Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 3

message: For a scientific approach regarding the discovery of the structure at registered archaeological site 3927 9654. Katherin 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent find. Could well be the reak ark. Thanks for sharing it. rossnixon 01:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This seems like a very minor website that shouldn't really be up there. If we wanted a link to a Ron Wyatt site that would be one thing, but I don't see why this one(which is basically a glorified personal website) should be singled out. JoshuaZ 02:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Something left  15 years ago with no further investigation does not lend itself to credibility either. (Also, I wasn't think of linking to Wyatt for credibility but because he is well known). JoshuaZ 13:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To quote Gertrude Stein, "there's no there there."  I see a lot of hyperbolic supposition but that's about it.  •Jim62sch• 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://www.vonbora.org www.vonbora.org ] 

message: I'm working on a faulty keyboard which makes some functions impossible. I made a revert to retrieve a previous version of Christian Traditions which someone changed for the worse (they took out a reference to the Anglican rite of baptism nad the mention of Noah that it makes, and gerneally weakened the whole section). The only way I could do this was via a total reversion, which meant I spolied some later edits to the Other Flood Myths section. I have no objection to those and they can stay if anyone wants to copypaste them back in  unfortunately copying and pasting is something I can't do with this keyboard. And I can't sign my edits either. PiCo, 22 April.
::Not sure about the latter, but couldn't you've done the former using your mouse, and either the Edit menu or the right mouse button? 82.166.53.176 14:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to previous version of Christian Tradition 

message: The 87 verses of the Ark narrative leave an impression of occasional confusion: why does the story state twice over that mankind had grown corrupt but that Noah was to be saved (Gen 6:5–8; 6:11–13)?  Genesis 6:1-7 gives background information, v. 8 introduces Noah, and then God explains to Noah why He is destroying the earth and man.
Was Noah commanded to take one pair of each clean animal into the Ark (Gen 6:19–20) or seven pairs (Gen 7:2–3)? Gen 6:19-20 gives a general description of what he is to bring, then Gen 7:2-3 gives more specific instructions, the reason for these extra animals was for sacrifice (Gen 8:20). If one verse said take only one pair and another verse said seven pairs, that would be a contradiction. 
Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days? (Gen 7:24)?
It rained for forty days, the water flooded the earth for another 150 days, not rained for the next 150 days.  
What happened to the raven that was sent out from the Ark at the same time as the dove and "went to and fro until the waters had subsided from the face of the earth" some two to three weeks later (Gen 8:7)? Ravens probably didn't need to return because they could eat the floating carcassesand need not come back, but, it is just an explanation, not gospel truth. 
Why does the narrative appear to have two logical end-points (Gen 8:20–22 and 9:1–17)?
It seems sequential though, Gen 9:1 flows with the last verses of Chapter 8. 
--Goldendroplets 02:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of that section is not to advocate the DH, it's to present the DH and any questions it happens to raise. A give-and-take debate in the body of the article is highly undesireable, so let's not do it please. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that an encyclopedia is not for a "give-and-take" debate, that's why I posted the discussion here and didn't edit the actual article. --Goldendroplets 06:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answers to "Documentary hypothesis" (does that section have an NPOV?) 

message: Interesting info, but I'm not sure how this fits into the article as a whole right now.  It definitely doesn't belong in the narrative section, which is more about the traditional story of Noah's Ark.  We do not currently have a section explicitly on "possible explanations for the flood/the landing on Mt. Ararat/etc.," which is where I suspect something like this would belong (though "Scrutiny" and "Search for" come close).  I think it would be a better idea, though, to take it to Deluge (mythology) as they do have such a section.--TurabianNights 22:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seismic Activity 

