Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

It didn't happen

Do people still believe that Noah's Ark actually happened? Of course it didn't. Think about it - two of every animal in the world - thats two of every species (of which there are millions) in one big ark? Where was he that he could find all these animals in one place? And what stopped them eating eachother? Why didn't everyone else get suspicious when Noah started building an Ark the size of a small country?

Its absolute rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald Hardgreaves (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 April 2006

God did not say "take two of every kind," but "take two of every kind that I command you." I also would like to state, that wood from the top of Mt Ararat has been carbon dated as 5000 years old. P.S. Trees do not grow on the top of Mt Ararat. Signed: Michael 11:11 AM, 8,7,08.

This isn't the proper forum to discuss this since we this is for discussing improvements to the articles. But very briefly, if you are going to criticize something you should have more understanding of what you are criticising. First, you should look at the dimensions gives it is not nearly as large as a "small country." Second, according to some midrashim the order to build a large ark was principally so people would notice and have a long term, visible warning of what was to come. Third, it isn't two of every species but two every min (normally translated "kind") which apologists claim is more overarching than species (based on my understanding of hebrew I think if anything it is generally more specific than the modern use of "species" but that is a separate issue). All of that said, yes the story is junk, but there is no need to criticize it out of ignorance. Criticize it for the right reasons. JoshuaZ 15:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

after they got off of the boat they evolved into different species

And species is a Latin word meaning "kind", although the word actually used in Gen 6 in the Vulgate is genus which is one taxonomical level higher. None of which has to do with article content. This isn't a general discussion forum. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the story is fiction. I think you discredit the minds of the Ancient Hebrews if you think most of them thought it was fact, too. The story tells us something about their perception of God, that's why it is important. You can see how they understood their world. God feels regret that he had made mankind in this story. If God feels regret that means he didn't foresee what would become of mankind. Therefore he could not have been seen as all knowing by the Hebrews. There are other instances of God apologizing and regretting in the Bible too. Notably, Samuel. Simply, the story is there to tell us something about the Ancient's God, not what historically happened. The same as with all myths. - Sweaterman

Note that assuming a literal interpretation of the Ark story on the part of the ancient Hebrews doesn't require the assumption that they were stupid. Ancient Hebrews were every bit as smart as modern people, but they lived in a much smaller world; they hadn't seen and documented as many species as we have, hadn't seen the practical upper limits of wooden ship construction... It probably seemed perfectly reasonable that a great antediluvian patriarch could build such an enormous boat, and that a vessel of that size must be able to carry two dogs, two horses, two camels, two rats... and all the food those animals would need.

For modern Westerners to take the story literally... Well, it's easier to make the case that _that_ requires stupidity. 216.52.69.217 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has been sharing their opinions here, but the purpose of this discussion page is only to discuss concrete changes that might be made to the actual wording of the article as it now stands, and also to talk about what can be sourced to that end; NOT to use as a soapbox, or to attack other religions. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Consider, yes, people STILL believe a tale that is 6,000 years old. Note, all other myths of other religions not even nearly that old are no longer believed. Because it is of such a high point of interest, fiction or not, it still has a significant article, does it not? I mean, you have a great deal of fiction and debated topics all over this online encyclopedia, and they have articles.
• Also, Noah's Ark is not the only story, either. Even the Native Americans have their own version of the tale, but it is Noah's Ark that still "remains".
• Another theory is that if you take up the young (just old enough to live without care) and not the full-sized adults, even all the species would still fit. Also, you've seen the young of animals (dogs/cats/rats/snakes/etc.) who don't know any better live in harmony, haven't you? Instinct hasn't developed fully yet.
• There's only 150,000 species (more or less), by the way (nothing close to millions).
• There was 7 of each of the clean animals.
• There is no such thing as an "Anicent Hebrew". The Jews, as far as I'm concerned, still believe that stuff. It's almost as old/older than what the Hindus have.
• There is no such thing as an "Ancient God" either. The Christians and Jews STILL believe in that God. Nothing's changed (like all other types of religions).
• You're trying to critcize a belief with a 6,000-year-old people, who (unlike the Hindus) have been throughout history should have been wiped off th face of the earth. If that doesn't facinate you, nothing would, I'm sure. The Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman, (all before trying to destroy all Jews at one point) and English empires (Hitler's Third Reich as well) have come and gone since. Colonel Marksman 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• Besides, where YOU there to see there wasn't a Flood? Is there any eyewitnesses to say there was or wasn't? If not, you can't make any assumptions. To say "It didn't happen" is just as ignorant as saying, "It did happen".
• The difference is that those people (Jews/Christians) believe there was and still is an Eyewitness Who recorded the happenings in a Book. Colonel Marksman 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
• I love the argument that "it's just an assumption if you weren't there to see it". There are thousands of criminals locked away for crimes that no one saw them commit for the same reason we know the flood is a myth. Physical evidence.

What about the argument that it's a belief of the Jews, which "have been throughout history should have been wiped off th face of the earth(sic)". Yes, that definately makes the story true, doesn't it. Mackan 09:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Well... unlike most other religions, it's just simply a miracle they're still around. Other religions of this day are not nearly as old and are part of ruling superpowers (or governments that enforce the religion). Everything has to have some source or beginning. You think some human being (like it has been in all other religions) just thought of this neat story and it eventually melted into the religion? And what physical evidence disproves it? Every time I turn on my television and watch something about a tragic disaster nobody knows happens some billions of years ago, I point back to the Flood. The Flood wasn't just a rain, you know. Volcanoes, earthquakes, and a sudden rupture in the earth and above (in probably a protective atmosphere of solid water) destroyed the surface in minutes.

Besides, your physical evidence is going to be your sea fossils on the tops of mountains in the middle of no where, the Grand Canyon, and various other structures that wouldn't have been possible without such a massive Flood. Fact is, there's too much evidence supporting a world-wide Flood. All a non-Biblical scientist has to do is make up grand theories for everything that supports the Flood and ignore evidence, then write books people are going to drool over. Colonel Marksman 04:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Marksman said: "Other religions of this day are not nearly as old...". Have a look at the Hindism article. Chinese traditional religion is also pretty old. And just how old is Judaism, in ther sense of a monotheistic belief in Yahwah is the one and only god? The Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" - not "there are no other gods but me", not even that the Israelites should "worship no other gods but me," just that they should regard Yahwah as the most important. When you read the Old Testament, read what's there, not what you think is there.PiCo 04:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has now a French translation

Greetings from my remote and pitiful stub town, ;=)

I just wanted to let the authors know that I've completed the French translation of this fascinating article. The only thing I did was to rearrange the pics (with for example a French painting as a front picture - how symbolic...) and to lengthen the narrative section a bit (I happen to like narratives). But apart from that, the text is actually all yours, so thank you very much ! Also, I've initiated a one-month FA nomination process on this page, which you may find interesting to visit now and then.

Best regards, Manchot sanguinaire, April 15th 2006 10:07 PM

www.vonbora.org

For a scientific approach regarding the discovery of the structure at registered archaeological site 3927 9654. Katherin 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an excellent find. Could well be the reak ark. Thanks for sharing it. ^rossnixon 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a very minor website that shouldn't really be up there. If we wanted a link to a Ron Wyatt site that would be one thing, but I don't see why this one(which is basically a glorified personal website) should be singled out. JoshuaZ 02:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Ron Wyatt who was discredited and had outlandish claims, the vonbora.org cite has registered an archeological cite with the Turkish government and provided a structure location, structure dimensions, altitude on the mountain, and bearing. Additionally a marker was left at the site August 28th 1990. Crawford does, of course. But what about reputable linguists? Just who is Crawford relying on? In summary, I have extreme doubts about this site. PiCo 13:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Something left 15 years ago with no further investigation does not lend itself to credibility either. (Also, I wasn't think of linking to Wyatt for credibility but because he is well known). JoshuaZ 13:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Honest assesment of the website is important. If its integrity can be honestly discredited then trash it. Regarding the question of a ??Reputable linguist?? Winfield Swanson, former managing editor of National Geographic Research & Exploration (NGRE) A Scholarly Publication of the National Geographic Society, published the inscription article in the autumn 1994 edition of the reference periodical. Veysel Donbaz, an internationally recognized Sumerologist (the Chief Specialist and Curator of the Cuneiform Tablet Archives of Istanbul, a department of the Istanbul Archaeological Museums) validatd the translation of the inscription. Swanson may regret her decision to publish the article, but she is unable to retract it or state emphatically that her decision to publish was in error or hoaxed. If she regrets her decision to publish it then her only recourse left is to say the article is “a tad on the far-out side” or suggest that the Chief Specialist and Curator of Cuneiform Tablets in the Istanbul Archaeological Museums is unskilled... In any case, she chose to publish it based on the merits presented to her at the time and those merits have not been demonstrated to have changed. If she were to attempt to change her mind now about the decision to publish the Ahora Covenant Inscription in NGRE then she must admit that she made a mistake (and she would have to demonstrate why the article should not have been published--which she has not done) or she must speak with prejudice and bias to discredit something she knows does have merit (in order to suggest it should not have been published-—but failing to address why, other than her bias). The latter course of action may allow her the convenience of bypassing the facts (which she addressed and facts which have not changed since she chose to publish) and it might help her look better among her peers, but if she were to attempt to discredit those whom she previously recognized as telling the truth it would speak volumes about her objectivity as a managing editor, unless of course she can demonstrate in what way she was duped. Presumably editors of National Geographic pride themselves on their honesty, integrity, and objectivity and only publish articles from researchers who expect the same of themselves and the publisher.Katherin 22:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it has been a long time since Turkey allowed further research. It was addressed earlier in this discussion but someone accidentally deleted it. No research permits for any research teams have been granted on the top of the mountain since the marker was left at the site on August 28th 1990. While it would be preferable that the Turkish government would allow further research to possibly corroborate the site, it would have been very easy to completely and easily discredit the site announcement with a few facts from an onsite examination, unless of course something is really there.Katherin 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To quote Gertrude Stein, "there's no there there." I see a lot of hyperbolic supposition but that's about it. •Jim62sch• 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you prove a negative? It would have also been much easier to prove the value of the site by bringing back an artifact (a carbon datable hunk of wood), unless of course there is really nothing there.--Ff11 04:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ff11 you ask some good questions. 1. How do you prove a negative? 2. Why not bring back a chunk of wood?

1. This is not a quandary of having to prove a negative. There are a number of reputable organizations and people who have made verifiable specific statements that can be scientifically established as valid or be shown to lack credibility or reproducibility. A failure of scientists to engage positive statements of fact is not a quandary of being unable to prove a negative. It is simply a failure to engage. Gloria Swanson, managing editor of the National Geographic Research & Exploration chose to publish the notice of discovery of a rock with a very old inscription on it. The Director of the Tablets archive in Turkey, Veysel Donbaz, has confirmed the translation in NGR&E is “reasonably good”. A description of a structure with a location, its dimension, and its bearing of the long side in reference to North has been carefully documented and registered with the Turkish Ministry of Culture.

If someone made a claim that there is a Pizza Hut at “1640 W Main St, Lewistown, MT 59457, and gave you the dimensions of the building and the bearing of the front wall in reference to North” it would be easily show that the person making the positive statement of fact was telling the truth or that he was not, by simply doing the proper research at the address propounded. It is not a case of proving a negative, it is showing that the person who made a positive statement has credibility or that he lacks credibility.

2. If I were to arrive at your front door with a pizza and claim that I brought it from 1640 W Main St. in Lewistown MT, and claim that “this pizza is proof that there is a Pizza Hut there” then I would be begging the question and would have no credibility. You can get pizza (or wood claimed to be from a mountain in Turkey) from anywhere. A scientific investigation of the designated site, locating the published rock and the structure of the specified dimensions and bearing would not prove a negative nor should it be expected to. It could prove a positive…that there is a "crackpot" getting National Geographic to publish, or that NGR&E was sitting on a historic discovery. Katherin 03:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's easy to claim that Noah's ark is sitting under a glacier at about 15000 feet high, quite another to dig under that glacier to prove there is no ark. The burden of proof lays squarely on the shoulders of the claimant. Maybe you wouldn't have so many skeptics if there hadn't been so many who had made similar claims in the past, only to be exposed as charlatans later. In spite of an inscription that the "discoverer" claims another scholar claims agrees could reasonably be translated as "go forth and multiply". The National Geographic published an article on an artist's rendering of an ancient carving. That's all. Did that legitimize the interpretation? Did THEY claim that the carving meant that Noah's Ark was sitting on top of Ararat? Did they agree with his assessment of it's age (approaching 5000 years, which would have been far too recent for it to have been directly associated with a "historic" Noah)? There is a surprising absence of supporting scholarly evidence on any of these claims outside of Crawford's own site. By the way here is a link to a site showing the actual article: [1] FF11--69.22.40.214 02:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's easy to claim that Noah's ark is sitting under a glacier at about 15000 feet high, quite another to dig under that glacier to prove there is no ark. The burden of proof lays squarely on the shoulders of the claimant. Maybe you wouldn't have so many skeptics if there hadn't been so many who had made similar claims in the past, only to be exposed as charlatans later. In spite of an inscription that the "discoverer" claims another scholar claims agrees could reasonably be translated as "go forth and multiply". The National Geographic published an article on an artist's rendering of an ancient carving. That's all. Did that legitimize the interpretation? Did THEY claim that the carving meant that Noah's Ark was sitting on top of Ararat? Did they agree with his assessment of it's age (approaching 5000 years, which would have been far too recent for it to have been directly associated with a "historic" Noah)? There is a surprising absence of supporting scholarly evidence on any of these claims outside of Crawford's own site. By the way here is a link to a site showing the actual article: [1] FF11--69.22.40.214 02:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

FF11, I applaud your carefulness to raise honest questions. You are correct that there have been many charlatans. Shame on them, and good on the real scientists who expose them.

You are almost correct when you say that “the burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of the claimant.” It is the government of Turkey that is solely responsible to ensure that it is done scientifically. There are research teams that have sought permits for years and have briefed the Turkish government about their detailed plans and scientific capabilities. There is a surprising lack of permits from Turkey on a subject that has such an impact on science.

As to the inscription… Gloria Swanson of National Geographic R&E published the notice of discovery of the Ahora Covenant Inscription. Surely, she was professional enough not to rely solely on a “claimant” and an “artist rendering” to publish the fact that the inscription exists or the translation of it. She has acknowledged that Veysal Donbaz (Sumerolog and Director of the Tablet Archive, Istanbul Archaeological Museum) confirmed the translation was “reasonably good”. Donbaz is internationally recognized in his field. National Geographic’s publishing of the Ahora Covenant Inscription and the confirmation by Veysel Donbaz about a “reasonable good translation” seems to me to be a reasonable good confirmation about the rock and the words carved into it. Does that mean that NG has claimed that Noah’s Ark is on the mountain? No. Of course not. And neither has the Vonbora.org website claimed to have found Noah’s Ark.

It would be easy to claim to have found Noah’s Ark under the ice at about 15,000 feet. Vonbora did not fall prey to making such an easy unscientific claim. Vonbora has numerous statements of fact about people, places, dates, and a specific structure of specific dimensions, location, and orientation at a registered acheological site. They have announced nothing beyond what a scientific method allows them to. All of it is imminently verifiable and can be independently verified by anyone with a computer, printer, internet connection, phone, and a little curiosity.

It remains the responsibility of Turkey to ensure further scientific research, and to scientists to discover the truth and to expose the charlatans, without partiality or prejudice.Katherin 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to previous version of Christian Tradition

I'm working on a faulty keyboard which makes some functions impossible. I made a revert to retrieve a previous version of Christian Traditions which someone changed for the worse (they took out a reference to the Anglican rite of baptism nad the mention of Noah that it makes, and gerneally weakened the whole section). The only way I could do this was via a total reversion, which meant I spolied some later edits to the Other Flood Myths section. I have no objection to those and they can stay if anyone wants to copypaste them back in unfortunately copying and pasting is something I can't do with this keyboard. And I can't sign my edits either. PiCo, 22 April.

Not sure about the latter, but couldn't you've done the former using your mouse, and either the Edit menu or the right mouse button? 82.166.53.176 14:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleting recent additions from "Search for Ark" section.

I've deleted the following recent additions to this section (two paragraphs, apparently by different editors):

In June 2005, an expedition[41] to Northern Iran searched for evidence of the Ark in the region 1st millennium BC Assyrians called Urartu, which covered much of the central section of the Zagros mountain range. This is mainly in Iran, but partially in Turkey and Iraq. This supposedly was the accepted area of Noah's Ark until the 13th century. [42]

In June 2006, Bob Cornuke of BASE Institute took a team of 14 Americans out to Iran to visit a site purported to be the resting place of the Ark. The team discovered a 400 foot long object 13000 feet above sea level, which had the appearance of blackened petrified wooden beams. Subsequent analysis of the material back in the USA is reported to confirm the material as petrified wood. The team also claimed to find fossilised sea creatures inside the petrified wood, and in the immediate vicinity of the site. The team has supplied many many photos and some video footage to corroborate thier findings, which at the time of writing have not yet been made available on the BASE Institute web site. Howver the pictures and a detailed write-up of the findings can be found in the following article

The first paragraph, in my opinion, is too specific to be included in an encyclopedia entry - and also too inconclusive. It really tells the general reader very little - an expedition went to northern Iran. If the expedition found Noah's Ark, then it would be worth mentioning, but merely to be told that it went, is not solid enough to be worth putting in.

The second paragraph possibly relates to the same expedition, although it refers to 2006 rather than 2005. Whether it's the same expedition or not, it's highly tendentious. The expedition was mounted by a group balled BASE, which seems to be a spin-off from the group centered around Ron Wyatt, a notorious adventurer and apparent mythomane (i.e., he made things up). Ron Wyatt has no credibility at all, not even in Christian evangelical and literalist circles; BASE, and its claims, should be treated with the same suspicion. PiCo 01:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The 1st paragraph was mine. I agree that it was a little early, as no results are out yet. I don't know yet if BASE are fraudsters like Wyatt was. If I hear anything useful, I will add this to Talk. ^rossnixon 02:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I was about to add a note about this to the article, but since my only source was a TV news report, I decided to add it here instead:

On the 10:00 news on KTAB on June 27, 2006, a report aired that Noahs' Ark had been found in Iran. Some pictures and video clips were included. A claim that the object found was ~400 ft. long was made. Someone (I have forgotten the name, although Bob Cornuke sounds about right) was shown handling several large pieces of what looked like darkened wood. Nothing more than apparently a few dozen feet long was shown. Nothing recognizable as a ship was shown--only pieces of (presumed) wood. A statement that lab tests had shown the material to be petrified wood was made. Unlike the pictures on that page, the specimens shown were dark grey (color somewhere between grey20 and grey30, probably about grey23 (X11 color names)). No mention of the age of the materials found was made. It was claimed that the wood contained fossilized sea creatures. Much was made of the find being ~13000 ft. above sea level. One of the people in the report asked (quoting from memory--may not be exactly word-for-word) "How does a ship get to 13000 feet above sea level?" implying that a large amount of water had floated it there.

Of course, when the wood got there the ground may not have been 13000 feet above sea level. --64.232.164.21 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, it was probably only about 12,997 feet given plate tectonic thrusting. Conversely, given erosion and an absence of thrusting, it might've been 13,003 feet.

Well, until more evidence turns up in archeological journals and more widely across the mainstream media I don't think we need to add this. Given the significance to archeology of a proper, confirmed find, we need better sources than one TV station. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the Ark story would be truly extraordinary if evidence were found for it. --Plumbago 09:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

This is getting quite a bit of publicity in Evangelical news sources: Spero Worldview Weekend The mainstream media have probably been burned too many times to accept this type of claim without any corroborating evidence. Still, given that this section is titled "Search for Noah's ark," wouldn't it be appropriate to state that Bob Cornuke led an expedition to search for the ark on a mountain in Iran in June 2006, and that he claims to have found the ark? It is a fact that he made the claim, even if he is not telling the truth. I'm adding the paragraph back with a more NPOV. --Aardvark92 16:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. We seem to be back where PiCo started us. While the changes made to the excised-then-reinstated paragraph are improvements, the whole paragraph should probably be contracted to a single sentence at most ("X went up a mountain to search for Y, and claimed to find significant remains"). It sounds like the usual bunk. As I said before, if they'd really found something significant, more sources than evangelical ones would be reporting it (as an aside : so much for faith from the evangelicals, what's with this constant search for "evidence"?). Also, can we clear up whether the most recent "expedition" was mounted by a fraudster? Aside from the near certainty that they haven't found anything, this detail is important as to whether there should be any mention of this item at all. Sorry to be a downer on this, but we've seen it all before. Cheers, --Plumbago 10:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the standard used in journalism is that aanything contentious should be verified from at least 2 independent sourcs before it can be included in an article. Given that BASE is not a very widely respected organisation in its own right, this means that BASE's claims need to be verified from two other sources - presumably two independent and respected labs (I'm talking here about the physical evidence BASE claims to have found - the "eyewitness" reports of the 400-foot object would similarly need to be independently verified). If we accept this standard here, then it's too early by far to be putting BASES's claims in Wiki.

As for re-writing the final last paras of that section in the article (the ones that talk about the Durupinar site and the 'anomaly'), I'm all for it. When I drafted those, I was trying to put the focus on places where various people claimed to have found the Ark, rather than on the people themselves - but I think I may have unconsciously gotten personality-centred, influenced no doubt by the larger-than-life characters involved. Anyway, go ahead and see what you can do. PiCo 12:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've rewritten the Cornuke paragraph to focus on the place, as it is a different site than the two in the earlier paragraph. I've omitted any reference to his claims of finding anything, due to lack of independent verification. I may make changes to the Durupinar/'anomaly' paragraph if I can find a good way to phrase it. Aardvark92 15:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking about mentioning the team member's remark that it looked like a "basalt dike". Anyone have any objections? I added it to the other article, but am not sure how significant it is; it isn't Noah's Ark, it is a rock formation. Titanium Dragon 07:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Better still, should the BASE thing even BE in this article? There's nothing so far to distinguish it from other supposed Ark finds; as such, I think it belongs in the auxillery article, as I don't think it merits more mention in this article than all the other searches combined. Anyone agree? Disagree? Titanium Dragon 07:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Replyng below under Current?. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Current?

Hi there. I've just reverted the placing a of current flag on the page (appropos of the ostensibly recent search for the Ark; see above). I'm not in the least convinced that this is a current news event. If it were, it'd be covered everywhere. It would be a find of extraordinary significance. We need more sources for this first (non-evangelical would be good). Cheers, --Plumbago 15:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: update Searches for Noah's Ark and if you must have a current flag, place it there. The Ark itself and the story are most certainly not current events. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I heartily disagree. The Ark itself, and thestory, are current events. And since when are AOL and ABC "evangelical" sources??? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, sources isn't my issue; its whether the tag is appropriate on an article about something which existed in protohistory. Searches for Noah's Ark is the appropriate article, since the current event is the search, not the Ark. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it was "nonsense" as you wrote in your summary; the fact that the recent news wasn't even mentioned there indicates that hardly anyone ever even reads that article. I didn't even know it existed. But I took your advice and added a current tag there, and hopefully a more detailed account of what the media are reporting will soon find a home there, if for whatever logic it is unwelcome here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, you're right. I added a link to the main article. Hopefully more people will find it now. And the "nonsense" was about sources being the issue. Apologies, sometimes my summaries are brief to the point of misleading. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there is another article specifically dedicated to searches for Noah's ark, this section should probably be removed from the Noah's ark page and merged with the other article. Aardvark92 19:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The source is BASE Institute, and no one else. It should be noted that no pictures whatsoever of this alleged Ark have been made available; the Bible Archeology Search and Exploration Institute is not a reliable group for information, and ABC News should know that. They didn't find an Ark; had they, there'd be pictures of it. Even so, I'm not about to remove it, so I edited it so it was more neutral. No pictures have been made available (I've looked, they have the same pictures ABC News has, which are more than likely the only pictures as there is no Ark), so I noted that, and I added their full acronym, which is rather important - IIRC I've heard of these guys before. I'm checking out their website right now to see if I can write an article about them so people understand the source. Cheers. Titanium Dragon 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, from [[2]] - "Reg Lyle, oil and gas geologist said “the object appears to be a basalt dike, however, it is absolutely uncanny that the object looks like hand hewn timbers, even the grain and color look just like petrified wood….I really need to keep an open mind about this.” " Even the expedition members are saying stuff like this, and this is a fundamentalist Christian organization, some highlights from their page include

• We recognize the weakness of a “Premise + Proof” methodology.
• We recognize the strength of a “Possibilities + Problems” methodology.
• We recognize that the Bible is fully inspired (superintended by God) in its autographs (original writings), without error in all its details and in every subject to which it addresses itself.
• We recognize that scholarship does not have the final say on the Bible; rather, the Bible has the final say on scholarship.
• We recognize that because scholarship can “prove” anything, it ultimately can “prove” nothing beyond doubt.
• We recognize that older sources are superior to newer sources, that ancient testimony is superior to modern testimony, and that original evidence is superior to later opinions about that evidence.
• We recognize that the biblical model of human potential, intellect, civilization, and culture presents humanity on its way down (as a consequence of sin), not on its way up (as an outcome of evolution).

Fundamentalist Christian creationists are NOT a good source, and that should be recognized. I'm going to include mention that they are a creationist group in the article, and write a full BASE article - this is important and relevant. Titanium Dragon 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I've been examining the photographs we do have, and, well, they ain't wood. [3] is a big chunk of rock, and [4] looks a lot like a chunk of rock as well (note the flakes at the bottom of the chunk; they call attention to the 90 degree angle (which, given the nature of the rock, is to be expected) but if you note the missing flakes it looks like it flakes the same way a normal rock does). The other images are even more obviously rocks. I was wondering why they were showing picturse of rocks on ABC News, but apparently those rocks are supposed to be fragments of the ark - I had assumed they were ambiance pictures of the mountain. Titanium Dragon 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's an idea... but normally, the section here wouldn't be removed altogether, but replaced with a brief summary, synopsis or overview of the main article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Codex is right - a summary should be here, with the link to the main article. The section we have here is over-long, and should be trimmed, but not removed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...what was there really was just a tad too long, but I'm not so sure removing it entirely is the best option. •Jim62sch• 22:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to the comment above about BASE as well as this: The section was too long, and needed to be summarized, which Codex did. That said, I concur with Jim that it may have been shortened a bit much, and with Titanium Dragon about the BASE addition being too long. I would prefer to see a summary of the search(s) in general terms, followed by a brief listing of more well-known ones. By listing I mean a sentence each, or something similar. The Russian expedition would probably take two: it is both well-known and highly questionable. The BASE would be a one-line mention with no greater weight than the others. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 09:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Bob Cornuke himself is unconvinced…

Bob Cornuke, president of the BASE Institute… “We have no way of confirming for sure that this object is Noah’s Ark, but it is probably the most interesting and baffling object ever found by ark searchers...it sure gets my heart to pumping just thinking of what it could be.”.

The BASE announcement has irresponsibly dispensed chaff. (I don’t know which is more plausible, to accept that they are not smart enough to know what they have done, or to accept that they are.) In begging the question, the announcement is discredited and serves to be just one more impediment to any legitimate and scientific consideration of the subject. The timing of articles may be as interesting as the content. Katherin 20:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion The "Search" section here shouldn't simply be a precis of the fuller article - it should adopt a different approach entirely. I would like to see it take a broad overview of the search for the Ark, mentioning in particular the fact that until the early 19th century there was erally no such thing as a search for the Ark - these early monks and so on were pilgrims, not Ark-seekers. The rise of humanism and non-religious scholarship in Europe in the 18th century brought about a sea-change in the motivation of seekers: the literal truth of the Bible was now felt to be under attack, a thing that had never happened before in two thousand years (almost) of Christian history, and the Ark would be be irrefutable proof that the humanists were wrong, that the earth really was only 5,000 years old, that all life really had originated on the slopes of Ararat, and that we do indeed live in a God-centred, moral world. As a result both the purpose of the search, and the identity of the seekers, changed, so that from the 19th century to the present day Ark-seekers have been overwhelmingly from the evangelical wing of Protestant Christianity. (It would also be worthwhile if someone could do some reseach on Ark-beliefs among Jews and Muslims - this entier subject is very thin at persent). Ok, there's my thought: but I'm not going to do it myself as I lack the time. Sorry :). PiCo 02:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I think. In that context, it might be helpful to note that allegorical interpretations of Genesis have been popular since ancient times. I'd be willing to do some of the research, but I won't have time until early August. Aardvark92 13:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Flood Myths and Primitive Housing

I've actually heard something about a recent edit in the past; that is, with primitive societies living near rivers and other bodies of water, that flood myths were inevitable. I think I heard it in Mythology class, actually. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the guy who said it (it wasn't some class member, it was from a book or video). Anyone know? Titanium Dragon 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk.Origins has a list of flood stories here. In an equal but opposite vein, I'm sure I once read an author make the point that some civilisations living away from flood plains, etc. don't have a flood story (unsurprisingly enough). Damned if I can remember where I read this though. Cheers, --Plumbago 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• You call a man with 40% larger brain than yours primitive? Who built the Tower of Babel? Who built the Hanging Gardens, and many other ancient wonders of the world? Who carried on civilizations and crossed the Bereing Sea, or sailed on the Kon Tiki across 2,000 miles of ocean without technology to do it? Look at the bow and arrow. Examine how it works and tell me if that is primitive. That anicent "pritive" weapon was good for thousands and thousands of years, even prefered over the musket when it came out. Colonel Marksman 19:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are you on about? Are you objecting to the characterisation of earlier civilisations as "primitive"? If so, are you sure that Titanium Dragon meant that in a pejorative sense? They may just be using that as shorthand for "less technologically advanced", or whatever euphemism you'd prefer. Cheers, --Plumbago 21:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Primitive is not a prejorative term innately. I meant it in the "less technologically advanced" sense, as well as the "early in terms of time" meaning, as well as unsophisticated meaning. Humans often lived near rivers due to the fertile flood plains; those who built early cities developed them by rivers. I remember hearing about the theory in mythology class, actually, but I don't have a copy of my textbook from that class anymore.

