First of Eljay once again my hat comes off to you.....I have to agree with Eljay that I have not once seen either voil or abra really have any iron clad evidence to support their beliefs other then to say my source is a myth...


And exactly like you, it has only to do with the way in which you deliver your message, which was the first ever message I addressed to you a few weeks back, to which you agreed wholeheartedly in an e-mail to me, along with your appreciation for pointing it out.

Voil: First off I want you to know I love you......and honestly on the first e-mail I totally misunderstood what you were saying to me. I though you were telling me that I was right on but not on the delivery. Then of course the more I got to know you...the more I understood where you were coming from. So I will tell you now to clear it up......I will never stop defending my Lord God....and honestly not saying out of arrogance just love for Him....A love that is greater then for anyone or anything on this earth....And nothing will sway me from that ever. Take me as I am or suck a rock....also out of love....

And sorry sweet voil he is my bodyguard...cmon this is the first site where I actually have people on my side....how refreshing is that for me....so no not sharing.....

Wait ok I will share but only if your a good boy.....any arrogant ass remarks and you can't have him anymore...and then of course the decision is up to wouldee.

We’ve been over this topic a thousand times in the forums, I get tired of typing in the same information that people refuse to believe anyway. What’s the point in telling people what the evidence is if they are just going to pretend it doesn’t exist?

People want to argue that the earth isn’t even 4.5 billion years old. I mean, let’s forget about evolution altogether if people are going to be rejecting basic facts that are well-established there is much sense in even talking with them.

That’s like talking to someone on the Internet who doesn’t believe that computers exist.

Are they really that lame? Or are they just trying to spark a reaction?



If you have to denounce reality in order to defend your Lord God you’re in a pretty bad position. Like I say, that’s like typing into the Internet that the Internet can’t exist because your Lord God says so.

It’s absurd. It’s just plain silly.

When does a believe in a religion that has absolutely no proof or evidence behind it come into question????

In fact, people have posted on these forum ample information that show the self-inconsistency of the Bible.

People have posted links to sites that clearly show that other men taught the very same things, and made the very same claims as Jesus did, only they lived thousands of years before Jesus was ever even born!

People have posted the myriad of parallels between Christianity and dozens of other Mediterranean myths. The folklore goes on and on.

Yet, you’re real quick to dispel all of that as myth whilst holding onto the claim that your version is somehow valid (with absolutely NO PROOF).

And then your require indisputable ‘proof’ of well-established scientific facts that are supported by TONS of evidence. Evidence that you simply refuse to believe.

Honey, it’s not UP for BELIEF!!!

The fossil records are in the museums you can go and TOUCH the evidence yourself if you’re inclined to do so! No need to have blind faith. All that’s required is a little bit of education.

And if these things deny the existence of your Lord God, then I can’t say much about that.

That’s obviously your conclusion.

My god is completely independent of anything science has to say. Whatever science uncovers as the truth of this universe necessarily fits in with my god because my god created this universe. Que Sara Sara.

You’re just complaining because reality doesn’t match up with ancient mythology.

James...

I concur...

I cannot find reason to fight with my own beliefs... I look intentionally for such holes... and it is quite easy to accidentally offend some... like walking on eggshells... with a "spacesuit" on...

Whatever advances our civilization comes up with as far as knowledge goes, must not go against the belief system which I have...

I am quite curious though, in regards to all the similarities between religions and myths... there seems to be several common denominators... perhaps there is some truth buried somewhere in there, huh? Thus the need for "religious archeology"...

One thing noone can deny... there IS an answer that makes perfect sense, should we ever have the ability to know what is not known... it will fit with that which is already known... It must fit... or dispell...

WOW!!!

The cheerleaders are out on the field!!!

OK?

Where's the teeam for The Evos?

What is their defensive squad's tactical prowess but to scorn closed minds with fully developed awareness of what constitutes a closed mind?

The gray area on the ground covered by white paper analysis decrying the need for evidence no more valuable than as an absorbant for the spilled black and white paint of right and wrong.


