Jump to content

Talk:Searches for Noah's Ark/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

NPOV

This article uses words to slant the POV towards an anti-creationist view. I removed the last half of one sentence. I'm gonna report this page. Ziffnil (talk) 05:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That was added just before you edited, and was what we call original research, see WP:OR and I've removed all of it. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There was a crazy slant in this. Apparently someone not only thinks Noah's Ark is baloney but they really don't want anyone else to buy it, either. All sorts of crazy little rhetorical tricks here and there. I've eliminated much of it but... Gingermint (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Myth?

If you peruse the history you will see that I edited the page. I added a sentence at the beginning of the article, referring to the story as a myth. This edit was subsequently reverted without explanation. I shall assume good faith, and assume that the reverter assumed that I had introcuded a non-neutral point of view without citation. However, this is in fact not the case. If you look at the wikipedia article for 'myth' you see that, in its technical usage, it actually does not imply truth or falsity. The term refers to the cultural status of a story, rather than its validity. Whilst I admit that the popular usage of the term suggests falsity, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it behoves us all to use the technical meaning of terms. Arpitt (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hoax?

This is the text taken from the 16:56, 14 Jun 2005 revision of Noah's Ark. I have not determined the original author(s) of the passage.

The tradition that Mount Ararat itself was the resting place of Noah's Ark is widely known, but not supported by the biblical account. (The Book of Genesis states only that it came to rest "upon the mountains of Ararat.") This concept can be traced back to a hoax in 1933. In a Russian-language article from the early 1930’s, in a White Russian refugee publication called 'Mech Gedeona' (Sword of Gideon), there were pictures of what looked like a giant boat on a mountainside, said to be Mount Ararat. It was then discovered that the author of Mech Gedeona had taken the story from another refugee publication called Rubez. And Rubez had gotten the story from the German newspaper, the ‘Koelnische Illustrierte Zeitung’, which published the story on April 1, 1933. On April 8, 1933, the newspaper confessed that the article was an April Fools Day hoax. This however has not deterred expeditions from searching for the Ark on Mt. Ararat.

--Jerzy·t 03:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the point of this article is to demonstrate that the association of the Ark with Mount Ararat (rather than the wider "mountains of Ararat"), dates from 1933, it's mistaken. I have no doubt that this hoax occurred, but the Noah's Ark/Mt Ararat connection dates back to the 4th century - see the current revision of the Noah's Ark article. PiCo 22:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate

A large portion of this is a duplicate of Noah's Ark. That's basically a fork, and it's not a good idea. It should either stay in the main article or be removed from there and linked with {{main}}. Keeping two duplicate copies of the same content is a bad idea because they tend to get out of sync. --Cyde Weys 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Three months later, this has become more of an issue, since the alleged discovery of Noah's ark in Iran has led to numerous updates to both articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aardvark92 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 June 2006
I disagree. Three months later, this is being addressed. See Talk:Noah's Ark. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is a fork issue now that the duplicate text situation has been merged... this is now a valid sub-article ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Current?

Is this still a "current event"? As expected, the latest media whimper on the 2006 expedition seems to have fizzled out with even creationist news sources pointing out problems with the find (here and links within). So, can we remove the "current events" tag? And if not, how long should we wait before doing so? Cheers, --Plumbago 09:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken it out. If someone wants to put it back in they should provide an upto date reference that it is still going on. Jefffire 12:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

John Warwick Montgomery

One of the books authored by John Warwick Montgomery is

  • The Quest for Noah's Ark 2nd edition (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1974).

I mention this here, as it's a book I recall reading maybe 25 years ago. The author was involved in one of the expeditions, though I can't remember if it was one of those listed in the main article here. DFH 17:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 BASE Expedition

This isn't particularly notable; it should probably be merged with the rest of that section as the most recent search for the ark by fundamentalists. Titanium Dragon 05:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that opinion. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Titanium Dragon - as I recall, it was originally separated when the BASE expedition was news (and the text new), but now that normal service appears to have resumed (i.e. hey! it's not the Ark - yet again), it can probably be merged. After the predictable flurry of activity (mostly on Christian news services), BASE's inability to produce anything of value (how hard can this be for a find of such ostensible merit; oh, that's right, 14C isn't trusted by creationists) has killed it. --Plumbago 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Concur with TD and P; Plumbago's reasoning is solid. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to shock everyone by saying I concur. Orangemarlin 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Section deleted from main article on Noah's Ark

Lets incorporate this material in: To Josephus or to Faustus of Byzantium, or to medieval writers like Marco Polo (who made a brief mention of it in his "Travels") or the Muslim traveller Masudi, the reality of the Ark was taken for granted. But in the 19th and 20th centuries this changed. Biblical scholars were questioning the text of God's word, evolution placed man's relationship with God in question, and geologists were saying that the age of the Earth was to be numbered in billions, rather than a few thousands, of years. For those who still believed (and believe) in the literal truth of Genesis, the physical existance of the Ark became a matter of great importance: "If the flood of Noah indeed wiped out the entire human race and its civilization, as the Bible teaches, then the Ark constitutes the one remaining major link to the pre-flood World. No significant artifact could ever be of greater antiquity or importance.... [with] tremendous potential impact on the creation-evolution (including theistic evolution) controversy."[1] The writer might equally have added the implications for geology, cosmology, and almost every other branch of modern science.

