Bible predictions about Noahs Ark...are true.

CrowCross

Well-known member
One of the evidences that supports the YEC's view has been lifted from the bible.

If one reads an account in the bile...then goes looking for the remains of the account and finds it...the bible gains even more credence.

In the bible there is an account of a sea worhty vessel called Noahs Ark. People have read about it for several thousand years.
People have looked for it where the bible says it landed....Genesis 8:4 informs us that...the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

So they looked...and here's what has been discoverd as presented in this article
FIGURE 1. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF AN OBJECT, SHAPED LIKE A SHIP, IN THE ARARAT MOUNTAINS, EASTERN TURKEY, 1959,

The Old earth Secular geologist claimed it was simply a natural phenomena...and walked away.
About a year after taking the photo an expedition went looking for it.

The Ark like anomaly was found and over the years investigated....as the link above shows.

They employed scientific techniques such as metal detection and deep penatrating radar to peer underground...and discovered a ship.

The article tells us....On one occasion, the radar equipment picked up what appeared to be a square shaped object within the ships remains. The specimen was dug up by the Turkish military at that time, and later analyzed by Galbraith Laboratories in the United States. The laboratory testing confirmed that the specimen contained organic carbon, indicating that the material was not rock, but was once composed of living material, consistent with petrified wood. (Fig. 4).

The natural phenomena that the OE Geologist walked away from turns out to not be rock. Metallic objects were also discovered at the Ark site....see figure 5 in the link provided above.

Figure six shows a very ship like pattern when the locations metal was connected....quite amazing.
It was then concluded that the object was the remains of a ship, which exactly matched the Biblical description, and dimensions of Noah’s Ark.

As time went on the rib indentations of the ships were discovered and investigated. Figures 8,9 and 10

As time went on they eventually took 3D images...and the hull of the ship became apparent. Figure 14.

Once again the physical biblical description was realized...“WITH LOWER, SECOND, AND THIRD STORIES SHALT THOU MAKE IT.” (GEN 6:16)
Once again the biblical details were a match....Location, size, shape, (figure 19) decks, materials

The article goes on to explain many more biblically predected features and draws several conclusions. One which is:

It would be a physical impossibility, for a ship the size of the Ark, to drift into the Ararat Mountains, and run aground, 2000 metres above the present elevation of sea level, without water being present. Yet the Ark is not millions of years old. The fossils and sediment on top of which the Ark came to rest, had to have been deposited by the same water, which carried the Ark into that area.

For those who don't believe the bible and follow an Old earth narrative....if it's not Noahs Ark...what is it?
 
It is an unusual rock formation, that is roughly boat shaped. See CH503 for a refutation of the claim that this is Noah's Ark.
So right off I found this from CH503...."The metal traces that were interpreted as iron brackets were actually goethite, a hydrated iron oxide."...they never did say how they determined this or how the metal just so happened to have been naturally deposited to reflect the construction of a ship. (see figure 6)

Also from your Squalk Origins site..."No fossilized wood or traces of wood, reed, or elemental carbon were found associated with the structure....Is also not true as the article pointed out..."The laboratory testing confirmed that the specimen contained organic carbon, indicating that the material was not rock, but was once composed of living material, consistent with petrified wood."
 
... Is also not true as the article pointed out...
Talk Origins has a reference to a scientific article: Collins and Fasold 1996. You have a reference to an article on the internet.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "Don't trust everything you read on the internet."
 
Talk Origins has a reference to a scientific article: Collins and Fasold 1996. You have a reference to an article on the internet.

As Abraham Lincoln said, "Don't trust everything you read on the internet."
Great come back...Basically you punted after not moving down the field.
 
From your linked article:

"Ron Wyatt found.."

HAHAHA!!!!!!

????‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️?????‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️
It's typical and expected that the...truth hiding...evo-minded would find a way to attack a person rather than the scientific techniques and results presented in the video. OH!!! OH!!! Ron Wyatt, Ron Wyatt...because his crew operated scientific measurement devices...the reading must be bad. Is that your point Iktomi?

