هل ألله موجود؟
- بادئ الموضوع فتحي مسعد حنفي
- تاريخ البدء
-
- الوسوم
- لا شيء
زرياب
:: كاتب نشـــط::
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
كلامك وااااضح لكن اخونا kog اتوقع انو يعمل رايح منو
كما انه عمل رايح عن كثير من الحقائــــــــــــق البينه
التى لم يتنبأ بها ابوالعلا المعرى واهل المعره زاتو
بل تنبا بها النبى الامى ....الذى لم يولد فى الشام حيث المعرى
بل ولد فى مكه وما ادراكما مكه فى ذلك الزمان قريه محاطه بجبال
وياتى بتلك الانباء العجيبه
والعلوم الحاااصله الكثيره
بل يصور مرحلة نشؤ kog منذ ان كان علقه
فى تصور عجييييييييييييييييب بدون اجهزه موجاااات صوتيه ولا غيرها
شكرا جزيلا يا اخى الكحلى
كلامك وااااضح لكن اخونا kog اتوقع انو يعمل رايح منو
كما انه عمل رايح عن كثير من الحقائــــــــــــق البينه
التى لم يتنبأ بها ابوالعلا المعرى واهل المعره زاتو
بل تنبا بها النبى الامى ....الذى لم يولد فى الشام حيث المعرى
بل ولد فى مكه وما ادراكما مكه فى ذلك الزمان قريه محاطه بجبال
وياتى بتلك الانباء العجيبه
والعلوم الحاااصله الكثيره
بل يصور مرحلة نشؤ kog منذ ان كان علقه
فى تصور عجييييييييييييييييب بدون اجهزه موجاااات صوتيه ولا غيرها
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
بالمناسبة ان شاء الله تكون قصة توم وجيري عجبتك...الله يجازيك يا فتحي!!!!!
بالمناسبة ان شاء الله تكون قصة توم وجيري عجبتك...الله يجازيك يا فتحي!!!!!
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
بمناسبة التصور من غير موجات صوتية ....هاك دي
وان شا الله الدكتور يزداد علما علي علم
لقد سمعت عن حديث لرسول الله صى الله عليه وسلم ( بما معناه) أنه إذا سبق ماء الرجل ماء المرأة يكون الناتج ولد، فهل هذا صحيح( جزاكم الله خيرا)، وإذا كان صحيحا فأرجو شرح الحديث أكثر لأني لم أفهم كيف يسبق ماء الرجل المرأة، والمعروف أن ماء المرأة أسرع من ماء الرجل؟؟ وما هي الطريقة لكي يستطيع الرجل أن يسبق المرأة ؟
الإجابــة
الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه، أما بعـد:
فعن أنس رضي الله عنه قال: بلغ عبد الله بن سلام مقدم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المدينة فأتاه فقال : إني سائلك عن ثلاث لا يعلمهن إلا نبي قال: ما أول أشراط الساعة ؟ وما أول طعام يأكله أهل الجنة ؟ ومن أي شيء ينزع الولد إلى أبيه ، ومن أي شيء ينزع إلى أخواله ؟.................... وأما الشبه في الولد فإن الرجل إذا غشي المرأة فسبقها ماؤه كان الشبه له، وإذا سبق ماؤها كان الشبه لها ، قال : أشهد أنك رسول الله . وفي مسند أحمد من حديث ابن عباس وفيه قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم للجماعة من اليهود حين جاؤوه : فأنشدكم بالله الذي لا إله إلا هو الذي أنزل التوراة على موسى هل تعلمون أن ماء الرجل أبيض غليظ وأن ماء المرأة أصفر رقيق، فأيهما علا كان الولد والشبه بإذن الله، إن علا ماء الرجل على ماء المرأة كان ذكرا بإذن الله، وإن علا ماء المرأة على ماء الرجل كان أنثى بإذن الله قالوا : نعم .
وفي صحيح مسلم من حديث ثوبان وفيه قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ماء الرجل أبيض وماء المرأة أصفر، فإذا اجتمعا فعلا مني الرجل مني المرأة أذكرا بإذن الله، وإذا علا مني المرأة مني الرجل أنثا بإذن الله . وقد شرح الحافظ ابن حجر هذه الأحاديث وجمع بينها في فتح الباري فقال : قوله ( فإذا سبق ماء الرجل) وفي رواية الفزاري : فإن الرجل إذا غشي المرأة فسبقها ماؤه . قوله : نزع الولد .... ووقع عند مسلم من حديث عائشة : إذا علا ماء الرجل ماء المرأة أشبه أعمامه ، وإذا علا ماء المرأة ماء الرجل أشبه أخواله ، ونحوه للبزار عن ابن مسعود وفيه : ماء الرجل أبيض غليظ وماء المرأة أصفر رقيق، فأيهما أعلى كان الشبه له ، والمراد بالعلو هنا السبق لأن كل من سبق فقد علا شأنه فهو علو معنوي، وأما ما وقع عند مسلم من حديث ثوبان رفعه: ماء الرجل أبيض وماء المرأة أصفر فإذا اجتمعا فعلا مني الرجل مني المرأة أذكرا بإذن الله، وإذا علا مني المرأة مني الرجل أنثا بإذن الله . فهو مشكل من جهة أنه يلزم منه اقتران الشبه للأعمام إذا علا ماء الرجل ويكون ذكرا لا أنثى وعكسه ، والمشاهد خلاف ذلك لأنه قد يكون ذكرا ويشبه أخواله لا أعمامه وعكسه ، قال القرطبي: يتعين تأويل حديث ثوبان بأن المراد بالعلو السبق، قلت: والذي يظهر ما قدمته وهو تأويل العلو في حديث عائشة ، وأما حديث ثوبان فيبقى العلو فيه على ظاهره فيكون السبق علامة التذكير والتأنيث، والعلو علامة الشبه فيرتفع الإشكال، وكأن المراد بالعلو الذي يكون سبب الشبه بحسب الكثرة بحيث يصير الآخر مغمورا فيه فبذلك يحصل الشبه، وينقسم ذلك ستة أقسام: الأول أن يسبق ماء الرجل ويكون أكثر فيحصل له الذكورة والشبه ، والثاني عكسه، والثالث: أن يسبق ماء الرجل ويكون ماء المرأة أكثر فتحصل الذكورة والشبه للمرأة ، والرابع عكسه ، والخامس أن يسبق ماء الرجل ويستويان فيذكر ولا يختص بشبه ، والسادس عكسه. اهـ .
وبهذا يعلم أن قول السائل (والمعروف أن ماء المرأة أسرع من ماء الرجل) إذا كان المقصود منه أن ماء المرأة هو الذي يسبق دائما فهو غير صحيح ، وأما الإسراع في الإنزال فيرجع إلى رغبة الرجل في ذلك، ولكن لا يلزم منه أن يسبق، فقد يسرع الرجل ويسبق ماؤه ماء المرأة، وقد يسرع وتكون المرأة أسرع منه فيسبق ماؤها ماءه .
والله أعلم .
بمناسبة التصور من غير موجات صوتية ....هاك دي
وان شا الله الدكتور يزداد علما علي علم
لقد سمعت عن حديث لرسول الله صى الله عليه وسلم ( بما معناه) أنه إذا سبق ماء الرجل ماء المرأة يكون الناتج ولد، فهل هذا صحيح( جزاكم الله خيرا)، وإذا كان صحيحا فأرجو شرح الحديث أكثر لأني لم أفهم كيف يسبق ماء الرجل المرأة، والمعروف أن ماء المرأة أسرع من ماء الرجل؟؟ وما هي الطريقة لكي يستطيع الرجل أن يسبق المرأة ؟
الإجابــة
الحمد لله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله وعلى آله وصحبه، أما بعـد:
فعن أنس رضي الله عنه قال: بلغ عبد الله بن سلام مقدم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم المدينة فأتاه فقال : إني سائلك عن ثلاث لا يعلمهن إلا نبي قال: ما أول أشراط الساعة ؟ وما أول طعام يأكله أهل الجنة ؟ ومن أي شيء ينزع الولد إلى أبيه ، ومن أي شيء ينزع إلى أخواله ؟.................... وأما الشبه في الولد فإن الرجل إذا غشي المرأة فسبقها ماؤه كان الشبه له، وإذا سبق ماؤها كان الشبه لها ، قال : أشهد أنك رسول الله . وفي مسند أحمد من حديث ابن عباس وفيه قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم للجماعة من اليهود حين جاؤوه : فأنشدكم بالله الذي لا إله إلا هو الذي أنزل التوراة على موسى هل تعلمون أن ماء الرجل أبيض غليظ وأن ماء المرأة أصفر رقيق، فأيهما علا كان الولد والشبه بإذن الله، إن علا ماء الرجل على ماء المرأة كان ذكرا بإذن الله، وإن علا ماء المرأة على ماء الرجل كان أنثى بإذن الله قالوا : نعم .
