Gopherwood Range Theory
John Denke, Biologist
University of North Texas
Fall Semester, 1999

Abstract:

Biologists know that gophers are found only in the Western Hemisphere.
The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is its eldest endangered
species living in a Southeastern U.S. range. Also living in this range
(now larger), is the resilient Southern live oak, species (Quercus
virginiana). It has the strongest, naturally-curved massive branches
needed for large-scale wooden shipbuilding. The oldest commissioned
ship still afloat in the world, "Old Ironsides", is built from these
gophers' woods (evergreen forests). Thus "gopher wood" in name, as
limited by its range, is quite possibly the same wood species as USS
Constitution's: Quercus virginiana (after Philip Miller, botanist).

Other biologists suggest three of the four known Gopherus living
species: G. agassizii, G. berlandieri and G. flavomarginatus. However,
all three range in deserts (no forests). Ancient stone anchors, similar
to 5,000-year-old anchors found at Bimini and the Middle East, are
common along U.S. Gulf Coast hurricane "flood" zones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_wood

Parentheses around "flood"?
Should "zones" be "areas"?

Thanks for helping.

This is pretty bad, even for wikipedia.
PvR

"Garry Denke" schreef
Gopherwood Range Theory
John Denke, Biologist
University of North Texas
Fall Semester, 1999

Abstract:

Biologists know that gophers are found only in the Western Hemisphere.
The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is its eldest endangered
species living in a Southeastern U.S. range. Also living in this range
(now larger), is the resilient Southern live oak, species (Quercus
virginiana). It has the strongest, naturally-curved massive branches
needed for large-scale wooden shipbuilding. The oldest commissioned
ship still afloat in the world, "Old Ironsides", is built from these
gophers' woods (evergreen forests). Thus "gopher wood" in name, as
limited by its range, is quite possibly the same wood species as USS
Constitution's: Quercus virginiana (after Philip Miller, botanist).

Other biologists suggest three of the four known Gopherus living
species: G. agassizii, G. berlandieri and G. flavomarginatus. However,
all three range in deserts (no forests). Ancient stone anchors, similar
to 5,000-year-old anchors found at Bimini and the Middle East, are
common along U.S. Gulf Coast hurricane "flood" zones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_wood

Parentheses around "flood"?
Should "zones" be "areas"?

Thanks for helping.

It is does not seem logical to suspect Quercus virginiana to be the
type of wood used in Noah's ark because Q. virginiana is native to
North America. The name gopherwood comes from the Bible so its origin
would seem to have no relation to gophers native to North America.

The origin of plant common names is often not as simple as the name
seems to suggest. More logical candidates would be Old World tree
species known to be used in ship-building by ancient peoples.

One suggestion is that gopherwood referred not to a specific tree
species but to "laminated wood", a technique that may have been
required for such a large ship. Another suggestion is that it was
referring to "pitched wood", which is wood waterproofed with pitch.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/gopherwood.html


David R. Hershey


Garry Denke wrote:
Gopherwood Range Theory
John Denke, Biologist
University of North Texas
Fall Semester, 1999

Abstract:

Biologists know that gophers are found only in the Western Hemisphere.
The gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) is its eldest endangered
species living in a Southeastern U.S. range. Also living in this range
(now larger), is the resilient Southern live oak, species (Quercus
virginiana). It has the strongest, naturally-curved massive branches
needed for large-scale wooden shipbuilding. The oldest commissioned
ship still afloat in the world, "Old Ironsides", is built from these
gophers' woods (evergreen forests). Thus "gopher wood" in name, as
limited by its range, is quite possibly the same wood species as USS
Constitution's: Quercus virginiana (after Philip Miller, botanist).

Other biologists suggest three of the four known Gopherus living
species: G. agassizii, G. berlandieri and G. flavomarginatus. However,
all three range in deserts (no forests). Ancient stone anchors, similar
to 5,000-year-old anchors found at Bimini and the Middle East, are
common along U.S. Gulf Coast hurricane "flood" zones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_wood

Parentheses around "flood"?
Should "zones" be "areas"?