Thereis no need to bring out the other team.

The Evos defence is incapable of an offence.

The offence of the Evos is their delusion that God didn't create man as he intended him from the outset.

Where are the whiners?

Deny God and making excuses for themselves and watching their chherleaders preach to the choir of the self deluded.


WOW!!!!

What a waste of the public good.

And reinforcing it on young children's minds while Congress spends our kids futures and hands the world an empty bag of worthless debt and alienation.

Moral compass anyone?

Look up!!!!

Take off the filthy rags and weave a new suit.

This one won't even make a straight.

I only WISH we were playing poker.

We are not.

The Evos are playing Ruskie Roulette on my watch.

Get off the swing and back to school.

You were sent there to learn and not just eat your lunch!!!


Like popeye once said, "Ehhhh, how do you like me now? Never did, did ya?"

I'm currently reading a book that parody's the evolution theory, its called The Last Continent, by Terry Pratchett (and its really funny btw). Anyway, theres a group of wizards discussing how theres no such thing as evolution because when lemmings jump off a cliff, they don't grow wings and fly off, they die every time, so its imposable for anything to evolve.

Just throwing that out there, this debate seems to be getting harsher by the hour O_O

We each express that which lives within us... whether we like it or not... THAT is a fact

Your turn... I ask for one fact...

We can start here... amicably, should you choose...

I want to read that!

You just did...

We should agree here... do you not agree with this wouldee, honestly... all kidding aside, do you not agree?

on many levels, I do agree with you both.

One must stand somewhere.

My whole discourse was proferred at the outset in the first thread of this debate.

This is my stand. Where the consensus at the close of the debate settles is open to the work of this venture.

My personal involvement is governing my outlook from that perspective.

Conclusory statements as those I'm capable of engendering do no more than outline a direction.

Too much information to be making vocal, but why not.

I know what I know.


At the end of the day, I hope to glean some useful knowledge that benefits my understanding of man and science.


But I cannot stand resolutely as I would with the two of you elsewhere. I have committed myself to maintain the clarity of my viewpoint in the interests of the debate.

Feral only knows what you know.

Read it. It's on page one.







ABRA and CREATIVE....both, for clarity only

Then you as myself better do it thousand and one....because believe me you I am sure I have done this a thousand times more.

And its not that I wouln't believe if it made more sense then what I already believe.
And I hate to break it to you...but there is no actual proof that the earth is 4.5 billions of years old..There is also scientific proof theat things they dug up were years old instead of millions of years old.

Oh please.....give me a break and stop thinking your the smartest in the class abra.....you analogy of the internet and computer is weak at best.

Again this little piece about typing into the internet that it can't exsist because my God says so.......ok really reaching for lameness with that one.

And there is alot of evidence that my Lord and his son are real....and were and will be back. ..not only with the Bible but also has history to back it up.....I have yet to see any of you show me inconsistency with the Bible in any way shape or form......not once......I would love you to show me that.


I don't dispute fossil records I dispute the actual age of these fossils. ver have the ability to kn

I do dispute the fossil record.

I hold that its complete.

no evidence to the contrary.

Although, I remain a bit skeptical of why some of these creatures are not mentioned in the Bible, unless, of course, an enemy in the garden was playing God and practicing its arts with autonomy and aplomb.


OOPSEY DAISY!!!!!!!!!!

ABBOT!!!!!! i been a very bad boyyyyyyyyyy.....

This is my take on the dino and fossil......If according to the Bible the earth is 8,000 years old....and the dino's came before man and the great flood happen....this is what I think...There is proof with the bones that they show them in layers trying to get our by climbing up the mountains......and they were trying to escape the great flood...and thats why the bones of dino's are in layers from them trying to get away.

I stand corrected.