وفي صحيح مسلم من حديث ثوبان وفيه قول رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم: ماء الرجل أبيض وماء المرأة أصفر، فإذا اجتمعا فعلا مني الرجل مني المرأة أذكرا بإذن الله، وإذا علا مني المرأة مني الرجل أنثا بإذن الله . وقد شرح الحافظ ابن حجر هذه الأحاديث وجمع بينها في فتح الباري فقال : قوله ( فإذا سبق ماء الرجل) وفي رواية الفزاري : فإن الرجل إذا غشي المرأة فسبقها ماؤه . قوله : نزع الولد .... ووقع عند مسلم من حديث عائشة : إذا علا ماء الرجل ماء المرأة أشبه أعمامه ، وإذا علا ماء المرأة ماء الرجل أشبه أخواله ، ونحوه للبزار عن ابن مسعود وفيه : ماء الرجل أبيض غليظ وماء المرأة أصفر رقيق، فأيهما أعلى كان الشبه له ، والمراد بالعلو هنا السبق لأن كل من سبق فقد علا شأنه فهو علو معنوي، وأما ما وقع عند مسلم من حديث ثوبان رفعه: ماء الرجل أبيض وماء المرأة أصفر فإذا اجتمعا فعلا مني الرجل مني المرأة أذكرا بإذن الله، وإذا علا مني المرأة مني الرجل أنثا بإذن الله . فهو مشكل من جهة أنه يلزم منه اقتران الشبه للأعمام إذا علا ماء الرجل ويكون ذكرا لا أنثى وعكسه ، والمشاهد خلاف ذلك لأنه قد يكون ذكرا ويشبه أخواله لا أعمامه وعكسه ، قال القرطبي: يتعين تأويل حديث ثوبان بأن المراد بالعلو السبق، قلت: والذي يظهر ما قدمته وهو تأويل العلو في حديث عائشة ، وأما حديث ثوبان فيبقى العلو فيه على ظاهره فيكون السبق علامة التذكير والتأنيث، والعلو علامة الشبه فيرتفع الإشكال، وكأن المراد بالعلو الذي يكون سبب الشبه بحسب الكثرة بحيث يصير الآخر مغمورا فيه فبذلك يحصل الشبه، وينقسم ذلك ستة أقسام: الأول أن يسبق ماء الرجل ويكون أكثر فيحصل له الذكورة والشبه ، والثاني عكسه، والثالث: أن يسبق ماء الرجل ويكون ماء المرأة أكثر فتحصل الذكورة والشبه للمرأة ، والرابع عكسه ، والخامس أن يسبق ماء الرجل ويستويان فيذكر ولا يختص بشبه ، والسادس عكسه. اهـ .
وبهذا يعلم أن قول السائل (والمعروف أن ماء المرأة أسرع من ماء الرجل) إذا كان المقصود منه أن ماء المرأة هو الذي يسبق دائما فهو غير صحيح ، وأما الإسراع في الإنزال فيرجع إلى رغبة الرجل في ذلك، ولكن لا يلزم منه أن يسبق، فقد يسرع الرجل ويسبق ماؤه ماء المرأة، وقد يسرع وتكون المرأة أسرع منه فيسبق ماؤها ماءه .
والله أعلم .
فتحي مسعد حنفي
:: كاتب نشـــط::
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
معني كدة اولادك سميحين يعني بيشبهوك...
اسال لينا دكتور الكحلي...لو الواحد داير يخلف بنات العلاج شنو
معني كدة اولادك سميحين يعني بيشبهوك...
اسال لينا دكتور الكحلي...لو الواحد داير يخلف بنات العلاج شنو
فتحي مسعد حنفي
:: كاتب نشـــط::
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
بدون الكحلي أنا بوريك..تعرس مرا تانية..أكيد انت في الاسلام كلو ما عاجبك الا الأربعة نسوان..أنا غايتو بناتي شفطوهن قبال ما أوعي بيهن وهسة متزوجات ومخلفات.. ياخ والله أنا أكتر حاجة مزعلاني الحادك دا وبصراحة أنا مستخسرك في الالحاد مع اني عارف ان العرجا لي مراحا.:005::005::005:
بدون الكحلي أنا بوريك..تعرس مرا تانية..أكيد انت في الاسلام كلو ما عاجبك الا الأربعة نسوان..أنا غايتو بناتي شفطوهن قبال ما أوعي بيهن وهسة متزوجات ومخلفات.. ياخ والله أنا أكتر حاجة مزعلاني الحادك دا وبصراحة أنا مستخسرك في الالحاد مع اني عارف ان العرجا لي مراحا.:005::005::005:
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
افهم ان المدام اسرع من حضرتك...ياخيبتك يا سي مسعد..يا خسارة ام فتفت والكجومورو
افهم ان المدام اسرع من حضرتك...ياخيبتك يا سي مسعد..يا خسارة ام فتفت والكجومورو
فتحي مسعد حنفي
:: كاتب نشـــط::
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
لكين ما قلت لي علاج السرعة..
انا مديكم فرص علشان ترجعوني ..مثلا هسع موضوع ماء الرجل وماء المرأة دا ياتو كرتون...كدا اسأل لي زرياب ول د.الكحلي
لكين ما قلت لي علاج السرعة..
انا مديكم فرص علشان ترجعوني ..مثلا هسع موضوع ماء الرجل وماء المرأة دا ياتو كرتون...كدا اسأل لي زرياب ول د.الكحلي
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
سفينة نوح للمرة الالف: اعلم ان هذه الحملات يقودها كنسيون ممن يسمون انجليكان
وهذه الورقة العلمية تحكي لك القصة من اولها وتبين بما لا يدع مجال للشك انها "بوقص" اي غير صحيح انهم اكتشفوا سفينة نوح وان ما اكتشفوه امما هو تكوين صخري طبيعي ليس الا.
اقرا الورقة بتمعن لو كنت تجيد الانجليزية او اطبعها واستعن باحد الاشخاص الذين يجيدونها لو كنت حريصا علي معرفة الحقيقة
وفي النهاي ساضع ترجمة لملخص الورقة (حسب امكانياتي)
BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
Lorence Gene Collins
Department of Geological Sciences
California State University Northridge
Northridge, California 91330-8266
email: [email protected]
David Franklin Fasold
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Thirty-five years ago, Life magazine carried a story of an expedition sent to investigate the outline of a ship in a mud-flow near Dogubayazit in eastern Turkey (Life, 1960); see p. 112). An aerial photo in this story was captioned: "Noah's Ark?" Upon reaching the site (Figure 1) at 7,000 feet elevation, investigators found the boat-like appearance (Figure 2) to be only superficial. One scientist in the group ventured that nothing in nature could produce such symmetry, although nothing man-made was discovered. But after two days of looking for a cause of the phenomenon, the site was temporarily abandoned for lack of evidence. Other searches for the Ark continued, however, and placed Noah's barge on Mount Ararat farther to the north, much closer to where various creationists placed the Ark.
With the search still underway twenty-five years later, another explorer reclaimed the mound near Dogubayazit as Noah's Ark, which according to him contained "trainloads" of gopherwood (Wyatt, 1994). On the basis of this renewed interest in the area, representatives of the Turkish Ministry of Cultural Affairs and the High Commission on Ancient Monuments moved quickly to protect the site from exploitation, declaring the area a national park. However, skeptics and those who believed that the Ark was on Mt. Ararat remained unconvinced the Dogubayazit phenomenon is the Ark.
David Fasold, co-author of this paper, also began studies of the site in 1985, making nine trips in the following years to look for evidence. Today, the area is a military forbidden zone and is off limits to all researchers, except for Fasold who officially remains the only non-Turk having access. Placed directly on the project by the Rector of the Ataturk University at Erzurum, Fasold worked closely with project leader, Associate Professor Salih Bayraktutan, with on-site investigations.
