Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Who discovered noah's ark? Ron Wyatt or Ed Davis/George Hagopian?

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 





Added to the problems with this being the Ark are the height it was found at - if we melted all the ice in the world, water levels wouldn't reach this high (around 13'000 ft i believe).


Genesis 7:11

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


A seismologist at Washington University in St. Louis has made the first 3-D model of seismic wave damping — diminishing — deep in the Earth’s mantle and has revealed the existence of an underground water reservoir at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

It is the first evidence for water existing in the Earth’s deep mantle.


news.wustl.edu...




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Murgatroid
 


I was reading one of your posts and your picture moved and i crapped my pants



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
i remember the nytimes printing an article at least 12 years ago regarding the possible find of the ark on mount ararat. i can't find it online though. anyone can help?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Deetermined
 


Perfectly true but even if that water somehow came to the surface, it still wouldn't have the necessary volume to raise global water levels that much. Simply put, there isn't enough water around to raise levels that much. The only way this could be true would be if all the seas had somehow risen and travelled across continents (Geological Polar Shift) and there is absolutely zero evidence to be found anywhere that this has ever occured.

The Ark, under microscope, appears to be sedimentary rock. Also, and far more importantly for me, most of the expeditions that have been claiming this is the site of the Ark have been documented taking wood to the site with them, leaving without it and then returning a year later for another search where, hey presto, they claim to have found "wood". Indeed, one of the proponents (George Jammal) subsequently admitted that his "wood" discovery was actually from the railway in Long Beach.

In reality, most of these claims aren't even worthy of the label of "fringe" archeology, and that is saying something!


ETA:

Star still though for interesting additional information.
edit on 15-1-2013 by Flavian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Organized religion=organized crime;result: "a fool and his money are soon parted". But you just go ahead and keep tithing because your'e god's coffers are getting low and his bills will not wait!


Creation was high-jacked eons ago. Now most religions worship graven images such as crosses, statues and various other down-to Earth items. Look to the self, and maybe you'll find what you are looking for!



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian

However, for the layman, it is a very compelling argument - it looks like an outline of an ark so it must be one. Things like samples observed under microscopes don't occur to most! Added to the problems with this being the Ark are the height it was found at - if we melted all the ice in the world, water levels wouldn't reach this high (around 13'000 ft i believe).


Is it not possible the earth had more water, 2000? 3000 years ago? (I'm thinking evaporation.....into space! haha)

I guess not. Maybe. I dunno. If it was a 'long-term evaporation' it would probably take a few thousand years. Unless a planet ran into earth and knocked some water off? Orrrrrr we interpret the timeline in the bible completely wrong?

Just spewing out what came across my mind. Probably an obvious answer.

(Still, my first thought on the "ark" in the mountains was ---> natural formation)

(Still, awesome thread)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by sneaglebob12
 


Unfortunately for Ron Wyatt, the "ark" near Mt Ararat is a natural geological formation. It isn't wood and doesn't contain any, it is rock (which has been tested).

However, for the layman, it is a very compelling argument - it looks like an outline of an ark so it must be one. Things like samples observed under microscopes don't occur to most! Added to the problems with this being the Ark are the height it was found at - if we melted all the ice in the world, water levels wouldn't reach this high (around 13'000 ft i believe).

Another problem is the preservation of wood. Put simply, according to the experts (Oxford Uni Timber Specialists, etc) wood would not be preserved that long unless it was in boggy conditions or it was under water - not that 13'000 ft up a mountain!


I've always had problems with that as well. I don't know if there ever even was an Ark, let alone a Global flood. I remember a documentary on ABC back in the early nineties that said that at the time all the rain was falling, aquifers opened up due to earthquakes and shot water into the sky. Seems kinda silly to me, but whatever, I'm no scientist. If the Ark actually existed and there was a global flood, why would the Ark get covered in mud to allow it to petrify? The only way it could survive around 4,000 years is if it was petrified. So, I don't think the actual ark would even exist anymore.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Robonakka
So you really think a boat made of wood will last 8,000 years on a volcano? Really? Doesn't wood rot? Wouldn't there have been great demand for wood in a post flood environment? Surely the ark was broken up for housing and the remains rotted away eons ago. Surely.


