Noah's Ark Found!

[ToadBrother]

I am making a solemn vow right now: if the Evangelical explorers are correct, I will give each current member of MLW one hundred dollars. And you won't need to go all the way to Mt. Ararat to cash in.

Ker Than

for National Geographic News

Published April 28, 2010

A team of evangelical Christian explorers claim they've found the remains of Noah's ark beneath snow and volcanic debris on Turkey's Mount Ararat (map).

But some archaeologists and historians are taking the latest claim that Noah's ark has been found about as seriously as they have past ones—which is to say not very.

(See "Noah's Ark Discovered in Iran?" and "Noah's Ark Quest Dead in Water—Was It a Stunt?")

"I don't know of any expedition that ever went looking for the ark and didn't find it," said Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East at Stony Brook University in New York State.

Turkish and Chinese explorers from a group called Noah's Ark Ministries International made the latest discovery claim Monday in Hong Kong, where the group is based.

"It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a filmmaker accompanying the explorers, told The Daily Mail.

.....................

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/

How many times is this now?

[ToadBrother]

Something that's being mentioned, that I don't quite understand, is some kind of problem with people taking these stories seriously. Surely, that's their business. I'd like to make people think the zodiac isn't true either, but I can't. I don't know if that qualifies as a problem though.

In general, I don't think it is. There are situations when absurd beliefs can be harmful. Parents of certain sects refusing medical treatment for sick children come to mind. Trying to use public schools as indoctrination centers is another.

I guess the principle I apply is that as long as you're not trying to force it on anyone else, believe whatever you like. If a bunch of people give money to fools and con artists heading off to Turkey for the umpteenth time to find Noah's Ark, be my guest. But if you try to get Noah's Ark taught in my kid's science class, well, yeah, then there's a problem.

[wyly]

In general, I don't think it is. There are situations when absurd beliefs can be harmful. Parents of certain sects refusing medical treatment for sick children come to mind. Trying to use public schools as indoctrination centers is another.

I guess the principle I apply is that as long as you're not trying to force it on anyone else, believe whatever you like. If a bunch of people give money to fools and con artists heading off to Turkey for the umpteenth time to find Noah's Ark, be my guest. But if you try to get Noah's Ark taught in my kid's science class, well, yeah, then there's a problem.

yup agreed, public school has to be kept religion neutral...

[bloodyminded]

The very fact that this group went public with their findings, rather than relegating their discovery (such as it is) to their Church newletter, means that they are trying to propagate their beliefs as scientific fact. Surely there can be no objection to my then publically opposing their intended propagation?

Unless religion is somehow so special that normal, perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial rules and conventions (ie disagreeing with publically-asserted falsehoods) don't apply.

Edited April 30, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

Unless religion is somehow so special that normal, perfectly reasonable and uncontroversial rules and conventions (ie disagreeing with publically-asserted falsehoods) don't apply.

That seems to only apply to Islam and Muslims.

[bloodyminded]

That seems to only apply to Islam and Muslims.

Oh, many people wish it to apply to Islam, no question. This doesn't refute my point; it underscores it.

[Shady]

Oh, many people wish it to apply to Islam, no question. This doesn't refute my point; it underscores it.

Btw, what constitutes a religious fanatic? I noticed you used that term in your title.

[bloodyminded]

Btw, what constitutes a religious fanatic? I noticed you used that term in your title.

Well, one definition of a religious fanatic would be a person who believes the story of Noah's Ark to be literal history. Since the idea is physically impossible, and we can all realize this with a mere couple of seconds of reflection on what occurs in the story, religious fanatics will instantly become hostile to reality itself in order to devote themselves to belief.

Belief in God is a different matter, primarily because there is no way to prove that there isn't a God. So that's not fanaticism.

Belief in a boat that housed two of every animal--in a region that only contains a tiny percentage of the animals on Earth--is irrational. (Never mind the actual physical problems of caring for all these animals for months...with a tiny little crew.)

I would also distinguish between the ignorant and the fanatic. For example, anyone who has never thought about the problems with the story as truth...they are ignorant of the truth, but not necessarily fanatic. It's just never occurred to them, and perhaps they've long been inclined to trust Scripture as history.

However, when people do understand the impossibility of it...and choose to believe it anyway...that's fanaticism. It's an intentional averting-of-the-eyes from all evidence, from reality as we know it.

The only possible excuse (and one which I've never once heard in this case, though some might use it), is that "God makes anything possible," or something like that. (Even though the Bible says nothing, nothing at all, about God intervening in the matter of the earth's vast array of animals, and in the feeding, waste disposal, and general care of what would amount to..what? Thousands of living beings?)

And while far more benign than a suicide bombing (no one dies from this sort of fanaticism) it is ultimately an acceptance of the suicide bomber's twisted logic: God Himself determines that reality as we understand it is dead wrong.

Such notions should be challenged. Truth is surely preferable.

The great myths of religions have helped shape culture, and often can contain wisdom.

Until we start saying they are historical truths.

[ToadBrother]

Btw, what constitutes a religious fanatic? I noticed you used that term in your title.

