Noah's Ark Found in Iran?!

[Crow]

Hi Dr. Morton,

Just a few questions for you. All of which are intended with respect and Christian love.

You are Christian, right?
Why?... i mean, what makes you believe that Jesus is Christ?
You dont believe in a global, world wide flood of Noah's day, right?
Why not?

I ask this because of:

Scripture Verse:

Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Gen 9:12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.

Honest, this was not meant to offend. I hope it is not taken that way.

God Bless,
johnny


edited to correct a quote tag error (mine)

I know that you didn't direct this to me, but I'd like to throw my two cents worth in.

God could have chosen to create as the Genesis account reads taken literally. Having said that, there's a great deal of evidence which indicates that this isn't how it happened.

If there were a global flood a few thousand years ago the geological and fossil records would look dramatically different than they do. Rather than try to squeeze the facts into my view of creation, I examined the facts are and asked myself "what is true?" I went from YEC to OEC to being a Christian who believes that evolution is the best explaination we have for how life came to exist in it's current form. My faith in Christ as my savior hasn't changed a bit.

What has changed is my opinion of what Genesis was intended to be. I don't believe that it was intended to be a literal account nor a scientific record. This isn't a turning away from God but a change, coming after consideration of available evidence, in how I honestly believe that the Genesis creation account should be interpreted.

When all is said and done, I'd rather face God and find out that I had been dead wrong in my interpretation of the Genesis creation account than face God as a hypocrite who allied myself with a view which I believed to be false and as a Christian who knowingly said things about Him which I believed to be untruthful. God doesn't demand that we put our faith in a literal Genesis creation account as opposed to an allegorical Genesis creation account. Our beliefs regarding the manner in which Genesis should be interpreted are not what saves us.

[NeilUnreal]

When all is said and done, I'd rather face God and find out that I had been dead wrong in my interpretation of the Genesis creation account than face God as a hypocrite who allied myself with a view which I believed to be false...

I've been building up way too many pearls lately, and I think your post is more than reason enough to pass some on.

5 Pearls

-Neil

[lao tzu]

Since I have never felt limited by not having a Ph. D. and have done things like getting patents submitted, publishing scientific papers, being a director of technology for my company, I see no reason to waste my time getting a piece of paper. I sometimes like it when a Ph. D. in geology or geophysics underestimates me. They never do it a second time.

[emphasis mine]

I'd like to point out to the lurkers who believe peer review is some kind of credential-based club that Glenn is a prime example that this is not the case. Nor is it necessary that they kow-tow to any particular religious beliefs. What is necessary is that you present defensible information based on objective observations.

By the way, Glenn, I think a PhD would be useful for you if you ever wanted to move into academia, but with your publication record, I'd imagine you'd find yourself fast-tracked. I know of three PhD's in my own field who've gone that route.

As ever, Jesse

[WaterOfOblivion]

If it were petrified wood, it would be incapable of being carbon dated.

Isn't there another method for dating? (If someone says "e-harmony.com" I'm goin' postal.)

[lao tzu]

Isn't there another method for dating? (If someone says "e-harmony.com" I'm goin' postal.)

Radiocarbon is very good where it works at all ... on organics less than 50,000 years old. After that, you've exceeded ten half-lives and have to move on to things that decay more slowly.

I've searched out a post I made a few months ago on IIDB ... here's the relevant section.

These are the principal parent and daughter isotopes used to determine the ages of rocks and minerals. It's a fairly short list. Eight parent-daughter pairs. Parents are radioactive, daughters are stable. The following information comes from Dalrymple's "The Age of the Earth" which I cited earlier. I've sorted this list by half-lives of the decay reactions.

147Sm -> 143Nd (106 Ga) ... samarium-neodymium (alpha decay)
87Rb -> 87Sr (48.8 Ga) ... rubidium-strontium (beta- decay)
176Lu -> 176Hf (35.9 Ga) ... lutetium-hafnium (beta- decay)
187Re -> 187Os (43 Ga) ... rhenium-osmium (beta- decay)
232Th -> 208Pb (14 Ga) ... thorium-lead (9 decays)

238U -> 206Pb (4.47 Ga) ... uranium-lead (14 decays)
40K -> 40Ar (1.25 Ga) ... potassium-argon (electron capture)
235U -> 207Pb (704 Ma) ... uranium-lead (11 decays)

[bandecoot]

Isn't there another method for dating? (If someone says "e-harmony.com" I'm goin' postal.)

There are stratigraphic dating methods. Like the Thermoluminesence methods, but they would be useless here. the feature is exposed...no strata to date.

I am wondering, like Glenn, why on earth the sent supposedly petrified wood to be carbon dated. Its the wrong method to start with.

Sectioning and Microscopy to look for lithified xylem would be the smarter way to go. Its not a dating method but it establish if these features were wood.
Assuming they want to get an answer rather than spin out the controversy for years, whilst siphoning the wallets of the credulous.

[FreezBee]

Radiocarbon is very good where it works at all ... on organics less than 50,000 years old. After that, you've exceeded ten half-lives and have to move on to things that decay more slowly.

.. and are still organic. The problem with petrified wood is that they are petrified, implying not organic.


- FreezBee

[lao tzu]

I am wondering, like Glenn, why on earth they sent supposedly petrified wood to be carbon dated. Its the wrong method to start with.

<snip>

Assuming they want to get an answer rather than spin out the controversy for years, whilst siphoning the wallets of the credulous.

Of course, we all understand they didn't send petrified wood out for carbon dating. The real question is what, if anything, they actually did send out to be dated. At this point, I'd like to know if Beta Analytic has any records of a sample, any sample, being submitted to them from this crew.

As to what motivates this kind of con artist, who knows. It's for sure and certain that Americans don't go wandering in the Iranian mountains for their tourism value. They don't like us much over there.

As ever, Jesse

[FreezBee]

As to what motivates this kind of con artist, who knows. It's for sure and certain that Americans don't go wandering in the Iranian mountains for their tourism value. They don't like us much over there.

Are you perhaps suggesting that the expeditions members were disguised spies for George W.? And that the "petrified wood" really was samples supposedly taken from Iranian nuclear deposits?

- FreezBee

[WaterOfOblivion]

Iran is a great place for a hoax, so little access.

[NeilUnreal]

Iran is a great place for a hoax, so little access.

Which only goes to prove the genius of the Scottish. The Loch Ness hoax didn't really get into full swing until Loch Ness became accessible as a tourist spot.

-Neil MacUnreal

[Crow]

As to what motivates this kind of con artist, who knows. It's for sure and certain that Americans don't go wandering in the Iranian mountains for their tourism value. They don't like us much over there.

They haven't realized the potential of a Lost Ark™ theme park. A little direction, and they could be raking it in. A movie, the book tie-ins, action figures....

[WaterOfOblivion]

So, you admit that I am a genius.

[NeilUnreal]

So, you admit that I am a genius.

If you are Scottish, then you are a Genius; at least according to my Scottish American mother.

-Neil

[The Curtmudgeon]

Which only goes to prove the genius of the Scottish. The Loch Ness hoax didn't really get into full swing until Loch Ness became accessible as a tourist spot.

-Neil MacUnreal

But Neil, there wasn't any point to a Loch Ness hoax until they could start raking in the tourist dollars!

The (they only thing they're missing now is chartered group scuba dives) Curtmudgeon