message: The article asks in the Documentary hypothesis section a number of questions meant to draw out contradictions in the narrative. For example, "Did the flood last forty days (Gen. 7:17) or a hundred and fifty days? (Gen 7:24)" However, Gen. 7:17 states,  "For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth..." and verse 24 states, "The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days." I'm not seeing the contradiction here. "Kept coming" implies that it rained for forty days, while "waters flooded the earth" implies that, well, the earth was covered in water. —Aiden 19:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, however, among the concerns raised by those advocating this position. Wikipedia doesn't judge the merits of a position; it merely reports. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh! It also shows the poor scholastic ability of some of the doubters. rossnixon 01:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see the source for these "concerns raised by those advocating this position." To me it looks like an editor found a couple examples of what he mistakenly perceived as contradictions and listed them in the article. —Aiden 05:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, although this isn't the first time I've seen them. That's why I assumed they were sourced, or at least added in good faith. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can find some better questions to represent the documentary hypothesis. I'll check my sources when I have time, and try to improve this section. Aardvark92 13:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False contradiction 

message: According to several sources Noah's birthplace and starting place was somewere in Nakhichevan, it would be usefull to also add this to the text as some of us might need this. It would be usefull to check [this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1843_Nakhichevan_Coat_of_Arms.png] emblem of Nakhichevan out, you can clearly see Noah's boot and the great flood, and this is a emblem dating back to the 17th centruy. Baku87 20:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted, though, that the image of Noah's Ark was common among Caucasion coats of arms under Russian rule. -- Clevelander 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noah's birthplace 

message: Would it be allowed to add a section saying that some people believe that Noah's Ark is a warning of Global Warming. It holds many similarities: flooding, sins of man (mistreatment of earth) and the need for people to preserve nature.
:Not really. The "sins" are the only similarity that I see. 'Global warming' is just a political ruse. rossnixon 00:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A "political ruse" eh?  It's amazing how a demonstrable phenomenon is trumped by something which never actually happened.  Anyway, adding any text suggesting a connection between a Flood and the ongoing and observable changes in the Earth's climate system would be rank speculation and original research.  That said, were this a commonly expressed sentiment of notable authorities, then it might merit a passing reference, but would need to be heavily sourced, and clearly delineated as opinion.  --Plumbago 09:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "A commonly expressed opinion of notable authorities"? Ok, if you can line up quotes from the Pope, the Archbishop of Cantabury, the Sheikh of Al Azhar, and the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, all linking global warming to Noah's Ark, I'll buy it. PiCo 10:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are the sorts of notables I had in mind.  I won't be holding my breath though!  Cheers, --Plumbago 09:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming 

message: And scientists are not historians.  It is an indefensible position to propose that history is only judged to be accurate once physical evidence is available and evaluated.  That is an impossible criterion.  Such “scientists” may as well start burning histories by the millions.
Some cloaked in the moniker “scientist” propose that the historical record is pseudo-science.  That clearly arises from prejudice or ignorance.  The record is not self-attested to be scientific in any sense of the word at all.  Its own propositions are clear.  It makes statements of fact in an historical manner.  
Some who ostensibly believe in the historicity are also trying to present so-called physical evidence that isn’t even at the place described by the ancient text.  They are quacks.  While their buffoonery is immense in our generation, it is not so large as to extend back several thousands years of cultures and languages to transform an historical record into pseudo-science.   If you think it is erroneous, fine.  But be intelligent enough to reserve (and resrict) the label “pseudoscience” to those who at least lay claim to have attempted a scientific propositions.Katherin 05:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what "pseudoscience" means. If it was actually a scientific proposition then it would not be pseudoscience, and those who are conducting unscientific research into the Ark do claim they're doing real science. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Who cares if someone finds “PinkPainters” who paint elephants, and I agree wholeheartedly with the label of PinkPainter.  Then so what?  We have found a pinkpainter.  Who cares if we find a 1,000 pink painters.   We cannot say then that all individuals who approach an elephant are pinkpainters, nor can we infer that all elephants are pink, nor that the consideration of the history of elephants should be labeled “pinkpainterology”.Katherin 18:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historians, particularly anthropologists that are involved in archaeological activities, may not be scientists, but they do use scientific tools such as carbon dating.
It is anti-intellectual to reflexively oppose all pursuits into whether this topic happened as pseudo-science.  Dogru144 15:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: None of this is relevant, the relevant issue is verifiability. Whether we personally would like to call something pseudoscience or not is irrelevant. JoshuaZ 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFLMAO!!Katherin 01:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What is your standard for “verifiability”? It was you, Joshuaz, who opined Richard Dawkins’ verifiable opinion about an ostensibly religious subject, the Trinity, would not matter because he is a scientist and not a theologian.  I find it hilarious that someone with such a dismissive standard of verifiability would consider the opinion of scientists to matter one whit in regard to the subjects of historians.  Indeed! Shall we use your standard of “verifiability”?  As tempting as it may be, censorship doesn’t become us.Katherin 06:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of it is pseudoscience, particularly the creationists and the people who believe in a global deluge. Titanium Dragon 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Says you...   Not everyone shares that POV by a long shot - That's why this is a POV  / neutrality issue.  Simply stating your POV as fact again is hardly compelling... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To put it more clearly: The claim that there is scientific support for special creation and a global deluge is pseudoscience. The scientific evidence cited for them is bogus. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  This indicates a multitude of misunderstandings of what is being called pseudoscience. In particular, the claims that are pseudoscientific are those mainly connected to hydrological sorting and Flood geology these are matters for scientist not matters for historians. JoshuaZ 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I have many atheist and Christian friends who are skilled at prevarication.  It is not inductive reasoning that forms a consensus regarding Magellan, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Amenhotep, or Marco Polo.  But, none of them called people to repent.Katherin 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh? JoshuaZ 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historians are not Scientists 

