posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:10 AM
It takes millions of years to turn wood into stone--10,000 + or - is not enough time to make a wooden ark into a rock; unless you have an environment
that is filled with silica-rich hot water.
Besides that, the ark would have been made with felled trees--by the time it came to rest the trees would not be filled with cellulose--another
necessity (it would seem) for petrification.
The ark would have had to been buried in sedimentary layers, percolated under pressure, with mineral-rich water, during the petrification. Mt. Ararat
is a stratovolcano, and everything I've read says it is entirely composed of intermediate igneous rock--absolutely devoid of sedimentary layers, as
far as they've investigated (and usually around only 50% to 60% silica--not enough for petrification).
It just doesn't seem possible that the ark is now rock--although if it isn't rock, then surely it isn't, at all... How long could wood endure in
such a climate? Even gopher wood (whatever that is).
But the 'anomaly' is most certainly a rock, IMO. Considering the composition of Ararat, it seems to be not unusual at all, geologically
speaking--except maybe for it's curious protruberance, but that could be nothing more than just the circumstances of the geology and the snow.
The lack of sedimentation and the method of formation make it suspect, too, IMO. It doesn't appear to have been submerged as the majority of other
peaks around the world have (because of fossil records). It could have emerged, by way of lava flow, after the flood. They aren't sure when it
erupted--a minor one/earthquake seems to have happened in 1840 something, and they feel reasonably sure it has erupted within the last 10,000 years.
There's not a lot of certainty about it even being available at the right time for the ark.
There are a few other problems with Ararat, too--it wasn't even Ararat until around 1100 AD. The bible doesn't mention Ararat--it mentions
Armenia. Armenia is a very mountainous country--it's filled up by the lesser Causcasus mountains--the highest point of which is called Mt.
Aragats... at about 13.000 feet elevation.
My point being only this:
why is Mt Ararat so decidedly the proposed site?
There isn't really anything conclusive to support the exhuberance with which its been attacked by countless would-be ark discoverers. If you read
about the development of this popular opinion of the ark's supposed location, it looks more and more like the mountain was named and dedicated by the
search--rather than actually inspiring these quests because of likelihood, it has been given fame and reputation, practically a life of its own--based
only on a consensus that has grown out of a rumor hinted at within the last millenium.