Thanks for helping.

In article .com,
wrote:
It is does not seem logical to suspect Quercus virginiana to be the
type of wood used in Noah's ark because Q. virginiana is native to
North America. The name gopherwood comes from the Bible so its origin
would seem to have no relation to gophers native to North America.

The origin of plant common names is often not as simple as the name
seems to suggest. More logical candidates would be Old World tree
species known to be used in ship-building by ancient peoples.

One suggestion is that gopherwood referred not to a specific tree
species but to "laminated wood", a technique that may have been
required for such a large ship. Another suggestion is that it was
referring to "pitched wood", which is wood waterproofed with pitch.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/gopherwood.html

Note also that the Bible was not written in English, and the most popular
English translation was performed several hundred years ago by scholars
unfamiliar with botany, including field botany of the eastern Mediterranean
area. Too bad Iris Cohen isn't around any more -- she could probably
identify the most likely species. At any rate, it certainly wouldn't
be a North American one.

Biblical translators have made real bloopers in translation, as well as
some disingenuous "improvements" on the text to support their agendas.
Translators also crib from their predecessors, propagating errors instead
of correcting them.

Note also that "gopher" refers to tortoises only in a limited area
of the US. Elsewhere it usually refers to several species of ground
squirrels.

Garry Denke wrote:
Gopherwood Range Theory
John Denke, Biologist
University of North Texas
Fall Semester, 1999

Abstract:

[snipped]

Other biologists suggest three of the four known Gopherus living
species: G. agassizii, G. berlandieri and G. flavomarginatus. However,
all three range in deserts (no forests). Ancient stone anchors, similar
to 5,000-year-old anchors found at Bimini and the Middle East, are
common along U.S. Gulf Coast hurricane "flood" zones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_wood

Parentheses around "flood"?
Should "zones" be "areas"?

Thanks for helping.

The second half of the paragraph has no relation to the first. Note
also that the notion of using stones for anchors no doubt occurred
independently in many parts of the world, and is not evidence for
the historicity of Atlantis, ancient Egyptians in Central America,
nor Mormon mythology.

I'm also pretty dubious about identifying all these "common" stone
anchors as such. Maybe they are just stones, or shaped stones used
for other purposes.

wrote:
It is does not seem logical to suspect Quercus virginiana to be the
type of wood used in Noah's ark because Q. virginiana is native to
North America. The name gopherwood comes from the Bible so its origin
would seem to have no relation to gophers native to North America.

The origin of plant common names is often not as simple as the name
seems to suggest. More logical candidates would be Old World tree
species known to be used in ship-building by ancient peoples.

One suggestion is that gopherwood referred not to a specific tree
species but to "laminated wood", a technique that may have been
required for such a large ship. Another suggestion is that it was
referring to "pitched wood", which is wood waterproofed with pitch.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/gopherwood.html

"The bottom-line is that the ancient (gopher) word matched the ancient
(live oak) core in UNT's lab. There is no remaining mystery about this.
Sorry that we ruined one of the many things you were looking forward
to. However, look at it this way dh321, so far it is only just one.
Also sorry to hear that God and Noe's right, and your galant,
exceptional, outstanding and well thought out analysis' wrong. Please
do not let us, or anyone else for that matter, ruin anymore of the many
wonderful things (answers) you were looking forward to. Thanks."