Here's the bottom line Iktomi....respond to the scientific material presented which supports the account of Noahs Ark...or kindly dismiss your self.

For the truth seeking Christians reading the....I hope you enjoyed the article showing Noahs Ark.
 
respond to the scientific material presented which supports the account of Noahs Ark
There was very little "scientific material" presented, merely claims with very little data.

None of the material presented showed the date of the material found. Noah's Ark has a known date. You need to show us that this material is of the correct date. This a science forum, not a theology forum. Claims need to be backed up with relevant data.

Where is your reference to the dating of the material found by Mr. Wyatt?
 
There was very little "scientific material" presented, merely claims with very little data.

Really??? The 3D image...isn't scientific material? Come on rossum, you're better than that.
None of the material presented showed the date of the material found. Noah's Ark has a known date. You need to show us that this material is of the correct date. This a science forum, not a theology forum. Claims need to be backed up with relevant data.

Where is your reference to the dating of the material found by Mr. Wyatt?
The Bible tells us when it happened.

As you should know C14 dating of anything may be a problem as it is unknown what the C14 ratio to C12 was pre-flood.
Perhaps if they found a piece of timber or old bone that hasn't been petrified they might be able to establish the correct ratio.
 
The Bible tells us when it happened.
No. The Bible tells us when Noah's Flood happened. You need to show that this formation has the correct date. Possibly, this was a large boat from years before the flood, that had been abandoned and was moved to its new position by the floodwaters. It was not Noah's Ark at all, just another large boat. If Noah could build a large boat, so could other people. For instance, Utnapishtim also builds a large boat in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which refers to events about 2700 BCE, well before the date of Noah's flood.

As you should know C14 dating of anything may be a problem as it is unknown what the C14 ratio to C12 was pre-flood.
As you should know we have measured those ratios from varves in Lake Baikal and Lake Suigetsu. We have also measured those ratios from tree ring data. Your sources are lying to you again, those C12/C14 ratios are known back to well before the flood.

Perhaps if they found a piece of timber or old bone that hasn't been petrified they might be able to establish the correct ratio.
Timber? That is the tree ring data I referred to. Your sources are notable for the range of stuff they do not tell you. They lie by omission.
 
No. The Bible tells us when Noah's Flood happened. You need to show that this formation has the correct date. Possibly, this was a large boat from years before the flood, that had been abandoned and was moved to its new position by the floodwaters. It was not Noah's Ark at all, just another large boat. If Noah could build a large boat, so could other people. For instance, Utnapishtim also builds a large boat in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which refers to events about 2700 BCE, well before the date of Noah's flood.

I suppose you could have numerous ways inwhich the ship was deposited on Mt. Ararat....perhaps a super large tornado put it there...or perhaps they built it up in the mountains..or, or, or

Your problem is dealing with a large ship of the correct size with 3 levels being where the bible said it should be.
As you should know we have measured those ratios from varves in Lake Baikal and Lake Suigetsu. We have also measured those ratios from tree ring data. Your sources are lying to you again, those C12/C14 ratios are known back to well before the flood.

I laugh when you try to make it that simple....the whole atmospheric ratio of C12 to C14 would have changed from a pre-flood value to a post flood value. Over time it would have equalized to the cirrent values that we can measure today.

Varves don't indicate years to me but rather indicate storms, tides, run offs etc that can deposit sediment. The OE'ers need old ages...so they see old ages despite the science that contradicts the old ages...but this thread is about Noahs Ark.....and the images that show a ship in the Mt's of Ararat.
Timber? That is the tree ring data I referred to. Your sources are notable for the range of stuff they do not tell you. They lie by omission.
I love the way you make claims but don't support them. There's a "range of stuff they do not tell you"...which means they are lying.

They told me there is a 3D image of a ship in the mountains where the bible said it should be...showed me pictures of the scans...made documentaries showing the process....and you want to talk about tree rings? Explain away the 3D image.
 