I think this is a bit odd - for most of the work of apologetics in the realm of Christianity is to do just that - bring in line the manipulative fundamentalists with their controlling agenda's and careful interpretation of scripture to support their cultish views. However, because you are often short on citing examples of what you deem "fundamentalists", I never know if we're fighting the same battle - or at war with each other.



When that "fundamentalism" crosses the line to manipulation - yes, it does discredit Christianity. However how broad a picture are you painting for fundies? I often feel that anyone who puts faith in the God of the scriptures - and the obvious percieved truths of the bible - gets painted with your brush.
This is why I often ask you for more specific references to just who you are refering to. An example would be that you see Spider as a fundie (unless I'm just not understanding any of your psts) - I do not.



I just have a hard time understanding the premises that form your logical conclusions at times. It generally comes down to a mis-understanding of semantics. Or a disagreement. It has depended largely on the subject at hand.



Your sincerity is not in doubt my friend.

Abra - my point is, without the evidence - or even just a reference, what's to pretend? Why think it exists because someone wrote it down in a scientific journal? Seems to me that I've heard this somewhere before....



I do not believe that the age of the earth has anything to do with Evolution. But Evolution is singularly dependent on the age of the earth. In order to believe Evolution as an "Origin of the Species" - the earth cannot be a mere 6-8,000 years old, and the flood of Genesis could not have occured. Plain and simple. You cannot have both - Evolutionary Origin and Creation origin. So in order to accept one, the other must be disproved. I don't have the same criteria to readily dismiss the scriptures as you do - so I'm pre-disposed to question Evolution (as Origin of species) until it demonstrates with clear fact that the flood did not occur. I seem to recall there being as many scientific studies demonstrating the logical comclusion that a major catastrophy of biblical proportion has occured in the ancient days gone by. This - in and of itself puts to question the idea that the earth is 4.5 billion years old - as "Fact".



For you - the accounts of scientists (who's accredidation comes from - well other scientists) who publish their findings is deemed as unquestionable fact. Yet the eyewitness accounts of Jesus are deemed as delusional fools. Surely even you can appreciate the humor in this. What - I ask - constitutes "proof". Scientific America? The bible? The "Internet".



Most of the posts I've seen has only demonstrated an inconsistant understanding of Exegesis when it comes to interpreting the "biblical-inconsistancies" they've sighted.
And when called on it - the posters give up the Ghost.



This actually demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of Prophecy if one were to take the comparisons of any of the "percieved" parallels to Christianity as equally valid.



The evidence is not in question. It is the conclusions that are formed based on what the evidence "posibbly" represents is what is in doubt. That evidence could easily prove - without question - that the flood of Genesis is absolute FACT. Just a matter of what one is willing to beleive.



Until you provide me with evidence to the contrary - these things absolutely support the existance of God as I understand the bible to portay him.



That's obviously My conclusion.

I guess we just live in differnet worlds. You seem to be suggesting that science is nothing more than what people write in books. It’s true that they write these things in book for the benefit of others. But reading books is NOT doing science.

I’ve spent most of my life in laboratories and doing hands-on field research. I never believe anything I read, until I’ve thoroughly convinced myself of it myself. So for me science is far more than just people’s opinions.

As far as the “eyewitness” accounts of Jesus are concerned, yet it most certainly does appear to be the report of ‘delusional fools’, most people aren’t even aware of the fact that there are only four gospels of Jesus (i.e. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and those four gospels don’t even agree with each other in all the details. In fact only two of them make any claims about Jesus having risen form the dead. If there was any real truth that that one you’d think that all four of them would have the same account.



Absolutely not. You’d really need to be desperate to try to believe that one. A single world-wide flood simply isn’t compatible with any geologic findings. If you wanted to use flood scenarios to explain things you’d have to have many world-wide floods, not just one. And even if you are willing to do that there are still huge problems with the idea of such floods. They just don’t fit the data at all. Not to mention the problem of where all the water would have come from and where it would have disappeared to. In other words, you’d have to invoke magic to explain it, not physics.

