""There's no boat on Mt. Ararat.""
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/the_remains_of_noahs_ark.html
3 seconds on Google and I see a boat on Mr. Ararat.
That's been completely debunked. It's a hoax.
http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0920_040920_noahs_ark.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-AGreatChristianScam.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/index.html
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/the_remains_of_noahs_ark.html
3 seconds on Google and I see a boat on Mr. Ararat.
Three *more* seconds on Google and you'd have found that it's merely wishful thinking:
Claim CH503:
Noah's ark has been found at the Durupinar site near Dogubayazit, Turkey. A symmetrical streamlined stone structure near there has the right dimensions, and interior structure and symmetrically arranged traces of metal are consistent with the ark. Also, anchor stones have been found near there.Source:
Fasold, David, 1988. The Ark of Noah, New York: Knightsbridge Publishing.
Wyatt, R. E., 1989. Discovered - Noah's Ark. Nashville, TN: World Bible Society. Also, Wyatt, R. E., 1994. "Discovered - Noah's Ark: Video documentary of research and field work". Wyatt Archaeological Research, 713 Lambert Drive, Nashville, TN, 37220.Response:
- The metal traces that were interpreted as iron brackets were actually goethite, a hydrated iron oxide. This mineral was thoroughly mixed with clay, calcite, quartz, and anthophyllite particles, and it showed a large amount of chemical variability across the sample. Neither of these properties would occur in smelted iron.
The purported walls of the ark are limonite concentrations. Their boatlike shape is consistent with an eroded doubly plunging syncline. The stresses of such folding commonly cause fractures that cut across the layers. Water moving through these fractures would have produced the limonite concentrations that were interpreted as dividing walls.
In short, the structure is consistent with the following geological history:
- Rocks formed when sediments eroded from nearby volcanic rocks and were compacted.
- These layers were folded into a doubly plunging syncline.
- A marine sea eroded a channel into the rocks and deposited fossiliferous limestone in it.
- The land was uplifted, and erosion removed most of the limestone and exposed the fold.
- A landslide carried blocks of rock and mud around the synclinal structure.
This interpretation is consistent with the structure itself and with the surrounding geology (Collins and Fasold 1996).
- No fossilized wood or traces of wood, reed, or elemental carbon were found associated with the structure (Collins and Fasold 1996).
- The Durupinar site is incompatible with the biblical account. Genesis 8:4-6 says the flood waters receded for two and a half months after the ark landed before other mountaintops became visible. The Durupinar site is almost 10,000 feet lower than the summit of nearby Agri Dagh. Agri Dagh would have been visible above water even before the ark landed (Standish and Standish 1999, 236).
The Bible describes a rectangular ark. Wyatt's ark is boat-shaped and about 50 percent wider than the dimensions given in the Bible (Standish and Standish 1999, 106, 230-231).Links:
Collins, L. G. and D. F. Fasold, 1996. Bogus "Noah's Ark" from Turkey exposed as a common geologic structure. Journal of Geoscience Education 44(4): 439-444. http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.htmlReferences:
- Collins and Fasold, 1996. (see above)
- Standish and Standish, 1999. (see below)
Further Reading:
Bailey, Lloyd, 1989. Noah: The Person and the Story in History and Tradition. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
Standish, Russell R. and Colin D. Standish, 1999. Holy Relics or Revelation. Rapidan, VA: Hartland Publications, pp. 226-251