And as for early man having higher brain capacity - not true. Neanderthals had slightly greater cranial capacity than humans, but brain size is not directly proportional to intelligence. The bigger the body, the larger the brain is. Some have speculated that the brain mass to total mass ratio is what is important; in any event it is unclear and evident that small humans have smaller brains than large humans (in general), but that doesn't mean bigger people are smarter than smaller people despite having larger brains. Titanium Dragon 07:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Answer this. What animal has a larger brain than a human's? You can't answer that because even animals several times larger than a human will still have a smaller brain, or one that uses less (the Stegasaurus, for example, has a brain the size of a peanut). Mankind is getting stupider. Hear of the Y-chromisone mutations? Every generation has a certain Y-chromisone mutation that follows that man's later generations. A mutation is ALWAYS defective, ALWAYS harms, and ALWAYS degenerates. Evolution is a nice theory, but cannot exist. Mutations are always going to destroy, never improve. If a civilization can thrive, produce world wonders, and create buildings, bridges, and technologies that are still there (such as Roman bridges, several times better than ours), I'm very confident that they felt they didn't need technological advances... they were too smart. As Mankind devolves, we need something else to think for us, to help us work and stay effective in society. Colonel Marksman 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That is indeed thought provoking, I guess we sure could use some Ancient Romans nowadays to build some bridges for us, to solve our little problem of getting across rivers! But I do like to think some progress has been made since then, and that our society is just slightly more merciful and less brutish than that of those polytheists who prayed to statues - and their own Emperors, by whose every whim they were governed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What animal has a larger brain than a human? Just off the top of my head:

1. Dolphins
2. Whales

I'd wager elephants and rhinocerii, and probably a lot of large mammals, have larger brains than humans do. Brain size =! intelligence. In fact, asians are considerably smaller than blacks are, but have an average IQ 18 points higher even AFTER taking blacks being poorer than Asians into account. Asians' smaller brains are a function of body size, but they're smarter than blacks are, on average.

As for evolution, quite obviously you don't know anything about it. Evolution is real, has happened, and has occured. It is not always "defective"; it often is, but sometimes it is beneficial. As beneifical mutations are much more likely to be passed on than other ones in the long run, evolution is progressive, even though most individual mutations are deletorious. humans aren't devolving, or at least, they haven't been historically. Perhaps the welfare society will change it, perhaps not. It is irrelevant. Please do research before you go rant; everyone has heard this argument before, and all us big-brained scientists know you're wrong. ;) Titanium Dragon 10:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

(Improved the indents). Wow, TD agrees with CS! It must be Christmas! Seriously, I love this talk page - it's like listening to an argument in a pub, but without the cigarette smoke. PiCo 03:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Answers to "Documentary hypothesis" (does that section have an NPOV?)

The 87 verses of the Ark narrative leave an impression of occasional confusion: why does the story state twice over that mankind had grown corrupt but that Noah was to be saved (Gen 6:5–8; 6:11–13)? Genesis 6:1-7 gives background information, v. 8 introduces Noah, and then God explains to Noah why He is destroying the earth and man.

Was Noah commanded to take one pair of each clean animal into the Ark (Gen 6:19–20) or seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)? Gen 6:19-20 gives a general description of what he is to bring, then Gen 7:2-3 gives more specific instructions, the reason for these extra animals was for sacrifice (Gen 8:20). If one verse said take only one pair and another verse said seven pairs, that would be a contradiction.

Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days? (Gen 7:24)? It rained for forty days, the water flooded the earth for another 150 days, not rained for the next 150 days.

What happened to the raven that was sent out from the Ark at the same time as the dove and "went to and fro until the waters had subsided from the face of the earth" some two to three weeks later (Gen 8:7)? Ravens probably didn't need to return because they could eat the floating carcassesand need not come back, but, it is just an explanation, not gospel truth.

Why does the narrative appear to have two logical end-points (Gen 8:20–22 and 9:1–17)? It seems sequential though, Gen 9:1 flows with the last verses of Chapter 8.

--Goldendroplets 02:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of that section is not to advocate the DH, it's to present the DH and any questions it happens to raise. A give-and-take debate in the body of the article is highly undesireable, so let's not do it please. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I realize that an encyclopedia is not for a "give-and-take" debate, that's why I posted the discussion here and didn't edit the actual article. --Goldendroplets 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seismic Activity

Interesting info, but I'm not sure how this fits into the article as a whole right now. It definitely doesn't belong in the narrative section, which is more about the traditional story of Noah's Ark. We do not currently have a section explicitly on "possible explanations for the flood/the landing on Mt. Ararat/etc.," which is where I suspect something like this would belong (though "Scrutiny" and "Search for" come close). I think it would be a better idea, though, to take it to Deluge (mythology) as they do have such a section.--TurabianNights 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What do we mean by "traditional story of Noah's Ark?" Do we mean the simpleton version with which American kids have become most familiar? In my opinion, that children are introduced to an overly simplified, and often incorrect version of the account, causes many misinformed comparisons to be drawn as has been the case since the 20th century. If we simply stick to the narrative text, the story is far more complex. Eruptions of fountains of the deep, as a part seldom told to kids these days, are seismic in nature. Think geysers. Perhaps this seismic implication should remain; and a new subsection entitled "child's version" begin for those who desire the more common, popular, but oversimplified version where the more interesting items do not appear. Ep9206 05:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

False contradiction

The article asks in the Documentary hypothesis section a number of questions meant to draw out contradictions in the narrative. For example, "Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days? (Gen 7:24)" However, Gen. 7:17 states, "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth..." and verse 24 states, "The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." I'm not seeing the contradiction here. "Kept coming" implies that it rained for forty days, while "waters flooded the earth" implies that, well, the earth was covered in water. —Aiden 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is, however, among the concerns raised by those advocating this position. Wikipedia doesn't judge the merits of a position; it merely reports. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh! It also shows the poor scholastic ability of some of the doubters. ^rossnixon 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see the source for these "concerns raised by those advocating this position." To me it looks like an editor found a couple examples of what he mistakenly perceived as contradictions and listed them in the article. —Aiden 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, although this isn't the first time I've seen them. That's why I assumed they were sourced, or at least added in good faith. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we can find some better questions to represent the documentary hypothesis. I'll check my sources when I have time, and try to improve this section. Aardvark92 13:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The Noah paradigm

There is an interesting discusssion on Genesis 1-11 at www.understandinggenesis.com - which argues that the Noah's ark story is an allegory on the (obvious) theme of social degeneration and renewal.

Briefly, The "Noah paradigm" - which reflects a "puritanical" point of view on worldly moral degeneration and a responsive strategy involving withdrawal from the world into a morally pure and self-sufficient community - includes the following sentinel features: "corruption of the earth" (a phrase no longer current among mainstream Christians, but still frequently employed by Islamic fundamentalists); admonition of the wicked; retreat into a closed, self-sufficient and manifestly moral community (the ark); a subsequent time of testing and tribulation (the forty days and nights of the deluge); following the time of trial, a tentative attempt to restore communication with the outside world (the sending forth of the dove); evidence that the pure remnant can establish a footing in the world as it emerges from the devastation (the dove returning to the ark with an olive branch); re-engagement with the world (disembarkation on Mount Ararat); and finally sanctification of the new order (the rainbow as a sign of God's promise not to destroy the new world).

Comment would be appreciated. Depending on the critical response to this suggestion, I would like to see a section on "Allegorical Interpretations of the Noah's Ark story" included in the main article.

(The full text is available at www.understandinggenesis.com)

I'm inclined to agree with the ideas expressed by the writer of this "paradigm" article, but nevertheless, I don't feel it's quite right for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. Section 6 of the existing article already has a brief overview of allegorical interpretations of the Noah's Ark story in Christian tradition, and to add this particular interpretation would overbalance the whole. In other words, we are forced by space limitations to be very general, we simply can't afford to go into detail to this level (think of the space we'd need if we started to go into literalist arguments about the Ark). So, I must regretfully record a negative vote. PiCo 08:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a tendency from both sides (i.e. the literalist believers, and the literalist sceptics) to give priority to literalist interpretations of the Genesis stories - a tendency which is reflected in Wikipedia. There may be a presumption that the scientific approach is to concern oneself with the literal veracity of a text first and foremost, but I personally believe that presumption is an erroneous one, incidentally giving rise to a lot of banal and pointless disputation. On the other hand I can see the argument against allowing a Wikipedia article to articulate controversial points of view (from any angle).

As an alternative, why not allow links to sites or sources which analyse the Genesis stories as allegorical rather than literal texts?

Surely you jest. If one throws “literal” out the window, one may remain a lot of things but “scientific” surely they isn’t[sic]. Yet, it would be in keeping with wiki, seeing that “neutral point of view” has surreptitiously replaced such “banal” concepts as “objective, literal, and factual” as the required standard, especially when people feel troubled. So in that sense you are literally barking up the correct tree (figuratively speaking… yet the point is obviously literal.)

Thousands of years ago sophists had already (d)evolved beyond such banal things as “literal”. How stale and aimless!

Katherin 23:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand this comment. Rather than take up space in this forum to clarify my understanding or lack thereof, perhaps Katherin could contact me direct Geoff.Fischer@netsurf.co.nz

Delete Searches section, add para on search to Literalism section

Some time ago editors were discussing how to integrate the Searches section with the separate article Searches for Noah's Ark. It was felt, I believe, that the section sho8uld be something other than a mirror or rehash of the material in the other article. I tried to do this, but the result was too short to make a very convincing section. I therefore propose that the new paragraph which I've added to the Literalism section be allowed to stand as the link to the article (it does state the importance of the search, which is the main point), and that the separate section be deleted (but the illustration retained). For discussion. PiCo 08:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Literalism section? —These “searchers” (in the Search Section of this article, and the linked article “Searches for Noah's Ark”) who are being classified as “literalists” fail miserably to fit the criteria one would necessarily have to evince in order to be guilty of actually being a literalist. These “searchers” (who allow the word “searchers” to be synonymous with “discoverers”) have not provided an exact location and dimensions of the supposed “Noah’s Ark” that they have found (or that others irresponsibly embellish and repeat as if they have found it).

In the absence of literal details, by these supposed literalists, it is not possible for anyone to do a forensic investigation of their claims. To be guilty of “literalism” one would actually have to make a claim that has precise correlation to the ancient text, which would allow for a forensic, scientific confirmation. The ancient text provides the only standard or criteria of testing any structure that is claimed to be the structure that is described in the text. There is simply no way to claim “I have found the structure described in the ancient text!” apart from literally explaining why the structure they have found indeed matches the details of the ancient text in every way.

If a structure is found to be as described in the ancient text, the structure does not give proof or meaning to the ancient text (as some so-called literalists are accused of hoping). That would be backwards. It is the ancient text alone that gives identity and meaning to the structure that it alone describes. If you read the “searchers” claims carefully you will notice that none of them have provided literal reasons why their “finding” is the structure described in the ancient text. Therefore none of their supposed claims can be legitimately tested and are by definition, a flop at best and a scam at worst. Yet they are willing to spread their music about like a pied piper and to have others unjustly repeat the strains that they have found Noah’s ark. Instead of being known as Literalists they should be more properly known as Lutanists!

Gracing Frauds with the moniker “literalists” is a disservice to science and reason. Katherin 18:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Pico, of the 3 sentences in the new paragraph (last para in Literalism section), if any seem out of place, it is the middle one. This "Gospel illustration" is not really relevant to the article as such, and should really only be kept if the entire quotation is required. ^rossnixon

Codex, "I disagree" is hardly the discussion I asked for. Katherin, are you objecting to the word 'literalist"? Feel free to suggest another, but 'frauds' probably won't work. Ross, point taken, but I'd still like to find a quote summing up the reason why Ark-searchers and biblical literalists feel the discovery of the Ark would be important. Do you know one? PiCo 02:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Answered a couple of paragraphs further down. ^rossnixon 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

“Feel free to suggest another…” is a thin variation of “I disagree”…

The term literalist would technically be proper of any individuals who have confidence that what is written actually means what it meant when it was written.

Scientific “Searchers” of the vessel described in the ancient text necessarily are literalists (else they have no criteria to validate whether they have “discovered” what was recorded.).

Cornuke, Wyatt, Taylor, McGivern, and Blevins have received press from time to time and would be accused of literalism. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50977 WND article]Some of them are mentioned on Wiki as “searchers”. Properly, they are neither “searchers” nor “literalists”. They are not “searchers” but are held forward as “discoverers” of Noah’s ark (and indeed they don’t refuse the notoriety but rather seem to have carefully gained it, apart from the criteria that is necessary to be a literalist). It is inconsistant for them to be labeled “literalists” while they have no literal explanation of why their discoveries correlate exactly to the literal text which induced them to search in the first place. Instead they have carefully included vague similarities but do not present enough for anyone to forensically investigate.

There is only one who has provided literal details sufficient to scientifically corroborate its description in the ancient text, and it is of note that he did not search but instead claims he went to the location described in the text. 71.100.172.27 06:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Discovery of the Ark would be important because: Implications in many areas: creation vs evolution, catastrophism vs uniformitarianism, and (not mentioned in my ref) recognition of the Bible as a credible historic document. http://www.icr.org/article/209/ ^rossnixon 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ross. I redrafted the para using that source - you might like to have a look. I think now, that instead of deleting the existing Search section, this new para might simply be made the lead para in that section, since this has been debated by long-time editors already and the consensus was to keep the section but revise it. PiCo

Noah's birthplace

According to several sources Noah's birthplace and starting place was somewere in Nakhichevan, it would be usefull to also add this to the text as some of us might need this. It would be usefull to check [this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1843_Nakhichevan_Coat_of_Arms.png] emblem of Nakhichevan out, you can clearly see Noah's boot and the great flood, and this is a emblem dating back to the 17th centruy. Baku87 20:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted, though, that the image of Noah's Ark was common among Caucasion coats of arms under Russian rule. -- Clevelander 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Liberal scholars?

The addition of the word liberal seems unecessary (since it is true of the majority of scholars of any type), it is POV, and it is vague since it isn't even clear what liberal means in this context. JoshuaZ 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Some qualifier of some type is necessary to avoid giving the wrong impression. The DH is dubious anyway, relies on manipulating and misinterpreting verses as can easily be shown, and a growing number of more 'conservative' scholars are questioning this fraud. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a few comments, first asserting that the DH is dubious and "relies on manipulating and misinterpreting verses as can easily be shown" is POV and your personal opinion isn't really relevant to what the article should say. Second, do you have a source for the claim that a "growing number of more 'conservative' scholars are questioning this fraud" and is this source a reliable source that isn't just from a 'conservative' publication? I ask because in the last 2 weeks I've seen attempts to justify further inclusion of minority opinions with undue weight issues and/or POV issues on both global warming articles and creationism articles in addition to this. Oddly they all make the same claim, that a growing number of _(fill in blank with relevant type of scholar) are doubting evolution or global warming- so I shouldn't be too surprised if the anti-DH people are using the same playbook. (incidentally, it is interesting that at least regarding evolution such claims have now been made for at least 100 years on a very consistent basis). JoshuaZ 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, its a POV, but a significant one, not just mine, and asserting that DH has any merit is the opposite POV. That is why I pout a NPOV tag, because a significant POV is not being mentioned. NPOV means mentioning ALL significant POVs. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Also your implication that a reference ought to be disqualified if it is from a "conservative" publication is not at all neutral and really reveals your own POV. So only one side of the story is being told, instead of NPOV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never really seen anything convincing in favor of DH. If you ask me, it is a really weak hypothesis that is over 100 years old and relies on faulty inferences. But you are not allowing a full discussion of that here. This is far from "neutral"!!!! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course we won't have a discussion about the DH here. This isn't a debate forum. The issue is whether your addition of liberal is NPOV or necessary and at this point I'm not convinced of either. In fact even if the number of scholars who rejected the DH were doubling every day that wouldn't alter that in any way, what would matter is the number as of now. If you think you have legitimate criticisms of the DH put it on that article in a well sourced fashion. (I'd be inclined to agree that the DH is not compelling, but that isn't relevant to whether or not the word "liberal" should be there). JoshuaZ 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Some qualifier of some type is necessary to avoid giving the wrong impression. The DH is dubious anyway, relies on manipulating and misinterpreting verses as can easily be shown, and a growing number of more 'conservative' scholars are questioning this fraud. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, are you going to actually say something new and/or give sources for your claims and/or explain how the claim is relevant? The above is an almost word for fowrd copy of what you said earlier. JoshuaZ 21:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a word for word copy, but you obviously didn't read it carefully the first time. I'm not insisting on the word "liberal". Just NPOV. You know, giving both sides of the argument instead of just one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

So you just try to repeat yourself? Paraphrasing or explaining in more detail might be helpful. In this case, please explain how the current wording is POV. The statement is true so what is the issue? JoshuaZ 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

See my above reply where I repeated twice, explaining what the issue is, and do try to read carefully this time. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here, let me help you. I'm putting it in bold type. Now read it reeeel slow like, and then see if you can find an answer to your question "what is the issue"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I did and I'm still missing a few points, especially as to why growth would be relevant, why personal opinion about the DH's reliability would be relevant, and why therefore you feel a need for a qualifier. I'm also curious as to whether you disagree with the assesment that the DH is the predominant viewpoint among biblical scholars. If it is, then it is very hard to see how there is any issue. JoshuaZ 21:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Josh, you've not had to deal much with Codex before...he's a self-professed leading Bible expert, having a level of knowledge that most scholars dare not dream to have. In fact, it's been said that he has the inside scoop on the writing of the Bible.

Seriously, you're banging your head against a wall -- Codex is a POV warrior who simply cannot look at the Bible objectively (good for a person of faith, I suppose, bad for a Wiki editor). He sees himslf as a "defender of the faith", often using rather bizarre OR hypotheses to make his claims. •Jim62sch• 21:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is quite blatant lies and personal attacks against my person. Not one accusation you have made against me is true or correct, and I will bring this to the attention of administators, like your similar past personal attacks against me. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also a textbook example of ad hominem fallacy, made in the absemce of any logical rejoinder to why you are only going to show one POV and pretend its NPOV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do as you wish. Sad part is, your edits back up my observations.

Oh, you might wish to read up a bit on the DH. Maybe you might get the book "Who wrote the Bible" by Richard Elliott Friedman. Quite the respected scholar he is. Might prove to be an eye-opener. •Jim62sch• 23:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's still ad hominem. "Observations" like that would be best kept to yourself, as they have no bearing whatever on the argument in question. Thank you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Jim's comments were ad hominems doesn't matter in regard to the questions I asked above. I would appreciate if you would answer them. JoshuaZ 23:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Because they are qute obviously "loaded questions". You asked "why personal opinion about the DH's reliability would be relevant, and why therefore you feel a need for a qualifier." That is certainly a loaded question, because the very question assumes that it is all based on my own personal opinion, which is of course just as irrelevant as yours, rather than on what published conservative scholars have opined about the DH, or indeed on the position that entire councils have taken regarding the integrity of the text. A minimal amount of checking into it will easily reveal there is more than one school of thought about this hypothetical hypothesis. But then you seemed to be saying a little while ago that one school of thought deserves to be discredited and therefore shut out, no matter how significant it is.ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Loaded or not, answer the question. Arguing that it is loaded and not bothering to answer it seems to indicate that you simply cannot, or will not, answer the question. •Jim62sch• 00:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I will not answer a loaded question, and I will not respond to those who engage in ad hominem and wear their their anti-religious bigotry like a badge. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I must call myself amused to see you complain about ad hominem attacks in one sentence and accuse other users of wearing "their anti-religious bigotry like a badge" in the second half of the sentence. Now, I note that you a) didn't answer the above questions b) didn't give any references for any of your claims and c) didn't answer the final question which asked whether you agreed that with the assesment that the DH is the predominant viewpoint among biblical scholars. Now, it is hard to see this last issue as a loaded. So, do you intend to answer? JoshuaZ 00:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe I just stated in Plain English that I do not. And if you don't consider a user box (now apparently gone) stating "I imagine a world with no religion" as a signal of anti-religious bigotry, which is forbidden by wikipedia policy, then I am sorry for your reading comprehension skills. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Can this be tackled another way? I have just put 'controversial' in front of 'documentary hypothesis'. ^rossnixon 00:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that'll be reverted. •Jim62sch• 00:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be, It clearly IS controversial. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(EC) It was. And it certainly is not controversial among Biblical scholars who do not have a Biblical innerancy POV. •Jim62sch• 00:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversial in what sense? Not among the majority of biblical scholars. We don't say that evolution is controversial, or that heliocentrism is controversial or vaccination and I fail to see how this is any different. Of course, it is a bit difficult to have a conversation when the main user in question won't bother even discussing if he thinks the original wording is accurate or not. (And I have no idea about what userbox he is talking about, was this something on Jim's page at one point? Do you assume I bother keeping track of what little userboxes everyone keeps on their pages?). JoshuaZ 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, I missed the ad hom. Shame on you Codex. Surely you've heard of John Lennon? •Jim62sch• 00:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is controversial, but that's a red herring here. The original wording is innacurate by reason of deficiency, because it overlooks the fact that there are other vast schools of thought on the DH that are being ignored. The whole DH is a hypothetical reconstruction, it is most certainly controversial in several aspects. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you have now deleted "controversial" when it IS controversial, this is now going to RFC. What are your motives for trying to present this as uncontroversial when it is. Because you only want readers to know one side of the story. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if it were controversial, which it isn't, it would be undue weight to bring it up here where it is highly incidental. Now, do you think that the current wording is accurate or not? As for that, not really, I hope they would click on the link to the DH and read about any controversy there where it would be somewhat relevant. JoshuaZ 00:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's "undue weight" according to you. In your little dream world, nobody worthy of mention disagrees with DH. It ain't so, you are brushing most Churches under the carpet and trying to tell everybody only YOUR idea of what the text actually means. It's called "POV pushing". And as for the wording, I have answered your question many times over, please read closely. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, do you think the phrasing is accurate or not, and if not do you have a reliable source that says otherwise. And no, you haven't answered (in fact you have repeatedly said that you will not answer). JoshuaZ 00:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You must be a slow reader. You are not my teacher or lecturer, who do you think you are to demand an answer from me when I have repeatedly said it is a loaded question and I will not answer any more than I already have. The wording is DEFICIENT. It does not tell the whole story. This deficiency is what the problem is about and needs to be rectified, regardless of whether it is true or not. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I could tell you had called the first question loaded, not the later ones. In any event, I don't see why the "whole story" is necessary here, indeed that is precisely the point of undue weight, not every minority vieewpoint needs to be represented unless it is more directly relevant (like in the article about the DH itslef). JoshuaZ 01:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that your arguments defeat themselves, right? Must be a slow thinker. •Jim62sch• 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't realize that. DH is an Emperor who is wearing no clothes. And I'm hardly the fisrt person or the only person to say as much. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, a personal assertion with no reliable sources backing it up. Would it help maybe if I gave you examples of reliable sources that question the DH? JoshuaZ 01:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is self-evident that the inclusion of the adjective which is being so hotly contested is perfectly factual and acceptable according to the terms of Wiki, notwithstanding boisterous (and humorous) objections.

Some have disclosed their presupposition that makes this innocuous adjective so onerous to them. Consider carefully, while they are calling for sources, they immediately qualify their demand by saying there are certain sources that cannot be trusted no matter what they say. For them the “Standard” for what they can agree to is NOT known by a consideration of facts through reason, but instead by the criteria of so-called reliable sources that agree with their POV. While using POV themselves, they presume their opponents would argue by the same logic of thought and therefore set out to short-circuit their opponent’s use of POV.

By establishing that the argument of reality is based on POV, and that only their POV is allowed to judge facts, they alleviate themselves of the necessity to reason honestly according to facts. I’m amused. First deny a discussion of the facts and then clutter the table with a long argument about a word that was, by their own argument, merely “unnecessary” (yet, evidently is anything but…)

While freeing themselves from an honest argument, they scar themselves with their self-evident error of prejudice and self-medicate with the salve of “NPOV”. No problem. Until someone bumps their scab.

Anyone who maintains that “liberal” or “conservative” is the crux of the argument is Lilliputian. Yet, anyone who bases their argument on the presuppositions of a POV and then deny it boisterously are less than Lilliputian and can only subdue the Gulliver….uh.. I mean the gullible. It is self-evident that only one thing transcends POV. It doesn't start with “N”.

If you shout louder and use more ad hominem, you can have confidence that more people will hear the basis of your argument. Notice, it hasn't taken a NPOV for your conscience to agree.

Um, English please? JoshuaZ 02:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

How very Awbreyan. A little over the top on hyperbole though, too purple, although unintentionally humourous in its own write. I'd give it 2 out 5 stars. •Jim62sch• 13:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting back on topic... I doubt that the DH has been the predominant view of scholars for a long time (see first paragraph of [5]). The DH has been largely discredited, as even some liberal scholars agree. If you want to read about "the end of the Documentary Hypothesis" see [6]. But even though scholars largely dismiss the DH, academia have said that they will not stop teaching it until something superior comes along to take its place. These are my reasons for removing both adjectives again. This is a more npov. ^rossnixon 10:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The Documentary hypothesis article doesn't appear to share the view that it's been largely discredited. It sounds more like the hypothesis has evolved with time as more evidence has been uncovered. It could be argued that the specific original framework of the documentary hypothesis has been "discredited", but it would be more accurate to say that scholars have developed the DH to incorporate new evidence, much in the same way that (to bring in JoshuaZ's earlier example) the modern synthesis of evolution has been developed and extended over the years from Darwin's original theory.

As an aside, away from biblical scholarship itself, there's not a jot of evidence (bar the content of religious texts) that the ostensible subject of this article ever existed. While we're furiously getting tied up in knots on where different interpretations of said religious texts take us, the matter of actual evidence seems to be getting quietly forgotten about. Of course, that's just my "liberal" POV ... Cheers, --Plumbago 12:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ross just gave some great sources, and you are brushing them aside by using a wikipedia article as a source... The Free encyclopedia anyone can edit... Ya gotta love it... I am sometimes challenged to try to change the DH article if I disagree with it, but there are good reasons why I don't... It is "populated" by editors who only allow one point of view, so there's little hope of achieving anything there... I don't invade that article and leave it alone (actually haven't even read it) but the DH hypothesis proponents don't show the same courtesy, they maintain vigil over Biblical articles and use their numbers like this to make sure only this weak, discredited 100-year old hypothesis receives the greatest prominence. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Two points. First, Ross's source look very good and are reasonably reliable and mainstream but I haven't had much time to look at them. I'll look at them in more detail when I have time (I doubt I'll be on Wiki between now and Sunday night) but Plumbago seems also to have made a good point as well in terms of not confusing modification with and incorporation of new evidence with rejection of the underlying hypothesis (incidentally, some of the elements of the DH are even older than many people realize- for example Ibn Ezra made speculation about certain biblical sections in the OT coming from different sources and then being later woven together). For now I'm fine keeping both adjectives out (at least until I have time to look at Ross's sources). Second point directed more specifically to Codex- Ross did precisely what you did not, he was calm, cooperative and gave reliable sources to back up the assertion. Following his lead in the future might make this a more productive discussion. JoshuaZ 05:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What we really have here is the opinion of one scholar, Rolf Rendtorff. Now, I do not disparage or deny his skills but it is still the opinion of one person who appears, based on his published works, to treat the OT in a very traditional fashion. This does not, of course, mean that he is wrong, it simply means that he is but one voice. •Jim62sch• 00:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured you might say that. But I am curious as to how many voices it will take to convince you that DH does not enjoy the automatic prestige it had 100 years ago. Here is the next "voice":

http://web.archive.org/web/20050211160657/http://souldevice.org/writings_dochyp.html

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

ፈቃደ - you're completely off the mark here. The article does not say that the DH is the only interpretation, merely that it is the predominant one in biblical scholarship (which includes your ridiculous "liberal" and "conservative" subdivisions). So showing us one (or maybe two; I couldn't get your link to work) reference where someone disagrees doesn't change things. To change the text you need to demonstrate that the article is wrong in stating that the majority view of biblical scholars is that the DH is no longer supported (and by "DH" I mean the current flavour of the DH, not its original incarnation). --Plumbago 09:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Which, I believe was my earlier point in mentioning "Who Wrote the Bible?".

