61
   

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

 
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 05:06 pm
@spendius,
It's a quantum leap in how to write decently from attempts to deal with this matter we have seen so far and I trust it's not too much of a shock for your reverences and your worships.

Quote:
Roll Over, Charles Darwin!
On the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s masterwork, the author visits Kentucky’s Creation Museum, which has been battling science and reason since 2007. Adam and Eve, Noah’s Ark: it’s a breathtakingly literal march through Genesis, without any hint of soul.
By A.A. Gill.

It’s not in the nature of stoic Cincinnatians to boast, which is fortunate, really, for they have meager pickings to boast about. They could, though, if they were the bragging sort, brag about a quaint old optician’s shop that will make you a new pair of spectacles in an hour"by chance I am both shortsighted and had an hour to spare. As the nice lady gave my new lenses a polish, I asked her if she thought the eye was such a complicated and mysterious structure that it could have been created only in one inspired, farsighted moment by God and not by the blind trial and error of natural selection. “That kind of makes sense,” she smiled. But then, Galileo invented a refracting telescope and the church locked him up for pointing out that, as he learned by observing the rest of the solar system, the earth isn’t the center of the universe. Do you think that glasses might be the work of the Devil? She smiled again. “Would you like a hard or a soft case with that, sir?”
Perhaps the biggest thing the citizens of the “Queen of the West” have to tell a tall tale about is the Creation Museum. Twenty minutes outside of town, just over the Kentucky border, it was placed here with prayerful care to be accessible and available to the greatest number of American pilgrims coming by road, presumably in surreys with fringes on top. Build it and they will come. November was the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species"last February the 200th anniversary of the birth of its author"so now seems like a good time to see what the world looks like without the benefit of science. Or spectacles. Although both these anniversaries seemed to pass without ever troubling most Americans"there were precious few commemorations, TV specials, or pop-up books"it’s not that you don’t care about where you came from; it’s that our collective origin is a trip-wire issue, a knuckle-dragging skeleton in the closet. If you want to get through a class, a dinner, a long-haul flight in peace, it’s best not to go there. This is one argument that refuses to evolve.
I took Paul Bettany, the actor who plays Charles Darwin in the new film Creation, along with me to photograph the museum. He has played crazed and murderous apostates in films the devout ban themselves from seeing"in Legion, also out this month, Bettany stars as the archangel Michael, who defies a vengeful God hell-bent on destroying mankind. He once played a Wimbledon champion. Here in Nowheresville, Kentucky, tennis is considered a game for Europeans and other sexual deviants. I can’t imagine what they think of English actors.
Just off a motorway, in a barren and uninspiring piece of scrub, the museum is impressively incongruous, a righteously modernist building resting in landscaped gardens filled with dinosaur topiaries. It cost $27 million and was completed in 2007. It answers the famous question about what God could have done if he had had money. This is it. Oddly, it is a conspicuously and emphatically secular construction. There is no religious symbolism. No crosses. No stained glass. No spiral campanile. It has borrowed the empirical vernacular of the enemy to wrap the literal interpretation of Genesis in the façade of a liberal art gallery or library. It is the Lamb dressed in wolf’s clothing.
The next things I noticed were the very illiberally accoutred security guards. They are absurdly over-armed, overdressed, and overweight. Perhaps the museum is concerned that armed radical atheists, maddened by the voices of reason in their confused heads, will storm in waving the periodic table, screaming, “I think, therefore I am!”
The Creation Museum isn’t really a museum at all. It’s an argument. It’s not even an argument. It’s the ammunition for an argument. It is the Word made into bullets. An armory of righteous revisionism. This whole building is devoted to the literal veracity of the first 11 chapters of Genesis: God created the world in six days, and the whole thing is no more than 6,000 years old. Everything came at once, so Tyrannosaurus rex and Noah shared a cabin. That’s an awful lot of explaining to do. This place doesn’t just take on evolution"it squares off with geology, anthropology, paleontology, history, chemistry, astronomy, zoology, biology, and good taste. It directly and boldly contradicts most -onomies and all -ologies, including most theology.
We start with the creation of the world, and of light. And there you are, immediately"Houston, we have a problem: you get light three days before you get the sun. But that’s fine"we’ve got an answer: the sun is, in fact, what God made to keep the light in. It was an afterthought, a receptacle born out of necessity.
The early bits, it must be said, are rather boring, like walking past a lot of TVs showing nature programs, with the gravelly voice from trailers for disaster movies: “In a time before man … ” There’s a room that has all the stuff God made on each day; the exhibit looks like holiday photographs or the brochure for an eco-safari. Included with the birds of the air are, apparently, the bats, who are mammals and will be annoyed. But we don’t have time to nitpick. What is truly awe-inspiring about the museum is the task it sets itself: to rationalize a story, written 3,000 years ago, without allowing for any metaphoric or symbolic wiggle room. There’s no poetic license. This is a no-parable zone. It starts with the definitive answer, and all the questions have to be made to fit under it. That’s tough. Science has it a whole lot easier: It can change things. It can expand and hypothesize and tinker. Scientists have all this cool equipment and stuff. They’ve got all these “lenses” and things. They can see **** that’s invisible. And they stayed on at school past 14. Science has given itself millions of years, eons, to play with, but the righteous have got to get the whole lot in, home and dry, in less than 6,000 years, using just a pitchfork and a loud voice. It’s like playing speed chess against a computer and a thousand people with Nobel Prizes.
