Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ho hum. Again, I really don't want this one closed down early just because Tom intends to hijack it. The OP, boys and girls... The OP!
Let's just patiently wait (well OK, I'll give it 3 months....) to see if they get it off the ground. The less funding they get, the less credible it'll be, until you reach that point of credibility collapse where, at best, they'll just manage to barely get back up there absent any effective evaluation methods or equipment, and they'll stupidly replicate their past incredible and unsupported conclusions.
BTW, as per their PR statement, in true science, "99.9% sure" equals 100%. Ergo: there's no need to go back, unless they intend to completely unearth it, video and digi-pic it and present it to the world via, say, The Journal of International Archeology. That, of course, only after it's been peer reviewed by those who actually study these things for a living.
Patience and no more speculation. Even if it is an old wood structure built up there by goat herds 100 years ago after the last volcanic eruption destroyed the very area this artifact is located in.
After all, a globally inundating flood is obviously an unsupportable myth, neither technically, hydrologically, meteorologically, geologically or biologically feasible. So why persist with that line of reasoning?
I have to say that it's all rather intriguing, as all the Gods from outer space, Atlantis and cult- stuff is.
Let me consider where I stand.
There's no way I believe in a global flood when human were around, no way I believe in an Ark full of animals and no way I believe that Genesis is subtantially literally true. There is no logical, rational or evidential reason for the biblical Ark to be up there on Ararat. I can no more credit it than I could credit a claim that there's a prehistoric rocket - launching silo and control room under the Babylon ziggurat.
Despite Campbell's claims that Ararat must be the site, there is actually no reason why it should be. But the mere finding of bulky old - looking wooden structures on Ararat is, if it is true, quite astonishing.
What could it be, if not the Biblical ark?
I can't see why cattle - pens should be built up above the snow-line. It could only possibly be a self - fulfilling thing: people building places to live on the actual mountain where (they believe) the ark landed.
But what it is it does turn out to be indupitably a large structure evidently capable of holding a number of penned animals and looking like it was intended to float? What if there was evidence that it did hold animals and floated? What then?
It would rewrite the history and science books. That's what. It would mean that either the earth was flooded to mountain -height or mountains thrust up in a geological instant. It would mean that everything we thought we knew about geology and history and palaeontology is wrong.
That's why this is intriguing.
So would the Bible become our science and history textbook? It would certainly be all that we have as a guide since all our Geology and Palaeontology textbooks would all have to be recycled to meet the run on reprints of all the Arkeology books.
It would raise the question of why anyone would build a a floating hutch unless they knew a flood was coming. It would imply that someone had prior warning, though whether that was from YHWH, Enlil or time - travelling aliens, is up for debate. The believers would argue that since one thing in their favoured Holy Book is true then all the rest must be true as well.
So we (and I) would completely have to start again on the science and who could doubt that creation 'science' would be the only one to fit the bill? There would be a hefty amount of religion to go with it, but I still wouldn't become religious. At best I'd concede that someone appears to have had prior warning, but who knows? Perhaps Captain Picard beamed Noah up and showed him a film he'd made of the Wrath to come.
"Better get building, Noah. Make it so." It certainly wouldn't get me into a church since it was the Jews had it right. Judaism was still perverted by Paul into Christianity so, no. The Christians would not convert me. But that probably wouldn't matter because the finding of the evidence Biblical ark would pretty much start a rush to the Altar.
It would undo all the 'good' work that has been done since the enlightenment (1). Nope. I can't avoid it that not only can I not believe that this really is the Biblical ark, I sure as shovel it don't want it to be.
So what's the situation? I'm still studying the websites and videos and it's still a bit vague.
There's no reference to the Ice blocks (Campbell says Ark remains but they looked like a huge chunk of ice, part of which had broken away and slid downhill). Whatever it was it wasn't the other aerial photo which appeared to show a lot of boat - ribs sticking out of the snow and doesn't appear to be that other ark apparently in a snow - cliff face with stone planks (seen as geological strata) open to the air as, with this one, you have to enter a large cave (not part of the Ark as there are no structures and why would Noah have an empty space that big?) with the wood - lined chambers beyond deep in the snow/ice.
So nothing quite fits together, including the original chunk of petrified wood and the apparent unpetrified wood structures found deeper in the cave.
I'm, watching with considerable interest. This certainly looks more interesting than the rock outcrop which turned out to just that and maybe it would attract a proper investigation.
(1) in fact the enormity of the implications are such that, if this DID turn out to be a hoax, the punishments ought to be so severe that no -one would be tempted ever to try a hoax for Jesus ever again.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-24-2010 at 06:18 AM..
Reason: Ps...a footnote afterthot.
Good thoughts, AREQUIPA. Well defined and proceeded. BTW, I doubt that, even if we do find an old (100 - 300 yr old...) wooden barn up there, that "science per se will be abandoned.