The search has been largely in the hands of American teams, frequently headed by charismatic individuals such as Bob Cornuke or the late Ron Wyatt, supported by evangelical and millenarian churches, and sustained by ongoing popular interest expressed through faith-based magazines and lecture tours, videos, occasional (and frequently sensationalist) television specials, and, more recently, the Internet. The attitude and motivation of the seekers, and their frustration at the lack of conclusive results, is summed up in the words of the Institute for Creation Research, one of the more active ark-search organisations: "The evidence for the existence of Noah's Ark is impressive and growing as research continues, but it is also a fact that no objective proof has yet been produced. We have every reason to believe that the remains have been preserved on Mt. Ararat in eastern Turkey."[2]

As for the location of the search, this has remained as uncertain for the 20th century seekers as had been for Marco Polo. Acording to Genesis 8:4, the Ark "came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat," identified with a first-millenium BC kingdom called Urartu, to the north of Assyria. Classical and medieval writers spoke of the Ark in a region called the "Gordian" mountains, the mountains of "Gortouk", and similar-sounding names, all of which were variations on the Greek "Gordyae," meaning Kurds - in short, the "mountains of the Kurds," which confirmed the general information in Genesis but was no more helpful to anyone mounting an expedition.[3]

In the absence of better guidance, opinion on the most likely location of the Ark settled on Mount Ararat itself, backed by rumours of eyewitness encounters, and, by the latter half of the century, aerial and satellite images of potentially Ark-like objects. But even narrowing the search to a single mountain still left multiple potential sites, and within the last two decades of the century alone three major areas on the massif attracted attention, the North Canyon (which was carefully checked and found not to contain any Ark remains), the Ahora Gorge (which is far more rugged and still not fully explored), and the Ararat anomaly, a site near the peak which has not been explored at all.

Meanwhile, relying on the fact that Genesis does not actually identify Ararat as the Ark's resting place, other seekers have suggested alternative locations. The Durupinar site, near but not on Ararat, and much more accessible, attracted attention in the 1980s; Al-Masudi's Mt Judi, "in the country of Masur, extend[ing] to Jezirah Ibn Omar, which belongs to the territory of el-Mausil (Mosul) ... eight farsangs from the Tigris," has been suggested as a lead worth following, although others have pointed out that the Arabic name "Judi" is simply another variation of the Greek "Gordyae";[4] and in 2006 there was brief flurry of interest when an expedition reported a potential site in Iran. Despite all these efforts, many by quite sincere people, some, unfortunately, by attention-seekers and mythomanes, nothing concrete has been found, and the present state of play may be best summed up with the conclusion of the quote from the Institute for Creation Science: "[W]e have every reason to hope that proof will soon be forthcoming, but as of this writing, the search goes on." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Filll (talk • contribs) 05:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Searches have concentrated on Mount Ararat itself, although Genesis actually refers only to the "mountains of Ararat". The Durupinar site, near but not on Ararat, and much more accessible, attracted attention in the 1980s and 1990s; In early 2004 a Honolulu businessman traveled to Washington DC to “announce with great fanfare” a planned expedition to investigate a site he called the Ararat anomaly but National Geographic later concluded it may have been an ineffective “stunt” to “persuade the Turkish government into granting him a permit” that “few expeditions have actually obtained.”[5];and in 2006 there was brief flurry of interest when an expedition reported a potential site in Iran. Despite all these efforts, many by quite sincere people, some, unfortunately, by attention-seekers and mythomanes, nothing concrete has been found, and the present state of play may be best summed up with the conclusion of the quote from the Institute for Creation Research: "[W]e have every reason to hope that proof will soon be forthcoming, but as of this writing, the search goes on." --Filll 22:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Institute for Creation Science
  2. ^ Institute for Creation Research
  3. ^ The Search for Noah's Ark], Drs. Lee Spencer and Jean Luc Lienard. The paper includes a comprehensive discussion of traditional names for the resting place of the Ark.
  4. ^ See The Search for Noah's Ark].
  5. ^ National Georaphic News, Noah's Ark Quest Dead in Water--Was It a Stunt?

Recent changes

I've started re-writing the article. Don't be alarmed if it looks unfinished, this will be an on-going process for a few days. PiCo 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

POV Problems

I'm frustrated with the reading of this article. It fails to mention:

  1. Not a single search is being carried out by a respectable, published, and trained scientist.
  2. There is absolutely no evidence that this ark existed, let alone a "flood" to have carried this ark to such a great altitude.
  3. That this is pseudoscience.
  4. Finally, that even if an ark was found, it has no bearing on whether there was a worldwide flood, whether Noah actually existed, or whether it will have any profound effect on the historicity of the bible.

Once again, any article written about scientific facts, such as Evolution goes out of its way to maintain an NPOV. Yet, these articles about obvious myths can use anything from undue weight, to POV, to deny pseudoscience. I was hoping this fork would balance out the very POV Noah's Ark article. Boy was I wrong. Orangemarlin 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

okey..IF IM TO BELIEVE THE MAJORITY OF YOU DISAGREE ON IT...WHY NOT JUST GIVE US (BELIEVER) A HONEST BATTLE? LOOK: Youve failed to mention this thing that almost all of you have read before..."It's not 100 percent that it is Noah's ark, but we think it is 99.9 percent that this is it," Yeung Wing-cheung, a filmmaker accompanying the explorers, told The Daily Mail. THIS IS FROM THE PROFESSIONAL EXPERTS THAT HAVE MADA THE CLAIM OF THE DISCOVERY... AND DID YOU COMPLETELY ALREADY KNOW THEY ARE LIARS OR IGNORANTS? OR YOU JUST THINK THAT? whuum consider please, being honest with yourselves. -George Cortes, =) 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.66.116.74 (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)