(notebook 6)

Gopherwood Range Theory
John Denke, Biology
University of North Texas
Fall Semester, 1999

Abstract:

Biologists know that gophers are found only in the Western Hemisphere.
The gopher tortoise, species Gopherus polyphemus, is its eldest
endangered species living in a Southeastern U.S. range. Also living
within this range is the resilient Southern live oak, species Quercus
virginiana. Its naturally-curved main branches were used exclusively
for the strongest shipbuilding frames. "Old Ironsides", the oldest
commissioned ship still afloat in the world, is built from this
Southeastern U.S. gopher's wood's forests. Thus, "gopher" wood in name
is the same species of wood as USS Constitution's. Quercus virginiana
(after Philip Miller, botanist)

Other biologists suggest three of the four known Gopherus living
species: G. agassizii, G. berlandieri and G. flavomarginatus. However,
all three range in non-forested areas. Ancient stone anchors, similar
to 5,000-year-old anchors found at Bimini and the Middle East, are
common in U.S. Gulf Coast hurricane flood zones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_wood

Thanks for helping.

David,

North Texas Daily 1999
http://www.ntdaily.com/home/archives/

You'll have to gofer it.

Garry

wrote:

Note also that the Bible was not written in English, and the most popular
English translation was performed several hundred years ago by scholars
unfamiliar with botany, including field botany of the eastern Mediterranean
area. Too bad Iris Cohen isn't around any more -- she could probably
identify the most likely species. At any rate, it certainly wouldn't
be a North American one.

Biblical translators have made real bloopers in translation, as well as
some disingenuous "improvements" on the text to support their agendas.
Translators also crib from their predecessors, propagating errors instead
of correcting them.

Note also that "gopher" refers to tortoises only in a limited area
of the US. Elsewhere it usually refers to several species of ground
squirrels.

Our core samples of Noah's ark are Quercus virginiana. That's the
problem. John's notebooks say Constantine Rafinesque named genus
Gopherus. I read that's true. His notes say he had to. Why? Because
Carolus Linnaeus had already named genus Quercus. The species name
virginiana was gone too. John says Carolus named the species. Several
sites say Philip Miller did. Which is it? Obviously neither of them,
Carolus nor Philip, knew about the samples.

Is a Southern live oak native to Virginia, he asks here, is it virgin
Virginian? John writes, yes, of course, but at the range's extreme
northeast edge. Francois Daudin had named species polyphemus already.
The name Quercus (Carolus') was gone, the name virginiana (Carolus' or
Philip's) was gone, and the name polyphemus (Francois') was gone, so
Constantine named the genus Gopherus, according to John, for a common
range. Noted here is the western US was a frontier not known
(classified) yet. Was genus Gopherus and its species polyphemus
classified first, before the remaining Gopherus three? John says it was
Constantine's only choice at the time, but I disagree.

The question is did Constantine know the ark was Southern live oak?
John says yes, he knew. I say no, he didn't know. If he did know about
the ark's core samples, then the Gopherwood Range Theory holds water.
On the other hand if Constantine didn't know, then the common range
naming of Southern live oak and Gopher tortoise at the time is nothing
more than a coincidence. Best I can tell, neither Carolus, Philip,
Francois, nor Constantine, knew.

The second half of the paragraph has no relation to the first. Note
also that the notion of using stones for anchors no doubt occurred
independently in many parts of the world, and is not evidence for
the historicity of Atlantis, ancient Egyptians in Central America,
nor Mormon mythology.

If they can be dated by using reliable methods such as enhanced quartz
hydration or other new developing technologies then such man-altered
stones could be studied through a timeline.

I'm also pretty dubious about identifying all these "common" stone
anchors as such. Maybe they are just stones, or shaped stones used
for other purposes.

Constantine Rafinesque proposed Gopherus as the genus for tortoises,
not oaks. Rafinesque used the genus Quercus for the oak species he
proposed, such as Quercus pagoda, Quercus ilexoides and Quercus nitida.
According to the USDA and Flora of North America (FNA), Quercus pagoda
Raf. is still the binomial for cherrybark oak. The USDA and FNA credits
Phillip Miller for Quercus virginiana. Linnaeus gets credit for the
genus Quercus, but it was the ancient name for oak. Linneaus did not
originate the term.

