Evangelical archaeologists claim to have found the remains of Noah’s Ark in Turkey.
I will pause for a moment until you finish laughing your ass off at the combined use of the words “evangelical” and “archaeologists.”
According to an article in the UK Sun, Yeung Wing-Cheung from Noah’s Ark Ministries International says, “It’s not 100 per cent that it is Noah’s Ark, but we think it is 99.9 per cent that this is it.”
I had never heard of Noah’s Ark Ministries International before and wanted to learn more. All I could find was this, and I can’t read it.
From the Sun: “He said the structure contained several compartments, some with wooden beams, that they believe were used to house animals.”
No evidence is given to support the claim that these compartments “were used to house animals” – unless, of course, the fact that some of them had “wooden beams” is intended as evidence. However, it’s pointed out that the “evangelical archaeologists” believe they were used to house animals.
Here is Merriam-Webster’s definition of the word “archaeology”: “The scientific study of material remains (as fossil relics, artifacts, and monuments) of past human life and activities.” I think the use of the word “scientific” in this definition is significant. Where does “belief” come into “scientific study?” Well … it doesn’t.
Here’s my favorite passage from the Sun article: “The group of evangelical archaeologists ruled out an established human settlement on the grounds none have ever been found above 11,000ft in the vicinity, Yeung said.”
Where does the attitude, “Well, we’ve never encountered it before, so that can’t be it!” come into “scientific study?” Well … it doesn’t.
So how is it that these “evangelical archaeologists” are so sure they’ve found the ark in which Noah saved two of every animal on the face of the earth from the flood sent by a loving, merciful god to destroy everyone on the planet? Well, according to the Sun, “They claim carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old — around the same time the ark was said to be afloat.”
What? Wait a second, hold it, just hold it! Carbon dating? Are we talking about the same carbon dating used by scientists to determine the age of things like bones and fossils and the earth? Are we talking about the same carbon dating that Christians routinely REJECT? That carbon dating?
The website ChristianAnswers.net has a few things to say about carbon dating from a Christian perspective:
“People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history. Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world. Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said, ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.’ (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.”
This is the real reason Christians reject carbon dating – it has nothing to do with accuracy or science or a search for the truth. It can’t be “squeezed into the biblical account of history,” which they believe to be literally true and accurate. If carbon dating works, then that biblical account is not true and accurate. Therefore, it becomes necessary to discredit carbon dating – by any means necessary. Here’s one attempt made on the website:
“The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date.”
This is my favorite:
“Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now. Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.”
Are your sides aching yet? Essentially, what Christians are saying is this: “Your scientific dating method doesn’t work unless you include and correct for one of the myths in our unscientific superstitious belief system! So there!”
The conclusion reached by the website about carbon dating?
“There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old Earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don’t have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.”
I think the operative word in the above paragraph is “lines.”
Now we have some “evangelical archaeologists” who claim to have found what they believe may — or may not — be Noah’s ark. What do they use to determine its age? CARBON DATING.
They’re like an angry child who shouts at a disagreeing friend, “You don’t agree with what I think, so I don’t like your toys! Your toys are no good! They don’t work! They’re broken!” Then, the next day, the angry child comes back and begins to play with the very toys he was denouncing the day before. “These toys only work right when I play with them!”
Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. Fortunately, we have the Christians to make it up for us.