Wikipedia is a reader-driven work. If you don't like the article, change it. Wjhonson 02:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Save for the fact that everyone would have me run out of town, placed on some obscure and difficult to manage RfC, RfA, who knows what else, for making any changes in their precious myth without discussing it ad nauseum. My change would be rather dramatic. Delete this pathetic article for being nothing more than a promotion of Christian fundamentalist pseudoscience. There was no flood of the size mentioned in the Genesis myth. There was no Noah. There wasn't an Ark. And there isn't one scintilla of evidence of it. These searches should be lumped with the searches for UFO's, the Loch Ness Monster, and Sasquatch. So, no it isn't a reader driven work. It is finding consensus, which doesn't work when you have rational scientists on one side and religious pseudoscientists on the other. I was hoping that someone would answer, you did. So, I'm going to enjoy my changes. Orangemarlin 07:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Actually, when I read the category at the bottom, which is HOAXES I wonder if someone was just pulling our leg? I added mythology to it anyway. --Filll 08:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This article should never be deleted. To even suggest this convinces me that in your view, you see wikipedia as a tool to persecute beliefs other than your own, and to further your own POV at the expense of other belief systems. Wikipedia is not that at all, you still seem to have it all wrong. Its purpose is simply to report comprehensively and neutrally on what people actually believe, not to try to influence them didactively to believe one way or another -- especially by selective suppressing the information and facts that run counter to your intended purpose, a classical feature of propaganda. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Persecute beliefs? Wow, I must have missed the persecution. And I am so tired of your lecturing me about what Wikipedia is, what constitutes POV, and that only you know what is right and wrong. I feel persecuted. An encyclopedia stands for stating the best known information. And searching for a myth is fine with me. But it better be described as a search for myth or it a POV with undue weight making it seem like searching for this myth is something that is scientific. There is no information whatsoever that supports the existence of Noah, existence or even the possibility of an ark (especially of one that size), of a worldwide flood, or anything else. Based on your one-sided interpretation of the Gospel of Wikipedia, anyone can write anything they want in here and as long as someone somewhere thinks its right then let's right and ignore the truth. I don't get it Codex. So here's something, quit lecturing me, because you and I couldn't even agree on the color of the sky. I actually don't waste my time telling you things (short of this one response), because I know you will counter with a long lecture about how only you know what makes Wikipedia this or that. I have a different interpretation that you don't even bother to read. So why don't we spare this particular community any comments to one another. Orangemarlin 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but if you're going to make half-baked comments in here that are little more than your own opinion, I'm probably going to respond to them. Don't think you can somehow win the right or privilege to speak your opinion here, and not be answered while we all sit in awestruck silence at your wisdom, because that is unlikely to happen. I'm a reactionary, and so I react, every time. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be made clear what all people believe, and what the relative sizes of the believing and nonbelieving communities are, and what nature those communities are, and what evidence there is for and against a certain position.--Filll 15:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that is all reasonable. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It's silly since that means any nutjob could say whatever, and we'd have to put it in here. But if keeps Codex from lecturing me like I'm an idiot, I'm fine with it. Orangemarlin 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok good. That is a good start. That is all anyone wants I think. I do not want to deny that some people believe. I do not want to deny that some people believe the bible is literally true, and that is what they base their reasoning on since that is the word of god. Right?--Filll 16:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, what you are failing to see, is that your personal opinion that it's a myth is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about the *truth*, we are not seeking the truth. What wikipedia is, is an encyclopedia of all knowledge. That there have been searches for Noah's Ark is what's relevant. This article is about those searches. Whether Noah, the Ark, or God exists in a *real* way, is not relevant. Wjhonson 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What I see or fail to see is beyond your knowledge. Please, stop lecturing me, because your interpretation is that anything written about religion is sacrosanct and cannot be criticized because, oh my, your whole belief set is going to cave in, Communists will be running the world, and Atheists will be marrying your children. Wikipedia is about verifiable information. If that's not a truth, I need to call up my three universities that saw fit to impart upon me various degrees and have them rip up the diplomas, because I must have failed out of all of the science, truth, and honesty course. Orangemarlin 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
But if all the evidence demonstrates that the searches are a waste of time and money, and pseudoscience, then it should be noted. I think the searches are fascinating. I want to read about them. But I dont want to be told that is a true object out there or even a likely object out there waiting to be found.--Filll 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If our article actually said any such thing as that, it would not last too long, for obvious reasons. The article is is already neutral now, and carefully worded, it does not say it is a "likely object" waiting to be found", and preserving neutrality will not be the result if the balance is tipped one way or the other. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
OrangeMarlin please don't lecture me about what you think my belief-system is. I am a wikipedian, that's my religion, and I'm pointing out the error in your argument. The fact that you have to launch a personal attack, based on your own inference about what I believe, only shows that you do not have the necessary tool-set to address the core issue here. This article is not about any belief system, it is about the searches for Noah's ark. So please stop beating the drum that no one is listening to. Wjhonson 05:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
1. I don't lecture. 2. You were not attacked except that I don't like to be lectured to. Why is the first time someone stands up to someone here, the first thing they think is that they've been personally attacked. Are we all thin skins. 3. Wikipedia is NOT a religion. 4. Your personal attacks like "stop beating the drum that no one is listening to" of course is fine and meets the standards of proper decorum. You are now the very first person I've ever accused on here of a personal attack, and frankly, It's just to make a point rather than I'm actually going to lose sleep over it. 5. If you read above, you'd note that I have laid out the appropriate arguments that this is pseudoscience, and should be noted as such. Noah's Ark never existed. There never was a flood. There weren't a bunch of animals saved on an imaginary ark through an imaginary flood. Res ipsa loquitur. Why can we not point out the science? Orangemarlin 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Last point, and if you take this as a personal attack (that shibboleth is getting a bit old to me) I'll vote for a Republican next year (maybe only for dogcatcher), but you my friend said, "Wikipedia is a reader-driven work. If you don't like the article, change it." So there, I changed it, and you rank #1 on the list of people who thought it was a bad idea. That causes me to think the POV lies with others not me. I keep being lectured that I'm an idiot and don't know POV from POS. Instead of yada yada yada, how about laying out a case of why this fails the NPOV test. Don't say because of WP:NPOV, because when I read it, and I'm not a lawyer, I think this article is currently a raging POV religious tract. I'm a really logical person, despite your thinking I'm an idiot, so I'm willing to listen (or read). But I won't be convinced if you just say it is (I'm a scientist, so I need to see logic)--show me. I'll be the #1 supporter of this article if you can prove that it is NPOV and my small addition throws it into the full blown POV range. But don't state that somehow you know more than I--you may, but teaching is infinitely preferable to shoving it down my throat. Orangemarlin 07:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Too verbose, I can't read all that. If you don't like the article, change it. It's pretty simple. Wjhonson 06:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin stated: “Not a single search is being carried out by a respectable, published, and trained scientist.”