During his investigations, Fasold found the following bits of evidence to suggest that this structure could have been the Ark. (1) The length and average overall width of the structure is exactly the same as prescribed in the Bible, "300 by 50 cubits." (1 Egyptian cubit = 0.5236 m or 20.6 inches) (2) The buried structure exhibits the same nine divisions described in the Epic of Gilgamesh: "Its innards I divided into nine parts," says the Assyrian flood hero, "One IKU (acre) was its whole floor space" (Gardner and Maier, 1984). Also, the structure displays the same area as in the Ark (44,100 square feet). (3) Metal-detecting surveys have located over 5,000 buried iron targets arrayed in a symmetrical pattern from the pointed end to the rounded end of the structure, which recalls Tubal-Cain, a biblical antediluvian "instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron" (Genesis 4:22, NKJV).
Much of what Fasold uncovered should be viewed as circumstantial. Other streamlined rock-shapes have been found in the area (Guner, 1986), but according to Bayraktutan, these shapes do not display the same morphological and internal features. Fasold's ground-penetrating radar survey appeared to confirm the existence of an internal structure, featuring symmetry and regular distribution (Fasold, 1988). Nevertheless, Bayraktutan found it difficult to explain why the site had so many geometric properties if it were just some randomly formed natural outcrop. Even marine engineers had made studies and commented on it (Windsor, 1992, 1993).
Furthermore: (4) Scattered some 24 km away are eleven, large, flat stones, each with a circular hole at one end and weighing between 4 and 10 tons (Figure 3). These could be interpreted as the anchor drogues referred to in the Qur'an: "In the name of Allah, it will cast anchor" (Dawood, 1966; see Houd 11:40). And, (5) Ancient place names relating to the Flood story abound and virtually surround the location (Fasold, 1988). Here are a few examples: Hero's Anchorage, Voluntary Pilgrimage, Vowing Sacrifice, Raven Won't Land, and Judgement Day. Fasold noted that such historians as Berossus, Nicholas of Damascus, and Josephus, recorded hearsay in their day, reported that pilgrims often visited the biblical Ark to recover pitch, highly prized for talismans.
Although Fasold dismissed tabloid discoveries of petrified rib timbers, coprolite, and exotic metal rivets, which were uncovered in clandestine excavations, as being the fruit of over-active imaginations, the prime evidence that an Ark with true artifacts really might exist came from an iron fitting recovered in situ in 1985 by a physicist, John Baumgardner, from Los Alamos, New Mexico. On the basis of an interpretation by Baumgardner (1988) that chemical analyses demonstrated that the fitting is composed of man-made iron, Fasold surmised how all the iron fittings came to be arrayed in a boat-like pattern (Fasold, 1988).
Fasold was fully aware that there is no geological evidence for a flood of such magnitude as could float a ship of these dimensions so far and so high beyond the modern ocean, except through the power of myth. Nevertheless, the reports of supposed man-made iron held out the hope for a legitimate discovery. After nine years of surveys and deploying every remote sensing device available, he waited for the Turks to excavate the structure. A reluctance on their part to do so caused him to become suspicious, and his enthusiasm for discovery began to wane. His first logical step then was to start from the beginning and request confirmation for the iron fitting. Was it really man-made?
It was at this time that I (Collins), as senior author and a geologist, came into the picture. In order to respond to Fasold's question and other queries, I first examined thin sections of the supposed iron bracket from the Ark to determine whether the iron could have been forged in a furnace. I also analyzed thin sections of what he thought might be replacement material that had seeped into void spaces, which he thought were places where wood poles and other structural supports had decomposed to leave cavities, and which now were filled with layered deposits.
Fasold also brought me a sample chip recovered from an anomalous ribbed-rock at Kazan (Arzap). This large rock had once been held in veneration by the local people, mounted upright and carved with glyphs. Sounding hollow when hit with a hammer, this rock was claimed by one researcher in his video to be petrified gopherwood (Wyatt, 1994). Fasold disagreed because he did not envision the Ark as being constructed of wood. It would be logical to assume, Fasold says, that Noah built an overly large proto-Sumerian-type craft of bundled reeds. There would be nothing left after so many years since Noah's time, but the anomalous rock displayed some interesting rippled impressions. If anything, Fasold felt it was more likely some pitch-like substance, now hardened, which was originally applied over the hull leaving imprints of reeds. It was worth looking at a thin section of this rock.
I also made a thin section of one of the "anchor drogues" (Figure 3) and obtained a chemical analysis to see if these stones could have been quarried by Noah in Mesopotamia. Finally, I interpreted aerial and ground photographs of the site and surrounding region. Some of my conclusions are preliminary, but are represented here because the site is now currently inaccessible to investigators, due to political unrest near the Iran-Turkey border. The following are the results of my analyses and interpretations.
Microscopic and Chemical Studies
The "anchor stone" (Figure 3) at Kazan (Arzap) is a fine-grained (0.001-1.0 mm) porphyritic volcanic rock in which phenocrysts (0.2-1.0 mm) consist of about 6% ilmenitic magnetite (a titanium and iron oxide containing some manganese) and about 29% plagioclase (andesine-labradorite). The very fine-grained ground mass (about 65%) contains plagioclase and ilmenitic magnetite, but with large amounts of ilmenitic magnetite than occurs as phenocrysts. The composition of this anchor stone is unusual because it lacks magnesium-rich minerals such as pyroxenes and olivine. A chemical analyses of this rock is given as Table 1.
All rock samples from the structure are pyroxene-bearing andesite or basalt partly altered to serpentine. Local calcite veins (3-5 mm wide) cut across the rock. Ilmenitic magnetite is a common accessory.
The supposed "iron bracket" is composed of granules of limonite, some of which have sizes and shapes that match those of ilmenitic magnetite crystals in the andesite of the Ark, the anchor stone, and nearby peridotite. These granules are enclosed in a matrix of calcite, clay, quartz, and fragments of anthophyllite. Many limonite granules exhibit rhythmic concretionary layers. Rare veins of pyrolusite (MnO2) locally cut the limonite.
Interpretations
Volcanic rocks similar to the andesitic "anchor stones" occur in the area surrounding Mt. Ararat (Pearce and others, 1990). The almost total absence of volcanic rocks in Mesopotamia (now Iraq) (Pearce and others, 1990; Aswad and Elias, 1988), where Noah's Ark is alleged to have been constructed, reasonably eliminate the possibility that the anchor stones were transported to Kazan by Noah's Ark. Because of the great weight of these stones, a nearby source is much more likely.
The layered samples of rocks in the mud that Fasold recovered and believed to be cavity-fillings are andesite and basalt pebbles, typical of conglomeratic mud-flows in volcanic terranes. Similar samples recovered by him from areas claimed by others to be rib timbers, planking, and deck beams are also andesite or basalt pebbles or boulders and show no evidence of petrified wood.
In the field, the supposed iron brackets have the outward appearance of pieces of black, metallic, elemental iron. The black, shiny surfaces, however, are characteristic of goethite (crystalline limonite), a hydrated iron oxide). This mineral is associated in the "structure" with black, ilmenitic, magnetite granules, and possibly pyrite or pyrrhotite because locally some sulfur is reported in chemical analyses. Both magnetite and goethite cause a metal detector to buzz just like elemental iron. Therefore, investigators might presume that they had found rusted iron metal (Wyatt, 1994).
If Noah's ship builders had forged this supposed iron bracket in a primitive smelter, the bracket would not consist of iron that was thoroughly mixed with clay, quartz, calcite, and anthophyllite particles but would have been solid iron. In molten iron these matrix minerals would have been separated as slag or destroyed. Furthermore, scanning electron (SEM) chemical analyses of five different places in the iron bracket show the variability given in Table 2.
This variability also rules out the idea that the iron was formed by smelting because smelting would homogenize the molten metal and produce a nearly constant composition. The high and variable titanium contents occur because the limonite grains were derived from hydrous alteration of ilmenitic magnetite granules eroded from different volcanic sources and having variable TiO2 contents.
Potassium, aluminum and silicon oxides reported in the iron bracket occur in interstitial clay. Small percentages of calcium oxide are either from calcite and apatite (where phosphorous occurs) or are totally from calcite where phosphorous is absent. Apatite is common in volcanic rocks where it is intergrown with plagioclase or magnetite, and, therefore, it can be eroded, transported, and become a constituent of rocks in the structure (Figure 2).