In any case, the second half of the link is redirected to SoulDevice, an extremist apologetics site that does not meet WP:V or WP:RS. The first part of the link is dead. •Jim62sch• 12:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

With JoshuaZ, I'd like to thank rossnixon for a cool-headed contribution to this discussion, and for an excellent reference. As rossnixon's referenced review makes clear, there is a great deal of dispute within scholarly circles over just how and when the Pentateuch was composed, but there is no dispute at all over the basic point that it comprises multiple sources written at varying times. Our task here is not to describe the controversy (which belongs to the DH article rather than to the Ark article), but rather how to reflect this in the introduction. Codex wants to do this by calling the DH 'controversial' and 'liberal', but this is tendentious - as ross's reference makes clear, the controversy is purely over just what strands make up the Pentateuch, and when they were composed; the view (Coedex's view?) that the text has integrity (i.e was composed by a single author) is so restricted as not to figure in rossnixon's reference at all. I do agree that the article should give appropriate balance to both textualist approaches to the Rk story, and literalist approaches - after all, if the Ark ever were found on Ararat, much though I doubt that it ever will be, it would of monumental importance to all biblical stude and belief. Anyway, I've made an edit which I hope we can all accept, one which makes clear that the DH is very much a work in progress. I also hope that the tag can be swiftly removed - featured articles should only be edited if the reasons for doing so are compelling. PiCo 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Since the only context the DH comes up in is tha basic notion of multiple strands, I'm fine with this wording. If no one else objects I'm going to remove the tag. JoshuaZ 23:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Since all attempts at compromise have been defeated, it's still disputed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact I am still considering appealing to RFC since every attempt at compromise has been batted down by a clique of editors that is trying to control this article. This article's NPOV is quite disputed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This is wikipedia bullyism at it worst. Numerous sources have shown that there IS another pov on the dh, and that it is controverisal and or disputed by modern, but typically, one side dismisses the other school of thought as insignificant no matter how many sources there are, and therefore wrongly claims the privilege to "play judge" and to summarily rule any evidence for the other position inadmissible. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, so much for compromise. •Jim62sch• 00:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I support the current wording - it says basically that 'the DH says such-and-such", and that "many Orthodox Jews, Christians and Muslims reject the hypothesis," which is about as NPOV as anyone could wish. Anyone but Codex, anyway. If Ross, whom I respect as a spokesperson from the orthodox camp, can agree with the para as it now stands, let's remove the tag and leave it alone. PiCo 08:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So my right to dispute the neutrality of this entire article is hereby unrecognised? This proves what I said that that there is pure bullyism here, Pico! I am not a troll, but you are self-assuming the authority to be judgemental here and write me off as an editor. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is worded about as good as we can manage at the moment. If the DH is still the consensus view, then the controvery should only be mentioned in the DH article. I suspect however that there is currently no consensus. I have not studied the DH refs properly, but if I do, it would be more logical to edit the DH article itself. Then if it can be shown that the DH is basically in tatters, then we could possibly remove it from the Noah's Ark article. ^rossnixon 10:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ross, I don't think that that is what you'll find, but your approach is correct. Codex is raising the argument in the wrong place. •Jim62sch• 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Codex, I'm not accusing you of being a troll, I'm suggesting that you refuse to accept compromise - which is exactly what you accuse me of, of course. So, please have a look at the disputed para in the introduction as most recently edited by rossnixon, not me, and if you feel you can accept it, remove the tag. PiCo 05:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it shouldn’t be "quietly forgotten"

Well done Plumbago, I applaud your call for us to notice what is “quietly forgotten”. As you point out more or less, judicially speaking, evidence can legitimately include testimonial evidence as well as physical evidence. (In fairness you used the terms “text” and “actual”)

The ancient text is evidence and is the sole standard by which any subsequent evidence can be judged to be germane.

If physical evidence is independently verified to be in full agreement with the ancient text (50 cubits by 300 cubits at the described location), then denial of the “ostensible subject” would be unreasonable. On the flip side, it is unreasonable to expect someone to acknowledge the existence of the “ostensible subject” apart from sufficient evidence.

Independent verification of the size and location of the described structure necessarily must be in accordance with the evidence of the ancient text. Issues other than the size and location of the structure are ancillary.Katherin 01:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Katherin. Thanks for your note. My point was really meant to go beyond the textual evidence about the Ark itself. The description of its dimensions, contents and final resting place are largely irrelevant to any discussion if the event the Ark was meant to survive, the Flood, never actually happened. And there is no shortage of physical evidence on that point. Bar localised floods (one of which may ultimately be the source of the Ark story) the geological record contains nothing remotely like a global flood in the history of the Earth.

To analogise shamelessly, we're like detectives poring over an unreliable witness (or witnesses - we're agonising over this) statement about some undiscovered scrap of evidence about a massive crime that there's no evidence actually happened. Cheers, --Plumbago 08:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Plumbago, I applaud your ability to discern valid propositions apart from prejudice. The ancient textual evidence is the only widely recognized evidence of Noah’s Ark (apart from a plethora of additional testimonial evidence), and has the unique privilege of being the sole standard by which all subsequent proposed evidence is judged to be germane.

The proposition that the there is no evidence of a worldwide flood (in addition to the textual evidence) is not accepted by everyone. One can find prominent individuals with degrees from reputable universities that argue both ways on the subject. Frankly, the argument against the existence of Noah’s Ark based on the absence of a worldwide flood is not illogical. It is logical, though not everyone accepts the premise on which it is based.

Some simply reject the proposition that the ancient text is evidence at all, instead concluding that the text was merely allegorical, having no historicity whatsoever. Though this argument fails to address the dating conventions used in the ancient text, if one argues that Noah’s Ark never existed, based on that premise, then that is a logical argument.

Some suggest the reliability of the text is in question because it has “apparent confusion and repetition” as a result of being compiled from two sources, though there are no copies of these alleged predecessors to the ancient text available today. If one concludes the ancient text to be unreliable, then it is logical to argue that Noah’s Ark didn’t exist, on that premise.

These valid arguments that doubt the existence of Noah’s Ark are well represented in the Noah’s Ark article here on Wiki. Even though they are valid arguments, these arguments are necessarily Points of View because they are based on premises secondary to the article’s primary subject, well thought out as they may be. (I use the term “valid” in the sense that if the premises are accepted, the conclusion is reasonable. Which is not to say that everyone agrees it is an accurate argument. POV is about differing premises and thus necessarily POVs will have disagreement in the conclusion.)

While the article represents the POV that Noah’s Ark is questionable, it lacks valid arguments in favor of the existence of Noah’s Ark and is thus not NPOV.

Some may argue that the inclusion of Bob Cornuke and his supposed find of Noah’s Ark is a valid argument representing the POV in favor of the literal Ark (Cornuke was recently interviewed on a number of well known news organizations in the U.S.) However, Cornuke’s alleged discovery is not a valid proposition. He himself has said that he is not claiming to have found the Ark. Those who argue Cornuke has found the Ark are guilty of prejudice or hopeful gullibility. The news organizations that allowed him such a pulpit showed that they are more about entertainment than accuracy. Even National Geographic News sunk to the level of entertainment. [7]

Ever since Navarra in the 1950s, the proliferation of entertainment quality announcements regarding the discovery of Noah’s Ark have only served to muddy the waters of reason. Prejudice run amuck or gullibility have been the cornerstone of nearly all “claims” of discovery since they have not included the necessary dimensions and location, as described in the ancient text. The absence of valid claims for many years has likely caused a predisposition to discount the possibility of a valid, scientifically testable notice of discovery. For this article to be NPOV it is necessary that participants distinguish between prejudice and POV. Katherin 02:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Cornuke’s alleged discovery is not a valid proposition"? Alleged discovery? He discovered, what he discovered. It may or may not be the Ark, as he has stated. Any legitimate scientific evidence should be presented here (Just the facts, ma'am!), and let the reader decide for himself/herself what is really is, or isn't... or call it inconclusive, and wait for more info. Leon7 12:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bob Cornuke, the president of the BASE Institute who is reported to have made a notice of discovery regarding Noah's Ark said, " “We have no way of confirming for sure that this object is Noah’s Ark, but it is probably the most interesting and baffling object ever found by ark searchers...it sure gets my heart to pumping just thinking of what it could be.”. In light of Cornuke's own statement it is nonsensical to maintain that there remains (or even ever existed) a valid proposition that he has made a notice of discovery regarding Noah's Ark. Therefore it is useless to the this article to have any mention of Cornuke, except to point out that he is just another of a long list of individuals who do not properly use science with regard to the ancient text. While they circumvent science to bait gullible folks and journalists who what to make a fast buck, they at the same time increase suspicion, mistrust, and cynicism regarding the subject which they ostensibly seek to promote and prove. Many who call themselves scientists and who are most averse to the subject are ironically (not so ironically) also the ones who are most eager to prop up Cornike and his fellow straw men.Katherin 18:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason the article lacks much basis for the ark existing is because there is no evidence whatsoever that the ark does exist; it is almost certainly a fabrication. No global flood occured, and though localized flooding may have occured it did not happen on the scale claimed and the whole story is rather reliant on it. There may have been a large boat which someone may or may not have loaded some of their livestock onto, but most likely not even as much as that. The Bible is a reliable source for its mythology, not historical information. There are no reliable people in the field who will tell you the ark exists or ever existed. Titanium Dragon 05:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)LOL!Katherin 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming

Would it be allowed to add a section saying that some people believe that Noah's Ark is a warning of Global Warming. It holds many similarities: flooding, sins of man (mistreatment of earth) and the need for people to preserve nature.

Not really. The "sins" are the only similarity that I see. 'Global warming' is just a political ruse. ^rossnixon 00:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A "political ruse" eh? It's amazing how a demonstrable phenomenon is trumped by something which never actually happened. Anyway, adding any text suggesting a connection between a Flood and the ongoing and observable changes in the Earth's climate system would be rank speculation and original research. That said, were this a commonly expressed sentiment of notable authorities, then it might merit a passing reference, but would need to be heavily sourced, and clearly delineated as opinion. --Plumbago 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"A commonly expressed opinion of notable authorities"? Ok, if you can line up quotes from the Pope, the Archbishop of Cantabury, the Sheikh of Al Azhar, and the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, all linking global warming to Noah's Ark, I'll buy it. PiCo 10:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Those are the sorts of notables I had in mind. I won't be holding my breath though! Cheers, --Plumbago 09:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Take the flood and ark off the psuedo science list

Noah's flood and ark should be removed from the psuedoscience list. Two Columbia University researchers uncovered evidence suggesting that there was such a flood and ark: (See Black Sea deluge theory.) See William Ryan and Walter Pitman's book, "Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History," and review at http://www.amazon.com/Noahs-Flood-Scientific-Discoveries-Changed/dp/0684859203/sr=8-1/qid=1164760367/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8813230-2373756?ie=UTF8&s=books Dogru144 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. The Black Sea flood theory (or fact) concerns a natural event (no God, no forty days of rain, no world-wide death and destruction). Noah's flood was a supernatural event. And what's this about our Columbia profs suggesting there was an ark involved? 01:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No way I'm afraid. Noah's Ark (at least as it is interpreted by modern creationists; it may well have been written as allegorical) is pseudoscience to the core. As noted immediately above, there may be some basis for a story based around a localised flood, but no physical evidence supports the notion of a global flood. Given the quantity of evidence contradicting a global flood, one would think it perverse to assert the contrary. Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking, however. --Plumbago 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Plumbago. The Noah's Ark story, as it is interpreted by creationists, is pseudoscience and should be labeled as such. Even the Genesis story does not mention a global flood. This myth was based on a local river flood that flooded the "erets" = land = ground in the river valley. An editor named Sin-liqi-unninni changed "river" to "sea" about 1000 BCE and writers have added more fiction ever since. Greensburger 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand what this discussion is about in relation to the article. I looked for the word "pseudoscience" in the article but couldn't find it. If I had, I would have removed it, because that is only a point-of-view, and a disputed one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place on the wrong talk page. Mt. Ararat and Noah's Ark are listed at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, which is doubtless what Dogru144 was talking about.

Mind you, not calling this a pseudoscience is a case of undue weight. Of course there are people who dispute that, but there's no credible science to back them up. See WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience. There's much to say about Noah's Ark, and a good many people who believe it as literally true, but this is not a scientific belief. Those who try to make it one are engaging in pseudoscience. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the article specifically discusses the literal vs. allegorical "debate", we probably should categorise it as pseudoscience. Were it just the outline of the story that left the historicity to a separate article, then perhaps it wouldn't need to be categorised as pseudoscience. --Plumbago 10:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you categorize it as Pseudoscience, your purpose must be cruising for another neutrality dispute, since that is non-neutral language, pov-pushing, and basically assserting your own priority over churches and faith to interpret Scripture for them, as if their own beliefs were insignificant. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. I'm certainly not cruising for a neutrality dispute, my concern is that we have an article which presents a particular event as if its historical accuracy was a debateable point. Aside from its reproduction in a succession of religious/mythological texts, this event is completely unsupported by any independent evidence. Were the article to describe Noah's Ark purely as a "story" it could hardly be tagged as pseudoscience. But the article presents the pseudoscientific case for it being literally true. As such, it should be labelled appropriately. And it's not my priority here; this is view of the scientific community (let alone all those other faiths whose corresponding mythologies preclude a global flood). --Plumbago 13:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again, indeed. You may say you are not cruising for another neutrality dispute, but that's exactly what you are going to get, for the reasons I just gave about it being POV-pushing, non neutral language. The view that it is historical is a significant viewpoint held by many Churches and you are attacking this viewpoint and expecting wikipedia to take sides. Just present the facts and let the reader make their own mind up if it should be "pseudoscience". The only way you can say there is no evidence, is by brushing all the evidence aside. There is far more evidence that is convincing to me for this story than there is for Evolution and Big Bang, but I don't go to those articles and assert my personal point of view that those are pseudoscience. How about the fact that the traditions of people all over the world independently speak of a flood and a tower, traditions of people all over the world point back to the same part of the world, around the same time frame, people from Somalia to Georgia and from Ireland to Iran and beyond traditionally trace ancestry to Noah's grandchildren, etc. Oh yeah... Just drily brush that evidence aside, dismiss or deny it and it all goes away, allowing you to proclaim "There is no evidence"... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledgement of Noah and the Ark of Noah is not a pseudoscience. It is a proposition of historical facts. However that being said, there have admittedly been entrepreneur-ing individuals (such as Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke more recently) who have proposed “pseudo-science” methods to prove they found the Ark, for what appeared to be attempts at personal gain. Some gullible people have followed along. And some quick thinkers have played it up.

Additionally the Biblical account and its multiple references to Noah, the Ark, and the Flood are not pseudo-history, ie. allegorical, despite what some pseudo-scholars may proclaim. The Genesis account is self-apparent that it describes an historical event. The rest of the Bible is replete with references to Noah, the Ark, and the Flood as historical. To name a few: Jesus, Chronicles, Isaiah, Job, David, Peter, Paul, Matthew, Luke, all referred to Noah, the flood, and the Ark as an historical event. Some gullible people who don’t take the time to read for themselves buy into the pseudo-scholar group-think proposition that the Biblical descriptions of the Ark are allegory rather than history.

It is no great revelation that there exist pseudo-scientists and pseudo-scholars who are self-appointed experts on Noah, the Ark, and the Flood. An obsession to hastily pigeonhole people and their propositions into a pseudo-group precludes reasoned evaluation. But then, human nature is averse to recognizing error, much less acknowledging it, which is the real reason Noah was not liked then, and is discounted now.Katherin 04:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't prove a scientific proposition by appealing to Scripture. The Bible is not a science textbook. If you think you can, and you think it is, then you understand neither. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Worse than this, the historicity of the Flood is disputed by just about any natural record or proxy that you look at. It quite simply cannot have happened. --Plumbago 10:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The Akha people of northern Thailand always bury their dead with a pair of shoes. This, they will tell you, is because the souls of the dead must cross a valley on their post-mortem way to the Land of the Dead, and the floor of the valley is carpeted with hairy catepillars, and so the dead need shoes to avoid getting itchy feet from the catepillars. The theory is thoroughly scientific, as no-one has ever been able to prove that the valley of hairy catepillars does not exist. PiCo 13:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How many Akha are there? I'm not sure that is a significant viewpoint, relative to the number who believe in the flood around the world, but even so, I would not go into the relevant article and proclaim it to be false just because I don't believe it myself, since as you point out, it cannot be disproven. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Wikipedia cares about verifiability not truth a long with what the mainstream consensus is. The scientific consensus is that Noah's Ark claims are generally pseudoscience. That's well sourced so we're done. JoshuaZ 13:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Wikipedia does not take sides, if there are two significant viewpoints, it is absolutely committed to being neutral. Statements by Christian Church leaders including the Pope about the historicity of the Bible are equally well sourced, one side in this debate doesn't get to just pretend the other side no longer exists and call it "neutral". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not religious or theological claims regarding historicity. The issue is claims that the flood story constitutes science. The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that is does not. Therefore, claims that Noah's Flood is science are pseudoscientific. Don't confuse religious and scientific classifications. JoshuaZ 16:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be fair to state that "the overwhelming consensus of scientists is that this is pseudoscience", because that is properly attributing this viewpoint to the people who hold this viewpoint. It would not be neutral to state that it simply IS pseudoscience, because that would make wikipedia appear to be endorsing these said scientists' viewpoint and rejecting the other significant widely-held viewpoint, without conclusive proof one way or the other. That's the very definition of "pov pushing" if there ever was one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, that's precisely what pseudoscience means. If we took your logic we couldn't call anything pseudoscience on Wikipedia. I suggest you actually read what NPOV has to say. JoshuaZ 17:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the link, please read it very, very carefully: WP:NPOV. Wikipedia MUST be neutral. This is a classic example of one side of a disputed topic attempting to assert priority over the other side in VIOLATION of Neutrality - WITH ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. But just know that it cannot be done without a fight, because Neutrality means presenting only the verifiable facts, and letting the reader make up their own mind without telling them what to think about it with this kind of blatantly POV-loaded language. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Been there, read it. Codex, neutral means calling something which claims to be "scientific" and is not, pseudoscience. That's the definition of pseudoscience. You are claiming there is "science" backing up a world wide flood, and there isn't. There are also claims that the Ark is being searched for "scientifically" - which it isn't. There are also claims that the Ark could scientifically exist - and it couldn't. It is, by definition, pseudoscience, and no amount of typing in all caps will make it anything else. Claiming using a textbook definition is "POV pushing" is absurd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to say what scientists consider it to be pseudoscience. But if you try to assert that the Bible "is" Pseudoscience, only because these said scientists have said so, there is going to be a neutrality dispute on POV grounds, because this is using attack language to violate NPOV. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No one is putting the Bible in the ps cat so far as I know - please clarify your point, as you're not making much sense to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What part do you not understand? Surely you were aware that this article is about a Biblical topic. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not just a "Biblical topic" but a topic strongly associated with certain pseudoscientific claims, indeed it is almost synonymous with those creationist claims which are sourced as pseudoscience. Hence it is in the cat. This isn't that complicated. JoshuaZ 22:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's going to be disputed, for the reasons that have been given in the clearest possible terms. POV pushing on wikipedia is not allowed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is confusion on this issue. It is clearcut to me.

• The stories in the bible are not scientific statements or theories; therefore they can't be pseudoscience.
• The application by Creationists of Flood Geology etc, to try to bolster belief in these stories - this is however where the pseudoscience appears. ^rossnixon 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. While "the stories in the bible are not scientific statements", some of them talk about things having happened that clearly haven't. Or, at least, haven't happened in either the way or the timescale described. As the article in part currently discusses Noah's Ark as a "real event", and presents the views of some of those who view it that way, it can legitimately be tagged as pseudoscience. Were the article to be a simple recounting of the story of the Ark with no suggestion that it was an actual historical event (e.g. like the articles concerning stories about Zeus or Thor) then it would be unnecessary to tag the article. However, it doesn't take this tack. --Plumbago 18:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's the historicity that is the problem, then tag it with myth; but there's no way that it's pseudoscience. ^rossnixon 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I'd buy that on the whole. It wasn't exactly your point, but if we do frame discussions about Noah's Ark purely in terms of a debate of historicity, it's crucial to still reference the objective, scientific evidence. Otherwise we'll be misleading the reader by ignoring the most unambiguous evidence that we have (which, of course, is not really evidence against Noah's Ark per se, but merely evidence for what has happened on Earth).

As an aside, I suspect tagging Noah's Ark as a myth is at least as likely to cause trouble as tagging it pseudoscience (though the former has a strict definition that doesn't omit at least partial truth). Cheers, --Plumbago 09:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Or call it non-scientific, although that is stating the obvious. And by the way, the scientific evidence is not unambiguous except to the closed-minded. ^rossnixon 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ark article is currently on the following category lists: Articles lacking sources from July 2006 | All articles lacking sources | Torah events | Old Testament topics | 24th century BC | Abrahamic mythology | Biblical phrases. I'd agree with all those, even with 24th Century BC (it's in there under mythological events or some such). And as it's under Abrahamic mythology, that covers Ross's suggestion above. For what it's worth, I wouldn't like to see it in the Pseudoscience category, basically for the reasons Ross outlines - it would be like adding Hamlet to the pseudohistory category, assuming such a cat existed. PiCo 08:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Biblical Account of Noah is not a scientific proposition.

The complaint that “you can't prove a scientific proposition by appealing to Scripture.” is an unfounded complaint. When employing our beloved adjective “scientific” we should not dishonor it by subjecting it to misuse. The Biblical account is not a “scientific” proposition. The question of whether the account is an historical, an allegorical, or a scientific proposition, is a matter of grammar and is easily answered by anyone who takes the time to read the accounts for themselves. Its own evident proposition is that Noah and the related events are historical.

This should not be regarded as a denial that the validity of the Historical record may be evaluated by scientific means. That is a distinct question altogether.

It is acknowledged that their have been pseudo-scientists who have attempted to offer so-called scientific evidence to corroborate the historical account. Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke are just two examples of a long list. They misused our beloved adjective.

More to the point, the "real scientists" often reject the historical account (sometimes even vainly claiming it is not even historical), yet it is apparent that they do so without a scientific evaluation of the statements of fact. Based on the premise that the Flood never happened, they don’t even read the text. The same self-proclaimed scientists who don’t find it necessary to read the text, easily claim "scientific" victory over the obvious pseudo-scientists who make unscientific claims.

Many of these real scientists are simply proposing bait and switch. Having first ignored the question “Is the Bible an accurate historical record?” (which frankly they are free to do if they wish), they then rush off to a second question, “Are the pseudo-scientists evaluating the ancient text actually pseudo-scientists?” Finding the answer to the second question to be a resounding “YES” the scientists rush back to the first question and declare, “We are scientific scientists. Our scientific evaluation of the scientific proposition regarding the myth of Noah is that it is pseudo!”

I expect “scientists” to be accurate.

I am a scientist. Therefore, I don’t believe in the Perpetual Dry Land Myth, so I don’t find it necessary to read any ancient or contemporary texts that vainly record such foolishness of Perpetual Dry Land. As you know, most of the pseudo-scientists who naively believe in “Cold Fusion” are the same deluded folks who believe in the Perpetual Dry Land Myth.

As goeth ye Cold Fusion, so doth ye olde Dry Land Myth. Therefore it is foolish to even consider claims that there exists a scientifically testable historical proposition regarding Perpetual Dry Land. And the Dichotomy Hippopotamus or (DH), being a NPOV, is widely acknowledged to say as much. Katherin 02:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It is acknowledged that their have been pseudo-scientists who have attempted to offer so-called scientific evidence to corroborate the historical account. Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke are just two examples of a long list. They misused our beloved adjective. And this is exactly why this article belongs on the pseudoscience list. It's not about the truth or falsity of the story, it's about scientific claims that are not in fact scientific.

I have no idea what the "perpetual dry land myth" is, but earth scientists -- not historians, who are not scientists at all, but those who work in geology and related disciplines -- reject the ark story for the simple reason that they see no evidence of it. But even that's putting it too strongly. They don't reject the story at all; they're not even considering it because they don't work from texts. If asked whether a worldwide flood occurred in historical times, they'll say "no" not because they've decided a priori to discount Scripture, but because the see no evidence of it in the geological record. If a worldwide flood had occurred that recently, geological strata would scream its existence even to a geologist who had never read the Bible at all. Or even to a non-specialist. When Sir Leonard Woolley excavated at Ur he found deep down an 8-foot undifferentiated layer of sediment (meaning it had to have been deposited all at once, and not in successive layers) with evidence of human habitation above and below, and immediately inferred that this was the result of the Biblical Flood. He was incorrect. If he were right we'd find such a layer everywhere, but we don't find it at all except in river valleys like that of the Euphrates where floods are known to have occurred. He had therefore found evidence of a flood, not the Flood. There's a sense in which he was right -- he no doubt discovered evidence of the flood mentioned by Greensburger above, which was the inspiration of the Ziusudra story which most likely became the ark story we now have.

So here's the question: What independent evidence is there outside of texts that a worldwide flood happened? We don't know that Ur existed because the Bible mentions it, nor Troy because Homer sung about it; we know these places existed because someone went and found them. We don't know that a great battle occurred at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania about 140 years ago just because we have copious written records of it, but because evidence we can locate at the site itself would tell us about it even if all records had been entirely lost. What observations can we make about the world that tells us that all land was submerged in historical times? If you are a scientist, then you know very well that this is how science is done. If you do something else, or even do it correctly but are selective (i.e. dishonest) about your data, and draw conclusions from it claiming it's science -- then it isn't. It's pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csernica (talk • contribs)

No, pseudoscience is a POV and an attack word, and you have no right to declare the Bible as pseudoscience just because that is your POV, and pretend that it is "neutral". What could possibly be a greater violation of WP:NPOV ??? Have you even read that page??? You can't foist your opinion as if it were proven fact. If you do this, it is going to be resisted by any means necessary. Also please cite exactly where this alleged "consensus" that it is pseudoscience was reached, so I can read it myself. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Codex, we've been over this before. Describing the Ark as pseudoscience is well sourced with reliable sources. This doesn't make the Bible pseudoscience, it means this story when it is claimed to be scientific is sourced as pseudoscience. What matters is verifiability. This isn't that complicated. JoshuaZ 05:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV . Don't use attack words to push your POV. Wikipedia MUST BE NEUTRAL, the part you don't seem to understand the meaning of is "neutral" because you keep trying to push this POV. And if you think typing "enough" somehow makes you some kind of arbiter, you are only setting yourself up for disillusionment, because I am not going to disappear just because you tell me to. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 05:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, two questions: first, do you disagree with the statement "the vast majority of scientists consider the Noah's ark story to not be science and claims that it is scientific amount to pseudoscience." Second, do you think there is ever a case when something can be classified as pseudoscience? JoshuaZ 05:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not disagree with that statement, and would not object to it appearing in the article, because it is sourced as to whose pov it is. But I would disagree with putting the article into a category of pseudoscience, because then all neutrality goes out the window, since there is no way to attribute a category, it appears Wikipedia is endorsing this viewpoint. Since words like "pseudoscience" are inherently controversial and sucha category is prone to abuse - there are a lot of things that could be so classified depending on whose subjective judgement you rely on - I would recommend NEVER using the category except in rare cases where there is absolutely no opposition or disagreement from anyone. In this case, the opposition is "extremely significant", even the current Pope wrote a book opposing this very view that you are seeking to have Wikpedia endorse. Hence the obvious neutrality concerns. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean there's no way to attribute a category? First, the original discussion was about the list(and so we can source it there(, second there is an easy way to attribute something to a category- have the reason for the cat explicitly stated in the body of the article- if cats were unsourceable we wouldn't have them. As to the claim that the opposition is "extremely significant" - it isn't from the people who matter. Determining what is pseudoscience is within the realm of scientists, if the pope thinks something is good or bad theology he might be an authority on that but not whether something is good or bad science. And what you are saying would in fact let us never use the cat at all since for all pseudoscience (almost by defintion) there is a group claiming that the topic is science. JoshuaZ 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"It (the opposition) isn't from the people who matter". This here is the nut of the problem. These "scientists" are claiming to have the only viewpoint that "matters" on this subject, but it ain't so, and that isn't neutral, that's one-sided. There is another viewpoint to the scientists viewpoint that is at least every bit as significant here. You can't magically discredit the opposing viewpoint and make it disappear here, sort of like Hitler did to his opponents in 1933 when the Reichstag burnt. You are simply dismissing a significant viewpoint here, and calling it neutral. Read WP:NPOV one more time. The cat itself is POV and should only be used in those few cases where nobody disagrees, otherwise you will have a problem deciding where to draw the line since there are lots of subjects where I'm sure various groups would be very eager to get something proclaimed as "psuedoscience" in wikipedia because they say so. Proclaiming this article "the realm of science" is clear evidence that certain interested parties are seriously overextending thremselves with telling people what to believe and not believe and pretending it is "neutral". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to not bother dealing in detail with your empirical and offensive confirmation of Godwin's Law aside from noting that comparing the notion that scientists have a better idea what science is than theologians to the burning of the Reichstag is simply ridiculous. The people who matter for deciding what is pseudoscience are scientists. No one is saying that this makes the story false or bad theology but that when the claim is made that the story has scientific merit it becomes pseudoscience. JoshuaZ 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to recognize the validity of Godwin's Law and have never agreed to be bound by it, so I feel free to flout it at will. You want to lecture me about "pseudoscience" AND you invoke "Godwin's Law" ??? Godwin's law is pure pseudoscience, I'm sure even you will not pretend it is scientific. It is also a logical fallacy, whose only purpose is to squelch off discussion on something that should always, always be remembered and discussed if it even looks like they're doing it again. And as an aside, "scientists" in the Employ of the Nazis would regularly call those in the pay of the Bolsheviks "pseudoscience" and vice versa, proving that it is a loaded and a pov term. I agree with Pico, if you have a hypothesis and want to test it, that is the scientific method, at least Pico understands the scientific method better than all of these biased "scientists" who are pushing their own agendas. The true "pseudoscientists" have always been the ones who use a rather different "scientific method" to achieve "consensus": in the absence of any evidence on way or the other, simply ostracise or exclude those testing the hypothesis by declaring that they don't matter, and don't count. Presto - instant "consensus", since those who disagree don't count, and only those who agree count. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There are so many problems with the above I'm not sure where to start. First, Godwin's law states "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one" - I believe you are confusing it with the notion some people have that it makes the one invoking it automatically wrong. Second, I never claimed that Godwin's law was science and wasn't using it as such, it was an off hand observation. Third, there's nothing wrong with someone using pseudoscience per se. Fourth, this is a tu quoque fallacy by trying to argue that somehow I'm using pseudoscience and therefore can't call something else pseudoscience. Fifth, your own views of how the scientific method works aren't relevant, what is relevant is what's verifiable and what's verifiable is that the scientifific community considers this to be pseudoscience. If you have problems with that, take it up with the scientists, not Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"Tu Quoque" is an argument, not a fallacy. And I believe my understanding of scientific method as I and Pico have expressed it above is 100% correct. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Tu Quoque is a fallacious form of argument. Now as to your second comment, simply reasserting what you believe isn't relevant. Wikipedia cares about verifiability not truth. JoshuaZ 18:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Wikipedia does indeed care about truth very much. You don't speak for Wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Straight from WP:V- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". JoshuaZ 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

All you have verified is that certain "scientists" have arrogantly decreed that this is pseudoscience because they say so, without explaining why or how they arrived at this decision, and that they think theirs is the only POV that matters. Nothing surprising there, but that's not strong enough to warrant a category, or to force wikipedia to subscribe to the scientists viewpoint and not the theologians viewpoint of canon scripture. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

(Removing identation for ease of reading) So you agree that it meets WP:V that it is considered pseudoscience and you retract your statement that Wikipedia cares about truth over verifiability? If so, we're done. I'm going to try this one more time and then I'm probably going to give up- what theologians think is good theology is not connected to what scientists consider pseudoscience. To flip it around, if Richard Dawkins thought that the Trinity was a dumb idea, it wouldn't matter - because theology isn't his area. Similarly, theologians area isn't what is or is not pseudoscience. JoshuaZ 19:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at what the subject of the article is that you have wandered onto with this stuff. Then you ought to see why it is that theologians feel backed into a corner with this arrogant mentality that presumes to dictate what is and is not pseudo. We had a Council do that for us in 325 AD, last time I checked every single Church group still holds this as canonical, and no scientist has any standing or authority to determine otherwise, but if they do it is not neutral for wikipedia to endorse it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Codex, you are once again missing the point. The question is not whether this is good theology or not, the question is 1) are there people who claim it is good science and b) do the vast majority of scientists consider such claims to amount to pseudoscience. The answer is yes, that has no bearing on the theological implications of the claim whatsoever. And even if the theological claims were relevant to what we were discussing you'd have to deal with the fact that many denominations such as the Anglican church don't see this story as literal. Also, your referrence to the Council of Nicea indicates very poor understanding and a strong POV since well before that council all Christians took Genesis as a religious text and many orthodox Jews take it as literal as well (it would be good to know something about the topics you're talking about). In any event, that isn't relevant to what we are discussing. JoshuaZ 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No one is claiming the Bible is pseudoscience. It's not science at all, but a text. The claim is that there are people researching for proofs of the story using pseudoscientific methods. This is demonstrably true. I don't get why you'd object to that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"All modern critical Bible scholars regard the tale of Noah as legendary." Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeology Review. That said, I have no problem with calling "scientific" a procedure which sets up a hypothesis, "the Ark existed," then sets to test that hypothesis by looking for the vessel in a place where it ought to be if the theory is right. It's a waste of time, but it's not unscientific. PiCo 08:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, in principle. The trouble is that most of the research being done in this area that claims to be scientific in fact isn't. The more prominent examples were mentioned earlier in the discussion. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Codex - you've been here too long to start playing naive about neutrality in WP. Articles simply cannot present unsubstantiated myths as truth, especially where myths are contradicted wholesale by all of the objective evidence to hand. In these cases it's crucial that the article slants in favour of the view articulated by the scientific community (primarily in terms of its published output; rather than the unpublished views of individual scientists). WP:SPOV discusses these points at some length. Noah's Ark patently falls into the pseudoscience category, so should be tagged as such. Otherwise, we're doing a disservice to our non-specialist readers.

