Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Noah's Ark?!


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#16 MoonChild

MoonChild

    Undead giant that feasts on hotdogs!

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Universe
  • Interests:Life

Posted 04 May 2010 - 01:37 AM

Well, geologically it is possible, even on high peaks of Himalayas they have found remains from the deep ocean.


I want to know your line of thinking. So how would a ship get on top of a mountain ?
Btw. Do you know why marine fossils can found on mountain peaks thousands of feet tall ?


Just like a marine fossil can get to top of a mountain, the same way a ship can get to the top of a mountain as well.


As for Himalayas and the various marine fossils that are found high up in Himalayas, it is simple. When the geological plate carrying the Indian sub-continent got detached from the end of Africa and moved north and hit onto the plate carrying mainland Asia, the result was Himalayas, which is a mountain range that is continuing to grow (in height) each year. When this happened, definitely the fossils from the Indian ocean floor was found on Himalayas, because it was the ocean floor which made the mountain in the first place.

I hope I made myself clear?
Posted Image

#17 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 04 May 2010 - 08:41 AM

Well, geologically it is possible, even on high peaks of Himalayas they have found remains from the deep ocean.


I want to know your line of thinking. So how would a ship get on top of a mountain ?
Btw. Do you know why marine fossils can found on mountain peaks thousands of feet tall ?


Just like a marine fossil can get to top of a mountain, the same way a ship can get to the top of a mountain as well.


As for Himalayas and the various marine fossils that are found high up in Himalayas, it is simple. When the geological plate carrying the Indian sub-continent got detached from the end of Africa and moved north and hit onto the plate carrying mainland Asia, the result was Himalayas, which is a mountain range that is continuing to grow (in height) each year. When this happened, definitely the fossils from the Indian ocean floor was found on Himalayas, because it was the ocean floor which made the mountain in the first place.

I hope I made myself clear?


Good that you know about plate tectonics. However there's one caveat. A wooden ship would never survive as a wooden ship over geological time. That's what I believe you were intimating previously.

#18 MoonChild

MoonChild

    Undead giant that feasts on hotdogs!

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Universe
  • Interests:Life

Posted 04 May 2010 - 08:47 AM

Good that you know about plate tectonics. However there's one caveat. A wooden ship would never survive as a wooden ship over geological time. That's what I believe you were intimating previously.

You so sure of that? If so, what is the purpose of acrchelogical excavations and various discoveries? If a naturally bio-ddegradable fossil can survive, why not a wodden ship?
Posted Image

#19 Vampchick21

Vampchick21

    Looks Irish, loves Italian food, lives in Canada....must be lost

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:knitting, crocheting, writing, cats, paranormal phenomena, cryptzoology, Monty Python

Posted 04 May 2010 - 10:38 AM

Good that you know about plate tectonics. However there's one caveat. A wooden ship would never survive as a wooden ship over geological time. That's what I believe you were intimating previously.


Oh really? :Wall:

http://www.abc.net.a...ries/s21731.htm

http://news.national...greek-ship.html

http://www.archaeolo...fs/hayling.html

(not that I think that they've found Noah's Ark, but it is more than possible under certain conditions for ancient wooden ships to survive.)

In relation to the claims of the discovery of Noah's Ark, as others have stated, this is not the first time such claims have been made. What is interesting to note, as pointed out in some articles on this 'discovery', the mountain range was named quite some time AFTER the Biblical account of Noah's flood was recorded. Which to me, greatly lessens the possibility that this is the legendary ark. Or even an ark. Or a boat.

(especially given the accusations of workers transporting wood to the site in question)

Also, they teach plate tectonics in school, so most of us who paid attention in class are aware of it.

Edited by Vampchick21, 04 May 2010 - 10:44 AM.

Krafted with luv

by monsters


#20 Ryuu

Ryuu

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 187 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pinellas park, Florida
  • Interests:Video games and anime not as heavily as I used to be though just watch anime and play video games once in a while. And the paranormal of course.

Posted 04 May 2010 - 10:54 AM

Good that you know about plate tectonics. However there's one caveat. A wooden ship would never survive as a wooden ship over geological time. That's what I believe you were intimating previously.


Another thing is that the intense cold (depending if it was always cold or not) is going to play a part in preserving the wood ship

Edited by Ryuu, 04 May 2010 - 10:55 AM.

