http://s8int.com/noahsark23.html

Oh dear christ... not ANOTHER "Ark" find. This is total bullshit, how in the hell did those people get into IRAN!? What'd they claim to be secular archeologists? Whack jobs like that deserve to get caught in the cross fire when the nukes start to fly.

It's not difficult to get into Iran and the people are very welcoming.

The video on the site is pretty neat...if for no other reason than the seashell fossils at 14k feet.

This could be a huge blow to the Rationalists and Evolutionists.

LOL. There was never a Noah's Ark - that is just wonderful twisted myth. The original come from very ancient Egypt when the Nile would flood every year and cause extensive devastation. When the flood would recede there was an annual festiaval known as Argha Noa - gee I wonder where the name Noah's Ark sprang from?

It is not a myth, Cris. It is a legend rooted in actual events. If it were only the remembrance of an Egyptian ritual, why would it have been recorded in sacred texts of hebrew monotheists, staunch anti-pagans? Surely they would have erased it.

If you read the ancient literatures from around the world, the great flood myth is found everywhere.

Written at different times, having different reasons for the flood, describing completely different events, etc. There is no scientific proof of a mass world flood... not to mention it IS impossible to put every single species of animal into a boat... there are over 100,000,000 species to my knowlege... but im really just too lazt right now to look it up, cause I have to go.

Its a myth, sure, it may have some fact to it, maybe some guy built a boat, survived, and all his freinds died. And over the years, its got messed up, made beetter for a campfire, etc. That makes the most sense to me...

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_20/351000/351637/1/source/7dd.jpg
learn the right way of thinking. (see above) Creationist method is superior.

You read the legend expecting it to be a scientific account.

It did happen, since Hebrews knew that making up lies about such things, and about God, was a sin.

Its a legend buddy, a legend! It was written into a book 4,000 years ago by a bunch of people who were chased out of Egypt after a slave uprising. The legend of Noah is part of Hebrew beliefs, not world beliefs. The legends for floods are written at different times and explain different ideas and events, not some cataclysmic world flood. if there had been one, it would have been uncovered long ago.

The fossil filds of sea shells at the tops of mountains are all much MUCH older than 4,000 years, try hundreds of millions of years old. Most of those were from the times at which glaciation did extend over large areas of the world and those sea shells were deposited by glaciers, or are from periods of time pre-Cretacious when the continents were still merged in Pangaea, and when those mountain ranges were still at or near sea level and were exposed to tidal actions or yearly flooding.

Your flood myth is nothing more than a myth, get used to it. The world is moving past your type of ignorance centric blind following and moving onto a much more rational view of the world and the universe around us.

Your strange 'scientific' conclusions are not based on a coherent understanding of reality. the evolutionist construct is just that, a construct, conclusions drawn from facts selected to design a particular view and interpreted that way. start with proper conclusion first, namely, that God is the Creator, then discover how the facts support it, and not just a group of selected facts with other facts excluded.

?? What century did you come from anyways? That kind of babble sounds like the rants of a 16th Century monk, not a rational person of the modern era. I don't have a 'coherent' view of reality? And what is the 'correct' view of reality then Lawdog? Your view? We are all entitled to our views. My view just happens to be supported by SCIENCE, while yours is supported by nothing but your own personal views and "evidence" from a 4,000 year old book, and vague pseudo-ties to other flood legends in Europe.

The evidence that you have presented would not hold up at all at a scientific convention. I take in all the evidence presented to me and form a scientific picture in my mind and go from there. You just cower in your blind beliefs and pray to god.

God is spelled with a capital G. in your overconfident rationalism, which is not modern but a hold over from 17th century "enlightenment" you are easily brought in by dubious and professionally sounding scientific data (which have brought about a few medical and technological advances), the devil intermixes truth and error. Thus are you persuaded by numbers, statistics, fancy illustrations, and unfounded premises. All the time the beast awaits to devour your eternal soul, having through human instruments persuaded you that man is nothing more than an over complicated animal. shock and surprise will accompany your entry into the next world if you do not repent.

...First off, the Enlightenment is a continuing process which began in the 18th Century, not the 17th Century. The 17th Century was a century riddled with something which we know as the 30 Years War, this great period of warfare between Protestants and Catholics. Further back, we've got the Inquisition! Goodie goodie...just what we all need, killing more Jews and Muslims!