Regarding your repeated point about "letting the reader decide", I can't see any rational defence of the view that extraordinary views should be presented with the same priority as views that have been carefully constructed by many people using all of the evidence we have to hand. WP is liable to be used extensively by people ignorant of particular subjects (especially younger people). It's unconscionable that we make their search for knowledge more difficult by, essentially, prioritising patent nonsense the same as objective fact.

One final (trivial) point, you're clearly approaching this subject from a particular flavour of religion. What's your take on the views of other religions on the subject of Noah's Ark? Many (most?) of them entirely discount the veracity of Noah's Ark. If we're going to "let the reader decide", perhaps we need to add material reflecting this theological disjoint alongside the scientific disjoint? --Plumbago 08:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

These points are clearly answered in WP:NPOV, which I am beginning to think you have never actually bothered to read. Do you need me to start quoting wholesale portions of this mandatory guideline which is one of the pillars of wikipedia? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV has this great thing called the undue weight clause and other terms. When a viewpoint is a tiny minority we should say so and describe it accordingly. JoshuaZ 16:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a tiny minority. That's the whole point. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Among scientists it is. That's what matters. That means that claims of it being science are pseudoscientific. What the Pope or an English professor or my next door neigbour or I think are all irrelevant. JoshuaZ 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It DOES matter, because no matter how much flailing about they do, these "scientists" do NOT have a monopoly on the viewpoints regarding the subject of this article. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course they don't have a monopoly on the viewpoints regarding this article. The scientists views don't matter for theology or whether the documentary hypothesis is a good explanation for where the text came from or anything like that. They are the views that matter for whether or not the topic is pseudoscience. JoshuaZ 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly where I disagree! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can you explain why you disagree? I have to express puzzlement since what you are saying seems to amount to if the scientists are allowed to form a consensus on what is and is not in their field that is equivalent to them having a "monopoly" on the article. For reasons that should be obvious, I'm confused. JoshuaZ 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[Reset indentation] Oh dear. Where to start? Firstly Codex, I have read WP:NPOV; I've even understood it. Secondly, since this article relates to an event that purportedly happened on Earth, objective evidence can be used to form a view on Noah's Ark. By virtue of disagreeing with all of the evidence that we have to hand (e.g. geological, biological, cryological, dendrological, basic physics, etc.), science straightforwardly judges it as pseudoscience. That other people have views is interesting, and should certainly be mentioned, but in context as non-scientific (or pseudoscientific) views. Finally, whether its 10% or 90% of the world's population that disagrees with the scientific consensus on a topic is irrelevant for Wikipedia. We're not playing that sort of simple numbers game. We're trying to present the best summary and distillation of our knowledge, and that means sourced, verified, objective knowledge. And on that count, Noah's Ark, at least when it is treated as an objective fact, is pseudoscience. --Plumbago 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is going to make such pronouncements about what is true or false without compelling proof, in order to force an opinion of only one school of thought as "fact", and call it "neutral", then my respect for it as any kind of acceptable source will go to rock bottom. It means the whole project has been successfully hijacked by a cadre, by a special interest group. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. Don't be so melodramatic. Since when was objective, independent evidence a "special interest group"? So, your position is that, in the name of neutrality, we should discount millions of value-free, verifiable observations about the natural world, and give them equal weight to evidence-free, subjective opinions? Is that correct? And you still haven't answered my question (posed somewhere above) about how your "neutrality" would deal with alternative religious views. I'm curious to see how you square that one off. --Plumbago 15:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Codex, it isn't stating whether its true or false. Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. No statement in Wikipedia ever is to be taken as truth but as a statement of a verified matter from reliable sources. Furthermore, something being pseudoscience doesn't mean it didn't happen or isn't true. For example, if I claimed there was an invisible dragon in my garage and gave it a list of properties that made it impossible to falsify the claim and then said "hey, the claim I've made is scientific" that would be legitimately called pseudoscience. That in no way alters whether or not there is such a dragon in my garage. JoshuaZ 16:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now I've heard everything. "Pseudoscience" is basically yet another synonym for "B.S." and you know it as well as I. No way is it neutral on something this disputed. You can't redefine everything to suit your purpose. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Codex, I strongly suggest you take a philosophy of science course or read a book on it. To think that pseudoscience means "B.S" indicates a profound misunderstanding of both the term and what it implies. JoshuaZ 17:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Historians are not Scientists

And scientists are not historians. It is an indefensible position to propose that history is only judged to be accurate once physical evidence is available and evaluated. That is an impossible criterion. Such “scientists” may as well start burning histories by the millions.

Some cloaked in the moniker “scientist” propose that the historical record is pseudo-science. That clearly arises from prejudice or ignorance. The record is not self-attested to be scientific in any sense of the word at all. Its own propositions are clear. It makes statements of fact in an historical manner.

Some who ostensibly believe in the historicity are also trying to present so-called physical evidence that isn’t even at the place described by the ancient text. They are quacks. While their buffoonery is immense in our generation, it is not so large as to extend back several thousands years of cultures and languages to transform an historical record into pseudo-science. If you think it is erroneous, fine. But be intelligent enough to reserve (and resrict) the label “pseudoscience” to those who at least lay claim to have attempted a scientific propositions.Katherin 05:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not what "pseudoscience" means. If it was actually a scientific proposition then it would not be pseudoscience, and those who are conducting unscientific research into the Ark do claim they're doing real science. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares if someone finds “PinkPainters” who paint elephants, and I agree wholeheartedly with the label of PinkPainter. Then so what? We have found a pinkpainter. Who cares if we find a 1,000 pink painters. We cannot say then that all individuals who approach an elephant are pinkpainters, nor can we infer that all elephants are pink, nor that the consideration of the history of elephants should be labeled “pinkpainterology”.Katherin 18:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Historians, particularly anthropologists that are involved in archaeological activities, may not be scientists, but they do use scientific tools such as carbon dating.

It is anti-intellectual to reflexively oppose all pursuits into whether this topic happened as pseudo-science. Dogru144 15:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The historical account is not a scientific hypothesis. It is an historical narrative. There are people who attempt to employ the scientific method by proposing a hypothesis thousands of years after the fact for many historical events. If these people are found to be pseudo-scientists then they are. But even if a thousand pseudo-scientists are found to ineptly search for or explain mounds of physical evidence for a particular historical event, it is unreasonable to then conclude that historical narrative is “pseudo-science.” Such historians were historians. Such “scientists” were quacks (or pseudo-scientists if you wish). If you don’t believe the historians, then say so. Explain why you hold that proposition if you wish. But don’t call the historians pseudo-scientists. They didn’t propose a hypothesis.

Further, just because some quacks can’t even propose a legitimate hypothesis with regard to a particular historical event, it does not follow that any and all distinct hypothesises are therefore also illegitimate and proposed by pseudo-scientists, nor does it follow that any and all current or future considerations of the historical event from a scientific approach are or will be properly labeled pseudo-science. If we choose to employ pejoratives, we should at least toss them at those to whom they will stick.Katherin 16:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

None of this is relevant, the relevant issue is verifiability. Whether we personally would like to call something pseudoscience or not is irrelevant. JoshuaZ 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ROFLMAO!!Katherin 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

What is your standard for “verifiability”? It was you, Joshuaz, who opined Richard Dawkins’ verifiable opinion about an ostensibly religious subject, the Trinity, would not matter because he is a scientist and not a theologian. I find it hilarious that someone with such a dismissive standard of verifiability would consider the opinion of scientists to matter one whit in regard to the subjects of historians. Indeed! Shall we use your standard of “verifiability”? As tempting as it may be, censorship doesn’t become us.Katherin 06:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of it is pseudoscience, particularly the creationists and the people who believe in a global deluge. Titanium Dragon 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Says you... Not everyone shares that POV by a long shot - That's why this is a POV / neutrality issue. Simply stating your POV as fact again is hardly compelling... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To put it more clearly: The claim that there is scientific support for special creation and a global deluge is pseudoscience. The scientific evidence cited for them is bogus. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This indicates a multitude of misunderstandings of what is being called pseudoscience. In particular, the claims that are pseudoscientific are those mainly connected to hydrological sorting and Flood geology these are matters for scientist not matters for historians. JoshuaZ 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have many atheist and Christian friends who are skilled at prevarication. It is not inductive reasoning that forms a consensus regarding Magellan, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Amenhotep, or Marco Polo. But, none of them called people to repent.Katherin 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh? JoshuaZ 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Documentary Hypothesis section - references

I've added a source and reference points to the DH section. I'll probably come back later and make sure the examples given in the article really do match the source I'm quoting. In the meantime, can we remove the ['cite needed' tag? PiCo 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro and Mythology

Noah's Ark is a piece of Mythology. As far as I can see, we can either: A) Label it "according to blah" or B) Label it as a mythological vessel. I think the second label is much more appropriate; the article is mostly about Noah's Ark rather than the mythological Flood, and as such is describing a mythological vessel rather than a story. Also, it reads a lot better. Comments? Titanium Dragon 12:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed for pages and pages and was never found to be acceptable, and it isn't any more acceptable now. Mythological is a POV that major figures disagree with. Wikipedia must be neutral. You are welcome to put something in about who considers it mythological, and who doesn't, but wikipedia can't take sides and state that iti unequivocally IS mythological - at least not without a huge fight. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with your second option Titanium Dragon. Codex, as the first item in the Myth article clearly states "use of the term [myth] does not imply that the narrative is either true or false". Surely that's preferable to labelling the Ark as pseudoscience (as we've already discussed above; I note that you never responded to my final point there)? --Plumbago 17:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not neutral. 'Mythological' is even worse than pseudoscience as a blatant attack term. Not withstanding whatever the article Myth states, most editors on wikipedia do use "mythological" in articles in apposition to 'historical', as has been pointed out for numerous pages to the tune of many kilobytes. The Oxford English dictionary proves that the word enetered the English language in the sense of "false or unhistorical" then relatively recently some scholars began using it in some other sense that they may understand, but is not the common understanding. Why do you feel so impelled to colour everyone's impression with non-neutral and contentious language from the beginning, and why can't you just stick to the facts and let readers decide for themselves? Is there some reason? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mythological is a well-defined term, and it means something from mythology. Given that Noah's Ark is undoubtedly from the mythology of a religion (Judaism), I cannot see any fighting that it is mythological. I'll go take a peek at the archives. Titanium Dragon 12:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two basic opinions about Wikipedia here. One of them, my opinion, is that Wikipedia should allow readers to have their own pre-existing religious beliefs, and should not be allowed to become a vehicle to attack them by those who would wage war on them, I think it is in the same spirit that the brilliant writing at WP:NPOV is written - one of the cornertones of our project. The other opinion, of course, is that of the bigots, who will seemingly stop at nothing to fill Wikipedia with obviously loaded language. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the archives, I find: Being put in category: mythology, and you disputing it (and only you disputing it) Again, you fighting it (and apparently not understanding the term) Again, you fighting it and claiming it is POV And more you fighting it and claiming it is POV And… that's it. There's at most a couple editors on this article opposing it historically (compared to many supporting it). Mythology is a real and common word, and just because you don't like your religion being a religion doesn't mean that it isn't a legitimate term. You even claimed POV pushing on the part of other editors in even having Noah's Ark in the obviously appropriate mythology category. It seems to me that you do not comprehend the modern usage of the word or are strongly irreligious. Noah's Ark is obviously mythological. I have several mythology books sitting on my shelf containing the myths of Noah's Ark, along with Greek, Roman, Native American, and other myths. Most of them even use the word "mythology" in their titles. In high school, my class wherein we studied the myths of various cultures, the hero cycle, ect. was called "Mythology". Simply put, this word is not offensive and is in fact probably one of the less offensive words that can be used to describe such stories (offensive terms would be "fictional" or "fake" or "tall tale" or similar). Yes, many associate mythology with fiction, but that association is simply the reality of the world as science and secularism are on the rise and increased knowledge of the world makes literal interpretations of numerous myths untenable. However, there's nothing inherent in the modern definition which implies that something described as mythological is false, unless you consider anything religious to be false, which is an irreligious POV – the word itself, from a neutral point of view, does not imply falsehood. I see no prior consensus that this would be inappropriate; in fact, as far as I can tell it is quite the opposite. Thus, I think it is entirely appropriate to discuss now. If I missed something, feel free to point it out, but doing a search for mythology in the archieves found nothing other than what I mentioned above and others using the term in the page to refer to the myth. Quite simply put, you seem to have been outnumbered throughout the entire history of the article. Titanium Dragon 12:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference:

Excalibur

Hercules

Zeus

Hera

All of these articles describe mythological figures or objects and use the term. As such, there's absolutely no reason to exclude it. Titanium Dragon 12:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just one article. This question of whether or not it is neutrl to declare the Holy Bible to be "mythology" or whether this is just one POV that is desparate to push itself to colour the argument rather than stick to facts, has already been discussed extensively by numerous editors at the meta-level. The view that the Bible is NOT mythology is an extremely SIGNIFICANT viewpoint (again, read WP:NPOV). If there were a viewpoint anywhere near as significant holding that Zeus and Hera are not mythology, of course we would have to take those views into consideration for neutrality's sake and avoid labelling them as mythology. But as far as I know, nobody disagrees that Zeus and Hera are mythology, even other Encyclopedias agree that they are mythology, and so it is safe to call them so. If you check out other reputable Encyclopedias, not one of them includes the Bible as "mythology" - that term is reserved for obsolete beliefs that are no longer followed to any large extent, where there is no controversy generated by using this extremely controversial and loaded term. Again, I must implore you to desist in your designs on tainting Wikipedia readers' religious freedom to choose their practice of belief in a way that is the opposite of NEUTRAL. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Describing the Bible as a work of mythology is entirely appropriate. Read mythology. The Bible is a collection of religious legends detailing supernatural events which its readers believe to be true. As such, by definition, it is mythology. Claiming the Bible is not a religious text is not a significant viewpoint at all, period. It does describe supernatural events which some people believe to be true. You seem to not understand what mythology is at all. Given that you've been fighting this for a while, if you don't come up with something good I'm going to go and deal with you in other ways, as you do not seem to be reasonable or understand the issue. Obsolete beliefs? People still worship the Greek gods; not many, mind you, but they exist. You seem to not understand that the Bible is mythology the same as the Qu'ran, the Hindu gods, the Norse gods, the Greek gods, ect. No, that it is not mythology is not an important viewpoint at all, because you don't understand what the word means. I've never run into anyone who claimed the Bible was not a religious text. Could you please point out a number of important reliable sources which say that the Bible is not a religious text? Not a work of mythology? Heck, I doubt you'll find one. Titanium Dragon 20:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, calling the Bible "mythology" is your POV. What you have to try hard to understand is that there are many many others who have a different POV from your own, and who vehemently dispute your POV that the Bible is mythology. Wikipedia has a firm policy on Neutrality, that was carefully crafted with exactly this situation in mind, to prevent POV pushing by people who want to impose their own POVs as if they were sacrosanct. Again, please refresh yourself on the WP:NPOV policy - not just an ordinary policy, but a pillar of Wikipedia. You are welcome to state what citeable voices say it is mythology, provided we also cite the voices that say it is not mythology (For example, the current Pope). But it is an absolute violation of neutrality to decalre certain beliefs "mythology" that are followed by millions of people around the world. I strongly urge you find a more resourceful use of your time than trying to declare other peoples religions mythology according to your own view. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

By definition the Bible is a myth. The earth is billions of years old, animals evolved from the primordial soup, and there was no worldwide flood. If you want to believe in that myth through a psychological crutch called faith, then so be it, that is your choice. But a NPOV uses sources, science and references to state a "fact." I was going to slap a NPOV complaint on this article, because of the section on finding Noah's Ark which has a couple of bogus studies that seem to indicate that maybe a tiny little boat was found in some mountain. OrangeMarlin 18:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha, so that's what you mean by the word "myth". Well, that's exactly what I suspected all along, you know -- thanks for proving me correct. But unfortunately, Wikipedia has this policy called WP:NPOV that you might want to read, and one of the main purposes of it is to stop bigots from going around deciding other peoples beliefs they don't like are "myths". By the way, I consider the Big Bang and Evolution to fit the definition of "myth" exactly - they are stories used to explain origins, that have never been proved and are unverifiable, and that only some sets of people put their faith in. The neutrality problem is that those sets of people arrogantly claim priority over everyone else, without offering compelling evidence. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it is impossible to prove a negative (well, at least difficult), it really behooves the believer to prove the positive. Please, lay out evidence that the flood existed, the ark existed, Noah existed, etc. OK, it's probably going to be impossible prove Noah existed, so I'll let that slide. It's all right to believe in myths. As opposed to your group, I actually don't care one way or the other, as long as it doesn't get into my face. I think it is stating a POV that this myth is real. I say it is not real, and I have the lack of proof that it is real on my side. You have belief in a supernatural being. Sorry to say, that isn't NPOV. And please, I've read your writing here, and your MO is to point to NPOV. I've read it. It clearly states verify, and believing in a supernatural being is not verification. OrangeMarlin 00:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool down... I don't want the article to state that it is real, any more than that it is false... That would be just as much a POV in the opposite direction... I think neutrality means the article must not state either one, but just stick to the facts such as they are and leave it to the reader to form their own conclusions from that... Facts usually do a good enough job of speaking for themselves without tlling people "what to think" about them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You're speaking as if Mythology was a derogatory term; it is NOT. Mythology is not a derogatory term; it is a noun which refers to a certain class of nouns. Your issue seems to be that you don't understand what the word "mythological" means; it isn't a value judgement, and it doesn't say it is fictional. That is like saying "religion" or "religious" is a derogatory term. I understand the NPOV policy.

Additionally, your argument thhat it is a violation of neutrality is simply false. As I noted previously, a number of other articles referring to mythological objects, gods, heroes, and the like explicitly say so in the first sentence. Additionally, claiming that because millions of people believe it is real it isn't mythological is silly; mythology doesn't imply whether or not it is real or not, even though most mythological objects, heroes, and the like are, in fact, ficticious. In fact, the current wording is a violation of neutrality by your argument, as reliable sources refer to it as mythological. It doesn't matter what millions of people believe. Wikipedia isn't a sounding ground for fundamentalist christians, atheists, or anyone else. It is supposed to be neutral, and you seem to not understand that neutrality does not mean it will not offend anyone. It will offend some people, that is inevitable.

I thought it was simply an oversight but it appears to me that you just don't understand the word. Please refresh yourself on what it means and what it refers to. It is not a violation of neutrality to label it mythological, because it is without doubt a mythological object. All religions have mythology, and scholars will tell you so. Titanium Dragon 22:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again - Pick up any dictionary of the English language and you can clearly see that one of the definitions (in fact, the oldest usage in English as proved by the OED) is "fictional". If it now has another meaning, as the newest dictionaries show, that means it is "a word with more than one meaning", or as we linguists like to say, "ambiguous". Also, again, it may easily be demonstrated that the vast majority of appearances of the word "mythological" on Wikipedia, the intended purpose is in apposition to "historical", that is to suggest that an account is fictional or not true. That's exactly what you are trying to suggest. And if you pretend you have any less of an agenda here - first trying to stamp this article as "pseudoscience", then when that fails, trying "mythological" again - you have no idea how obvious it is. WIKIEPEDIA DOES NOT TAKE SIDES. If you can verifiably cite the authors who consider the Bible "mythological", do so. I can verifiably cite the ones who dispute this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In these situations, it is always good to look at Wikipedia policies. So please, everyone, go here: WP:WTA and look at the section that discusses words that, while technically correct, contain an implied viewpoint. Coincidentially, "pseudoscience" is SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED in that article, so I think it's safe to say that's out and any discussion of that particular word is over. So now we're on "mythology" and its variants. I think we can say with 90%+ certainty that "mythology" is technically accurate here. However, in writing an encyclopedia one must be especially aware of the common understanding of terms. And I think we can say--again with 90%+ certainty--that the common understanding of the word "myth" is that it is a synonym of "fiction." Thus, using the word, while technically correct, is inappropriate in this article because the truth and fiction of Noah's Ark is something upon which reasonable minds may disagree and thus Wikipedia should not take a stand. That is why we have policies like WP:WTA.--Velvet elvis81 23:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I spoke too soon and apologize! WP:WTA specifically addresses the word "myth" as well. And while I severely disagree with the conclusion, I will accept the wisdom of others. That said, I think that perhaps the wisest/best/most cautious/deferential/polite way to handle this would be to avoid the word "mythology" and variations in the intro and use it only where it gets a bit more play (for example, I see nothing wrong in discussing the "flood myth" in general terms, as it is clear what definition of the word is intended).--Velvet elvis81 00:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not what the guideline says, and in fact the guideline points out exactly the opposite. Wikipedia is not polite and is not censored. Being deferential isn't a good thing. As the guideline points out, it is a specific and technical term, and is quite legitimate to use. Moreover, it is used throughout similar articles in Wikipedia in the first sentence. If something is mythological, it is described as such in the intro paragraph, and generally in the very first sentence as far as I can tell. Guidelines are not policy, but given that both the policy of wikipedia not being censored and the guideline that myth should be used in precisely this context I feel very comfortable in putting it into the introduction. I did not insert the word "mythological" to condemn the Ark, but rather to be precise and because I had seen similar pages do the exact same thing. And I even linked it to the mythology article so that people would understand what it meant if, for some reason, they don't understand what mythological means. Titanium Dragon 00:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Being "deferential" to neutrality, and not taking sides, is always a good thing, and more than that - it's one of the unchangeable pillars of wikipedia. Using ambiguous, loaded, POV-pushing terminology that is liable to be understood as taking sides on a controversial issue, is always a bad thing. You seem to think that your POV is the only one that counts, and even said as much - even calling the Pope's view (he did write a book specifically asking that the Bible not be called "mythology" any more, you know...) "insignificant"... So now we have Titanium Dragin, whose POV on Noah's Ark is significant, while the Pope's isn't. Amazing. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read my posts. Did I say we shouldn't be neutral? No. YOU said so. And as you're the only one bringing it up, as I'm not saying we shouldn't be neutral... I can see why people left this article. It is not ambigious, it is not loaded, and it isn't POV-pushing. The people who wrote that guideline article agree with me. Don't use quotes around insignificant, as you're implying I said it, and I never did. In fact, you're the only person who has mentioned the Pope. In any event, the Pope isn't an RS on the subject anyway - he's a RS on the church's position, perhaps, but I've never even seen a quote by the Pope saying anything like "Noah's Ark isn't mythology". Can you provide that quote?

The fact of the matter is that you're attacking me by misquoting me, and even making up statements and claiming I made them. This is simply unacceptable behavior. I'm trying to be civil here. I'm probably going to be busy tonight, but maybe tommorrow I'll look up how to lodge a formal complaint about your behavior as I've never done so before. Titanium Dragon 02:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, did you just say the current Pope is not a respected or reliable source on the Bible! I'm not even a Catholic, and even I know that's wrong... he has written numerous books on the subject, including one just before he was elected pope where he took the so-called "Enlightenment" to task for attacking what he considers the historicity of the Scripture in recent centuries... But you indeed said above that anyone who disagrees that the Bible is "mythology" is insignificant. I don't know how many followers the Pope has around the world, not to mention millions of others who do not view the Bible as "mythology"... but you consider your POV to be more "significant", and are claiming some higher authority or imperative on the question... This is the blatant violation of neutrality... And you know what they say, once neutrality is violated, the Peace is violated... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? I said "on the subject"; to my knowledge, the Pope is NOT an expert on Noah's Ark. Just because Noah's Ark is a part of the Bible does not mean that the Pope is an expert on it. I'm well aware of the Pope's literacy; he has written a number of books and is quite the theologian. However, the Pope is not necessarily a reliable source on mythic objects; look at prior popes both confirming and deconfirming saints, relics, and the like. Moreover, JPII acknowledged that evolution occurs. Being infalliable and the Pope, is that not the position of the Catholic Church, offically speaking? I'm a biomedical engineering student, and I know quite a bit about certain subjects. However, electrical circuit theory, while a part of my profession, is not my strong point; I'm not on the cutting edge of circuit theory or new components, and while I know quite a bit about the field I'm not an expert in every individual aspect of it. So it is with the Pope. He's a great source for, say, Catholic views on X (or at least the upper hierarchy's views on X), and pretty good for general Biblical stuff, but there are better sources.

Moreover, you've failed to produce a source of the Pope actually saying ANYTHING about the Ark NOT being mythological. As such, this argument is purely hypothetical anyway, and to my knowledge the Catholic Church does not literally interpret Genesis these days. Additionally, it is WELL worth noting that NPOV is in regards to the articles, NOT the chat page. You don't seem to understand NPOV at all; you seem to think it is a majority view thing, which is not at all what it is. You have failed to produce a quote or reference to your claims of it not being mythological; I'd like to see one. Right now, it just seems you're obstructing the page with your lack of understanding of the word "mythology" and of the neutrality policy. Titanium Dragon 07:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misread what I said. I did not say WP:WTA requires the deferential approach I suggested. I merely suggested that approach might be a good way of handling this. However, to suggest that the guideline militates your approach is clearly reaching. Indeed, the guideline is clear to state that "[o]ne should be careful to word such sentences in order to avoid implying that a myth is necessarily untrue." This clearly goes against your claim that "[b]eing deferential isn't a good thing"--rather, it says that a reasonable level of clarity as to the word's use is our goal. Based on your comment, should we assume you will not follow other Wikipedia standards such as WP:CON or WP:AGF that REQUIRE deference? What I proposed was intended to be something that, while it would not satisfy any editor's every desire, would speak to the concerns of all editors--in essence, do the reasonable consensus-building this collaborative effort requires. As I mentioned above, I have no problem with the use of the word "mythology" and its variants where its intended meaning is clear by the context (just as it is already used quite effectively in many places in the article). One should also note that the use of the word "mythology" here has been linked to previous discussions on the word "pseudoscience" by BOTH sides of this debate (see Plumbago's comment above for a pro-myth mention)--that implies to me that there is a level of interchangeability between the words and we should therefore be careful in using a word so easily correlated with one we clearly shouldn't be using.--Velvet elvis81 00:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're using deferential in a totally different context than I read (and indeed, from which you were initially using it in as far as I could tell). You were saying I should be deferential to CS's demands, and I'm not about to do that. Obviously we should be deferential to Wikipedia policy, as that is what makes this site worthwhile and binds it together. But I'm not about to be deferential to someone who is wrong and simply doesn't like a word for whatever personal reasons he may have.

In the context of this article I am NOT implying the Ark is not real. I'm stating it is a mythological object, which it IS, the same as Excalibur is a mythological sword, a ship crewed by the dead is a mythological vessel, and Hercules is a mythic hero. This is absolutely the correct way to use the word, and is in line with Wikipedia policy. If you choose to read it as not being real, that is your perogative, but that's not how I or scholars intend the term, and isn't what the term means in this context. I'm using it technically, as it should be used according to the WTA guidelines.

