Friday, June 30, 2006

The Real Noah's Ark Finally Uncovered!

Following a post by Dispatches From The Culture Wars a while back, Afarensis has reported further of the supposed discovery of Noah's Ark in Iran by members of the BASE Institute. While both Dispatches and Afarensis correctly criticize members of the BASE institute as having no experience whatsoever in archaeology, no reported (let alone recognized) field methodology, no published research reports on the find, and no data that can be objectively verified, my two fellow bloggers are actually wrong about the real reason BASE hasn't an archaeological leg to stand on. BASE has not discovered the real Noah's Ark because the fact of the matter is that unbeknownst to my fellow bloggers and the Ark-seeking community I, Christopher O'Brien, have, in fact found the true Noah's Ark at....Burney Falls in northeastern California. Here, I present complete evidence to the internet world so they can see for themselves the truth of my claims:
The picture here clearly shows a keel-like object protruding from falls area in a direction and location that cannot be explained by natural processes. Moreover, the material here contains fine striations and appears to be very wood-like, again suggesting that the object is not part of the natural environment. My team and I will be sending samples for xrayradiocarbon degeneration testing, which will confirm the object as wood (failing confirmation, the report will never see the light of day...). It will take some time to process and send the samples as one of my team is currently moonlighting as manager of a Dairy Queen and two others are tied up on the rodeo circuit as clowns. Closer inspection of the object however, has led me to believe that this is not actually the keel of a large ship but a bulbous bow. This pecular bow design is similar to many large, modern container ships that haul significant loads of cargo. This would be expected given the overall weight of the paired animals contained on this vessel. The bulbous bow design actually diverts water flow and lessens drag on the ship, making it a much more efficient ocean-going vessel. Clearly, an Intelligent Designer had a hand in this, offering further proof that the bacterial flagellum is indeed, irreducibly complex. This should not be surprising as many Noah's Ark scholars have questioned the traditionally depicted design of the craft as much more box-like. God knew fully well what He was doing when he instructed Noah in design of the boat.


Here is an artist's reconstruction of the position of the bow in relation to the rest of the ship as it rests further behind the falls, buried by no more than 6000 years of deposit. Clearly much of the upper portion of the bow as well as the upper deck have been removed, probably as a result of erosion.
It may be difficult for some to believe that the Ark could have strayed this far from its presumed origin in the Mideast, however, following BASE logic, I personally believe in the strength of "Possibilities and Problems" methodology to explain its existence here in northern California. What are the possibilities presented by biblical narratives? Given the extraordinarily modern design of this vessel and the fact that it was afloat for a minimum of 40 days, it is possible that the craft sailed many thousands of miles away from its place of origin. In fact, one would venture to say that it is highly unlikely that a vessel so intelligently designed would be constrained within the region of the Mideast and is more likely to have ended up outside of the Arabian-Asian region on a completely different continent (such as North America). To suggest otherwise is to give into the fact that Noah had poor instruction from the Almighty and effectively could do no more than "sail in circles" above the flooded Mideast. Further, given the suggestion that the flood was indeed worldwide, we would be remiss to think that it did not in fact go a great distance. There is the fact that the Burney Falls area is not sufficiently high to be the primary ground initially exposed after the Flood. However, the area has experienced what can only be described as significant erosion in the last 6000 years and the peak most likely extended well beyond current surrounding peaks such as Mount Lassen.

We see here further evidence that Noah was likely responsible for the amazing structures documented at Burney Falls. Here we can see the incredibly straight fissure carved into the rocks near the falls. Such right angle blocking cannot be created in nature and must be the result of human manufacture. This is most likely the dock which Noah built after the Ark had landed in order to faciliate debarking animals. DNA extracted from within the "boards" of this structure clearly show a variety of animals from around the world all traversed this area at a single event. This DNA was analyzed by a team of engineers because geneticists are not true scientists and cannot be trusted to provide evidence that does not contradict the biblical narrative.

I can only come to the conclusion that the BASE Team and Ron Wyatt are misleading the public about the authenticity of Noah's Ark. Clearly they are media hounds seeking to hide true biblical truths in favor of publicity. At minimum evidence I found at Burney Falls is no less lacking in credibility that discovered by BASE or Ron Wyatt.

4 comments:

afarensis said...

So, if the Ark came to rest in California, does that mean the Mormons are correct? Native Americans really are one of the "lost tribes" of Isreal? I mean, come on we the need theological implications of your find...

Christopher O'Brien said...

Mmmm...good point as usual...I'm sure we can find some obscure Bible reference to take care of it though....

LoRd-bLeSs said...

this is rubbish..the holt bible(KJV) states tht the ark rested upon mt.Ararat The name Ararat, as it appears in the Bible, is the Hebrew equivalent of ...Urartu, ancient country of southwest Asia...mentioned in Assyrian sources from the early 13th century BC" Encyclopaedia Britanica 15th ed. Some have mistakenly assumed the Bible meant the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat (Agri Dagh), but that is not the case. Mount Ararat is 17,000 feet tall, and is a post-Flood volcanic mountain that gained its height after the Flood, therefore there is no reason to assume it is a more likely candidate for the resting place of the ark, instead it is a less likely candidate. The ark came to rest in the mountains of the ancient country of Urartu, not on Mt. Ararat.

LoRd-bLeSs said...

Sorry typo "HOLY BIBLE(KJV)"...