What scares scientist the most is if they do find the ark it calls into question there own beliefs. To say that this group already had the answer and went to prove it is rediculous as well. You always start with a hypothis and work to prove it. All science is done that way and the context in which science is presented is really based on faith in science as well. So there is not difference. I have a open mind what it could be. Its possible it could be the ark or a shelter or just simply wood. What astonishes me is the scientist who already toss away the possibility. Narrow minded thought like that is what keeps TRUE science from happening. Some may think the bible isnt historicaly accurate but there sure is alot of evidence to confirm many stories or at least make them plausable. But I guess its easier to see fact in the MISSING link than faith in a boat on a mountain.
70 comments
Wouldn't it be a good idea to find this alleged ark before indulging yourself in self-satisfied gloating first?
Wouldn't it be an even better idea to learn how to spell? E.G. Hypothesis,; Ridiculous; a lot etc.
It's actual science that considers the fact that there isn't nearly enough water on this planet - frozen, stored or otherwise - to have raised the level of the oceans 13K feet so that such a flood could have deposited anything up that high. So, no - this isn't Noah's Ark. And no, there is no reason to validate the possibility because there is no way that it is possible.
The reason most scientists don't entertain the thought that the discovery on Mt. Ararat could be Noah's Ark is because they know the flood of Genesis is fictitious. They know this because of several physical impossibilities such a flood poses, never mind the complete lack of evidence for one.
If....
Which isn´t surprising, as, if you look closely (andwith a good education in natural sciences) at the story about the flood you will find that it is full of things that go against everything we know today....
The somewhat boat shaped object has been investigated long ago, it's rock. Many respectable people have explained what it is, with satalite images and personal visits. It's rock. This has been known for over twenty fuckin' years.
Give it up or find something else you idiots think resembles Noahs Ark, like Sidney Opera Hall or 70's McDonalds Resturants
If there were any fragment of anything special on Mt. Ararat, don't you think the Armenians would have known about it centuries ago? Ararat used to be their sacred mountain, right in the middle of their territory.
I don't know if God does or does not exist.
Or what Jesus did or didn't do.
But I know for a fact that the Noah's Flood story is false. There was probably a local flood in that region of the world. But there was no global flood, that isn't my opinion, that is a fact. There is historical proof that other cultures existed continually throughout that time without being wiped out by a flood.
And yet, several other civilizations and religions also have flood myths.
What makes yours so special?
You see, in brief, this is the way it works: to authenticate any ark, you must first provide historical evidence of someone called Noah, then you must provide evidence of a great Global Flood, after which you must place this individual at the time of this global flood. Then and only then, would authenticating any piece of wood as part of an ark make any sense.
And sorry, your little fantasy book isn't evidence.
Actually, you have a hypothesis and try to disprove it. When you go in with the belief that's what it is, you're going to look for things that support that belief, when in fact they should be looking for things that disprove it. If they can't find any, then they're on their way to publishing something scientific.
I saw a video clip where one scientist basically said they should be looking for Noah's first house since wood would be scarce since everything has been wiped out. Also, what about plant life? They keep mentioning about saving the animals, but all of plant life would have been destroyed as well.
To prove a story or theory you need to prove all of it. You can't prove a single fucking part of the ark story. Even if you find a god damn boat it proves fuck all for that boats history. It doesn't prove any animals were even involved at all, it doesn't prove a flood, and it certainly doesn't prove god had the slightest thing to do with it.
After all that, you can't even prove the boat part yet. That's why we dismiss it.
If you're so smart, why can't you spell, pluralize, or use proper grammar?
Also, you left a word out of your explanation of the scientific method. You always start with a hypothesis, but you try to prove it WRONG. You try to do everything you can that would show it to be wrong.
Also, finding a boat on a mountain is only evidence of a boat on a mountain, not a worldwide flood. You need evidence of a worldwide flood.
Because it's a hoax.
Also: The ark myth maybe based on the flooding of the Black Sea. During the early days of Sumeria, the banks of the Hellespont broke, and the Mediterranean Sea flooded into the depression where the Black Sea is today. There's archeological evidence to suggest that people lived there at one point, so it's not a stretch to imagine that someone survived to talk about the "world ending flood" to their neighbors.
Note the difference in scale here: Black Sea depression =/= World Wide. Your Babble still runs on fail.
Actually, there's nothing wrong with starting with a hypothesis and then looking for evidence to support it or contradict it. It's done all the time. The trick is not to ignore evidence that points you in a different direction but to follow the evidence where it leads even if it leads to the collapse of your hypothesis.
The problem with Creationists and Christian Apologists is they have to bend the evidence to match their pre-ordained conclusion that their hypothesis is correct.
@TGRwulf
Don't go overboard. There's a lot of nonsense in the bible but there is also some fairly accurate historical information (or at least as accurate as information in an ancient document written before the modern concept of history can be).
Ahab probably was a king of the Omride Dynasty and probably did marry Jezebel. Josiah probably did destroy all the temples to gods other than Yahweh in Judah and die from an Egyptian arrow. Nebuchadnezzer did besiege Tyre although he didn't destroy it as Ezekiel prophesized in Ezekiel 26.
John the Baptist certainly existed as did Pontius Pilate.
It's just all the miracle and angry firebolt stories that aren't true.
A -hypothesis-, yes, but you try to DISprove it. The more you try to disprove a hypothesis without ending up doing so, the more likely it is that the hypothesis is correct. So to go in thinking it's the ark and look for everything that would support that hypothesis while ignoring all the other things that don't is not good science. Even if you find a boat, assuming it's the ark without ruling out other possibilities is not good science. Ignoring lots of evidence in a wide variety of fields to protect your pet hypothesis is not good science. Who exactly is narrow-minded here?