But we should cut the creationists a little slack, because every new bit of evidence, every discovery, is a nightmare for them. Take the ark. The big-boat business poses all sorts of questions. But, again, they’ve got answers. There are models and plans and layouts of the vessel. You can walk through a part of the hull. There’s biblical carpentry and weather reports. And the dinosaurs are on board. (They were probably small ones, the museum helpfully adds.) But recently scientists found a new giant rat and a fanged frog in Papua, New Guinea, so now some Noah-ists have to redesign the amphibian quarters. The rats probably sort themselves out. O.K., so you get everybody aboard, 10 million creatures, times two, without the neighbors’ noticing. Where did the water come from? You have to flood the whole world. Did they import water from the Scientologists? No: it came from underground. There is a great reservoir, presumably for flooding purposes, under our feet. I assume that’s where it went back to. Why don’t we drill for it to water Phoenix? (By the way, the flood is where we get fossils from. That’s all the dead stuff, caught in mud.) When the waters abated, the animals got off, stretched, and walked around the world eating one another’s children. I’m not making this up. Nobody’s making this up. This is what happened.
There is a bit of a sniffy disclaimer between the Flood and the Tower of Babel about Cain’s having to have sex with his sister: First of all, there’s a statute of limitations on this stuff, and it can be excused on some biblical technicality, and we shouldn’t be so prurient as to keep asking about it. The dinosaur thing, though, is a problem. Creationists didn’t have to bother about it before the 19th century, but nosy, faithless scientists"and Michael Crichton"have made them irrefutable. According to the museum, their extinction was caused by men killing them, possibly for sport. I will later learn that this may have happened in the Middle Ages, when dinosaurs breathed fire and were hunted by knights.
It all gets good when the leading man arrives. Adam comes on looking like the Hispanic bass player for a Janis Joplin backup band, with a lot of hair and a tan. He looks a bit stoned. As well he might be, because he’s all on his own in Eden. Nothing can do him any harm, and he’s got the whole pharmacopoeia at arm’s reach. And then you get to Eve, a demure, foxy little girl who could be Juliet in a Guatemalan school play. Her long hair is meticulously glued to her pert and perky breasts. Adam has his as yet unnecessary organ of generation decorously concealed behind foliage. There is something wincingly salacious about this bearded hippie and his schoolgirl mate. And he has what looks suspiciously like a belly button.
The most compelling evidence for the ineffably mysterious ways of God are the people who’ve come here to load up with ammunition for the constant and relentless argument with the free world. Here, it’s safe to say, no one is going to get flung into the fiery pit for overdosing on vanity, though they may get done in early for overdosing on carbs. There was an astonishing number of women dressed as if they’d come from the little house on the prairie, in long, floral frontier frocks with bonnets and shawls. Their men are in bibs and braces, with straw hats, authentic pudding-bowl haircuts, and Abe Lincoln beards. They stare at this Hispanic Adam with a touching reverence and a vengeful fury. This goddamned"and I use the word advisedly"dark-eyed wetback is the reason for all the sin and evil and Communism in the world. If it weren’t for him, we’d live forever. On the other hand, if he’d lived forever, we wouldn’t be here. (Just as an aside, a point of order, wasn’t it divinely unfair of God to say, “If you eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, I will bring death unto you”? Death is a difficult if not impossible concept to explain to an illiterate man who has never seen anything die. And while we’re at it, if God planned on everything living forever, what was the point of heaven?) “This is the Garden of Eden,” a man with jelly-mold hair said to his little Tom Sawyer son. “Really?” replied the lad. “Really,” said the man.
The Garden of Eden is well worth the trip to Petersburg, Kentucky. Seeing as this museum is in the literal-truth business, this must be the literal Garden of Eden. This is exactly what it looked like. This is no simile, no mock-up, no artist’s impression. This is it. And it takes your breath away. Sharing the perfect rest stop with Adam is a whole mess of animals. There’s a worried-looking sheep, a fox, a chimp, a wallaby, a bear, a llama, a scarlet ibis, a fallow deer, an ibex, a cougar, a dinosaur, and a snake. It could be the diorama in a hunting-goods store. The animals aren’t doing much, just hanging out, waiting for something to happen. There’s nothing to do. No hunting, no mating, no nesting, no getting better, no getting worse. Just the infinite drip, drip, drip of bliss. Things that weren’t in the Garden of Eden at its planting but came later as part of the fruit-knowledge-shame-punishment plea bargain"poison weeds, carnivores, carrion eaters, fear, and thorns"are of great concern to creationists. A fossil with thorns is proof that it must have been made after the fall from Eden, because Genesis is quite specific about Eden’s being un-sharp and blunt, or, you might say, dull and pointless. I spent a lot of time in the Eden picnic area, trying to wrest some sort of spiritual buzz, a sense of the majesty and the mystery, but it’s conspicuously absent. Literally beaten to death. This is Ripley’s Believe-It. It is irredeemably kitsch. In fact, it may be the biggest collection of kitsch in God’s entire world. This is the profound represented by the banal, a divine irony. (The penchant for kitsch is something that gay men and born-again Christians share.) This tacky, risible, and rational tableau defies belief, beggars faith. Compare it to the creation story in Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, Masaccio’s expulsion from Eden, or any of the thousands of flickering images, icons, and installations based on faith rather than literalist realism. It truly makes you wonder, Is all this righteous ire, all this money, all this Pentecostal flame-throwing the best they can come up with? This cheap county-fair sideshow"this is their best shot? It may be more replete with proof than a Soviet show trial, but this creation is bereft of any soul.
Back in the entrance lobby, where we get our photographs taken in the Garden of Eden with the dinosaur and the ark (through the scientific miracle of lenses, computers, and green screen), one of the security guards smiles brightly at me. It’s about the first smile I’ve seen all day, and its warmth makes me smile back. I notice his embossed badge. His name is Adam.


