Noah's Ark may have been photographed on Ararat in 1949 (Talk.Origins)
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
- A 1949 USAF aerial photograph of the Western Plateau of Mount Ararat shows an elongated box-like object which could be Noah's ark.
Source: Maier, Timothy W., 2000.
- Anomaly or Noah's Ark? Insight 16(43) (20 Nov.).
- Morris, John D., 2001. Noah's Ark remains in the news! Acts & Facts 30(2) (Feb.): 1-3.
CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)
1. It is not uncommon for natural features to resemble man-made objects, especially when the object is as simple as a box and the resolution is rather poor.
True and John Morris indicates that there is uncertainty about the identity of the object, only stating that it would justify an expedition to investigate it.
Some of the experts who examined the satellite photos identified the anomaly as a geological feature.
Who are these experts? What are they experts in? Were they even remotely open to the possibility that this is Noah's Ark? Talk Origins is using what is called "a disembodied expert." It is the lowest form of an Appeal to Authority since it gives the appearance of being backed by an authority without providing any information on that authority so that the claim can be checked.
The photo of the "Ararat Anomaly" with the article by Morris resembles a shadowed snow escarpment similar to others in the same picture.
WRONG! There are several distinctions:
- the "Ararat Anomaly" has evidence of being box shaped.
- The snow clearly ends before the the "Ararat Anomaly" does
- On the "Ararat Anomaly's" left side the snow seems to stop before reaching the Anomaly's top, while more to right is seems to cover it completely.
- Just such a shadow can be found behind the "Ararat Anomaly" and it clearly distinct from the shadow.
This does not prove this is Noah's Ark or even man made, but it is not a shadowed snow escarpment.
2. An ark-sized box on Mount Ararat would not be consistent with what we would expect to find if the biblical account were true. First, the Ararat referred to in the Bible is a region, which biblical scholars think was further north than the mountain called Ararat today.
While it is true that the Bible does describe Ararat as a region, Talk Origins is once again using "a disembodied expert" in their claim that the region of Ararat is far north of Mt. Ararat. They give no reference nor any bases for their claim other than unnamed "biblical scholars."
Second, glacial activity in the region photographed almost certainly would have reduced Noah's ark to lumber, had it been there.
Maybe not. If it is there still reasonably intact, it would prove that it was constructed well enough to survive the Flood. Furthermore, there were factors that could have prevented its destruction, such as the fact that the door was probably left open allowing it to be filled with snow as the glacier formed.
3. To evaluate photographs, it is important to know the conditions under which the photograph was taken, including distance and type of camera. Such conditions are not even considered in this case.
Both of the above sources are simply reporting the story. If none of these factors were considered, that is their sources' fault, but Talk Origins gives no basis for their claim that they were not considered.