Posted on 03/09/2006 11:30:41 PM PST by Tim Long
Digital image of 'Ararat Anomaly' has researchers taking closer look
A new, high-resolution digital image of what has become known as the "Ararat Anomaly" is reigniting interest in the hunt for Noah's Ark.
Satellite image of 'Ararat Anomaly,' taken by DigitalGlobe's QuickBird Satellite in 2003 and now made public for the first time (courtesy: DigitalGlobe)
The location of the anomaly on the northwest corner of Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey has been under investigation from afar by ark hunters for years, but it has remained unexplored, with the government of Turkey not granting any scientific expedition permission to explore on site.
But the detail revealed by the new photo from DigitalGlobe's QuickBird satellite has a man at the helm of the probe excited once again.
"I've got new found optimism ... as far as my continuing push to have the intelligence community declassify some of the more definitive-type imagery," Porcher Taylor, an associate professor in paralegal studies at the University of Richmond, told Space.com.
For more than three decades, Taylor has been a national security analyst, and has also served as a senior associate for five years at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
"I'm calling this my satellite archaeology project," Taylor said.
Space.com reports the project has been combining the photographic resources of QuickBird with GeoEye's Ikonos spacecraft, Canada's Radarsat 1, as well as declassified aerial and satellite images snapped by U.S. intelligence agencies.
While it's quite possible the item of interest could simply be a natural ridge of rock, snow and ice, Taylor says there's also a chance it could be something manmade.
"I had no preconceived notions or agendas when I began this in 1993 as to what I was looking for," he said. "I maintain that if it is the remains of something manmade and potentially nautical, then it's potentially something of biblical proportions."
The anomaly remains ensconced in glacial ice at an altitude of 15,300 feet, and Taylor says the photos suggest it's length-to-width ratio is close to 6:1, as indicated in the Book of Genesis.
The U.S. Air Force took the first photographs of the Mt. Ararat site in 1949. The images allegedly revealed what seemed to be a structure covered by ice, but were held for years in a confidential file labeled "Ararat Anomaly."
The new image was actually taken in 2003, but has never been revealed to the public until now.
Arking up the wrong tree?
Meanwhile, there are others who believe Noah's Ark has already been found, and tourists can actually visit it on a mountain next to Ararat.
Some believe this is Noah's Ark, already found on a mountain next to Mt. Ararat (courtesy: wyattmuseum.com)
The late Ron Wyatt, whose Tennessee-based foundation, Wyatt Archaeological Research, purported the ark has already been found at Dogubayazit, Turkey, some 12-15 miles from Ararat, noting Genesis states the ark rested "upon the mountains of Ararat," not mountain.
Is this a hair from a large cat aboard Noah's Ark? (photo: Richard Rives, wyattmuseum.com)
Wyatt's website is filled with on-location photographs and charts promoting its case with physical evidence including radar scans of bulkheads on the alleged vessel, deck timber and iron rivets, large "drogue" stones which are thought to have acted as types of anchors, and even some animal hair inside, possibly from a large cat like a lion or tiger.
A flood of doubt
However, there's been no shortage of critics from both scientific and Christian circles who think the Dogubayazit site is erroneous.
Lorence Collins, a retired geology professor from California State University, Northridge, joined the late David Fasold, a one-time proponent of the Wyatt site, in writing a scientific summary claiming the location is "bogus."
"Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation," said the 1996 paper published in the Journal of Geoscience Education. "It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it."
The Answers in Genesis website provides an in-depth report attempting to debunk any validity the Dogubayazit site has, and concludes by stating:
"[A]s Christians we need to always exercise due care when claims are made, no matter who makes them, and any claims must always be subjected to the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. If that had happened here, and particularly if the scientific surveys conducted by highly qualified professionals using sophisticated instruments had been more widely publicized and their results taken note of, then these claims would never have received the widespread credence that they have."
Officials with Wyatt Archaeological Research remain unfazed in the face of such criticism.
"The site ... is actually something that you can look at. Not some made up story that no one is quite able to reach but something that is really there," said president Richard Rives. "It is a 'boat-shaped object' composed of material containing organic carbon, which is what is found in petrified wood. ...
"While there is more research that needs to be done at the site, there is a substantial amount of evidence that would indicate that the Wyatt site is not a natural object. ...
"Today, everyone wants to tell us how to think. We, at Wyatt Archaeological Research, do not do that. We just present the evidence that we have and let each individual make his own decision."
In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible speaks of Noah and the ark, and Jesus Christ and the apostles Paul and Peter all make reference to Noah's flood as an actual historical event.
'Noah's Ark' by Pennsylvania artist Edward Hicks, 1846
According to Genesis, Noah was a righteous man who was instructed by God to construct a large vessel to hold his family and many species of animals, as a massive deluge was coming to purify the world which had become corrupt.
Genesis 6:5 states: "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."
Noah was told by God to take aboard seven pairs of each of the "clean" animals – that is to say, those permissible to eat – and two each of the "unclean" variety. (Gen. 7:2)
Though the Bible says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, it also mentions "the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days."