This is absolutely false. There are reputable, published, and trained scientists involved with Noah’s Ark. But the most reputable group that is published and well trained are not searching anymore. Read the update to www.vonbora.org.
Crawford is reputable, and published in National Geographic Research and Exploration, though arguably not a trained scientist per se’. However, Veysel Donbaz and Alan Gillespie are exceedingly well trained scientists, reputable, and extensively published, and published in several languages. A simple Google search will confirm this. One must acknowledge Donbaz and Gillespie as well trained, reputable, and published scientists in relevant fields. To deny their credentials would be to deny all criteria (and the institutions which standardize the criteria) by which you acknowledge all scientists, and you would then have no means to acknowledge any scientists anywhere.
Another option is to deny that Donbaz and Gillespie are actually active participants in Project Vonbora; however, if you believe this you have made the accusation that the reputations of exceedingly well respected international scientists are being co-opted without their consent. In which case you have an obligation to alert them in order that they may rescue their reputation by making a categorical denial of any participation or endorsement.
Again, if you think their association with Project Vonbora is a false claim then you have an obligation to alert them that their international reputations are at stake because they are falsely claimed to be participants in a discovery of Noah’s Ark. If you refuse to contact them then you have either failed to keep science pure or you have acknowledged that they are in fact involved and your first frustration is necessarily no longer valid, and should be retracted.Katherin 03:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Not that I like responding all that much to this kind of post, but it's late on a Friday night, and short of sacrificing virgins, I haven't much else to do:
  • With regards to www.vonbora.org. First of all, poorly written and designed. I'll set that aside. Let's just look at that so-called depression in the glacier. If that were the ark, after 10,000 years, the glacier would have spit it out in little wood pieces. There wouldn't be a depression in the snow. I could go to any glacier in the world ( if there are any left after global warming), and find some feature that would appear to be aliens from outer space.
  • I did google Donbaz and Gillespie. Actually couldn't find out much about them. Donbaz seems like some researcher of note, but he's certainly not a scholar on the mythical Ark. Gillespie was unfindable.
  • Finally Project Vonbora is a typical junk science expedition. You find a scratched up rock, claim it's Sumerian, and think that I'm going to buy it? How about publishing it in a peer-reviewed journal.
Once again just a bunch of hooey. Orangemarlin 04:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, you dodge the point again. Yawn…


It is not your disbelief regarding the discovery that is distasteful and inexcusable (frankly folks ought to wait for proper research to occur at the location identified by PVB), rather it is your refusal to acknowledge that PVB has provided an exact location upon which scientific methods of investigation ought to be allowed to proceed no matter how distasteful the outcome may or may not be to you personally.

Donbaz and Gillespie are reputable, published, and trained scientists in relevant fields. Your week attempt to deny that fails. The following links found on Google demonstrate that Gillespie is perfectly suited to the task of remote sensing via satellite images. Even though he doesn’t believe in the Ark, he doesn’t let his prejudice get in the way of conducting science, as some do.

Dr. Alan R. Gillespie: Biography: http://dana.ess.washington.edu/gillespie.html

One book published: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521662215&ss=fro Published in the Cambridge University Press, “Remote Sensing with Spectral Images”

Additional publications: http://dana.ess.washington.edu/~laura/bill/raqrs.html http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0435-3676(1998)80%3A3%2F4%3C173%3ATGACSO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R http://www.ecampus.com/book/0471790524 http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=21632.21633&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=7018835&CFTOKEN=97171578 http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/270/5235/447 http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/ProgressReports0496/Gillespie.Final.html http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/directory/instrument/get_dir_listing.php?instr=ASTER

And further Dr. Veysel Donbaz: the Director of the Tablet Archive, Istanbul Archaeological Museum is fully qualified to state that your assessment of a “scratched up rock” is a misleading characterization and fully inaccurate. His published comments are at complete odds with your assessment, and he has credibility with regard to ancient tablets--which you do not.

If these two scientists do not meet your criteria as “reputable, published, and trained” then you will recognize no one. If you are unwilling to recognize thier relevance and that they are knowledgeable in the appropriate fields in line with the scientific approach of Vonbora, then any further comments or pretended discussion or input from you is fully expected to be more closedminded prejudice.

As to your contention that an Ark in the “glacier would have spit it out in little wood piece” is begging the question. Your argument is that since it can’t be there, it isn’t. That is not science.

PVB has provided the exact location, the description, the many collateral elements, and the reason why this was discovered. That is scientific and will be tested in due time by additional scientists in the appropriate fields.