Denying reality in favor of Bronze Age myths would probably be one good definition. Is this the start of a "science is all left wing socialist" brouhaha?

[Jack Weber]

Denying reality in favor of Bronze Age myths would probably be one good definition. Is this the start of a "science is all left wing socialist" brouhaha?

Is'nt it always with him????

[Bonam]

Well, one definition of a religious fanatic would be a person who believes the story of Noah's Ark to be literal history. Since the idea is physically impossible, and we can all realize this with a mere couple of seconds of reflection on what occurs in the story, religious fanatics will instantly become hostile to reality itself in order to devote themselves to belief.

Belief in God is a different matter, primarily because there is no way to prove that there isn't a God. So that's not fanaticism.

Belief in a boat that housed two of every animal--in a region that only contains a tiny percentage of the animals on Earth--is irrational. (Never mind the actual physical problems of caring for all these animals for months...with a tiny little crew.)

I would also distinguish between the ignorant and the fanatic. For example, anyone who has never thought about the problems with the story as truth...they are ignorant of the truth, but not necessarily fanatic. It's just never occurred to them, and perhaps they've long been inclined to trust Scripture as history.

However, when people do understand the impossibility of it...and choose to believe it anyway...that's fanaticism. It's an intentional averting-of-the-eyes from all evidence, from reality as we know it.

The only possible excuse (and one which I've never once heard in this case, though some might use it), is that "God makes anything possible," or something like that. (Even though the Bible says nothing, nothing at all, about God intervening in the matter of the earth's vast array of animals, and in the feeding, waste disposal, and general care of what would amount to..what? Thousands of living beings?)

And while far more benign than a suicide bombing (no one dies from this sort of fanaticism) it is ultimately an acceptance of the suicide bomber's twisted logic: God Himself determines that reality as we understand it is dead wrong.

Such notions should be challenged. Truth is surely preferable.

Excellent post. To elaborate a bit on this: those who knowingly embrace an intellectually dishonest idea are fanatics. They have abandoned reality and in its place have taken on faith something that is inherently impossible or self-contradictory.

[charter.rights]

Gilgamesh had a flood in it too.

So do native creation stories.

[Shady]

Belief in a boat that housed two of every animal--in a region that only contains a tiny percentage of the animals on Earth--is irrational. (Never mind the actual physical problems of caring for all these animals for months...with a tiny little crew.)

Sometimes large stories and/or tales come from much smaller realities (ie, somebody saves his family and others with a boat). And surely you realize that there have been many other actual religious archaeological discoveries? I'm not sure what they've found, but it must be something of archaeological and historic importance. But don't let that stop you from your present exercise in pseudo-supriority. I'm sure you feel quite brilliant and important right now!

Oh, and I love the way you and your ilk choose when and when not to apply science. When it comes to some tale from 2000 years ago that doesn't affect you in any way, SCIENCE, SCIENCE, SCIENCE! But when it comes to the killing of an unborn baby, you shrug your shoulds and claim a choice.

Well, perhaps its their choice to characterize what they've discovered! Surely you believe in their right to choose!

[kimmy]

Is there enough water on the entire planet to create a flood that could carry a boat to a mountain and deposit it on a site 4000 meters above sea level? If all that water existed, where has it gone? Did God flush?

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Is there enough water on the entire planet to create a flood that could carry a boat to a mountain and deposit it on a site 4000 meters above sea level? If all that water existed, where has it gone? Did God flush?

If it rained and rained and rained and rained ..... torrentially ... nonstop .... for forty days .... there would be a really big flood. And when it stopped, it would eventually dry up. In the story of Noah's Ark, it supposedly took about 13 months.

So no, God didn't "flush."

[Shady]

Is there enough water on the entire planet to create a flood that could carry a boat to a mountain and deposit it on a site 4000 meters above sea level?

I would guess no.

[kimmy]

To put it in perspective, raising the sea level 4000m in 13 months would require over 30 feet of rain every day at every location on earth. (More, actually, since the volume of water required to raise the sea level increases as the sea level itself increases.)

This website indicates that if the polar ice caps and all the glaciers on earth melted, sea level would rise somewhere between 63 meters to 75 meters.

And this website indicates that the amount of water in the atmosphere is tiny (3095 cubic miles worth, compared to over 5.7 million cubic miles worth) compared to the amount of water in glaciers and ice-caps. So if you took all the water that exists as ice, and all the water that exists on vapor and added it to the oceans, it's still a tiny fraction of what would be required to put that boat on top of the mountain.

So ...if God didn't flush, he must have done something else with it, because it is not anywhere on this planet.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

He did do something with it. He dried it up, as I said. So goes the story.

I don't believe the story, but I also don't care that some people do; and I can't understand why some people care that some people do believe it ... any more than I can understand how some people believe the story.

So some people believe in it. So what? Seems harmless enough a belief to me. I just can't understand the need to make fun of others' beliefs.

(And still waiting for the 99.9% of the hundred dollars that bloodyminded offered everyone on the board..... )

[kimmy]

He did do something with it. He dried it up, as I said. So goes the story.