Supposed Walls In The Ark Structure
Linear (planar) limonite concentrations along supposed walls in the Ark were traced independently by three investigators, each using different electronic instruments but producing the same results (Wyatt, 1994). Thirteen lines of limonite, marking supposed walls, converge toward the structures pointed end, and a similar convergence occurs at the opposite, "blunt" end. Transverse to the longitudinal limonite concentrations are nine lines of limonite, which were interpreted to be walls dividing Ark rooms.
Although these relationships might seem to be logical evidence to indicate that the structure was originally man-made, I, as a geologist, can show that all these features could be formed by natural processes. Joining of lines in concentric shells at the structure's pointed end is consistent with the structure being an eroded doubly plunging syncline (Figure 4). At the blunt end, however, lines were not found wrapped around parallel to the outer relatively resistant rock of the Ark, which a cross-sectional view of a doubly plunging synclinal structure predicts. Their absence here occurs because eroded alluvium from the Ark's interior spills over the rounded end and buries the bedrock. Therefore, converging lines of limonite and magnetite are covered so that they are undetected. Moreover, streams of eroded limonite and magnetite granules, projecting beyond the resistant layer, give the false appearance of a metal-braced structure extending beyond the rounded end (Fasold, 1988).
Limonite concentrations in dividing walls can be formed naturally because stresses applied to rocks that are folded into a boat shape commonly produce fracture patterns that cut across sedimentary layers. Water moving through these fractures and coming in contact with ilmenitic magnetite (or pyrite) granules in the layers, would produce the limonite concentrations and stains.
Finally, no fossilized wood or traces of elemental carbon, wood, or reed fragments have ever been found associated with the limonite walls or in any other place during trenching or core drilling. The absence of ancient biotic carbons supports the hypothesis that the boat-shaped structure is not Noah's Ark. Inorganic carbon in calcite in veins cutting the layers, however, is common.
Analysis of Regional Geology
Fossiliferous limestone intersects the Ark structure on one side and is also found in outcrops on both sides beyond the adjacent landslide debris. On that basis, the doubly plunging syncline has likely formed in situ rather than being an allochthonous block transported in a landslide.
Across the landslide (200 m from the Ark) there is a resistant bed at the top of a scarp (Figure 5). Layers above and below this resistant bed have erosional forms and vegetation that match that of layers above and below the outer resistant bed of the Ark. These matching characteristics suggest that rocks composing the Ark are the same as those in the distant slope. Therefore, if such a correlation can be demonstrated, further support is provided that the Ark structure is not man-made.
Geologic History
On the basis of the information given above, I suggest the following geologic history for the origin of the structure. Rocks in the supposed Ark, which now conform to the U-shape of the syncline, were deposited initially in a horizontal or near-horizontal position. These rocks were composed of tiny grains of clay, quartz, calcite, anthophyllite, and local concentrations of ilmenitic magnetite as well as poorly sorted pebbles of andesite and basalt. They were products of weathering and erosion of volcanic rocks in nearby mountains and were transported by streams and deposited in a basin. Subsequently, these layers were compacted into rock and folded into a doubly plunging syncline. A marine sea advanced over the folded rocks and eroded and cut a channel in which fossiliferous limestone was later deposited. This was followed by uplift and further erosion that removed most of the limestone and scoured the fold to create the boat-shaped profile. Finally, swelling clays (bentonite) in mud in surrounding mountains caused a large landslide to occur. This landslide carried disoriented blocks of rock and mud that were channeled around the synclinal structure (Figure 5). Some time early in this history, following uplift, the limonite concretions ("iron brackets") were formed in the sediments, both inside and outside the synclinal structure, as ground water from rain and melting snow reacted with ilmenitic magnetite (and pyrite) granules along bedding planes and fracture zones.
Conclusion
Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994). Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark.
When the site is again accessible to foreign investigators, the area near Kazan (Arzap) needs to be examined to see if outcrops of volcanic rocks occur there that have a mineralogy similar to that of the anchor stones. If so, a local source for the anchor stones is strongly supported. Lacking this information for this article, however, in no way negates the conclusion that the boat-shaped rock formation is totally natural.
Finally, David Fasold suggested that, although the structure is not Noah's Ark, it may very well be the site which the ancients regarded as the ship of the Deluge and may have played a role in the Flood story. As a geologist, I find this to be a interesting speculation.
Acknowledgments
Thanks are given to the MA-GUR Project for photographs and specimens and to David Liggett, Peter Weigand, and Barbara Collins for editorial suggestions.
References Noted
Aswad, K. J., and Elias, E. M., 1988, Petrogenesis, geochemistry and metamorphism
of spilitized subvolcanic rocks of the Mawat ophiolite complex, NE Iraq: Ofioliti, v. 13, p. 95-108.
Baumgardner, J., 1985, ABC TV 20/20, October 17: "Considerable evidence that
it's not a natural object."
Baumgardner, J., 1988, "SEARCH FOR THE ELUSIVE ARK," Newsletter, Los Alamos,
August 19, 1988: "...these occurrences of limonite are of special interest as they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects."
Baumgardner, J., 1990, Second International Conference on Creationism, "I personally have
to include the Scripture as a critical part of my basis in believing the correlation of the beginning of the Flood at the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary."
Dawood, N. J., 1956, The Koran: Suffolk, Chaucer Press, 427 p.
Fasold, D., 1988, The Ark of Noah: New York, NY, Wynwood Press, 331 p.
Gardner, J., and Maier, J., 1984, Gilgamesh: New York, NY, Alfred A. Knopf, 304 p.
Guner, Y., 1986, Is Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat? Geomorphological development on
the Dogubayazit-Telceker landslide which is assumed to be related to Noah's Ark: Jeomorfoloji, Dergisi, v. 14, p. 27-37.
Life, 1960, September 5 issue, p. 112-114.
Pearce, J. A., Bender, J. F., De Long, S. E., Kidd, W. S. F., Low, P. J., Guner, Y.,
Saroglu, F., Yilmaz, Y., Moorbath, S., and Mitchell, J. G., 1990, Genesis of collision volcanism in Eastern Anatolia, Turkey: Journal of Volcanolgy and Geothermal Research, v. 44, p. 189-229.
Windsor, S. R., 1992, Noah's vessel: 24,000 deadweight tons: Catastrophism
& Ancient History, January, p. 5-31.
Windsor, S. R., 1993, Noah's Ark, its geometry: Catastrophism & Ancient History,
January, p. 40-57.
Wyatt, R. E., 1994, Discovered - Noah's Ark. Video documentary of research and field
work, Wyatt Archaeological Research, 713 Lambert Drive, Nashville, TN, 37220.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Lorence G. Collins is a retired professor of geology from California State University, Northridge. He was educated at the University of Illinois and has special interests in the origin of granite and ore deposits.
David Fasold is a merchant marine officer who has been fascinated with archaeology and biblical history. He headed one of the last teams that was allowed excavation rights in Turkey. (He is now deceased.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above has been published in the Journal of Geosciences Education, v. 44, 1996, p. 439-444 and has been reproduced here by permission of the editor, Dr. James Shea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to top
Return to index of topics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information contact Lorence Collins at : [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Lorence G. Collins
Department of Geological Sciences
California State University Northridge
18111 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91330-8266
FAX 818-677-2820
سفينة نوح للمرة الالف: اعلم ان هذه الحملات يقودها كنسيون ممن يسمون انجليكان
وهذه الورقة العلمية تحكي لك القصة من اولها وتبين بما لا يدع مجال للشك انها "بوقص" اي غير صحيح انهم اكتشفوا سفينة نوح وان ما اكتشفوه امما هو تكوين صخري طبيعي ليس الا.