Aren't we old fashioned over here. I hope for ever.


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 05:22 pm
One of Fred Williams(the poobah of Inane arguments of Creation), recent revelations is that"There is a marked void of any intermediate fossils between vertebrates and invertebrates>"

Im amazed at this dumbness. Yet, Freddy thinks that this is a powerful argument , clearly presented in compelling writing style. SOund Familiar?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 05:44 pm
@farmerman,
To help get the $27 million into perspective it should be remembered that in 1985 a horse called Seattle Dancer was sold for $13.1 million.

And the ex-Beatle paid out more than that in his short marriage settlement which was grumpily agreed to after hints he wasn't that well hung after all.

Comparisons with other aspects of modern life are invited.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 08:54 am
UPDATE ON LAWSUIT AGAINST TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY
Quote:
Firing over creationism e-mail leads to appeal
( MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press, April 26, 2010)

NEW ORLEANS " The former director of the science program for Texas' public schools asked a federal appeals court Monday to revive a lawsuit over her firing for forwarding an e-mail about a forum opposed to teaching creationism.

The agency that runs Texas public schools argued that Christina Castillo Comer's e-mail broke its policy of neutrality toward any potentially controversial issue, including creationism. A lawyer for Comer says the agency has an unwritten, unconstitutional policy of treating creationism as science.

