n4mwd wrote:
I looked at those articles. They are all pure speculation and offer no proof that it was a hoax. For example, one naysayer claims:
Quote:
Price declined to elaborate. However, a leaked email from Price – which he confirms that he wrote – shows that he has reason to believe that a group of local Kurdish men trucked wood up to the mountain and staged an elaborate hoax for the Chinese team.
A group of Kurdish workers “are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. … During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film,” Price writes in the email.
So first he says he doesn't want to elaborate, but then does anyway through a conveiniently leaked email. Then he uses the terms "reason to believe" and "are said to have" - both indicative of hearsay rumors - followed by "I was there" which contradicts his earlier third party stance. So am I the only one here that can tell that is
pure speculation?
His suggestion for how a hoax might have been perpetrated isn't plausible either. He claims that 4800 year old wood from a non-frozen area was planted up there. Oops, not much of that around these days. So much for that theory. Any wood from 4800 years ago would have long disintegrated if in a non-frozen area. Not only that, but you can see in the videos and photos that this is an actual structure and not simply a few timbers strewn about.
Some of the other sites you listed suggested that this might actually be an ancient shepherd's bunk house or a monastery. If that is true, then it wouldn't be a hoax, but rather a misinterpretation of the evidence.
I'm not saying if this discovery is true or not, but it seems to me that there is more evidence that shows that its real than there is that shows that its not. Speculation is not evidence.
Ummm.........
You have to recognize that any claim either way on this issue is going to be "speculation". The age of something isn't a strictly empirical claim, but rather involves a good amount of theorizing. Even the 99.9% sure claim on the part of the Chinese team reflects that the Chinese are speculating.
For one, you're faulting the Christian Science Monitor for how they are presenting Dr. Randall Price's e-mail, which doesn't use the impersonal terms "reason to believe" or anything else like that, which I will quote the relevant part here:
Randall Price wrote:
To make a long story short: this is all reported to be a fake. The photos were reputed to have been taken off site near the Black Sea, but the film footage the Chinese now have was shot on location on Mt. Ararat. In the late summer of 2008 ten Kurdish workers hired by Parasut, the guide used by the Chinese, are said to have planted large wood beams taken from an old structure in the Black Sea area (where the photos were originally taken) at the Mt. Ararat site. In the winter of 2008 a Chinese climber taken by Parasut’s men to the site saw the wood, but couldn’t get inside because of the severe weather conditions. During the summer of 2009 more wood was planted inside a cave at the site. The Chinese team went in the late summer of 2009 (I was there at the time and knew about the hoax) and was shown the cave with the wood and made their film. As I said, I have the photos of the inside of the so-called Ark (that show cobwebs in the corners of rafters – something just not possible in these conditions) and our Kurdish partner in Dogubabyazit (the village at the foot of Mt. Ararat) has all of the facts about the location, the men who planted the wood, and even the truck that transported it.
When there seems to be solid evidence that this isn't Noah's ark even from someone in favor of the idea that this would be Noah's ark, and I will bold. This really actually constitutes evidence that this isn't the ark. Now, "reason to believe"? Heck, even I'd use that in talking about this kind of issue. However, it looks like Price has some detailed knowledge of the nature of the hoax.
As for the dating, look, there are cases in which a group might misdate something, and then have it redated to be much more recent. So, your argument about 4800 year old wood? You're not recognizing, as some of the articles did, that this might just be an outright mistake, as the Chinese team was not a team of scientists. I mean, as it stands, many people have pointed out that this wood, supposedly 4800 years old, does not show the signs of being that old anyway in the first place, as the wood should be more warped and distorted. As it stands though, it seems ridiculous to say "Oh, the carbon dating said X" when if you are a creationist, you have to say "dating is NOTORIOUSLY unreliable", just to handle the things that claim to be much much older than 4800 years..... so...... yeah.
As it stands, even out of the loonies who believe in an ark, many of them are unfavorable to it. This, obviously, includes Randall Price who was a sponsor of the expedition, but also Dr. John Morris, of a creation ministry, and well, a number of others because of all of the ark claims that have historically been made, they have experience to know that this isn't likely right.
25 Jun 2010, 9:14 pm