"A winner is a loser who will get up and try again." - Dennis DeYoung

#21 Vampchick21

Vampchick21

    Looks Irish, loves Italian food, lives in Canada....must be lost

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:knitting, crocheting, writing, cats, paranormal phenomena, cryptzoology, Monty Python

Posted 04 May 2010 - 10:56 AM

I forgot to point out that in cases where the wood did not survive, it often leaves traces behind for archeologists to note. Such as the Sutton Hoo Ship Burial, ship burials in Egypt (near the pyramids) and other similar archeological sites.

Krafted with luv

by monsters


#22 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 04 May 2010 - 01:36 PM

Good that you know about plate tectonics. However there's one caveat. A wooden ship would never survive as a wooden ship over geological time. That's what I believe you were intimating previously.


Oh really? :Wall:

http://www.abc.net.a...ries/s21731.htm

http://news.national...greek-ship.html

http://www.archaeolo...fs/hayling.html

(not that I think that they've found Noah's Ark, but it is more than possible under certain conditions for ancient wooden ships to survive.)

In relation to the claims of the discovery of Noah's Ark, as others have stated, this is not the first time such claims have been made. What is interesting to note, as pointed out in some articles on this 'discovery', the mountain range was named quite some time AFTER the Biblical account of Noah's flood was recorded. Which to me, greatly lessens the possibility that this is the legendary ark. Or even an ark. Or a boat.

(especially given the accusations of workers transporting wood to the site in question)

Also, they teach plate tectonics in school, so most of us who paid attention in class are aware of it.


I looked at all of the articles you've cited. None of them deal with geological time. At most the dates go back a bit over 6000 years. Geological time occurs over millions of years.

#23 Vampchick21

Vampchick21

    Looks Irish, loves Italian food, lives in Canada....must be lost

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:knitting, crocheting, writing, cats, paranormal phenomena, cryptzoology, Monty Python

Posted 04 May 2010 - 01:54 PM

I looked at all of the articles you've cited. None of them deal with geological time. At most the dates go back a bit over 6000 years. Geological time occurs over millions of years.



So you are then saying that Noah's Ark and Noah's Flood, as spoken of in the Bible, occurred millions of years ago?

See, because this particular discussion surround the resurrection of the claim of discovering Noah's Ark, and therefore proof of the Biblical Flood, which is believed to have occurred 4500 years ago, according to those who follow a Creationist outlook on the history of the world (including the very group making multiple claims of Ark discovery).

So your geological time argument in this discussion is a red herring. We aren't talking millions of years ago. We're talking a few thousand years ago. Which makes my posted articles completely on topic for the thread, and show that if there WAS an boat made by a civilization which suffered from a catastrophic flood, and said boat ended up moored (or buried), it is entirely possible for such an artifact to have survived to be found by archeologists in modern times.

Krafted with luv

by monsters


#24 GlendaRS

GlendaRS

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Florida

Posted 04 May 2010 - 02:13 PM

All this about fossils asks another question. If it does turn out to be a ship, then who could have built it if it is another relic like a fossil? I thought modern humans came about fairly recently in the world's history
---Glen

#25 Vampchick21

Vampchick21

    Looks Irish, loves Italian food, lives in Canada....must be lost

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:knitting, crocheting, writing, cats, paranormal phenomena, cryptzoology, Monty Python

Posted 04 May 2010 - 02:20 PM

It's very possible (based on accusations in some of the articles) that the workers on the site lugged wooden beams from a location on the Black Sea and planted them at the alleged discovery site.

Meaning, given the history of the search for the Ark, this is just another fake.

(also, a fossil is a totally different thing from what a few thousand year old boat would be. Fossils take millions of years to form.)

Krafted with luv

by monsters


#26 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 07:40 AM

Good that you know about plate tectonics. However there's one caveat. A wooden ship would never survive as a wooden ship over geological time. That's what I believe you were intimating previously.

You so sure of that? If so, what is the purpose of acrchelogical excavations and various discoveries? If a naturally bio-ddegradable fossil can survive, why not a wodden ship?


Well a fossil is no longer composed of organic material. All of the organic material except in some very rare cases has been replaced by minerals from within the ground.
This also happens to wood which is known a petrified wood'. When that happens to wood it is now a rock, not wood.


#27 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 07:45 AM

I looked at all of the articles you've cited. None of them deal with geological time. At most the dates go back a bit over 6000 years. Geological time occurs over millions of years.



So you are then saying that Noah's Ark and Noah's Flood, as spoken of in the Bible, occurred millions of years ago?