And mythology and pseudoscience are NOT interchangable. Many pseudoscientists use mythology to justify their claims, but many religious people use mythology to justify their claims, and obviously religious people are not analagous to pseudoscientists. Moreover, many pseudoscientists do not use mythology to justify their claims - look at those trying to build perpetual motion machines, for instance. I know that Intelligent Design advocates use mythology to support their ideas, but this doesn't mean that the two are at all equivalent, and claiming mythology and pseudoscience are somewhat interchangable is insulting to both groups - they have nothing to do with each other, other than both being full of unconfirmable or simply false things. Mythology is a well-known and well-defined scholarly term, and is used to label classes in public schools, so it can hardly be construed as insulting given that public schools are so sensitive to insulting anyone. Titanium Dragon 02:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for ambiguities in what I said before. I understand the semantic difference between pseudoscience and mythology. More precisely: I did not mean to say that pseudoscience and mythology are interchangeable in a definitional sense. When I said there was "a level of interchangeability between the words" implied by their linking, what I meant to say was that a person would not be unreasonable in perceiving an attempt to add "mythology" as a method of discrediting the story after a failed attempt using "pseudoscience." Applied to the entire question here, my argument is essentially as follows: (1) mythology is a generally acceptable word that must however be used with the utmost caution because of misconceptions (2) (mis)conceptions of bias here are not unreasonable because of past attempts to use the article as a forum for discrediting the story (3) because perceived bias here is not unreasonable in light of the article's history, use of the word should be avoided. I agree with you on every single point in your last post. I just don't agree with your conclusion. If you use "mythology" and its variants you would be absolutely correct and within the letter of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I suppose I'm just saying we should look more to the spirit and purpose of those policies and guidelines.--Velvet elvis81 03:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I see. However, it isn't really that way. Pseudoscience would more relate to the article about the search for the ark, which was probably why pseudoscience was getting fought over. Many searches for the ark are pseudoscientific in nature. However, that has since been branched off into a subarticle, and isn't particularly notable. Conversely, it is inherently a mythological object; its origins stem from a creation myth from the Jewish religion. The article's history is irrelevant to whether the word is appropriate or not; just because some people put pseudoscience doesn't mean using the word mythology would be wrong at all. They're independent events. The intro would be improved by the addition of the word "mythological" before vessel; it would follow precendent and add information about it with just a single word. Titanium Dragon 07:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I support most if not all that Velvet elvis81 said. Even though the term may be technically correct, its general understanding (this is an article for general users, not students of mythology), its connotations, its baggage, and even some definitions of the word, convey the idea of fiction. That even appears to be Titanium Dragon's idea as well, with his first post in this section referring to the article "describing a mythological vessel rather than a story". If myths are stories believed to be true, but he is talking about an vessel "rather than" a story, isn't he actually using the word as a synonym for "fictional"?

I won't go into specific refutations, but I also find many of Titanium Dragon's supporting points to be POV of themselves, such as the statement that the "...Bible is a collection of religious legends...", and "Many searches for the ark are pseudoscientific in nature". One that I will answer, however, is associating Noah's Ark with stories such as the Greek gods. There is quite a difference between Noah's Ark and those stories, with one at least being the large number of scientists (a small percentage, but still in the thousands) who consider the Noah's Ark story to be true, not to mention the millions of others who believe it to be true. I'm sure that is not the case with most, if not all, of the other stories. (Remember, I'm not arguing there that widespread belief means that it is not technically mythology; I'm arguing that it is not in the same league as those other stories.)

Titanium Dragon says that "...the Pope is NOT an expert on Noah's Ark". Frankly, I find the argument stretched and self-serving, and I'm not a Catholic and give no weight to the Pope's authority. However, it raises an issue that surfaced on the previous discussion on pseudoscience: just who's views do we consider relevant, and if we consider the views of the experts relevant (rather than the population at large, for example), then who are the experts? If the Pope is not an expert on Noah's Ark in particular (as distinct from the Bible in general), then surely geologists, for example, are not experts either (unless they have made a study of Noah's Ark in particular). Continuing on that line, we could discount 99.99% of scientists, because they have not studied Noah's Ark in particular. Most mythologists would have studied the mythological aspects of it (how it has influenced people's thinking, for example), not the historicity of it, so we can discount them also. In fact, when you get down to it, probably the vast majority of the (quite small number of) people who have studied it, and could therefore be considered experts, consider it to be historical. So shouldn't we therefore mention that in the article? (And just to clarify again, that is not to argue that it is not technically mythology; it is a separate issue. We could mention both.)

Philip J. Rayment 11:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There are some of us that consider the Bible at the equivalent level as Greek gods. It is a myth given there is not one iota of scientific proof that A) a worldwide flood existed that covered the earth in even allegorical number of days, B) an ark of the described size exists, C) that an ark was found on some obscure mountain in Turkey. Ark discoveries fill nothing more than pseudoscience. Here's the difference between real science and pseudoscience placed in this article. If there is no proof that there ever was a flood, would you then set aside your pseudoscience? No you won't, because you have faith that Noah existed. On the other hand, if a verified set of sources in a bunch of Geology journals describe an amazing set of evidence that the flood covered the world 7000 or so years ago, I'd be eating crow. Still wouldn't believe in the Bible and that bunch of myth, but I'd believe in a flood. It's well known that myths are just ways for the intellectually lazy or psychologically weak to fill in the blanks of their knowledge. As I tell everyone I know, "there are no miracles in medicine. I just haven't figure it out yet." Wikipedia is not an index of myths presented as fact. It is an encyclopedia that describes a information that is verifiable. They Myth of Noah's Ark is to me, a verifiable myth. I can find any old bible and read about it, so I know it is a myth, I don't doubt that. What I doubt is that it happens. So if you want to rename this article the "Myth of Noah's Ark" many of us will be happy. OrangeMarlin 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes we know that many people have a POV that the Biblical account is false. But there are just as many if not more people who choose to have a different POV. Please see WP:NPOV - one of the core pillars of wikipedia policy - for instructions on what to do when there is more than one conflicting POV. Thank you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I can't see your name on my computer screen. is there some unicode or something that hides it? I just get squares. At any rate, I've read the NPOV about 50 times. And I'm sorry, but this whole article fits in Pseudoscience, and therefore is not NPOV. But I think that argument was fought, and there was some sort of truce that I can't find. OrangeMarlin 00:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How could you have read NPOV 50 times and not caught the part about "Wikipedia does not take sides in a controverisal dispute"...? You apparently have some different or new understanding of the word "neutrality" as well. There are two sides here: The Christian Church (which I maintain is entitled to express it's feelings on Scripture) has taken one position, and taking the other position are those interested parties who oppose the Churches' teaching on its own scripture. Wikipedia must not endorse either sognificant position, and above all may not dismiss one or the other of these views as "insignificant". It is vital to neutrality that it be truly neutral and steer neutral ground. And that means stating only facts and letting the individual readers be the judge without trying to tell them how they are supposed to interpret scripture. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't even pretend to want anyone to interpret a set of writing that has been mistranslated through several languages then foisted upon people in another translation. NPOV is purely what are the facts. And believing in a supernatural being is not a fact, it is an article of faith. Faith has no standing in an encyclopedia, other than as a descriptive of what people believe. Verifiable facts have standing. So please don't lecture me about what NPOV says and doesn't say. This is not a controversial dispute, it is a discussion on what constitutes pseudoscience, and this does. OrangeMarlin 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that "mythological" rightly belongs on the list of "words to avoid". It has certainly been used throughout centuries as an attack-word, specifically to attack or discredit "other people's" beliefs, and it can't suddenly shed its past and acquire a new innocence overnight. Like "pseudoscience", it should only be used in those instances where there is NO significant disagreement, otherwise it isn't neutral. This isn't one of those instances - unless you can somehow succeed in persuading the consensus that the millions around the world -- including the Pope and most other Christian leaders -- who disagree with you that the Bible is mythology, "don't count", and that only those who take your position, that the Bible is mythology, are allowed to have a valid opinion on the true meaning of Scripture. And I just don't see that happening here any time soon. Again, your time would be better spent on something else more productive. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You fully agree with yourself? Honestly, it isn't on the WTA list for a reason - it is a technical term and is a neutral term available for use on referring to mythological figures, which are a common feature to almost every culture. Saying we shouldn't use it goes against what scholars of mythology use; it is the term they use to refer to stuff like Noah's Ark, the Greek Gods, Excalibur, ect. It seems to me that you're trying to insert a -religious- POV into Wikipedia. The word is a technical word used to describe a class of nouns, and it is NPOV. You don't like it because it lumps in your god with all the others, which is 100% correct - from an NPOV they're all gods of various religions, and we refer to them, as a group, as mythology. Titanium Dragon 00:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Titanium Dragon. I don't put any additional weight to the myths of the Norse gods or to the Judeo-Christian gods. I place them in the same context as UFO's, ghosts, faith healing, and witches. I'm utterly unbiased in the matter. OrangeMarlin 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say you know little about Judaism or Christianity if you think there are plural gods in either of those religions. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

See Titanium Dragon's below, which pretty well sums up my feeling on the issue. I'm pretty familiar with Judaism, so I need not be lectured therein. As for Christians, "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" pretty much does it for me with regards to polytheism. Since you chose to take what I wrote literally (an issue I find to be common with most Fundies), I was making a parallel sentence structure for comparisons sake between Norse and Judeo-Christian god(s). Sorry that you missed the beauty of the sentence flow. OrangeMarlin 17:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

More seriously, I've heard people describe the Christian religion as essentially polytheistic due to the hierarchy of saints, the Virgin Mary, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the angels, ect. But its irrelevant to the point. I've also heard Christians claim their god is not the same as Allah. In any event, I fail to see the bearing of your response on the article. This is about Noah's Ark. Titanium Dragon 01:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Source which says Noah's Ark is not mythological

Given the many assertions of it not being a mythological object (despite the mythology article, the definition of the word, the article about the Great Deluge and other flood myths, the category Abrahamic Mythology, and the numerous, numerous reliable sources which refer to it as a mythological object, I'm going to ask a very simple question:

Do any of you have reliable sources which refute this categorization?

Much like 9/11 conspiracy theories and other conspiracy theory related articles, using the correct proper noun is allowed. Indeed, WTA explicitly endorses the usage of the word in the context it would be used in this article. So, please come forward with them, as that's the only way to dispute this reasonably. Titanium Dragon 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You say that WP:WTA explicitly endorses the use of the word, but it also explicitly says that in using the word, one must be careful to avoid implying that it is untrue. What, precisely, is the wording that you propose using? And what is wrong with the current wording, such that a change is required? And what's your response to my comments above (posted at 11:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC))? Philip J. Rayment 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

comments

I would support calling arkology as pseudoscience for several reasons. I support labeling noah's ark and the great flood of Genesis 7 as one of the flood myths or legends. I would even support a section describing why, on a scientific basis, the entire story is horse**** (although in different words...maybe a section on Why the Noah's Ark story is impossible).--Filll 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you Filll. I await the link to your The Pseudosciene of Insert Biblical Myth Here. Of course, it would be easy, since they are all myths. OrangeMarlin 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV of the section The search for Noah's Ark

• This section lacks articles on real scientific expeditions that did not find the ark.
• This section lacks articles on the lack of evidence of a flood.
• This section lacks verifiable sources.

OrangeMarlin 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I would rearrange the article. I would include a nice section on why the Ark was real and the flood happened. This would be very short. Basically, it is believed because it is written in Genesis. Then I would have a section on why the the Ark was not real and the flood did not happen: *Stuff from naval architecture about the ark's design

• inadequacy of the capacity of the ark to hold all those species
• appearance and disappearance of all that extra water
• inability to travel all over the earth to collect all the species necessary
• trouble with a dove finding a growing olive tree to bring back a branch
• lack of evidence for a worldwide flood
• nonphysical explanation of the rainbow at the end of the flood

I could probably come up with dozens of others. These have been well known for centuries. Of course, bibliolaters can always invoke the supernatural magic wand to make the extra water appear and disappear, and the magic wand to make the evidence of the flood disappear, and to change the laws of physics to create the frequency-dependent refraction coefficient of water. And that is fine. They are allowed to use the supernatural. Because arkeology is pseudoscience, since it relies on the supernatural. It is not science, which only concerns natural causes. So it is perfectly natural to label arkeology as a pseudoscience.--Filll 19:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already a subarticle about searches for the Ark, probably because while there are a lot of them, it isn't all that important relative to the Ark itself as a mythological vessel. Arkeology is pseudoscience, 'tis true, but I think that the focus of this article is NOT Arkeology but the Ark itself. It warrants mentioning, but this shouldn't be a "pro vs. con the Ark exists or it doesn't" article as to the great majority of Christians and Jews (and maybe Muslims?) it is a mythological object and a part of their religion, and that should not be ignored in favor of people who don't believe in the Ark at all, and certainly not the very small minority who believe the Flood literally happened. Titanium Dragon 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I missed that. Ok I might be able to add some material to that article.--Filll 21:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is unfair that we remove my NPOV tag when this article clearly is about pseudoscience, and we give weight to to unverifiable references. Even though there is another article, you read this article and you get the impression that some scientist somewhere actually believes this thing exists. Just my opinion. But shouldn't the removal of tags be at least discussed and come to some consensus? I have to be honest, we give more consideration to the various Creationist junk than we did to my point. OrangeMarlin 23:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You are using the tag backwards - NPOV tags are for when the section has been discussed, and support exists that the section is POV. The discussion, which you omitted, would be what POV you believe is being given undue weight, which from your more recent post I believe is the "Creationist junk" POV. Please be more specific about what POV you feel is being given undue weight, and what you believe might be a way to balance that section. Please refrain from non-helpful and non-informative postings. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fairly bright person, and I have to state that I have no clue what you just posted. I thought I was stating the obvious--there is a section of this article that states that there are efforts to prove Noah's Ark existed. There is preponderance of evidence that it did not. And yes "Creationist junk" is POV, that's why we keep stamping it down. My point with the Creationists is that in the Evolution article, we spend days and weeks discussing the various statements from "Evolution is only a theory" to whatever else is thrown our way. We discuss it, and we give every opportunity for them to make their case (which they never do, but most of the people editing the Evolution article are much more patient than I am). Then we decline to move on, because they are presenting pseudoscience and Creation myth. Here is the reverse situation. We believe there is hard science that Noah's Ark is nothing but a myth. But it is not allowed to be shown on this page, but in some daughter page that may or may not link to this one. But you're the administrator and I'm not, so I guess I defer to you. I don't like it, but I also don't like mushrooms on my pizza, but everyone seems to order it with shrooms. In both cases, I guess I'll have to accept the fact that I was late to the game. And I'll try to be less argumentative in my pointmaking--I just get annoyed by these discussions. OrangeMarlin 00:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Idea: What about restoring the Mar 25 version of the section and working forwards, rather than starting with the current version? [8] KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just as an aside, (no problem with that edit here), but I was sorta wondering how it could be called a "Mar 25" edit when it is mostly about a June '06 event... turns out it's "July 25" you must have meant... anyway...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Has that ever been done before? Seems rather tough! OrangeMarlin 00:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm reading through the discussion, and I noticed that there was a "battle (ok, intense discussion)" about classifying this article as pseudoscience. What happened? It didn't appear that there was a vote, or consensus or anything. It just stopped. OrangeMarlin 00:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can do it in about five seconds if there is support. I have no idea what happened with the PS debate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I was bold and did it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Did what? OrangeMarlin 00:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a section listing failed claims of Ark discovery, Ark hoaxes, Ark scandals, etc?

This would make a nice long list I think:

• http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp
• http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html
• http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2004/septemberweb-only/9-20-31.0.html
• http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ronwyatt.htm
• http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-AGreatChristianScam.html
• http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html
• http://atheism.about.com/b/a/115211.htm
• http://www.arksearch.com/naexped.htm
• http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-06/inquiree.html

In fact, there have been so many expeditions to find the ark, and so much fraud and malfeasance on the part of creationists and bibliolaters, that we could have a second article all about this. It would make great reading and really highlight this amazing delusion.--Filll 20:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Searches for Noah's Ark KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I found it. I think it might stand with some cleaning up.--Filll 21:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have it watchlisted but I have over 1,000 pages watched now so I usually don't check contribs to that one. This one, however, is a Featured article, and I am more attentive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Verification of "usually hoaxes"

The article says,

...claims of the Ark's discovery have been made on a number of occasions, usually turning out to be hoaxes.

Is this actually true? I would have thought that a large number of them were simply unverifiable, rather than proven hoaxes. If there is no verification for this statement, I suggest changing it to, "...claims of the Ark's discovery have been made on a number of occasions, but have either not been able to be verified or were hoaxes.
Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to "and claims of the Ark's discovery have been made on a number of occasions, but have either not been verified or were hoaxes." See section above, NPOV of the section The search for Noah's Ark - we are working forward with this section. Thanks for helping out. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You certainly didn't waste any time with that! Thanks. Philip J. Rayment 02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"According to Abrahamic tradition..."

The intro has just been altered to begin, "According to Abrahamic tradition, Noah's Ark was...". But doesn't this imply that it is something less than actual history, and is thus a POV? Philip J. Rayment 14:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It used to say "According the to Bible" which was POV. Please provide any historical account which does not rely on the Abrahamic tradition for Noah's Ark. Seriously. Where do you think this came from? There is no historical account outside of Abrahamic tradition about Noah's Ark. There are other flood accounts, which is covered in the article. The rest of the sentence reads "was a vessel built at God's command to save Noah, his family, and a core stock of the world's animals from the Great Flood." Presenting that as fact would be POV, as that would endorse the Abrahamic God as fact, whereas that is a religious belief. This isn't an apologists website, this is an encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You mention (correctly) that there are other flood accounts; they are the non-Abrahamic accounts you request! And I was not suggesting that the article should endorse it as fact (which would be endorsing a historical belief). My issue, however, was not with "Abrahamic", but with "tradition", which implies something less than actual history, something who's origin has been forgotten, and thus is just as POV as implying that it is accurate history. Philip J. Rayment 14:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of attribution, in case that is an issue: In the article Battle_of_Ravenna_(1512)#Dispositions "According to" is used several times. Example: beyond the cavarly of the "main-battle", according to Arnold and Oman, or directly flanking the infantry, according to Taylor. Now, the Battle is not in question - but when certain bits are disputed, we are clear about the source. Noah's Ark, on the other hand, is hotly disputed - an even stronger reason to attribute the source. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements. You state your issue is not with attribution but with phrasing, if I understand you correctly. If you have a rephrase suggestion to replace "tradition" please make it here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I reckon that it was okay as it was. I am really at a loss to know how anybody reading the previous introduction is going to be led into thinking that it is true, or that Wikipedia endorses it. The fact that the intro said that it was built at God's command, that the story (which word is a little POV in itself; I'd rather "account", but that may be just as POV) is contained in the Bible, etc., means that anybody reading this is going to give it as much credibility as they give the existence of God or they give the Bible, etc.

What was the problem with "According to the Bible"? Why was that considered POV?

Or, what about something like, "Noah's Ark, described in the book of Genesis and the Quran, was a vessel..."?

Philip J. Rayment 15:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would favor the Abrahamic traditions because it includes Islam, Christianity and Judaism in one fell swoop, and it is nice and short. You do not want something too wordy. What is wrong with it? Is it not factual? Is it not concise? Is it not succinct? Is it too complicated?--Filll 15:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Noah's Ark as described in the Hebrew Bible, Christian Old Testament's book of Genesis, chapters 6 to 9, and in the Quran, was a vessel built at God's command to save Noah, his family, and a core stock of the world's animals from the Great Flood.
• The above is the best rewrite I could manage, without introducing new bias. It is too long a sentence and has too many commas. Comments, suggestions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I must go to bed, but just a quick response before I do. Is it really necessary to mention the "Hebrew Bible" and "Christian Old Testament"? I presume (perhaps I'm showing my ignorance here) that it is also "Genesis" in the Hebrew Bible. So just mention "Genesis" and the "Quran". And do we need to mention (in the introduction) the chapters? Precisely where is not mentioned for the Quran or the Hebrew Bible (I do know, I think, that the latter doesn't have the same chapter and verse divisions). The precise locations could be mentioned for all books later in the article.Philip J. Rayment 15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence of Bible is "The word "Bible" refers to the canonical collections of sacred writings of Judaism and Christianity." so it seems that would cover "Hebrew Bible" and "Christian Old Testament". Take two:

• Noah's Ark, as described in the Bible and in the Quran, was a vessel built at God's command to save Noah, his family, and a core stock of the world's animals from the Great Flood.

Feedback appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I still prefer the "Abrahamic" phrase. It is more poetic. It is more succinct. It is inclusive. It is elegant. What is wrong with it?--Filll 16:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the Abrahamic phrase as well, and something similar to this was my other proposal which got lost in the whole "mythology" debate. I'm not as happy with it as I would be with "mythological vessel", as I feel it is cleaner and I like to start articles with the proper noun the article is describing if possible, but I have no issue with this phrasing, I think it was better than my proposed phrasing, and eliminates all the arguments about the mythology thing. I'd be more than happy to see this used instead, as it ends the pointless bickering and is NPOV. Titanium Dragon 21:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if other flood traditions exist (as documented in the article), the main one referred to in this article is the Abrahamic tradition, and that is the tradition which uses the name "Noah's Ark" or something similar to it. As near as we can tell, this story is a legend, or a myth or a tradition. The reason to believe it is more than this is nonexistant. What evidence exists to show that it was a historical event? For example, I could not reasonably expect an article about the Tooth Fairy to treat the Tooth Fairy's visits as established fact and imply that a real fairy visits children's bedrooms when they are asleep to give them something in exchange for a tooth. Sure there are lots of stories. But where is the evidence that such a being exists and such events occur? We have plenty of evidence to suggest that the Tooth Fairy is not real. We have little or no evidence to suggest that the Tooth Fairy is real. So is it POV to refer to the Tooth Fairy as a legend or a myth or a fictional character?--Filll 15:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Even if other flood traditions exist..."? Are you questioning that there are other flood traditions/accounts? But that's beside the point. This is supposed to a place to discuss the article, not your POV of Noah's Ark. If you want to discuss that (and have a serious discussion, not just hurl insults) and learn about some of the other evidence of which you are apparently ignorant, go to my user page and send me an e-mail, and we can discuss it privately. I don't know of any intelligent, knowledgeable people who believe the tooth fairy to be true, or any supporting evidence for it/him/her. But there are millions of intelligent people, and thousands of scientists, who believe Noah's Ark to be a real historical vessel. The two topics are not comparable. Philip J. Rayment 15:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of scientists? Can I see some verifiable evidence of these "thousands of scientists." Let me define scientist for you. Usually has a Ph.D. from a respected, accredited research university. Engaged in original research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Understands the scientific process, including falsifiability, meaning that he/she actually will accept the false hypothesis. I'll guess that the number of "scientists" under the reasonable definition of that term would be less than 10 who believe in Noah's Ark, the flood or the tooth fairy. That's why difficult for you to utilize NPOV for this type of article. You can never prove whether Noah's Ark, the flood or the tooth fairy exist, at least within the realm of science. If you believe that Noah's Ark existed as an article of faith in your mythology, then so be it. I have no problem with that, nor does anyone else, with the single caveat that you, on the other hand, do not force me to believe it. Again, it is pseudoscience, because it is not verifiable with peer-reviewed literature. I don't mind this article as a description of a myth. I'll even read the scientific and non-scientific descriptions of whether or not it ever existed. But the article should be fair and balanced, and it is not right now. It contains pseudoscience. It describes a myth as reality. And it does so without making the presumption of faith in this particular myth. OrangeMarlin 17:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This page alone lists well over ten creationary scientists. Then there are the 250+ Ph.D. members of the Korean Association for Creation. I forget the precise details, but one creationary scientist has estimated a figure in the thousands (in the U.S. alone) on the basis of how many Ph.D. members the Creation Research Society has and the number of creationary scientists he is aware of who are and are not members of that (e.g. if one in ten creationary scientists are members of the CRS, and CRS has 700 members, that puts the number of creationary scientists around 7000).

Having glanced at your "proof" makes me more convinced than ever to continue to write the article I am working on. I am sorry, but I am not convinced particularly. Most of the people on that list are not in relevant fields. I know nothing about this factor of 10 that you are claiming. In the past when people on such lists were individually contacted to verify their beliefs, many of them denied belief in creationism or claimed their beliefs had been misrepresented.--Filll 15:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So now we change the definition from "scientists" to "scientists in relevant fields"? How convenient. Most of the scientists opposed are not in relevant fields either.

In the past when people on such lists were individually contacted to verify their beliefs, many of them denied belief in creationism or claimed their beliefs had been misrepresented.

You are confusing this with a list put out by Intelligent Design people, and I believe the claim of misrepresentation was exaggerated anyway. But you won't find that problem with this list, and there is still the matter of the scientists who are members of creationist organisations. These alone number in the hundreds, at least, and then add the ones that are not members of such organisations. I can't find the figures on this, and the ten percent I mentioned was just by way of an example, but the claim, which appears reasonable, is that these non-members bring the figure of creationary scientists in to the thousands.

Philip J. Rayment 00:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, you can never "prove" (in the scientific sense) that Noah's Ark existed, simply because it is an event in the past, and we don't have the past to study scientifically. But exactly the same problem exists with, say, dinosaurs evolving into birds. In both cases, you can come to reasonable conclusions based on the available evidence, but in neither case can you prove it. But I don't see evolution being questioned like Noah's Ark (etc.) is. Your claims that it is pseudoscience is your POV, and not an undisputed fact. Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I am unaware of any solid evidence for the existence of Noah's Ark, unless one has a very restricted definition of what is meant by "existence of Noah's Ark". Certainly not as literally described in Genesis. And millions of intelligent knowledgeable people DO believe in the tooth fairy. They are called children. You are trying to suggest children are not intelligent or knowledgeable?--Filll 16:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your ignorance of the evidence is no excuse. And no, children are not knowledgeable in the sense we are discussing here. How many children do you know who have Ph.Ds.? Or who have completed their education? Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The evidence? What evidence? I know of several flood stories around the world. There is no geological evidence for a global flood, although we do have global evidence of an iridium layer, say. The exact details of the flood story and Noah's ark in Genesis are unrealistic. For example, I do not believe that the laws of physics changed so that a rainbow was created after the flood for the first time, as the story seems to imply. I grant you that the number of stories that exist might refer to some local flooding event in some place, and a farmer who loaded up some of his flock into his boat to ride out the flood. But features of the story such as:

• a supernatural warning
• samples of all the animals from the entire earth
• a flood over the entire earth
• creation of the rainbow for the first time after the flood
• drowning of all land-based life on earth

and so on are a bit too extreme for me to accept.--Filll 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could have a problem with "tradition" because there is no definition of "tradition" that suggests something is fictitious or unhistorical. It perfectly describes the gray zone where we have no proof something did or didn't happen. The tooth faity seems like a really bad example, because that is not a religion, and it hasn't been shown that there are any adults who take that seriously. Same with Hera and Zeus - the extraordinary claim that anyone takes either of them seriously as real entities in 2006 is what needs to be cited first - not the obvious fact that there are people today who take the Bible seriously. It wouldn't be too hard to prove that there are people today who take the Bible seriously, but first I want to see proof of the more extraordinary claim. There are 100s of churches in my city alone, but not one single active Temple to Hera or Zeus anywhere on the planet to my knowledge - if you disagree, back it up with names, numbers and addresses.

A much better example than the Tooth Fairy, Zeus or Hera might be Narasimha. There are people in India today who devoutly and fervently believe that one tuesday afternoon in 500 BC as their ancestors were walking through the hills, God suddenly appeared to them in the form of a lion. Note that the word "mythological" does not appear anywhere in that article, because that is a value judgement. Even though it is not part of my own tradition, I am not the kind of person who gets my jollies from stomping into an article like that and writing "This is mythological" and "pseudoscience" all over it. Who are we to say it didn't happen, or did happen? Also how can anyone say that God would only reveal himself through miracles to one people on Earth? We can't make a decision for the reader, we just present the facts such as they are, for example there is no irrefutable proof of such a thing happening in lab or field conditions. Yes, the very kernel of neutrality is showing "deference" to significant POVs on any given topic - that's exactly what it is. Saying "we don't have to be neutral, because that means showing deference" is totally backwards to the spirit of neutrality.. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Codex, I understand your point, but if I don't believe in supernatural myths, including your god(s), then you are forcing a POV on me, and more than a few others. There is not one single iota of proof that Noah's Ark, a catastrophic worldwide flood, or a sudden extinction event (presumed by the worldwide flood) ever happened. I don't care about people who go to church (with respect to "opinion" about this matter). I don't care for pseudoscientific articles, which are by their very nature, POV. You don't have to show deference to me, because I don't care. What I care about is that this article is foisting onto the public pseudoscience, when in fact, it is a matter of faith. I just don't get why you cannot understand that you have faith in this matter, and what I say is not going to influence you. But faith is POV. OrangeMarlin 17:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "proof"? Do you mean absolute unquestionable evidence with no alternative explanation? If so, you are correct. But if you are talking about supporting evidence, evidence that fits better with Noah's Ark (or at least Noah's Flood), than with alternatives, then you are simply wrong about there being none. Contact me by e-mail if you want to discuss that, because this is not the place. Again, your claim that this is pseudoscience is your POV, your faith, and as such, would introduce bias to the article. Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not forcing any POV on you. (In fact, I have never even stated what my personal POV on Noah's Ark is... but I am extremely concerned with neutrality in articles...) If the article does not say one way or the other, and presents only facts, that is the definition of neutrality. It allows you to form your own judgement, me to form mine, and everyone else to form theirs. There's no need to tell people how they are "supposed" to interpret scripture. Our NPOV policy is much like the Starfleet Prime Directive that "Trekkies" would be familiar with: An encyclopedia does well to reflect and explain the actual beliefs practiced in the world today, but it has no place whatsoever as a vehicle to steer or influence them, which is exactly what pov pushers want it to do every day. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read your lectures on here about NPOV, and you're using it, IMHO, to push your agenda. To be truly neutral, sources should be verifiable. The bible is a book written by whomever, and it doesn't even slightly qualify as a verifiable source. However, in terms of making peace (isn't that something you Christians are supposed to believe in), I think the article has improved it's NPOV. I like the fact that the introduction indicates it's a biblical story that is unproven. However, I think this article should be categorized as pseudoscience, and the Search for section should be completely rewritten. It's missing all the bogus finds, especially on Ararat. OrangeMarlin 17:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The only agenda I'm pushing is neutrality. You don't even know what my personal beliefs are or what my religion is, I have never mentioned them because they are quite irrelevant. But I am not going to sit idly by if neutrality is violated on either side - and that would also include if the article stated that Noah's Ark is a fact. It shouldn't tell people what to think one way or another. That's neutrality, and that's my agenda. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I as well think that the word "tradition" does not carry any negative connotations with it. It is tradition in the US to wash your hands after using the toilet. This tradition is based on true scientific principles and understanding. What is wrong with tradition? And I do not care if there is a religion involved or not with a particular belief. That is basically irrelevant. The fact is, the Tooth Fairy is believed by a group of people. They have what appears to be evidence for the fairy's existence. And there are others who have evidence to the contrary. And it is a tradition. What is wrong with it? Who cares if it is a religion for someone or not?

