Steve_F

Falcon-Lang, HJ. (1999) The Early Carboniferous (Courceyan-Arundian) monsoonal climate of the British Isles: evidence from growth rings in fossil woods. Geological Magazine, 136, 177-197.

Falcon-Lang, HJ. (1999) The Early Carboniferous (Asbian-Brigantian) seasonal tropical climate of northern Britain. Palaios, 14, 116-126.

Growth rings are described in both of the above.

Hydarnes

...*wrong thread*

Lysimachus

I'll get back to you as soon as I can Amaleq. I have to use small slots here and there to post. It's especially difficult when you're trying to get your own business going, heh. Looks like I'm going to have to rewind and start from scratch.

Coragyps

Less than 1% carbon in some 5000 year old "wood," and that makes it once-living? You're pretty gullible, Lys....

Coragyps

Even stronger than what goes into your tinfoil hat? Amazing!

Spaz

Are you serious? Wouldn't the date place it in the bronze age? I wonder what metals they used, hmmm.....maybe bronze? Bronze isn't very strong...do I want an explanation?

Lmarka

There are no ancient civilizations. They all drowned in 2348BC in a Flood, remember? There are no Chinese, no Egyptian, no Sumerian, no Indians, no Babyloynians and none of these other 200 civilizations... :wave:

Lysimachus

Amaleq,

Besides my response to you, I’m sure you will find some of your questions to be further addressed in my responses to Coragyps and Spaz. So I recommend reading this entire post.

The conclusions are based on the findings of the petrified wood. The petrified wood found at the Durupinar site is different from typical petrified wood. But although it is different and lacking growth rings, it is still petrified wood nonetheless. One cannot randomly say "Noah's Ark was impossible because a boat the size of that dimension scientifically speaking would fall apart". But when the evidence is blaring you straight in the face that there is a boat-shaped object with both longitudinal and transverse evenly spaced metal lines, meeting up with ancient ship construction specifications, one hasn't a choice but to reconsider the possibility that construction standards have altered in modern times. If they have altered, then in order for such a massive 515 foot structure to stay afloat, the material utilized must have been of very strong consistency.

Correct, I go by the biblical record that it took place approximately 4500 years ago. I have serious reservations against the theory that ancient civilizations are as old as claimed. I believe there was a massive springing forth of civilization soon after the flood.

I wasn't referring specifically to petrified wood in that statement, but rather "fossilized objects" on a whole. The structure shows what is believed to be fossilized structure members--giving the appearance of rocks. My statement wasn't actually my statement, but I took the first sentence of an entire article from The New Larousse Encyclopedia of the Earth p.39-41". The point is is that fossilized objects are subject to weathering and wasting process just as if they were natural rocks. Sorry I didn't go into details to show what I was really getting at. Also, you always find growth rings on fossilized wood. This fossilized wood on the Durunipar site, however, has no growth rings.

But if there was no rain before the Flood, then how did any vegetation receive water? The mist system is the only logical explanation. There is nothing wrong with theories based on deduction. Evolutionists use the same method for coming up with countless theories of their own as well.

Now you've really lost your hat. I didn't imagine you would actually go this far to try and discredit the archaeological site. Your statement comes from a very unscientific view point. Data must be interpreted based on the condition it was found. You don't go assuming that this 515 foot object was wood obtained from tropics thousands of miles away and then brought up to the Mountains of Ararat, in the middle of nowhere, for no known reason. This is ludicrous thinking. We judge based on a big picture--we look at the data and look at everything on a whole. You don't go finding a boat-shaped object that meets NOT ONLY the dimensions specified in Genesis, but the CORRECT location described by BOTH the Bible and Berosus. You take into consideration the names of the local villages--"The Place of Eight", you take into account the massive Anchor Drogue stones that precisely match the ancient Phoenician anchor stones found in the Mediterranean, only the ones found in Kazaan are 10 times larger, and scattered (dropped) along the SAME estimated route the boat would have landed during the "Eddy Effect". (I suggest you do a scientific study on the "Eddy Effect").