A three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard arguments Monday in Comer's lawsuit against Robert Scott, commissioner of the Texas Education Agency.

A federal judge in Austin, Texas, dismissed her claims in March 2009. Comer is appealing that decision. The 5th Circuit panel didn't indicate when it will rule.

Comer says she was told to quit or be fired in 2007 after forwarding an e-mail about a presentation by a Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor viewed as opposed to teaching creationism in schools. Her only comment on the forwarded e-mail was "FYI."

The agency says Comer violated her employer's "neutrality" policy by airing her personal opposition to creationism.

Douglas Mishkin, a lawyer for Comer, said the agency's neutrality policy violates the First Amendment's establishment clause because it endorses a religious belief.

"It takes something that's not science and treats it as if it is," he said.

Judge Fortunato Benavides pressed Mishkin to explain how the agency violated the establishment clause.

"I can see a free speech claim," the judge said. "This looks like to me a First Amendment claim in the robe of an establishment claim."

James Ho, Texas' solicitor general, said Comer doesn't dispute that her e-mail violated the agency's neutrality policy.

"This is a policy of employee neutrality, and neutrality is the touchstone of the establishment clause," Ho said. "It's certainly not a violation of it."

The agency says Comer was fired for "repeated subordination." Besides violating the neutrality policy, she allegedly attended meetings and presentations without agency approval and disclosed details of the school board's deliberations to non-board members.

"What makes this case unique is that there is a pattern of misconduct," Ho said.

Comer's lawyers say no other agency employee has been warned, reprimanded or fired for failing to remain neutral on an issue before the board. Mishkin said the neutrality policy requires teachers to "pull your punch" if students ask about the relationship between creationism and evolution.

"They said, 'You must do your job with one hand tied behind your back,'" he said.

Creationism is the belief that the Earth and its creatures were created by a deity. It's an alternative to the origin of life explanation taught in public schools under the theory of evolution, which puts forth that all living organisms descended from a common ancestral gene pool.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 08:57 am
@wandeljw,
Interesting, FYI was her only "position". HMMMMMM, nothing unbalanced about TExass.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 10:04 am
@farmerman,
Your selective reading of wande's quote fm has overlooked this part of it and your "only" is thus incorrect.

Quote:
The agency says Comer was fired for "repeated subordination." Besides violating the neutrality policy, she allegedly attended meetings and presentations without agency approval and disclosed details of the school board's deliberations to non-board members.

"What makes this case unique is that there is a pattern of misconduct," Ho said.


I think that means something to the effect that the lady was a confounded nuisance and that the agency was glad to see the back of her.

Nothing unbalanced about fm's reading of the AP report. Eh? What?

btw--AP is run from the Great Megalopolis which is at the epicentre where, as Spengler phrases it, " the banal assertion that "hunger and love" are the driving forces of life ceases to be ashamed of itself; when life comes to mean, not a waxing in strength for the task, but a matter of "happiness of the greatest number," of comfort and ease, of "panem et circenses"; and when, in the place of grand politics, we have economic politics as an end in itself."

By "love" he, of course, means the carnal appetites.

Economic politics as an end in itself means a self-regarding circular system of thought with a taken for granted feeling not for what is good or evil but for what is good or bad seen mechanically and serving the utility of anybody with the appropriate measure of cunning. Soul-less.

When John Voight gave up bothering about the guy on the pavement in Midnight Cowboy his soul was liquidated.


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 10:07 am
Goldman Sachs is before a Senate sub-committee discussing the matter with them.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 12:33 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
FYI was her only "position".
Show me where I mistated anything spendi. Pwerhaps your mind is a bit fuddled over last nights brews.

The other allegations were "Piling ON" and were never proven. The only tangible evidence to be in the mound of forensic evidence against Ms Comer was her FYI on the memo, which was, Interpreted as violating the supposed "neutrality" policy. (Which is, in all actuality, a Creationist position anyway).
Lets see what the Fed court has to say. Im willing to await the appeal before I call any shots.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 03:16 pm
@farmerman,
Much the most of wande's quotes are FYI aren't they but I hardly think anybody gets any impression that they are neutral. And it is neutrality that is at issue. You wasn't neutral in implying that the FYI was neutral. Had she sent any FYIs about Creationist meetings?

