The Great Flood

bob

New member
Doc Savage said:
Various excavations have been done, one is presently underway, and the Turkish government states that the Ark is there. How do you suppse it isn't legitimate archaeology?

I will believe it when I see it, and the Turkish government (imagine if in this devoutly muslim country ruled by a Islamic government they denied it!) would say that wouldn't they.......

But if the excavation goes ahead then I will be pleased to discuss it, but my point of it not being part of Orthodox archaeology is that Noahs Ark is not accepted by the archaeological establishment, and there is very little we can say about the Ark within the science of archaeology.... at the moment (and I really do not wish to sound patronising) the quest for the Ark is a faith based treasure hunt (But I suppose they have worked out in the past, just look at Schlimen the father of archaeology!)

My frustration comes from not so much news about the quest for the Ark but the fact that it drags in that whole controversy about the flood (flood geology, fossils which has nothing to do with archaeology) into the argument and then religion gets involved and the thread turns into the exact same hole that I have seen so many times in this forum, and is definately not about archaeology which is infinitely more interesting than this circular, pointless arguement. It is such a shame that half of the threads in this forum seem to come down to religious faith sooner or later.
 

Doc Savage

New member
I understand your concerns...and they were nicely put. In my opinion, though, archaeology boils down to an interpretation of facts. Various paleontologists, archaeologists, and geologists have dismissed large portions of information worthy of consideration simply because it alluded too much to the Bible for comfort. I think most of us "Ark" advocates sometimes get a little zealous when there's actually an outlet for our speculation, information, and common faith. We don't do this to be "armchair archaeologists" so much as we do it, I think, to be fact-as-well-as-faith based believers. We certainly mean no harm or offense in the discussing and hypothosizing, we just like considering what most of the scientific community ridicules or ignores.
 

OldawanKenobi

New member
Going back to the site at Mount Ararat,I know that an exploratory project was underway this summer,but are they really considering excavation?Seems like that would not be such a good idea,given the nature of the find.
 
Last edited:

Johan

Active member
They'll be excavating in the WRONG PLACE~
The Bible Say's MOUNTAINS <- notice Plural of Ararat and Ararat was a land that covered a lot more geography back then...I read a lot of books on the subject...and the Bible
 
Last edited:

Tennessee R

New member
bob said:
I will believe it when I see it, and the Turkish government (imagine if in this devoutly muslim country ruled by a Islamic government they denied it!) would say that wouldn't they.......
Well, now. There are several sites for Noah's Ark in Turkey. The most popular is 'on' Mt. Ararat. But the Bible says that it landed (In Hebrew) the mountains of Urartu. (Urartu being the whole region around Mt. Ararat).
See Indy Johans message above this.
Mt. Ararat is a post flood volcano, so therefore, if the site was on the mountain, it probably is blown to 'smithereens' by now. And the ice cap replaces itself on Mt. Ararat every so many years.
Where Ron Wyatt did research is on a small mountain several miles from there, the exact dimentions stated in the Bible.

bob said:
But if the excavation goes ahead then I will be pleased to discuss it
So far, the excavations done at Ron Wyatt's site is:
They cleaned one side of it, and made visible what appears to be a different material.
Another group bored holes in it (In my opinion, it really didn't reveal much)
And another group blasted parts of it with dynamite (What good would that do :) ?)
Some of the stone there has been analized and has organic carbon (i.e. was it once a timber from a tree?)
Sub-surface radar was preformed at the site, and has evenly spaced anomalies. (i.e. rib timbers?)
And others.

bob said:
the quest for the Ark is a faith based treasure hunt (But I suppose they have worked out in the past, just look at Schlimen the father of archaeology!)
I think it's Schliemann.

bob said:
It is such a shame that half of the threads in this forum seem to come down to religious faith sooner or later.
I think the fact that the Indiana Jones movies were so often associated with religion (i.e. Ark of the Covenant, Holy Grail, and possibly the Garden of Eden) has attributed to the fact that a lot of what you'll find on this board might be associated with religion.


Your post was well said, Doc Savage.


OldawanKenobi said:
Going back to the site at Mount Ararat,I know that an exploratory project was underway this summer,but are they really considering excavation?Seems like that would not be such a good idea,given the nature of the find.
No, the project 'on' Mt. Ararat is just to look around.
But Sub-surface interface radar may be preformed on Ron Wyatt's site soon. Sub-surface radar is non-damaging to sites.
 
