Talk:Noah's Ark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geoff.Fischer 04:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Noah's Ark is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Noah's Ark appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2006.

WikiProject Echo has identified Noah's Ark as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

• /Archive 1: March 2004 - February 2006
• /Archive 2: February 2006 - April 12

Contents 1 It didn't happen 2 This article has now a French translation 3 www.vonbora.org 4 Reverting to previous version of Christian Tradition 5 Deleting recent additions from "Search for Ark" section. 6 Current? 7 Flood Myths and Primitive Housing 8 Answers to "Documentary hypothesis" (does that section have an NPOV?) 9 Seismic Activity 10 False contradiction 11 The Noah paradigm 12 Delete Searches section, add para on search to Literalism section 13 Noah's birthplace 14 Liberal scholars? 15 Agreed, it shouldn’t be "quietly forgotten" 16 Global Warming 17 Take the flood and ark off the psuedo science list 18 The Biblical Account of Noah is not a scientific proposition. 19 Historians are not Scientists 20 Documentary Hypothesis section - references

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reginald Hardgreaves (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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. WND articleSome 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)