I put up Mr Gill's article on the Creation Museum FYI and it was hardly favourable to my side of the house.

What's a Louisiana court doing adjudicating a Texas matter? Were there other choices of location possible?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 03:54 pm
@spendius,
Heres a map of the Federal District Courts which also includes the courts of Appeal. You can see that Texas and Louisiana are in the same district

             http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg/400px-US_Court_of_Appeals_and_District_Court_map.svg.png
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 04:08 pm
It's a U.S. District Court, not a state court. U.S. Districts are comprised of several states.

Gotta love that they fired her for "repeated subordination". Most people are fired for "repeated INsubordination"--repeated failure to obey regulations or oders. Only in Texas would they think that repeated subordination--repeated obeying orders-- was ground s for dismissal. Or, more likely, of course, is that they don't know what the word means--only in Texas do you get such loons. Ignorant loons supposedly running the education department.
Get a dictionary, Texas.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 05:07 pm
@MontereyJack,
"Odours" surely Jack?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 05:14 pm
@spendius,
actually Jaqck was talkin about the river. Spendi,You dont know Jack.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 05:31 pm
@farmerman,
Polygamy in Utah. What do the other states in the Fed District say about that?
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 06:48 pm
The case is called Comer v. Scott (Case #09-50401).

The website for the appeals court can be found at:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/

A recording of yesterday's oral arguments can be found at:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgumentRecordings.aspx?prid=233070
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 06:55 pm
@wandeljw,
WOW!!. I used to spend really big money to get high enough to be able to see all those pretty figures on the courts oral argument page.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:22 pm
@farmerman,
U.S. Government is trying to become "transparent" at all levels. Court proceedings are considered "public record". Some records, however, are still protected and only accessible to authorized individuals.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 05:50 am
Quote:
Latest Claim of Noah's Ark Discovery Like Others for Now, Experts Say
(Eric Young, Christian Post, April 28, 2010)

Despite the notable lack of significant evidence, the media and the blogosphere are abuzz over the cries of a team of Chinese and Turkish explorers who claim that the wooden structure they found on Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey is none other than Noah’s Ark.

Experts in history, archaeology, and bibliology, meanwhile, are making note of the claim but not taking the bait.

They say they’ve heard the cries before and will need a lot more than the confirmation of 4,800-year-old wood to take the claims seriously.

“Periodically, there are announcements, almost always by enthusiasts without real background in archaeology, about the discovery of Noah's ark somewhere in Turkey,” says Dr. Aren M. Maeir, a professor at Israel’s Bar Ilan University and director of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project.

“As with other fantastic discoveries relating to biblical archaeology coming from non-professional archaeologists (location of Mt. Sinai; the Egyptian army in the Red Sea; the deciphering of the Copper Scroll, etc., etc.) these announcements are quite suspect, since the full information is never published in ‘real’ scientific journals, and all one gets to see are the media announcements and website info,” he adds.

On Sunday, the team from Noah’s Ark Ministries International (NAMI) that explored Mount Ararat announced at a press conference that the wood specimens they had retrieved last year from the “large wooden structure” they discovered more than 4,000 meters above sea level were found to be 4,800 years in age " a figure that would correspond with the time of Noah, based upon a literal reading of the Bible.

Backed by Turkish government officials and his group’s own set of experts, NAMI representative Man-fai Yuen said, “We believe that the wooden structure we entered is the same structure recorded in historical accounts and the same ancient boat indicated by the locals.”

“The search team has made the greatest discovery in history," added Dr. Oktay Belli, an archaeologist at Istanbul University. "This finding is very important and the greatest up to now.”

According to Belli, there has never been human settlement above 3,500 meters on Mount Ararat, which has long been considered the location of where Noah’s Ark settled following the receding of the flood recorded in the Bible.

In Genesis 8, it is recorded that “the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.”

“Mount Ararat is a holy place and has rich historical accounts about Noah’s Ark on the mountain,” said Belli on Sunday. “Many people have searched the mountain for the holy Ark. This time’s discovery is the first serious search that the team found a wood structure under ice.”

Also present at the press conference was Dutch Ark researcher Gerrit Aalten, the head of NoahsArkSearch.com, who claimed “there’s a tremendous amount of solid evidence that the structure found on Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey, is the legendary Ark of Noah.”