اقرا الورقة بتمعن لو كنت تجيد الانجليزية او اطبعها واستعن باحد الاشخاص الذين يجيدونها لو كنت حريصا علي معرفة الحقيقة
وفي النهاي ساضع ترجمة لملخص الورقة (حسب امكانياتي)
BOGUS "NOAH'S ARK FROM TURKEY EXPOSED AS A COMMON GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
Lorence Gene Collins
Department of Geological Sciences
California State University Northridge
Northridge, California 91330-8266
email: [email protected]
David Franklin Fasold
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
A natural rock structure near Dogubayazit, Turkey, has been misidentified as Noah's Ark. Microscopic studies of a supposed iron bracket show that it is derived from weathered volcanic minerals. Supposed metal-braced walls are natural concentrations of limonite and magnetite in steeply inclined sedimentary layers in the limbs of a doubly plunging syncline. Supposed fossilized gopherwood bark is crinkled metamorphosed peridotite. Fossiliferous limestone, interpreted as cross cutting the syncline, preclude the structure from being Noah's Ark because these supposed "Flood" deposits are younger than the "Ark." Anchor stones at Kazan (Arzap) are derived from local andesite and not from Mesopotamia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
Thirty-five years ago, Life magazine carried a story of an expedition sent to investigate the outline of a ship in a mud-flow near Dogubayazit in eastern Turkey (Life, 1960); see p. 112). An aerial photo in this story was captioned: "Noah's Ark?" Upon reaching the site (Figure 1) at 7,000 feet elevation, investigators found the boat-like appearance (Figure 2) to be only superficial. One scientist in the group ventured that nothing in nature could produce such symmetry, although nothing man-made was discovered. But after two days of looking for a cause of the phenomenon, the site was temporarily abandoned for lack of evidence. Other searches for the Ark continued, however, and placed Noah's barge on Mount Ararat farther to the north, much closer to where various creationists placed the Ark.
With the search still underway twenty-five years later, another explorer reclaimed the mound near Dogubayazit as Noah's Ark, which according to him contained "trainloads" of gopherwood (Wyatt, 1994). On the basis of this renewed interest in the area, representatives of the Turkish Ministry of Cultural Affairs and the High Commission on Ancient Monuments moved quickly to protect the site from exploitation, declaring the area a national park. However, skeptics and those who believed that the Ark was on Mt. Ararat remained unconvinced the Dogubayazit phenomenon is the Ark.
David Fasold, co-author of this paper, also began studies of the site in 1985, making nine trips in the following years to look for evidence. Today, the area is a military forbidden zone and is off limits to all researchers, except for Fasold who officially remains the only non-Turk having access. Placed directly on the project by the Rector of the Ataturk University at Erzurum, Fasold worked closely with project leader, Associate Professor Salih Bayraktutan, with on-site investigations.
During his investigations, Fasold found the following bits of evidence to suggest that this structure could have been the Ark. (1) The length and average overall width of the structure is exactly the same as prescribed in the Bible, "300 by 50 cubits." (1 Egyptian cubit = 0.5236 m or 20.6 inches) (2) The buried structure exhibits the same nine divisions described in the Epic of Gilgamesh: "Its innards I divided into nine parts," says the Assyrian flood hero, "One IKU (acre) was its whole floor space" (Gardner and Maier, 1984). Also, the structure displays the same area as in the Ark (44,100 square feet). (3) Metal-detecting surveys have located over 5,000 buried iron targets arrayed in a symmetrical pattern from the pointed end to the rounded end of the structure, which recalls Tubal-Cain, a biblical antediluvian "instructor of every craftsman in bronze and iron" (Genesis 4:22, NKJV).
Much of what Fasold uncovered should be viewed as circumstantial. Other streamlined rock-shapes have been found in the area (Guner, 1986), but according to Bayraktutan, these shapes do not display the same morphological and internal features. Fasold's ground-penetrating radar survey appeared to confirm the existence of an internal structure, featuring symmetry and regular distribution (Fasold, 1988). Nevertheless, Bayraktutan found it difficult to explain why the site had so many geometric properties if it were just some randomly formed natural outcrop. Even marine engineers had made studies and commented on it (Windsor, 1992, 1993).
Furthermore: (4) Scattered some 24 km away are eleven, large, flat stones, each with a circular hole at one end and weighing between 4 and 10 tons (Figure 3). These could be interpreted as the anchor drogues referred to in the Qur'an: "In the name of Allah, it will cast anchor" (Dawood, 1966; see Houd 11:40). And, (5) Ancient place names relating to the Flood story abound and virtually surround the location (Fasold, 1988). Here are a few examples: Hero's Anchorage, Voluntary Pilgrimage, Vowing Sacrifice, Raven Won't Land, and Judgement Day. Fasold noted that such historians as Berossus, Nicholas of Damascus, and Josephus, recorded hearsay in their day, reported that pilgrims often visited the biblical Ark to recover pitch, highly prized for talismans.
Although Fasold dismissed tabloid discoveries of petrified rib timbers, coprolite, and exotic metal rivets, which were uncovered in clandestine excavations, as being the fruit of over-active imaginations, the prime evidence that an Ark with true artifacts really might exist came from an iron fitting recovered in situ in 1985 by a physicist, John Baumgardner, from Los Alamos, New Mexico. On the basis of an interpretation by Baumgardner (1988) that chemical analyses demonstrated that the fitting is composed of man-made iron, Fasold surmised how all the iron fittings came to be arrayed in a boat-like pattern (Fasold, 1988).
Fasold was fully aware that there is no geological evidence for a flood of such magnitude as could float a ship of these dimensions so far and so high beyond the modern ocean, except through the power of myth. Nevertheless, the reports of supposed man-made iron held out the hope for a legitimate discovery. After nine years of surveys and deploying every remote sensing device available, he waited for the Turks to excavate the structure. A reluctance on their part to do so caused him to become suspicious, and his enthusiasm for discovery began to wane. His first logical step then was to start from the beginning and request confirmation for the iron fitting. Was it really man-made?
It was at this time that I (Collins), as senior author and a geologist, came into the picture. In order to respond to Fasold's question and other queries, I first examined thin sections of the supposed iron bracket from the Ark to determine whether the iron could have been forged in a furnace. I also analyzed thin sections of what he thought might be replacement material that had seeped into void spaces, which he thought were places where wood poles and other structural supports had decomposed to leave cavities, and which now were filled with layered deposits.
Fasold also brought me a sample chip recovered from an anomalous ribbed-rock at Kazan (Arzap). This large rock had once been held in veneration by the local people, mounted upright and carved with glyphs. Sounding hollow when hit with a hammer, this rock was claimed by one researcher in his video to be petrified gopherwood (Wyatt, 1994). Fasold disagreed because he did not envision the Ark as being constructed of wood. It would be logical to assume, Fasold says, that Noah built an overly large proto-Sumerian-type craft of bundled reeds. There would be nothing left after so many years since Noah's time, but the anomalous rock displayed some interesting rippled impressions. If anything, Fasold felt it was more likely some pitch-like substance, now hardened, which was originally applied over the hull leaving imprints of reeds. It was worth looking at a thin section of this rock.
I also made a thin section of one of the "anchor drogues" (Figure 3) and obtained a chemical analysis to see if these stones could have been quarried by Noah in Mesopotamia. Finally, I interpreted aerial and ground photographs of the site and surrounding region. Some of my conclusions are preliminary, but are represented here because the site is now currently inaccessible to investigators, due to political unrest near the Iran-Turkey border. The following are the results of my analyses and interpretations.
Microscopic and Chemical Studies
The "anchor stone" (Figure 3) at Kazan (Arzap) is a fine-grained (0.001-1.0 mm) porphyritic volcanic rock in which phenocrysts (0.2-1.0 mm) consist of about 6% ilmenitic magnetite (a titanium and iron oxide containing some manganese) and about 29% plagioclase (andesine-labradorite). The very fine-grained ground mass (about 65%) contains plagioclase and ilmenitic magnetite, but with large amounts of ilmenitic magnetite than occurs as phenocrysts. The composition of this anchor stone is unusual because it lacks magnesium-rich minerals such as pyroxenes and olivine. A chemical analyses of this rock is given as Table 1.
All rock samples from the structure are pyroxene-bearing andesite or basalt partly altered to serpentine. Local calcite veins (3-5 mm wide) cut across the rock. Ilmenitic magnetite is a common accessory.
The supposed "iron bracket" is composed of granules of limonite, some of which have sizes and shapes that match those of ilmenitic magnetite crystals in the andesite of the Ark, the anchor stone, and nearby peridotite. These granules are enclosed in a matrix of calcite, clay, quartz, and fragments of anthophyllite. Many limonite granules exhibit rhythmic concretionary layers. Rare veins of pyrolusite (MnO2) locally cut the limonite.
