Noah's Ark found?

[Madouc]

From the Press Conference:

1. One of the spaces discovered is frozen by ice. Under ice is wood with wood beam above. There is tenon construction on the wall and it is obvious artificial structure.


2. The space witnessed by Panda Lee is L-shaped. This is the first discovered space. It’s L-shaped and its features match well with some spaces discovered later, like tenon construction. We concluded that it was originally a box-shaped room and heavily decomposed.


3. This space stands at more than 5 metres high. Team members had to get through a broken opening and abseil down to get inside. All walls are wood and the space is not box-shaped. Strictly speaking, the walls are not vertical but rather curved and inclined. The small door on one side, of dimensions one meter high and half meter width, presumably leads to another space but our team did not risk going further due to the lack of oxygen.


4. This room is box-shaped, having a dimension of height, width and length of more than two metres. There is a wooden beam with wooden nails on one side of the wall. It is believed that a rope was hooked on these nails to keep animals in place. On another side of the wall, there are racks.


5. A very small tunnel-like space connects two spaces.


6. A few wooden staircases were found inside the structure, which seemingly craved by tree logs. Our team climbed one and found a door in the ceiling and concluded the wood structure has more than one floor. We tried to open it but failed. Since we did not want to destroy the structure, we will try again with appropriate equipment in the future.


7. The team has not entered this space. They viewed and took shots from a small opening above. The height and width are estimated to be 5 metres and 12 metres respectively. ”

So nothing to suggest that the structure is a boat, other than the walls seem a bit inclined.

I watched the last two videos from the website - the "Ararat Expedition" clip is just dramatic music playing over a 'hiking on snowy mountain' montage, while the "Wooden Structure" clip has the researchers entering the space and knocking on the sides saying "this is wood". Which is apparently all that's required to establish that it's the Ark of legend.

The saddest thing is, this might actually have been quite an interesting find if it were in the hands of competent archaeologists.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm still trying to get any names I can from friends who might know some of the brass at the South China Morning Post, as I want to give 'em a piece of my mind, just for the satisfaction of so doing.

But, MSNBC has picked up on it and ran a critical story (the comments are great... 90% are "You Atheists Better Fear Gawd" screeds), so I imagine the evil MSM will pick up on it.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/27/2280442.aspx?GT1=43001

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

That's particularly stupid since carbon dating is rarely used to date on an evolutionary timescale.



I say we give the guy points for believing in carbon dating. I doubt he extends the same logic to Potassium-Argon dating, though.

yes but it is used on a lot of archaeological sites of human activities, some of which have been found to be older than 6,000 years, thus going against the creationist story. I think that's why they go after it so much. But I also think a lot of them mistakenly think it's used to date the fossil record as well.

 

[Nursedan]

Well, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. It was apparently found atop Mt. Ararat, which is the place people have speculated it would have been found.

It's interesting that some replies to this thread haven't been skeptical, but dismissive. In other words, yes, this probably isn't "Noah's Ark", but it could be. I disagree with religion too, but that doesn't preclude the chance that this could be legit. Denouncing this find because you already don't believe the bible is, to me, not "skepticism".

Sorry for the duplicate thread, but man - that is interesting - does it go in science or religion...? I was going the biblical route myself.

 

[Garrette]

It's interesting that some replies to this thread haven't been skeptical, but dismissive. In other words, yes, this probably isn't "Noah's Ark", but it could be. I disagree with religion too, but that doesn't preclude the chance that this could be legit. Denouncing this find because you already don't believe the bible is, to me, not "skepticism".

Au contraire. That's like saying dismissing the newly discovered remains of a hut near the North Pole as Santa's workshop isn't being skeptical. As their is no evidence for the original idea, there is no necessity or value in entertaining the follow-on claim.

 

[Verde]

thesun.co.uk

Consider the source. The Sun has the credibility of the Weakly Whirled Newts.

Except for the interesting Pg.3 pictures.

V.

 

[Robo Sapien]

True and that is a real possibility - However I would like to see some independent measurements of the wood first before accepting that date

Good point, lets not take the "Evangelistic Archeologists" findings at face value. Come to think of it, I'm a little skeptical of a wooden artifact being preserved for that long, despite being trapped in ice. I'm not sure if the temperatures there are low enough to prevent decay.

Really, people have been "positive" that they found the Ark on that mountain since the 70's. Mt Ararat is mentioned in the Bible, so no doubt many eyes have been on it.

A little research turned up an incident in 1991 where some archeologists investigating the mountain were kidnapped by Kurdish rebels, right about the same time the Turkish government restricted public access to the area. Not to sound like a CT nut, but it kind of makes you wonder what is being hidden.

 

[Complexity]

It's interesting that some replies to this thread haven't been skeptical, but dismissive. In other words, yes, this probably isn't "Noah's Ark", but it could be. I disagree with religion too, but that doesn't preclude the chance that this could be legit. Denouncing this find because you already don't believe the bible is, to me, not "skepticism".

Nonsense.

It is suspect first because evangelical xian 'archeologists' found it. I have yet to meet a fundie that wouldn't lie, cheat, and steal to support their 'faith'.

bibble 'flood' didn't happen - no world-covering flood - so the story in the bibble is necessary false.

If someone named noah built a boat and took his family and pets on vacation, that I could believe (though none of the story in the bibble).

That his joyboat ended up on top of a mountain, that I don't believe.

If that structure is real, it was probably put up by a guy trying to get away from his wife, probably to hook up with his boyfriend.

 

[Nursedan]

Au contraire. That's like saying dismissing the newly discovered remains of a hut near the North Pole as Santa's workshop isn't being skeptical. As their is no evidence for the original idea, there is no necessity or value in entertaining the follow-on claim.

