Mt. Ararat Anomaly

no, the point is that it would be an AMAZING coincidence for something to be found on the modern mount ararat. there is absolutely nothing to indicate that names have anything to do with one another. for one, the bible's ararat is hebrew, and turkey's is turkish. one's a mountain range, one's a single mountain.ararat is probably not even in the range the author of genesis intended. so in order for noah's ark to be there, it'd have to be a complete coincidence that the name is exactly the same two different languages, over several thousand years, in probably two distinct places, and that the author was wrong in such a way that he was accidentally right when viewed 2600 years later.rather unlikely. but then, if you believe in miracles...also, citing wyatt will get you laughed out of any serious discussion.

quote:

---

How do you know the photo is biased?

---

I don't know that it's biased. It's just completely meaningless because it's just a bare outline of some mountain with a black blob on it with an arrow pointed at the black blob.It's incredibly poor quality.

quote:

---

That particular photo isn't the best example. There are others on the same site.

---

OK. Which ones do you think are better?

quote:

---

Obviously no non-religious organization would even bring up the issue of the ark so the only source left to criticize is that of Christian associations.

---

Why not? Evidence is evidence, and science is evidence-led.It would make any legitimate archaeologist's career to find evidence of the biblical ark.The problem is, the people who say there's evidence of the ark are coming at the issue with the unbreakable belief that the ark exists, and every bit of evidence which they think supports this conclusion they accept, and every bit of evidence that does not support their preferred conclusion, they ignore or reject.That's called religious bias.

quote:

---

If you care to look for other pictures of the ark on google there are better pictures that are much more convincing.

---

How do I know they haven't been doctored? Christian "scienctists" have been shown to often lie or misrepresent findings. What other Archaeologists who do not have a personal religious stake in needing or wanting the ark to have existed or be found have verified the findings?

quote:

---

maybe the same book but different accounts from different people at different times.

---

Science progresses by consensus. Scientists take a rather long time to come to consensus about new findings if the evidence has been gathered in a methodologically sound way. They will pull all the evidence apart and examine it from all angles to see if it hold up to the scrutiny. If it does hold up, it becomes more and more accepted as a reliable explanation of the evidence.Of course, if all you have are "accounts" from a bunch of people from a single Creationist book, it isn't very impressive, is it?

I fail to see the relevance of that picture to this particular discussion ...

What's even more interesting is that this is from a rabidly creationist site.

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.

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?

"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

Nobody's proposing that the waterr ran uphill. THe water continuously ran downhill as the land rose.OTOH, there are plenty of features that are incompatible with relatively rapid formation by runof water: Rapid runoff couldn't change direction by 180 degrees without leaving undercuts and other erosion on the outer wal of the bend.

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.

will gong a message for being badly off-topic?Topic theme: Mt. Ararat / Noah's Ark. It's that simple.Adminnemooseus

---

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.

This is your second notice.You are way off topic. Take discussion of the Grand Cayon to one of the threads related to that.Do not continue discussion of the GC here. This thread is for Noah's Ark and the many anomolies found in the moutains of Ararat.

---

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.

I think he meant this one
EvC Forum: Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark(from Bills post http://EvC Forum: Wyatt's Museum and the shape of Noah's Ark)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}