Your continued blather about “publish in a peer reviewed journal” is “a bunch of hooey.” You know full well that additional research must be conducted in order to publish the articles and books you demand. And you know full well that preventing additional research prevents the publishing you demand. The publishing you demand will occur soon after the scientists access the site. 24.9.19.198 09:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to remember to not feed the trolls. I actually don't care very much, because frankly an ark begs the question that a flood of this nature ever occurred. Since the flood never happened, whether a mythical Noah and his mythical ark sailed a couple of lakes in the middle east is rather pointless to me. I really could care less about anything else you wrote, because, it really is just hooey, but as for the science, yes, what I state is science. If the so-called ark couldn't possibly exist as the author described it, then it isn't an ark. It's some geological structure called a glacier. So, yeah, in the context of this junk science, the ark doesn't exist. But like I wrote, I actually don't care if the ark exists. Don't care if a bunch of people waste good money chasing the mythical ark. Because, the ark is only important if there was a worldwide flood, and there wasn't. By the way, give me one link from a reputable peer-reviewed journal that accepts that any of this hooey may even be slightly possible. Orangemarlin 09:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Your assesment of presupostions are unfounded. A structure located on the moutain presuposes nothing. A scieentifically testable description of that structure presupposes nothing or begs any quesion, rather its description to the degree that has been provided is exactly what is required by science. Your failure to acknowledge that it is scientifically testable speaks for itself.
By the way, Gillespie is a wonderful scientist. He is quite the expert on the previous ice age (let's see, that happened 100,000 years ago...right). In your delight to prove me wrong, which you're not even close to doing, Gillespie's role is not in support of this junk science expedition. His role is to review the data. I'm sure he's laughing hysterically. The reason that I couldn't find Gillespie in my first google search because I mistakenly put "Noah's Ark" with his name. Funny that there isn't one source that first confirms that he's going to review the data, and second, that he really has anything to do with this hooey. Given his academic scientific background, I'm almost certain he's ruptured his spleen laughing. You know, typical of your ilk, you mine quotes, you try to fake data (listing a bunch of links about a really interesting scientist) to prove your point. Not proven. But you know, just in case I'm wrong, which I can't recall happening in the last 25 years, but being a REAL scientist, I accept the possibility of error, I just emailed the good Dr. Gillespie. If he allows me, I'll cut and past his answer on here. I'll use my academic address so he knows that I'm not some crazy creationist type. Orangemarlin 09:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Your discovery that Gillespie is a woderful scientist is admirable but your failure to notice that Gillespie is a published expert on remote sensing shows that you read too quickly or you see what you like to. I challenge you to find a more quaified scientist to evaluate claims of discovery of a structure in ice by means of satelite imagery. If he has agreed to review and be the archiver then he certainly believes that a structure exits at that location, even if he does not believe the structure is Noah's Ark. (That he would be impartial is all the better.) Who would propose that he has agreed to archive data that he does not believe will be forthcoming?
Orangemarlin, I am impressed that you are willing to email Dr. Gillespie and I do look forward to his response. Your willingness to take the time to help Dr. Gillespie to dispell any discredit to his reputation is admirable. You perhaps could extend the same courtesy to Donbaz as well. If Gillespie does not resond to you and express his gratitude for alerting him to the use of his name for claims of scientific efforts that he did not sign up to participate in, then you have your answer.
OOOOhhh. I just can't help myself. Google result: Your search - "Alan R Gillespie" and "noah's ark" - did not match any documents. ROFLMAO. Orangemarlin 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Do let us know of Dr. Gillespie's response to your inquiry. As to your own feigned disinterest I am impressed by your careful reading of the Notice of Discovery, even if your assesment has not matured to a perfect intellectual honesty.

Orangemarlin POV Problems

I was OK with Orangemarlin's comments until I got to #3. The search for the truth is NOT pseudoscience. Defining something as a scientific conclusion based on falsehoods and a lack of evidence IS. Sure, there's enough hokum in the Noah's Ark investigations so far to dismiss it as probably mythical. If it was a bet in Las Vegas no sane person would doubt where the House would lay the odds on. But there's not (and for Fundementalists probably never will be) enough to dismiss it entirely. Where Orangemarlin really falls down is #4 "Finally, that even if an ark was found, it has no bearing on whether there was a worldwide flood, whether Noah actually existed, or whether it will have any profound effect on the historicity of the bible." It's like saying if a flying saucer lands and aliens introduce themselves it's not definitive proof life on another planet exists. Skepticism is good, just don't make it a religion in itself.

Good point. However I happen to agree with OM. Finding the remains of a big boat would not prove there was a world-wide flood. Nor would a flying saucer landing prove that it came from another planet. Steve Dufour 03:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Living persons policy

I removed some material from the Usenet group talk.origins. This is not a reliable source to call someone a liar. Even if they are. Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus, if someone really believes in the Ark what people have to say on talk.origins will not make any difference. Steve Dufour 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoax

The 1916 discovery and the 1955 wood were not hoaxes. Both stories are printed in Christian tracts and this is POV as with this whole site it points to atheist as supreme. Lets make in NPOV. Nevilledad 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious tracts are inherently biased sources that aren't necessarily reliable. —tregoweth (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

While yes I am a Christian I believe in NPOV for this site and claiming them as hoaxes is nonsense. This site makes evoultion sound true and creation sound false. It should treat them both equaly as neither one is proven. Lots of ministers talk about the 1916 discovery and it is rumored the story was kept from spreading to the media by the Communists. Nevilledad 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have any source to prove it? Nevilledad 05:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Evolution has been proven, creation has not. get your facts straight before you make such ridiculous claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.71.216 (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the wording on that section, as only one hoax is mentioned. Also, there is nothing in the stories to suggest Urban Legend. I've called it Unsubstantiated Stories. They are just stories that there isn't evidence for. It doesn't mean they aren't true. The previous title was a clear violation of NPOV and it was embarrassing to see it in a Wikipedia article. Gingermint (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Archaeological evidence?