The problem is that religions do not agree with each other, and people kill each other over these differences. So I think giving any extra weight to one belief over another because it happens to be a religious one or a religious one of a certain type is asking for trouble. --Filll 16:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that people wash their hands due to tradition. They wash them for reasons of hygiene. Please e-mail me the evidence for the tooth fairy; I'm not aware of any. I agree that religions (worldviews) do not agree with each other. Particularly the worldviews of atheism and Christianity. We should not give any more weight to the athiest view (of no Noah's Ark) than the Christian view (of Noah's Ark). Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I might point out that the presence of Churches or people who attend churches is not proof of belief of biblical inerrancy. And canvassing the uneducated and nonexperts about their beliefs is irrelevant for establishing the truth or nontruth of anything.--Filll 16:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

They you would presumably agree to including a mention in the article that the experts agree that Noah's Ark existed? (Search this page for the first reference of "11:09, 26 December 2006" to find my post with the rationale for that). Philip J. Rayment 10:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That is why I suggested a section on Arkeology. Perhaps a separate article on arkeology?--Filll 14:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

But regardless of which article it goes in, you would have no problem with including the point that the experts agree that Noah's Ark existed? Philip J. Rayment 00:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic tradition, part II

I see one for the current version (rewrite take two in the section above) with everyone else preferring Abrahamic tradition. Did I count correctly? Did I miss anyone? Thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the Abrahamic tradition (possibly with a reference to another Wikipedia article)--it does make the introduction more balanced. I still think the section "The Search for Noah's Ark" is massively POV with excess weight given to this whole Sabalan search. Of course, and this isn't verifiable, the pictures look like shale or slate, maybe petrified wood. But I'm not a geologist nor do I play one on TV.OrangeMarlin 17:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've undone the According to the Bible and the Quran edit. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Abrahamic traditions":

• It is short
• It is inclusive
• It is accurate
• It is educational
• It is not biased
• It does not carry negative connotations with it
• It is good writing.

I see no problem with it. Period.--Filll 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. Titanium Dragon 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, but I'm not going to get too upset over this one. But to explain my opposition in a different way, how would others feel about starting the Evolution article with, "According to Darwinian tradition, evolution...". Wouldn't it tend to indicate that evolution is somewhat less than certain? Philip J. Rayment 11:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally would not feel offended particularly by reading "According to Darwinian tradition, evolution...". It just would strike me as a bit of a humorous way to describe evolution, but it does not have the connotation you are implying to me. I would have no problem with a text that read "Traditionally, Americans wash their hands after using the bathroom." or "It is a tradition to eat turkey at Christmas." Maybe I am missing something, but it really strikes me as a very neutral thing to say. Even reading some dictionary entries for "tradition" I do not get a strong sense that the word means "fake" or "untrue".--Filll 14:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so how about you go to the Evolution article and edit it to read that way. Then we can both see how long it would last. Philip J. Rayment 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It would not be reverted because it is false, or insulting in some way, but because it is awkward wording for a science. It is perfect and concise here however. Believe me I have tried mightily to affect the lead on evolution for months and I have made very very little headway. I have given up for now, but I might try again later.--Filll 23:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are not prepared to put it to the test, we'll never know, but I would think that many people would object to on the grounds of it being misleading. How is it awkward wording for that article, but not for this? Philip J. Rayment 00:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Support. And I have no problem with "According to Darwinian tradition", but it has no meaning in that context. It would be "According to the preponderance of verifiable scientific evidence, Evolution is..." Orangemarlin 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"According to the preponderance of verifiable scientific evidence" is POV. If "According to Darwinian tradition" has no meaning in that article, how does "According to Abrahamic tradition" have meaning in this article? Philip J. Rayment 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

According to surveys, 95% of American scientists of all fields support evolution. Of biologists and earth scientists, 99.84% of them support evolution. There are literally hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed publications on evolution. And millions of pieces of evidence. There have been repeated court cases that affirmed that the preponderence of scientific evidence supports evolution. I could go on and on and on. But in the face of that, how can anyone deny that the preponderence of verifiable scientific evidence is on the side of evolution? One would have to have a very strange view of reality to deny this. And as I stated above, what is wrong with "According to Abrahamic tradition"?:

• Do you think it is not Abrahamic?
• Do you not like the word "tradition"?
• Do you disagree with dictionary definitions of the word "tradition"?

Why do you dislike it? Do not fight and act like a jerk or a spoiled child. State your reasons.--Filll 23:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have stated my reasons earlier, but to repeat, it is because of the implications (not dictionary definitions) of the word "tradition", indicating that it is primarily a story handed down from the past, rather than anything of substance. And please stop making gratuitous insults.

I don't dispute that a large majority of scientists support evolution. I do dispute, however, that there have been many court cases affirming that the evidence supports evolution. Most such court cases are not actually making determinations on which way the evidence is pointing, but on other issues.

Both evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence. It's how one interprets that evidence that produces different results, and it is usually interpreted according to one's worldview. For example, I think it's something like 75% of the Earth's land surface is covered with sedimentary rock. Should one see that as (a) evidence for millions of years of erosion and sedimentation, or (b) evidence for a global flood? It's not the evidence that is in dispute, but the interpretation of that evidence. Like you, many scientists consider supernatural explanations to be out of the bounds of science even if those explanations might be correct. Thus some explanations are ruled out of consideration, then the lack of such accepted explanations is used to bash the people who support such explanations. This is circular reasoning.

Philip J. Rayment 00:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Searches for Noah's Ark

Ok, I'm happy with the summary statement, but the next para deals only with one search, the most recent. We need to make this more of an overall view of searches, yes? Anyone want to take a stab at suggestions? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It concentrates too much on the last search, which is unlikely to be any more conclusive than any of the others. I would suggest removing it and letting people go to the other article for this more recent expedition and the history of the expeditions.--Filll 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I've started a re-write of the section. When finished it will give an overview of the contemporary ark-searches, concentrating on why and where. PiCo 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Arkeology section

I suggest replacing the search section with a section covering the science that fundamentalists call "arkeology". This section would be balanced, so it would carry evidence on both sides. It would cover the search summary that we have now but no extended discussion of the last search.--Filll 17:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest not opening that particular can of worms. Arkology includes all the matters touched on in the current section about literalist perspectives - what exactly is gopher wood, what did Noah do about waste disposal, was the ark big enough for all those animals, what about the dinosaurs, what about eucalyptus leaves for the koalas (they have to be provided with fresh ones every day, very picky eaters your koalas). It's all covered quite adequately as it stands, it has the support of rabid rationalists and fervent Creationsits alike - don't go there, I beg you. (Don't you people have anything better to do over Christmas than hang out on Wikipedia?)PiCo 04:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we not at least define the term arkeology?--Filll 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Arkeology and the Flood story are pseudoscience because:

• any supernatural causes are outside of science, which admits only natural causes
• there is no publication of any evidence in peer reviewed scientific literature
• belief in the Ark does not depend on data or evidence or scientific reasoning, it is true by definition. It is not a falsifiable theory.
• requiring nonphysical nonscientific features such as a change in the law of optics, appearance and disappearance of immense volumes of water with no geologic evidence--Filll 15:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1) "any supernatural causes are outside of science, which admits only natural causes". By this definition, Science is atheism, a scientist cannot believe in a religion, and anyone who follows a religion cannot be a scientist. This definition presupposed that God cannot do anything that is supernatural. So if He does a miracle, the "scientist" is going to look for ways to deny it and explain it in any way that takes God out of the equasion. No wonder more people have problems swallowing anything a "scientist" tells them to accept without questioning or seeing the evidence firsthand, because this kind of "science" (the "science" you have just defined) is warring against the Most High and attempting to enforce atheism.

2) "*there is no publication of any evidence in peer reviewed scientific literature". This is the old "Only those who agree with our hypothesis count, therefore the positions that don't agree with our hypothesis don't count, therefore only those who agree with our hypothesis count" argument. "Scientists" do this to each other all the time rather than follow the scientific method of following a hypothesis, this is what Soviet-funded "scientists" say about Nazi-funded "scientists" and vice versa, and it all comes down to what is the ideology of the government that is buttering their bread.

3) "*belief in the Ark does not depend on data or evidence or scientific reasoning, it is true by definition. It is not a falsifiable theory." Equally true if you substitute "Big Bang" or "Evolution" in place of "the Ark", they are not "falsifiable theories" so I guess now we can agree that they too are pseudoscience, right?

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

1) "any supernatural causes are outside of science, which admits only natural causes". By this definition, Science is atheism, a scientist cannot believe in a religion, and anyone who follows a religion cannot be a scientist. This definition presupposed that God cannot do anything that is supernatural. So if He does a miracle, the "scientist" is going to look for ways to deny it and explain it in any way that takes God out of the equasion. No wonder more people have problems swallowing anything a "scientist" tells them to accept without questioning or seeing the evidence firsthand, because this kind of "science" (the "science" you have just defined) is warring against the Most High and attempting to enforce atheism.

No you do not know what aetheism is, or science. Many scientists are religious. Many religions are not in dispute with science. And science does not concern itself with magic or the supernatural. Period. Never has. And science is all about evidence. Without evidence, it is not science. Do you never look in dictionaries for meanings of science and pseudoscience?

2) "*there is no publication of any evidence in peer reviewed scientific literature". This is the old "Only those who agree with our hypothesis count, therefore the positions that don't agree with our hypothesis don't count, therefore only those who agree with our hypothesis count" argument. "Scientists" do this to each other all the time rather than follow the scientific method of following a hypothesis, this is what Soviet-funded "scientists" say about Nazi-funded "scientists" and vice versa, and it all comes down to what is the ideology of the government that is buttering their bread.

Well what about companies that want to make a profit? They do not care about ideology. They only care about money. And they support mainstream science because it makes money because it is real. Or do you not believe in capitalism as well? Or are you a communist then?

3) "*belief in the Ark does not depend on data or evidence or scientific reasoning, it is true by definition. It is not a falsifiable theory." Equally true if you substitute "Big Bang" or "Evolution" in place of "the Ark", they are not "falsifiable theories" so I guess now we can agree that they too are pseudoscience, right?

Actually the big bang theory and the theory of evolution depend on immense amounts of data. Hundreds of thousands of publication and millions of pieces of evidence. Millions of scientists support these theories as the best explanation of the evidence. They are not pseudoscience in any way whatsoever. As opposed to arkeology which has nothing but some ancient stories which disagree with each other and known evidence. Period.

If you have such a hatred for science, why do you not renounce everything that it has given you including the internet and live in a cave? --Filll 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoah, bad logic. False premise, false conclusions. I don't hate the truth, but I hate the "science" that you have described that is used to push lies. There is indeed much physical evidence for a hypothesis that perfectly matches Biblical accounts, but "scientists" who are intrinsically inimical to any explanation that involves God will refuse to accept such evidence and will simply brush it aside and making themselves judges, rule it inadmissible, because their minds are already made up. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please show this evidence that the ark existed. Here is the difference between you and I. If you can falsify my premise, then I will look for an alternative explanation. The Big Bang, Evolution, and Plate Tectonics are all falsifiable (even though that's not a standard of science, it's just what you guys want). On the other hand, you won't even consider that Noah and his ark did not exist, because, in your mind, that would mean your god and the bible might not be correct. You can have your faith. But to those of us who do not require myths to live our lives, it is still pseudoscience. Orangemarlin 19:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Magic and ghosts and UFOs and all that stuff might be true. However, we have no evidence for them. So I will stick with the evidence. And that is what science does. Science sticks with the evidence. Proclamations that God performed a miracle in an old book do not count as evidence. Sorry. It might be true, we just do not have evidence for it. You can call whatever you do or believe something else, but not science. --Filll 16:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, have you ever seen this webpage? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's your evidence denying human evolution, then you really must have an outstanding sense of humor codex. You're pretty funny. Orangemarlin 19:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I had not seen that page. I know there are many claims such as indications of early contact between the new and the old world in ancient times. And eventually we might have better evidence for it. Right now, those things are a matter of dispute.--Filll 17:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

-Yep. They're a matter of dispute. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be more inclined to subscribe to the contamination theory. After all, these mummies have been around in museums, not very well protected from the air etc for a long long time. Did you know that every single piece of US currency that is tested shows contamination by cocaine? So the money you have with you right now has cocaine on it. Probably your clothes too. Did you know that a large fraction of the dust in your house comes from outer space? Yes, the remnants of meteors that have burned up in the atmosphere. Did you know that in a typical house anywhere in the world one can find dust from the Sahara, from the Saudi deserts, from the Chinese Gobi deserts, etc? Did you know that about 1/3 of the air pollution over Los Angeles originates from China? We live in a global environment. Everything is connected. It is very difficult to avoid contamination. Since this first announcement of cocaine in mummies about 15 years ago, there has been some speculation, but no substantial proof of ancient commerce between the old world and the new. Even if there was, it does not provide evidence for Noah's Ark.--Filll 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the Cocaine is not the point of that webpage, it is only an incidental piece of trivia mentioned at the bottom. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert at looking at skulls. There are people who are. The places the skulls are found are as important as the skulls themselves, or more important. And the dated biologic materials are extremely important as well. To give me some pictures that purport to be skulls of something or other from what amounts to a personal blog really indicates nothing to me. Except desperation of a sort.--Filll 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I could claim that it is a miracle, and be done with it. No reason to think or worry or get any evidence at all. --Filll 17:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

requiring nonphysical nonscientific features such as a change in the law of optics, appearance and disappearance of immense volumes of water with no geologic evidence
This is a strawman argument. Creationists claim no such thing.
On the other hand, I could claim that it is a miracle, and be done with it. No reason to think or worry or get any evidence at all.
That appears to be a mocking comment about how you believe creationists think. You are dead wrong.
Philip J. Rayment 00:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (2)

I would like this article to be tagged as Pseudoscience. I know it was discussed, but there clearly was no consensus, just a bunch of name-calling and arguing from what I see. Then I would suggest it be put to a vote or arbitration or whatever is required. Just to get it out in the open, we know that everyone opposed to this suggestion will be called a Creationist blah blah blah, and everyone in support of this will be called a godless atheist scientist blah blah blah. There, we're done with it.

Here are my reasons that this is pseudoscience:

• 1. It does not meet the standards of scientific reasoning and thought.
• 2. If it is a religious myth and should not meet the standards of science, then the article should be rewritten and classified as a religious myth.
• 3. It is unbalanced in that it reads as if it is factual.
• 4. There are no verifiable facts that support the ark, the flood or a massive extinction event of animals.

That's it from this godless, atheistic scientist. Orangemarlin 19:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here is what defines Pseudoscience:

Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method. Pseudosciences may appear scientific, but they do not adhere to the testability requirement of the scientific method and are often in conflict with current scientific consensus.

Orangemarlin 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC) I have to admit that Noah's Ark and "Arkeology" sure seem to fall into this category:

• physical impossibility
• lack of evidence for a worldwide flood
• claim that laws of physics changed
• supernatural intervention
• disputes scientific consensus
• multiple problems with transport of species
• problems with care and feeding of animals
• disagreements about location of ark
• disagreements about details of event among and within religious texts
• failing of falsifiability requirement
• lack of evidence after dozens of attempts to secure it

In light of this, it sure is hard to dispute that it is more in the pseudoscience realm than in the factual realm, or the scientific realm.--Filll 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Pseudoscience" is on the list of the Words to Avoid for very good reason, such a POV-pushing, polemical label should only be used in those rare cases where there is no significant opposing viewpoint. As has been demonstrated repeatedly above, in this case there is an extremely significant opposing viewpoint (including religious leaders such as the Peope) that you would like to summarily brush aside or discount. In controversial cases like this, wikipedia must not endorse one viewpoint over another, it must endorse neither viewpoint but rather steer a neutral course and cite who believes what and why without endorsing anyone's theology (or lack thereof) on how to interpret scripture. Also putting this to a vote does not undo WP:NPOV - one of the very pillars of the Wikimedia foundation. Wikipedia is NOT the Council of Nicea; it was not set up with the authority to determine for anyone else which parts of scripture are to be considered true or false. It can only report on the situation, not attempt to influence it. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So I went to WP:WTA to read why, in all their wisdom, would Wikipedia think that Pseudoscience should be a word to avoid. Then I read it, and nowhere does it explicitly state it should not be used. It was used as an example that showed how pseudoscience could be used, in that there was verification that it was pseudoscience. Absent proof of the flood, Noah's Ark, and an extinction event, all of which are POV of the Genesis myth, it really is pseudoscience and is not a word to avoid. Orangemarlin 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep lecturing us on NPOV, but you use NPOV to push your own POV, that this is a true story. I am NOT asking you to delete, destroy or otherwise eliminate it. This article is highly POV, and here are my reasons:

• Religion. It prefers a religious (I'll go with Judeo-Christian) POV rather a neutral one.
• Undue weight. This article sounds as if this is a fact, but qualifies as pseudoscience.
• Pseudoscience. You keep lecturing all of us on pseudoscience as a POV pushing label. Let me quote Wikipedia on Pseudoscience:

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

Given this description, we need to present the majority view that this article is pseudoscience, while still incorporating your faith that biblical accounts are unerring and fact. We grant that Noah's Ark represents an incredibly important facet of Judeo-Christian belief (although I contend that your god won't strike you dead for thinking it is an allegorical fable rather than fact). We do not grant that it is factual, based on the facts. Orangemarlin 20:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe mythology is a better word than pseudoscience? Legend? Religious fable? --Filll 19:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed on "tradition" but I guess that was too neutral for the POV pushers. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, you keep accusing us of being POV pushers. You cannot make a claim like that without opening yourself up to a similar accusation. You're pushing your fundamentalist christian POV on the rest of us, who think this story is nothing more than a metaphor, at least, or a fable at the most. We have facts on our side, not faith. Again, I don't care about your faith (not in the sense that you should be condemned for it, but that it has no meaning with regards to verifiability). Show one verifiable fact that the flood, noah's ark, an extinction event, or anything else occurred as was described in this article. Once again, I am not asking that this article be deleted or changed significantly, I just want balance, an NPOV, and a pseudoscience tag placed with this article. Orangemarlin 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no --- I would resist the article pushing a fundamentalist Christian POV as well... I want it to be NEUTRAL, NEUTRAL, NEUTRAL, NEUTRAL, NEUTRAL... There are other significant viewpoints here that disagree that this is mythological pseudoscience, and no matter what I may think, those views must be taken into account. What part of WP:NPOV do you not understand or disagree with??? Looks like this will have to go to arbitration after all... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not neutral. And please do not lecture me anymore on WP:NPOV. I understand it. I contend you don't, but I don't care. Pseudoscience is fact based, it is not a debate. Once again, show me one verifiable source that shows that the flood, Noah's Ark, and/or an extinction event occurred as is described in Genesis. Your stating that Genesis is a fact means nothing to me. Sorry. A few hundred scientists who can show me geological proof of a flood event with the resultant extinction of billions of organisms would go a long way towards removing my POV objections. I'm going to grant that Noah's Ark will probably never be found, because after a few thousand years, those timbers are rotted and gone. Orangemarlin 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to allow you to misrepresent my position. I have never once stated that Genesis is a fact, or is not a fact. All I have been pointing out to you all along is that it is not appropriate or permissible for Wikipedia to do this either. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tradition is fine for the first sentence. However, there is a lot more to the article than one lead sentence. Noah's Ark and the Flood are highly dubious, at best, at least in my opinion and what I read in reliable sources with reliable reasoning. The biggest problem I see is lack of evidence. What is your view? --Filll 20:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the key word - in your opinion. The opposing opinion is also quite significant and can't be simply dismissed with a wave of the hand. It doesn't even matter what my own opinion is. You might well consider Narasimha to be mythology or pseudoscience, but that article will not use those terms either, because it is part of a living religion. Why is it so important for you to offend people and create enmity? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the second part of that sentence...in his opinion AND based on what he read with reliable sources with reliable reasoning. If you're going to debate, please don't mine quotes. Orangemarlin 20:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have added above, there is plenty of evidence (fossils, sedimentary rocks, etc.), but it's how you interpret that evidence that is disputed. Philip J. Rayment 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to publish accurate factual articles in an encyclopedia rather than turn it into a religious text arguing for some particular religious point of view. That is how wars start. Plenty of religions disagree on "facts". They get angry at each other, and decide to kill each other over these "facts". This story is as old as mankind, repeated over and over. You have never heard it before? --Filll 20:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard such nonsense claims before, but they ignore the facts that (a) Christianity has brought enormous benefits to society (read Rodney Stark's works on that, for example) and (b) atheism has probably killed more people than other religions (see here). Of course you will claim that's not consistent with atheism, but I can make the same claim for Christianity. Philip J. Rayment 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I would agree with that first sentence too... I too would prefer to publish accurate and factual articles, and not a religious text arguing for some particular religious point of view. Or anti-religious point of view. If we present only the facts, people can come to their own conclusions without having to read biased language that attempts to draw their conclusions for them. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So in the face of all the contrary evidence, what is the evidence that Noah's Ark was real and should be treated as such in an encyclopedia article? --Filll 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys -

Instead of turning this into a debate forum, what specific changes would you like to see made to the article? I don't see a whole lot of pseudoscience in this article. It seems pretty balanced to me. JPotter 21:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment, but that's just me. I'm relatively new at this discussion thing, so how do you resolve intractable positions between two extremes. My point is that the article is unbalanced with whole lot of weight put to stating that this myth is either historical or a scientifically verifiable fact, neither of which is neutral. In addition, at the minimum, it should be stated that this event lacks any scientific proof and should be considered pseudoscience. It fits the description of pseudoscience. I also believe that this article, as written, appears to give too much weight to the Judeo-Christian belief set rather than the lack of any evidence that this event happened. I think it requires a rewrite. Can we take it to a vote or something? Again, I don't know how this works. Orangemarlin 00:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark and Noah's Flood are claims about history, not science. Science is unable to test God, and science is unable to observe the past, so although scientific methods can be used to some extent, science is unable to determine the cause of a historical event, and thus unable to rule out a supernatural cause. Therefore claims that this historical event is pseudoscience are out of line, because it is a historical claim, not a scientific one. Philip J. Rayment 00:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that this is history, but there is not any proof that it is so. The reason we consider it science is that the whole basis of the Flood myth is that there was a flood. Since there is not a single credible piece of verifiable evidence that a worldwide flood existed, then it cannot be historical, because it did not happen. That there is evidence of some minor floods, like the the North Sea passing through the straights of Dover during the most recent interglacial warming period, sure that I buy. As for the existence of Noah's ark, that might be historical, but I would like to see some evidence of it. The Bible does not count as evidence. Orangemarlin 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't it? Because you say so? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the bible, no not because I say so, because it is unverifiable and totally a Judeo-Christian POV. It is a collection of interesting stories, and that's about it. And most of it is poorly translated and fits the needs of people of that era. But if you're going to say that the Bible is your basis of verification, then let's slap a biblical story label on this, get rid of any attempt to state it is a historical fact, I'll go away, and Wikipedia has an article describing a myth. World is balance, and I'm happy.Orangemarlin 00:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What attempt to state it is a historical fact? We're talking about the wikipedia article, right? If you see any attempt to state it as a historical fact in there, it should be removed immediately and I will support its removal, because that is just as unsustainable and POV as asserting that it did not happen. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, give some reliable peer-reviewed references with evidence that Noah's flood happened. And for good measure, that Noah's Ark happened. And some reason to believe that the laws of physics were different before the flood.--Filll 00:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should I give scientific evidence when I've just explained that it is a historical claim, not a scientific one? And why should I provide evidence for a change in the laws of physics when I didn't claim that there was a claim, and no creationist that I know of has? Strawman again. Philip J. Rayment 00:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, mainly because we're claiming that Noah's Ark is a myth. And you cannot just claim something is a strawman just to dismiss it. I stand by the myth, legend, and allegorical tale. It is not a fact. Orangemarlin 01:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it as a strawman just to dismiss it. I'm claiming it's a strawman because it is a strawman. Creationists do not claim that the laws of physics changed at the flood, so to claim that they do is a strawman. Philip J. Rayment 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that this is history, but there is not any proof that it is so.
Yes, that is my opinion, but I'm not trying to include that opinion in the article. My point is that this is an article about a claim about history (regardless of whether that claim is correct or not), not about science.

Well, I would contend that this is not history but archeology, based on the dates, but the history cannot exist without some credible scientific evidence that the events surround this mythical character actually happened. Orangemarlin 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology may be used to support the history, but it is still a claim about history. Philip J. Rayment 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Since there is not a single credible piece of verifiable evidence that a worldwide flood existed, then it cannot be historical, because it did not happen.
I disagree that there is no such evidence, but that is beside the point, because that is a claim about whether the historical claim is true or not.

Then show me your evidence. Your history does not exist without the corresponding science. Orangemarlin 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I just said that the evidence is beside the point, yet you ask again for evidence. I have also said that evolutionists and creationists have the same evidence, and the dispute is over the interpretation of that evidence, but you seem to be overlooking that point. Philip J. Rayment 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bible does not count as evidence.
Do you dismiss the record of all ancient documents, or just the Bible?
Philip J. Rayment 01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The bible particularly as a piece of fiction does not bother me. Nor do other pieces of fiction. Virgils Aeneid was written about the time of the bible, and it is a particularly good piece of fiction. Some historical documents work well, like the Domesday Book, because it was just a factual census. Anything else needs to be taken with a lot of skepticism Orangemarlin 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The Bible is not written as fiction; it is written as history. But you have avoided the question. Sure, you may exercise some scepticism over other ancient documents (e.g. Egyptian, Roman, and Greek records), but my question was whether you dismiss them like you dismiss the Bible. Philip J. Rayment 02:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Being a good scientist, I don't believe in absolutes. So, I dismiss the Bible from cover to cover (and understand my version of the Bible only includes what you call the Old Testament). I make no claims about the New Testament, though from what I've heard and based on Fundamentalists here in the US, I'm writing that off as fiction too, though I could be convinced that Jesus was a good Rabbi who kept kosher, ate lox and bagels on Sunday, and told a really good joke. As for the other ancient documents, I don't know, I won't dismiss all of them out of hand, since I have not personally read them all. From an historical basis, anything written before the advent of recorded media would require a certain amount of corroborating evidence. Here's a good example (it just comes off the top of my mind). The Anglo Saxon Chronicles were some priests who wrote about the early history of England. Smarter people than me have figured out what is historical, what was allegorical, and what was pure invention just to make sure the King didn't cut their heads off. Sometimes you uncover new evidence. Even what was written about WWII needs a healthy bit of skepticism, and that's pretty recent. So, I guess it really depends. Orangemarlin 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't believe in absolutes?? I love it when people refute themselves! Is that claim (that you don't believe in absolutes) absolutely true? If so, then that is an absolute that you believe in.

You are of course able to consider the Bible fiction, but I thought that you claimed to be a good scientist, i.e. go with the evidence. So please consider this view from an expert (William F. Albright):

The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phrases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.

That in itself doesn't prove that everything in the Bible, including Noah's Ark, is true, but it does tend to put a dint in your claim that the Bible is fiction from cover to cover.

Philip J. Rayment 11:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rayment's comments

As I have added above, there is plenty of evidence (fossils, sedimentary rocks, etc.), but it's how you interpret that evidence that is disputed. Philip J. Rayment 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you discard all of stratigraphy and racemic dating and radioactive dating and magnetic field evidence and evidence from coral growth rings and benthic sediment layers and tree ring data and snow layer data and data from volcanic eruption residues and hundreds of other geologic dating techniques, one COULD try to claim that all the fossils are from the result of the flood (ignoring the fact that there are MILES of sedimentary layers in some places). Sure. But that is not evidence that is widely accepted outside of some tiny fringe element with no referreed publications, and no training except for a handful of degrees from diploma mills and a few discredited scientists like Gish who have long ago abandoned Science. A teeny tiny fraction of scientists. Way less than 1% of earth scientists with proper degrees in the US. If one rejects all the progress in science over the last century or two, one might be able to make that argument. I, however, would rather look at ALL the evidence, and side on the same side as well over 100 scientific societies around the world representing literally millions of of scientists, and over 72 US Nobel Prize winners in the sciences.--Filll 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationary scientists don't discard all that evidence. They see it as supporting Noah's Flood.