If you’re going to invoke magic for your explanations then anything goes. But the fact doesn’t change that whoever the magician is he would seriously be attempting to delude us with false information. That kind of behavior doesn’t correspond with the type of God that is trying to be supported in the first place. So it’s a lose-lose situation.



Some people still believe the earth is flat too. Not much sense in arguing with them. They aren’t going to believe reasonable evidence anyway.

But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded. Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed, and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down, and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. Genesis 8

Note to the Reader: An irony here is that Christians do not (at least they shouldn't) need proof that the ark existed to believe it existed--and on the other hand even if non-believers could take a tour inside they still wouldn't believe! These articles don't prove that the ark is on Mount Ararat--what they're seeing could be something else entirely--but it sure is interesting.

The CIA and Noah's Ark:

First Five Books of the Bible May Not Be That Bad As History

by Timothy Maier, Copyright November 2000,

Insight Magazine

See Also Article at Space.com

In the midst of a 1993 panel discussion in Palm Beach, Fla., about the Persian Gulf War, attorney Porcher Taylor fired away at the guest speaker of the evening, former CIA deputy director for national intelligence George Carver, who had just finished making a national-security speech to 400 serious-minded listeners.

Two views of the Ararat Anomaly

Dr. Carver, I'm a West Point graduate, Taylor began as a tape recorder rolled. Click and drag photo to resize. Script from The Java Script Source

While I was a cadet at the academy in 1973, there was a strong rumor going around that one of our military spy satellites was flying down the Russian/ Turkish corridor taking photographs of a Soviet missile site and, apparently accidentally, took photographs on the Turkish side of a large wooden object which apparently appeared to be a ship stuck in a glacier at about 14,000 feet on Mount Ararat.

Strong rumor going around the academy at the time was that apparently our intelligence people at the CIA might have classified photographs of Noah's Ark. I was wondering if you had any comments about that.

The audience erupted in laughter; such a question seemed out of place. But silence quickly fell over the room as the guest speaker responded.

Well, I don't recall the CIA working on Noah's Ark, replied Carver, who is the only person in the history of the agency to be awarded the distinguished Intelligence Medal. But I do remember that at the time there were some pictures taken and there were clear indications that there was something up on Mount Ararat, which was rather strange.

There were various archaeological expeditions that were mounted. The Turkish government was not too thrilled about supporting them because it was getting into an area that was politically dicey from the Turks point of view.

The famous intelligence expert paused. "You know," he said, "I haven't been up there; I don't think anyone has. But it certainly was eyebrow-lifting and it was certainly another indication that, despite its splendor as a work of poetry, the Pentateuch - the first five books of the Bible - might not be all that bad as history also.

No one was laughing anymore, and what he heard inspired Taylor to begin a seven-year project to obtain mysterious intelligence records dealing with Mount Ararat declassified. Jews and Christians shouldn't be the only ones interested in the Ark story, says Taylor.

The Koran also reports the Ark as history, as do about 160 cultures. Then there are the ancient historians as far back as 275 B.C. who refer to an anomalous ship high on a mountain in this remote northeast corner of Turkey.

While the Operation Desert Storm audience did not at first take Taylor seriously, that wasn't the case when the late Apollo astronaut Col. James Irwin announced that he planned to devote his remaining years to finding the great ship. As he explained, I thought the Lord wanted me involved in finding artifacts from the Genesis time that would be more important than the Genesis Rock we found on the moon.

Hundreds of explorers have entertained thoughts of similar missions, but none more famous than Titanic discoverer Robert Ballard, who has found ancient artifacts that may date back to Noah's time while probing the floor of the Black Sea.

So far he has found architectural remnants, pieces of ceramic and stone tools. Ballard also found evidence of a sunken coastline, appearing to confirm a theory proposed in the book Noah's Flood by William Ryan and Walter Pitman, senior scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. They speculated that saltwater from the Mediterranean burst into the Black Sea, then a freshwater lake, with such force that it completely flooded an area the size of Florida.