There is nothing at all to suggest, or give any logical reason at all, that the wood would have been brought by ancients from some far tropical climate to this region to build a boat-shaped object that just sits thousands of miles from the nearest body of water. You have to think "realistically".

Again, refer to the above. We can go no further than to judge the data on where it was found. Evidence like this is only considered not evidence to the Bible critic who is very unopen to the possibility of the existence of the supernatural world, for adhering to anything archaeological that supports a supernatural event defined in scripture also means adhering to the authenticity of miracles--created by Jehovah. And Atheists will not dare to even consider subscribing themselves to any such thing. Sad, but true.

There is nothing overwhelming about it. If the archaeological data supports the biblical description of these varied events such as Noah's Ark, the parting of the Red Sea, Mt. Sinai, Sodom and Gomorrah, that Edom existed during the time of David and Solomon, then one must also take into account that the Biblical record could be correct in many other things. But if standards, for example change, stating that a 515 foot object falls short of seaworthiness, but yet the archaeological data reveals otherwise, then we must conclude that climate conditions had to have been different preflood. It's pretty simple. For example, although I'm not very familiar with this subject, I have heard that the lung capacity of the varying large dinosaurs such as T-Rex could not have properly breathed in our time. The dinosaur birds could not have flown. The oxygen levels would have had to have been much higher. This would yield a much richer environment preflood--therefore yielding trees of much grander size and consistency. The earth was cursed for the third time by God, and now over 70% of the earth is covered in water. Scientific studies have confirmed that in order for the earth to be millions of years old, the salinity levels of the oceans would have to be much much higher.

Of course, this is all basic summarizing, as I don't have the time to spend a few days gathering all the references. I trust you read up on these subjects on your own, and don't just visit talkorgins.org every day to get your answers.

But right now the subject is Noah’s Ark, correct? Let me ask a very simple question that I think should be the focus of this topic.

If the Durunipar site is not the remains of Noah’s Ark, then what is it? If it is something else, why does virtually everything about it match the biblical account? Why is there plenty of archaeological evidence in the surrounding areas support the story of Noah and the flood? Why do some anchor stones have drawings and carvings of 8 people, inscribing Noah and his wife, his sons and their wives? Why have we found inscriptions in this same area with a rainbow, 8 people, a wave, and a boat? There are just too many things that must be taken into consideration on a grand scale, not selective small scales.



Coragyps

Oh I’m pretty gullible, I see. I think you not only appear to be in denial to the appropriate scientific procedures needed to determine the composition of specimens, but also in denial anything that might lead to biblical authenticity. Just remember, rock does not have any organic carbon. It is perfectly safe from a scientific standpoint to conclude that the several specimens are petrified wood. Let’s just see what the results of these tests revealed. The following will be obtained from Jonathan Gray’s book “Discoveries: Questions Answered�. The format will be in Q/A format. Questions in Bold, Answers in regular and italics:

----------------------------------------------------

Q) NO PETRIFIED WOOD?

What do you say to the claim that NO petrified wood has been found within the “boat-shaped object�?

ANSWER:

In October, 1984, when the Turks sent their own team of archaeologists to the site, their expedition yielded very positive results. Apart from four feet long metal spikes and other metal objects, they recovered PETRIFIED WOOD.

Dr. John Baumgardner also reported that the Turks found PETRIFIED WOOD.

This report states:

�Since the American team’s August visit the Turkish government has sent an archaeological group to the site and recovered four-foot-long iron spikes, petrified wood and other metal objects, Buamgardner said.�

AS a scientist, he isn’t going to report to Los Alamos Labs something he doesn’t know to be fact.

[Note: I have a copy of this newspaper report.]

We also have in hand Baumgardner’s newsletter dated December 17, 1986, in which he reports:

“We have reliable information that the Turkish government has had its scientists working there.� In his own handwriting he adds: As of April – Turks have recovered some artifacts at the site. They say it most certainly is the Ark.�


Q) WOOD

What do you say to the allegation that the “deck timber� Ron found has not been tested and verified?

ANSWER:

We are talking about a discovery which occurred on June 20, 1987.