No, no! The ark was then used to ship the animals to what would become their natural habitat. I don't think the kangaroo and koala swam to Australia.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mugen
Orrrrrr we interpret the timeline in the bible completely wrong?


Funny you should ask that. Whenever Creationists state that the earth is only 6,000 years old, going by bible timeline. I always ask them what makes them think the bible states that? They always state the different bloodlines detailed in the Bible, and that the earth was created in 7 days.

To them I reply with the scripture (not sure which one at the moment) that states "each day was as a thousand years, and a thousand years was a day" when talking about time in heaven. That to me says that Heaven (where God lives) is outside of time, or time in heaven can't be measured, thereby saying that God is outside of time, so what may seem to a Human like 7 days, could still be billions of years. Mostly I just use that as a way to stop Creationism vs Evolution arguments, because in the end, it's pretty near pointless to try and change a Creationist's mind. So in essence, maybe we have misinterpreted the Biblical timeline.
edit on 15-1-2013 by dave_welch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Don't forget the Platypus!
Which to me seems like a real-life Crocoduck.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sneaglebob12


Drouge stone used in noah's ark according to Ron Wyatt



This stone is not what they claim it to be. See the multiple crosses on it? That symbol would be unknown to them until after Jesus' crucifixion.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foundryman

Originally posted by sneaglebob12


Drouge stone used in noah's ark according to Ron Wyatt



This stone is not what they claim it to be. See the multiple crosses on it? That symbol would be unknown to them until after Jesus' crucifixion.


They were added later, at least that's what some websites covering this said.

I think the "global" flood was local not global,the world to them was everything they saw, not the whole round earth



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Noah's Ark is a work of fiction plagiarised from as already stated Gilgamesh and before that from the Sumerians,the earliest pre-dating the bible by as much as 4000 years.So what ever Wyatt or Davis/Hagopian found,it was more science fiction than bona fide scientific evidence.
Wyatt was a devout christian who desperately wanted to believe in and find Noah's Ark,and made it his life's work to find and prove as real the root beliefs of his and other christian's faith.He also found the Ark of the Covenant,Moses' tablets,Goliath's sword,the location of the Red Sea crossing,wheels used in Egyptian charriot races,timber from Noah's home and Colonel Sanders secret recipe (one of the previous may be made up for comic effect:lol
.He wasn't a qualified archaeologist,so would never have been given permission to carry out any sort of archaeological excavation.So all that was discovered and later investigated by Wyatt was a natural formation that happened to be sort of boat shaped,and when your government pays for you to take a holiday in a nice warm country each year,you will of course do everything you can to keep the myth going.

Mount Ararat is about 200 miles from the sea,and the Durpinar site is about 6,500 feet above sea level.The second and higher site from memory is about 14,000 feet above sea level.As has already been pointed out,there isn't enough water in the world (and there certainly hasn't been a significant decrease in the last 6000 years or so) to come anywhere near to being able to float a boat weighing thousands of tons and deposit it that high up a mountain.Even if all the ice in the world melted,the sea level would "only" rise by no more than about 250 feet across the world.The claim that all the land in the world was covered to a depth of 10 cubits (again from memory) is even more ridiculous considering the summit of Everest is nearly 5 miles above sea level.

Edit.There is evidence of a great "flood" around that time that could have been a tsunami when the top of mount Etna fell into the Mediterranean sea after an unusually powerful eruption.There is also some evidence that suggests that animals were moved long distances across the sea by boat,a LOT earlier than it was originally believed animals were first transported in this way.These two almost verifiable facts could give some authority to the original version of this story being at least partly true.
edit on 15-1-2013 by Imagewerx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Nobody discovered Noah's ark. If they did, we'd have pictures, or better yet, an excavation of the actual thing.