Whoa, I just sort of stumbled into this argument after seeing G. Edward Griffin's 1993 doc "The Discovery of Noah's Ark" about the Durupinar site. Since I am a newcomer to this scene I believe that my observations may provide a valuable NPOV, but of course that is for you to decide. I think it is astounding that a location (Durupinar) has been found with so many clues about an ancient flood, and I submit that if we did not know about any ancient floods then this discovery would send us looking into ancient texts to find reference to one. If the boatlike formation were not there, there are placenames and many other clues including marine fossils. I wonder why the brief reference to Durupinar in this article dismisses it as an 80's-90's thing when there is current archaeological activity at the site as described at the web page: http://avdil.gtri.gatech.edu/RCM/RCM/5RCMArkeology/5MICHELSONArcheology.html. Is this expedition not considered credible or neutral or does it not qualify as a "search for the Ark" for some other reason? Aside from all that, many sources have mentioned that pilgrims used to visit the Durupinar site during early historical times (forgive me -- I can't quote the details), so that is an early "search for the Ark" even if the pilgrims were wrong about its identity. Incidentally, I do not think that a discovery of the genuine vessel described in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Torah, the Bible implies any truth about a particular religion since nobody knows the exact origins of the story in the first place. However, ancient texts, like folk tales, often provide important clues about the past, apart from their social significance. *Hides from the flames* Oneismany 11:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the article on G. Edward Griffin has been completely rewritten since this last entry. Actually I believe that its section on Noah's ark could provide valuable information for this article here as well, since accuracy and NPOV have been major concerns in the editing process of that article, as can be seen on its discussion page. I think it might be worth at least to include something about Fasold's part in the story. Greetings. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Against a proposed merger

I am dead set against a merger between the Durupınar site with the Searches for Noah's Ark article. This site has a separate history and sources about it. Most searches for the ark take place on Ararat. This is a horse of a different color--a significant difference, if you are versed in "Ark literature." Also, if detailed information was placed on the Searches for Noah's Ark page about all proposed ark sites, then the article would be intolerably long, and some happy editor would suggest it be split into separate articles! Keep articles like this separate.

TuckerResearch (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I added the coat of arms of Nakhchivan City (in Azerbaijan), Nakhchivan is close to Mount Ararat and the coat depicts the great flood and Noah's Ark. Neftchi (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

And is completely irrelevant to the topic of 'Searches for Noah's Ark'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Why would you think so? Gingermint (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Georgie Hagopian

The article states: "The online archive of the old USENET newsgroup talk.origins[22] notes that "[t]he apparent ease of getting to the ark conflicts with the accounts of other explorers,"[23]" In the video 'Quest for Noah's Ark' (based on a book by Charles Sellier and David Balsiger) it says that Hagopian and his uncle visited Mount Ararat after a five year drought (which means less snow) which is why, theoretically, it would have been possible for him to see the entire ark exposed from the snow, and also the video says that temperatures fluctuate on the mountain and sometimes there are sporadic hotter years/or periods (which would explain why some people claim to have seen the ark, while others, after going to the same spot (but perhaps at a colder or more snowy time) could have walked right over the ark, as it would be buried in the ice and snow, without even knowing it.) If we could find some good sources then these might be some interesting points to include in the article to keep it in comliance with the NPOV policy. Invmog (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed information

This information below was blanked from the article page twice by the same user. It was then blanked by a second user who reverted it as "vandalism" and left a note asking if there was another source for the Turkish newspaper article. I am placing the blanked information here as is customary while further sources are located. 141.152.31.39 (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Turkish government has double-verified the works of Ron Wyatt, and they have given him credit for the discovery. The announcement appeared in Turkey's largest newspaper on June 21, 1987. The Durupınar site was first designated a National Park, and then it was upgraded to the status of a National Treasure. The government has built a visitors' center overlooking the site and issued official tourist brochures so people of all races can come and see the ark http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm

Re. this contribution from the anon user at 141.152.31.39:
The Turkish government has double-verified the works of Ron Wyatt, and they have given him credit for the discovery. The announcement appeared in Turkey's largest newspaper on June 21, 1987. The Durupınar site was first designated a National Park, and then it was upgraded to the status of a National Treasure. The government has built a visitors' center overlooking the site and issued official tourist brochures so people of all races can come and see the ark! [1]
If you can track down that "announcement [in] Turkey's largest newspaper on June 21, 1987" that would count as a valid source. The website you cite does NOT, imo, rise to Wikipedia's standards for "reliable sources" -- especially for such an important archeological development!  ;)
Wikiscient 17:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't really claim it as "my contribution". I simply reverted the blanking of longstanding information, and see no reason to doubt that this is an accurate account of what Hurriyet indeed published on June 21, 1987. Why would you suspect that is "unreliable"? It's certainly relevant. 141.152.31.39 (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the "misattribution" ;) -- I didn't see that it didn't originate with you!
As far as I know, the claim being made is not generally accepted by mainstream archeology. I'm not an archeologist myself, but that's the impression I get. So, that's mostly why I suspect the "citation" to be unreliable.
In any case, it is not a properly cited citation so I can't easily go check it out and verify it myself (and which makes it deletable as per WP:MOS, if nothing else).
Wikiscient 18:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Since archaeologists in every country often don't agree for whatever reason, I'm not sure there is really a central "mainstream archeology" that approves or disapproves what everyone else is allowed to hear about or consider. That's where neutrality comes in: We just report what the Turkish government says, then we can report what others say diferent if there is anything said about it, and the nifty thing about neutrality is -- get this -- we don't take sides between the Turkish government's POV and the opposing POV. 141.152.31.39 (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Just properly cite it and I'm cool!
Regards,
Wikiscient 18:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The text was not "longstanding information", as far as I can see. It was added on October 10 by a new user and removed by me the next morning.Sjö (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm Ark Discovery]

Ron Wyatt

On the 10th of October I placed the next lines: "The Turkish government has double-verified the works of Ron Wyatt, and they have given him credit for the discovery. The announcement appeared in Turkey's largest newspaper on June 21, 1987. The Durupınar site was first designated a National Park, and then it was upgraded to the status of a National Treasure. The government has built a visitors' center overlooking the site and issued official tourist brochures so people of all races can come and see the ark! [10]"