Governor Sevket Ekenci of the Turkish province of Agri issued instructions that the American crew was to stay upon the hill. They were not to film this event – it was his. He allowed some journalists, a Turkish cameraman, some members of the military, and other dignitaries only, to witness the next events. Setting up the radar, Ron made several passes. Explaining the printout to the group with one of his liaisons, Mine Unler, translating, he noted that one particular reading appeared to be very near the surface. The Governor then ordered one of the soldiers to dig at the location Ron had indicated, which he did. There soon emerged what looked like a flat rock. As more dirt was removed, it could be seen that it was about 18 inches long and it was then removed.

The sample was three feet under the surface. It took 30 to 40 minutes to retrieve.

All captured on film, it was obvious that it was a petrified section of a hand-hewn timber! Everyone was stunned, but most of all, Ron. For 10 years, he had wanted to excavate but had never been allowed to retrieve anything that was not on the surface. His dream had come true! Not only was it a section of a timber, but it was almost perfectly preserved, showing the wood grain and perfect symmetry. The Governor then did something that could only be directed by a Divine Hand – he told Ron to take it to the States and have it tested. He then placed it in the radar case, which would protect the extremely valuable specimen during transport. The entire event was shown throughout Turkey on TRT (Turkish Radio and Television). It was a day Ron will never forget – not in a million years.

The Deck Timber Analysis

When Ron brought the petrified deck timber home, he, as well as all who saw it, knew that it LOOKED like a piece of wood turned to stone (petrified). However, looks CAN be deceiving, so on Sept. 16, he took the section of the petrified wood that had been dug up on June 20, to Galbraith Labs in Knoxville, TN. By now, everyone there knew him pretty well and whether they believed in Noah’s Ark or not, they are a superb laboratory and were very painstaking in all their analyses, including Ron’s. He videoed everything they did, including their taking the sample from the specimen, and the actual execution of the analysis. The important thing to determine was if the specimen contained organic carbon. A rock doesn’t, but petrified wood does.

Compounds of carbon can be analyzed to determine whether they are composed of matter that was non-organic, or organic, which means it can be determined whether they were once living-matter or not. It’s that simple. Therefore, the one test to determine if an object was organic (once living), or not, is to determine its carbon content – whether it contains organic carbon or not.

To run a test for organic carbon is extremely costly and complicated, so Gail Hutchens, Vice president of Gailbraith, suggested another route. They would run an analysis for total carbon content. This would include both inorganic and organic. Then, they would test for inorganic, which is a much simpler test. Then, the two tests would be compared. By subtracting the amount of inorganic from the total amount, the amount of organic carbon would be determined. The result was that it contained. 71% total carbon. Inorganic carbon totaled .0081%. It contained .7019% ORGANIC CARBON – almost 100 times more organic than inorganic!

The carbon content was certainly consistent with it having once been wood, although this test alone would not establish it to be wood. Every petrified object ever found that was once living – tree branch, bone, sea shell, etc. – will show organic carbon in its analysis. So, the specimen WAS once composed of living matter! Since it didn’t look like a bone or a shell, we felt pretty confident in stating that it was petrified wood.

This was, however, just one of the numerous testings to be done on what it was thought might be “deck timber�.

Q) WOOD: NO ORGANIC CARBON TEST?

Would you comment? Dr. Pennington asserts that “Gailbraith Laboratory’s test was absolutely incapable of discriminating between ‘organic’ carbon and inorganic (rock_source) carbon. For Wyatt to claim that the carbon was ‘organic is a falsehood.�

ANSWER:

I have beside me as I write, video footage shot inside Gailbraith Laboratory at the time of the testing. The spokeswoman for the lab gave a commentary on camera as the testing proceeded. She announced:

“We’re in the process of weighing the sample now, before the analysis for the total carbon, of this sample.

“The inorganic carbon will be included in this determination, all the carbon that’s present.

“As we burn the inorganic carbon, we’ll be able to tell the difference, if there’s any organic present in the material.�

She and other staff followed (on camera) with the results of the analysis (see previous question).