The main problem is that you present no concrete evidence. The claim
that "Our core samples of Noah's ark are Quercus virginiana." is
unconvincing without a refereed publication. If you actually have wood
samples from Noah's ark, you don't need to worry about the name
gopherwood. You should be submitting your evidence to scientific
journals, not newsgroups and Wikipedia.

If the remains of Noah's ark had been discovered, it would have been
published in the world's leading scientific journals and all the major
newspapers. When I asked for a citation, you provided only a link to an
obscure newpaper archive that went back to 2001. You indicated the
article was from 1999 but provided no month, day or article title. You
seem to be quoting John's unpublished notebooks.

The Wikipedia article you cited on gopherwood indicated that many
different woods have been suggested as the Biblical gopherwood but
there is no good evidence for any of them. Maybe the Biblical texts
were misinterpreted and when Noah asked, "Where do I get all the wood?"
God said "I'll go for wood."

Even many Christians do not take the story of Noah's ark literally.
There are no archeological or historical records of a great flood, and
the logistical problems of building a 450 foot long wooden ship seem
insurmountable. All-wooden ships beyond 300 feet long are considered
impossible from an engineering standpoint.

David R. Hershey

References

Gopherus, a genus-name authored by C.S. Rafinesque
http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/bstud/gopherus.html

Quercus pagoda Raf.
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUPA5
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.as...n_id=233501071

Quercus virginiana P. Mill.
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUVI
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.as...n_id=233501097

Quercus L.
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUERC

The myth of the great flood
http://www.inu.net/skeptic/flood.html

Noah's Ark
http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html





Garry Denke wrote:
wrote:

Note also that the Bible was not written in English, and the most popular
English translation was performed several hundred years ago by scholars
unfamiliar with botany, including field botany of the eastern Mediterranean
area. Too bad Iris Cohen isn't around any more -- she could probably
identify the most likely species. At any rate, it certainly wouldn't
be a North American one.

Biblical translators have made real bloopers in translation, as well as
some disingenuous "improvements" on the text to support their agendas.
Translators also crib from their predecessors, propagating errors instead
of correcting them.

Note also that "gopher" refers to tortoises only in a limited area
of the US. Elsewhere it usually refers to several species of ground
squirrels.

Our core samples of Noah's ark are Quercus virginiana. That's the
problem. John's notebooks say Constantine Rafinesque named genus
Gopherus. I read that's true. His notes say he had to. Why? Because
Carolus Linnaeus had already named genus Quercus. The species name
virginiana was gone too. John says Carolus named the species. Several
sites say Philip Miller did. Which is it? Obviously neither of them,
Carolus nor Philip, knew about the samples.

Is a Southern live oak native to Virginia, he asks here, is it virgin
Virginian? John writes, yes, of course, but at the range's extreme
northeast edge. Francois Daudin had named species polyphemus already.
The name Quercus (Carolus') was gone, the name virginiana (Carolus' or
Philip's) was gone, and the name polyphemus (Francois') was gone, so
Constantine named the genus Gopherus, according to John, for a common
range. Noted here is the western US was a frontier not known
(classified) yet. Was genus Gopherus and its species polyphemus
classified first, before the remaining Gopherus three? John says it was
Constantine's only choice at the time, but I disagree.

The question is did Constantine know the ark was Southern live oak?
John says yes, he knew. I say no, he didn't know. If he did know about
the ark's core samples, then the Gopherwood Range Theory holds water.
On the other hand if Constantine didn't know, then the common range
naming of Southern live oak and Gopher tortoise at the time is nothing
more than a coincidence. Best I can tell, neither Carolus, Philip,
Francois, nor Constantine, knew.

The second half of the paragraph has no relation to the first. Note
also that the notion of using stones for anchors no doubt occurred
independently in many parts of the world, and is not evidence for
the historicity of Atlantis, ancient Egyptians in Central America,
nor Mormon mythology.

If they can be dated by using reliable methods such as enhanced quartz
hydration or other new developing technologies then such man-altered
stones could be studied through a timeline.