Click and drag photo to resize. Script from The Java Script Source

(Photo: Satellite courtesy of Insight Magazine)

Even the History Channel is getting into "Ark fever", searching Mount Ararat for a story to be told next year. And over the years there have been hundreds of expeditions in search of Noah's Ark - many detailed in world-famous linguist Charles Berlitz's book The Lost Ship of Noah and Ark searcher B.J. Corbin's book The Explorers of Ararat.

One such expedition involved an alleged discovery by the Russian imperial air force, which is supposed to have sent 150 men up Mount Ararat in 1916 to explore a large object said to be as long as a city block. If so, no records ever were produced to verify the account.

In 1955, French explorer Fernand Navarra reported finding a 5-foot wooden beam on Mount Ararat some 40 feet under the Parrot Glacier on the northwest slope and well above the treeline. The Forestry Institute of Research and Experiments of the Ministry of Agriculture in Spain certified the wood to be about 5,000 years old. However, Navarra's guide later claimed the French explorer bought the beam from a nearby village and carried it up the mountain.

A year later, Ark fever hit a new high as U.S. military spy planes began photographing the area, perhaps because the Soviets were building a missile base 40 miles away. An Insight review of declassified records and interviews with senior intelligence officials confirms the CIA has a long paper trail concerning the "boatlike structure" on Mount Ararat.

What does the CIA know? Quite a bit. It was all stamped "Secret" and tucked away in what the agency calls the "Mount Ararat Anomaly" file. Taylor kept insisting that it be released. He even reached the level of Vice President Al Gore, who handed it off to senior intelligence agencies -some of which consider Taylor a national-security threat for digging into sophisticated spy imagery.

In 1994, Taylor caught the ear of former CIA director James Woolsey, who tried to get his agency to conduct a comprehensive analysis but decided against it for cost reasons, according to declassified CIA memos. Woolsey declines to comment about the anomaly but acknowledges he tried to help Taylor.

Memos to Woolsey from his staff indicate the CIA had Mount Ararat imagery from 1990 and 1992 as well as three decades of documents on the anomaly. According to declassified CIA records, Woolsey was told it would take four to six weeks of work and six months for an imagery expert to analyze all the data.

Dino Brugioni, the retired founder of the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center, reviewed one still-classified 1956 U-2 photo of the anomaly when it was brought to his attention.

Did Brugioni see the Ark?

Oh, it looked like a bow of a ship stuck in the mountain, Brugioni tells Insight. But it did not conform with the Bible dimensions. It was much too large. We had a good dimension of what the Ark was in meters and the anomaly was too big.

Trouble is that some scholars note the biblical measure used to describe the Ark - a cubit - may be anywhere between 18 inches and 3 feet, which might make the Ark bigger than the Titanic.

Analysts who reviewed a 1973 KH-9 satellite photo of the anomaly say it resembles one end of a possible ship, recalls a senior intelligence source who spoke on condition of anonymity. The image was an enlargement of objects protruding from the snow on Mount Ararat, the source says.

These objects appeared to be portions of large, rectangular slabs which might have been wooden beams, or might have been large segments of rock, the source says. Two of these slabs met at one point and appeared to curve away from the point in a way similar to beams that might form the bow of a large ship. A third slab joined the other two and also curved away from the point in a way suggestive of the stem or keel of a ship.

Click and drag photo to resize. Script from The Java Script Source

(Photo:Descent of Noah from Mount Ararat (1889)by Hovhanes Aivazovsky, National Gallery of Armenia)

The source continues, A CIA photo interpreter says he believed the objects were man-made and that they gave the appearance of massive beams at the prow of a ship. And we all agreed they certainly did; however, given the nature of other objects visible in the area, the objects seemed at least equally likely to be slabs of rock. We discussed the matter for perhaps 15 minutes, and the consensus of the more experienced photo interpreters was that the objects were indeed natural rock slabs and not man-made beams of wood.

