Mt. Ararat Anomaly

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?

"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.

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?

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

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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:

---

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.

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

That's a great image. It really brings into focus how the Ark as described in the Bible is several orders of magnitude too small to actually float members of all the different species, or even all the different "kinds" (whatever those are supposed to be), that would be required to repopulate the Earth.

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.

Well, let's wait and see if anyone ever finds any evidence that there ever was wooden structure high on some mountain. Once we find something, anything, then it's time to begin analyzing what we've found. But so far there is less evidence for the existence of an Ark then for the Yeti.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Well, let me address what I might see as evidence that there was once an Ark.First, if we found some type of a wooden structure at altitude on some mountain somewhere in the world.Next, if that structure displayed some of the characteristics of a sea going object. For example, if we found that a portion of the lower structure showed signs of marine borers and there was a clear demarcation line that might imply a water line that would help.If in addition we found the the structure was designed with support for the lower structure instead of the upper structure, that it was designed to maintain integrity while part of the base was removed, it would add weight.If then we found interior structures that were designed to segregate critters yet enhance feeding and cleaning up after them we'd add slightly more weight.If the vast majority of interior structures were too small for human use it would add a little more weight.If the structure also showed design to be a self contained unit where supplies could be stored, living quarters for the humans, vast containers for fresh water, an efficient waste disposal system (which would have been a fulltime job) we might add a smidgin more credibility. If we find that all entrances to the structure were about halfway between the top and bottom or even higher with no openings lower than the water line as evidenced by borer damage, then add another little bit.If we then found evidence, hair, skin, crap or other evidence, of a variety of critters being in the structure for a year or more (they had to be stored somewhere during the days leading up to launch) we add a little more credibilty.BUT!!!!!!!!!That still does not connect it with Noah or a world-wide flood.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Genetic evidence that it occured. Geological evidence that it occured. Biogeographical evidence that it occured. Forensic evidence that it occured. Paleontological evidence that it occured. Archeological evidence that it occured. Cosmological evidence that it occured.In addition to all that, there would have to be a lack of evidence that it did not occur; in other words, we should not be able to make observations that would be impossible to make if the Flood had actually happened.That's what it would take. I know it sounds like a lot, but what you're talking about would be the most important event in the history of the world if it were true. That demands a pretty high standard of evidence.Unfortunately what we have right now is no evidence, from any field, that it did occur; and an enormous amount of observations that would be impossible if the Flood had actually happened. In other words, we have no evidence for and significant disconfirming evidence against. It's not that we'll only accept naturalistic theories, its that we'll only accept theories that are not contradicted by the evidence. The Flood, unfortunately, does not meet that standard.