David Pennington charged Ron with falsehood because David Pennington believes this and anything else “Creation Science� may dream up.


Q) WOOD: NO THIN SECTION DONE?

D. Pennington says: “the only way to unequivocally identify petrified wood is to submit the sample to a thin section microscopic analysis, where the original cellular structure of the wood can be identified. Wyatt has been challenged more than once to do this, and he always refuses. Why? Because he knows it is not petrified wood.� Can you comment on this allegation?

ANSWER:

David Pennington quotes another “Creation Science� (Answers in Genesis�) lie and makes it his own. This is all the more sad, because he professes to be a Christian.

Subsequent to the Galbraith Lab analysis, the same specimen was examined by thin section under electron microscope.

In 1992, at Teledyne-Allvac labs, the entire process was videoed, from beginning to end, including the filming of the screens as they were viewed under the electron microscope.

Upon examination, these characteristics were noted:


1. Three separate layers of a wooden board laminated. That is, they were glued one upon another to provide extra strength, the glue between the layers being apparently of a resinous material. The excess of the cementing substance was squeezed out of the end of the plank, hardened, and remained fossilized. Where the cut was made, you can see how thin and even it is inside between each layer of board. It was squeezed and ran down to appear wider only on the outside. It’s an adhesive. And it’s laminated wood. That’s for sure.

2. A radial strie;

3. Wood fibres, with the grain showing on all surfaces of the part that had been sectioned open;

4. The bark of the wood separate from the heart of the wood.

While a photo of one of the electron microscope scans appears on page opposite (photo not available in this article), the complete data on all the tests will be released as soon as work is finished.

A very large number of witnesses are also on video.

All the tests have now been filed along with photographs of the thin sections.

The two outer layers have been identified as pecky cypress. The middle layer remains, as yet, unidentified.

The “Creation Science� accusation (authored by Andrew Snelling) that we do NOT have petrified wood, is answered by John Mackay, former director of “Creation Science� and now director of Creation Research Pty Ltd of Capalaba, Queensland, who testifies:

“John Mackay did go to Ron Wyatt’s to see the samples for himself both in 1991 and 1992 (which Andrew has not done) and can confirm that Ron Wyatt does have petrified wood which he claims is from the site.� (“The Ark Controversy – A Comment From Creation Research�, p.3)

Plywood in ancient Egypt

Jean-Phillipe Lauer, in his book Saqqara: The Royal Cemetry of Memphis, makes this statement concerning the knowledge of use of laminated “plywood� in very early Egypt:

“…within the remains of a coffin whos sides were made of six thin superimposed layers of wood with the grain alternating as in modern ply wood.� (p.99. pub. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York)

As we have just stated, an actual specimen from Noah’s Ark, presumably a piece of deck board, is made of laminated (ply) wood. The use of the same method by the early Egyptians proves that this knowledge was available in the early years of ancient Egypt, passed along undoubtedly through Noah’s offspring as they began to settle throughout the world. It would probably stagger the imagination if we knew how much technology was lost by man after the Flood.

Q) WOOD

But fossilized wood has been found with growth rings – so doesn’t that negate what you say about pre-Flood wood?

ANSWER:

If fossilized wood is found with growth rings, it is not pre-Flood, but post-Flood.

Fossilization is the result of catastrophism, in which rapid burial occurs before the living organism can decay. Fossils were buried in abundance during the Great Flood, but rarely form at present.

Since the Flood there have been many local catastrophes which have resulted in fossil beds being formed. These include trees which show growth rings.

Fossils do not take long to form. There have been several reports of man-made artifacts less than 200 years old, such as hats, which were found to be fossilized when dug up. A farmer near Hobard, Tasmania, was renewing a wooden fence known to be 60 years old. AS he pulled out a post, he noticed that its base was fossilized.

In situ fossil remains have been found across Europe, from Spain to Romania, where they grew above pre-existing fossil remains from the Flood. (Barry Seterfield, Creation and Catastrophe, p.48, 1993) This is not an isolated instance. Around the world there a re numerous fossilized remains from local catastrophes since the Flood. Any trees found in these will show growth rings.