message: I've added a source and reference points to the DH section. I'll probably come back later and make sure the examples given in the article really do match the source I'm quoting. In the meantime, can we remove the ['cite needed' tag? PiCo 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentary Hypothesis section - references 

message: Given the many assertions of it not being a mythological object (despite the mythology article, the definition of the word, the article about the Great Deluge and other flood myths, the category Abrahamic Mythology, and the numerous, numerous reliable sources which refer to it as a mythological object, I'm going to ask a very simple question:
:Do any of you have reliable sources which refute this categorization?
Much like 9/11 conspiracy theories and other conspiracy theory related articles, using the correct proper noun is allowed. Indeed, WTA explicitly endorses the usage of the word in the context it would be used in this article. So, please come forward with them, as that's the only way to dispute this reasonably. Titanium Dragon 00:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that WP:WTA explicitly endorses the use of the word, but it also explicitly says that in using the word, one must be careful to avoid implying that it is untrue.  What, precisely, is the wording that you propose using?  And what is wrong with the current wording, such that a change is required?  And what's your response to my comments above (posted at 11:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Source which says Noah's Ark is not mythological 

message: I would support calling arkology as pseudoscience for several reasons. I support labeling noah's ark and the great flood of Genesis 7 as one of the flood myths or legends. I would even support a section describing why, on a scientific basis, the entire story is horse**** (although in different words...maybe a section on Why the Noah's Ark story is impossible).--Filll 18:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you Filll.  I await the link to your The Pseudosciene of Insert Biblical Myth Here.  Of course, it would be easy, since they are all myths.  OrangeMarlin 18:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 

