Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Okay, they didn't really find it. But they're sure others are looking in the wrong place. In yet another article designed only to pimp a book by one of their authors, they write some amusing stuff about the search for the ark.
Has everyone been searching for Noah's Ark in the wrong place?It's a question that might disturb some who thought they knew what the Bible says.
The location of the ancient boat that saved humanity through a worldwide flood has been a topic that has fascinated countless people for centuries.
Yes, but so has the search for goblins, leprechauns and fairies. In this case, though, we know beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no global flood. They then point out, correctly, that according to the Bible the ark landed in "the mountains of Ararat" rather than on Mt. Ararat itself (presuming even that what we call Mt. Ararat today is the same one they called Mt. Ararat thousands of years ago when this myth developed). But here's my favorite part:
While it, of course, could mean the actual Mount Ararat, it also could refer to a very wide region. In fact, some believe the fossilized remains of Noah's Ark have already been discovered in Dogubayazit, Turkey, on a mountain near Mount Ararat. One travel agency has even offered summer tours to view it.
And they include a picture of the site found by the infamously ridiculous Ron Wyatt. You would pretty much have to be a congenital idiot or under the influence of strong hallucinogens to respond to Wyatt's name with anything but derisive laughter. Even his fellow young earth creationists have openly mocked his claims, not only about this site but about all the other Biblical items he claims to have found.
I've written about Wyatt before. This is the utter buffoon who claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant in a cavern under the site where Jesus was crucified -- and with the blood of Jesus on it! How does he know it was the blood of Jesus? Because he had it reconstituted and tested...and it only had half the normal number of chromosomes:
Human cells normally have 46 chromosomes. These are actually 23 pairs of homologous chromosomes. In each pair of chromosomes, one of the pair is from the mother and the other member is from the father. Therefore, 23 chromosomes come from the mother and 23 from the father. In each set of 23, 22 chromosomes are autosomal and one is sex-determining. The sex-determining ones are the X chromosome and the Y chromosome. Females are XX, so they can only contribute an X chromosome to their offspring, whereas males are XY, which allows them to contribute either an X or a Y. If they contribute an X, the child is female, whereas if they contribute a Y, the child is male. The fascinating finding in this blood was that instead of 46 chromosomes, there were only 24. There were 22 autosomal chromosomes, one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. This evidences that the person to whom this blood belonged to had a mother but no human father, because the normal contribution of paternal chromosomes is missing.
If you made up a character in a movie that said things this mind numbingly idiotic, no one would find the character realistic. Life, as usual, is actually stranger (and dumber) than fiction.
Politics
Comments
It's one thing for Wyatt to be a moron, it's another thing entirely for WND to send people traipsing through the intellectual wasteland. There's a vast dumbass conspiracy.
Posted by: barry21 | November 11, 2008 10:35 AM
Because he had it reconstituted and tested...and it only had half the normal number of chromosomes:
...which is why we know that the "H" in "Jesus H. Christ" stands for "Haploid".
As for Wyatt: I've only ever run across one person who took him seriously -- denizens of alt.atheist and talk.origins will remember John "Nameless" McCoy. "Raving lunatic" and "brick-hard stupid" barely begins to cover the man's persona.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 11, 2008 10:36 AM
I've written about Wyatt before. This is the utter buffoon who claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant in a cavern under the site where Jesus was crucified -- and with the blood of Jesus on it!
This has always been my favorite one. Whenever someone is going on about chariot wheels in the Red Sea or the remains of Noah's Ark in Turkey, I always bring this one up. This seems to befuddle them for a bit.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 11, 2008 10:42 AM
Also, Bigfoot was seen carrying the True Cross through Georgia.
Posted by: Mike O'Risal | November 11, 2008 10:46 AM
The location of the ancient boat that saved humanity through a worldwide flood has been a topic that has fascinated countless people for centuries.
Of course this worldwide flood either never took place or your deity completely removed all geological evidence of it and replaced it with geological evidence that completely falsifies the idea.
Sorry, was that snarky? Oh well.
Posted by: Josh | November 11, 2008 10:47 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 11, 2008 10:58 AM
There were 22 autosomal chromosomes, one X chromosome and one Y chromosome.
There's an easier explanation. Ron Wyatt has stolen 22 of Jesus's chromosomes!
Posted by: Odie | November 11, 2008 10:59 AM
I've always figured the ark fleet--one ark is not enough--went wherever the all the water did, down some giant cosmic drainhole or something. Nothing says any of the arks stayed where they ran aground, nor is it clear why they would.
And a fossilized ark? The fleet and flood was, what, c.5000ya, which is way too short of a time to fossilize. Especially close to the surface where it could be easily found.
Posted by: blf | November 11, 2008 11:11 AM
Did Ron Wyatt also find the fossilized remains of Noah's wife, Joan of Ark?
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 11, 2008 11:31 AM
Of course the ark can't be found. If you landed after all that devastation, you'd have used that wood pretty quick to build a shelter and keep you warm.
Sorry, couldn't stop myself. Baiting morons is fun.
Posted by: Mike | November 11, 2008 11:41 AM
...which is way too short of a time to fossilize.
That's not true (although we're ignoring here that we don't tend to call archaeological artifacts, which is what the ark would be, fossils).
Posted by: Josh | November 11, 2008 11:42 AM
Well, to be fair, there was one guy on the Internet Infidels forums who said he was working with Wyatt's wife to show the world that Ron was telling the truth the whole time - he even had posted some of the material on the "ark", including something to do with the supposed nails he found. To be honest, it was hilarious, but also maddening, dealing with such blatant stupidity. I've tried to find it, but there's a lot of posts to go through (a search is at http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/search.php?searchid=2383029&pp=40). There's some interesting stuff out there on this deluded individual, and others like him.
