Jump to content

Talk:Noah's Ark

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnsoniensis (talk | contribs) at 08:55, 3 September 2018 (rating). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleNoah's Ark is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 12, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 20, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
July 10, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article


Historicity

Some scholars have expressed skepticism that the story took place as described in the Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.147.106 (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article already states "There is no scientific evidence for a global flood, and despite many expeditions, no evidence of the ark has been found," with several references following that statement. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Ron wyatt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7704:2D30:B8ED:78CB:2A4D:D4FF (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Ron Wyatt, read his article. Doug Weller talk 20:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The USA in the lead

Apparently 60% of less than 5% of the world's population believe in the Ark story (i.e. less than 3%). And that "fact" takes up around a quarter of the lead. No other country is mentioned. That's pure US centrism. It should be removed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. HiLo48, don't know if you've seen Moses#Legacy? One step further, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Hadn't seen that before. Extraordinary. American exceptionalism clearly lives on. One of its unwritten features seems to be that religious obsessed Americans don't even look at Talk pages. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Myth vs account or story controversy

Not Neutral, and bullying...

Part of this section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2018 June 20#Not Neutral, and bullying.... (edit | history)

The article about Noah's Ark refers to it as a myth. This article is not neutral. I have contacted one of the writers. He insists on using the word "myth" instead of account. In our writings to each other, it seems he has a hostility towards those who hold a non-myth view. I asked him to change the wording, The Genesis flood Myth, to The Genesis flood account. He could also use the word, "story". This is in the second paragraph of the article. Others join in with him to bully. Please help with this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark

Greenpastures — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenpastures (talk • contribs) 05:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends on reliable sources. There are none for the Noah's Ark story. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The OP was blocked for edit-warring. After the block expired, they continued with the same behaviour. Including a rather odd edit summary[1] which I've asked them to explain. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greenpastures Good day. Almost all your edits since June 12 till todate are edits performed on Noah's Ark and Noah. You have been warned by admins NeilN, Doug Weller and Ian.thomson and you were blocked by another admin Jezebel's Ponyo on June 14, 2018 for edit warring. Information and explanations on why the edits were reverted (controversy's topics need consensus agreement from editor and content need to be supported by independent, reliable source have been posted on your talk page). To insist on claim that Noah's Ark as an event without support of reliable sources is not written in a neutral point of view and in no incidents any bullying were made by any of the editors who reverted your edits. Do note, even if the event is true and you have witnessed it yourself (that would be consider primary source), without any independent, reliable source (secondary source), it is still impermissible to entry the content - please see Wikipedia:But it's true!. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 08:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you did not read my response to Ian on my talk page. I explained his errors in his personal writing to me. He never responded. Did you read it? The source for the Noah's Ark "myth" that is referred to is the Bible. The source is the Bible. That is understood. In my understanding, changing the non-neutral word "myth" to account does not change the information from his source. Isn't this allowable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenpastures (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenpastures: I did not respond because you completely missed the point of what I explained and what others have tried to explain to you. Maybe if you tried paying attention to what others say things would be easier for you. Also, go read WP:GEVAL and actually look at the citations in the Noah's Ark article until you see the problems with everything you've been saying. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think just report the user to WP:AN/I or WP:AN/3 they are warring and are not here to build an encyclopedia but to push their agenda. NZFC(talk) 04:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian.thomson WP:GEVAL states, We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. Apparently 60% of Americans believe the Noah's Ark story to be true,[1] and, although that's not the whole world, we are talking about a wider world, whose beliefs need to be respected in balance with established scholarship. Has that balance been attempted to be reached? Thinker78 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth do you mean by "the wider world"? Why should the unverifiable beliefs of less than 3% of the world's population be of any significance in the creation of this global, reliable source based encyclopaedia? Please note that I am making no criticism of those beliefs. Just saying I can't see their relevance here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plus there's WP:FRINGE. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A comic on a youtube video is hardly a reliable source.