Last edited:

intergamer

New member
bob said:
But I suppose they have worked out in the past, just look at Schlimen the father of archaeology!)

Yeah, we all know he's the most reliable pathological liar around.

Speaking of which, who's the guy that story's about, who was excavating a site and his wife came down and saw some scratch marks which he said was evidence of the great flood - an obvious attempt to get funding and media attention?

Interesting how the type of people with the will to become archaeologists are often the type of people that would fabricate discovery for attention- since of course real discovery in archeology is hard to come by. That's why every archeology find must be taken with a grain of salt. It reminds me of the dictator theory - how the same people with the megalomaniacal will to become a dictator end up doing things like marching into Russia during winter because of the same megalomania.

Something that's always bugged me - even if one could prove that the Great Flood took place, why does that prove anything about religion? So a flood happened...therefore God exists and Jesus is holy?
By the way, OldawanKenobi, is your name a reference to the hominoid toolkits found in the Oldavai gorge? I remember whenever my teacher mentioned the Oldowan/Oldawon/Oldawan (sp??) toolkit I always thought of Obi Wan Kenobi.

By the way, I'd like to commend you, bob, on your excellent choice of avatar, along with vaxer of course. In my opinion its easily the best one - so laid back. Its a shame though that people can't tell us apart. Maybe as a suggestion for Gilles you should be allowed to pick different colored borders or something for the avatar so that you can have the same avatar as someone else but still tell them apart.
 
Last edited:

intergamer

New member
Aaron H said:
Tenn:
Right, "Fossils are created by minerals replacing the object which is being fossilized, therefore causing them to turn to stone, correct?" Thus stone is created, not formed.

It requires perfect conditions, with minerals gradually replacing holes in the bone, almost molecule by molecule. I don't think either created or formed is the proper word for that. The only word that seems to make sense is 'fossilized'.
 

OldawanKenobi

New member
'By the way, OldawanKenobi, is your name a reference to the hominoid toolkits found in the Oldavai gorge?'

Yes it is.Nice catch there. :)
 

Tennessee R

New member
intergamer said:
It requires perfect conditions,

Wouldn't compression in mud over a time cause fossilization?

intergamer said:
with minerals gradually replacing holes in the bone, [/B]

Or anything else, I guess.

intergamer said:
almost molecule by molecule. I don't think either created or formed is the proper word for that. The only word that seems to make sense is 'fossilized'. [/B]

Yeah, I guess your correct there.
 

Johan

Active member
how in the world did you get that from what I said...I'm talking about the Ed David encounter! Russ Wyatt is a bit "out there" on this one
 

Tennessee R

New member
IndyJohan said:
how in the world did you get that from what I said...I'm talking about the Ed David encounter! Russ Wyatt is a bit "out there" on this one

I'm sorry, but, I don't understand.
How did who get what, from what you said?
Are you talking about this? :

IndyJohan said:
"They'll be excavating in the WRONG PLACE~
The Bible Say's MOUNTAINS <- notice Plural of Ararat and Ararat was a land that covered a lot more geography back then...I read a lot of books on the subject...and the Bible"
---------------

Tennessee R said:
"Well, now. There are several sites for Noah's Ark in Turkey. The most popular is 'on' Mt. Ararat. But the Bible says that it landed (In Hebrew) the mountains of Urartu. (Urartu being the whole region around Mt. Ararat).
See Indy Johans message above this."
------------


If this is the one, then I was just reconfirming what you said about 'Mountains, plural'
Oh, and I think you are reffering to Ron Wyatt? But that's not a big deal.
And also, I'm not familiar with Ed David. Could you give us a summary of his work?

Sorry, I don't understand.
 
Last edited:

Johan

Active member
Thanks for Clarifying...Ed Davis was just a soldier that was stationed in the area during the world war. He was actually brought to THE Ark! He makes clear that he can't say it was Noah's ark because he does not believe in it. But he admits that he saw a Gigantic Boat sitting amoungst this glacier. He didn't really publish anything directily...you can find the Ed Davis account in Robert Cornukes "the Search for the Lost Mountains os Noah"
 
Top