Oh dear, it looks like the Chinese expedition that claimed to have found Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat in Turkey (as discussed yesterday) has been fabricating evidence; here is a report from a Dr. Price who claims he was the archaeologist on the trip and that the so called "wooden structures" were simply shipped in on a truck and placed there.
I was the archaeologist with the Chinese expedition in the summer of 2008 and was given photos of what they now are reporting to be the inside of the Ark. I and my partners invested $100,000 in this expedition (described below) which they have retained, despite their promise and our requests to return it, since it was not used for the expedition. The information given below is my opinion based on what I have seen and heard (from others who claim to have been eyewitnesses or know the exact details).
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.
With all of these claims and counter claims it's hard to take this story too seriously (like most religious claims actually!) so until I see some proper science on this I think I consign it to the "delusional wish thinking" bucket along with creation science, transubstantiation and intelligent design, it will be in good company.
6 comments:
Don't think you can put it alongside transubstantiation or, possibly, ID.
"This is Noah's Ark" can be falsified. Radio Carbon dating would be a start, but it sounds like just asking where they got it from would help...
"Creation Science" is a contradiction in terms. But on scientific terms it can be (in fact it is) disproven.
Intelligent Design is pseudo-science. I don't know what to do with ID really. I can't classify it as science (because it's not) or as religion. Maybe it's just bad science. Or bad religion.
Transubstantiation isn't science at all in any sense. It's a Platonic and philosophical concept that can't be tested scientifically because science doesn't come into it. The doctrine of transubstantiation does not demand any change to the bread and wine that a scientist could detect. It is, in the truest sense of the term, unfalsifiable.
Doesn't say a lot about their faith in their faith - trying to fake the evidence.
Hi G,
Maybe you could have a go at transubstantiation by looking at the molecular structure of the "cracker" before and after blessing etc; it would prove it for me (and I suspect you) but I doubt it would make any difference to the regular punters, as you say its not about what is true it's about what they *want* to be true.
Hi Steve
The whole point of the doctrine of transubstantiation is, contrary to what people generally think, that the wafer / biscuit / wholemeal loaf according to preference is *not* chemically changed.
The (Aristotelian - not Biblical) argument on transubstantiation is that the "substance" of the bread (i.e. what it truly is in its deepest sense) changes. It was bread, now it is the body (and blood) of Our Lord. But the "accidents"(how it appears) do not change. The "accidents" don't cover mere appearance and taste. They include the chemical and physical make-up as well. Were you tactless and irreverent enough to carry out a chemical analysis of the host before and after, the doctrine states you would identify no difference - the accidents have not changed. It would have the same carbohydrate content, moisture content, texture etc. That's why I said it's unfalsifiable - it's a doctrine with no physical method of verification. And indeed, it actually doesn't care about physical verification, as it's irrelevant.
Wiki is quite good on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
Thanks G, You raise an interesting point, one I hadn't thought about before, is something unfalsifiable simply because someone says it is (as in this case) or can the fact that something is claimed to be unfalsifiable itself be falsified.
Personally, I can't see any difference between the doctrine of transubstantiation and me claiming that my morning toast and marmalade changed into the spirit of Alan Turing because I eat it. I can say it's not falsifiable until I'm blue in the face but the fact of the matter is that for all practical purposes (i.e. according to generally accepted standards of falsification) it is. The Catholic claim is that holy crackers are a special case and this can (probably?) be falsified by showing that something else can exhibit the same properties, that can be done (I think) with anything (as per my example) so we seem to end up with an infinite regress. Or as I would crudely characterise it "magic".
Or something :)
Alan Turing haunting your toast doesn't falsify transubstantiation! It merely gives us two unfalsifiable things! Or maybe it's an Enigma.
On the other hand, my claim that there's an earless rabbit hopping around the living room is eminently falsifiable. And, oddly, true.
Off to consider whether Jesus' Crucifixion is falsifiable or not. I suppose it's in the realm of much ancient (and some modern) history, in that eventually we make decisions based on evidence and probability.
Post a Comment