Footnote:

A similar speed of chemical change pertains to the formation of coal.

On May 18, 1980, one volcanic explosion at Mount St. Helens flattened 150 square miles of forest in six minutes. Millions of trees, many with their balls of earth around their roots, were violently deposited in nearby Spirit Lake. They eventually sank to the lak floor in apparent growth positions. Mats of vegetation from the surrounding countryside were also catastrophically deposited in the lake and also sank to the floor of the lake. Within five years a multi-layered deposit of peat more than three feet thick was ready to turn to coal upon further burial.

In 1984, four years after this eruption, a man named Hayatsu at the Argonne National Labs in Illinois, U.S.A., made an important discovery. In the presence of volcanically produced clays as catalysts, temperatures of 150 degrees Celsius, and acidic flueids, typical of volcanic and hydrothermal environments, wood turned to coal in periods ranging from two weeks to one year. Good grade coal formed in four weeks and high grade coal in eight months. The conclusion is that coals formed catastrophically under volcanic condtions.� (Setterfield, p.40) This is the precise situation pertaining to the Great Flood volcanism, as well as to limited natural disasters since.

We’re talking about post-Flood fossils.


[Note: and two more question I’ll add to top it off]

Q) NOAH’S ARK PTICH

It is alleged that some pitch has been found (pitch was used to cover the inside and outside of the Ark’s wooden structure). However, why has no sample been openly produced and submitted for proper scientific analyses?

The “Creation Science� attack (authored by Andrew Snelling) also claims: “the only scientific procedure that could verify it as being pitch would be gas chromatographic analysis – the standard method used world-wide – for studying the chemical composition of all organic carbon materials.�

ANSWER:

A simple check with several laboratories will tell you that analyzing pitch by gas chromatography is a quick way to run up expensive cleaning bills. The pitch molecule is so large it ruins the gas columns. Therefore many laboratories prefer the practical I R spectral analysis. This is the type of mistake armchair academics make.

In the summer of 1990, Mr. Jack Bouma, an engineer and architect engaged by the Dutch government in the historical restoration of windmills, found a small sample of black tarry substance which appeared to have oozed out of a possible “deck support� on the eastern edge of the boat-shape.

This was later identified as bitumen or pitch, which is specifically mentioned in the construction of the Ark, in Gen. 6.

John Mackay, of Creation Research Pty Ltd, testifies that [b]the substance was subject to Fourier Transform Infra Red Spectral (F.T.I.R.) analysis in 1991).

Sydney industrial chemist, Jeff Smith, who arranged with the Oil Check Laboratory to conduct the test, states, “The trace produced by the analysis was compared by the oil laboratory with a standard trace from asphalt or bitumen. Beyond a shadow of a doubt the substance identified as pitch.� To remove any doubt we include a photocopy of the original F.T.I.R. trace and comparison. Note the date. (photocopy not scanned into the computer)

John Mackay adds, with honesty:

“Andrew has not checked his facts. If we in Creation Research tell you it’s pitch, it’s because investigation has proved it is pitch. If we tell you Ron Wyatt’s work is controversial, it’s because that also happens to be the truth.�


Q) FOSSILIZED DUNG?

Since there is evidence that both wild and domestic animals have wandered all over the area of the slopes of the Ararat region, then how can you claim your fossilized dung and animal hairs prove this to be Noah’s Ark? (D. Pennington)

Petrified animal anter, petrified animal dung, and animal hair have ALL COME FROM INSIDE THE STRUCTURE. Animal antler (petrified) was embedded in the Ark. Coralite (petrified animal droppings) are being PUSHED OUT where the side of the Ark is breaking away. Animal hair was found INSIDE the structure by drilling.

Each thread of evidence in itself means little, but it is the combination of virtually countless strands of evidence upon which to base a conclusion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------




Spaz,

Your wild imaginations are just set on spinning around traditional ideas that no iron was utilized in the bronze age, aren’t they? To say that iron was not used is absolute baloney. So for your answer, nope, your assumption doesn’t stand a chance against the laboratory tests that proved iron throughout the structure. Note the following:

Q) METAL BEFORE IRON AGE?

