or reasonable to say that the ark rested atop what was the highest peak at the time, unloaded, then sank into loose sediment, got buried, petrified, and then all that sediment went away, without leaving a trace, and without ripping up the ark too.

I mean, glaciers could remove sediment from a hill, definitly, but they'd leave glacial scratching, glacial till perhaps, and they're remove the ark petrified or not, along with it.

No one ever claimed that the resting place of the ark was the highest point or even if there is evidence of old glaciers in its past. Recently there has been, but at that time, the area could have been just damp. I certainly haven't studied the region enough to know. It is at least plausible that petrification could have occured at that site.

Look at our own petrified forest. Who would say that the stones there can't be real, because it is a desert? At one time it was a forest and then became covered over by an inland sea and then buried in sediment. No one knows the actual time scale involved either of when this flood was supposed to have happened.

Originally posted by ben91069
CLEARLY A HEWN BEAM

Yeah? What's the scale of that picture?

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by ben91069
CLEARLY A HEWN BEAM

Yeah? What's the scale of that picture?

How about this for scale:

Another end of a petrified timber

*Note you can clearly see the rings

[edit on 24-6-2006 by ben91069]

Geologic "folding" is very common. Here are examples that don't look any different than the pictures you cite:


Source.

Source.


Source.

Sorry. I'm not buying it.

Notice the "rings" in the last example?

EDIT: BTW, I think my examples are far more impressive in terms of looking like wood. But guess what? They're not!


[edit on 24-6-2006 by loam]

loam, the "rings" in your last example are not rings at all. They run in every direction like a lazy river. Tree rings have an average concentricity that your pictures do not have. Also the "cracks" do not all generally run towards a center point. Your pics do not show anything but rocks because the pictures I linked to are actually petrified wood that has been worked on the sides with a tool, which you can see. Show me a natural stone that exhibits these three things and I will believe you and end this:

Concentric rings
Cracks all running toward common center
Tool marks

Originally posted by ben91069
loam, the "rings" in your last example are not rings at all. They run in every direction like a lazy river.

ben91069, the pictures I provided were the result of roughly 10 minutes of looking on the net. If you feel the need, then spend more time than I have to satisfy yourself one way or another. I, however, am satisfied. We're looking at rock.

Originally posted by ben91069
I don't know what pictures everyone has been looking at, but some of them are clearly petrified wood.

Not a single photograph on that page is petrified wood.

You wouldn't even have to have them lab tested to identify them. A visual analysis is all that is necessary.

A lab test problaby wood simply be a visual test of, say, a thin section from the sample.

www.worldviewweekend.com...

Thats a rock.

No one ever claimed that the resting place of the ark was the highest point

The bible does. The ark comes to rest on teh first place that comes up as the waters recede.

It is at least plausible that petrification could have occured at that site.

Thats the thing, its extremely implausible that there' be petrification of wood at that site.

Who would say that the stones there can't be real, because it is a desert?

No, I wouldn't.

lthe "rings" in your last example are not rings at all. They run in every direction like a lazy river.

As do the ones in your photo. You can even see where the fold recurves upon itself. That is not a petrified tree. There are even structures that run right across the entire 'trunk'.

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by ben91069
loam, the "rings" in your last example are not rings at all. They run in every direction like a lazy river.

ben91069, the pictures I provided were the result of roughly 10 minutes of looking on the net. If you feel the need, then spend more time than I have to satisfy yourself one way or another. I, however, am satisfied. We're looking at rock.

Now, now. Are you trying to suggest I disprove you by finding more pictures of the same, which you already believe is just rocks? This makes no sense.

It is like you are asking me to find a picture of a genuine petrified rock that has been worked into a beam. It would take a lot more than 10 minutes and I would probably only turn up the ones I already linked to.

Furthermore, the purpose of this post is not to cause controversy or debate. I could care less if this guy, Cornuke is a sham or if his "discovery" is real. It is all just a distraction from more important things in life, and if any more dirt is published about this find, then I will surely post it for discussion.

Do I think this is the ark? No. There is not enough evidence to suggest it is, but it is good entertainment. Either this will become another dead end for Cornuke or he will play this out until someone does debunk this. Our opinons do not make his claims invalid. Neither do they justify his conclusions. Hopefully we will see one way or the other, otherwise this will just be another topic many years from now on some conspiracy board when everyone forgets and rediscovers this.

ben91069: I think you misunderstood me. I am just saying that *I* am sufficiently satisfied that it is not petrified wood. You can also look at examples of petrified wood and see that they are not the same as that of the source photos... That is all. Meant no offense to you.

Any geologist that cant tell the difference between petrified wood and a basalt dyke deserves the sack. So im gonna trust him and say its a basalt dyke, I could certainly tell the difference and im only a 2nd year geology student.

Shale and petrified wood both require sedimentation, so if the environment is right you could have either one of them. The argument here seems to be basalt that resembles petrified wood. Those things come from different sources which makes things more interesting.

Bob Cornuke has a verified history as a “Christian Explorer”. See ‘The Gold of Exodus’ by Howard Blum. I’m not saying that he found anything here, but, that he shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. BTW, He didn’t become a Christian until after he started exploring. HMMM

Reportedly, King Ptolemy’s galley was a wooden ship 130m x 18m. That is approximately 425’ x 60’. There were also parts of ships found in the ruins of the Ming shipyards that would have been 500’+/- long if they had been built. So a ship the size of Noah’s ark was apparently possible.