The original 2003 ABC News Primetime poll is here: https://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/947a1ViewsoftheBible.pdf

If you want an answer from an up-to-date and reliable source, go to this 2017 poll from Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx

24% believe that the Bible is literal word of God, the lowest in Gallup's 40-year trend. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting on my Maths teacher hat again (and waiting to be abused again for using non-American English), that's around 1% of the world's population. My earlier question now reads "Why should the unverifiable beliefs of around 1% of the world's population be of any significance in the creation of this global, reliable source based encyclopaedia?" HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. It appears that you have made a mistake in your math. A poll of Americans tells you nothing about the rest of the world. 50% of the two people in the room where I am typing this had eggs for breakfast. Does that imply that only 0.000000013% of the world's population had eggs? No, because a poll of the room where I am sitting tells you nothing about the rest of the world. You assumed that 0% of the rest of the world holds the belief, which I can easily falsify.[2] Try recalculating with the (also wrong) assumption that all of the rest of the world does. (It's still a fringe theory, but the 1% number is not supported by the citation). --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noah in Islam is an interesting starting point for estimating the percentage of people worldwide who believe the Noah's Ark story to be true. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was deliberately and pointedly pushing the extremes there. What we do have is a very loud cohort of fundamentalist Christians in the USA insisting that their beliefs should feed into this article. What we don't have is any similar push from Muslims, or any other faith, from anywhere in the world. (There are plenty of Muslim people edit here.) I know many people who call themselves Muslim. Just like Christians outside the USA (and many within), most don't go around pushing fundamental views on the Noah story on the rest of the world. Just as we can never get truly precise numbers of the adherents to any religion, we can never know how many take their old holy texts absolutely literally in the face of modern scientific evidence to the contrary. So yes, ignore my maths. I was making the point that all such figures are fairly pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With "wider world" I mean the same as the policy means. And actually, a poll of Americans may tell you something about the rest of the world. It is called a statistical sample. It's accuracy to measure the wider world would depend on a number of factors. Although it is a number taken from a comedian, Bill Maher is a special kind of comedian, not just any comedian that shows up at the karaoke or at a bar. He is a nationally syndicated political commentator who uses comedy to make his points. I take that the information he uses to make his points is reliable because if he gets to use false information he would soon get in hot water, lose audience, and credibility. So because context matters, I believe the 60% number taken from Bill Maher is reliable.
About 54% of the world population is a believer in an Abrahamic religion.[2] Now, regarding that Gallup poll that says that only 24% believe the Bible is literal word of God, I have to say that does not mean that those 24% does not believe in the Bible or in any story within it. If you go to the Gallup website that is referenced, you can even see that the 24% is compared to a 26% who view it as "a book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man." The Catholic Church itself for example believe the Bible is an allegorical in diverse degrees representation of the word of God, and the Church liberally interprets it, with the end result of evangelicals often claiming that the Catholic Church does not follow what the Bible says. But that does not mean of course that the Catholic Church does not believe in the Bible.
So I think that if we extrapolate the 60% number to include all believers in an Abrahamic religion, we get to have an educated guess of about 32% of the total world population who believe the story of Noah's Ark to be true. That's almost 2.5 billion people. That's a lot of people that you guys want to ignore. I think we should not make this an advocacy platform for atheistic disbeliefs or theistic beliefs but simply find a balance between what academic scholarship say and respecting the beliefs of millions of people as WP:GEVALS says and follow what neutral point of view states, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Is the word "myth" according to significant views that have been published by reliable sources? Is the word "myth" used with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world? Thinker78 (talk) 08:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia demands reliable sources. Neither a comedian nor holy texts qualify. Nor does you guesswork on what the rest of the world thinks. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't attempt to answer my questions though. I explained why I think Maher may be a reliable source in some contexts but I will work on finding more sources. If you don't like my guesswork then I will just remind you of a referenced higher number than my guesswork, "About 54% of the world population is a believer in an Abrahamic religion".[2] About 7% of the adult population of the world is atheist.[3] Regarding the Bible, it actually seems to be a reliable source in Wikipedia depending the context.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinker78 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that any claim about the "number of believers" in the world is unreliable. Firstly, there is no agreed definition of "believer". Secondly, there is no uniform way of collecting the figures. In my country, the ONLY figures available on this front would come from the five yearly, national census. There, respondents can answer an OPTIONAL question which asks "What is the person's religion?" It lists a number of common ones, and allows a choice of "Other", asking for a written response there. So, it's optional, and does NOT ask if someone actually believes. Many people simply choose the church their family traditionally attended, maybe a generation or two ago. Given that regular church attendance is now very low (around 7%), that's no indication of belief. Obviously other countries do different things. So, how can anyone possibly come up with a global number of believers? HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, 20% of Christians don't believe in God but 17% of people without a religion do.[5] Thinker78 (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I always prefer to see the questions asked, and the actual numerical results, but those results are fascinating. Just one observation- those figures apply to Americans, not the whole world. I would describe a lot of the people of my country as apatheists. Simply not interested in whether or not God is real. It's certainly not a big part of most people's lives. HiLo48 (talk) 03:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively, you are saying that "some people who believe the story is literally true, claim that many other people also believe the story is literally true". If you have a reference for that, it could work, but I don't know if it would add value to the article? Wdford (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au44jCGLhYc
  2. ^ a b http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
  3. ^ https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-secular-life/201510/how-many-atheists-are-there
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Bible_as_a_reliable_source
  5. ^ https://www.vox.com/2018/4/26/17282284/pew-americans-god-religion-study-faith-identity

