Noah's Ark Found?

[Calminian]

These guys say they've found it.
Article
Cool picture! Sure hope it's not a hoax.
If anyone has additional info, please share.

Yeung Wing-Cheung, from research group that made the discovery, said: "It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's Ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it."

[rogue06]

Posted about this in archaeology: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=138421

There is another option between being authentic and a hoax. It could be a mistaken identification. I remember something similar a couple decades back that turned out to be a 12th century hunter's lodge. And how do they propose to date this find since those who tend to expect to find the Ark still intact seem to distrust radiocarbon dating (unless it verifies something they agree with)?

[Calminian]

Posted about this in archaeology: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=138421

There is another option between being authentic and a hoax. It could be a mistaken identification. I remember something similar a couple decades back that turned out to be a 12th century hunter's lodge. And how do they propose to date this find since those who tend to expect to find the Ark still intact seem to distrust radiocarbon dating (unless it verifies something they agree with)?

I was going to clarify that further and my modification time ran out, but yes, thank you. These guys don't seem like hoaxters, so it could be a misidentification.

And I think creationists trust carbon dating more than other dating methods, as it is only accurate to thousands of years, prior to any creative processes.

[Tiggy]

I was going to clarify that further and my modification time ran out, but yes, thank you. These guys don't seem like hoaxters, so it could be a misidentification.

And I think creationists trust carbon dating more than other dating methods, as it is only accurate to thousands of years, prior to any creative processes.

This latest group of loonies claims the wood from this supposed "Ark" radiocarbon dates to 4800 years ago. But wait! The standard Creto argument to hand wave away radiocarbon dates up to 60K years ago is that the 'pre-Flood' biosphere had much more carbon than today, and a much lower C14/C12 ratio than now. Then, Da Flood buried all that C12 carbon from the lush pre-Flood vegetation (mysteriously leaving all the C14 alone) which made the C14/C12 ratio what it is now.

Genesis Flood

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7

When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.

Answers In Genesis source

But these fools apparently forgot that the Ark wood they supposedly radiocarbon dated to 4800 years ago was grown and died pre-Flood. That means it should reflect the much smaller pre-Flood C14/C12 ratio, and C14 date to tens of thousands of years.

These goobers can't get their stories straight to save their lives.

- T

[Calminian]

This latest group of loonies claims the wood from this supposed "Ark" radiocarbon dates to 4800 years ago. But wait! The standard Creto argument to hand wave away radiocarbon dates up to 60K years ago is that the 'pre-Flood' biosphere had much more carbon than today, and a much lower C14/C12 ratio than now. Then, Da Flood buried all that C12 carbon from the lush pre-Flood vegetation (mysteriously leaving all the C14 alone) which made the C14/C12 ratio what it is now.



But these fools apparently forgot that the Ark wood they supposedly radiocarbon dated to 4800 years ago was grown and died pre-Flood. That means it should reflect the much smaller pre-Flood C14/C12 ratio, and C14 date to tens of thousands of years.

These goobers can't get their stories straight to save their lives.

- T

Tell us how you really feel.

[Tiggy]

Tell us how you really feel.

I feel it's a crying shame that some people are so insecure in their religious beliefs they have to grasp at the most ridiculous straws like this to feel confirmation.

I also feel Faux News are scum sucking bottom feeders for propagating anti-science stupidity like this.

- T

[Calminian]

I feel it's a crying shame that some people are so insecure in their religious beliefs they have to grasp at the most ridiculous straws like this to feel confirmation.

I also feel Faux News are scum sucking bottom feeders for propagating anti-science stupidity like this.

- T

Hmm. No, you're holding back. You're only going to have a breakthrough when you're willing to have a breakthrough.

[oxmixmudd]

I was going to clarify that further and my modification time ran out, but yes, thank you. These guys don't seem like hoaxters, so it could be a misidentification.

And I think creationists trust carbon dating more than other dating methods, as it is only accurate to thousands of years, prior to any creative processes.

This is an interesting find, and I look forward to seeing what comes of it. As for Creationists (YE) trusting c14 'more' than other methods - I disagree. They pretty much trust it the same as they do any other dating method. If the c14 date is a date they like, they trust it. If not, they don't.


Jim

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I personally don't expect us to ever find it. I think Noah was a practical guy. Why keep the boat around? Break it up and build a nice place to live.

[Calminian]

This is an interesting find, and I look forward to seeing what comes of it. As for Creationists (YE) trusting c14 'more' than other methods - I disagree. They pretty much trust it the same as they do any other dating method. If the c14 date is a date they like, they trust it. If not, they don't.

Jim, without going to battle with you, let me just try to refine it a little more so can agree on a few points. Creationists don't believe all processes were constant during the creation process. I think this is a reasonable belief. And since dating methods rely on constant processes, they are skeptical about those that intersect with the biblical creation date (the one they believe scripture gives).

Therefore, yes you are right, they will accept younger dates, and be skeptical of older ones, taking into account a disruption of some sort during interventions of God like the creation week.

They're more like forensic scientists. They will extrapolate assuming natural processes, until they believe an intervention of some kind has occurred in the past, such as human intervention.

The problem is, we disagree on that intervention, and on the interpretation of biblical revelation that supports.

Is this something we could agree on?

[Calminian]

I personally don't expect us to ever find it. I think Noah was a practical guy. Why keep the boat around? Break it up and build a nice place to live.

So then maybe they found Noah's house. Although, wasn't the ark sort of a house/boat already?

[Tiggy]

Jim, without going to battle with you, let me just try to refine it a little more so can agree on a few points. Creationists don't believe all processes were constant during the creation process. I think this is a reasonable belief. And since dating methods rely on constant processes, they are skeptical about those that intersect with the biblical creation date (the one they believe scripture gives).

Therefore, yes you are right, they will accept younger dates, and be skeptical of older ones, taking into account a disruption of some sort during interventions of God like the creation week.

They're more like forensic scientists. They will extrapolate assuming natural processes, until they believe an intervention of some kind has occurred in the past, such as human intervention.

The problem is, we disagree on that intervention, and on the interpretation of biblical revelation that supports.

It's something we could agree on?

Also without any desire to battle or attack your faith, do you see the logical inconsistency in claiming a Flood huge disruption of radiocarbon ratios and a claimed radiocarbon date of the supposed 'pre-Flood' wood?

- T

[Hamster]

Can we get to the meat of the issue please? Have they found evidence that dinosaurs were on it or not?

[Tiggy]

So then maybe they found Noah's house. Although, wasn't the ark sort of a house/boat already?

And that would change the dating of the age of the wood because...?

- T

[Calminian]

Also without any desire to battle or attack your faith, do you see the logical inconsistency in claiming a Flood huge disruption of radiocarbon ratios and a claimed radiocarbon date of the supposed 'pre-Flood' wood?

- T

Thank you. Because I was tempted to attack your faith. You detoured me.

And what claim are you talking about? I don't remember making any such claim.