How could the Ark contain iron studs before the Iron Age?

ANSWER:

If Noah had built a ship of the size specified in the Bible, it made perfect sense to expect that he used metal in attaching the timbers together. After all, in Genesis, we learn that metal production was a science long before the time of the Flood: “And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah� (Gen. 4:22).

Noah couldn’t have used iron… Really? Perhaps it’s time to look at the fresh evidence coming from around the world. Long before the so-called “Iron Age�, human technology was incredibly advanced. In our book “Dead Men’s Secrets� some astonishing evidence of this is recorded.

Again, regarding the bronze and iron age theories, the discovery of a bronze tool and an iron tool place in the shafts of the Cehops pyramid indicates that Egypt was more technologically advanced than first supposed, the pyramids are younger than claimed, or both.


[NOTE: And here is some info regarding the rivet excavated on the site:]

Much more evidence on this rivet will be revealed when research is completed, including the presence of organic carbon which is not present in basalt, as “Creation Science� claims what the rivet was. The author of the “Creation Science� (“Answers in Genesis�) article attacking the rivet has never seen the rivet.

The combined analyses of the fossilized rivet provide more than ample evidence that it was composed of an ally which contained aluminum, iron and titanium; an alloy which would be extremely strong, lightweight and resistant to the corrosion of the sea waters. Is all this coincidence? The ballast likewise contains elements which are completely consistent with that of aluminum, titanium and iron alloy productions.

The rivet contains elements which are consistent with a very high-tech alloy. For further evidence “The major alloying elements that are added to titanium and aluminum, vanadium, molybdenum, manganese, iron and chromium.� (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, vol. 18, p.456) All three analyses of the riven show iron, aluminum, manganese, vanadium and chromium. Perhaps one or two of these things could be accepted as “coincidence�, but the entire picture is one that cannot be denied.

Thus the composition of the object is consistent with that of a sophisticated man-made alloy.

-------------------------------------------------------------

If you’re still under the premise that you cannot have Iron during this time, you’ve lost your marbles bud and are far behind in knowing all the evidence that is out there that speaks otherwise.


Lmarka,

Unfortunately, I see your comprehension level to be severely handicapped. All of these 200 civilizations existed AFTER the Flood! Not like traditional scientists have been lying to you for years about. The records of a global flood were handed down from generation to generation and the story’s integrity was preserved among many of the civilizations. The story was handed down, and each civilization’s interpretation was adapted according to their belief system. Nonetheless, the fact that the stories exist shows an incredible link to the biblical account.


My conclusion:

Folks, let us be bold enough face reality—to face truth, be honest, and evaluate all with an unbiased approach. If the evidence speaks for itself, be willing to admit that the data gathered from the Durupinar site is consistent with the Biblical record of Noah’s Ark.

The evidence speaks for itself, that the Bible may not be such a book of fables as supposedly thought. Be willing to see that it may indeed be the word of a living God. No one in the Day of Judgment will be able to say “I couldn’t see the evidence�. The evidence presented leaves no room for excuse. It is your choice. Take it or leave it.

This is all I have to say for now as my original intention was not to come in here for debate, but for honest hearted discourse.


~Contributing Researcher and Editor for Wyatt Archaeological Research Foundation ~
~ Comp/Network Specialist ~
~ Business owner of PracTek Computing (www.practek.com) ~

DaMan121

Still dont see how any of the above answers any of these questions:
* Why has a world wide flood not left ANY evidence of happening, geologically speaking.
* How did Noah fit all the dinasours in there
* Where did he put the fresh water and tropical climate fish?
* How did a simple man and his wife care of thousands of animals?
etc etc

The way the flood is described in the bible is total BS. There may have been a local flood, fine... Heck there may have been a local flood and a dude named Noah had a boat with some of his farm animals on it.. fine. But please, how can you post any of that with a straight face?

Coragyps

"Burn the inorganic carbon"??!!
I shake my old chemist's head in bewilderment.