It's amazing to me that there's a reliable and consistent thread of intent within the religious to discredit "science" through so much of their writings, as though you can ever discredit a logical process. Or literally tens of millions of it's regular users. A process that has been carefully and thoughtfully evolved in it's mandated key elements, processes and the limits on how results can be presented, given the details and supporting evidence that a research write-up must provide.
As well, honest scientists all openly, readily and in detail, provide the shortcomings of their work in their conclusions, and then provide helpful ideas as to what must still be worked on. It's extremely rare (actually impossible) that someone would ever make such definitive claims about work so poorly done. Past efforts in this regard always end up with the scientific community "outing" the hoaxee.
And yet, when the Church tries this, pretty much no-one mutters anything. (Example: Witness this NAMI scam! Hardly a peep, though some here have found and posted few disclaimers and catcalls...)
In this obvious way, the scientific toolset and process advances, rather than retreats from or negates the accumulation of new knowledge. To denigrate that process just because the results remove shamism, fakery, hoaxes and meta-physical mumbo-jumbo (or one's healthy income...) is to point out one's true intents. Thus religion hates "science". It's a real threat to the illiterate mob mentality and imagined status-quo.
And yet, as with this NAMI scam, they claim to be openly seeking "credible scientific team members", but only if those can be carefully screened, no doubt as to their "malleability" in providing unerring support for the results, which are already pre-determined by their own stated biases ("...99.9% sure!" etc....).
We saw what happened with Dr. Price, a recognized archeology scholar who actually did visit the site (later simply denied by NAMI...) whose subsequent scientific credibility was in fact enhanced by his honest "outing" of NAMI's first dishonest efforts. If he really had been out of line, the scientific community would have censured him to be sure!
Peer review: a component of science that reliably weeds out the bad actors and faked results and GORE™*, and is thus shunned like an evil spirit by those intent on the scam. Therefore you will not see it's "demonic head" allowed in the proceedings of this latest scheme.
Nor was it allowed in a review of the results of their first "tourista quality" visit, hence no summary report, not even an interim version. (As they'd initially promised.)
That's proof unto itself. And thus predictably denied or defended by our resident ArkMan here.
Let us await the July PR Conference, eh? It promises, if it even happens, to be a doozie!
_________________________
{* Gross Over-Reaching Exaggerations™, a trademark of the scientifically illiterate fundamentalist mindset. Desperately Seeking Credibility, etc.}
It is pretty familiar that all the cult stuff, whether Gods from outer space, paranormal stuff fringe science or alternative medicine, religious relic -hunting or Ufology, betrays its longing to be scientifically respectable and squeals in fury when its fuzzy photos and artefacts mysteriously unavailable for testing are not immediately accepted as proof and of course science is to blame for being closed - minded.
I sorta feel this one is make or break. If this turns out to be a hoax the surely even Campbell will have to reconsider his position. Or maybe not. If the wood turns out to be a few hundred years old well, just claim that the extreme cold somehow changed the C14 rate of decay.
But if it does look like an ark..Oh, the crowing...the proffering of 'umble pie...
Oh now now, OBW: there you go being an assumptive scientist-type again, with your biases showing! Let's let it self-immol... I mean, evolv... I mean expand to fill the informational void!
Yeah; that's it!
LOL, enjoy a spot of mischief every now and then, do we????
"Ark Dreams"? "Are You Ecologically Smarter Than a Fifth Grader"?
Saaaayyyy... Fullback! You may have somethin' here! There's a great marketing idea! A game of the sophistication of some of the newer PlayStation stuff, about an elderly guy and his (what was it? ) two also very old sons. The default is, of course, that they all have severe arthritis (my rheumatologist says everyone over 70 has some degree of arthritis, so what about when you're 900+? But I have good drugs man; what did Noah have? Homemade hootch? Magic 'shrooms?)
...and they have a set period of time, a virtual deadline, and limited materials, no metal pins, nails, bolts, Nylok™ or Hukbolt™ fasteners, and just some adzes, axes, a primitive surfacing plane, but we'll grant them a REALLY BIG pot of hot pitch.
Hit "Start" and then the torrential rains begin [oh yeah, and impossible hydrologic upwellings, but again, this is fantasy, so...], and you've got to assemble, by hand, and quick-like, an Ark big enough to handle, at Level One, a mere 5000 animals (I know, I know; a real fantastic assumption, but hey;' it's Level One for heaven's sake..).
The precip. or "rising water" rate? Let's start it at a mere, say, 2 inches/hour. But up at Level 5 (the top level) it's got to be at the required 11 inches/hour. Sort of like trying to work under Niagara Falls, or standing in the middle of the Mississippi River during spring freshet, or both simultaneously, but who said this was a totally realistic simulation game?