message: *This section lacks articles on real scientific expeditions that did not find the ark.
*This section lacks articles on the lack of evidence of a flood.
*This section lacks verifiable sources.
OrangeMarlin 19:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rearrange the article. I would include a nice section on why the  Ark was real and the flood happened. This would be very short. Basically, it is believed because it is written in Genesis. Then I would have a section on why the the Ark was not real and the flood did not happen: *Stuff from naval architecture about the ark's design
*inadequacy of the capacity of the ark to hold all those species
*appearance and disappearance of all that extra water
*inability to travel all over the earth to collect all the species necessary
*trouble with a dove finding a growing olive tree to bring back a branch
*lack of evidence for a worldwide flood
*nonphysical explanation of the rainbow at the end of the flood
I could probably come up with dozens of others. These have been well known for centuries. Of course, bibliolaters can always invoke the supernatural magic wand to make the extra water appear and disappear, and the magic wand to make the evidence of the flood disappear, and to change the laws of physics to create the frequency-dependent refraction coefficient of water. And that is fine. They are allowed to use the supernatural. Because arkeology is pseudoscience, since it relies on the supernatural. It is not science, which only concerns natural causes. So it is perfectly natural to label arkeology as a pseudoscience.--Filll 19:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a subarticle about searches for the Ark, probably because while there are a lot of them, it isn't all that important relative to the Ark itself as a mythological vessel. Arkeology is pseudoscience, 'tis true, but I think that the focus of this article is NOT Arkeology but the Ark itself. It warrants mentioning, but this shouldn't be a "pro vs. con the Ark exists or it doesn't" article as to the great majority of Christians and Jews (and maybe Muslims?) it is a mythological object and a part of their religion, and that should not be ignored in favor of people who don't believe in the Ark at all, and certainly not the very small minority who believe the Flood literally happened. Titanium Dragon 20:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is unfair that we remove my NPOV tag when this article clearly is about pseudoscience, and we give weight to to unverifiable references.  Even though there is another article, you read this article and you get the impression that some scientist somewhere actually believes this thing exists.  Just my opinion.  But shouldn't the removal of tags be at least discussed and come to some consensus?  I have to be honest, we give more consideration to the various Creationist junk than we did to my point.  OrangeMarlin 23:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a fairly bright person, and I have to state that I have no clue what you just posted.  I thought I was stating the obvious--there is a section of this article that states that there are efforts to prove Noah's Ark existed.  There is preponderance of evidence that it did not.  And yes "Creationist junk" is POV, that's why we keep stamping it down.  My point with the Creationists is that in the Evolution article, we spend days and weeks discussing the various statements from "Evolution is only a theory" to whatever else is thrown our way.  We discuss it, and we give every opportunity for them to make their case (which they never do, but most of the people editing the Evolution article are much more patient than I am).  Then we decline to move on, because they are presenting pseudoscience and Creation myth.  Here is the reverse situation.  We believe there is hard science that Noah's Ark is nothing but a myth.  But it is not allowed to be shown on this page, but in some daughter page that may or may not link to this one.  But you're the administrator and I'm not, so I guess I defer to you.  I don't like it, but I also don't like mushrooms on my pizza, but everyone seems to order it with shrooms.  In both cases, I guess I'll have to accept the fact that I was late to the game.  And I'll try to be less argumentative in my pointmaking--I just get annoyed by these discussions.  OrangeMarlin 00:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Just as an aside, (no problem with that edit here), but I was sorta wondering how it could be called a "Mar 25" edit when it is mostly about a June '06 event...  turns out it's "July 25" you must have meant... anyway...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Has that ever been done before?  Seems rather tough!  OrangeMarlin 00:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, I'm reading through the discussion, and I noticed that there was a "battle (ok, intense discussion)" about classifying this article as pseudoscience.  What happened?  It didn't appear that there was a vote, or consensus or anything.  It just stopped.  OrangeMarlin 00:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do it in about five seconds if there is support. I have no idea what happened with the PS debate. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was bold and did it. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did what?  OrangeMarlin 00:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV of the section The search for Noah's Ark 

message: This would make a nice long list I think:
*http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/report.asp
*http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/bogus.html
*http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2004/septemberweb-only/9-20-31.0.html
*http://www.noahsarksearch.com/ronwyatt.htm
*http://www.tentmaker.org/Dew/Dew7/D7-AGreatChristianScam.html
*http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html
*http://atheism.about.com/b/a/115211.htm
*http://www.arksearch.com/naexped.htm
*http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-06/inquiree.html
In fact, there have been so many expeditions to find the ark, and so much fraud and malfeasance on the part of creationists and bibliolaters, that we could have a second article all about this. It would make great reading and really highlight this amazing delusion.--Filll 20:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searches for Noah's Ark KillerChihuahua?!? 21:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I found it. I think it might stand with some cleaning up.--Filll 21:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have it watchlisted but I have over 1,000 pages watched now so I usually don't check contribs to that one. This one, however, is a Featured article, and I am more attentive. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a section listing failed claims of Ark discovery, Ark hoaxes, Ark scandals, etc? 