I'm also pretty dubious about identifying all these "common" stone
anchors as such. Maybe they are just stones, or shaped stones used
for other purposes.

In article .com,
wrote:

The main problem is that you present no concrete evidence. The claim
that "Our core samples of Noah's ark are Quercus virginiana." is
unconvincing without a refereed publication. If you actually have wood
samples from Noah's ark, you don't need to worry about the name
gopherwood. You should be submitting your evidence to scientific
journals, not newsgroups and Wikipedia.

If the remains of Noah's ark had been discovered, it would have been
published in the world's leading scientific journals and all the major
newspapers. When I asked for a citation, you provided only a link to an
obscure newpaper archive that went back to 2001. You indicated the
article was from 1999 but provided no month, day or article title. You
seem to be quoting John's unpublished notebooks.

About 40 or so years ago an aerial photo was printed in Life magazine
showing the outline of a boat shaped structure exposed by a landslide
in an area of Turkey known both now and in antiquity as the mountains
of Ararat. Archaeological investigation revealed that it was a
monument constructed in the 5th century AD, associated with the ruins
of a monastery -- sort of an ancient tourist/pilgrim attraction. Some
fundamentalists pointedly ignore this and claim the photo as proof of
the historicity of the Bible story of Noah and the Ark.

While it's possible that these "researchers" obtained wood from these
excavations, I'd be surprised if what they have is any more authentic
than the tons of true cross wood sold as relics in medieval times.
Indeed, if the wood is really from Quercus virginiana, that would be
excellent evidence that it's a fake.

If these guys were real researchers, the first thing they'd do would be
to get a good carbon date from such excellent candidate material as
wood. If the University of North Texas is a legitimate accredited
university and not just a Bible school, I'm sure it wouldn't want to be
associated with such gullible or fraudulent "researchers".

In some ways these fundamentalists who despise science while longing
for the trappings of scientific proof resemble medieval philosophers,
who believed, as in many systems of magic, that names have an intrinsic
reality and power. So if a tortoise is called a gopher, and there are
trees where this tortoise lives, those trees must be gopherwood trees,
and since the ark was built of gopherwood, it must have been built
where gopherwood trees grow, i.e. the range of this tortoise. I am,
alas, not exaggerating the sort of thinking that passes for seeking of
proof among these people. After all, they know the Truth, so all they
have to do in aim in the right direction and they will, they believe,
get there, and their proof will be as good as any scientist's.

Verification that Noah's ark gopher wood is Southern live oak (Quercus
virginiana) by independent laboratories is expected soon. Should the
University of North Texas student's 1999 classification be disproven,
these notebooks will be pitched.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ta...q=Noah%27s+ark

wrote:
Constantine Rafinesque proposed Gopherus as the genus for tortoises,
not oaks. Rafinesque used the genus Quercus for the oak species he
proposed, such as Quercus pagoda, Quercus ilexoides and Quercus nitida.
According to the USDA and Flora of North America (FNA), Quercus pagoda
Raf. is still the binomial for cherrybark oak. The USDA and FNA credits
Phillip Miller for Quercus virginiana. Linnaeus gets credit for the
genus Quercus, but it was the ancient name for oak. Linneaus did not
originate the term.

Thanks.

The main problem is that you present no concrete evidence. The claim
that "Our core samples of Noah's ark are Quercus virginiana." is
unconvincing without a refereed publication. If you actually have wood
samples from Noah's ark, you don't need to worry about the name
gopherwood. You should be submitting your evidence to scientific
journals, not newsgroups and Wikipedia.

If the remains of Noah's ark had been discovered, it would have been
published in the world's leading scientific journals and all the major
newspapers. When I asked for a citation, you provided only a link to an
obscure newpaper archive that went back to 2001. You indicated the
article was from 1999 but provided no month, day or article title. You
seem to be quoting John's unpublished notebooks.