They have to discard it to have a flood. There is no way you can reconcile all those differing dates. You cannot have one fossil from mud that is 1 million years old and one fossil from mud that is 10 million years old and one fossil from mud that is 500 million years old and claim they all came from the same flood. That is complete and utter nonsense. The only way you can get answers like that is if you reject ALL OF SCIENCE. Which you are free to do. Just do not claim you are backed up by science or you are doing science or it really happened. Because unless God came in to make all that data not agree to test Men (which I have had many creationists claim to me) or unless the Devil came in to make all that data not agree to tempt Men away from God (which I have also had creationists claim to me), the data do not match. You can claim it if you like. Just do not expect it to be accepted as fact by very many people.--Filll 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You might think that they have to discard it, but they don't discard it; they interpret it differently. Dates are themselves interpretations of the evidence, and they don't accept those interpretations, so the dates are not a problem. It is utter nonsense to say that they must reject all of science to accept the flood. Most of the early scientists believed in the flood! They didn't reject science to do so. And no informed creationary scientist makes the claims that you have had put to you about the data being a test or a temptation. Philip J. Rayment 02:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well declaring the inconsistencies in the data as a test or a temptation is just one of many strategies that creation scientists use to try to explain the problems with their theories. I do not claim that everyone agrees with it.--Filll 13:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

But that is not evidence that is widely accepted outside of some tiny fringe element with no referreed publications, and no training except for a handful of degrees from diploma mills and a few discredited scientists...

This is utter nonsense and vilification. There are plenty of relevantly-qualified scientists from reputable universities, who publish in peer-reviewed journals (creationist ones, seeing the secular ones won't accept them on the grounds that creationism is by definition not science).

Creationist journals are not qualified peer-reviewed journals. As I said, they are fringe elements, only constituting a tiny fraction of 1 percent of scientists; in fact, more like 1/10 of one percent or maybe even less.--Filll 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationist peer-reviewed journals are peer-reviewed journals, because they are peer-reviewed. The fact that they are a small minority (but likely much more than one percent) doesn't change that. Philip J. Rayment 02:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Having a few friends who believe the same thing as you review your paper is not peer-review. The question is, can the article stand up when reviewed by people who disagree with you? That is peer-review.--Filll 13:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

...like Gish who have long ago abandoned Science.

Do you have any admissions or evidence that they have abandoned science? No, you consider that they have abandoned science because they are creationists. So your argument is circular: Creationism is not science, so if you find scientists that are creationists, they must not be scientists, therefore creationism has no scientific support!

I only have to see what they have claimed in their own writings, including Mr. Gish who says that one cannot use science to investigate God. Ok fair enough...it is not science.--Filll 01:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a non-sequitur. Not being able to use science to investigate God does not mean that they have abandoned science. Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have heard such nonsense claims before, but they ignore the facts that (a) Christianity has brought enormous benefits to society (read Rodney Stark's works on that, for example) and (b) atheism has probably killed more people than other religions (see here). Of course you will claim that's not consistent with atheism, but I can make the same claim for Christianity. Philip J. Rayment 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to try to defend atheism, which you seem to want to get me to try to do. However, Hitler was not atheist and formed alliances with the Catholic Church, as is well known. He also followed a form of mysticism if I am not mistaken. Mao and Stalin were Communists, and many have claimed that Communism was a form of religion. Certainly this was what was claimed during the Cold War. And I am not discussing just Christianity, but all forms of religion which reject rationality. Do you deny that there are not millions of Muslims right now that want to slit your throat because you believe something different? Because if you want to deny that, I can certainly introduce you to a few Muslims that would disabuse you of that notion rather quickly. Religious hatreds over doctrinal differences have been around forever. Protestants and Catholics. Christians and Cathars. Christians and Gnostics. The Roman Empire decided on one religion to stop the rioting and trouble with different religions fighting. Inquisition. Shiite and Sunni. Crusades. Moslem and Ba'hai. Sunni and Sufi. Slavery. Everyone against the Sikhs. Jews being slaughtered over and over and over for millenia. Look at the Hindu fights with the Moslems. Buddhists and Hindus. Persecution of the Falun Gong (sp.). I have had plenty of religious people in my face screaming about how they want to kill me over who knows what over my life, so I know that religion and religious differences breeds hatreds and justifies the worst possible of human impulses. People who are convinced they are speaking for God and so therefore they are allowed or even ordered to kill me. Just insane. So..don't even try to go there and tell me about how wonderful religion has been for humans. As they say, it really takes religion to get a good person to do evil things.--Filll 01:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you to defend atheism. I'm trying to get you to realise that Christianity is not the ogre that you make it out to be. I'm not about to defend Islam, Hinduism, Humanism, or any other religions, but I will argue that atheism and its beliefs such as evolution has no more claim to the high moral ground than Christianity.

Mao and Stalin were communists, but they were also atheists, which is a worldview that excludes God, and on which basis they thought the way they did. And atheism is also a worldview, which is really a synonym for religion.

I'm not denying that followers of Christianity and people who claimed to be Christians have perpetrated crimes against humanity, but I am claiming that concentrating on those aspects and ignoring all the benefits from Christianity is to have a very biased view of it.

Philip J. Rayment 01:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not claim that Christians are ogres. I think people who believe in biblical inerrancy are dangerous and religious fundamentalists of all kinds are dangerous extremists and irrational. And I do not think that the rest of society should give in to their insanity. We had a time in western society when Christianity ruled all aspects of life. It was called the Dark Ages.--Filll 02:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not "ogres", but "dangerous extremists and irrational", and "insane". That's somehow better???? According to Rodney Stark, the Dark Ages are a myth (i.e. fictional).

Are you reading what I am writing or just confusing it on purpose for your own agenda? I am claiming that the fundamentalist right wing extremists who believe in bible inerrancy include dangerous irrational people in their midst. And so the Dark Ages are a myth? Wow that is sure news to a huge number of people I am sure.--Filll 13:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You're using HITLER as evidence of destruction caused by atheists. That's offensive and disgusting to me. I can't even believe that you would do something so abhorrent to someone like me. Is there no depth that you would take to prove your point. You have no credibility, and you are precisely what I thought you were. Orangemarlin 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm offended and disgusted by some of the things that you have said, but I prefer to reply with logical argument, not outrage. Philip J. Rayment 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not a bigot. I don't bring up one of the most disgusting characters to my people that has ever known as an example of what a Christian might or might not do. I'm appalled. And as for my disgusting and offending you--because I don't believe in the bible, your god(s), and your myths? Very open minded of you. Orangemarlin 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a bigot either. Your previous post (at 01:51 UTC) is evidence of the sorts of offensive things you have mentioned. Philip J. Rayment 02:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should understand the sensitivity we have towards Hitler before you make such offensive claims. And yes, there are some FACTUAL evidence of the crimes Christians have committed towards Jews specifically, but against the world in general. So have Germans. So have English. So have Americans I suppose. Maybe even a few Canadians. They are facts, that's all. I was countering your claim that atheists were the root of all evil. Can we end this particular trend in the discussion? This isn't getting us anywhere. But please understand, when you're arguing with a Jew, using Hitler as an example of anything but pure and utter evil is offensive. I'd accept Stalin as an example, mainly because he was an atheist, communist, and murderer against his own people more than anyone else. Orangemarlin 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection to what I think about Hitler; I wasn't praising him!

I wasn't claiming that atheists are the root of all evil; I was claiming that, at the very least, Christians are no worse than atheists, etc., and that to therefore attack Christians as somehow worse than "non-religious" people is unfair. Philip J. Rayment 10:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should I give scientific evidence when I've just explained that it is a historical claim, not a scientific one? And why should I provide evidence for a change in the laws of physics when I didn't claim that there was a claim, and no creationist that I know of has? Strawman again. Philip J. Rayment 00:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So where do rainbows come from?--Filll 02:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Refraction of light in raindrops. I thought you would have known that. Where do creationists claim a change in the laws of physics at the time of the Flood? Philip J. Rayment 10:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern history relies on scientific techniques, drawing on fields such as archaeology and anthropology and using the too from physics and chemistry and biology etc. Every creationist who buys into the story about the rainbow is claiming that physics changes. Or do you conveniently disbelieve that part of the story? And lots of other creationists deny physics over and over in radioactive dating and in Doppler shifts etc. Creationists hate reason. Creationists hate physics. Creationists hate science. I invite them over and over to give up the things they use in their everyday life that rely on scientific principles which they claim to reject. It is all BS, so why not gie it up? --Filll 01:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your opinion that this is history, but there is not any proof that it is so. Yes, that is my opinion, but I'm not trying to include that opinion in the article. My point is that this is an article about a claim about history (regardless of whether that claim is correct or not), not about science.

All the science we have shows that it is false. Period.--Filll

Since there is not a single credible piece of verifiable evidence that a worldwide flood existed, then it cannot be historical, because it did not happen. I disagree that there is no such evidence, but that is beside the point, because that is a claim about whether the historical claim is true or not. The Bible does not count as evidence. Do you dismiss the record of all ancient documents, or just the Bible? Philip J. Rayment 01:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The bible is fine as poetry. The bible is fine as literature. The bible is fine as a religious tome. The bible is not a science text. The bible is not a historical record of actual events as they actually happened (although there ae some historical events in it). The bible is not inerrant.--Filll 13:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have asked over and over for evidence, but none is forthcoming apparently. Wow I wonder why that is? -Give me data. Hard evidence. Measurements.-Filll 01:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the great things that Christianity has brought world:

• Pogroms against my people.
• The inquisition (hmmm, another example of anti-semetism that I'm detecting)
• Suppressing of science from about 300CE to 2006 CE.
• The Crusades
• The Troubles in Ireland
• Forcing of myth upon the education system (which will probably cause all of the above once again).

Orangemarlin 01:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Historians and sociologists (e.g. Rodney Stark) have written that it was Christianity that gave rise to science. It is untrue that Christianity suppressed science. I disagree with several other of your points also, but this is really off-topic for this page. Philip J. Rayment 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So why are they trying to suppress science now? Hmm...--Filll 13:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So how do you explain Muslim Science? And Greek Science? And Chinese science? Look that sort of thing is self-serving nonsense.--Filll 02:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

See here. Philip J. Rayment 10:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments above about Stalin and Mao really are inappropriate. Their regimes promoted a form of deification more in line with that of the early Roman emperors, and certainly cannot be associated with any form of free thinking society. Stalin persecuted evolutionary biologists, because evolution did not fit in with his world view, while Mao persecuted all intellectuals. We also have that creationist strategy of trying to associate Darwin with Hitler, very unjust given Darwin’s very progressive (for his age) views on issues such as slavery and racial equality. Trying to condemn evolution because of Hitler’s claimed misuse of certain aspects of the theory of natural selection makes as much sense as condemning automobiles because of Hitler’s support of autobahns and Volkswagens. --Michael Johnson 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The lack of free thought that were part of Stalin's and Mao's regime were closer to what we saw under the taliban, which is exactly the kind of society that the ultraconservative fundamentalist Christian bibliolaters in the US are pushing for.--Filll 13:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

If comments about Stalin and Mao are inappropriate, what about the similar comments about Christianity that started that aspect? If they can be discounted because they don't represent true atheism or a true understanding of evolution, why can't crimes committed by Christians be discounted for similar reasons? But by the same token, Sir Arthur Keith ('British anthropologist, an atheistic evolutionist and an anti-Nazi') said, "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."[9] Philip J. Rayment 10:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was also a vegetarian, a dog lover, against smoking, and a proponent of high speed rail travel with extreme width gauges. Does that then cast doubt on Brunel? What about modern day supporters of rail travel? I only comment because this "guilt by association" is a strategy of creationists in the south of the United States, where actual motions associating Darwin and evolution with the Holocaust have been placed in front of at least two southern US state legislative bodies (but fortunately in both cases amended to delete all references to Darwin and evolution). And yes it is unfair to associate "most" christians with the crimes of a few. --Michael Johnson 07:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is a typical strategy. Also, evolution is supposed to be the cause of unwed teenage mothers, and handgun crimes, and nigger unrest, and automobile accidents. They also claim that no one believes in evolution and that the majority of scientists disbelieve in evolution. And that it is "only" a theory. Of course, these are the same states where state legislatures have attempted to set the value of pi. In some of these same states, more than half of the grade school teachers are functionally illiterate. So...what do you expect?--Filll 13:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE stop?

Once again, I ask how can we resolve this dispute? There are maybe 4-6 people participating in this discussion, and we all have our corners. Filll and I are godless atheist scientists. Codex and Mr. Rayment are apologist christian fundamentalists. I have heard it all. I am asking, once again, based on the parameters that we set forth, is this article NPOV? Some of us think not (and very strongly I might add) and some think it is (very strongly once again). Does this get arbitrated, voted, or what? My fingers are wearing out discussing this issue over and over again (although Codex and Rayment are much smarter than some of the people who can only be described as trolls on the Evolution talk page--would prefer you two by a long long long margin, because I'd rather think than stomp trolls). I digress. Is there a consensus or compromise that will work? And can we not use this section to battle each other. Everytime you guys make a point, I'm not just going to sit here and not answer back. Orangemarlin 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I'm asking you to refrain from making assumptions about what my faith is, which I have kept private. I have never stated what my religion is, nor would I consider it appropriate to do so for this project. For that matter, I have never stated what my personal feelings are about the history of Noahs Ark is. It doesn't matter what any editors personal feelings are. Wikipedia is really quite simple, there are only two things that matter: What can be cited, and not taking sides. You are continuing to try to claim a consensus by somehow disqualifying the voices that disagree with your POV, but it doesn;'t work like that on Wikipedia. All significant positions should be cited, but none endorsed. WP:NPOV is perfectly clear on this point. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

First, I've not stated what your faith is, but I do know you seem to believe in this particular story. I lump you in with all the others that do, because, well, it makes sense to me. Second, I don't have any personal feelings except to make sure that Wikipedia's articles state fact-based information, not POV. I think that this article is POV. Third, and most importantly, you are lecturing me again that I'm some sort of daft cretin who cannot read. Unfortunately, MY interpretation of WP:NPOV differs than yours. Is it possible that two people read the same thing and come to completely different conclusions? I'm just asking because your paradigm doesn't include the possibility that you have misinterpreted the rules and regulations. Because I read the policy and I read this article, and it is pure POV. That's why we come to a consensus.Orangemarlin 03:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You have indeed stated several times that I am a "fundamentalist Christian" and other like terms. And what it "seems" to you that I believe should not even enter into this discussion. It may seem like I am lecturing you but WP:NPOV is absolutely precise and unambiguous, not open to every individual's interpretation, and also, you don't achieve consensus here by trying to disqualify the opposition (if I told you who that reminded me of, I would again be proving Godwin's Law...!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're advocating a complete rewrite, you could start a temp page here or on your talk page to begin such a rewrite. We could also go paragraph by paragraph discussing each and the various citations, in accordance with policy. Likely, the Intro would be a good place to start. JPotter 02:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not advocating a rewrite. I am, however, advocating that we categorize this article as mythology or, more definitively, as pseudoscience to give it a NPOV. If I rewrite, and we have the same battle above, well, you see that's a waste of time. Most of what is written herein is nonsense to me, but rather neutral. However, there are a few items that push it to the side of POV, especially describing scientific expeditions and the such. The "Ark under scrutiny" section ends in 1700. It should lay out the evidence that the flood, the ark, and the such are pseudoscience based on myth, and that would balance the telling of the myth that takes up most of the article. But I don't want to discuss it, because the same 5 or 6 people will chime in. How do we resolve this? Orangemarlin 02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a good question. I do not know. We should ask the little dog (killerchihuahua) to help us.--Filll 03:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'd like to try to act as a mediator here, if you all (Codex, Fill, Rayment, Orange) agree. JPotter 03:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How does this work?Orangemarlin 03:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Officially, you can go through the Dispute Resolution process, but usually they like to see a consensus gathering effort beforehand, which is what I'd like to try to accomplish, taking both sides and most importantly, Wikipedia policy, into consideration. JPotter 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree to it. Titanium Dragon 06:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about you, but as long as you continue to be as reasonable as you have been so far, I agree. Philip J. Rayment 11:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. In order to move forward, I'd like to establish some guidelines. First, be WP:CIVIL. Let's stop accusing each other of Christian and atheist atrocities. Let's focus on the improvement on the article and stay on topic here.

Orangemarlin has suggested that the article be categorized as mythology or pseudoscience based on some of the sections of the article that describe the searches for the Ark as an actual historical object. I don't believe that such categorization will help in the long run, and would rather edit the article to reflect that such searches, along with the beliefs that Noah's Ark is historical is based on an literal interpretation of Genesis, cite a solid, secondary source that states such, and and also provide another statement that says another view is that the Ark is ahistorical and provide references stating such. Anyone have comments regarding this approach? JPotter 03:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes... At long last, the voice of sanity! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It's what I've been suggesting all along. Orangemarlin 05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Jason Potter's plan. 65.73.80.45 04:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

The article is already catagorised as Abrahamic mythology (look at the banner at the bottom of the article). We discussed the pseudoscience question earleir and the general feeling was that it was inappropriate to apply this to an article about a religious topic. PiCo 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Abrahamic Mythology has one shortcoming when used as a descriptive “category” for this article. Abraham is not argued to have written the text covering the subject of the article. Perhaps we should have a new category. The “Missive Musing of Moses” category would be more accurate, but alas I am not immediately aware of a source for a category of that title, so perhaps accuracy will have to suffer for now. ffffff 05:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The missive musing of moses? Do you see how that would offend people? If I didn't assume good faith, this whole pseudoscience/mythology thread would appear to be the entertainment of a cackle of trolls. I see Orangemarlin in particular is running around wikipedia picking fights with those he considers loathsome, rightwing Christian terrorists by accusing those who do not agree with him of being a Christian fundementalist or some other personal attack. A man's religion is his business. And that Orangemarlin and fill follow each other around picking fights with those they deem Christian fundementalists, communicating with each other via talk pages and calling for each other's aid in battle on those same talk pages, is a form of sockpuppetry, clearly proovable if somebody would take the time to form a case against these two. 05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Consider the source.--Filll 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the scrambling amusing. Wiki’s highest goal is not accuracy but verifiability, which is a well conceived and “lettered” form of band-wagonlogy that has its inherent shortcomings. It might be true; it might not; maybe someday; maybe not. It is sorta like a mob that rushes around incapable of knowing truth but must receive their truth vicariously by relying on people who have received special honor in an institutional mutual admiration society. But hey, it’s the best we can come up with on our own. Not too shabby when actually followed. 71.100.172.27 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

While Pseudoscience describes many searches for the Ark, this article is about the Ark itself mostly. It is mythology, and is categorized as such, in the appropriate category (Abrahamic Mythology). According to the books on my shelf and my old mythology class, that's a common name for the mythology (I've also heard it called Judeo-Christian mythology, though that excludes the Ba'hai and Islam inappropriately). Titanium Dragon 06:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Arkeology Pseudoscience, and the Ark/Flood story mythology?

I would classify the searches and the arkeology as pseudoscience, and the story itself as legend or myth.--Filll 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You would, and I wouldn't... The scientific method allows anyone to come up with a hypothesis no matter how bizarre, and test for it. One example:

• HYPOTHESIS: If all mankind is descended from 8 people who survived a flood on an ark, then we should have expected to find similar accounts of this in the indigenous traditions of people in all parts of the globe, not just the Bible.
• RESULT: Yes, not only are there similar traditions as we would expect, but there are even independent traditions similar to "mankind spreading out after the fall of a tower" in many parts of the world.

But critics who want to dispute just keep repeating over and over "there is no evidence other than the Bible"...

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not qualify as evidence. There are flood myths throughout a number of cultures, mainly because catastrophic floods are a common geological event. There were a number of huge floods soon after the retreat of the glaciers. For example, the Prehistoric Lake Missoula caused huge floods from Montana, down the Columbia River gorge numerous times 10-12 thousand years BCE. This forms the basis of many flood myths of the Northwest native american tribes. Volcanic lahars created huge floods every time a volcano melts glaciers and snowpack. I could go on and on. But every flood myth has its basis. I'm even willing to admit that there is a geologic flood that forms the basis of Genesis, since there are two good candidates in the Middle East. Moreover, the oral and written traditions worldwide are not supported by geologic evidence. The Bible just describes one myth of many. And I won't even go into the details of the non-Christian basis of have so many legends and myths all over the worldOrangemarlin 17:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"This does not qualify as evidence. There are flood myths throughout a number of cultures, mainly because catastrophic floods are a common geological event." Your conclusion is based on the evidence of the stories or accounts and the logical evidence that they must have a common cause. You can't make a conclusion apart from the evidence (the somewhat common stories), and then maintain that the stories are no evidence, regardless of your conclusion. They are evidence. Of exactly what may be debatable, but they are evidence that can be cited to support various hypothesis.Katherin 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. What are these somewhat similar stories evidence of? And if it really, happened supernatural bits and all, why did God so perversely cover up all the evidence that this really happened? --Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You can make a conclusion, actually. Thing is, there'd be physical evidence of a flood of this magnitude, and it simply did not happen. The key trait of science is that it is falsifiable. Basically, this could have been science long ago; once we understood geology, biology, human migration patterns, DNA, and the like, the hypothesis "A global flood occured as set forth in genesis" was proven false. Anyone continuing to claim that it is real is engaging in pseudoscience if they claim their belief to be based in science (it isn't pseudoscience if they don't invoke science, but science has become the great truth-giver these days so it is used as an appeal to authority). Flood myths in some regions of the world do have common roots - the Jews stole theirs from other mesopotamian cultures, for instance. They aren't universal; they are quite common, though. The fact that new world flood myths exist indicate that either the flood myth archetype is more than 20,000 years old or that it arose indepedently in many cultures. Obviously, the latter is more plausible, though (theoretically) the former could be the cause (it is generally seen as highly unlikely though). It probably is similar to myths of dragons; they're present worldwide, but developed indepedently. Titanium Dragon 20:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Flood of Genesis was "proven false", then surely that means that the hypothesis was falsifiable? And if it is falsifiable, then the pseudoscience label doesn't apply. Much of the rest of your statement is conjecture, not fact. Philip J. Rayment 11:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If it was proven false, then it's done, it's no longer a hypothesis. Falsifiable means the potential of being proven false, that you allow the possibility. You do not allow the possibility that some god had some activity in all of this, no matter how much proof. That's faith. It's pseudoscience because despite all of the evidence to the contrary, there continues to be "scientific" claims on the existence of the flood. Orangemarlin 17:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusions can be made because the existence of common stories is evidence, but any conclusion is mostly speculative to date. The Ahora Covenant Inscription is one ancient tablet among others on the mountain that should be recovered and scientifically scrutinized. If scientists are going to play “trump the historian” because our research shows there was no Flood, then those scientists should have no objection to others using scientific methods to investigate tablets on the mountain, of any other things they may find there. Actually it is the government of Turkey that is primarily obligated to extend permissions without prejudice or partiality to investigate ancient objects that have already been shown to exist on the mountain, even if the Quran doesn’t record anything significant on the mountain of Ararat.Katherin 04:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I looked at the Ahora Covenant Inscription. Of course there is no problem with securing ancient writings and deciphering them. Who is stopping you? (aside from politics etc). I am not stopping you. I am sure that except for people nervous about politics, no one else is either.--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the existence of common stories is evidence for something, but it isn't a global flood. A global flood is readily disproven by evidence all over the world - geology, biology, physics, and chemistry each can individually falsify a flood ever occuring. Basically, if you were looking up there, you might find a fake, but you won't find a boat which got there via floating on water. Titanium Dragon 10:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that no matter how much evidence is produced, your answer is always going to be "this does not qualify as evidence". I didn't expect you to say anything else. (I'm surprised you didn't even address the tower legends around the world that go hand in hand with the flood stories, you just dismissed them outright with a wave of the hand and said "not evidence". It was actually only offered as an example of the scientific method of testing for a hypothesis...) And some are always going to agree, and skeptics are going to disagree, no matter what the evidence... So the only thing that can be said, again, is that it is a matter of dispute. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. If you can find a way to show that all the dating methods are wrong, and that actually there was a worldwide flood with debris all dated to the same age, I will be glad to entertain the suggestion. I am sure many others would as well. People are not rejecting it because we are atheists or satanists or hate the bible or some other nonsense. We are sceptical because 'it does not make any sense.--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And I suspect that no matter how much evidence is produced, your answer is always going to be "this does not qualify as evidence." I'm probably more open minded that you claim I am. And it is not a matter of scientific dispute--it is a matter of faith. Do you believe in the Genesis description of the world? If you do, then no matter what I say, you're going to look for the supernatural answer. I don't, so I'll accept what I am confident fits the geologic evidence, because I think everything can be explained with science. The only "mysteries" in the world are those that we have not studied and discovered the answers. Orangemarlin 18:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that is a matter of faith. Including faith in science ("I think everything can be explained with science"). But you are wrong that creationists always look for a supernatural answer. Unlike atheists, they are open to both natural and supernatural answers, which indicates that I have more of an open mind than you. Philip J. Rayment 11:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about atheists, especially since this morning I haven't finished my coffee, sacrificed a Christian at the stake and then head off to the Atheists Society meeting, but utilizing the supernatural to explain anything is both intellectually and logically lazy. Science does not require faith. It requires a process of hypothesis, reasoning, testing, deduction and conclusion. I do not read every single scientific journal in the world, but in the areas that I do, I'm certain that the science I use works. When someone comes to me with heart disease, it isn't prayer and a supernatural power that cures him, I cure him with the greatest knowledge and technology that is available to me. When it comes to the flood myth, the greatest knowledge and technology conclusively points to the fact that it never happened. So, I'll mention that when I am at the next Atheists Society meeting when we discuss how we're going to destroy Christianity and end the celebration of Christmas. OK, I never celebrated Christmas, but that's not the point. Orangemarlin 17:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Once you say it is a matter of faith, you are not dealing with history or science any more, but myth, legend, religion, pseudoscience or pseudohistory. Sorry. Who the heck believes the Genesis history of the world, aside from being an allegory or piece of poetry of an ancient people trying to explain the world around them? IT IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENT. You can cannot claim to be doing science when >95% of scientists and the court systems and every major scientific society disagrees with you. Of course people believe that science can explain the world around them. It has done a fairly good job so far. Will there be things that science cannot explain? Possibly, but once you go outside the natural world to the supernatural for explanations, it is not science any more. You are in the world of religion, not science. Sorry. And lots of scientists are not atheists (most probably). However, to do REAL science instead of crap, they cannot short circuit the process by introducing supernatural causes. Introducing the supernatural is like a kid who cheats on his homework to get the right answer. I will even admit that the supernatural might exist, however, our evidence for it is very very thin to the point of being nonexistent.--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is only a matter of dispute in the same sense that Evolution is disputed - fundamentalist Christians (and Muslims and some small number of Jews) fight against it, but the scientific consensus on the issue is absolute. The flood did not happen according to Genesis according to all avaliable evidence. Titanium Dragon 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is not absolute. There is a small minority (but still thousands) of scientists who disagree, and they disagree that the evidence shows that the flood did not happen. Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a couple of thousand scientists who are not specialists in geology or biology believe that a worldwide flood happened. But millions believe that it did not. So...--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that scientism does not have the monopoly it claims on human philosophy. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are making that claim, not us. Never once has any scientist said, "your faith is wrong." It says, here are the facts, here is the science, here are the conclusions. Do not force your faith on others, that's all. Back to this article, it reads like a religious text with no contravening information. It relies on pseudoscience and mythology. Orangemarlin 17:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does not have any monopoly. You can study things from a religious or mythological aspect. You can use pseudoscientific reasoning. You can decree things true by faith. I have no problem with these. They just are not science and should not be represented as such.--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not really true; it actually does have the monopoly it claims. The reason is that it is an inherently stronger reasoning system than previous systems, and it creates itself via tautology. Its testability also makes it a lot stronger. This has been more or less conceded; note the rise of pseudoscience, including stuff like creation science and intelligent design. Titanium Dragon 10:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Really! TD, would you mind please telling me on precisely what calendar date (day, month, year) scientism acquired this monopoly on human thought? I must have been sleeping that day, for I distinctly fail to recall ever signing over my right to think or believe anything that is at odds with scientism. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a precise date; it was a gradual transition which started in the 1700s. Look at those pushing biblical literalism; they attempt to claim that their "science" contradicts that which is accepted. I don't know when it started, but nowadays, when people make some stupid statement, they try and back it up using "scientific evidence". However, that is neither here nor there, and this is wandering off-topic. Titanium Dragon 22:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Science is a great tool for studying things. But to do science you need to be able to measure, observe, and do repeat experiments. You can't measure, observe, and experiment on things that only existed in the past, so science is not a great tool for determining history (although it can help a bit). It has its place, but it's not the answer to everything. Philip J. Rayment 11:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a common misconception; it actually is the best tool for it. Look at carbon dating, genetic analysis (which is one of our best tools for looking at the history of living things), structured archeological digs, theories of migration and human dispersion, and the like. You can measure, observe, and experiment on things which existed in the past because they exist through to the present. Moreover, you can replicate prior conditions and perform an experiment on those conditions and see what the outcome is - for instance, the guy who proved you could sail across the Pacific in very primitive boats. Titanium Dragon 22:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Science is just a method for finding things out. But if a person chooses not to use those methods, then they cannot claim to be doing science. It is that simple.--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a look at some of these claims:

• science does not admit supernatural causes
  • magical appearance and disappearance of extra water
  • no geological trace of the flood
  • laws of physics change to create rainbows
  • communications with supernatural issuing warning
• lack of falsifiability means these are pseudoscience, not science
  • there is no evidence or lack of evidence or test that will ever disprove the stories to a true believer; the stories are true by definition
• inability and unwillingness to explain in a convincing way any inconsistencies means it is closer to myth and the study to pseudoscience
  • infeasibility of boat
  • infeasibility of transporting animals
  • infeasibility of housing animals
  • lack of geologic evidence
  • sources and sinks of water

Yes there are similarities in different flood traditions. This does not mean that the flood story is true, or that the details are correct. So the evidence is in ancient documents that disagree with all the science that we know. You are allowed to make hypotheses, but just making hypotheses does not make it science. For example, think about what distinguishes astrology from science, or alchemy from science, or witchcraft from science. Look up definitions of science or legal definitions of science used in US courts. This is not difficult, unless you have a particular answer you are desperate to get at all costs, and are willing to throw rationality and reason to the wind. However, you sound more and more like someone who has "a particular answer you are desperate to get at all costs, and are willing to throw rationality and reason to the wind."