The next day these above mentioned lines were removed. I added those lines because of two reasons: 1. the wikipedia page did not mention that Ron Wyatt's discovery is recognized by the Turkish government. 2. the current wikipedia page states "Geologists have identified the Durupınar site as a natural formation". This looks like all geologists have identified this as a natural formation. I know there are other geologists who recognize this formation as a man-made object. It looks like a boat, It has got the size mentioned in the Bible, it has been found at the area mentioned in the Bible: Why could this not be Noah's Ark? Therefore I believe my contribution put this right. Jeeweehaa (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, Jeewee, your contribution has some issues, about which you can find further information by reading these articles: WP:MOS, WP:Verifiability#Reliable sources, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:CITE#HOW. Okay?
Please take the time to consider the information in those articles carefully. If you can then rewrite your entry to address those issues then it will, of course, certainly be welcomed for inclusion in the article!
Cheers, Wikiscient 20:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I support the removal of this unreliable source. If Jeeweehaa wants to dispute this, they can take it up on WP:RSN. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another possible fake?

See this for more: [1]. Link from thestar can be added in to add to the list of hoaxes (unless it is the real deal?)Calaka (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

YEC view section

I tried to work with this, but once all the statements were identified, it was 2 Todd Wood and one unidentified and unsourced view. This is simply too much weight on one non-notable YEC. I moved the Carbon dating objections to the Background section, but there was simply no way to rewrite the section as anything other than "Thoughts from Todd Wood, minor YEC with a blog." I question the need for this section at all, frankly - most if not all of the searches covered in the article are either YEC or hoaxes, so the views are abundantly covered in the article as a whole. If significant coverage from reliable sources can be found to justify a section on a significant view not mentioned in the article, then feel free to bring it here for discussion. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The links mentioned at least two creationist organisations. Persons mentioned where Todd Wood and Tas Walker, as I understand it very prominent people. Todd Wood is director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Tennessee, and prominent enough for National Geographic to ask him for a YEC view. I've also linked to CMI, a big organisation as well. What you've done now is completely erased the consensus from the biggest YEC organisations, and destroyed the arguments they give. The biggest one being that Mount Ararat is post-Flood. I'm not sure what your views are, but not neutral. This was just an interesting section to give people some understanding what, as far as I understood it, the mainstream YEC perspective is and timely and relevant for the audience of this article. Your background section now completely misinforms the reader on current YEC perspective by linking to an undated (probably 1984) article on the ICR website as if that view was the current consensus. But that's how it goes on Wikipedia it appears, some people take ownership of an article and just remove everything that doesn't fit into the information they want to put in front of people. Berend de Boer (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Just did some digging on the ICR web site, and it appears they are still looking, so I suggest the ICR link be updated to the most recent and dated link: http://www.icr.org/article/4987/ (and they have the caveat in there) But the sentence should be changed as you make it appear it is the position of all such organisations, which, as my links to such organisations showed, is clearly not the case.
Todd Wood is a YEC who went to Liberty and now teaches at Bryan College. His bios claim he is "published" but he has published nothing in an academic sense. Tas Walker works for AIG. They are both, clearly, creationists. However, they're not notable in any sense. Please see WP:PROF. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 12:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
IMO the only criteria necessary here is if he is notable among YECs as currently the article doesn't give sufficient weight to the fact that even among YECs searching for the ark is a fringe discipline. On that based [Todd's publications] are sufficient. Secondly his publications, editorship, Ph.D., position (director), and career (assistant professor/adjunct professor) make him notable in his field and therefore satisfy WP:PROF. If you are going to argue he isn't notable in field X or hasn't published in journal Y that's a very different litmus test. So by destroying clear references to notable organisations and people in the YEC field, you have vandalised this article and you are withholding pertinent information from people looking at this article while it is in the news. The article gives a biased view by quoting just one creationist organisation (and only one person there) while you would be hard pressed to dig up a single quote from any other YEC that does not express scepticism on such searches. So you're abusing your power as editor to push WP:NPV by selective quoting. Berend de Boer (talk) 19:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Berend: What you need to understand is that on WP, ALL creationists are by definition not notable simply because they are creationists. This is because of the bigotry and bias of the majority of editors. Just read up on all the talk pages of articles that deal with creationism in any way. It obvious and blatant to everyone but the bigoted editors. They are so blinded by their biases they think they have the only NPOV allowed. So If you expect to make any article to reflect true NPOV, forget it. It will never happen. GCgeologist (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
We have a number of articles on highly notable creationists. Those are not notable. To find notable creationists, for whom we have articles, simply look in Category:Creationists and the sub categories, such as Category:Christian creationists. Please note the person may be in the category even though they are not notable for being a creationist; for example, Kurt Wise and Ted Haggard are notable creationists, but Tom Tancredo is notable for being a politician, and thus is not a notable source for creationist views. Its a question of why they are notable as well as that they are notable, in order to avoid the logical error of false authority syndrome - usually characterized by quoting a politician on science issues, or a novelist on medical issues, that sort of thing we must avoid.
For what its worth, I agree that if searching for the ark is, as you put it, fringe, then that should be in the article - but it needs better sourcing. We cannot add original research, nor can we source this to a non notable teacher's blog. I suggest you focus on finding sources which meet WP:RS, rather than arguing his notability; doing so will also address the issue of giving undue weight to one person's views.
Why then did you delete the link to the CMI website? You have a link up here to the ICR website. And secondly, do you really think you can find articles in peer reviewed journals on how fringe searching for the Ark is? Really, you can't expect these things. The only thing you can expect is opinions of YECs. I think the link to the CMI website is just as good as your link to the ICR website + I provided more opinions of others, who even get quoted for their views. I was trying to get some balance here, currently the article is non-balanced, and I suspect deliberately so. The background section in the current article is not WP:NPV as my links proved. The only thing you put up there is a single person (notable I agree) but I doubt you can find a second one, and you haven't provided a source for that.
GCgeologist, please try to refrain from wholesale nonsense and personal attacks in talk page posts. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 05:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

POV in final passage?