message: The article says,
...claims of the Ark's discovery have been made on a number of occasions, usually turning out to be hoaxes.
Is this actually true?  I would have thought that a large number of them were simply unverifiable, rather than proven hoaxes.  If there is no verification for this statement, I suggest changing it to, "...claims of the Ark's discovery have been made on a number of occasions, but have either not been able to be verified or were hoaxes.
Philip J. Rayment 02:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to "and claims of the Ark's discovery have been made on a number of occasions, but have either not been verified or were hoaxes." See section above, NPOV of the section The search for Noah's Ark  - we are working forward with this section. Thanks for helping out. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You certainly didn't waste any time with that!  Thanks.  Philip J. Rayment 02:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification of "usually hoaxes" 

message: Ok, I'm happy with the summary statement, but the next para deals only with one search, the most recent. We need to make this more of an overall view of searches, yes? Anyone want to take a stab at suggestions? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It concentrates too much on the last search, which is unlikely to be any  more conclusive than any of the others. I would suggest removing it and letting people go to the other article for this more recent expedition and the history of the expeditions.--Filll 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a re-write of the section. When finished it will give an overview of the contemporary ark-searches, concentrating on why and where. PiCo 07:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Searches for Noah's Ark]] 

message: I suggest replacing the search section with a section covering the science that fundamentalists call "arkeology". This section would be balanced, so it would carry evidence on both sides. It would cover the search summary that we have now but no extended discussion of the last search.--Filll 17:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest not opening that particular can of worms. Arkology includes all the matters touched on in the current section about literalist perspectives - what exactly is gopher wood, what did Noah do about waste disposal, was the ark big enough for all those animals, what about the dinosaurs, what about eucalyptus leaves for the koalas (they have to be provided with fresh ones every day, very picky eaters your koalas). It's all covered quite adequately as it stands, it has the support of rabid rationalists and fervent Creationsits alike - don't go there, I beg you. (Don't you people have anything better to do over Christmas than hang out on Wikipedia?)PiCo 04:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we not at least define the term arkeology?--Filll 14:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arkeology section 