RfC on the word "myth" usage with the Genesis flood

The consensus is that the word "myth" should be written immediately next to "Genesis flood".

Cunard (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the word "myth" be written immediately next to "Genesis flood"? Thinker78 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read the background in the section above. I think if anything the word myth is choking the paragraph because it is repeated too many times, so I propose this, "The Genesis flood is similar to numerous flood myths from a variety of cultures." Thinker78 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In terms of folklore genres, the Genesis flood narrative firmly falls into the genre of myth, and there's likely more data we should draw from about the specific motifs (Motif (folkloristics)) relevant scholars, such as folklorists, have noted here. This should really be more up front than it currently is, in my opinion. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reducing the use of the word "myth" explicitly in relation to this particular ancient story, when compared with other similar legends, would give an unbalanced coverage. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you mean by that, but this is a flood myth narrative just like any other. And that’s how we treat it on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It perfectly fits the definition. You are welcome to believe, along with J. R. R. Tolkien, that it is a myth that is also true; this is not a contradiction. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "a myth that is also true" was specifically C.S. Lewis with the story of Jesus, but that only reinforces the point. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. For once this is an appropriate use of the word: legend central to religio-social doctrine, and which cannot be demonstrated to be historical fact (Robin Hood is a legend but not a myth). PS: The whole "myth that happens to be true" thing is a different meaning of "myth"; it's not really salient here; it's akin to the usage of the word in "urban myth", an imprecise bending of the word's meaning to mean something like "popular story people re-tell", and it's not what mythographers, folklorists, anthropologists, historians, hagiographers, etc. mean by the word).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes as per ....Alan Dundes (1988). The Flood Myth. University of California Press. pp. 427–. ISBN 978-0-520-06353-2..--Moxy (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Not only is it the topic of numerous books such as The Great Flood: A Handbook of World Flood Myths by Sir James G. Frazer, even the young-earth creationists call them "flood myths" (while of course claiming that their flood myth really happened): https://arkencounter.com/flood/myths/ --Guy Macon (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in line with the many reasons given above. Jzsj (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's a myth by any reasonable definition of the word and it would do to get it out of the way and then clean up the rest of the reading. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for a very simple reason: the article is at Genesis flood narrative, not "Genesis flood myth", so either we open a move discussion there, or we use it without change, but we can not change it here if there it is "narrative". Debresser (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that myth is a form of narrative, correct? :bloodofox: (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"While some scholars have tried to offer possible explanations for the origins of the flood myth including a legendary retelling of a possible Black Sea deluge, the general mythological exaggeration and implausibility of the story are widely recognized by relevant academic fields. The acknowledgement of this follows closely the development of understanding of the natural history and especially the geology and paleontology of the planet." Source: Genesis flood narrative#Historicity   --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also yes it says narrative, then in that same sentence it says myth. The Genesis flood narrative (chapters 6–9 in the Book of Genesis) is the Hebrew flood myth.. NZFC(talk) 22:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That first sentence sounds like whoever added it lost a move to "Genesis flood myth". Thinker78 (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it has its place in that sentence just like myth has its place in this article as well.NZFC(talk) 02:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes For all the same reasons listed above. Seanbonner (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - It is one of the flood myths. Moreover, myth is not only used to mean that it is only a mythological story, but also a traditional narrative (as in origin myth, flood myth, etc). —PaleoNeonate – 08:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes It's considered a major example of a flood myth, probably the major example, and several editors have explained what the word means. Doug Weller talk 12:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Snow, at this point. Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Essential version of the flood myth. Dimadick (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Of course a myth can have a kernel of historical truth and of course myths often embody bigger 'metaphorical' truths, but nonetheless it's a myth. BTW, despite all the ingeneous maths above, I grew up in an almost wholly Christian community - I never asked them all personally, but I doubt very much if a single one of them believed in the historical truth of the Ark story - certainly none believed in the literal truth of the 7 days of creation, nor did they feel any need to, they viewed the Bible as a work of profound religious revelation, not as a piece of objective history nor as a scientific treatise. However even if the maths were less tortured and s/he could show that XX% of the world believed something to be true - that would still be a belief, not a verified historical truth. The proper place for NPOV on this is treating with respect what some christians believe about Noah, but respectfully representing those beliefs is not the same as endorsing them nor whitewashing by pretending that a story handed down to us represents established historical facts. Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes If Dictionaries count for anything, the Oxford Dictionary at [3] defines a myth as: "(A) A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events"; or (B) "A widely held but false belief or idea." That seems to fit perfectly here, in every respect. Other dictionaries have very similar definitions. Wdford (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Existence of the ark