The ark then "rested" upon the mountains of Ararat, but it was still months before Noah and his family – his wife, his three sons and the sons' wives – were able to leave the ark and begin replenishing the world.
Many suspect that the Ark made landfall in the Zagros mountains of Iran, not Mt. Ararat in Turkey. An Iranian location for the Ark would fit the biblical record better (Just as Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia, not the Sinai Peninsula...)
Unless I am mistaken, Catholics accept evolution and the old earth evidence. They do not teach as literal an interpretation of the bible as others do.
So, could not the flood described in the Bible have been the Black Sea event some 7,000 years ago (I don't remember the exact date). I know this would be a more localized event, but would this not be a possible interpretation?
All of these sciences are lumped together because they are all presently being used to support evolutionist theories of 4 billion year old Earth, through various circular arguments. (The fossil must be old because it is so deep in those rocks which took x years to form.) None of this pre-historic stuff is truly scientific because it is unobservable and untestable. One cannot go back in time to observe the inland sea laying down layers of sediment over South Dakota and assure oneself this seas was not also elsewhere, and exactly how long it was over South Dakota. One must take it on faith that the explanation concocted to explain what is physically observable today is correct.
Frankly, I'd rather rely on faith on the Bible than on the disputes of anti-Christ geologists and biologists.
Geology says that sedimentary layers do not get deposited on preexisting mountains. There is no way to do this and not just because it is impractical to cover the mountain with water. Even if you somehow deposit something on the mountain, it will just erode away. That's what mountains do. They wear down.
And where did I say that sediments are deposited on mountains????
So you don't even understand what geology says about sediment layers on mountains. Well, sedimentary layers in mountains ARE the mountain. They used to lie flat and then they got warped.
I agree. Why are you arguing with me on this point? Our only disagreement is when these mountains (like Sideling Hill) were warped upwards. I say post flood. You do too. We just disagree one whether that flood was "millions of years ago" or just prior to the ice age.
There are mountains that aren't sedimentary in character. They're called "volcanoes." They have a different structure entirely and they don't have any fossiliferous sediments on them.
Let me bring back a response from my childhood. No duh!
Did I ever say otherwise? No, I didn't think so.
The sedimentary mountains are sediments to a great depth. When they were made, the layers crumpled both up AND DOWN. The lithosphere is thickened under mountains because the crushing displaces the warped crust in both directions. In fact, sort of like an iceberg, there's more below than above.
Again, I don't disagree here. So why are you bringing it up?
So you have two problems: 1) Your version is impossible, and 2) you have no understanding of the mainstream version.
You forgot to put in the operator: (/pedantic lecturing tone)
Hey, what about archaeologists? What are we, chopped liver?
(Took that out of order, I know.) River floodplains are made of lots of little flood layers and you can tell it wasn't all one big flood. While I'm not familiar with "oceanic flooding," I have never seen a credible account of how it produces the geologic column.
If you aren't familiar with this, please look up on Google "Western Inland Sea Late Cretaceous". Should being up lots of evolutionist sites explaining how a vast sea stretching over the Great Plains made all of that sedimentary rock we now see. For example:
http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/ICTHOL04papers/63.htm
Quote: "Over 65 million years ago Kansas, including the whole Midwest Region of North America from the Arctic Circle to the Gulf of Mexico, was covered by the Sea. Due to the continental uplifts of the mountain ranges in North America during the Pangaea stage, the once shallow sea of Kansas became shut off from the sea-water flow and dried out to what we know it as today."
"Continental uplifts", "inland seas", etc. are all the same stuff required for a global flood and its aftermath, and are all used by evolutionists simply on a different timescale to explain the same strata. As I said, the evolution model also requires large scale flooding of land (or emergence of what is now land from having been underwater). It simply places it on a different timescale.
Again, since no one was there to observe it except Noah, I'd prefer to stick to his scientific account (shared by every tribe around the world), than to models created 10,000 years after the fact by atheists attempting to tell us there is no God and Christ never came.
The answers are in the Bible.
I don't see it as that kind of a book.
Obviously. You place your faith in geology and biology textbooks and scientific hypothesies pretending to "know" exactly what happened in the past, rather than the Incarnate Living God.
That's you choice, I just don't see why I must follow you over the cliff with all its logical consequences of making man nothing more than matter in motion.
Apparently you've never read the decrees of the Pontifical Bible Comission.
You might correctly say many heretics parading around as Catholics teach evolution and symbolic interpretations of Genesis, ignoring the clear rulings of the Popes on these matters.
So, could not the flood described in the Bible have been the Black Sea event some 7,000 years ago (I don't remember the exact date). I know this would be a more localized event, but would this not be a possible interpretation?
No. The Bible clearly states the flood was worldwide and wiped out all men. The symbolism of this reality is important because in the Allegorical interpretation of Geneis, the Church holds the flood and the ark were types of Baptism and the Church, so that the souls in the Ark were saved by water, and the Ark is a type of the Church, where everyone outside the Catholic Church is overwhelmed by the flood of their sins. (See 1 St. Peter 3.20-21).