And what you call "dubious and professionally sounding data" is scientific FACT. Go open up any 6th grade science book and you'll see the basis for human evolution from our simean ancestors around 6 MYA (Million Years Ago) when our species branched off. We can prove it through DNA scans and paleantology digs in Africa, where we EVOLVED. There is no sound scientific proof for Adam and Eve, the only proof there is is drawn from thousands of man hours of research, digging, and analysis of the evidence at hand. Why don't you go online and look up the evidence for our evolution. Here, so you won't have to go strain yourself looking, I'll list them here, straight from my Anthropology 201, Principles of Physical Anthropology, class-

1) Fossil Record
2) Genetics- We are 50% genetically identical to an amoebae. We are .2% genetically different from Great Apes, and .01% different from all other evolved homonids.
3) Biological comparisons-Homologies: The same bones are used for similar uses in animals.
4) Embryology- The study of human and animal embryos has found that humans within the womb go through a process of "mini-evolution" from the first cell split, to the final birthing process.

Finally, as an answer to the "beast devouring my soul," again, harkoning back to the middle ages. I look forward to the twilight of the kind of religious fundamentalism that you have shown.

start with proper conclusion first,
Start with the conclusion.
Start with the conclusion?
Start with the conclusion!

No, Lawdog, that is an affront to logic, it is an affront to intellect, it is a gross, and possibly unforgiveable, affront to God. Best mend your ways now. You do not know when you may be called.

Yes of course: One must conclude that God exists first. Then all first principles will fall into place and the mind can see clearly and reason well and properly ascertain the meanings of facts and evidence.

I conclude first that i am in a forest. Then I reason about the functions of individual plants and animals and their meanings. I do not take the individual plants and animals, separate them from their environs, and then expect to make proper conclusions about each one without taking into account their habitat. That is not a proper method.

Your method cannot see the forest through the trees.

In the same way, one reasons about the nature of God, Man, and creation reality, by first coming to the conclusion that one is a being among others created by God. then all evidence of things in creation make sense.

WTF Lawdog!? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and had nothing to do with anything! All you are proving is your ignorance now.

I want you to explain the fossil record, genetics, embryology, and homologies to me as proof of god's creation of man.

http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_20/351000/351637/1/source/7dd.jpg
learn the right way of thinking. (see above) Creationist method is superior.

You read the legend expecting it to be a scientific account.

It did happen, since Hebrews knew that making up lies about such things, and about God, was a sin.

*************
M*W: The ancient Hebrews were regular nomad Egyptians living in Egypt, and they did make up myths (i.e. lies) about their god, and they called them miracles.

Yes of course: One must conclude that God exists first. Then all first principles will fall into place and the mind can see clearly and reason well and properly ascertain the meanings of facts and evidence.

I conclude first that i am in a forest. Then I reason about the functions of individual plants and animals and their meanings. I do not take the individual plants and animals, separate them from their environs, and then expect to make proper conclusions about each one without taking into account their habitat. That is not a proper method.

Your method cannot see the forest through the trees.

In the same way, one reasons about the nature of God, Man, and creation reality, by first coming to the conclusion that one is a being among others created by God. then all evidence of things in creation make sense.

*************
M*W: Lapdog, have you forgotten this is an intelligent community?

Lawdog

Yes of course: One must conclude that God exists first. Then all first principles will fall into place and the mind can see clearly and reason well and properly ascertain the meanings of facts and evidence.

I conclude first that i am in a forest. Then I reason about the functions of individual plants and animals and their meanings. I do not take the individual plants and animals, separate them from their environs, and then expect to make proper conclusions about each one without taking into account their habitat. That is not a proper method.

Your method cannot see the forest through the trees.

In the same way, one reasons about the nature of God, Man, and creation reality, by first coming to the conclusion that one is a being among others created by God. then all evidence of things in creation make sense.This is otherwise known as rationalization, i.e. taking something that is inherently irrational and making it appear rational. And irrational here means a conclusion that has no factual basis, i.e. the existence of a god.

If we begin by assuming there is no god then everything also falls into place and can be perfectly and adequately explained using natural phenomena. That is infinitely more plausible than assuming the fantasy that a super being might exist capable of creating universes and which in turn requires a fantasy supernatural realm to support the fantasies that follow.