Posted by: Badger3k | November 11, 2008 11:50 AM
Can someone with more genetics knowledge than I please tell me whether a person could actually live and be normal with only 24 chromosomes?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 11, 2008 12:20 PM
Kent Hovind believes Wyatt.
Posted by: Adam | November 11, 2008 12:24 PM
I suppose I shouldn't have to point out that being short any of the autosomes is invariably fatal (although having only an X chromosome is survivable).
Posted by: Alex, FCD | November 11, 2008 12:25 PM
Posted by: c-serpent | November 11, 2008 12:35 PM
Except under unusual circumstances (eg cellular mosaicism), monosomy for any autosome is not compatable with life. Some partial monosomies can be, though these are usually syndromic. For example, the absence of the paternal copy of a part of chromosome 15 (15q11-13) invariably leads to a disorder known as Prader-Willi syndrome, characterized by low body tone, hypogonadism, mental retardation and insatiable appetite. Don't recall seeing that description of J"H"C mentioned in the bible.
And Eamon, that "Jesus Haploid Christ", now that's clever! I will credit you when I borrow it for future lectures.
Posted by: GeneticMD | November 11, 2008 12:43 PM
Where do you think the dry wood came from for all those sacrifices Noah had to do after they landed?
Posted by: kehrsam | November 11, 2008 1:11 PM
blf:
It was sufficient time to fossilize all those dinosaurs killed in the flood, so why not a boat?
Posted by: Mr. Upright | November 11, 2008 2:26 PM
Er, I mean, that would take a miracle. Not just a one-time miraculous event, but a miracle sustained over the lifetime of the person.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 11, 2008 2:39 PM
And Eamon, that "Jesus Haploid Christ", now that's clever! I will credit you when I borrow it for future lectures.
Much though I'd love to take credit, I'm sure I picked it up on talk.origins years ago (I mean, where else would you go for biology jokes at the expense of religion?). A Google Groups search turns up a few hits going back to 2001; happy hunting.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 11, 2008 2:46 PM
As long as we're speculating, maybe the ark was taken up into heaven by the ark-angels.
Posted by: countlurkula | November 11, 2008 3:04 PM
As long as we're speculating, maybe the ark was taken up into heaven by the ark-angels.
Brilliant.
You know, when I was a wee lad and Raiders came out, I thought they were talking about Noah's big boat when I first heard about the movie. I'd never heard of the AOTC.
Posted by: Josh | November 11, 2008 3:07 PM
"Explorations might get better results if searchers paid attention to the details of what's actually in Scripture."
Yeah that would probably help. Those darn searchers who don't pay attention to the details!
Posted by: 386sx | November 11, 2008 4:16 PM
Well of course they're looking in the wrong place. If they were looking in the right place, they'd have found it already.
Of course the right place is right where it is, in their imaginations.
Posted by: BaldApe | November 11, 2008 6:08 PM
Re: Jesus Haploid Christ. I knew a guy in college (UCBerkeley) in the late-'60s who used the expression. I doubt it was new then.
Posted by: W. H. Heydt | November 11, 2008 11:41 PM
Actually, the extinction of the dinosaurs cannot be attributed to the Flood if one accepts the account in Genesis, which explicitly states at least twice that Noah was instructed to carry every living thing. If the dinosaurs were still around in the time of Moses, they would have survived the flood.
Posted by: Bill Poser | November 12, 2008 12:35 AM
Reminds of this old, old story:
A unemployed man was scanning the paper one day when suddenly his eye was caught by an ad that read:
"Wanted: Qualified Marine Arkitekt"
He keenly applied himself to writing a long and detailed application letter highlighting his "long experience in the design and construction of customized animal transports using heritage methods and materials". Just to make sure he wouldn't get the job (as he didn't know his prow from his poop) he signed it 'Noah ben Lamach'. Strangely he got no reply from his application.
The following week he applied to an advertisement that read:
"Urgent: Secretary required for Marine Architecture Business. Must be able to spell"
He started working the next day. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 12, 2008 12:54 AM
Assuming Ussher's Estimate is correct:
(all dates bce)
Adam (4004-3911)
Seth (3874-2962)
Enosh (3769-2864)
Kenan (3679-2714)
Mahalalel (3609-2714)
Jared (3544-2582)
Enoch (3382-3017*) *Did not die but 'was taken up to god'
Methuselah (3317-2348)
Lamech (3130-2358)
Noah (2948-1998)
And the flood occured in 2348-7 bce.+
Could wood FOSSILISE in only 4358 years? -Curiouser and curiouser, DINGO.
+Source: For line from Adam to Noah, Genesis 5; for date of flood, Genesis 7:6; for Noah's age at death, Genesis 9:29.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 12, 2008 1:33 AM
Actually, the extinction of the dinosaurs cannot be attributed to the Flood if one accepts the account in Genesis, which explicitly states at least twice that Noah was instructed to carry every living thing.
Yeah, although interestingly, lots of creationists like to omit insects from the list.
Could wood FOSSILISE in only 4358 years?
Well now we get into the whole can of worms of what actually constitutes fossilization, but the short answer is, yes.
Posted by: Josh | November 12, 2008 6:34 AM
Bill Poser, Mark Twain had the answer to your question: "Noah collects the animals."
Posted by: Monado | November 12, 2008 10:42 PM
When you think about it, it is beyond all possibility that any recognisable remains of the Ark would ever be found: because even if it ever existed, surely the hulk would have been broken up to be used for building material and fuel as soon as it had been unloaded.
Posted by: paulh | November 13, 2008 12:51 PM