I rephrased an asssertion that the ark did not exist. The source never says that modern science says so. It is the opinion of one author. Rephrased to more accurately reflect the source, which is a biased one so this assertion might have npov issues. The NCSE was founded against creationism. More and unbiased sources are needed to support the argument that the ark didn't exist, which may have existed in some capacity different than how it is portrayed in the Bible. Thinker78 (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Edit 18:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller Did you revert according to your personal opinion or based on reliable sources? Thinker78 (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unbiased science says the ark could never have existed. We don't "balance" science with ancient fables. HiLo48 (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but care to verify the source states that modern science says that the ark did not exist and verify that with other, unbiased scholarly sources? Thinker78 (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is just so obvious. Science generally doesn't bother itself with specific impossible things. All science points to many realities that tell us an ark is impossible. HiLo48 (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VERIFY states, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". Thinker78 (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ball is in your court. Provide verification the ark existed. That's a positive demand. Should be easy. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Thinker78: how about defining what you mean by "unbiased", what sort of sources you'd accept. And I've read many scientific sources on the ark. You say it might have had a different capacity than the Bible says it does (which would seem to make it not "the Ark". Do you mean " the total amount that can be contained or produced, or (especially of a person or organization) the ability to do a particular thing? Doug Weller talk 08:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the source, which is a biased one so this assertion might have npov issues" Wikipedia does not discount biased sources. See: Biased or opinionated sources:

  • "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48. The thing is that I am not claiming that it existed but that the source does not say that modern science says it did not exist. The closest I can find regarding that says, "It has by now become abundantly clear that the case for the ark utterly and completely fails. Despite the clever ingenuity of its proponents, nothing, from the trickiest problems to the tiniest details, can be salvaged without an unending resort to the supernatural". Thinker78 (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Dimadick above I withdraw the issue about bias but I still maintain that the citation does not verify the claim that "Noah's Ark did not exist, according to modern science". Thinker78 (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinker78, if you do a search for scien in the source, it occurs 27 times. Right now the onus is on you to find a reliable, non-creationist modern scientific source that says the ark does exist. That would be needed to refute the comprehensive source which does rely on modern science and a lengthy bibliography for its conclusions. Softlavender (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the source, and it most certainly does verify the claim that "Noah's Ark did not exist, according to modern science".