The Wikipedia article you cited on gopherwood indicated that many
different woods have been suggested as the Biblical gopherwood but
there is no good evidence for any of them. Maybe the Biblical texts
were misinterpreted and when Noah asked, "Where do I get all the wood?"
God said "I'll go for wood."

Even many Christians do not take the story of Noah's ark literally.
There are no archeological or historical records of a great flood, and
the logistical problems of building a 450 foot long wooden ship seem
insurmountable. All-wooden ships beyond 300 feet long are considered
impossible from an engineering standpoint.

David R. Hershey

References

Gopherus, a genus-name authored by C.S. Rafinesque
http://faculty.evansville.edu/ck6/bstud/gopherus.html

Quercus pagoda Raf.
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUPA5
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.as...n_id=233501071

Quercus virginiana P. Mill.
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUVI
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.as...n_id=233501097

Quercus L.
http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=QUERC

The myth of the great flood
http://www.inu.net/skeptic/flood.html

Noah's Ark
http://skepdic.com/noahsark.html

Garry Denke wrote:
wrote:

Note also that the Bible was not written in English, and the most popular
English translation was performed several hundred years ago by scholars
unfamiliar with botany, including field botany of the eastern Mediterranean
area. Too bad Iris Cohen isn't around any more -- she could probably
identify the most likely species. At any rate, it certainly wouldn't
be a North American one.

Biblical translators have made real bloopers in translation, as well as
some disingenuous "improvements" on the text to support their agendas.
Translators also crib from their predecessors, propagating errors instead
of correcting them.

Note also that "gopher" refers to tortoises only in a limited area
of the US. Elsewhere it usually refers to several species of ground
squirrels.

Our core samples of Noah's ark are Quercus virginiana. That's the
problem. John's notebooks say Constantine Rafinesque named genus
Gopherus. I read that's true. His notes say he had to. Why? Because
Carolus Linnaeus had already named genus Quercus. The species name
virginiana was gone too. John says Carolus named the species. Several
sites say Philip Miller did. Which is it? Obviously neither of them,
Carolus nor Philip, knew about the samples.

Is a Southern live oak native to Virginia, he asks here, is it virgin
Virginian? John writes, yes, of course, but at the range's extreme
northeast edge. Francois Daudin had named species polyphemus already.
The name Quercus (Carolus') was gone, the name virginiana (Carolus' or
Philip's) was gone, and the name polyphemus (Francois') was gone, so
Constantine named the genus Gopherus, according to John, for a common
range. Noted here is the western US was a frontier not known
(classified) yet. Was genus Gopherus and its species polyphemus
classified first, before the remaining Gopherus three? John says it was
Constantine's only choice at the time, but I disagree.

The question is did Constantine know the ark was Southern live oak?
John says yes, he knew. I say no, he didn't know. If he did know about
the ark's core samples, then the Gopherwood Range Theory holds water.
On the other hand if Constantine didn't know, then the common range
naming of Southern live oak and Gopher tortoise at the time is nothing
more than a coincidence. Best I can tell, neither Carolus, Philip,
Francois, nor Constantine, knew.

The second half of the paragraph has no relation to the first. Note
also that the notion of using stones for anchors no doubt occurred
independently in many parts of the world, and is not evidence for
the historicity of Atlantis, ancient Egyptians in Central America,
nor Mormon mythology.

If they can be dated by using reliable methods such as enhanced quartz
hydration or other new developing technologies then such man-altered
stones could be studied through a timeline.

I'm also pretty dubious about identifying all these "common" stone
anchors as such. Maybe they are just stones, or shaped stones used
for other purposes.

About 40 or so years ago an aerial photo was printed in Life magazine
showing the outline of a boat shaped structure exposed by a landslide
in an area of Turkey known both now and in antiquity as the mountains
of Ararat. Archaeological investigation revealed that it was a
monument constructed in the 5th century AD, associated with the ruins
of a monastery -- sort of an ancient tourist/pilgrim attraction. Some
fundamentalists pointedly ignore this and claim the photo as proof of
the historicity of the Bible story of Noah and the Ark.