Interpretations
Volcanic rocks similar to the andesitic "anchor stones" occur in the area surrounding Mt. Ararat (Pearce and others, 1990). The almost total absence of volcanic rocks in Mesopotamia (now Iraq) (Pearce and others, 1990; Aswad and Elias, 1988), where Noah's Ark is alleged to have been constructed, reasonably eliminate the possibility that the anchor stones were transported to Kazan by Noah's Ark. Because of the great weight of these stones, a nearby source is much more likely.
The layered samples of rocks in the mud that Fasold recovered and believed to be cavity-fillings are andesite and basalt pebbles, typical of conglomeratic mud-flows in volcanic terranes. Similar samples recovered by him from areas claimed by others to be rib timbers, planking, and deck beams are also andesite or basalt pebbles or boulders and show no evidence of petrified wood.
In the field, the supposed iron brackets have the outward appearance of pieces of black, metallic, elemental iron. The black, shiny surfaces, however, are characteristic of goethite (crystalline limonite), a hydrated iron oxide). This mineral is associated in the "structure" with black, ilmenitic, magnetite granules, and possibly pyrite or pyrrhotite because locally some sulfur is reported in chemical analyses. Both magnetite and goethite cause a metal detector to buzz just like elemental iron. Therefore, investigators might presume that they had found rusted iron metal (Wyatt, 1994).
If Noah's ship builders had forged this supposed iron bracket in a primitive smelter, the bracket would not consist of iron that was thoroughly mixed with clay, quartz, calcite, and anthophyllite particles but would have been solid iron. In molten iron these matrix minerals would have been separated as slag or destroyed. Furthermore, scanning electron (SEM) chemical analyses of five different places in the iron bracket show the variability given in Table 2.
This variability also rules out the idea that the iron was formed by smelting because smelting would homogenize the molten metal and produce a nearly constant composition. The high and variable titanium contents occur because the limonite grains were derived from hydrous alteration of ilmenitic magnetite granules eroded from different volcanic sources and having variable TiO2 contents.
Potassium, aluminum and silicon oxides reported in the iron bracket occur in interstitial clay. Small percentages of calcium oxide are either from calcite and apatite (where phosphorous occurs) or are totally from calcite where phosphorous is absent. Apatite is common in volcanic rocks where it is intergrown with plagioclase or magnetite, and, therefore, it can be eroded, transported, and become a constituent of rocks in the structure (Figure 2).
Supposed Walls In The Ark Structure
Linear (planar) limonite concentrations along supposed walls in the Ark were traced independently by three investigators, each using different electronic instruments but producing the same results (Wyatt, 1994). Thirteen lines of limonite, marking supposed walls, converge toward the structures pointed end, and a similar convergence occurs at the opposite, "blunt" end. Transverse to the longitudinal limonite concentrations are nine lines of limonite, which were interpreted to be walls dividing Ark rooms.
Although these relationships might seem to be logical evidence to indicate that the structure was originally man-made, I, as a geologist, can show that all these features could be formed by natural processes. Joining of lines in concentric shells at the structure's pointed end is consistent with the structure being an eroded doubly plunging syncline (Figure 4). At the blunt end, however, lines were not found wrapped around parallel to the outer relatively resistant rock of the Ark, which a cross-sectional view of a doubly plunging synclinal structure predicts. Their absence here occurs because eroded alluvium from the Ark's interior spills over the rounded end and buries the bedrock. Therefore, converging lines of limonite and magnetite are covered so that they are undetected. Moreover, streams of eroded limonite and magnetite granules, projecting beyond the resistant layer, give the false appearance of a metal-braced structure extending beyond the rounded end (Fasold, 1988).
Limonite concentrations in dividing walls can be formed naturally because stresses applied to rocks that are folded into a boat shape commonly produce fracture patterns that cut across sedimentary layers. Water moving through these fractures and coming in contact with ilmenitic magnetite (or pyrite) granules in the layers, would produce the limonite concentrations and stains.
Finally, no fossilized wood or traces of elemental carbon, wood, or reed fragments have ever been found associated with the limonite walls or in any other place during trenching or core drilling. The absence of ancient biotic carbons supports the hypothesis that the boat-shaped structure is not Noah's Ark. Inorganic carbon in calcite in veins cutting the layers, however, is common.
Analysis of Regional Geology
Fossiliferous limestone intersects the Ark structure on one side and is also found in outcrops on both sides beyond the adjacent landslide debris. On that basis, the doubly plunging syncline has likely formed in situ rather than being an allochthonous block transported in a landslide.
Across the landslide (200 m from the Ark) there is a resistant bed at the top of a scarp (Figure 5). Layers above and below this resistant bed have erosional forms and vegetation that match that of layers above and below the outer resistant bed of the Ark. These matching characteristics suggest that rocks composing the Ark are the same as those in the distant slope. Therefore, if such a correlation can be demonstrated, further support is provided that the Ark structure is not man-made.
Geologic History
On the basis of the information given above, I suggest the following geologic history for the origin of the structure. Rocks in the supposed Ark, which now conform to the U-shape of the syncline, were deposited initially in a horizontal or near-horizontal position. These rocks were composed of tiny grains of clay, quartz, calcite, anthophyllite, and local concentrations of ilmenitic magnetite as well as poorly sorted pebbles of andesite and basalt. They were products of weathering and erosion of volcanic rocks in nearby mountains and were transported by streams and deposited in a basin. Subsequently, these layers were compacted into rock and folded into a doubly plunging syncline. A marine sea advanced over the folded rocks and eroded and cut a channel in which fossiliferous limestone was later deposited. This was followed by uplift and further erosion that removed most of the limestone and scoured the fold to create the boat-shaped profile. Finally, swelling clays (bentonite) in mud in surrounding mountains caused a large landslide to occur. This landslide carried disoriented blocks of rock and mud that were channeled around the synclinal structure (Figure 5). Some time early in this history, following uplift, the limonite concretions ("iron brackets") were formed in the sediments, both inside and outside the synclinal structure, as ground water from rain and melting snow reacted with ilmenitic magnetite (and pyrite) granules along bedding planes and fracture zones.
Conclusion
Evidence from microscopic studies and photo analyses demonstrates that the supposed Ark near Dogubayazit is a completely natural rock formation. It cannot have been Noah's Ark nor even a man-made model. It is understandable why early investigators falsely identified it. The unusual boat-shaped structure would so catch their attention that an eagerness to be persons who either discovered Noah's Ark or confirmed its existence would tend to override caution. An illustration of the degree to which caution was disregarded by supporters of the Noah's Ark hypothesis is shown by the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994). Furthermore, if the Creationism Flood hypothesis were valid (Baumgardner, 1985, 1990), the "dead animals" represented by fossils in this limestone must have died in the supposed Flood, and these fossilized remains are found in channels that cut the supposed Ark. Therefore, the supposed Ark is older than the deposits of the supposed Noachian Flood, and this relationship in itself conclusively refutes the hypothesis that the structure is the preserved remnants of the Ark.
When the site is again accessible to foreign investigators, the area near Kazan (Arzap) needs to be examined to see if outcrops of volcanic rocks occur there that have a mineralogy similar to that of the anchor stones. If so, a local source for the anchor stones is strongly supported. Lacking this information for this article, however, in no way negates the conclusion that the boat-shaped rock formation is totally natural.
Finally, David Fasold suggested that, although the structure is not Noah's Ark, it may very well be the site which the ancients regarded as the ship of the Deluge and may have played a role in the Flood story. As a geologist, I find this to be a interesting speculation.
Acknowledgments
Thanks are given to the MA-GUR Project for photographs and specimens and to David Liggett, Peter Weigand, and Barbara Collins for editorial suggestions.
References Noted
Aswad, K. J., and Elias, E. M., 1988, Petrogenesis, geochemistry and metamorphism
of spilitized subvolcanic rocks of the Mawat ophiolite complex, NE Iraq: Ofioliti, v. 13, p. 95-108.
Baumgardner, J., 1985, ABC TV 20/20, October 17: "Considerable evidence that
it's not a natural object."
Baumgardner, J., 1988, "SEARCH FOR THE ELUSIVE ARK," Newsletter, Los Alamos,
August 19, 1988: "...these occurrences of limonite are of special interest as they could represent the rusted remains of metallic iron objects."