Among the “many details” Aalten listed were the height at which the structure was found, the “slightly tilted” way it was situated on the mountain, its “reddish/brown wood appearance,” and its “very dark, long and rectangular” appearance.

The structure, he said, is “very solid and of high quality.”

Dr. Eric H. Cline of George Washington University, however, says the structure could be anything.

“The problem with going out specifically to find a particular object, such as Noah’s Ark in this instance, is that one frequently finds what one is looking for, whether there is any merit to it or not,” the archaeology professor told The Christian Post on Wednesday.

“[A]ll that we know at the moment is that the expedition members are showing us pictures and samples of a structure made out of wood. It could be ancient, it could be medieval, it could even have been constructed last week. Even carbon-14 dating will only tell us how old the wood is; it will not tell us when the structure was constructed,” he commented.

That’s not to say, however, that the respected archaeologist is ruling out the find. But like many others, he’s waiting for the results of more independent and comprehensive probing.

Even New Earth creationists at the Christian apologetics ministry Answers in Genesis said they “will withhold judgment until further study.”

“Over the decades, we have learned to be cautious about such Ark claims,” it reported Tuesday.

But the ministry said has “no doubt, however, that there once was a massive Ark that served as a vessel of salvation during a global Flood and landed on the mountains of Ararat, as recorded in the book of Genesis.”

Bar-Ilan University’s Maeir, meanwhile, said he “seriously doubt[s] this one (find) is real.”

“[W]hen and if the finds are published in a full and comprehensive manner, one will truly be able to assess it,” he told The Christian Post. “Meanwhile, it joins many other such discoveries - and sound quite hard to believe.”

According to NAMI’s announcement Sunday, the ministry will invite other scientists to participate in the search and study of its discover, and is committed to uncovering the truth behind it.

They read and signed a cooperation agreement in which they agreed to collaborate with any further probing of their discovery, noting that their results “are of significance to the whole world in that humankind should cherish its common beliefs and origins.”

“We believe that the discovery of Noah’s Ark will resolve centuries of national ideological conflict. We are dedicated to working towards a better, peaceful world,” they stated.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:15 am
@wandeljw,
I suppose that Turkey i in charge of access to the site. I say, lets go and really evaluate this structure.Reserve ANY speculation until a detailed isotope, structural, STRATIGRAPHIC , and alpha track analysis is done to the structure in-situ.

Lets assume that there is truth to this, then all the aspects of the scientific method and falsifiability ought to apply.IF it were there for 4500 years, then there ought to be some talus pile that reflects that age built up around the bottom. C14 andK/Ar(a)/Ar(b) analyses should be done at many points on the structure. Alpha track analysis ought to be done into the wood surface to see how long its been "in the light"(should conform to C14) and C14 of the sealants and pitch.(since pitch , whether its coal ytar or tree gum tar, gets "reset" when its boiled up).

Also, duhhh, somebody with some good stratigraphy savvy should be walking all around the structure searching for anything that resembles high water marks, since a big flood that would reach all those meters high, should have a detritus and sediment levee somewhere.

Those are some of the issues in falsifiability"If this thing were a boat and it were there 4500 years" we should be seeing evidence that the boat is of the same age AND we should see that the environment around it agrees that there was an actual event that caused a boat to even be there.

Of course Im a bit cynical about this cause the "Noahs Ark" folks of modern times have had at least 60 years to futz with such a site and actually "Create" another kind of "Creation Museum Artifact"
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Apr, 2010 06:49 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
Latest Claim of Noah's Ark Discovery Like Others for Now, Experts Say
(Eric Young, Christian Post, April 28, 2010)

Despite the notable lack of significant evidence, the media and the blogosphere are abuzz over the cries of a team of Chinese and Turkish explorers who claim that the wooden structure they found on Mount Ararat in Eastern Turkey is none other than Noah’s Ark.


Reminds me of the big news story last year about the body of Bigfoot stored in some guy's basement freezer (complete with fuzzy photo's of a fuzzy gorilla suit).

Until some REAL evidence starts to pile up, it's all bullshit.

(besides, Noah's Ark... worldwide flood... pure fantasy, plain and simple.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/08/2025 at 10:15:33