Well, there's been suggestion here that since many myths are just jazzed up versions of actual events, maybe there's some historical, natural event behind the Noah's Ark story. But if it ended at a site 4000m above sea level, there's only a couple of natural explanations: it got carried there, or it was built there (or higher up the same mountain). Beyond that, we're left with 3 possibilities. Either the ark flew there (an ancient counterpart to the flying canoe of French Canadian folklore!), or God literally created a vast volume of water and then destroyed it later, or what's on that mountain just isn't the Ark.

There's no way to rationalize the boat being that high up a mountain in terms of a natural event. Either God did it and it's a miracle, or these guys are looking in the wrong place.

-k

[bloodyminded]

Sometimes large stories and/or tales come from much smaller realities (ie, somebody saves his family and others with a boat).

No doubt. What has that to do with the belief in the literality of the story as presented?

And surely you realize that there have been many other actual religious archaeological discoveries? I'm not sure what they've found, but it must be something of archaeological and historic importance.

Of course. Again: what has this to do with it?

But don't let that stop you from your present exercise in pseudo-supriority. I'm sure you feel quite brilliant and important right now!

Not at all. Are you saying that when you decry religious fanaticism (which I've seen you do), you are feeling quite brilliant and important?

Oh, and I love the way you and your ilk choose when and when not to apply science. When it comes to some tale from 2000 years ago that doesn't affect you in any way, SCIENCE, SCIENCE, SCIENCE! But when it comes to the killing of an unborn baby, you shrug your shoulds and claim a choice.

Ye gods.

Well, perhaps its their choice to characterize what they've discovered! Surely you believe in their right to choose!

You seem to think that disagreeing with someone is an abridgement of their rights! How odd.

[bloodyminded]

He did do something with it. He dried it up, as I said. So goes the story.

I don't believe the story, but I also don't care that some people do; and I can't understand why some people care that some people do believe it ... any more than I can understand how some people believe the story.

So some people believe in it. So what? Seems harmless enough a belief to me. I just can't understand the need to make fun of others' beliefs.

We're not talking about their beliefs. We're talking about their claim that they can scientifically prove it.

Which is false.

I'm not mocking fundamentalists' beliefs just for fun; they brought it up; they said they are 99.9% positive they have discovered "Noah's Ark." And their beliefs are biblical literal ones.

When people make public claims, especially about scientifically verifiable matters, there is nothing "mocking" about pointing out that their claims cannot be scientifically verifiable.

(And still waiting for the 99.9% of the hundred dollars that bloodyminded offered everyone on the board..... )

Forget it, my friend. No way. Proof before cash payouts.

[Moonlight Graham]

THIS JUST IN!

Archeologists in Egypt just found the tuffet that Little Miss Muffet purportedly sat on! Link!

[Bonam]

Is there enough water on the entire planet to create a flood that could carry a boat to a mountain and deposit it on a site 4000 meters above sea level? If all that water existed, where has it gone? Did God flush?

-k

Not in a single flood event, but on longer timescales stuff from the sea can be brought to the tops of mountains. For example, fossilized sea creatures have been found on/near mountain summits on occasion. Specifically, this can occur through geological events, glacier movement, or transportation by other living organisms.

If it rained and rained and rained and rained ..... torrentially ... nonstop .... for forty days .... there would be a really big flood. And when it stopped, it would eventually dry up. In the story of Noah's Ark, it supposedly took about 13 months.

Right except if we are getting into the technical side of things the reality is that there would not be enough water in the clouds to begin with to rain continuously for 40 days in that manner. Not even close to enough, you would need thousands of times more water in the atmosphere than it is possible for it to contain to cause such an event.

That being said, there are other ways that "the Ark" could have ended up at a high location due to natural events, namely glacier movement (I don't actually have any idea if there have ever been any glaciers in that area, just saying).

So some people believe in it. So what? Seems harmless enough a belief to me. I just can't understand the need to make fun of others' beliefs.

That particular belief may be harmless but challenging irrational beliefs can be productive. Much of the progress of the West since the time of the Renaissance has been associated with the increasing willingness to challenge prevailing beliefs of this type.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

That particular belief may be harmless but challenging irrational beliefs can be productive. Much of the progress of the West since the time of the Renaissance has been associated with the increasing willingness to challenge prevailing beliefs of this type.

My comment wasn't in regards to those who "challenge" beliefs (the "irrational" tag is merely your opinion). My comment was in regards to those who make fun of said beliefs. There's a huge difference between "challenging" and "making fun of."

I agree that a willingness to challenge prevailing beliefs of any type is necessary for progress to occur, but I think people sometimes get too bogged down in their preconceived ideas. And the fact of the matter is, we are far from having explanations for everything that's happened. That doesn't mean it didn't happen; it may simply mean we have not yet developed the means to prove it.

In other words, an open mind works both ways.

[charter.rights]

Challenging beliefs can be a good thing as long as one's mind is open about the process. However, those who make claims that it could never have happened because it just doesn't make sense (today) are as bad as the fundamentalists who claim God told them so..... IN order to properly challenge anything , one has to have the mind that the event could or could not have taken place in the way it has been presented.