I suppose you could have numerous ways inwhich the ship was deposited on Mt. Ararat....perhaps a super large tornado put it there...or perhaps they built it up in the mountains..or, or, or
I already told you. A pre-existing old boat, perhaps built by Utnapishtim or soneome similar that had been abandoned and was floated into that position by Noah's flood,.

Your problem is dealing with a large ship of the correct size with 3 levels being where the bible said it should be.
Or else Noah's descendants found this same feature and thought, like you, "This must be Noah's Ark" and used its measurements in their description.

I laugh when you try to make it that simple....the whole atmospheric ratio of C12 to C14 would have changed from a pre-flood value to a post flood value. Over time it would have equalized to the cirrent values that we can measure today.
I await your evidence that C12/C14 ratios are different over water, as in the middle of the Pacific, from over land, as in the middle of America. Your YEC friends have made these measurements, haven't they? Oh...

Varves don't indicate years to me but rather indicate storms, tides, run offs etc that can deposit sediment. The OE'ers need old ages...so they see old ages despite the science that contradicts the old ages...but this thread is about Noahs Ark.....and the images that show a ship in the Mt's of Ararat.
When varves, tree rings and carbon dates all indicate similar ages, then science accepts that data. No reading of the Epic of Gilgamesh is going to affect those scientific dates. This formation is older than 2,700 BCE. The combined data for the last 50,000 years can be seen here. Science has the data to back up its claims; YEC does not.
 
I already told you. A pre-existing old boat, perhaps built by Utnapishtim or soneome similar that had been abandoned and was floated into that position by Noah's flood,.
At least you are now agreeing that their was a flood. That's a start.
Or else Noah's descendants found this same feature and thought, like you, "This must be Noah's Ark" and used its measurements in their description.
Or, it could be the biblical description that fits the ship in the mountains which makes more sense.

But as I said, you could dream up dozens of scenarios.
I await your evidence that C12/C14 ratios are different over water, as in the middle of the Pacific, from over land, as in the middle of America. Your YEC friends have made these measurements, haven't they? Oh...

I never said they were different....you kinda presented it as if I said so.

I do understand C14/C12 ratios for underwater creatures can be different than those found on the surface.
When varves, tree rings and carbon dates all indicate similar ages, then science accepts that data. No reading of the Epic of Gilgamesh is going to affect those scientific dates. This formation is older than 2,700 BCE. The combined data for the last 50,000 years can be seen here. Science has the data to back up its claims; YEC does not.
I've already shown you that the C12/C14 ratios have would have been different pre and post flood...with the ration changing as the solar radiation smacked into nitrogen in the upper atmosphere after the flood.

As to your 50,000 varves in 50,000 years is highly unlikely...as sediment is entering into the lake daily..as well as it being effected by local storms.
 
At least you are now agreeing that their was a flood. That's a start.
I have no problem with a large local flood. The problem is with the claim that the flood covered the entire planet. Local floods happen many times in many places. That is why you need to supply dates for your flood evidences from different locations. They could have been from a local flood, and nothing to do with Noah's flood.

Or, it could be the biblical description that fits the ship in the mountains which makes more sense.
Or could it be that the writers of the Epic of Gilgamesh had heard of the 'ship;' in the mountains and included it in their epic. The Hebrews just copied the older (2,700 BCE remember) text.

I do understand C14/C12 ratios for underwater creatures can be different than those found on the surface.
Correct. That is because limestone (calcium carbonate) dissolves in water, thus introducing old carbon into the marine ecology, changing the C12/C14 ratio. Limestone does not dissolve in air, so that is not a problem away from the coast.

I've already shown you that the C12/C14 ratios have would have been different pre and post flood...with the ration changing as the solar radiation smacked into nitrogen in the upper atmosphere after the flood.
You have shown nothing; you have made claims, but not supported those claims with any data. I provided data to support my claims. In science, that means I win.

As to your 50,000 varves in 50,000 years is highly unlikely...as sediment is entering into the lake daily..as well as it being effected by local storms.
Which is why tree rings and carbon dating are used as well. Storms will affect the shore of a lake, by washing in soil from the banks. The middle of a large lake is far less affected, so the varve counts are more reliable there.
 
Back
Top