Jesus Christ Himself also clearly took the flood as literal truth (e.g. St. Matthew 24.36-39), and unless we are to attribute gross ignorance to Christ, which would de-divinize Him and thus destroy Orthodox Christianity, this is further evidence that it did happen.
This too is wrong. How is it I always get the ones who apparently have never discussed their silly ideas with anyone before? Where the dates come from.
Frankly, I'd rather rely on faith on the Bible than on the disputes of anti-Christ geologists and biologists.
Since that's obviously where all you "science" is coming from, I'll just skip ahead to one last question.
And where did I say that sediments are deposited on mountains????
It was a passage that looked like this:
The Evolution model requires various high lying areas like Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, Africa, etc. (1 mile above sea level) to be covered in "shallow seas" in order to lay down the expansively enormous and deep sedementary layers that are readily apparent to the naked eye (Grand Canyon, Badlands, Great Rift Valley, Sideling Hill Cut, etc.).
If I read you wrong, it's hard to see how what I think I see there is any dumber than whatever you do think happened. It does not look like a good description of what mainstream geology thinks. It cannot be recognized as such.
Thus, I stand by my conclusion: 1) Your version is impossible, and 2) you have no understanding of the mainstream version.
Not at all the same thing. I would never see Jesus on a grilled cheese sandwich or a tortilla but I would love it if something as ancient as the Ark was found. The Ark is a man made God inspired object that really existed. Grilled cheese sandwiches and tortillas had not even been invented when Jesus was alive. ((((snort))))) ;)
Tell me about all those mountains on the plains of Africa or America that I was mentioning.
It does not look like a good description of what mainstream geology thinks. It cannot be recognized as such.
http://www.scn.org/~bh162/maas.html
"What do you see down there?" "Looks like an inland sea over areas now 4000+ ft. high, Jim."
Not all of these areas were undersea at the same time. Your western region was Late Cretaceous. My Eastern region was last undersea in the Mississipian some 330 million years ago. Those two seas really won't work if you try to make them the residue of one flood. Nothing matches up.
Do not mock my grilled cheese religion
I would also love to see either Noah's ark or the Ark of the Covenant found. I'm pretty sure the former never existed and I'm not sure about the latter.
The discovery of either would be incredibly significant.
Sorry!
Mosasaurs? That western sea had MOSASAURS!!??
See what I mean?
Good we agree! There was widespread continental flooding in the past!
That wasn't so hard, was it? Now we can see our major disagreement is not the mechanism of widespread flooding (so lets not hear anymore about how its impossible for the world to be flooded), because we both believe that it happened, but at what time it occurred, and why.
Not all of these areas were undersea at the same time. Your western region was Late Cretaceous. My Eastern region was last undersea in the Mississipian some 330 million years ago. Those two seas really won't work if you try to make them the residue of one flood. Nothing matches up.
Of course not according to orthodox Geological models. If the whole world was flooded at once, we couldn't have animals evolving from ooze, and humans being born from monkeys, since they all would have then drown, and we'd have to start all back over again at the fish-crawling-onto-land stage, after numerous attempts to mutate fins into feet once again, and so simultaneously with mutating gills into lungs. How tedious.
Again, since no one was there according to the millions of years ago theory, I don't see how there is certainty that the flooding wasn't simultaneous, since you are certainly admitting that everywhere with large sedimentary rock layering was once underwater. The non-simultaneity is an interpetation of various radioactive dating methods with pre-conceived requirements of non-simultaneity. The simple observable fact is that all these places were once under a sea.
Still, this looks like pretty wide-spread continental flooding being asked for:
http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm
All of these sciences [geology, astronomy, cosmology, nuclear chemistry, or anything else in science that is used to support an old Earth or an old universe] are lumped together [under the term "evolution"] because they are all presently being used to support evolutionist theories of 4 billion year old Earth, through various circular arguments.
As I pointed out earlier, this equivocation on the word "evolution" covers the YEC while making the disarming claim "I'm cool with science, I just don't accept evolution." The illusion that only Darwin's topic, biological evolution, is meant minimizes the actual damage. In fact, when you're done throwing out what doesn't work with a concrete-literal Genesis interpretation, you don't have much left of the last 150 years of science.
It's a sad little would-be "science" that has a mile-high list of knowledge that must be discredited somehow and nothing to replace it with.
You have the night shift.
"That is, the world looks old because IT IS old"
Why does the world look old?
"we don't see the sediments of a world-wide flood because there WASN'T one"
So massive horizontal worldwide sedimentation with essentially unidirectional paleocurrent indicators isn't indication of a world-wide flood?
"we find evidence for common descent of organisms because common descent IS the nature of the relationship"
Except that we usually don't. In cases where common descent is realistic, creationists agree (for example, Creationists agree with the common descent for basically all Canidae).
Um, okay....
Okay, if you say so...
Hear, hear! Well said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.