See, because this particular discussion surround the resurrection of the claim of discovering Noah's Ark, and therefore proof of the Biblical Flood, which is believed to have occurred 4500 years ago, according to those who follow a Creationist outlook on the history of the world (including the very group making multiple claims of Ark discovery).

So your geological time argument in this discussion is a red herring. We aren't talking millions of years ago. We're talking a few thousand years ago. Which makes my posted articles completely on topic for the thread, and show that if there WAS an boat made by a civilization which suffered from a catastrophic flood, and said boat ended up moored (or buried), it is entirely possible for such an artifact to have survived to be found by archeologists in modern times.


Reply to the bold. No that's what Moonchild seems to be implying. Start with reply #12 of his or hers

#28 Vampchick21

Vampchick21

    Looks Irish, loves Italian food, lives in Canada....must be lost

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,995 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:knitting, crocheting, writing, cats, paranormal phenomena, cryptzoology, Monty Python

Posted 05 May 2010 - 08:44 AM

Actually, I have excellent reading comprehension, so I am aware of the conversation thus far.

You, however, seem to have totally missed Moon's point. I did not.

Bottom line is that your red herring regarding geological time is a moot point in this discussion and does you no favours. The fact remains that it is not only possible, it is FACT that wooden ships have been discovered by archeologists, said ships being a few thousand years old (some well within range of the Biblical story in question), ranging from the imprint in the dirt to the full ship.

Moon was NOT implying at all that a ship from millions of years ago survived, simply because there WERE NO SHIPS millions of years ago.

Krafted with luv

by monsters


#29 MoonChild

MoonChild

    Undead giant that feasts on hotdogs!

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 50,399 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Universe
  • Interests:Life

Posted 05 May 2010 - 10:53 AM

Well, geologically it is possible, even on high peaks of Himalayas they have found remains from the deep ocean.



So you are then saying that Noah's Ark and Noah's Flood, as spoken of in the Bible, occurred millions of years ago?


Reply to the bold. No that's what Moonchild seems to be implying. Start with reply #12 of his or hers



You have so much of pre-conceived idea in your mind dear one, please look at my "original" (12th post) quoted above and your arrival at a conclusion, which I never said,. mentioned, nor even thought of!!!!! Strange eh, you are trying to establish something with so much one-sided idea that you sound so desperate?






World's oldest ship timbers found in Egyptian desert
The oldest remains of seafaring ships in the world have been found in caves at the edge of the Egyptian desert along with cargo boxes that suggest ancient Egyptians sailed nearly 1,000 miles on rough waters to get treasures from a place they called God's Land, or Punt.

Florida State University anthropology professor Cheryl Ward has determined that wooden planks found in the manmade caves are about 4,000 years old - making them the world's most ancient ship timbers. Shipworms that had tunneled into the planks indicated the ships had weathered a long voyage of a few months, likely to the fabled southern Red Sea trading center of Punt, a place referenced in hieroglyphics on empty cargo boxes found in the caves, Ward said.

"The archaeological site is like a mothballed military base, and the artifacts there tell a story of some of the best organized administrators the world has ever seen," she said. "It's a site that has kept its secrets for 40 centuries."

Ward, an expert on ancient shipbuilding who previously was a member of famed Titanic explorer Robert Ballard's Black Sea project team, joined archaeologists Kathryn Bard of Boston University and Rodolfo Fattovich of the University of Naples l'Orientale as the chief maritime archaeologist at the site, a sand-covered bluff along the Red Sea called Wadi Gawasis, in December. The project, which Ward will detail in an upcoming issue of the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, was conducted with the support of Zahi Hawass, secretary-general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities.

Scholars have long known that Egyptians traveled to Punt but they have debated its exact location and whether the Egyptians reached Punt by land or by sea. Some had thought the ancient Egyptians did not have the naval technology to travel long distances by sea, but the findings at the Wadi Gawasis confirm that Egyptians sailed a 2,000-mile round trip voyage to Punt, putting it in what is today Ethiopia or Yemen, Ward said.
Posted Image

#30 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts

Posted 05 May 2010 - 02:16 PM

Reply to the bold. No that's what Moonchild seems to be implying. Start with reply #12 of his or hers



You have so much of pre-conceived idea in your mind dear one, please look at my "original" (12th post) quoted above and your arrival at a conclusion, which I never said,. mentioned, nor even thought of!!!!! Strange eh, you are trying to establish something with so much one-sided idea that you sound so desperate?


Cut the attitude.
I said after reading your reply this

that's what Moonchild seems to be implying.

You see this is a provisional statement. All you have to do is to state your position more clearly.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users