The younger analyst was keenly disappointed because he had thought that he might have discovered the bow of Noah's Ark. The more senior imagery specialists present remained skeptical and said that without higher-quality imagery we could not be sure; and, since neither the Ark nor that particular area were on any of our target lists, we should not pursue the matter further - and we dropped it.

Although Woolsey picked up the mystery in 1994, it was Carver's interest and Taylor's insistence that prompted the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to declassify photograph frames taken from a motion-picture camera on June 17, 1949, by a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance flight over Mount Ararat.

Carver died before he could see the fruits of his labors with Taylor. The DIA declassified its first photograph of the anomaly in 1995. However, a review of DIA records collected by Taylor shows that the agency was far from forthcoming.

For example, in 1995, after releasing a single photo to Taylor, the DIA stated there were no more photos. Taylor filed another Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and, four months later, DIA released a second image.

After Taylor filed a third FOIA, the DIA released five additional frames three months later, in addition to providing three blown-up images of three of the frames. Flying at about 14,000 feet parallel to Mount Ararat, which is about 18 miles south of Russia and 12 miles west of the Iranian border, the Air Force cameras had zeroed in on a strange boxlike object. The anomaly was protruding from the glacial ice cap at 15,500 feet at the northwest edge of the nearly mile-long Western Plateau. It was about 1.3 miles west of the summit.

The DIA refused to release the entire film, claiming no other shots were taken of Mount Ararat. But since it released photos identified by the Air Force as frames two, four, five, six, seven and 23, it stands to reason that there are at least 18 more shots available.

For example, what is on frame 22 Of those snaps, only frame seven is not of the anomaly but of a volcanic crater. The five others are of the anomaly but from different angles. Frames two and 23 are a panoramic view of the front side or southwestern view of the mountain, which the DIA enlarged for Taylor. Frames four, five and six are of the back side or north view of the mountain and were not enlarged.

The DIA also released the photo frames to Insight but, again, declined to provide the entire film or imagery from the KH-9 or KH-11 satellites. Robert P. Richardson, FOIA officer for the DIA, tells Insight the agency "lost" the satellite imagery.

The DIA's ruling is on appeal. Insight also requested all documents of the Ararat Anomaly from the U.S. Air Force, the CIA, the National Reconnaissance Office and, of course, the DIA.

So far none of the other agencies have released the imagery - despite Executive Order 12958 requiring the mandatory release of historical records, including satellite imagery, 25 years old or older.

We couldn't release it because of the resolution and because it shows what we were targeting, says a senior intelligence source. The target, which is not the Soviet missile base, is thought by Turkish authorities to be CIA listening posts buried in the ice that once were used to track Soviet missiles.

The CIA will not confirm or deny this, but an intelligence source tells Insight, We had listening posts on the mountain, but I don't know why or if they are still up there.

The DIA did conduct an analysis in 1995 in response to Taylor's personal request. This unprecedented decision to analyze the 1949 photos for a private citizen resulted in a declassified two-page report. According to this report, the DIA didn't rule out the possibility that it was a man-made structure but stated the anomaly shown in frames two and 23 "appears" to be one of these linear facades in the glacier ice underlying more recently accumulated ice and snow.

The ever-optimistic Taylor tells Insight, "I'm encouraged they say appears," but he says he remains frustrated. The DIA refused to offer analysis for frames four, five and six, which show a pair of three prongs or symmetrical beams protruding from the mountain. Taylor had those frames enlarged by DNA Electronic Imaging Specialists in Hollywood, Fla.

Roman Gomez, an imaging specialist then at DNA, analyzed the photos. He noted there is nothing else like that anywhere else on the mountain. Retired senior physicist and satellite-imagery analyst for the U.S. Navy's Naval Surface Warfare Center Clifford Paiva also says, Preliminary assessment of the anomaly's parallel and orthogonal lines of symmetry, as well as curved and circular lines of symmetry, indicate cultural 'man-made' etiology.