Dr. Harry Rimmer (Harmony of Science and Scripture – out of print) used railroad stock car tables for the required numbers of animals that could be held in the specific volumes. Going from memory, it was 240 sheep per rail car. Of this 2/3 of the known animals are smaller than sheep and only 1/3 are larger. Minus out water creatures, insects (basically 0 volume and could live off of the other animals), and animals that could be created by cross breeding, and his number was that the animals only took up about 40% of the volume of the ark, based on the Biblical report of size. The rest was presumably food storage.

If you look at railroad stock car tables, animals can be packed into a mind blowingly small space. Most people go with their gut when they say the ark was too small, but, maybe not when you start to put some actual numbers to it.

This is going to make the geologists mad but here goes. What if most of the “billions” of years of changes to the earth’s surface (plates shifting and pushing up mountain ridges etc.) actually happened in the year or so that Noah was floating around during the flood? We know that fossils and bones of sea creatures have been found at very high elevations in mountain caves, so they had to be at sea level (or flood level :lol at some point in time.

I know it sounds crazy, but, this is a conspiracy site after all.

I just saw this story on the news last night, it seems the mainstream media is giving this story merrit.

Originally posted by Nygdan
Notice that they don't bother to note where it was tested, how it was tested, what the results of the test actually demonstrated, etc.

I am not sure what they mean by 'marine fissile'. It could be a rock that is fissile, or they could've meant to write 'marin fossil'. If there are marin fossils in the sample, its not petrified wood.

Nygdan, now you are being Hasty! Can we not await the Photo Op, Comcerical Sanitized Verison to get those specific details?

Marine Fossils?...........Barnicles?....................

Actually, I think it "look's like" a Hull Section. Testing would be nice to review, but I am certain this will be discovered.

www.abcnews.go.com...
www.abcnews.go.com...

This is a more current Story. Some Names of Persons are appearing, and testing is being done in Texas and Florida.

Hey Byrd? Can you find out anything from your end, since you down there and all.

Gopher Wood in the Hebrew, is suggested to be refering to the Cypress. I would like to hear another confirmation from maybe someone Jewish who could translate the Hebrew.

And the only use in the bible of this is this one time in Genesis. Cypress is mentioned in Isaiah once, as a cypress, but this is what is suggested from Strong's Concordance.

Loam noted
Looks to me like a simple tilted outcropping of shale. Here is an image of what shale can look like:

It could, but the picture seems different.

I think this would reflect greatly on the Gilgamesh Epic as well. Maybe Gilgamesh did visit the aged Noah, seeking immortality.

And the Impressions that this was the Highest peak. Think to the Black Sea Deluge Theory

en.wikipedia.org...

I ask, someone with the patience, if you can calculate for us, how much water would it take to fill the Basin area of the Black/Caspeian Sea and "Place" a beached ark this high up the mountian in that region of Iran?

It's just a question? It would change my perspective of a few things, being directed to this region as the Landing point of Noah and his Sons. Shem is the Father of many of the Iranian and Iraqi Peoples, as well as an litany of others. Abraham is a decendant of Shem, and comes from Ur.

Japheth went North, which would have been those Steppes regions and the Caucaus Mountains.

Anyhow, I had thought this was a rehash of 30 years ago, and I am pleased to see
something more substansive than Shadowy Pictures from Air. Now to await those tests.

And Nygdan, you have gone to great lenghts to explain petrification, but I did not note if under correct conditions this "Could" infact become petrified wood"?

I am not asking if "This is", petrified wood. Just if things went as expected, it could become petrified. Give it 7000 Years for an "Example" and the proper conditions..

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane
And Nygdan, you have gone to great lenghts to explain petrification, but I did not note if under correct conditions this "Could" infact become petrified wood"?

I am not asking if "This is", petrified wood. Just if things went as expected, it could become petrified. Give it 7000 Years for an "Example" and the proper conditions..

Nygdan did in fact present petrification, but what I was after was whether it takes eons or maybe a few thousand years, and apparently under the right conditions it can happen in as little as under 100 years.

The chemical components used to artificially petrify wood can be found in natural settings around volcanoes and within sedimentary strata. Is it possible then that natural petrification can occur rapidly by these processes? Indeed! Sigleo4 reported silica deposition rates into blocks of wood in alkaline springs at Yellowstone National Park (USA) of between 0.1 and 4.0 mm/yr.

-A.C. Sigleo, 'Organic geochemistry of silicified wood, Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 42, 1978, pp. 1397-1405.

...and

From Australia come some startling reports. Writing in The Australian Lapidary Magazine, Pigott5 recounts his experiences in southwestern Queensland:

'. . . from Mrs McMurray [of Blackall], I heard a story that rocked me and seemed to explode many ideas about the age of petrified wood. Mrs McMurray has a piece of wood turned to stone which has clear axe marks on it. She says the tree this piece came from grew on a farm her father had at Euthella, out of Roma, and was chopped down by him about 70 years ago. It was partly buried until it was dug up again, petrified. Mac McMurray capped this story by saying a townsman had a piece of petrified fence post with the drilled holes for wire with a piece of the wire attached.

See this link:

Answers in Genesis

I found a hewn beam from Noah's ark on Cadair Idris - a hill in Mid Wales ......








It's actually similar rock to that purported to be petrified wood in the original story. Not basalt as originally reported, but phyllite - a common metamorphic rock similar to slate.

These pictures give a better indication of what it looks like when not heavily weathered and covered in lichen: