1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Daily Mail: Noah’s Ark resting place 100% confirmed
Posted on 9/23/26 at 3:45 pm to Salmon
Posted on 9/23/26 at 3:45 pm to Salmon
here is the problem, im not saying its the ark, im saying they found inexplicable (for some) things using the most modern technology available today.
"proof" from a believer/former believer that cant even pull off a core sample with clearly inadequate technology doesn't strengthen your argument, it does the opposite, in fact.
"proof" from a believer/former believer that cant even pull off a core sample with clearly inadequate technology doesn't strengthen your argument, it does the opposite, in fact.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 3:46 pm to UFFan
Get Dale Brown on the case!!
Posted on 9/23/26 at 3:47 pm to The Pirate King
quote:
Recent Timeline (August–September 2026)
August 2026: The team released new 3D ground-penetrating radar scans showing internal right angles and geometric shapes.
September 22, 2026: Researchers officially started core drilling into the boat-shaped mound with local government and university oversight.
September 23, 2026: The team completed their 2026 field season, collecting nearly 1,000 soil samples and pottery fragments to be tested in Ankara.
2027: Researchers expect to release their first comprehensive scientific findings from these core samples.
The grift is real
Posted on 9/23/26 at 3:49 pm to Shamoan
quote:
im saying they found inexplicable (for some) things
Everything they have found has already been explained.
quote:
"proof" from a believer/former believer that cant even pull off a core sample with clearly inadequate technology doesn't strengthen your argument, it does the opposite, in fact.
Fasold didn't prove anything.
Which is why he later changed his mind.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 3:50 pm to Salmon
quote:
It definitely was. It didn't "prove" anything. You asked if they had used GPR before. And they did. It showed the "walls".
GPR usage was "ineffective" in 1988. that is the stance of collective knowledge. whatever this guy is saying is irrelevant one way or the other because more modern technology has found the opposite. what do you say about the claim that there are inexplicable things cutting edge technology has identified and verified on multiple successful attempts in addition to the 3D imaging? again, im not making a claim that it is or is not a Noah's Ark.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 3:51 pm to kingbob
quote:
On the other hand, the Bible is incredibly accurate at place names, geography, fauna, flora, and accurate distances between landmarks.
It was written by the vestiges of a breakaway Canaanite population so this all makes sense in that context.
The people who wrote the OT lived in the Bronze and Iron age in that region.
quote:
That’s one of the things that makes the Bible so interesting from an archaeological perspective. There’s so much interweaving of the fantastical and grounded verifiable descriptions of independently documented places and people combined with timelines that seemingly don’t make sense and geography that clearly does.
Many years ago I started talking about on here a Biblical-theme history book that Walmart sold. It did a very good job going through much of the Bronze and Early Iron Age in the Mes/Med region.
That breakaway Canaanite population does somewhat track with the archeological estimates of Moses, so there is probably some truth to a prophet in that time. I think it's around 1300 BC-ish. Anything before that is going to be problematic, I'd imagine.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 3:51 pm to Mo Jeaux
Pirate king is right
I’m going to pray for you.
your post history makes sense now.
I’m going to pray for you.
your post history makes sense now.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 3:52 pm to hawgfaninc
It looks like a vulva to me.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 3:53 pm to Shamoan
quote:
GPR usage was "ineffective" in 1988. that is the stance of collective knowledge.
Can you not think for yourself? AI deems it "ineffective" because it didn't "prove" anything.
He did, however, show the "walls". The same walls that this new "team" just found.
quote:
whatever this guy is saying is irrelevant one way or the other because more modern technology has found the opposite
No. They literally just found the same thing. That's the point.
And are now simply trying to beg for more money (seriously go to their website) to super duper prove it this time.
Bookmark this thread because there will be another round of headlines and donation begging next year.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:02 pm to Salmon
quote:
He did, however, show the "walls". The same walls that this new "team" just found.
the walls Fasold was referenced were natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite inside steeply inclined sedimentary rock layers of a syncline (a fold in stratified rock)
so its not true that:
quote:
natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite inside steeply inclined sedimentary rock layers of a syncline (a fold in stratified rock).
No. They literally just found the same thing. That's the point.
they are not the same findings. the 3D scanning and GPR found entirely new structures and in new areas completely. but you probably already knew that.
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 4:07 pm
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:02 pm to Salmon
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:06 pm to Walt OReilly
Thanks, Walt. He’s wrong though.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:09 pm to Shamoan
quote:
they are not the same findings.
Sure. I'm sure these new "walls" are totally new and definitely not the same as the other walls.
Tom Fenner also used GPR in 1987 and concluded that the formation was natural.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:10 pm to hawgfaninc
Did all the animals fit in the ark the way genies fit in a bottle?
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:15 pm to Salmon
quote:im sure the technology hasnt improved in 49 years
also used GPR in 1987 and concluded that the formation was natural.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:16 pm to hawgfaninc
I know that genuine imbeciles exist, but they're like $1M. Nobody ever really gets a chance to observe it directly. It's like we've opened the box and find ourselves staring directly at Schrodinger's cat.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:16 pm to hawgfaninc
No it’s not.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:16 pm to Salmon
so you reference an unsuccessful use of 1988 technology and dismiss cutting-edge technology as "eh, these are the same...case dismissed". ok, but that is intellectually dishonest.
you are obviously free to do as you wish, but how do you explain the previously undiscovered structures? thats the elephant in the room and, "muh, Fasold already looked at this wall", again, its intellectually dishonest and an attempt to skirt the question.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:20 pm to Jester
Was the Ark a mountain or a boat? Mountains can't be boats.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:21 pm to hawgfaninc
I think enough evidence exists from different cultures at that time that a flood happened, who knows what happened after that. It seems like I’ve been seeing this type of thing for the last few years, so why don’t they just excavate the thing and be done with it?
Page 6 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News