While it's possible that these "researchers" obtained wood from these
excavations, I'd be surprised if what they have is any more authentic
than the tons of true cross wood sold as relics in medieval times.
Indeed, if the wood is really from Quercus virginiana, that would be
excellent evidence that it's a fake.

If these guys were real researchers, the first thing they'd do would be
to get a good carbon date from such excellent candidate material as
wood. If the University of North Texas is a legitimate accredited
university and not just a Bible school, I'm sure it wouldn't want to be
associated with such gullible or fraudulent "researchers".

In some ways these fundamentalists who despise science while longing
for the trappings of scientific proof resemble medieval philosophers,
who believed, as in many systems of magic, that names have an intrinsic
reality and power. So if a tortoise is called a gopher, and there are
trees where this tortoise lives, those trees must be gopherwood trees,
and since the ark was built of gopherwood, it must have been built
where gopherwood trees grow, i.e. the range of this tortoise. I am,
alas, not exaggerating the sort of thinking that passes for seeking of
proof among these people. After all, they know the Truth, so all they
have to do in aim in the right direction and they will, they believe,
get there, and their proof will be as good as any scientist's.

Good grief, it was only John's first semester.

http://www.unt.edu

Verification that Noah's ark gopher wood is Southern live oak (Quercus
virginiana) by independent laboratories is expected soon. Should the
University of North Texas student's 1999 classification be disproven,
these notebooks will be pitched.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ta...q=Noah%27s+ark

Thanks.

I agree with your assessment. The University of North Texas (UNT)
claims to be public research university, not a Bible school. The UNT
History Dept. has a webpage on "Cutting Edge or Over the Edge?," with
many links to sites that debunk pseudohistory but also many sites
promoting pseudohistory. They link to both pseudohistory and scientific
sites on Noah's ark, but a majority are fundamentalist sites. Thus,
their History Dept. seems a bit suspect.

Garry Denke has not claimed to be speaking for the UNT. His claims seem
to be based on unpublished notebooks from 1999, written by a first
semester student at UNT.

The recent B.A.S.E. Institute claims that they discovered Noah's ark in
the mountains of Iran lack credibility. The photos show rock formations
that they claim are petrified wood. If Noah's ark was built only a few
thousand years ago as Bible literalists believe, it could not have
petrified because natural wood petrification takes many millions of
years and does not occur on mountaintops.

The B.A.S.E. Institute website also claims other incredible
discoveries. The President of the institute is Bob Cornuke, former
police detective and author of six books on Bible archeology. Wikipedia
says "He has no formal training in archaeology nor any accredited
higher education degrees." The recent news reports on the discovery of
Noah's ark might just be an attempt to publicize his "Ark Fever" book.
Ads for the book call Cornuke a "real life Indiana Jones" and promise
the book will soon be made into a major motion picture.

The fact that there are so few news reports on this recent Noah's ark
"discovery" indicate that most reporters don't take it seriously.

David R. Hershey

References

Cutting Edge or Over the Edge? by Dept. of History, Univ. of North
Texas
http://www.hist.unt.edu/web_resources/anth_edge.htm

New reports of Noah's ark "discovery" in Iran
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ta...q=Noah%27s+ark

The photos of the Noah's ark site in Iran.
http://www.arkfever.com/

Petrified Wood
http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/Petwood.html

B.A.S.E. Institute website
http://www.baseinstitute.org/

Bob Cornuke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Cornuke




wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

The main problem is that you present no concrete evidence. The claim
that "Our core samples of Noah's ark are Quercus virginiana." is
unconvincing without a refereed publication. If you actually have wood
samples from Noah's ark, you don't need to worry about the name
gopherwood. You should be submitting your evidence to scientific
journals, not newsgroups and Wikipedia.