message: Once again, I ask how can we resolve this dispute?  There are maybe 4-6 people participating in this discussion, and we all have our corners.  Filll and I are godless atheist scientists.  Codex and Mr. Rayment are apologist christian fundamentalists.  I have heard it all.  I am asking, once again, based on the parameters that we set forth, is this article NPOV?  Some of us think not (and very strongly I might add) and some think it is (very strongly once again).  Does this get arbitrated, voted, or what?  My fingers are wearing out discussing this issue over and over again (although Codex and Rayment are much smarter than some of the people who can only be described as trolls on the Evolution talk page--would prefer you two by a long long long margin, because I'd rather think than stomp trolls).  I digress.  Is there a consensus or compromise that will work?  And can we not use this section to battle each other.  Everytime you guys make a point, I'm not just going to sit here and not answer back.  Orangemarlin 02:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I'm asking you to refrain from making assumptions about what my faith is, which I have kept private. I have never stated what my religion is, nor would I consider it appropriate to do so for this project. For that matter, I have never stated what my personal feelings are about the history of Noahs Ark is. It doesn't matter what any editors personal feelings are. Wikipedia is really quite simple, there are only two things that matter: What can be cited, and not taking sides. You are continuing to try to claim a consensus by somehow disqualifying the voices that disagree with your POV, but it doesn;'t work like that on Wikipedia. All significant positions should be cited, but none endorsed. WP:NPOV is perfectly clear on this point. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I've not stated what your faith is, but I do know you seem to believe in this particular story.  I lump you in with all the others that do, because, well, it makes sense to me.  Second, I don't have any personal feelings except to make sure that Wikipedia's articles state fact-based information, not POV.  I think that this article is POV.  Third, and most importantly, you are lecturing me again that I'm some sort of daft cretin who cannot read.  Unfortunately, MY interpretation of WP:NPOV differs than yours.  Is it possible that two people read the same thing and come to completely different conclusions?  I'm just asking because your paradigm doesn't include the possibility that you have misinterpreted the rules and regulations.  Because I read the policy and I read this article, and it is pure POV.  That's why we come to a consensus.Orangemarlin 03:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have indeed stated several times that I am a "fundamentalist Christian" and other like terms.  And what it "seems" to you that I believe should not even enter into this discussion.  It may seem like I am lecturing you but WP:NPOV is absolutely precise and unambiguous, not open to every individual's interpretation, and also, you don't achieve consensus here by trying to disqualify the opposition  (if I told you who that reminded me of, I would again be proving Godwin's Law...!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not advocating a rewrite.  I am, however, advocating that we categorize this article as mythology or, more definitively, as pseudoscience to give it a NPOV.  If I rewrite, and we have the same battle above, well, you see that's a waste of time.  Most of what is written herein is nonsense to me, but rather neutral.  However, there are a few items that push it to the side of POV, especially describing scientific expeditions and the such.  The "Ark under scrutiny" section ends in 1700.  It should lay out the evidence that the flood, the ark, and the such are pseudoscience based on myth, and that would balance the telling of the myth that takes up most of the article.  But I don't want to discuss it, because the same 5 or 6 people will chime in.  How do we resolve this?  Orangemarlin 02:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I'd like to try to act as a mediator here, if you all (Codex, Fill, Rayment, Orange) agree. JPotter 03:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does this work?Orangemarlin 03:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Officially, you can go through the Dispute Resolution process, but usually they like to see a consensus gathering effort beforehand, which is what I'd like to try to accomplish, taking both sides and most importantly, Wikipedia policy, into consideration. JPotter 03:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree to it. Titanium Dragon 06:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't really know anything about you, but as long as you continue to be as reasonable as you have been so far, I agree. Philip J. Rayment 11:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes... At long last, the voice of sanity! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me.  It's what I've been suggesting all along.  Orangemarlin 05:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Jason Potter's plan.  65.73.80.45 04:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is already catagorised as Abrahamic mythology (look at the banner at the bottom of the article). We discussed the pseudoscience question earleir and the general feeling was that it was inappropriate to apply this to an article about a religious topic. PiCo 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Abrahamic Mythology has one shortcoming when used as a descriptive “category” for this article.  Abraham is not argued to have written the text covering the subject of the article.  Perhaps we should have a new category. The “Missive Musing of Moses” category would be more accurate, but alas I am not immediately aware of a source for a category of that title, so perhaps accuracy will have to suffer for now. ffffff 05:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The missive musing of moses?  Do you see how that would offend people?  If I didn't assume good faith, this whole pseudoscience/mythology thread would appear to be the entertainment of a cackle of trolls.  I see Orangemarlin in particular is running around wikipedia picking fights with those he considers loathsome, rightwing Christian terrorists by accusing those who do not agree with him of being a Christian fundementalist or some other personal attack.  A man's religion is his business.  And that Orangemarlin and fill follow each other around picking fights with those they deem Christian fundementalists, communicating with each other via talk pages and calling for each other's aid in battle on those same talk pages, is a form of sockpuppetry, clearly proovable if somebody would take the time to form a case against these two.  05:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider the source.--Filll 14:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I find the scrambling amusing.  Wiki’s highest goal is not accuracy but verifiability, which is a well conceived and “lettered” form of band-wagonlogy that has its inherent shortcomings.  It might be true; it might not; maybe someday; maybe not.  It is sorta like a mob that rushes around incapable of knowing truth but must receive their truth vicariously by relying on people who have received special honor in an institutional mutual admiration society.  But hey, it’s the best we can come up with on our own.  Not too shabby when actually followed. 71.100.172.27 06:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While Pseudoscience describes many searches for the Ark, this article is about the Ark itself mostly. It is mythology, and is categorized as such, in the appropriate category (Abrahamic Mythology). According to the books on my shelf and my old mythology class, that's a common name for the mythology (I've also heard it called Judeo-Christian mythology, though that excludes the Ba'hai and Islam inappropriately). Titanium Dragon 06:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we PLEASE stop? 

message: The article concludes with:  
:The arkologists continued to be literalist Christians
An incomplete sentence, and the link to arkologists  does not exist. Could somebody fix this?  I couldn't figure out when it was broken.  65.73.80.45 05:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you not write a new article on arkeology vacuous poet? Instead of only attacking editors and disrupting, actually write something.--Filll 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough about the subject in this case.  However, I do know it is a sentence fragment and the link is broken.  Is such constructive criticism proofreading unwelcome?  I should hope not.  I was sort of hoping that somebody familiar with the article would appreciate the note and fix it.  15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I might take your suggestion.  Meanwhile, is proofreading unwelcome?  16:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proofreading is not unwelcome. Titanium Dragon 20:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link or vandelism?