I'd like to remove the phrase "which proves it's a fake" from the last sentence of the article. It sounds unprofessional, vague, and silly. I do not think that Noah's Ark exists, but the passage in question doesn't 'prove' anything, and I in any case I like to stay away from that word unless I'm dealing in hard science or extensively researched phenomenon. Any objections? 216.145.68.130 (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Ack, I forgot to sign in, and my network IP address is responsible for quite a bit of vandalism. The above comment is by me, Somnambulent. Somnambulent (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the statement from the Noah's Ark group? I've just removed some OR from the last para which wasn't backed by the news site used, apparently trying to distance the Noah's Ark people from the suggested hoax and blame the guide. Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the one. I'm going to go ahead and remove a bit more OR. If my edits are inappropriate, please let me know. I'm new. Somnambulent (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Archaeologist Dr. Randall Price has updated his statements. Geologists Dr. Don Patton and David McQueen early team members also update new details. It proves NAMI are victims of a hoax to take their money and from over excitement they gave out info not knowing it is fake and so they are for real 'unwitting' victims but they don't accept it. Bbltype 20:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything at the url to back the idea that the guide was the hoaxer, so I've reverted it. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What was that again?

The latest edits about the release of the Hong-Kong group who claims to have found the arc is wondrous: -´-´-´-´Sorry, when did you seee this here?--

"the sample was determined by the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Hong Kong to be petrified wood of the cyprus variety. In 2010, members of Noah's Ark Ministries International reported carbon dating suggests the wood is approximately 4,800 years old."

Now, will somebody tell me how it is possible to have Carbon-14 dated a piece of petrified wood? Which "lab report" are we to believe? SkoreKeep (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And being 4,800 years old would place it at 2800BC - not old enough to be Noah's ark. I suspect they meant to date it to 4800BC.PiCo (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

"a fascination for Christians, Jews, Muslims and common people"

Could this phrase in the lede be better put? It's not that I am objecting to being relegated to the "common people" here, it's just that it has no meaning that's obvious to me: who's left? Why shouldn't Brahmins, for example, be interested? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Could it just say "for many people" rather than try to categorise them all?TeapotgeorgeTalk 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
That would do nicely.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the fixes. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This poster continues to add material, but it's just not up to standard. The English is poor, perhaps not from a native speaker. This example is typical: although currently it is expected the world-wide confirmation of the major claim about founding the ark, ever since. for reference of this last thing, view this main stream report. Even if I were inclined to put it right, often I can't follow the meaning. It also contains original research, such as: only if we assume than men back on that epoch were exactly our same size. The references are poor to non-existent. Other views?--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for 31 hours by another Admin. I'm not clear what he was on about. We've got the recent search, for instance. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
And I've blocked his use of another IP and reverted his rant here. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
He is still vandalising elsewhere though!TeapotgeorgeTalk 21:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stay tuned

For yet another claim from folks in the US and China, to be announced this month at an evangelical conference in Charlotte, North Carolina - to be made into a film (the search claim, not the conference). Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence for the flood has been found

Robert Ballard, the man who found Titanic and other important finds, has found evidence of Noah's flood. [2] This is not the same as finding the Ark, which Ballard does not think is likely to happen, but it is information that would be interesting to many readers of this article. My question is where does the information fit best into the article? RonCram (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people would deny that on the basis that they think the whole world was flooded by Noah's flood. In any case I don't think this belongs in the article as evidence for a flood isn't evidence for an ark. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

An important science paper on the subject

I do not see this reference listed in the article. [3] Many readers of this article would be interested to have access to this paper. While the author does a good job explaining how he reached his conclusions, I do not find all of his evidence convincing. Readers will want to read this for themselves and make up their own minds. RonCram (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I see the article does reference this science paper. RonCram (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

1933 April Fool's joke

A Russian pilot, flying over Ararat in World War I (1915), thought he saw the Ark. The news of his discovery reached the Czar, who dispatched a large expedition to the site. The soldiers located and explored the boat, but before they could report back to the Czar, the Russian Revolution of 1917 had begun. Their report disappeared, and the soldiers were scattered. Some of them eventually reached the United States. Various relatives and friends have confirmed this report. [1987J This story apparently originated as an April Fool's Day joke in the April 1, 1933, edition of the German newspaper [] (Parrot, 1955, p. 64). The story was then printed by several magazines, including the November 1941 issue of The King's Herald, the March 1942 issue of Prophecy, the October 1942 issue of Defender of the Faith. and in an article by Floyd M. Gurley in a 1940 issue of the Los Angeles-based magazine New Eden. By 1945, New Eden and two of the other magazines had retracted the story, but it continues to be repeated. Howard M. Teeple notes that varying versions of the story existed (1978). In some versions, such as the one Brown reports, the soldiers explored and took measurements of the ark. In other versions, they were unable to get to the ark because of water, poisonous snakes, and insects. The ark is also reported as being cither in a swamp or on the shore of a lake. Hither way, the story contradicts several others also mentioned by Brown (see also Bailey, 1978. p. 55; Moore, 1981, p. 8; Temple, 1978. pp. 103-106).[https://ncse.com/cej/9/1/examination-research-creationist-walter-brown Doug Weller talk 12:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Searches for Noah's Ark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Searches for Noah's Ark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Impossible to prove negative statement.

Article says, "no physical proof of the ark has been found." This is an impossible negative statement, which should be revised. There is no way to prove that no proof has been found. You can say that you do now know of any proof. This is a common fallacy. And an source that asserts such a negative is at that point unreliable. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC))

Allowing for the possibility that the proof lies on someone's mantlepiece, if only they knew it, have changed "found" to "reliably identified" IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark/Archive_1&oldid=1137177992"