If the remains of Noah's ark had been discovered, it would have been
published in the world's leading scientific journals and all the major
newspapers. When I asked for a citation, you provided only a link to an
obscure newpaper archive that went back to 2001. You indicated the
article was from 1999 but provided no month, day or article title. You
seem to be quoting John's unpublished notebooks.

About 40 or so years ago an aerial photo was printed in Life magazine
showing the outline of a boat shaped structure exposed by a landslide
in an area of Turkey known both now and in antiquity as the mountains
of Ararat. Archaeological investigation revealed that it was a
monument constructed in the 5th century AD, associated with the ruins
of a monastery -- sort of an ancient tourist/pilgrim attraction. Some
fundamentalists pointedly ignore this and claim the photo as proof of
the historicity of the Bible story of Noah and the Ark.

While it's possible that these "researchers" obtained wood from these
excavations, I'd be surprised if what they have is any more authentic
than the tons of true cross wood sold as relics in medieval times.
Indeed, if the wood is really from Quercus virginiana, that would be
excellent evidence that it's a fake.

If these guys were real researchers, the first thing they'd do would be
to get a good carbon date from such excellent candidate material as
wood. If the University of North Texas is a legitimate accredited
university and not just a Bible school, I'm sure it wouldn't want to be
associated with such gullible or fraudulent "researchers".

In some ways these fundamentalists who despise science while longing
for the trappings of scientific proof resemble medieval philosophers,
who believed, as in many systems of magic, that names have an intrinsic
reality and power. So if a tortoise is called a gopher, and there are
trees where this tortoise lives, those trees must be gopherwood trees,
and since the ark was built of gopherwood, it must have been built
where gopherwood trees grow, i.e. the range of this tortoise. I am,
alas, not exaggerating the sort of thinking that passes for seeking of
proof among these people. After all, they know the Truth, so all they
have to do in aim in the right direction and they will, they believe,
get there, and their proof will be as good as any scientist's.

In article .com,
Garry Denke wrote:

Good grief, it was only John's first semester.

Well, I hope he's learned to reason better in the years since 1999,
and gotten some concept about how to construct a useful theory and
test it.

Verification that Noah's ark gopher wood is Southern live oak (Quercus
virginiana) by independent laboratories is expected soon. Should the
University of North Texas student's 1999 classification be disproven,
these notebooks will be pitched.

You don't seem to understand that the only important verification is
that the wood does, indeed, come from Noah's Ark. If it is wood from
Q.virginiana, that's very strong evidence that it isn't.

If someone sold you a New York subway token that was found in the Great
Pyramid, which would be the most likely explanations? (1) The seller
is lying or is deceived about where the token was found (2) Someone
dropped the token there in relatively recent times (3) Ancient
Egyptians were in contact with people who rode the NYC subway 3-4000
years ago.

So if you want to conclude anything about Noah's Ark from the wood, you
have to have excellent and well-documented, even unassailable,
provenance for it as being from Noah's Ark. Otherwise your claims will
have no scientific credibility.

Science is about falsification, proving hypotheses false. It can never
prove an hypothesis true, only demonstrate that the hypothesis is
consistent with all known relevant data. If you carbon date your
sample and it turns out to be e.g. less than 1000 years old, it can't be
from Noah's Ark. If it turns out to be from the same time frame as the
putative Ark, you haven't proven anything except that you have an old
piece of wood. Demonstrating that it's Q.virginiana tells you nothing
about Noah's Ark.

Kopher means something by which one covers something, hence pitch. The
derivation of the pitch, whether it be petroleum, or botanically based,
is not relevant to its definition.

http://www.worldwideflood.com/ark/pitch/pitch.htm

Noah's ark core samples and the Heelstone core samples contain a
residue of Pinus palustris pine tar from the Longleaf pine. Pinus
palustris, after Philip Miller, botanist.

http://www.maritime.org/conf/conf-kaye-tar.htm

Any pine trees in Southeastern U.S.?