I could also mention the inherent "age of the earth" and "evolution" problems that are woven into the Flood stories. However, I think this is enough to demonstrate that the Flood story, at least as a global flood, with one man rescuing every creature on earth, is closer to myth than history. And anyone who wants to study this myth in the face of ALL THE EVIDENCE that it is not a historical event, is performing pseudoscience. What is wrong with that?--Filll 16:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with that is that several of your claims are disputed (thus it is your POV), straw men, etc. Philip J. Rayment 11:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What claims are disputed?--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

“And anyone who wants to study this myth in the face of ALL THE EVIDENCE that it is not a historical event, is performing pseudoscience. What is wrong with that?"

That is an untenable position, on several accounts. Among them, to exclude scientific investigation simply because the preponderance of accepted evidence suggests it would be unfruitful to proceed is simply not in the spirit of science and knowledge.

It was a well know scientific fact that it was physically impossible for an object to exceed the speed of sound due to the hyperbolic increase of parasitic drag approaching the sound barrier. If no one was allowed to scientifically test the impossible then the world would be a different place.

There is a text written to such specificity that a structure of a published size and location can be scientifically found, if it exists as described.

If a structure of that size and locale is found, it would not prove the text which described it, as some fear and some are accused of hoping. That is a backward argument. It would be the text that proved it, by explaining the object's location and size which would be unknown and which purpose would be uncertain apart from the account. Though it is always possible to conduct scientific investigation (when Turkey allows it) it has often been done unscientifically, but it does not follow that all investigation, current or future, into the subject are by definition therefore pseudo-science. To argue so is to deny the freedom of scientists and their purpose to increase knowledge for the use of all, scientifically.Katherin 20:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do I say it is pseudoscience? Because if one insists on the supernatural, it is no longer science. If a structure of that size and locale were found with some appropriate date, then one would still be left with a very complicated puzzle. What does one do with all the rest of the lack of evidence? The rest of the flood story that does not match other things we know?--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, scintific investigation into things such as this are, generally, intristically flawed. For instance, the hypothesis "Noah's Ark is on mountain X" can be disproved quite simply; we know it had no way of getting up there, so the only object we'd find up there is a fake carried/built up there. Its just as readily falsified as "the Sun orbits the Earth" or "the moon does not rotate". Titanium Dragon 20:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You may not be able to think of a way of it getting up there, but that doesn't mean that there was no way. Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

“we know it had no way of getting up there” Your reasoning makes far too many leaps. A scientific expedition does not depend on a means by which the object arrived at that location. The means by which a structure arrived where it did is a secondary question that can and must be investigated subsequent to any scientific discovery of the recorded structure. As you point out your conclusion would be that it was carried up by some means other than a flood. The consideration of that proposition is premature.

I think his assumption is based upon science. There isn't enough water on the planet to lift a boat up to 3-4000m. If there isn't enough water, then it cannot be done by means described in the Flood mythology. That is science. If you believe that there is sufficient water because some supernatural being could put the water on earth to do so, then this discussion is going to hit an end point. Orangemarlin 21:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a strawman argument. Creationists do not claim that "some supernatural being" specially added water for the flood. Please do your research before criticising an idea that you clearly know little about. Philip J. Rayment 11:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok if the water had no supernatural origin, where did it come from? where did it go? Where did the geologic evidence for the flood go? Are you denying the biblical account?--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The scientific search for a structure of described location and dimension cannot be limited by the context of the disputed means available or not available by which an alleged structure could have arrived at the location. The means of arrival is a secondary or tangential question as Titanium Dragon so eloquently demonstrated. The very fact that he is prepared to answer that possible question showed that it is a distinct question apart from whether or not it exists at its described location according to its described dimensions.FFFFF 23:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it can be. If an object cannot exist, then it won't exist, and searching for it isn't scientific. The Ark is a feature of a disproven theory; we know the Flood did not occur, so any Ark we find must be explained via other means (namely, that it is a hoax or isn't actually an Ark, which explains 100% of the purported "Arks" we've found). Searching for stuff like black holes and the higgs boson are scientific as finding them validates (and not finding the invalidates) certain theories. Actively searching for the Ark is not scientific because the Ark, as presented in Genesis, does not exist because the Flood it was purportedly built for simply did not exist - the Great Deluge theory was falsified about two hundred years ago. Basically, to sum it up, where in the scientific process does searching for the Ark go? Nowhere, that's where. The theory (the Great Deluge) has been falsified, so there's no reason to go searching for it. Titanium Dragon 11:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But there are many people, including some scientists and other intelligent people, who disagree that the evidence shows that the flood did not exist. So the idea that the flood did not exist is a POV, not a given. Philip J. Rayment 11:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Why? Because they don't produce papers backing it up in peer-reviewed journals. The reason is that it is obvious that it did not happen - there are literally thousands, if not millions of pieces of evidence showing that the flood did not ever occur. Scientists are not necessarily particularly intelligent, but getting papers published requires the paper to be worth publishing and to have good enough results to get it published. That is why it isn't in the history of the geology of the Earth. Wikipedia does not have to lend equal credence to all arguments; what it has to do is report from a neutral point of view. There's a huge difference between the two. In any event, I think we all agree that this article should not be concerned primiarly with the pseudoscientific/creationist claims that Noah's Ark existed or the flood occured, but rather be concerned with the mythological object itself - compared to the myth, the pseudoscientific claims are nowhere near as important and to emphasize them would be to give undue weight. I'm not even sure why this argument is occurring. Titanium Dragon 22:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There are many people who disagree that magic does not exist, or fairies, or dragons, or bigfoot, or UFOs, or alien abductions, or the loch ness monster, or ghosts, or witches, or demons, or angels, or astrology, or alchemy, or homeopathic cures, or feng shui, or...However, they are closer to myth than reality, and their study is closer to pseudoscience, not science.--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is agreed that many scientists would not spend any time or money on a scientific endeavor related to the subject. I have no problem following your line of reasoning that is based on widely accepted beliefs regarding the scientifically investigated propositions of men with letters in their title.

Many scientists accepted that the sound barrier was truly impossible to exceed. Was it pseudo-science to investigate the possibility of exceeding the sound barrier? Of anecdotal interest, our aerodynamics also proved for years that bumble bees cannot fly.

Your sound barrier example is probably a good one to show how science works. It was unknown whether we could fly faster than the sound barrier. Some (and very few actually) hypothesized that we could not. Most hypothesized that it was possible. The theory was tested, and those who said we could not said, oh well, our theory was wrong. The Theories of Evolution, and Geology and whatever else have been tested over and over again. Every one of us says claims that Evolution is falsifiable. Trying to prove that a flood existed is difficult, since it's a negative hypothesis. The right hypothesis is There was a cataclysmic flood 7000 years ago (or whatever). We can falsify that hypothesis quickly. Therefore, right now, in lieu of data, that hypothesis fails. Orangemarlin 21:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So you also agree that the Flood idea is falsifiable? Good. That's a requirement for it to be science, isn't it? Philip J. Rayment 11:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No. I agree that the flood is false, it's been proven false, and it never existed. Once it was proven false, it's no longer science. You are trying to twist the argument, and I'm a bit too smart for that. It might work with the others, but don't insult me. Orangemarlin 17:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I get it. I get it. You happen to be of the camp that thinks the Flood never happened. I get it. There are lots of sources that confidently proclaim it didn’t happen. I get it. If any of those scientist are being compelled against their will to participate in a scientific investigation they don’t want to be a part of then lets call the police. Because the laws of aerodynamics clearly proved it to be impossible to break the sound barrier and dangerous to try, no one was compelled to participate in attempts to do so. If another group of scientists are petitioning Turkey to obtain permits to investigate a certain location to see if they find a structure according to some described dimensions and are happy to leave it to other scientists to debate how it arrived there then why would Turkey, or any of us, deny them the freedom to do so, and then offer our scrutiny of their process should they find something? Gee whiz. No one is asking we all hold our breath while we wait. That would be too dangerous. Hey, wish them luck. “Break a leg!” “Wear your mittens!” “Take your down hill skis so it ain’t a complete waste.” Be creative in your valedictions. FFFFF 23:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Once a person rejects all the evidence against a worldwide flood, and insists on a supernatural influence someplace, it is no longer science. By definition. It is something else, but not science.--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not a camp. Its "the Great Deluge never happened according to all available evidence". That's the consensus of all RSs on Earth history. In any event, you don't understand the whole "sound barrier" thing. The sound barrier was somemthing that some people thought existed; the reason was that they didn't understand aerodynamics properly. So it was tested and lo and behold, while travelling at supersonic speeds is hard on objects (a lot of things will actually fall apart at supersonic velocities because it puts a lot of stress on the object due to the air flowing around it) it is quite possible to travel supersonicly. There was no reason to believe it was impossible empirically - natural things on the planet Earth don't regularly travel faster than the speed of sound, so there's nothing to look at. In the case of the flood, people looked at the world and said "Oh, this could never have happened due to X, Y, and Z". The existing hypothesis was "the Great Deluge occurred", and that hypothesis was falsified, EXACTLY the same way as the "sound barrier" was falsified. You're portraying yourself on the wrong side. Your hypothesis was falsified 200 years ago; its equivalent to claiming the Earth is flat, that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that Newton's Laws are correct. It has been disproven that well. Titanium Dragon 11:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And of course anybody that says otherwise is a creationist and therefore by definition not a reliable source, I suppose? Philip J. Rayment 11:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Creationists have a bad habit of rejecting the evidence in front of them and having nonfalsifiable hypotheses and insisting in supernatural intervention to explain their data. At that point, it is no longer science.--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

TD, an expedition searching for a structure is not proving a flood, as you seem to keep confusing. I don't know why since you have already demonstrated that the question of the presence of a structure on a mountain is a distinct question from how a structure arrived on a mountain. There are those who have agreed that there is a structure who flatly deny the possibility that it got there by a flood. At any rate, just because someone is prejudiced against the possibility of a structure it is not reasonable to deny the freedom of someone to search, or to deny that a search can be done in a scientific manner. If they find something then everyone must be equally free to scientifically investigate and give their own explanation of its existance. Allowing scientists to revisit various aspects of what is impossible according to the “group” is exactly in keeping with the traditions of science (as freedom was allowed to researchers to attempt to break the sound barrier regardless of settled proofs of aerodynamic law that already showed it was not possible). Excluding research just because one disagrees with someone’s alleged reasoning that brings them to research, is nothing but prejudice (both against their freedom to explain their own reasoning for a search, which may or may not be dependant on a Flood theory as you accuse, and against their right to conduct research freely like any other scientist.71.100.172.27 13:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I could spend my time trying to prove that ghosts exist. If I insist on supernatural things like ghosts and refuse to ever give up inspite of having no evidence that they exist, aside from ghost stories, it is not a falsifiable hypotheses for me. I am not following the evidence as one has to do in science. It might be a worthwhile pursuit, it might be exciting, it might even yield a success. However, it would not be science.--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It remains that one cannot shamelessly deny scientific investigation, or classify scientific investigation as pseudo-science, simply because one has accepted other propositions that prejudice them against further study in related areas. The scientific method is for everyone (and there are rules they must and can follow regardless), otherwise groupthink rules.Katherin 21:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There are rules for what is science and what is pseudoscience, accepted by the courts, accepted by the dictionaries, and encylopediae, and the major scientific bodies. And that is what we should accept too.--Filll 15:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not mind if someone wants to have an expedition or two. Let them spend their money. I think it could be better spent, but fine. But if the idea is to find evidence of the supernatural, then I think we are no longer dealing with science. Period. Religion? fine. Science? no. Might you find evidence that shows all science is #$%^ and we should throw all the science we know in the crapper? I suppose anything is possible, but I would not hold my breath. But go ahead and try.--Filll 07:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The predictable and inducible inability to acknowledge freedom to scientists is telling. FFFFF 23:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone could accuse Codex of following the group :).PiCo 06:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Might there have been a flood or two that these stories are based on? Sure. Is it likely that it was a worldwide flood? I would say that the chance is essentially zero of a worldwide flood of that magnitude. Why? No geological record of such a flood, sorry. So if you say that there was a minor flood in a valley, then sure it might have happened. It could not have been a worldwide flood unless some supernatural force removed the traces of the flood from the record and removed the water from the earth. And if you believe a lot of the other supernatural details in the story like a change in the laws of physics to create rainbows and magically transporting the animals around and a supernatural warning etc, then by the time you throw all that other stuff in there, you have passed out of the realm of science. It is that simple. How could you deny that?--Filll 06:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll, this article is about the Ark, not the Flood. If you want to irritate people with these thoughts, go do it there. PiCo 09:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You are still spouting that nonsense about changes to the laws of physics, etc., but have not backed them up. You haven't said what evidence you'd expect. I'd expect, for a start, lots of evidence of sedimentation. Guess what? There is massive amounts of sedimentary rock on the Earth. There's some evidence right there (not enough just in that for proof, mind you, but it is evidence nevertheless). Now, please remember that I said that creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence, but it is how it is interpreted that is disputed. This is an example. So it is not true that there is no evidence; there is plenty, but you interpret it differently to me. Philip J. Rayment 11:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought the Ark was an important part of the Flood story. What am I bothering you with? INCONVENIENT TRUTHS?--Filll 14:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If the Noah's Ark story were true

Since somehow my fine friends seem to not be able to understand clearly what I am writing, let me try another tack. If the Noah's Ark story were true, here are the kinds of things I would expect to be true:

• Evidence of a worldwide layer of mud and debris that all could be dated to the same age using hundreds of different dating techniques; many many types of radioactive dating, racemic acid dating, stratigraphy, remnant magnetization, luminosity, etc, tree rings, ice cores, benthic sedminents.
• Some nonsupernatural plausible explanation for where the water came from and where it went. Existence of the fountains of the deep as sources of water. If you want a supernatural explanation like a miracle, immediately you are not in science anymore And every major dictionary and major science society and US court backs me up on this.
• Some way in which the animals could be collected from all corners of the earth and returned.
• some way that all the animals of the earth could be plausibly housed and cared for
• The date for mitochondrial eve (about 150 Ky b.p.) to be the same as the date for the flood
• some evidence that evolution speeded up drastically after the flood to produce the fauna and flora we see
• some explanation for how the plant life was saved
• some explanation for how the fresh water and salt water fish were saved
• Some explanation for what happened to the ice caps and glaciers during the flood
• either a discarding of that rainbow story, or some evidence that it is true. If the laws of physics for the universe changed in an instant, surely we would see evidence of something strange in light arriving at the earth from before and after that big change.
• Many dead bodies of humans, all dated to the same age, in that sedminentary layer
• evidence of some immense worldwide civilizations that were all wiped out at the same time
• super fast growing olive trees that somehow survived the flood to allow the dove to return with an olive branch

I could go on and on and on. This is the kind of evidence I am talking about. So my fine friends, where is it?--Filll 14:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Valiant effort FILLL but there are two things you have overlooked. The presumption that all scientist searching the mountain for structures believe in the Abrahamic Myth, as some like to put it, or that they are attempting to “prove” the “Myth”is false. There are scientists who believe there is a structure there and are greatly opposed to the “Myth”. But that is beside the point. To deny that research may freely occur (or to “generously” allow one or two searches) based on a prejudiced rejection of someone’s presumed motive is truly “unscientific”.

But since you are eager to evaluate evidence “proving” the Flood “story”, is it your contention then that a structure of 300x50x30 cubits at the location described should also be included in your list of required evidence? Frankly the discovery of a structure of that size filled with DNA evidence from a multitude of animals would not be a scientific “proof” of the historical record. Any historian who has written about the type and location of artifacts before they are recovered by scientists of later generations has already explained what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.172.27 (talk) 9:48 30 December 2006

Two things I overlooked? I could make a list of hundreds and hundreds of things with enough time and effort. Of course some people look for the Ark for adventure. Some do not believe in the story at all. So what? It does not prove it is science. I do not presume that all people looking for the ark believe the ark story. Why should I? Any rational reasonable person would be insane to believe such a stupid story in the face of all the contrary evidence. I do not deny that research can occur. I do not limit it to one or two searcheds. Make 10,000 searches for all I care. Make 10,000,000. Make 10,000,000,000,000 searches. I do not care. They are not scientific particularly, or based on scientific information or the scientific method, but go ahead. I DO NOT GIVE A CRAP. Why would you think I would? Seems an extreme position to assume that I would. I think that a structure of the right size, shape, composition, age etc at the appropriate location would be interesting, but not necessary or conclusive of anything, frankly. I will point out that there is no such thing as proof in science, only in mathematics, so by using the word proof you are already stepping in quicksand. And who needs to read meaningless statement like the following:

Any historian who has written about the type and location of artifacts before they are recovered by scientists of later generations has already explained what they are.--Filll 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you want your stories and studies to be science, not pseudoscience, you have to allow tests which if your story fails, allows the story to be discarded. If you do not do this, your story fails the falsifiability test used by US courts and philosophy of science, and your story and searches etc are pseudoscience. PERIOD.--Filll 14:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice critque Filll, this in its entirety seems to fall under the category of psuedohistory. The closest thing we could get to it is a glacial megaflood, but even then that would only cover a few hundred or thousand square miles. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 14:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not care what you decide is pseudoscience and what part is pseudohistory and what part is myth or legend. This is all nomenclature really. What I object to is calling the search for the Ark real science, and calling arkeology real science, and Noah's ark and the flood story real history and factual.--Filll 14:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Broken Link or vandelism?

The article concludes with:

The arkologists continued to be literalist Christians

An incomplete sentence, and the link to arkologists does not exist. Could somebody fix this? I couldn't figure out when it was broken. 65.73.80.45 05:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Why do you not write a new article on arkeology vacuous poet? Instead of only attacking editors and disrupting, actually write something.--Filll 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject in this case. However, I do know it is a sentence fragment and the link is broken. Is such constructive criticism proofreading unwelcome? I should hope not. I was sort of hoping that somebody familiar with the article would appreciate the note and fix it. 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

What happens after a while vacuous poet, is you make a name for yourself. For good or for ill. And you have made one for yourself. Why not write an article? Learn about the topic if you want to write it. I have written probably 100 articles here. I am not an expert in all of them. So learn and then write.--Filll 15:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I might take your suggestion. Meanwhile, is proofreading unwelcome? 16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Proofreading is not unwelcome. Titanium Dragon 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Vacuous Poet, it was neither a broken link nor vandalism (note spelling): it was where I broke for lunch. I'm in the middle of revising that section (Searches for the Ark or whatever it's called), and doing about a paragraph a day (I have better tghings to do at Christmas). PiCo 02:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, binding arbitration is required

This same identical debate has reared its ugly head so often for the past 3 years, that I fear binding arbitration should be required to determine if we as a project are going to distinguish between the living, significant religions and dead mythologies, like other major encyclopedias, or if we are going to lump them all in together as "mythology" like a propaganda tool. There is a continual and persistent effort of a few editors to label the Old Testament, and the scriptures of various and select other world religions, as "mythology" - despite the fact that many find this term offensive and would rather see a more neutral-sounding term in its place. The history of the word "mythology" amply proves that aside from describing dead religions, it is also used to attack living religions. They will not listen to any number of other editors who plead with them to be more reasonable; they are convinced that no perspective other than their own could be "neutral", and are uninterested in compromise, and are seemingly incapable of seeing beyond the end of their noses and realizing that different belief systems exist other than their own.

WIKIPEDIA MUST REMAIN NEUTRAL ON THE SUBJECT OF RELIGION AND STRICTLY REPORT ON WHAT PEOPLE TODAY ACTUALLY DO BELIEVE, NOT TRY TO "INFLUENCE" THEIR BELIEFS IN VIOLATION OF EVERY POLICY -- as the very userpages of "TeapotGeorge" and other editors make clear they wish to do, throwing their own neutrality and impartiality right out the window with personal templates blatantly calling for the demise of all religion. Many are those who would hijack the project and make it attack one set of beliefs while endorsing someone else's set of beliefs; some editors are bold enough to state that this is their goal on their own userpages, and should not be believed when they say they are "neutral". PLEASE let us take this to arb-com. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that you seem to be judging other peoples edits based on their world view, and not on the quality of the edit. If this is a three year issue, have you considered that the problem might be on your end? Either a suggested edit should be made, or it shouldn't, and that should be independent of the person suggesting it. You demand neutrality, but seek to distinguish between sets of articles based on your own or other peoples beliefs. There is no dispute that the word mythology is correct and proper, and yet you claim personal offence and seek to censor it's usage here. Can censorship based on personal offence be justified using Wikipedia's policies? I doubt it. Ben (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not "personal" offense; it is simply offense to major significant worldviews. Voltaire was one of the first, in his attacks on the Church, to declare that the Bible was "mythology"; Robespierre enforced this viewpoint during the Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution. Despite their best efforts, the word of the Bible still represents a significant viewpoint today for many faiths, just as do the Quran, Book of Mormon, etc. How can it possibly be "neutral" for wikipedia to enforce the same thing that the French Revolution and the Communists did? This is pure foolishness. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, Voltaire's FREE legacy ....? Ben (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us a reference or two on how the word is of "offense to major significant worldviews"? As far as I can see it can only be of offense to literal biblical creationists who don't know what "mythology" means (the definition has been stated time and time again and is in the myth box). I'll remind you that it is VERY MUCH wikipedia policy to not censor and that "argument ad populum" is a fallacious (nonsense) argument. That's what you're asking for (e.g. don't say this because it offends me). Your views on this are very much a NICHE view. NathanLee (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's already been determined that wikipedia must treat all religions equally, living and dead. It would be dishonest, impractical and illogical to treat them otherwise. Someone following something doesn't change the characteristics of the stories. Given this story is one of hundreds if not thousands of flood stories: why should it be treated differently just because you say so. NathanLee (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

One final point: Til Eulenspiegel, you don't even KNOW WHAT MYTHOLOGY MEANS. From your comments above you defined it as meaning the same as "dead religion" or some word which magically destroys faith which it is not under any definition I can find. Certainly doesn't match what the word means in academic, dictionary, media and encyclopaedic terms. NathanLee (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with everything you've just said and find it to be your own perspective and pov, not any actual policy; and I believe the opposing position has been made abundantly clear and shown to be rooted in NPOV policy - with plenty of quotes readily available from lots of historical (yet POV) sources utilising the very same offensive term ("mythology") specifically to attack and suppress living religions. So, because this 3-year debate shown no signs of conclusion, I am going to open up a medcab case some time in the near future as a preliminary to the arbitration process. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you show somewhere reliable that treats mythology as per your definition? The earlier "the pope said so" turned out false (as per my evidence below). So tell me, where is this "significant worldview" that the term "christian mythology" cannot exist? I've shown that the pope doesn't give a toss, that the article states a literal approach was abandoned a century ago (with references).. And you've got what exactly? Your own POV and a few other similarly un-referenced lackies on here that also just know where the revert button is. So please, where's the definition, evidence or something other than "because I say so". It only shows no conclusion because 3 years and it still hasn't penetrated your head, or else you've sustained ignorance of basic definitions choosing instead to keep edit warring over your POV (with no references). Without evidence your side of the argument is pure niche personal POV. NathanLee (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're attacking a strawman, because I have never taken the position that "Christian mythology" cannot exist. My position has only been that "mythology" does not include any part of any living religion's sacred scriptures. We can't state that the Quran is myth either - let readers decide what definition to use for it. Of course there is plenty of indisputable "Christian mythology", but it is concerned with extra-Biblical legends, such as mostly what is in that category now, eg Sword of Saint Peter etc. We have no authority on behalf of any Church to declare a book like Genesis "uncanonical", when to date not even one Church has, as far as I know - they all describe it as "canonical" and their position that it is not "mythology" should be clear. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"mythology" does not include any part of any living religion's sacred scriptures.

That's absurd. I'd like to see a decent reference that provides this exclusion. Until you can do so, your position should not influence this article. Ben (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, why don't you try looking up the topic "mythology" in any mainstream encyclopedia??? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What? Like Britannica? [10] "a symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or objects (temples, icons). As with all religious symbolism, there is no attempt to justify mythic narratives or even to render them plausible. Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience. By extension from this primary religious meaning, the word myth may also be used more loosely to refer to an ideological belief when that belief is the object of a quasi-religious faith" Gee.. Sounds like it doesn't mean what you think it means. Care to provide a mainstream encyclopaedic reference to back up your *cough*made up*cough* definition. NathanLee (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, why don't you ... - Til Eulenspiegel.

Er, why don't you provide the reference, instead of asking others to find them for you? Ben (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And if you keep reading the EB article, does it discuss any living religions' scriptures as "mythology", or does it restrict itself to discussing what are mostly former religions of the past that virtually no-one today believes in or takes seriously?

You don't have far to go to find a plethora of views showing how duplicitous a term it is. Try here for starters, you get a whole buch all on one page: http://www.answers.com/topic/myth Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's obvious now that you can't provide any references to back your position, or else you would have stopped blindly pointing in random directions for us to look and simply provided some. To completely bury your argument though, I have this from a separate EB article (look up creation myth, I don't have a link sorry), Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis .. Ben (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Is that the best you can come up with when I give you a link? Blindly pretend that I haven't provided any references? Here it is again: http://www.answers.com/topic/myth It has everything you're looking for, including several RSS that say it implies falsehood, several that give no other meaning, a prominent quote saying "mythology means a religion that nobody believes in anymore", and finally, a wikipedia article stating: "A myth in popular use is something that is widely believed to be false. This usage, which is often pejorative, arose from labeling the religious myths and beliefs of other cultures as being incorrect, but it has spread to cover non-religious beliefs as well. Because of this usage, many people take offense when the religious narratives they believe to be true are called myths", There you have it from wikipedia - "many people take offense" - yet now you try to imply I am the only one, resorting to an ad hominem type of argument against one editor. Actually many editors beside myself have agreed that it is offensive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provided any references, you quoted from a Wikipedia article that talks about common usage in instances like "urban myth". Did you miss the quote I gave above that says we're not supposed to use the common meaning? And how does your Wikipedia quote back up your claim that mythology and 'live' religions are mutually exclusive? Finally, as if Wikipedia is a reliable source. To that end, I've picked up a book on mythology here and I have another quote for you that directly addresses your claim: "Most readers would not be surprised to find that the biblical stories of creation and Eden are often considered mythological" - Mythology: Myths, Legends, & Fantasies, Janet Parker (Editor), ISBN: 0785817905, pg. 330. Stop playing the victim (where was the ad hominem by the way?), and stop wasting our time please. You've not only failed to provide a reliable source to back your claim, you've had sources presented to you that give a specific example of what you say doesn't happen (the EB article above) or say the exact opposite of your claim (the book above). Ben (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how you pick out one of the many meanings and then label it "offensive" (still no link on any reference that claims offence, which makes that "original research" on your behalf). I'll state again: WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT CENSOR lest of all for niche views. Not causing offence is impossible for one and not at all part of policy. e.g. Mohammed's happy snap showing up in the Mohammed page. Also: as far as SCIENCE and HISTORIC RECORD are concerned: this story is fiction. The school of thought that believes otherwise is "pseudoscience"[11] which, by WP policy is specifically not to be represented as correct. NathanLee (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh and to clarify: that bit about a myth being a religion no one believes in is a quote of someone, NOT any of the definitions. NathanLee (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So what? The fact remains that numerous editors (and published sources) have indicated it is offensive; you two seem utterly uninterested in any sort of compromise; thus it is time for dispute resolution. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC) Note: I have seen several dozens of editors over the past 3 years who agreed that calling the Bible or other religions' texts "myth(ology)" is needlessly offensive. I've just added a new tag to my own userpage to show where I stand. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. This argument seems to keep going. I do not even know where to begin reading to catch up on it. NathanLee: You are arguing two ways which makes me suspicious. First you say that "myth" can be either true or untrue, but then you clearly imply in some of your posts that why you want the word there because you really thing Noah's Ark is not true and you want others to think the same thing. The common usage of myth is "fictitious story," (also in many dictionaries and thesaurus' which have "non-fiction" as its antonym!) and no ugly Wikipedia box is going to change people's minds on that. Has Noah's Ark been proven beyond doubt to have been untrue? Not that I know of -- floods occur many places and ANE literature often used the word "world" to refer just to their known lands: In this way, Noah's Ark has never been proven to be untrue. In fact, the common theme of a great flood in different ANE literature lends credibility to its real historical occurrence in some shape or form.

Umm... I'm just in favor of not pushing any buttons and leaving it as it is. To me it simply is not necessary. Why put it there? Its presence only gives the gratification of feeling that "your side" won over the other side. It doesn't add any new information that people won't already have in their mind anyways, so: Why?. T Berg _{Drop a Line ޗ pls} 22:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the use of the term myth is correct no matter which way you look at it: scientific evidence suggests the story as written did not happen (I am evidence based so science is a measure of true for me, people just "believing" does not make something more or less true for me), but the definition that says that it is "a religious narrative which may or may not be true that some people believe to be true" is also correct.. And of course a myth may be based in part on true events or might be entirely true. I'm saying it works either way and is correct to label it as such in all cases (well.. except for your "dead religion" quote treated as definition). I'll refer you to the specific place that says "the common usage of myth is NOT to be assumed or used" here. It also mentions equal treatment so in other words: this exemption because it is believed by people does not mean we can't use it for christianity like we do for every other religion.

I would say that the idea that "just leave it there" is violated by you in your reverting. To me it is important because it adds clarity to the article because we are then aware that this is a mythological story (as opposed to say Battle of waterloo or similar.. NathanLee (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tjbergsma, can you please comment on the proposal below your last edit in the above section? Thanks, Ben (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)