Just read the section about every inherited trait being coded for by one or more genes with each gene locus having a substantial number of variants (alleles), which accounts for the great variety observed in a given population. And about the fact that a single breeding pair only has one or two alleles per locus. It goes on to say

"Speaking of a hypothetical group of six or eight animals stranded on an island, King says, 'Such a small number could not possibly reflect the actual allelic frequencies found in the large mainland population' (p. 107). What, then, of the single pair on the ark?"

"King" is of course James C. King, author of "The Biology of Race".[4]

If you really want to learn about the science behind all of this, please read DNA variation of the mammalian major histocompatibility complex reflects genomic diversity and population history and search on the word "Lion". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, according to Google Chrome the word "science" occurs 18 times. Only 11 times within the article itself and mostly criticising the supernatural aspect of the story, not denying the possibility that the ark (the vessel) existed without supernatural elements. Thinker78 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, what has inherited traits to do with the possibility that the ark (the vessel existed), which could have without the supernatural elements and in some other context? Thinker78 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Not going to answer stupid questions THAT ARE EASILY ANSWERED BY READING THE SOURCE.[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Moore, Robert A. (1983). "The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark". Creation Evolution Journal. 4 (1): 1–43.


It's a 20,000-word detailed analysis of all of the specifics of the ark story, making very little reference to the supernatural and focussing instead on facts, details, and science. Your assertion that it allows for the possible existence of the ark is mistaken; it does not. You can try to dismiss the article, but it is an analysis of the feasibility of the ark's existence from a modern scientific standpoint, with a bibliography of 106 references. So unless you find a reliable, non-creationist modern scientific source that says the ark does exist, this article with its dozens of citations is certainly not an anomaly and represents current modern, non-creationist science on the matter. You can always take your question to WP:RSN if you feel the source is being misused. Right now you have no WP:CONSENSUS for your change or your argument. Softlavender (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Guy Macon, what has inherited traits to do with the possibility that the ark (the vessel existed), which could have without the supernatural elements and in some other context?" The ark is part of a flood myth, where only a small number of individuals from various species survive the genocidal wrath of a malevolent deity. Population bottlenecks such as this do exist in the real world, but they "reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population". Due to the smaller genetic diversity, "the robustness of the population is reduced and its ability to adapt to and survive selecting environmental changes, such as climate change or a shift in available resources, is reduced."