Baumgardner, J., 1990, Second International Conference on Creationism, "I personally have
to include the Scripture as a critical part of my basis in believing the correlation of the beginning of the Flood at the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary."
Dawood, N. J., 1956, The Koran: Suffolk, Chaucer Press, 427 p.
Fasold, D., 1988, The Ark of Noah: New York, NY, Wynwood Press, 331 p.
Gardner, J., and Maier, J., 1984, Gilgamesh: New York, NY, Alfred A. Knopf, 304 p.
Guner, Y., 1986, Is Noah's ark on Mt. Ararat? Geomorphological development on
the Dogubayazit-Telceker landslide which is assumed to be related to Noah's Ark: Jeomorfoloji, Dergisi, v. 14, p. 27-37.
Life, 1960, September 5 issue, p. 112-114.
Pearce, J. A., Bender, J. F., De Long, S. E., Kidd, W. S. F., Low, P. J., Guner, Y.,
Saroglu, F., Yilmaz, Y., Moorbath, S., and Mitchell, J. G., 1990, Genesis of collision volcanism in Eastern Anatolia, Turkey: Journal of Volcanolgy and Geothermal Research, v. 44, p. 189-229.
Windsor, S. R., 1992, Noah's vessel: 24,000 deadweight tons: Catastrophism
& Ancient History, January, p. 5-31.
Windsor, S. R., 1993, Noah's Ark, its geometry: Catastrophism & Ancient History,
January, p. 40-57.
Wyatt, R. E., 1994, Discovered - Noah's Ark. Video documentary of research and field
work, Wyatt Archaeological Research, 713 Lambert Drive, Nashville, TN, 37220.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Lorence G. Collins is a retired professor of geology from California State University, Northridge. He was educated at the University of Illinois and has special interests in the origin of granite and ore deposits.
David Fasold is a merchant marine officer who has been fascinated with archaeology and biblical history. He headed one of the last teams that was allowed excavation rights in Turkey. (He is now deceased.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above has been published in the Journal of Geosciences Education, v. 44, 1996, p. 439-444 and has been reproduced here by permission of the editor, Dr. James Shea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to top
Return to index of topics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information contact Lorence Collins at : [email protected]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Lorence G. Collins
Department of Geological Sciences
California State University Northridge
18111 Nordhoff Street
Northridge, CA 91330-8266
FAX 818-677-2820
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
اليك ترجمة للجزء الاخير من الورقة العلمية
يا اخي كم ما ادعي هؤلاء الكنسيون من براهين علي صحة كتابهم فندها العلماء
ولكن للاسف ياتي "العلماء" الاسلاميون ويتبنوها بجهل مزري
الاستنتاج
ان الادلة من الدراسات المجهرية والتحاليل الطيفية تبرهن علي ان السفينة المفترضة بالقرب من دقبيئيت هو في الحقيقة تكوين صخري طبيعي بالكامل. ليس من الممكن ان يكون هو سفينة نوح او حتي شيئا صنعه الانسان. اننا نفهم لماذا اخطا المحققون الاوائل في هذا الشان.السبب هو ان شكل التكوين الذي يشبه القارب الي حد كبير هو ما اشعل الرغبة فيهم ام يكونوا اول من اكتشف السفينة او برهن علي وجودها مما اعمي بصيرتهم عن الحذر. وكمثال لمجافاتهم الحذر هو the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994).( ادعو وجود مواد خشبية وقد نغاه التحليل الكيميائي التفاصيل في الورقة )
وثانيا اذا كان الطوفان صحيحا فان"الحيوانات الميتة" التي تمثلها المستحاثثات في هذا الصخر الجيري الذي يمر خلال هذه السفينة المفترضة لابد انها تكون قد ماتت في زمن الطوفان ولكن عمر هذه المستحاثات اقدم من زمان الطوفان
وهذا ينفي نغيا قاطعا ان يكون هذا التكوين هو بقايا سفينة نوح.
عندما يتسني للباحثين الاجانب (سبق ذكر ان الموقع محرم علي الباحثين الاجانب) فان المنطقة القريبة من كازان يحتاج الي المعاينة لنري ما اذا كانت الصخور البركانية الموجودة هناك تحمل صفات مشابهة لتلك الحجارة التي سميت حجارة المرسي(هنالك عدد من الحجارة ظن الباحثون انها تمثل مراسي للسفينة) واذا كان الامر كذلك فان مصدرها يكون محليا. ولكن عدم معرفتنا لهذه المعلومة في الوقت الراهن لا ينفي الاستنتاج بان هذا التكوين الذي يشبه القارب هو في الواقع طبيعي بالتمام.
واخيرا فان ديفيد فاسولد يقترح انه بالرغم من ان هذا التكوين ليس هو سفينة نوح ربما كان الموقع الذي اعتبره القدماء سفينة نوح وبهذا يكون قد لعب دورا في قصة الطوفان وانا بصفتي عالم جيولوجي اجد هذا فكرة مثيرة
اليك ترجمة للجزء الاخير من الورقة العلمية
يا اخي كم ما ادعي هؤلاء الكنسيون من براهين علي صحة كتابهم فندها العلماء
ولكن للاسف ياتي "العلماء" الاسلاميون ويتبنوها بجهل مزري
الاستنتاج
ان الادلة من الدراسات المجهرية والتحاليل الطيفية تبرهن علي ان السفينة المفترضة بالقرب من دقبيئيت هو في الحقيقة تكوين صخري طبيعي بالكامل. ليس من الممكن ان يكون هو سفينة نوح او حتي شيئا صنعه الانسان. اننا نفهم لماذا اخطا المحققون الاوائل في هذا الشان.السبب هو ان شكل التكوين الذي يشبه القارب الي حد كبير هو ما اشعل الرغبة فيهم ام يكونوا اول من اكتشف السفينة او برهن علي وجودها مما اعمي بصيرتهم عن الحذر. وكمثال لمجافاتهم الحذر هو the mistaken identification of a metamorphosed peridotite with crinkle folds as either gopherwood bark or casts of fossilized reeds that supposedly once covered the Ark (Wyatt, 1994).( ادعو وجود مواد خشبية وقد نغاه التحليل الكيميائي التفاصيل في الورقة )
وثانيا اذا كان الطوفان صحيحا فان"الحيوانات الميتة" التي تمثلها المستحاثثات في هذا الصخر الجيري الذي يمر خلال هذه السفينة المفترضة لابد انها تكون قد ماتت في زمن الطوفان ولكن عمر هذه المستحاثات اقدم من زمان الطوفان
وهذا ينفي نغيا قاطعا ان يكون هذا التكوين هو بقايا سفينة نوح.
عندما يتسني للباحثين الاجانب (سبق ذكر ان الموقع محرم علي الباحثين الاجانب) فان المنطقة القريبة من كازان يحتاج الي المعاينة لنري ما اذا كانت الصخور البركانية الموجودة هناك تحمل صفات مشابهة لتلك الحجارة التي سميت حجارة المرسي(هنالك عدد من الحجارة ظن الباحثون انها تمثل مراسي للسفينة) واذا كان الامر كذلك فان مصدرها يكون محليا. ولكن عدم معرفتنا لهذه المعلومة في الوقت الراهن لا ينفي الاستنتاج بان هذا التكوين الذي يشبه القارب هو في الواقع طبيعي بالتمام.
