Skip to comments.
Noah's Ark Found? Turkey Expedition Planned For Summer
National Geographic News ^
| 4-27-2004
| Hillary Mayall
Posted on 04/28/2004 1:17:42 PM PDT by blam
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
To: blam
...Agri DagiTurkish for "mountain of pain" ...Which is located in the Hanna-Barbera province, of course, next to Ahgee-Doggie and Doggie-Daddy...
To: blam
Ok, so how exactly does a wooden structure in a nominally exposed position survive thousands of years?
Further, seeing as the world is still much colder then it used to be, wouldn't the ark then also have been easily visible for the thousands of years before the mini ice age?
Finally, if this particular area is so dangerous for modern climbers, wouldn't it have been still exceptionally all the way back to a landing on it by a ship? Both in regards to avoiding slightly under water rocks and also unloading a bunch of animals?
To: blam
Aha! Now we learn the real reason the Indiana Jones IV Movie was put on hold...waiting for cheap stock footage from the expedition. Veddy innnteresting.
23
posted on
04/28/2004 2:03:07 PM PDT
by
Use It Or Lose It
(JohnFKerry: A Bad Bottle of French Whine topped with a $1,000 haircut)
To: SuperVillain
If what you say is true, then how can the determine the age of the Shroud of Turin?
24
posted on
04/28/2004 2:04:34 PM PDT
by
raybbr
(My 1.4 cents - It used to be 2 cents, but after taxes - you get the idea.)
To: blam
Whats a Cubic?
25
posted on
04/28/2004 2:05:35 PM PDT
by
bikerman
To: cryptical
"because faith trumps proof."
Only when credibility isn't an issue.
26
posted on
04/28/2004 2:06:02 PM PDT
by
Blzbba
To: SuperVillain
Carbon dating was developed to date dinosaur bones. Carbon dating only goes back about 50K years, IIRC. It's fairly accurate within that timeframe, too.
27
posted on
04/28/2004 2:07:07 PM PDT
by
Modernman
(Work is the curse of the drinking classes. -Oscar Wilde)
To: Styria
"Radio-carbon isn't used to try to determine the Earth's age."
The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements.
Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga) and the Isua Supracrustal rocks in West Greenland (3.7 to 3.8 Ga), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in the Minnesota River Valley and northern Michigan (3.5-3.7 billion years), in Swaziland (3.4-3.5 billion years), and in Western Australia (3.4-3.6 billion years). [See Editor's Note.] These ancient rocks have been dated by a number of radiometric dating methods and the consistency of the results give scientists confidence that the ages are correct to within a few percent. An interesting feature of these ancient rocks is that they are not from any sort of "primordial crust" but are lava flows and sediments deposited in shallow water, an indication that Earth history began well before these rocks were deposited. In Western Australia, single zircon crystals found in younger sedimentary rocks have radiometric ages of as much as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials to be found on Earth so far. The source rocks for these zircon crystals have not yet been found. The ages measured for Earth's oldest rocks and oldest crystals show that the Earth is at least 4.3 billion years in age but do not reveal the exact age of Earth's formation.
The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite. In addition, mineral grains (zircon) with U-Pb ages of 4.4 Ga have recently been reported from sedimentary rocks in west-central Australia.
28
posted on
04/28/2004 2:10:24 PM PDT
by
Blzbba
To: Blzbba
So all scientific dating and methods are either all right or all wrong, huh?
29
posted on
04/28/2004 2:10:36 PM PDT
by
GLDNGUN
(.)
Comment #30 Removed by Moderator
To: blam
Is Geraldo going? 8^D
31
posted on
04/28/2004 2:11:15 PM PDT
by
E. Pluribus Unum
(Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
To: SuperVillain
"But with humanity, 7,000 years can be the difference between stone tools and multi-speed blenders. So either way, the tests would be inconclusive."
True.
32
posted on
04/28/2004 2:12:04 PM PDT
by
Blzbba
To: Blzbba
radio carbon dating, and geological dating are wholey different--apples to oranges comparison. Both kinds too are subject to huge errors.
What I want to know is if evidence is found of a huge boat at 12,000+ feet, what will conventional science have to say?
To: swilhelm73
"Ok, so how exactly does a wooden structure in a nominally exposed position survive thousands of years?
Further, seeing as the world is still much colder then it used to be, wouldn't the ark then also have been easily visible for the thousands of years before the mini ice age?
Finally, if this particular area is so dangerous for modern climbers, wouldn't it have been still exceptionally all the way back to a landing on it by a ship? Both in regards to avoiding slightly under water rocks and also unloading a bunch of animals?"
Don't introduce logic into a discussion on faith!
34
posted on
04/28/2004 2:13:43 PM PDT
by
Blzbba
Comment #35 Removed by Moderator
To: raybbr
The carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin has been in some dispute since it was performed. Some will swear by it's accuracy and others make the claim that the fire the Shroud was subject to altered it's composition enough to skew the tests. I don't care.
Comment #37 Removed by Moderator
To: blam
Arslan reported an eyewitness sighting of the ark and took a photograph in 1989 from about 220 yards (200 meters) away. However, he couldn't get any closer... Did Bigfoot stop him or something?
I don't doubt that Noah's Ark exists, but I don't believe this story.
38
posted on
04/28/2004 2:17:50 PM PDT
by
Aquinasfan
(Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
To: swilhelm73
Maybe the same way a wooly mammoth is fully preserved with frozen food in its stomach: in an ice cube.
To: SuperVillain; Blzbba; cryptical; Styria; blam
Carbon dating was developed to date dinosaur bones. ... Now, with dinosaurs, which were around for a bit more than 100,000,000 years, getting that close is no problem.No, the half-life of Carbon-14 is so short that after 90,000 years there should less that 1/1000 of the origional Carbon-14 left to measure. Until recently the upper range given to Carbon-14 dating was 50,000 years, but in the past few years recent advances have pushed that to 90,000.
One problem showed up though. Scientists tested fossils using carbon-14 that were thought to be millions of years old. No fossils could be found that had the Carbon-14 depleted to the level that it should be. Several independent scientists of the evolutionist camp examined the fossils and indicated that the excess carbon-14 seemed to be endemic to the fossil and not from a source of contamination.
One FR evolutionist on this board suggested the fossils were contaiminated by ground water. But if that's true, it throws many of the radiodating methods into question, as nobody can be sure how much of the parent/daughter elements have drifted into and out of a fossil.
So yes, Blzbba is right. It doesn't make sense for Creationists to accept as fact dating methods regarding the Ark when we question the assumptions employed in those same methods to date other items. Nevertheless, finding and documenting a HUGH boat on top of Mt. Ararat would definitely be a win for the creationist camp.
CARBON DATING UNDERCUTS EVOLUTION'S LONG AGES
Diamonds are a Creationist's Best Friend
40
posted on
04/28/2004 2:20:24 PM PDT
by
DannyTN
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson