rdalin

After researching this subject for approximately 30 seconds, it is obvious that the full name of what we're discussing is Noah's Ark of the Covenant. That pretty much eliminates all of the problems. Doesn't it?

rdalin

.37218 cubic cubits.

rdalin

Harrison Ford is gay? I didn't know that.

RBH

I find that distinction made, as for example here, with the same analytic approach -- measure total, measure inorganic, and subtract to get organic.

I can't find much at all on that Durinapar site, though.

RBH

coloradoatheist

I only found three sites on durinapar so I think it was a typo and should be Dogubayazit. http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html

Problem is these guys make these claims and when real geologists get the material it's wrong.

I'm curious, does petrified wood float?

Mike

RBH

I've been reading through Wyatt's site, and a couiple of things struck me. First, though there are copious references to "site" and "archaeology," as an old anthro major I see zero signs in any of the photographs that any real archaeology was being done. It's much more in the nature of treasure hunting, at about the level of professionalism and care that Heinrich Schlieman took with Troy.

Second, I noticed references to worked metal consisting of a mixture including "8.08 percent aluminum, 8.24 percent iron, 1.34 percent titanium, and 3.82 percent magnesium". I know of no other instances of worked titanium or aluminum in the bronze age. They are very difficult metals to work with by hand. It was the 19th century before aluminum was obtained in any quantity using metallic sodium to obtain aluminum and sodium chloride from aluminum chloride. Of course, sodium metal is no easy metal to obtain either. There are aluminum bronzes now, but lacking a technology for extracting aluminum, that's not a candidate for 4500 years ago. Bronze Age bronzes were primarily copper/tin alloys, though Greeks and Romans added lead, silver, and/or zinc to the mix. I find no reference to early use of aluminum, however. Is there any independent evidence of aluminum extraction and working or titanium extraction and working in the bronze age?

RBH

Amaleq13

Could you be more specific in explaining how this wood is different so that one might conclude that it is "of much different and sturdier consistency"?

Does carbon dating of the evidence agree with this date?

That is untrue. You do not "always" find growth rings in petrified wood. Petrified palm trees, for example, do not exhibit growth rings.

You seem to have entirely missed the point. There is no reason to assume there was no rain before the Flood because, as I already explained, your interpretation is entirely without merit. Neither Noah nor the people who doubted him are depicted as unfamiliar with the concept of "rain". God's use of mist to water the plants appears to have been a method used prior to the creation of man but there is no reason to assume it continued beyond that point.

If it is naturally occurring evidence, you would have a point but we are talking about manmade items and that clearly introduces the very reasonable possibility that the building materials were obtained elsewhere. Does the wood at the site match any other trees in the vicinity? It is my understanding that the climate of Turkey is quite variable and includes portions that are described as "subtropical". Why could this wood not have come from such an area?

I agree.

Sensei Meela

It is a typo; the site is Durupinar, also called Cudi/Masher Dagi or "Doomsday Mountain."
This -- a reprint of the Journal of Geosciences Education article -- is about the only traditional scientific publication that has touched upon Wyatt's "discoveries" that I can find.
Curious, isn't it? I suppose they will also be branded as "liars" however...

Sparrow

It matches the biblical account now that you’ve redefined the cubit, asserted that wood from before the flood had no rings because there was no rain whatsoever before the flood, had Noah go to Turkey to get wood to build an ark hundreds of mile south of there (which then conveniently floats back to its original location – homing wood like homing pigeons?), ascribed the invention of plywood and metallurgy to ancient goatherders, invalidated the written history of older cultures and ignored all the negative evidence as mentioned above. Your whole argument sounds like wishful thinking. Then you start your next paragraph with:
Causing a chain reaction of irony meter explosions around the world. I’m underwhelmed too.

coloradoatheist

Thanks Sensei, It's pretty funny when even other creationists/bible believers discredit him, but I also missed the show last night on TLC about Noah's ark.


Mike