Right, but my point was that there isn't "no evidence". How do you know there is no evidence? Wooden beams resembling an ancient structure were found atop a mountain where people have thought for many years that Noah's Ark had been. The fact that this was found is evidence - it would be an opinion as to whether it were 'good' evidence or not.

Gosh, I sound like I'm making a case for the archaeologist's find here . Show me some irrefutable evidence, like independent carbon dating coupled with the DNA of several different kinds of animals, and now we're talking!

 

[Foolmewunz]

All the while I was reading this story, I kept thinking "I wonder if any REAL scientist will investigate it?" Everybody involved seems to be a creationist, and/or already prone to believing in the Ark's reality.

You mean because it was sponsored by The Noah's Ark Ministries, and a company in Hong Kong that is promoting a not-so-cleverly disguised fundie Christian theme park?

http://www.noahsark.com.hk/eng/visit2.php

Methinks they avoid mentioning the Big Skydaddy or J.C. there because they're hyping this park to Chinese tourists and they wouldn't get much play if they went all Bible-riffic on the site. But I'm willing to bet that the story of this expedition shows up in the big multi-media presentation there, soon, since that attraction is run by the same folks, Media Evangilism.

 

[Nursedan]

Nonsense.

It is suspect first because evangelical xian 'archeologists' found it. I have yet to meet a fundie that wouldn't lie, cheat, and steal to support their 'faith'.

bibble 'flood' didn't happen - no world-covering flood - so the story in the bibble is necessary false.

If someone named noah built a boat and took his family and pets on vacation, that I could believe (though none of the story in the bibble).

That his joyboat ended up on top of a mountain, that I don't believe.

If that structure is real, it was probably put up by a guy trying to get away from his wife, probably to hook up with his boyfriend.

So are you saying there is no way to convince you that this is actually Noah's Ark? If so, my post is valid.

Chalk this up to inexperience, but what's a fundie?

 

[steve s]

Here's a couple more images. I'm wagering on total fake, lying for Jesus profit until i see more evidence they actually found anything.

Does anyone know what that rock formation is called? Years ago I read an explanation about this type of formation. I recall that they mentioned that there are others in the area. Must have been a flotilla of arks.

Steve S

 

[Complexity]

Chalk this up to inexperience, but what's a fundie?

Get a mirror.

 

[Foolmewunz]

One of the biggest arguments I hear against evolution is that "carbon dating is completely inacurate and unreliably."

Apparently, unless they believe it supports their position.

How big is the structure they found? Big enough to hold two of every animal in the world and to keep all the carnivores in their own individual separate compartments so they could not eat the other animals? And of course teeny little compartments that would hold each species of insect, also individually, so they would not eat eachother?

The Fundies are taking this argument up to Legendary Strawman Status. Their (ahem) logic is something like this:
Oh, so you support carbon dating when it "proves" that the earth is older than 6600 years, huh? How conveeeenient! But when it PROVES THE WORD OF THE BIBLE, you want to dismiss it! Hypocrites!


Yes, I think it's already a meme being promoted somewhere because in the over 2000 commments to a critical MSNBC article, it gets repeated over and over, regardless that no one has questioned the accuracy of carbon dating. They're questioning why they won't show us the lab results or reports of said carbon dating in some sooper sekret Iranian lab.

 

[Robo Sapien]

I don't think it is rational to dismiss the idea of an ark, only the biblical account of it. Evidence of settlements have been found in the area, and it could very well be that its inhabitants believed a flood was coming and built huge liveable boats on the mountainside.

I don't believe this is the first "ark" to be found in the region, either.

Oh, and this is a fundie.

 

[Garrette]

Right, but my point was that there isn't "no evidence".

My "no evidence" was in reference to "the original idea," i.e., the veracity of the bible itself. The distinction is not trivial.

How do you know there is no evidence? Wooden beams resembling an ancient structure were found atop a mountain where people have thought for many years that Noah's Ark had been.

And (allegedly) unidentified and unidentifiable remains of (allegedly) unknown creatures have been found in areas where Bigfoot and Chupacabras have been thought to exist. Those remains present exactly zero evidence of Bigfoot or Chupacabras until they are shown to be evidence of Bigfoot or Chupacabras.

The fact that this was found is evidence

Yes. It is evidence that something was found. It is not, in even the remotest sense except that of wishful thinking, evidence of Noah's Ark. If in two months it is solidly proven that this actually is the remains of Noah's Ark, this original stance would still not be invalid. It is evidence when it is evidence; it is proof when it is proof. Right now it is simply a finding. Your thinking is identical to those who cite "spooky action at a distance" as evidence of clairvoyance.

- it would be an opinion as to whether it were 'good' evidence or not.

Not all opinions are equal.

 

[Nursedan]

Get a mirror.

So you're one of those "axe to grind" atheists, huh?

As I said - have you made your mind up already, or would there be any way to convince you that this is Noah's Ark?

 

[Nursedan]

In any case, this is a great discovery and I can't wait to see what we learn from it.

This, I can appreciate.

 

[Complexity]

So you're one of those "axe to grind" atheists, huh?

I value truth and justice over superstition, which I regard as the enemy of mankind.

So sue me.

 

[Mel Odious]

Apparently the wood has been dated as 4800 yrs old using Carbon Dating!!

Now, hasn't Carbon Dating and other means of radio-metric dating made certain fundamentalist beliefs look a little, well, implausible?

Should I understand this to mean that according to the carbon dating, the ark was built 4800 years ago?

If so, there's a problem. That means the ark was built around 2800 BC. But according to Biblical chronology, the flood happened around 500 years later, somewhere around 2300 BC (I'm going from memory here). That would mean the carbon dating of the wood actually is evidence against their claim.