Ararat Anomaly

Wait here while I pull the plug.



No, on second thought, YOU pull it.

Naw, i'll pass . . .


. . . but here, pull m finger . . .

Have a nice day, O lord of the fleas. . .

I believe that neo was merely being his elfin self and theres no reason to dump on him. NOW BADDOG, on the other hand, is guilty of merely posting without understanding. Its like glomming a chapter of a detailed oceanic tectonics book without comment nor ANY evidence of understanding.
There are so many mistakes in his "Creation SCience" evidence that its actually difficult to know where to begin. Hes posted the Creationists view of "Flood basalts".THese basalts are always associated with "trailing edge" tectonics where the rafted continental mass is being pulled apart, or in other cases, where thin crustal layers float over pre-existing mantle "hotspots". Gravity /Density anomalies along tectonic subduction zones, are all (that is ALL)associated with "leading edge tectonics" or front bumpers of tectonic plates. The sections are not being "dragged down" They are being crumpled as they are pushed by "rafdting" over a moving upper mantle (upon which the crust, by its difference in density, "floats and is sort of rolled down into a trench by extreme pressures from convection cells)

The evidence for this is readily available and is documented in Rodgers and Santosh" bookContinents and SUpercontinents (2004)or PraveA Tale of three CRatons(1996). There are many more papers and books on this very subject since it has been studied to death since J Tuzo WIlson (of the Canadian Survey) and HArold Hess of the USGS first developed the proof of mechanism of Continental Drift.

ALL VOLCANICS at leading end tectonics are "acidic", that is , they contain mixes of deep ocean mantle (ophiolites and olivines) and are massively dosed with "light" silicates (Quartz, feldspars,).
This means that the subduction zones were pushed one atop the other and the continental mass is drawn deep into the mantle. The difference in density and the temperature differences (plus the addition of connate water in the mix) creates a dangerous volcanics region. This months Nat Geo has a very good article of th "continntal" volcanics along the Indonesian coast , and the map of the entire "ring of Fire" where subduction zones are pushing against each other and where the focii of the most dangerous earthquakes and volcanoes exist.

Evidence is quite clear that this has been a similar occurence in the deep past, with at least 3 separate assemblages and breakups of huge continental masses (Pangea, Rhodinia, and Cloumbia from yougest to oldest). Some geologists argue for an even earlier one from evidence of peridotite belts in the CAnadian and Russian shields.

Geological careers , held by many very important USGS and Academic and mining geologists,suddenly and rapidly ended in the late 1960's when these "Old schoolers" got oout of the way of the "new breed" of Plate Tectonics savvy scientists. The old school geologists, most of whom were associated with te Ivy"s, had published early theories which were very much like BD's "Creation Science" crap. They had the post WWII scientific world believe that , by a process, called "Geosynclinal Formation"
All ocenic basins were merely a process of accumulation by density troughs forming along continental margins. They used terms like "eugeosynclines and Parageosynclines and autogeosynclines etc). To them, continental drift was a nonoccurence so their accumulation of basins actually could occur (absent crustal movement)

The problem with BD is that his sources want to have it both ways, accumulation of density basins ,AND Continental drift.

BD, theres waaaaay too much real evidence to even consider your cReation geology dogma. Its unprovable and full of mistakes, and downright technical lies. Im not gonna delve any deeper because , by doing so, would show up on these google assemblars that we are having a technical argument with a cReationist v A "real" geologist. SO instead, Im just gonna have fun and make ridicule of your positions.

Your vulacnism and tectonics crap is just one area.


Also, didnt the Bible say somewhere that it rained for 40 days and forty nights?

PS Bible Hint :there are two other books in the OT that mention the flood and Noahs prep-time. People always ignore these as much as they do the "second account of Creation"

Our host seems to have split and left the site free to discuss the "Anomaly". In 1955 (I looked up the date first neo) Fernand Navarra , noted for his wood artifacts from Ararat, had produced at least 2 hand worked beams from the bottom of a glacial cirque on Ararat. He made hints that they were pieces of the "Ark" consistent with the 1949 photos of the "Anomaly". Later C14 testing of cored wood yielded dates from 600CE to 200CE. The variation is expected for woods that have some possible additional C from bacteria etc. However, on the basis of the ranges produced, these wood beams were obviously not anywhere near old enough to be Ark material.

The story gets more interesting when Navarro was accused by locals of procuring and actually stealing old chunks of wood from old buildings in the province, and obviously "salting" the cirque with pieces of hand hewn lumber

Hi fm. Hope you & yours had a wonderful Christmas. We're still a long way from home, but I have a few minutes & thought I'd check in.

It is apparent that Navarra was not taken too serious. The testimony of Geo. Hagopian is actually more interesting and compelling in relation to this anomaly.

Also; would you have any C14 testing of the wood known as 'oleander' laying around?

Hope you have a Happy New Year.

More animals that must have died in the flood (cuz they obviously can't swim or anything).

Heres a pic from the Quikbird satellite file. Its been posted as"proof" that there is an anomaly, and that this anomaly is made of something other than rock and ice. I see just the opposite.

Please note the erosion features and fractures on the anomaly. This is the crest of a cirque or a spine, not a boat."ARARAT ANOMALY FROM SPACE"