Blobfish.
Posted on 04/27/2010 9:29:08 AM PDT by marstegreg
This story contains much more information and additional photos than The Sun.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Unfortunately with any religous find it needs extra scrutiny there are idealogues that only care about perception and creating of such when all religous efforts should be based on the truth.
Afterall isn’t that what it is supposed to be about?
Very sad indeed, especially on this forum.
It seems all to often those who refuse to believe (as with the Shroud) will not allow those who do believe the right to do so. I’m not sure if what they found is or isn’t what they claim but I don’t understand why some are so quick to discount it. Frankly, I can’t tell what it is, how can they? I would like to know what it is before I decide what it isn’t. :)
I try to err on the side of believing too much and not too little.
I have seen some argue and argue their; there is no God, while showing no real intelligence or wisdom.
“Intelligence must follow faith, never precede it, and never destroy it.”
I want to know how long it would take a koala to walk from Turkey to Australia.
“’The group of archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement, explaining one had never been found above 11,500 feet in the vicinity.’
Until today.”
Got it. It is a previously unknown “settlement” at 13,000 feet with large hewn lumber and mortised joints. Still worthy of more than a flip response.
Blobfish.
“How do the facts it was found above known human settlement on Mt. Ararat and not bolobaby’s front yard make it the ark?”
You see your hands but you did not read my post. I did not say it was an ark.
But if a document was found that was clearly proven to be several thousand years old and that document claimed that an ark landed in bolobaby’s front yard and while bolobaby was digging around he discovered a large hewn lumber structure, he may well surmise that it may be something other than an ancient Pizza Hut.
It doesn’t make it an ark, but it doesn’t make it a 13,000 foot high previously unknown settlement either. It simply makes it a very interesting archeological site in the vicinity where an ark was claimed to have settled in an ancient document.
It may be proven a hoax, a long lost tribe or a Turkish Taco Bell, but at this point an ark doesn’t defy logic.
“Carbn dating is fine for objects younger than 50,000 years old. Beyond that it is crap.”
However, the earth is only 5896 years old.
Like what? Hoof prints, droppings or what? I am sure that it would not take very long before snowfall, ice or erosion obliterated those.
However, the ark was a very large structure at a high altitude encased in ice. These conditions can lead to fossilization. The high altitude means low oxygen so there are almost no hungry organisms so there would be little danger of the remains being eaten, molded away or disturbed by scavengers.
Its also on Fox News
Yes very true and if you believe then it doesn’t matter if the item is what they think it is or not (i.e. the shroud). I think people are often looking for exact proof when all they have to do is look right around them and witness the miracle.
It would be amazing to have the relics from the Bible so we can see them and better understand but I don’t need any of those...I just look at my kids and know :)
That is assuming that Mt. Everest had snow at all after the flood See this link http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/noah-above-mts.html
Which suggests that the origin of Everest is around the time of Noah's Flood and that since Everest's is currently rising at up to 15 centimeters (six inches) per year if you were to extrapolate backwards, "taking the rate of rise of 15 cm per year and the current height of Everest (8,848 meters, or 29,028 feet), Everest would have been at sea level only 59,000 years ago."
Some animals are so unique to their environment (see koala joke earlier in thread)
1. We do not know that the things that are UNIQUE to their environment were not there after the flood.
2. It is also possible that through degenerative mutation or loss of gene pool information the koala's descendants, who carry only a portion of that original gene pool of information, became more specialized and that their ancestors were more hardy. In other words, the koala's ancestor may have been able to survive on a much greater range of vegetation.
Facts are utterly stubborn things.
Right. And you've got to bring relevant facts to the study for them to have any bearing on what we're examining.
The important datum in this question is, what is the differential between the average settlement level of the region, and the area where these artifacts were found?
So. What's the average settlement altitude in Turkey?
It actually doesn’t matter that there aren’t other settlements in the area near that altitude. If this was a settlement, it’s most likely a failed one, given the fact that other settlements didn’t crop up.
But it doesn’t even have to be a settlement. It could be temple of some type. Man has done some fascinating and improbable things throughout the ages: Stonehenge, the pyramids at Giza, Machu Picchu, etc. Who is to say that this wasn’t an attempt at greatness? Some high altitude attempt to reach the heavens?
Heck - I’m more inclined to believe it if someone said this was the “Tower of Babylon.” They tried to build so high that God cast them down and sent the settlers so far apart that they eventually adopted different languages.
But the Ark thing is flimsy at best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.