And then, at the higher levels, a bunch of really hungry predatory dinos or big bears (white or brown or black) arrive, having succumbed to this odd urge to migrate for tens of thousands of miles across oceans, icefields, lakes, swamps and mountain ranges just to get to an imagined but unspecified Ark site.
But then, dang if they ain't hungry upon their arrival, and even at Level 2, they NEED to eat those two sheep standing over there quietly bleeting.
BAaaaaahhhhh...[Chomp. Burp. Gone]. Even before they got on this leaky, dark, dank barge....
At Level 5, they have to accommodate 800 million different organisms, fed, watered and in appropriate environs., including those required by fresh water trout, pike, bass, catfish, and so on. And keep them happy on an unpowered, unsteerable barge with no windows to even barf out of...
Given that no-one could ever win this realism-based scenario modeling game, even at a very forgiving Level "0" (the intro teaching mode where it's OK even if you kill off 95% of the animals and plants you're supposed to save), it'd be a sure-fire smash marketing hit!
Kids would rush home from school to try again. And again! And again. Eventually of course, they'd see the impossibility of it all, which would then show up when Ms. Jones, their young Sunday School teacher brought up Noah's Ark. "Now today children, we'll learn how Noah...", and she'd be shut down by a cascade of laughter....
We'll be rich, I tell you! Rich! Thanks, God!
(PS: What'd be a good Catchy Game Name? Anyone? Anyone? How's about NAMI™-WHAMMY?)
At Level 5, they have to accommodate 800 million different organisms, fed, watered and in appropriate environs., including those required by fresh water trout, pike, bass, catfish, and so on. And keep them happy on an unpowered, unsteerable barge with no windows to even barf out of...
I often wonder why there is so much discussion about the actual specifics of space, feeding , elimination and such other details when all God had to do was figuratively snap his fingers and 'make it so'.
I often wonder why there is so much discussion about the actual specifics of space, feeding , elimination and such other details when all God had to do was figuratively snap his fingers and 'make it so'.
Well, you raise THE point of course. If God could "Insta-Poof" all of Creation, the entirety of the greater Universe, which for us primitives, is only just now unfolding in front of our still very limited optical and radio-frequency telescopes and sensor arrays, why did He do it this way, all clumsy, catastrophic and stupid-like?.
But the persistent fundamentalist-literalist outlook is one of transient logic, where they try to support the whole Ark/Flood idea with their version of Selective Logic, Hoaxy Science and Beliefs of Convenience. They try to use science and carefully selected research in support of an actual global flood, but when that falls on it's face, as it must, they then retreat and start with the name-calling and denouncements of science and scientists. Which I, as a career scientist, and a few others here as well, thus take quite personally.
And which also doesn't really work too well for them either.
I'd prefer if they would just default to a MAGIC solution, But the other problem is, the time-frame, the chronology and the observable facts completely deny a global flood 2500 years ago, with co-existing dinosaurs on board, and only two of each animal, plant, bacterium & virus, all starving there with no heat, light, water or food, for 180 + days, only to be dropped off at the frozen 15,000 foot level, above tree line, on a completely ruined world. Yep; sure!
So how exactly would even a finger-snapping God accomplish his lesson via a global flood? I mean, if He just wanted the evil-doers gone, why not just do that one? But if He thought he'd teach the survivors a valuable lesson, He didn't leave too many people to learn, did He (what was it? About 4 or five?). Is He that stupid? I mean for god's sake, so to speak...
As well, we have oodles of masses of piles of accurate cross-checked and reproducible data that completely proves it didn't happen that way, and logically couldn't. So that's the real point, right?
Now comes NAMI, a Christian Theme Park development corporation from Hong Kong, obviously with no scruples, morals, ethical or scientific standards, but they want you and I to donate lots of funds (they take all the best cards, including!!! American Express [no upper $$$ limits!} to further their scam.
They went up there once, promised a full report, and did not produce anything. Then they claim a bunch of new assumptions, supported by some pretty but unsubstantiated artists'-concept drawings, and hope this will sell well enough for them to all go back to Turkey in Business (or Better...) Class on their return trip, but probably without any credible scientists.... Last time they took one, it backfired on them.... Ooops.
So... why celebrate mass ignorance and pseudo-logical faked science? It's not fair to the readers here, or our children as they grow up to be "educated" in this country, which BTW continues to return the worst education levels in the Western world for science, math and logic. We're also the ones who allow the most controversy about religion into our science curriculum, where it surely does not belong. (The only world-wide education system worse than the US in math & science are dedicated Islamic countries, where they force kids to chant the Qu'Ran all day long...)
Well, I've ranted enough. ...Pant pant...
Hope this answered your very short, to-the-point question. Sorry about the length!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But what if it's true...