واخيرا فان ديفيد فاسولد يقترح انه بالرغم من ان هذا التكوين ليس هو سفينة نوح ربما كان الموقع الذي اعتبره القدماء سفينة نوح وبهذا يكون قد لعب دورا في قصة الطوفان وانا بصفتي عالم جيولوجي اجد هذا فكرة مثيرة
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
هاك الرد الجاهز وكمان لحسن الحظ من سودانية حلاة بلدي وحلاة نيلها بشيل طنبوري اغنيلا
منقول
الفيديو مزيف طبعاً
أولا أرجو أن تقوموا جميعاً بحساب عدد الحروف في الآية و تخبروني هل هي فعلاً 47 أم 42؟
قال لي أحدهم بأن المفروض أن نحسب الشدات و لكن بهذا يكون عددها 48
ببساطة عدد الحروف ليس 47 و بالمناسبة كلمة بكة نفسها لا تقع عند الحرف 29 بل الحرف 29 يقع عند آخرها أو بعدها
بالنسبة للحسابات
لقد حاولت البحث عن خطوط الطول و العرض التي تقع عندها مكة بالبحث في الانترنت و قد وجدت عدداً منها و كلها تدور في نفس الفلك
مثلاً من هذا الموقع
Latitude and Longitude of World Cities (London, L.A., Paris, Singapore) — Infoplease.com
و هذا
Mecca, Saudi Arabia latitude/longitude
و كذلك من
google earth
و الذي حددها لي عند
21°29'23.10"N
39°43'20.62"E
و لكن للأسف اختلفت الأقوال و لم يذكر الفيديو ايها الصحيح الذي استخدمه. عموماً لأنه دعا لاستخدام منتجات قوقل ركزت على الاحداثيات الأخيرة
ثم باستخدام الموقع
Calculate distance and bearing between two Latitude/Longitude points using Haversine formula in JavaScript
قمت بقياس المسافة بين مكة وبين الخط 180 درجة طول على نفس خط عرض مكة كما مبين بالفيديو اتجاهاً نحو الشرق و كانت المسافة 15240 كلم ثم اتجاهاً نحو الغرب و كانت المسافة 17678 كلم (عن طريق جمع المسافة بين مكة و خط صفر و بين خط صفر و خط 180) و من ثم قمت بحساب النسبة والتي و يا للصدمة كانت
1.301
و هي بعيدة كل البعد من فاي
1.618
و باستخدام احداثيات أخرى لمكة وجدتها
1.16
و هي كذلك بعيدة من فاي
أرجو أن تجربوا الموقع بانفسكم.
ثم قمت بقياس المسافة بين مكة و القطب الشمالي باستخدام نفس الموقع
و كانت النتيجة
7678 KLM
ثم بينها و بين القطب الجنوبي و كانت النتيجة
12400 KLM
ثم بين القطبين و كانت النتيجة
20020 KLM
وبالمناسبة هذا الفيديو بعيد جداً من العلم و من دقة العلماء حتى أنه ذكر أن نسبة المسافة بين مكة و القطب الشمالي إلى المسافة بينها و بين القطب الجنوبي تساوي فاي متناسياً أن مكة أصلاً تقع في النصف الشمالي من الأرض و بالتالي فإن النسبة بهذه الطريقة سوف تكون كسراً لأن القطب الشمالي أقرب لمكة من الجنوبي
عموماً تغاضيت عن هذا الخطأ وقمت بعكس النسبة
و كانت النتيجة في المرتين
1.615
و هي قريبة من فاي و لكنها للأسف بعيدة جداً منها بحساب الدقة العلمية
أحدهم طلب مني أن استخدم الاحداثيات
39.82 East 21.42 North Mecca
وقال انها إحداثيات الكعبة داخل مكة وهي موجودة في برنامج مواقيت الصلاة مع اختلاف واحد بالمئة من الدرجة شرقا
و سعيدة باستخدام هذه إحداثيات الكعبة ذات نفسها قمت بحساب النسبة بين مكة و خط 180 طولاً مرة اتجاهاً للشرق ثم اتجاهاً للغرب و كانت النتيجة هي
1.433
أما بالنسبة لبعدها من القطبين الجنوبي و الشمالي فيبدو أن الأمر ازداد سوءاً فقد أصبحت النتيجة 1.635 أي انها ازدادت بعداً من فاي
تحياتي للجميع
تحياتي للسودانية ....لا تصدقو هؤلاء الاعجازيين ...انهم لا يستحون من قول الكذب...
هاك الرد الجاهز وكمان لحسن الحظ من سودانية حلاة بلدي وحلاة نيلها بشيل طنبوري اغنيلا
منقول
الفيديو مزيف طبعاً
أولا أرجو أن تقوموا جميعاً بحساب عدد الحروف في الآية و تخبروني هل هي فعلاً 47 أم 42؟
قال لي أحدهم بأن المفروض أن نحسب الشدات و لكن بهذا يكون عددها 48
ببساطة عدد الحروف ليس 47 و بالمناسبة كلمة بكة نفسها لا تقع عند الحرف 29 بل الحرف 29 يقع عند آخرها أو بعدها
بالنسبة للحسابات
لقد حاولت البحث عن خطوط الطول و العرض التي تقع عندها مكة بالبحث في الانترنت و قد وجدت عدداً منها و كلها تدور في نفس الفلك
مثلاً من هذا الموقع
Latitude and Longitude of World Cities (London, L.A., Paris, Singapore) — Infoplease.com
و هذا
Mecca, Saudi Arabia latitude/longitude
و كذلك من
google earth
و الذي حددها لي عند
21°29'23.10"N
39°43'20.62"E
و لكن للأسف اختلفت الأقوال و لم يذكر الفيديو ايها الصحيح الذي استخدمه. عموماً لأنه دعا لاستخدام منتجات قوقل ركزت على الاحداثيات الأخيرة
ثم باستخدام الموقع
Calculate distance and bearing between two Latitude/Longitude points using Haversine formula in JavaScript
قمت بقياس المسافة بين مكة وبين الخط 180 درجة طول على نفس خط عرض مكة كما مبين بالفيديو اتجاهاً نحو الشرق و كانت المسافة 15240 كلم ثم اتجاهاً نحو الغرب و كانت المسافة 17678 كلم (عن طريق جمع المسافة بين مكة و خط صفر و بين خط صفر و خط 180) و من ثم قمت بحساب النسبة والتي و يا للصدمة كانت
1.301
و هي بعيدة كل البعد من فاي
1.618
و باستخدام احداثيات أخرى لمكة وجدتها
1.16
و هي كذلك بعيدة من فاي
أرجو أن تجربوا الموقع بانفسكم.
ثم قمت بقياس المسافة بين مكة و القطب الشمالي باستخدام نفس الموقع
و كانت النتيجة
7678 KLM
ثم بينها و بين القطب الجنوبي و كانت النتيجة
12400 KLM
ثم بين القطبين و كانت النتيجة
20020 KLM
وبالمناسبة هذا الفيديو بعيد جداً من العلم و من دقة العلماء حتى أنه ذكر أن نسبة المسافة بين مكة و القطب الشمالي إلى المسافة بينها و بين القطب الجنوبي تساوي فاي متناسياً أن مكة أصلاً تقع في النصف الشمالي من الأرض و بالتالي فإن النسبة بهذه الطريقة سوف تكون كسراً لأن القطب الشمالي أقرب لمكة من الجنوبي
عموماً تغاضيت عن هذا الخطأ وقمت بعكس النسبة
و كانت النتيجة في المرتين
1.615
و هي قريبة من فاي و لكنها للأسف بعيدة جداً منها بحساب الدقة العلمية
أحدهم طلب مني أن استخدم الاحداثيات
39.82 East 21.42 North Mecca
وقال انها إحداثيات الكعبة داخل مكة وهي موجودة في برنامج مواقيت الصلاة مع اختلاف واحد بالمئة من الدرجة شرقا
و سعيدة باستخدام هذه إحداثيات الكعبة ذات نفسها قمت بحساب النسبة بين مكة و خط 180 طولاً مرة اتجاهاً للشرق ثم اتجاهاً للغرب و كانت النتيجة هي
1.433
أما بالنسبة لبعدها من القطبين الجنوبي و الشمالي فيبدو أن الأمر ازداد سوءاً فقد أصبحت النتيجة 1.635 أي انها ازدادت بعداً من فاي
تحياتي للجميع
تحياتي للسودانية ....لا تصدقو هؤلاء الاعجازيين ...انهم لا يستحون من قول الكذب...
صلاح عباس
:: كاتب نشـــط::
رد: هل ألله موجود؟
هل قريت رد السودانية علي الخزعبلات دي؟
اولا حسابات الرجال غلط
والنسبة الذهبية لم تتحق...
ثم وايه يعني...الاهرامات تتحقق فيها النسبة...فهل يقول المصريون ان خوفو هو الاله الحقيقي..
مافي ليك طريقة يا صلاح ...حكم عقلك
هل قريت رد السودانية علي الخزعبلات دي؟
اولا حسابات الرجال غلط
والنسبة الذهبية لم تتحق...
ثم وايه يعني...الاهرامات تتحقق فيها النسبة...فهل يقول المصريون ان خوفو هو الاله الحقيقي..
مافي ليك طريقة يا صلاح ...حكم عقلك