Yes, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it was "discovered" by evangelists with a serious confirmation bias, and the fact that there's no scientific way a worldwide flood could have occurred, much less one that would have put the Ark on top of Ararat.
If an ark is found on a mountain, why would it prove the Bible? Afterall, there are much older flood myths, so it could just be proving those religions were right.
The Genesis flood myth borrowed from other culture's own flood myths.
Not only is the flood impossible, so is the ark itself.
Even if you would be able to gather two of all kinds of animals, prevent them from killing each other, and repopulate the world afterwards without incest problems, you cannot build a ship large enough from wood. It is not that stable.
Yes, I understand the difficulties of practicing science correctly. My friend is training to be a veterinarian and says the workload is very arduous and the training will take many years. When she comes back from her vacation, mountain boating in the Urals, she says they are going to be learning how to keep large carnivores with gerbils in an environment of very little space, in case of world-wide flood.
Finding the ark would be a wonderous thing indeed... as would be finding atlantis, or intelligent life on other planets, or that blasted intelligent snowflake maker who just seems to keep everyone baffled.
Until then, I'm afraid you're still in the fictional section. Nice try though.
Ok, they can find even the rests of a redhead alien. The question is, they have to find it, not to work on speculation or, worse off, "hypotis"
Other than the last two sentences, and on a case by case basis the first two, this isn't that bad.
Also the third sentence isn't right. And the fourth and fifth are shit as well.
Sentence six ("I have a open mind what it could be") is good, seven is ok but ignores common sense, and the same with eight--except more ignorant.
Sentence nine, when in the right context is spot on...unfortunately for the author, this is not that context.
Well, I honestly started out trying to defend it, but in the end it's still crap.
>You always start with a hypothis and work to prove it.
Fucking wrong!
You start with a hypothesis and then CHECK to see if it is true, not try to prove it.
Bub, even if you were to find an ark, you'd still have to prove it belonged to the character in your own fairy-tale and wasn't, say, the ark of Decalion, Dwyfan, Ziusudra, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, Xisuthrus or Yima (to name but a few).
From article "Leaders of the Chinese-Turkish expedition said wooden specimens recovered from the structure on Ararat had been carbon-dated to yield an age of 4,800 years."
So carbon dating is useful and accurate now????
What scares scientist the most is if they do find the ark it calls into question there own beliefs.
Why? Most Christian denominations don't take Bible stories about magic trees and talking snakes and floods as literal history, so it's irrelevant to their faith whether the Flood story is literally true or not. Mainstream sects such as Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, US Presbyterians, United Methodists and many others have no problem with the Ark being found. It's Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Adventists and other minor fundamentalist cults who worry about finding the Ark.
@Berny
"The reason most scientists don't entertain the thought that the discovery on Mt. Ararat could be Noah's Ark is because they know the flood of Genesis is fictitious. They know this because of several physical impossibilities such a flood poses, never mind the complete lack of evidence for one.
The ancient Chinese kept comprehensive records (they were sticklers for details, natch), which extend to way before Biblical times. Nowhere is there a mention of any 'flood'. This fact scares fundies. That, and if an 'Ark' were to hold at least two of every species that exists today, such a vessel would have to be bigger than the Jahre Viking, currently the largest ship on the planet. If a wooden-constructed ship larger than, say, HMS Victory were built, it'd be guaranteed to sink. And anyway...
A boat made of wood will have rotted away thousands of years ago.
"But I guess its easier to see fact in the MISSING link than faith in a boat on a mountain"
Tiktaalik. Archaeopteryx. Darwinius masillae. Ardipithecus. Intermediate forms & missing links.
Facts >>>>> 'Faith'. Just as Sputnik 1 in 1957 destroyed Genesis in the Bible cosmologically, the above destroys Genesis biologically.
Funny that people have this idea about scientists avoiding the fact they could be wrong. Science is done by attempting to prove the null hypothesis ie proving your hypothesis wrong. If you can't prove the null hypothesis, you could have something workable.
Furthermore, science progresses by proving things wrong, or if not entirely wrong, then partly so. There is no fear of being proven wrong, because a true scientist cares more about the progression of their field of knowledge. Even incorrect hypotheses can provide a stepping stone to greater understanding.
It's not science that works with and has fear of the absolutes of right and wrong. That would be fundamentalism, and religion falls broadly into that category.
Even if one finds ancient lumber, it doesn't prove it was a boat. Even if one finds an ancient boat, it doesn't prove it was used to haul animals. Even if one finds an ancient animal hauling boat, it doesn't prove it was built by someone named Noah. Even if one... and so on and so on and so on.
Shouldn't we wait until we do find anything that could possibly be the Ark, before we start disproving science with the help of it?
The boat is still a MISSING link in creationism!
We don't THINK that the Bible is historically inaccurate, we know it is.
What scares fundies the most is if they don't find the ark it calls into question there own beliefs. To say that this group already had the answer and went to prove it is ridiculous.
FIXED.
Some may think the bible isnt historicaly accurate but there sure is alot of evidence to confirm many stories or at least make them plausable.
WHERE, fucktard? And don't use your fundies' favorite circular reasoning - 'it's in the Buy-Bull'.
Even if the flood did happen, Noah would have broken down the ark for firewood or something anyway.
Although I kind of like how fundies scramble to find empirical evidence for their beliefs. It shows they've already abandoned the idea that faith=proof.
wrong. in science, when you got a hypothesis, you then go on to try to disprove it. if you can't, you've got yourself a scientific answer (until someone else disproves it with a better idea)
I don't mean to burst your bubble, but do you realize that the Ark may have decayed, if it even existed? Wood does that... but, it doesn't matter, because the flood never happened.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