Seems every few years or so another team goes up there and "discovers" Noah's ark through sonagraphy or some means. But it's always in a different place. How many "arks" have been found by now? Ten? Twenty?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Those who follow organized religion are just that, followers. You are being lead alright, but not by your god. If you were following an omnipotent being, what use would he have for money?


Just look on the fingers of your religious leader, maybe your god led him to a goldmine?
edit on 15-1-2013 by ajay59 because: to add



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


It is suggested that the planet was surrounded by a water canopy that protected the planet, distributed light evenly and ensured even tropical weather throughout. The golden age.

It is suggested that 'they' collapsed the water canopy to flood the planet and kill the mutated offspring of aliens/nephilim.

If this is the case then a sudden flood of that magnitude could, and would, reach those heights. In the restoration being done by The Chronicle Project the hebrew glyphs call it 'the that to surge' or what we now refer to it as.....a megatsunami/tidal wave.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by Flavian
 


It is suggested that the planet was surrounded by a water canopy that protected the planet, distributed light evenly and ensured even tropical weather throughout. The golden age.

It is suggested that 'they' collapsed the water canopy to flood the planet and kill the mutated offspring of aliens/nephilim.

If this is the case then a sudden flood of that magnitude could, and would, reach those heights. In the restoration being done by The Chronicle Project the hebrew glyphs call it 'the that to surge' or what we now refer to it as.....a megatsunami/tidal wave.







I guess it must have been "holy water" to not have been affected by gravity. If it went from the ground to the heavens, what would have kept all life from drowning?
edit on 15-1-2013 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ajay59
 


It was mounted outside the atmosphere, surrounding the planet. I don't understand the mechanics of it but the theory certainly explains why conditions on the planet back then were better than today, why animals and humans could grow larger/live longer, and where that volume of water could have come from.

The story goes, from the restoration of the ancient hebrew bible, that this planet was picked to be added to the group of existing planets (that either implies that we are part of a group of known, habited planets...or part of a group that can be habited) and 'the supreme ones' then terraformed the planet. This included mounting half of the planets water around the planet, in space, to assist in propagating life. This canopy was then collapsed once the global infection happened to wipe out the infection, but it seems this collapse was always going to happen anyway....but had to happen sooner because of the infection.
edit on 15-1-2013 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
I think Ron Wyatt is on the money here. The Ark isn't his only discovery though as he has also discovered the real Mt Sinai where Moses recieved the 10 commandments...it sold me as as the Biblical account matches exactly and geography are all still there to this day...in Saudi Arabia !!!! of all places. Of course the Saudies have now fenced it off and let no one in to further research the area.

saying that, Mt Sinai deserves a thread on it's own.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightAssassin
reply to post by ajay59
 


It was mounted outside the atmosphere, surrounding the planet. I don't understand the mechanics of it but the theory certainly explains why conditions on the planet back then were better than today, why animals and humans could grow larger/live longer, and where that volume of water could have come from.

The story goes, from the restoration of the ancient hebrew bible, that this planet was picked to be added to the group of existing planets (that either implies that we are part of a group of known, habited planets...or part of a group that can be habited) and 'the supreme ones' then terraformed the planet. This included mounting half of the planets water around the planet, in space, to assist in propagating life. This canopy was then collapsed once the global infection happened to wipe out the infection, but it seems this collapse was always going to happen anyway....but had to happen sooner because of the infection.
edit on 15-1-2013 by LightAssassin because: (no reason given)


So what then happened to all of this excess water afterward? It soaked in to the center of the planet? Floated away in to space? Maybe it is still here all around us and we just do not realize it is there and breathing it in to this day? I do not mean to be hypocritical, but just think critically. Common sense tells me that all these ideas are impossible.





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join