Ark or Arc?

Porcher Taylor practices what he calls “satellite archaeology”. In the news over at CNN is Taylor’s highest-profile work, an analysis of what is billed as an anomaly on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.

Nevertheless, the anomaly may not be a ridge line of ice, snow and possibly rock, but an artificial ridge line, Taylor said. “I maintain that if it is the remains of something manmade and potentially nautical, then it’s potentially something of biblical proportions.”

Another commenter made this observation:

The face of the anomaly measured 1,015 feet (309 meters) across, Franz said. “I also found the shape of the anomaly appears to fit on a circle. I am not sure what this means, if anything, but I find it curious.”

And here’s the picture that ran with the CNN story:

It just looks like a ridge-line to me, but then I’m not a geologist.

Ark-ophiles should check out the following resources:

FAQ on Noah’s Ark
Sun Pictures and the Noah’s Ark Hoax
Review of John Woodmorappe’s “Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study”
Sun Goes Down in Flames: The Jammal Ark Hoax
CH500: Noah’s ark sightings
CH501: Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat
Arkeology bibliography

Noah’s Ark is a sure-fire draw, and it has prompted all sorts of odd claims. There have been many hoaxes associated with claims that the Ark has been found. So I don’t think that this latest news report really changes anything. There are the previously noted problems that the locality “Ararat” in the bible is a region, not a specific mountain, that the scale of the feature in this report isn’t quite right, and that conditions of aerial or satellite imagery make a big difference in analysis.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Falconer. Interdisciplinary researcher: biology and computer science. Data scientist in real estate and econometrics. Blogger. Speaker. Photographer. Husband. Christian. Activist.

2 thoughts on “Ark or Arc?

  • 2006/03/13 at 5:32 pm

    As I’ve commented elsewhere, I think this photo makes a nice complement to Mt. Rushmore, and would very much like to hear Dr. Behe’s analysis of whether he thinks we ought to “scientifically” conclude that this Ararat feature is intelligently designed just because it appears to be designed.

    Sooner or later the truth about this feature is bound to come out, so this is a good chance to falsify the Mt. Rushmore argument, if Behe cares to actually put it to the test.

  • 2006/03/14 at 3:19 am

    That would be interesting. I predict that you will not have much luck in getting a firm commitment on this by any major ID advocate. Firm commitments are apparently good for marriage, but not in whatever it is that ID advocates do.

Comments are closed.