Mt. Ararat Anomaly

Many may be familiar with part of the account of Noah's Ark in Genesis: With emphasis on the 4th verse I researched multiple Mt. Ararat sightings that made claims of an intrigueing anomaly (a structural abnormality that is not common to a mountain) on the top of the mountain.This document gives an account of some historical sightings of Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat:Noah's Ark Search - Mount AraratI believe this is a significant support for the accuracy of the account in Genesis and would like to hear any other evidence of the Ark or relating posts on this topic.This message has been edited by daaaaaBEAR, 02-09-2005 20:44 AM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.I wasn't sure where you wanted this to go, Bible Accuracy and Inerrancy? I put it here because I believe that many think this "anomoly" is a geologic formation. If you would like it elsewhere, please speak up.This message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 02-09-2005 19:48 AM

actually I would like it in Bible Accuracy and Innerancy if that's alright. This thread doesn't seem as active.

A forum is only as active as its threads.If others are going to reply to your topic it will happen no matter what forum it is in.I guess it comes down to what direction you want this topic to head. If you are planning on staying out of science and geology and work strictly on a biblical basis, maybe the other thread would be more appropriate.If, on the other hand, you are planning on letting others with a geology background explain how many see this anomoly as a geological formation or on the science behind what is seen then this is a better fit.

The "photograph" from the website you linked to is rather laughable, I'm afraid.Also, nearly all of the references the article uses are from a single book.Have any actual independent, non-Creationist or non religious credible professional Archaeologists examined this evidence, or is it only fundamentalist, YEC Christians making these claims?

quote:

---

and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat.

---

mountains. plural.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 02-09-2005 21:36 AM

How do you know the photo is biased? That particular photo isn't the best example. There are others on the same site. 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. If you care to look for other pictures of the ark on google there are better pictures that are much more convincing.maybe the same book but different accounts from different people at different times.

and..... so it's one of the mountains of Ararat and one of the mountains is the possible site of the Ark in the Bible.here are some better pictures:http://dejnarde.ms11.net//enltwo.htm
http://dejnarde.ms11.net//enlthree.htm
http://arksearch.com/napublic.htmhere's a archaelogical research site:
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htmand a national geographic article if your looking for unbiased, i did find one:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...7_040427_noahsark.htmlThis message has been edited by daaaaaBEAR, 02-09-2005 23:53 AM

Well, first off neither of what you call pictures really are pictures. They are both artistic renderings.Second the link to NG is simply the report that Daniel McGivern was planning an expedition which never happened anyway.So so far you've provided no support.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

did you look at the arksearch one? picture 21, and others i don't think are artistic renderings.and speaking of artistic rendering I believe evolutionists have had their fair share of pictures hoaxes.

I'm not sure but I think the first two and the nat geo are talking about different places. Are there now two arks?as for the picture: see
Message 263That is one of the places where it has been discussed before. I don't know where it is but there is picture somewhere showing that there are, in that area, a number of formations like that one. It seems there weren't two but rather a whole flotilla of arks.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-10-2005 00:07 AM

There are a whole herd of Arks that have been found. LOL

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

In fact the october 1998 pictures number 29 is, as your site says:

quote:

---

Whoa!! Another Ark shape. Is it Noah's Ark too? No, let's be honest, this is a nearby formation that is very, very similar the alleged Ark Shape. Be careful what you call Noah's Ark!

---

From memory I recall a picture showing a bunch of them. The formations are understood, they are not boats.The nat geo one is the mountain top in snow one I think. You list of "supports", if they offer two arks, only show that at least one of them is wrong.

Of course Noah was a goatherder so he applied the same principle to the Ark. Neatly solves the space problem.LOL

The evidence for an Ark on Mt. Ararat is sadly lacking.The site to which you linked (NoahsArkSearch.com) is probably the best Web resource on the subject. The site is pretty balanced but generally favorable to the idea that Noah's ark may have survived on Mt. Ararat, and contains lots of information and links about investigations. You should have noted that they conclude (on the "Overview" page):

quote:

---

Though there have been many claims of a discovery of Noah's Ark by alleged eyewitnesses and in recent books/films, there is no scientific proof, public photograph, or evidence of the survival or existence of Noah's Ark.

---

The major and most publicized investigator of such claims was the late Ron Wyatt (you posted a link to his site at http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm, referering to it as "here's a archaelogical research site", which it is not; it's a propaganda site), and the discussions of what he found or claimed to have found are useful in understanding what kindd of evidence could be persuasive.The site that Ron Wyatt investigated is an eroded syncline, a fairly common natural geologic feature that appears to be quite common in that area. Someone recently posted a link (in talk.origins) to an aerial photograph from that area that appeared to show several arks similar to the one Wyatt investigated or the one to which you provided a link (I can't find it right now, but I've asked for help locating it). See BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK" FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE and note that the second author was a member of Wyatt's first expedition.There is much confusion about how many different proposed Ark sites there are on Ararat, and which sites are discussed as different sites but really are the same site. In view of the prevalence of ark-like eroded synclines in the area, much more than a photograph would be required to establish a credible case for any site. (By the way, your statement that the intriguing anomaly " is not common to a mountain" needs some support. My surces indicate that synclines are quite common everywhere, and seem to be very common in the Araratr region).Wyatt himself was, sorry to say, an incompetent fraud. See Wyatt Archeological Research Fraud Documentation.The Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis have both rejected Wyatt's claims. See THE SEARCH FOR NOAH'S ARK: STATUS 1992 and Special report: Amazing ‘Ark’ expos. No new evidence has been brought forth since then.