Mt. Ararat Anomaly

quote:

---

...The question to ask oneself is: what IF a large, ancient wooden vessel of biblical dimensions was discovered on top of a tall mountain in the Urartu region (e.g., on Mt. Ararat)... would you dismiss the evidence due to an a-priori naturalistic world view?

---

A violent cataclysmic global flood would leave pretty unambiguous evidence in geology/archaeology -- evidence that we simply do not see.There is also a severe problem of whence the water that flooded the entire earth came, and to where it went. Despite valiant tries, there has never been a satisfactory answer to this, either.So, which would be the preferred conclusion of finding a large wooden structure on a mountain? That everything that we understand about geology and everything that we understand about physics and everything we understand about the natural laws are wrong? Or that there is an explanation for a large wooden structure on a mountain that does not involve a global flood?

quote:

---

This is but one example of how one's world view blinds one to ample evidence.

---

Indeed, I couldn't have said this better myself.-

quote:

---

Water cutting through such a geological upheaval doesn't pose a problem for post-flood water run off if the water is deep enough - it could easily have cut a path in a quick amount of time.

---

The walls of the Grand Canyon is made of solid rock. You are trying to say that receding flood waters could have cut through solid sandstone, shale, limestone, and the rest in a short amount of time. Furthermore, this receding flood water would not have created an alluvial fan-like structure that we usually see formed by run-off, but a single, deep, well-defined channel.One person on another board tried to pass off the theory that the material of the Grand Canyon was still soft sediments when it was formed. Except that the walls of the Grand Canyon are nearly vertical in many places and nearly a mile high -- the person never could explain how mile high, nearly vertical walls of soft sediments could be maintained without collapsing under its own weight. Nor could that person explain how soft sediments could have petrified into limestone, sandstone, and shale (which require large pressures to form) without collapsing.--

quote:

---

It is well known that certain portions of land there were pushed upward during its formation and scientists assuming a slow formation theory still cannot explain why the water would flow uphill.

---

Water doesn't flow uphill, and no geologist has ever claimed otherwise. If I recall correctly, the Colorado River has always more-or-less been at its present altitude -- rather, the whole region is being uplifted, and the river cut into the rock as it slowly raised around it.--

quote:

---

There is plenty of evidence to suggest a large amount of water caused the majority of the canyon's formation in a relatively short amount of time.

---

This is false.--I really like this quote: This is but one example of how one's world view blinds one to ample evidence. Unforunately, I'm afraid, it is your beliefs that are a prime example of this.This thread seems to be about potentially finding Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat. We're going to get yelled at if we bring this off-topic about the plausibility of Noah's flood -- it would amuse me greatly to see yet another thread started on this.

I indeed answered your question. No, even if a large wooden structure were found on Mt. Ararat, I still would not believe that a global flood occurred in historical times. And I gave my reason -- there is no evidence what-so-ever for a global flood, and such a flood could not be explained without violating the known laws of science. You may wish to dispute the evidence for or against a flood, but according to the judgement of the moderators, that should be done in another thread. Hell, I might start another thread myself.What may be on-topic for this thread (subject to the moderators' discretion) is whether you really think that finding a large, ancient wooden structure on Mt. Ararat, all by itself, should convince someone that a global flood really happened. So we find a large wooden structure on Mt. Ararat. How does that, all by itself, form convincing evidence that there was a flood? I could come up with a lot of scenarios as to why there may be a large wooden structure on Mt. Ararat, none involving an actual global flood.

quote:

---

IF a large ancient wooden structure matching the biblical description were discovered high up on a treeless mountain, what other explanation could there be for it?

---

It depends on the actual design of the stucture, doesn't it? At any rate, why should anyone conclude that it must have been Noah's ark?A large wooden structure could have had any purpose whatsoever -- well, I'm sure examining such a structure would eliminate some possibilities as unlikely. But could one definitely conclude that it is Noah's ark?And even if the structure matches the Biblical description, here are are a couple possibilities:It was built, not as an ark, but to commemorate the Flood story in Genesis. So the "ark" is actually a monument, purposely built to the specifications mentioned in Genesis. And maybe even used to dupe gullible tourists. Tourist traps have a very ancient history.Or maybe built for some unknown purpose. But people find it later on, wonder what it was for, and then make up the Genesis flood story in order to give a purpose for this unknown structure.Now you tell me: Suppose that a large wooden structure, in the shape of a cube, is found on this mountain. Would you then acknowledge that the Sumerian version of the flood story is the correct one?

quote:

---

I can see that you haven't climbed any mountains of substantial elevation. I have.

---

You haven't visited some of the old mining ghost towns in the Chugach Mountains of Alaska. There are some pretty impressive structures and machinery (HUGE pieces of machinery) that could only have been carted in by donkey or horses -- and I still haven't figured out how they crossed some of the ravines and gorges.People are pretty amazing.-

quote:

---

Furthermore, why go to such lengths to commemorate something if it's not true?

---

Good question. Why are you spending so much time defending it if its not true? Probably the same answer -- faith is a powerful motivating force.-

quote:

---

Same problem - the construction of such a massive structure atop a high mountain would be impossible.

---

This is false.-But this is all beside the point. The question is, which is more plausible, (1) that people built a large wooden structure on a mountain for some purpose that we can only make a guess at, or (2) that all our knowledge of geological sciences are wrong, that all our understanding of physical principles are wrong, that thousands of geologists don't understand their own field, that thousands of physicists don't understand their own field.I feel that (1) is more plausible.Again, I will ask: suppose that a large wooden structure in the shape of a cube, just as it is described in the Epic of Gilgamesh; will you acknowledge that the ancient Sumerian version of the Flood story is the correct version, or will you find some way to interpret this discovery to fit your religious beliefs?Why in the world should anyone find the existence of a large wooden stucture on a mountain to be compelling?

quote:

---

So your faith in philosophical naturalism proscribes consideration of any evidence supporting the Bible?

---

Not at all. We know that many of the people that are mentioned in the Bible actually existed. We also know that some of the events narrated in the Bible actually happened. I have no problems in accepting that this or that event/person/place mentioned in the Bible actually existed. All I want is evidence that it did.The question you posed is whether the discovery of a large wooden structure, that happens to fit one possible interpretation of the specifications mentioned in the Bible, on Mt. Ararat would convince someone that the flood actually happened. I told you no -- there are possible explanations for a large wooden structure to be found on a mountain. Just because you have difficulty in accepting another explanation because of your a priori beliefs does not change the fact that there are many possible explanations, including ones that no one has thought of, for such a structure to exist. (This argument reminds me of the people who think ancient space aliens built the pyramids and stone henge, since it was supposedly impossible for the people at the time to have done so -- people have so little respect for our ancestors.) In fact you admit that if the dimensions of the structure happened to match the ancient Sumerian flood story, you would not accept that story as the actual truth. You yourself stated:

quote:

---

Is there any evidence outside of the Epic of Gilgamesh to support its story?

---

And you are quite right to want evidence outside the Epic of Gilgamesh. A large cubic structure by itself would prove nothing.The problem with the flood is that there is no evidence outside of Genesis itself for such a flood. Such a single global flood in historical times would violate what is known about the laws of physics; furthermore, there is no evidence, none, zero, in geology or archaeology that such a flood occurred. Without outside evidence, a structure on a mountain proves nothing. You yourself have now admitted that. On the other hand, if there were evidence for such a flood (which you claim, but have had some difficulty in presenting), finding such a structure would be unnecessary -- the outside evidence would speak for itself.Let me ask again, if you would be unwilling to consider a wooden structure of suitable characteristics to be proof of the ancient Sumerian flood story, why do you expect me to consider a wooden structure of suitable characteristics to be proof of the Genesis food story? Your argument now becomes the fallacy of special pleading.

And yet also far too large to be sea worthy. Have you seen actual wooden ships? Or their replicas? Compared to today's ocean liners, they were pretty tiny (I distinctly remember seeing a picture a replica of the Santa Maria, including people on its deck, in grade school, and I was shocked at how small it was).It's pretty well accepted that there is a maximum size for a wooden ship that is sea worthy.

quote:

---

How could anyone build such a massive structure 14,000'+ on a mountain or why would they want to?

---

You make it sound as if it were impossible to do. 14,000 ft is not unrealistic -- I have lived in Colorado for a few years, and although I didn't do it myself, I know people who have climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa, which is higher. The altitude and thinner air would make it difficult, but not impossible. People have done far more difficult things. I'm beginning to doubt that you have ever been at 14,000 ft (either that, or you are more susceptible to altitude sickness than most of the people I know). Why on earth do you think that this would be an impossible task?And you ask, "Why?" Why waste all that man power, time, and resources to build the pyramids? I claim that building any of the great pyramids in Egypt would be a far greater task than building a much smaller wooden structure on Mt. Ararat.

Hi, jar.I think that SonClad's original question (or whoever it was that first posed it) is meant to be along the lines of, "What would it take to convince you that...." Since charges of bias tend to be thrown back and forth, I don't think that it is wrong to discuss, hypothetically, what someone would consider to be good evidence for the other side. In this spirit, "Would finding a structure like Noah's ark be convincing evidence for the Noachian flood?" is, I think, and interesting question, expecially since it can be turned around on the asker.I asked SonClad whether he would accept the Sumerian flood myth as accurate if a large wooden cube were found on Mt. Ararat. He replied no, even though he had already claimed that he found it impossible to believe that such a structure could have been built at such a high altitude, that he could not conceive why people would build such a structure, and that the most conceivable answer would be that such a structure floated to that spot during the flood.He then tried to point out other evidence that he felt supported the Genesis flood, without realizing, it seems, that he was making my point for me; namely that finding a wooden structure on Mt. Ararat would not be sufficient to prove any flood story -- that corraboration by evidence in other areas would be necessary to make any definite conclusions.I realize that most people think that this is a thread about physical evidence and how to interpret it; my interest, it seems, tends to go toward the logic behind the arguments. SonClad tried to make an argument -- that we are so biased that even if Noah's ark were found we still would not believe in the flood -- and then he himself refuted his own argument, using basically the same counter-argument that I used to refute it.I am very interested in seeing if SonClad's biases are so strong that he will not be able to see that he himself finds his argument as weak.

quote:

---

You're avoiding the question. What would it take to convince you?

---

This is false. Your question was quite specific: In case we didn't get it, you repeated it: I didn't avoid that question. I answered it. I said, no, finding a structure that resembled the description of Noah's ark given in Genesis would not lead me to believe that the Noachian flood occurred. And I gave my reason: it is far easier to believe that people built it in situ for purposes that may or may not be discernable upon examination of the structure than it would be to believe that all that we understand about physics and geology is utterly wrong.Now we have a new question? What would it take for me to believe that the global flood occurred in historical times? I answered that one, too. Unambiguous, physical evidence in the geologic/archaeologic record. If you want to talk about evidence, then bring it to the appropriate threads.--

quote:

---

Actually, that's not what I said and I in no way inadvertantly or purposefully made your point for you.

---

Oh? Well you then said:

quote:

---

Actually, I said give me as much information pertaining to it as we are given in the Bible about Noah's ship.

---

That is exactly what I was saying. Just finding a wooden structure itself is not enough to prove anything. We want confirmatory, independent evidence outside of the structure itself.Now, what does it matter whether the exact dimensions are given? What does it prove? I already pointed out that having the dimensions mentioned in the particular written account proves nothing; the structure could have been built in order to conform to the written accounts. Or the accounts could have been written with the already pre-existing structure in mind. All you did to answer this possibility was to express incredulity. In fact, you said: Suppose that we find a huge wooden Gilgameshian cube atop of Mt. Ararat. What is the explanation? You yourself admit that you find it next to impossible to believe that people could have built it there. What would be your explanation of such a structure?--

quote:

---

Bottom line is that no evidence in favor of the Great Flood or Noah's Ark would be considered good enough because it doesn't fit into their a-priori naturalistic worldview.

---

So whines the one who cannot supply any evidence whatsoever.--

quote:

---

This discussion has proven useless in my opinion.

---

That's too bad. I find these conversations amusing. Especially when the arguments are so bad and illogical, but no matter how one tries to point out the logical flaws, as well as contradictory evidence, the person just cannot grasp how bad his argument is.I hope that you don't go. Please, continue to take part in the threads that have been started for discussions of evidence for Noah's flood.

Hello, nelson, and welcome to EvC.You should read the other posts in this thread. Some of my best work, I think.Anyway, even if people found a wooden structure on Mt. Ararat, so what? What would this prove? That people can build wooden structures on mountains? But we already knew that.

Well, which is easier to believe?That people brought wood up Mt. Ararat and built something?Or that an ark was deposited on a mountain during a flood that violates the known laws of physics, not to mention for which not one iota of evidence exists in the geologic or archaeologic record?My vote goes to the former.

Indeed. In fact, considering that God scatter humans over the entire world after the Babel fiasco and that there is no indication that Abraham's ancestors were one of the ones not among the scattered, I guess that Mt. Ararat could be anywhere in the world.

Hello, Herepton.That's not what Strong's claims:

Thanks, Herepton.Yeah, I'm aware of the weaknesses of Strong. I'm curious, though, who and when did they figure that ararat means "highest mountain", and what led them to that conclusion?