Ararat Anomaly

"Sustain debate?'

As in, "oh yeah, well you can't prove it ain't there."

So, essentially, you acknowledge that no one has found anything. We already knew that.

What "anything" do you allege has been found?

(You know, people have been looking for this since the 1820s, don't you?)

Questions concerning the Ararat Analogy remain unanswered due to many issues; therefore it is clearly possible that NA does exist there.

Questions concerning the Ararat Analogy remain unanswered due to many issues; therefore it is clearly possible that NA does exist there. Until someone is able to positively identify the 'Anomaly'; none of us know that it's not the Ark for there is certainly at least some circumstantial evidence in favor of. For anyone to claim otherwise is simply ignorant.

So BD, to respond to your comments above, NO, it's not possibly the ark. And it's not ignorant of us to say that. It's ignorant of you to even imply that it might be the ark. The 'anomaly' is probably a big rock. It might be a boat. It might even be a big wooden boat. But one thing it's never going to be is Noah's Ark, because that was a fable.

The 'anomaly' is probably a big rock. It might be a boat. It might even be a big wooden boat. But one thing it's never going to be is Noah's Ark, because that was a fable.

Here's a question I have.

Where exactly in the scriptures does it say that Noah's Ark landed on Mount Ararat?

I'm a bit surprised at your position ros. You're clearly basing your entire assertion on emotion. "It might even be a big wooden boat. But one thing it's never going to be is Noah's Ark, because that was a fable".

What would the scientific community say about your reasoning?

Let's see; We found a wooden boat that was built hundreds or thousands of years ago, perched on the side of a mountain thousands of feet above any sizeable mass of water, and the dimensions are said to be near the size as provided in the scriptures. The vessel has survived extreme conditions (although another poster said there was no way it could "survive"). And it is impossible to consider it might be Noah's Ark because I believe that notion is a fable.

You've provided no evidence for your assertion ros; only emotion.

...The area in which the putative anomaly is found was photographed many, many times, and the photographs classified--because it lay in the border region between the Soviet Union and Turkey, a NATO member. The photos were not classified because of any superstitious horseshit, but because they were reconnaissance photos of a sensitive border area. There have been many, many other photos which were never classified.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, which has access to all photos, including those still classified, has stated that it cannot rule out a man-made object, but that it is most likely: . . . linear facades in the glacial ice underlying more recently accumulated ice and snow.

That is consistent with the natural conditions of a mountainous elevation at which glacial ice forms; but more importantly, it doesn't require any leap of faith into the unknown, and sublimely ridiculous.

Science doesn't have to disprove ridiculous ideas before they can be dismissed, we do it all the time. We know there are no tooth faries, the leprechauns don't keep a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, a blue whale didn't fly over Boston last night on magical wings, there's no teapot orbiting pluto and all the animals of the earth didn't magically cram themselves onto a wooden boat in preparation for a magical flood which covered the earth.

There are dozens of ancient flood stories throughout history, Noah's story isn't even original, it's a copy of an older story. Yet you dismiss them all as fantasy, except yours. There have been countless magical events described by religions all over the world and throughout time, but you don't waste your time with them. Why? What makes the magic of Noah's story any better than the magic of muslim stories or mormon stories, or from the crackpot on the corner who says the sky is falling. The answer is easy, there's nothing different about it, nothing. The only reason you don't see it is because you're immersed in this cultural delusion.

If someone wants to believe in magic that's fine. But they really shouldn't be a bit surprised when rational people ridicule them for it. Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, that's where the word comes from.

More people with a good grip on reality should be less inclined to "play along" with irrational ideas. Otherwise we end up with a society full of adults who can't discriminate between reality and bullshit (and that can't be good).

Galileo, Wilbur & Orville Wright, Newton, Louis Pasteur... - all laughed at for their "ridiculous, irrational" ideas. And now the science community reveres their accomplishments.