Taylor says he understands the reluctance to declassify satellite imagery, but what about that low-level 1949 Air Force motion-picture film? "If DIA is correct and it's a rock, then tell me why they classified a rock as "Secret"" for 51 years Taylor asks. Maybe it was more than just a routine mission. Maybe they knew what they were doing.?

http://www.s8int.com wonderful site if you would like to look at.

Here is something a little more up to date.
Notice that the 'science' being used is totally restricted to long range, reproduced images. Also, notice that there is no 'clear' distinctions only guesses at size and shape. There is also, admittadly, much that can not be seen. For the full article, the URL is provided.

Also, the conclusion of the article maintains that visual confirmations, or ascertations will not take the place of actual scientific hands-on ground work.

Beware of any science that embellishes the possible outcomes with connections to the Bible. These are most excellent tools to use, when 'digging' for money to accomplish the task.

http://www.space.com/news/060309_ark_update.html

EXCLUSIVE: Satellite Sleuth Closes in on Noah's Ark Mystery
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 09 March 2006
06:34 am ET



But whether the anomaly is some geological quirk of nature, playful shadows, a human-made structure of some sort, or simply nothing at all-that remains to be seen.

Whatever it is,

"I'm calling this my satellite archeology project,"

"I maintain that if it is the remains of something manmade

"Along with many other image manipulation functions ... I also used the pseudo-color function trying to determine if I could detect anything under the ice and snow," Franz said.

The face of the anomaly measured 1,015 feet (309 meters) across, Franz said. "I also found the shape of the anomaly appears to fit on a circle. I am not sure what this means, if anything, but I find it curious."

Given that length, Taylor pointed out, the anomaly dwarfs the Titanic and Bismarck in size, and equals the size of the largest modern aircraft carrier. That analysis would seem to call into question whether the anomaly is a wooden ship and raises a key question: If a boat were truly that huge, would it float?
There are also experts in remote sensing who offer a skeptical view.

"Image interpretation is an art,"

"One has to be familiar with Sun lighting effects on the shape of observed features," El-Baz said. "Very slight changes in slope modify shadow shapes that affect the interpretations. Up to this time, all the images I have seen can be interpreted as natural landforms.

Visual truth serum
Thanks to more satellite imagery in the offing, as well as other studies underway, Taylor said his remote archeological research is on the upswing.

There is an ultimate end-game. That is, on-the-spot ground truth ... and Taylor hopes his research findings will catalyze a top-notch expedition to the area.

"It is whatever it is," he said. But for now, satellite remote sensing to carry out archeological "digs" from space will fill in for an in-the-field expedition.




http://www.space.com/news/060309_ark_update.html

EXCLUSIVE: Satellite Sleuth Closes in on Noah's Ark Mystery
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer
posted: 09 March 2006
06:34 am ET

Feral,

We're making progress!!!

I have come across something that we bth agree upon, I think!!!

I agree 100%, that you believe everything (word for word) in the bible to be absolute and only source of truth.

I further agree, that anything you consider to be a contradiction with your personnal understanding of every word of the bible as FINAL TRUTH, IS NOTHING ELSE THAN IMPOSSIBLE, AND THEREFORE, A FALSE CLAIM OR A LIE.

100% agreement on 2 'fundamental' points. Now that is progress!!!

And just to let you know, I'm working on this momentary inconsistency, which I'm sure, I'll have worked out in no time with a bit of your help.

Here is the hick-up. If we both agree that you believe 100% in that the only source of the absolute and only truth is the Bible, ...

... why do you feel the need to prove it??? I mean isn't redundant, YOU BELIEVE IN IT 100%. Why do oyu feel the for proof???

... and why would you use stuff that doesn't come from the Bible, to prove your 100% belief, of the 100% error free and contradiction less bible???

I know we will work it out, but for now it leaves quite perplexed. Reminding me a lot of this 'saying' about the person whom goes around insinsting with everyone, ...

... '... I am a very honest person, let me explain why!!!...'

even more update

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm