Mt. Ararat Anomaly

Interesting discussion. Actually the Hebrew text indicates a mountainous region of eastern Armenia, between the river Araxes and the lakes Van and Oroomiah, known as Urartu. This 300 mile radius region encompasses the modern day mountain of Mt. Ararat, but it does not necessarily mean that particular mountain.Mr. Wyatt's discovery of an boat-shaped object ~15 miles from Mt. Ararat has been shown to be a natural land formation and several of Mr. Wyatt's archeological claims with respect to other artifacts are highly questionable. He would appear to be a fraud.That aside, science and Creationist beliefs needn't be viewed as mutually exclusive as some here have hinted at. Numerous archeological discoveries have in fact supported the Bible, so 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? "Religious bias" (as someone here mentioned) comes in different flavors and philosophical naturalism is just one that is prone to the same trap.To date, there is no credible evidence to conclusively proove the existence of Noah's Ark, but that does not mean it does not exist. The search for Noah's Ark continues amidst troublesome political conditions in Turkey and other difficult obsticles. Perhaps one day it will be discovered; perhaps not. The pictures do not provide conclusive proof in my opinion, but there are credible eye witness accounts that lead me to believe it may very well exist.

"A violent cataclysmic global flood would leave pretty unambiguous evidence in geology/archaeology -- evidence that we simply do not see."Actually, one's world view comes into play in ascertaining the cause of geological formations such as the Grand Canyon. 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. 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 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. This is but one example of how one's world view blinds one to ample evidence.As for where the water came from and where it went, the Biblical explaination is that the water came from two souces - from a water canopy around the earth and from resevoirs beneath the earth. Where did it end up?... 2/3 of the earth is covered with water. Hmmm...This message has been edited by SonClad, 04-04-2005 05:09 PMThis message has been edited by SonClad, 04-04-2005 05:20 PM

Remember the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980? Take a look at the deep canyons that formed afterwards. Solid rock canyons were cut at St. Helens shortly after its eruption and take note of the irregular formations. Decreasing flood water dynamics and subsequent river erosion can certainly form the formations that we see in the Grand Canyon (even sharp angled turns and horseshoe-shaped hollows). Mount St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Biblical CatastrophismOn the flip side of your solid rock wall question - why do we not see similar deep canyons formed by the world's mighty rivers? Some of them have been flowing for as long as the Colorado River and we see no such formations from these rivers. How were the many solid rock inner gorges of the Canyon formed(000's of them and many as deep as the Canyon itself)? Why do we see some vertically inlaid sediments in places?Glad to see that we agree that water doesn't flow uphill and at least we agree that water caused the majority of the erosion. When I visited the G.Canyon, I read that scientists still do not know how the river cut through the uplifting Colorado Plateau. Here's just one theory, but notice that it utilizes a large body of water to force a change of direction, which does not pose a problem for flood runoff.
http://www.kaibab.org/geology/canform.htmHere's the bottom line. None of us were there when it happened. I take the evidence of available theories into account and attempt to deduce the best explanation for the data. I would hope you do likewise, although it appears otherwise from your remarks.

Not off-topic at all. IF Noah's Ark were found atop a Mt. in Turkey, would you accept the conclusion that the biblical flood indeed happened?Someone answered with the anticipated presupposition that there is no evidence for such a world-wide flood, to which I cited one example.

OK - we'll assume the biblical flood happened then without providing supportive evidence.The various eye-witness accounts do not agree on the location of the Ararat anomaly, but most place it above 15,000'. I have been involved in compiling these various accounts for the book: "The Explorers of Ararat and the Search for Noah's Ark". Porcher was responsible for getting some photos released recently from the CIA, but the object's composition is as yet unknown.

That's not the one I was refering to. Noah's Ark Search - Mount Ararat

Bill - none of these news reports disclose where the searches were conducted on the mountain. That sort of information would be very useful as opposed to general statements about it not being on the mountain. It's a shame they weren't more specific.

I never claimed that the photos PROVE the existence of Noah's Ark. In fact, I said just the opposite. There are, however, credible eye witness accounts that lead me to believe that some large structure (whatever it is) may very well be on Mt. Ararat. Now, you all can slam my opinion all you want because I'm not attempting to prove its existence based on these photos. Unless something more substantial is discovered, it's merely speculation at this point.It's interesting that some wouldn't accept any evidence of an ark even it it floated by them because of their pre-disposition against the idea of a world-wide flood. 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 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."

I can see that you haven't climbed any mountains of substantial elevation. I have. To build such a huge structure on level ground would be quite an engineering feat; to carry massive timbers up a huge mountain and construct it above 15k' would be next to impossible. Furthermore, why go to such lengths to commemorate something if it's not true?

"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."

Same problem - the construction of such a massive structure atop a high mountain would be impossible. Not only would the huge timbers need to be hauled up, but it would need to be assembled. According to the Bible, this took 120 years to complete.

Your response to a hypothetical discovery of a large wooden structure high on a treeless mounting matching the biblical dimensions (450'x75'x45') illustrates one thing. This discussion boils down to a philosophical difference. Q: What evidence would be required to convince you that such a structure was indeed Noah's Ark (again, hypothetically speaking of a such a discovery)?

quote:

---

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.

---

So your faith in philosophical naturalism proscribes consideration of any evidence supporting the Bible?
I defend the Bible because it has proven to be true when I've scrutinized it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Many naturalists question whether a sea-worthy vessel of such dimmensions could have even been built 5,000 years ago as described in the Bible. It's interesting that you pose an explanation that compounds the difficulty almost to the point of the miraculous. If such a discovery were made, I believe it is much more believable to think that it floated to its destination (regardless of whether you believe in a Divine cause for the flood).
Your options leave out one important possibility: (3) that naturalistic scientists are indeed biased by their philosophical naturalist beliefs and dogmatically interpret data according to that worldview. That would be the more plausible answer in my opinion and we've seen it demonstrated here.

quote:

---

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?

---

There are some fundamental differences between this and the biblical story of Noah. The Bible has the fingerprints of Divine authorship throughout it. The story of Noah doesn't exist in isolation of evidence, but is supported by the validity of biblical evidence as a whole. When one grasps the hyper-dimensional nature of the Bible as well as archeological evidence supporting other biblical stories, it lends credibility to the Noah story.Is there any evidence outside of the Epic of Gilgamesh to support its story? Are we told of the dimensions, construction material, resting location, etc? These questions, just to name a few, would have to be answered.

quote:

---

Literally millions. Maybe it was a barn, a shelter, a place of worship, a cat house, a bingo parlor. All would be more reasonable.

---

Interesting. Who would build a barn (or any of your other preposterous options) 15,000' up on a mountain? Let's put that in perspective... The ark's total volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet. This would equal the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars. The standard size for a stock car is 44 feet long and a volume of 2670 cubic feet. This would make a train more than 5 miles long. The floor space for the ark would be over 101,000 square feet. This would be more floor space than 21 standard college basketball courts. By comparing the measurements of the ark it is easy to see that it would be comparable to today's ocean going vessels.How could anyone build such a massive structure 14,000'+ on a mountain or why would they want to?

quote:

---

The discussion of the flood myth is totally off topic for this thread, yet again. If you want to talk about the Great Unwetting, take it to one of the threads where that myth is discussed.

---

Interesting choice of words. This topic falls under "Geology and the Great Flood / Mt. Ararat Anomaly". That's an unmistakable reference to the Great Flood of Noah and the object that some speculate may be Noah's Ark. The discussion of the flood is therefore NOT off topic for this thread and it is merely your opinion that the Great Flood is a myth, to which you're entitled to. If you do not wish to talk about the Great Flood or Noah's Ark, you're free to ignore posting made on this thread - no one is forcing you to read them. Edited by AdminJar to make the picture smaller.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-05-2005 02:50 PM

quote:

---

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.

---

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

quote:

---

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...

---

quote:

---

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

---

Actually, that's not what I said and I in no way inadvertantly or purposefully made your point for you. Thanks for taking my reply and twisting it to suit yourself.

quote:

---

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.

---

Actually, I said give me as much information pertaining to it as we are given in the Bible about Noah's ship. You failed to do so and then attempt to turn the table as if my response favors your position. Far from it.This is essentially a philosophical argument (both sides). The naturalists piping in on this topic are merely proving that their faith in philosophical naturalism is alive and well. 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. It's a shame that a reasonable discussion and exchange of ideas cannot be conducted without slamming the door on alternate theories, etc, due to the fact that the only "accepted" theories must be purely naturalistic. This discussion has proven useless in my opinion.