So the descendants of anyone present in the ark would likely have less of a chance to survive in the long-term. Dimadick (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, more to the point, we would be able to detect the genetic aftermath of a population bottleneck, as we have been able to do with the Cheetah.[1][2] Most species do not have the genetic markings of a species that experience a population bottleneck, and therefore most species are not descendants of either one pair (unclean animals) or seven pairs (clean animals), and therefore the events described in the Noah's Ark myth never happened. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Dating the genetic bottleneck of the African cheetah" (PDF). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 90: 3172–6. Apr 1993. doi:10.1073/pnas.90.8.3172. PMC 46261. PMID 8475057.
  2. ^ http://bio150.chass.utoronto.ca/labs/cool-links/lab5/OBrien_et_al_1985_lab_5.pdf
Guy Macon, please maintain a civil and respectful debate. I think telling other editors that you are not going to answer "stupid questions" runs against WP:CIVILITY, which states, "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates". Thinker78 (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thinker78 - it seems to me you are not looking for the possibility that science disproves the existence of the ark. Of course it does. That may be a challenge to your beliefs, but Wikipedia cannot be based on them. It has be based on mainstream science. Whether our particular source disproves the existence of the ark to your satisfaction is not really important. We don't change the article for that reason. Science does not go out of its way to disprove particular Biblical stories. Their absence of reality is self-evident to most scientists, so why would it bother? You are welcome to your beliefs, but don't ask science to be something it isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, just try to explain to him/her the historicity concerns. Accusations concerning Thinker78's personal beliefs are more likely to cause anger, rather than resolve any debate. By the way, Thinker is asking for additional sources, he/she has not stated anything concerning personal opinions. Dimadick (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I chose my words very carefully in my comment. Please be careful with your accusations about what I have written. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48: Lol. Glad you chose your words very carefully. If your assumptions about the source are as inaccurate as your assumptions about my beliefs then.... I don't know what to say! Except that I think that the one being driven by his beliefs is you. If you happen to believe that science says that Noah's ark didn't exist, that is just fine but you should be analysing the source to verify the information presented in the article instead. What is important is if the source verifies the information presented not if the source proves the inexistence of something.Thinker78 (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have not understood my comment. And I'm getting annoyed. This happens far too often when religion crashes into reality. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48, my friend, scholastic debates can last hours and you are getting annoyed after a couple of written comments. If you still have will left to continue the debate, tell me what was the intended meaning of your comment and the new comment, "this happens ...when religion crashes into reality". Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"HiLo48, my friend, scholastic debates can last hours and you are getting annoyed after a couple of written comments." That is a complete and utter misrepresentation of what has happened so far on this page. Misrepresentation in another thing that happens far too often when religion crashes into reality. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia is not the place to debate on the existence of the Ark, we use reliable sources for that. This talk page is also not a WP:FORUM for debating that or to discuss the topic itself, so should be used to directly improve the article. If you have mainstream scholarly sources which contradict the others used in the current article, please provide them. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy folks! I am responding to a call for comment on this discussion from WikiProject History. I agree with the above mentions that whatever is said on the issue must be WP:NPOV, and I question if it is currently NPOV. As with any article discussing religion and science, debates can get pretty heated (remember to stay cool folks, don't want your keyboards melting!). I am of the opinion that the Historicity section needs additional sources and perhaps a rewrite. I question why the section discusses encyclopedias from 1771? I believe the section should cite more modern sources, and be very careful about wording - such as the article on the Historicity of Jesus (rated B class). I think the beginning of the section should attempt to, as the aforementioned article says, "establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances." Unfortunately we have no first hand documents from the ark, and Noah wasn't kind enough to email us his diary :) That leaves us with a classic problem: we can neither confirm nor deny its existence with absolute certainty (edit: nor do we have to here on WP). Clearly we have not found the ark in modern times, and the source from the NCSE does pretty clearly lay out their conclusion that the ark did not exist. But! The mere fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that there is still controversy surrounding that claim. Regarding the NCSE: its not hiding what it is. It is firmly against creation "science ". However it seems well written and I believe it is verifiable, and that there appears to be no reason to doubt its claims. However more citations from other neutral sources would shore up their claim (perhaps some folks could find some from the NCSE bibliography, which is pretty long). As asked on WProject History, I believe that the source from NCSE written by Robert Moore supports fully the claim that modern science discounts the ark. However I think that this could be written more tactfully in the article. Bottom line: I think that the intro paragraph for the historicity section needs rewriting, although I'm not sure what that new writing should be. It should definitely focus more on modern sources, and not give undue WP:WEIGHT to creationist and premodern sources - but it should still address them, at least insofar as they exist. I also think that the third paragraph in the lead section ought be expanded/copyedited (it doesn't make sense: how can the historicity contradict modern science if its historicity is based on modern science?)Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The mere fact that we're having this discussion is evidence that there is still controversy surrounding that claim." Not in most of the world nor among most educated people. "...this could be written more tactfully in the article" Why should it be? Wikipedia has no policy of not offending creationists, or anyone else with fringe views. Any softening of our position of basing what we write on modern science will probably lead to the creationists wanting Noah's rainfall event added to the List of weather records article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something has controversy doesn't make it untrue, for example there is controversy surrounding climate change, but myself, scientists and Wikipedia all agree that it is real. Notably, that article does mention the controversy, and is careful yet deliberate in its wording. I agree that we should definitely not compromise: we should continue to clearly state the modern scientific consensus. Also thanks for giving me a good chuckle with that quip about Noah's flood.Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances" Hard to do here. The entire Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth written at some point between the 6th century BCE and the 4th century BCE. It seems to rework material from a number of older flood myth narratives, found in Mesopotamian sources. The origin of these narratives is unclear. Archaeologists have found evidence of localized floods in Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium BCE that damaged a number of city-states, including Shuruppak (the city most associated with the flood myths). Whether the real floods inspired mythical narratives is unclear, though plausible. Dimadick (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78, you said you ... rephrased an asssertion that the ark did not exist but I am not sure which edit you refer to. Please link the to the url which contains the edit.
I am afraid this article has fallen prone to conflicts among creationists and mainstream scientists. The article seems to have suffered from these conflicts. For example, the last section deals with the historicity of the flood mythology—it is not very relevant for the subject of the article, but more relevant for the article about flood myth. As a general rule, no content should be added from sources that are not directly about the subject of the article, as doing so is usually a form of OR.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, the sentence although the historicity of Noah's Ark contradicts the established modern scientific consensus is not supported by the source cited. There maybe more original research in the article (on both sides of the debate), and the article should be checked for this thoroughly. Personally, I think it is more relevant to discuss the mythological and cultural aspects of the Ark, rather than focusing on the issue of historicity. I would argue that historicity of the Ark is not a subject discussed in reliable sources about this subject, just in politically-motivated, less reliable sources from mostly the US (on both sides of the debate). It is a discussion that is moot and not interesting for nearly everyone in the world except for a few communities in the US. Propose removing all content referring to historicity, or move to creationism instead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think there is any mainstream historian who would take the idea of a literal, historical global flood lasting for forty days before subsiding seriously, mainly because it is geologically impossible. Nonetheless, I do think something needs to be said in this article about the historicity of the ark. The only poll I could find specifically dealing with belief in Noah's ark is this one from ABC News in 2004, mentioned by The Washington Times (a very conservative newspaper), which claims that, at that time, fully 60% of Americans believed in a literal Great Flood. According to Pew Research Center in 2017, 34% of people in the United States reject evolution (a number which is surprisingly much lower than it had been for several decades) and the percentage of people who reject evolution in Latin America and the Middle East are even higher. My best guess is that probably slightly less than half of the people reading this article are going to be people who believe the story, which makes explaining why the ark could not have existed an inherent issue.
I also notice a lot of other problems with this article, including many errors concerning the Mesopotamian deluge stories. Apparently someone thinks that the Sumerian deluge story is an epic. Just for reference this is the text we are talking about, a fragmentary poem which could be printed on a single page in its entirety; it is preserved on a single clay tablet with only six columns and, of those, only the lower third of the tablet is legible. That is an epic now? We seem to have lowered our standards. Also, someone seems to have made the rather bizarre mistake of thinking that, because the Epic of Gilgamesh contains a flood story, that must mean Gilgamesh is the hero of it. In the actual epic, however, Gilgamesh is not the hero of the flood story; he only meets the hero: Utnapishtim. I have corrected all these errors that I have mentioned, but there may be other, less obvious ones that I have not noticed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PaleoNeonate If you read the top of this thread that I started you would realize that the debate is about whether the source verifies the text. Not really sure why do you bring about WP:FORUM. Thinker78 (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Genesis flood myth was written probably in the late 5th century, although there's a body of opinion that dates it later. It's a Jewish re-write of a Babylonian original. The Babylonian myth came into existence about 2000 BC as a version of the existing genre of city-destruction myth. The sources are in the bibiography.PiCo (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thinker78 - the intro to the section on historicity didn't originally say that the ark never existed - it sauid something along the lines of how we can trace the change from acceptance to non-acceptance of a real ark through the various editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. WHich is why it then goes on to discuss the EB at length.PiCo (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The young-earth creationists claim that all ancient/non-historic volcanoes were created during Noah's flood.[5][6][7]. But Mount Ararat is a dormant volcano sitting on top of layers of ancient sediment that the young-earth creationists insist were laid down during Noah's flood. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"But Mount Ararat is a dormant volcano" The main article mentions volcanic activity as recent as the 19th century: "The chronology of Holocene volcanic activity associated with Mount Ararat is poorly documented. However, either archaeological excavations, oral history, historical records, or a combination of these data provide evidence that volcanic eruptions of Mount Ararat occurred in 2500–2400 BC, 550 BC, possibly in 1450 AD and 1783 AD, and definitely in 1840 AD. Archaeological evidence demonstrates that explosive eruptions and pyroclastic flows from the northwest flank of Mount Ararat destroyed and buried at least one Kura–Araxes culture settlement and caused numerous fatalities in 2500–2400 BC. Oral histories indicated that a significant eruption of uncertain magnitude occurred in 550 BC and minor eruptions of uncertain nature might have occurred in 1450 AD and 1783 AD." Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
♠Also following the Milhist talk page link.
♠The "rephrasing" appears to me as if it's meant to reduce the evidence in the paper to mere opinion, which can then be easily dismissed. That's POV. As for the larger issue, the existence of the Ark as described in the Bible is so impossible, it doesn't deserve refutation. As a mythical or poetic extension of a real thing, it may deserve WP coverage, but that coverage must be in line with reality, just as coverage of Thor does (as opposed to this guy or this guy).
♠On the flood myth issue, & its historicity, it seems there was a major Black Sea flood (the breaching of an ice dam, IIRC) around 5-6KYA, that could account for all of them: it predates the earliest recorded instance.
♠"found it beside Atlantis" Really? Does Dr. Weir know? ;p Dr. Daniel Jackson zat me 15:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts about the claim that "there was a major Black Sea flood (the breaching of an ice dam, IIRC) around 5-6KYA". See Black Sea deluge hypothesis. And what's with the ♠ characters? ಠ_ಠ --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of discussion on this talk page suggest that the article is of considerable interest to many. So ought we to consider trying to get the article to a "good" a "featured" status? I note that it was "featured" a decade or more ago, but lost that rating. What might need to be done to restore it to such a status? Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To become a good article I believe the biggest obstacles may be:
  • Point 4 of the good article critera: Neutral POV, and giving due weight i.e. working to fix the historicity section to better address the sheer improbability of its existence and giving less weight to historical (100+ years) discussion of its existence. I suspect this will take a fair bit of workshopping and talk page discussion to work through contention.
  • Also at issue would be point 3 of GAC: appropriate coverage. I feel like some sections may go into too much depth/get into the weeds. Conversely there are clearly some sections that need expansion, like the section on composition of the myth. Perhaps that section should just be incorporated into the paragraph above if more sources can't be found.
  • Sources and pictures need checking too
  • I am fairly new to this article, but there are editors who've been here a while and know this article's ropes. Are there some editors who are more experienced with this article and can/would like to start pushing this towards a GA review? I bet with some work this could pass a GA on the first go.
Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Era

A recent edit summary said "Although CE and BCE are more accurate, most Wikipedia users are not familiar with them, and Wikipedia thus uses BC and AD."[8] This is incorrect. MOS:ERA says:

  • BC and AD are the traditional ways of designating eras. BCE and CE are common in some scholarly texts and in certain topic areas. Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles.
  • Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article. Exception: do not change direct quotations, titles, etc.
  • Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was the user who wrote that summary, I agree with Guy Macon that I was in error. We discussed it on my talk page too and ironed it all out. I misread the article diffs, that was my fault. Moral: I reverted the right edits with the wrong reasoning, and will read more carefully in the future and not edit before I've had my morning coffee :) Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noah%27s_Ark&oldid=857830284"