Reportedly, a grapevine was discovered at this site and the DNA of the grapes is the oldest ever discovered...

The difference between science and religion is that science starts with problems and looks for solutions, whereas religion starts with a solution (God), and seeks to fit that solution to every aspect of the unknown.

You can't honestly expect that site to be taken seriously.

Dinosaurs currently living in the Pacific, dragons alive and breathing fire, 20 foot giant remains, ancient nuclear bombs..

I'm starting to wonder whether The Visitor wrote that shite of a website. Especially given the utter nonsense statements presented all over the place, such as:

"evolution is in fact a religion itself"

The site presents evidence for giants by showing pictures of normal sized people that have six fingers or toes.

The entire site is complete and utter bollocks.

I am excited. Perhaps men will see that scripture has historical merit.

I am excited. Perhaps men will see that scripture has historical merit.

They won't, because scripture is fiction. Old wood is just that, old wood. A tiny pile of poorly qualified 'evidence' does nothing to wipe out mountains of scientific evidence.

No, no, if not this discovery, Noahs ark will be found. Youll see.

Be honest. You are a sock puppet for a hard scientist. Your delusions are too proudly exhibited, and enthusiastically embraced to be genuine. It is all a wind up.

No no, this is not uncommon belief. Think of how many of Catholics there are...

Yeah, it's scary.. So many stupid people in the world.

There are just as many, perhaps more, unbelievers, so one could say the same about them...

No no, this is not uncommon belief. Think of how many of Catholics there are...

Do all Catholics believe the OT is historical fact? I doubt it, only the morons believe it.

The legend of Noah is part of Hebrew beliefs, not world beliefs.
Actually, I read somewhere about a group of islanders with a flood story about a guy called 'Noh'. That's where the similarity stops, though: 'Noh' landed on their island, not somewhere in the middle east :p Makes you wonder if the story isn't more ancient than people think, and the Hebrews just had the best known adaptation?

Do all Catholics believe the OT is historical fact? I doubt it, only the morons believe it.
Jesus did.

No he didn't
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55229
There is no historical evidence Jesus existed, so how could he believe in something?

There is no historical evidence Jesus existed, so how could he believe in something?There is ample historical evidence he existed. You appear to be confusing evidence with proof.

There is ample historical evidence he existed

No there isn't.

Evidence - Proof.
Different beasts.

I'm aware of that, indeed I avoid using the word "proof". As is said, proof is for alcohol and mathematicians.

There's still no 'ample historical evidence' to suggest that jesus ever existed.

I have to side against Ophiolite in one of the few times I can recall in two boards.. that is to say, *if* he's using "ample" in the sense that there is sufficient evidence for Jesus as an historical figure.

However, if he's using "ample" in the sense that there are copious and plentiful accounts of Jesus, then I agree.

Not to start another "historicity of Jesus" thread or anything, but the evidence for a single figure that represents the mythology of "Jesus Christ" as told in the New Testament is considerably lacking and one-sided. I'm not sure if I'd go down the slippery slope of saying there's "ample evidence" of him. I would, however, say that there's ample evidence that people believe in him to the point that there lives are affected (perhaps afflicted) by the very idea.

This newest nonsense about the so-called "ark" of the mythical Noah is just that: nonsense. To begin with, the Noachian flood myth is nearly identical in parts to the earlier epics and literature of the Sumerian culture (Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, the Deluge, etc). These stories were told as fiction, not as fact, and they appealed to the ancient Mesopotamians because of the region the lived: between the Tigris and Euphrates, which flooded regularly.

The geologic structures that the so-called expedition in the article claims to have located are natural rock formations. Basalt, foliated shale, etc. They speculate that the rocks are "petrified wood," failing to understand the process of petrification -there's almost no way wood can petrify at such desiccated altitudes. Wood needs to be removed of an O2 environment by being submerged in a peat bog, marsh or swamp and then mineralization can occur.

The features that look like "wood grains" are natural foliations of the rock itself.

In short, the claim is bunk.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2133311&page=1
http://www.worldviewweekend.com/secure/cwnetwork/article.php?&ArticleID=813
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50857

http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/2006/06/pseudoarchaeology-raiders-of-lost-ark.html
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/06/noahs_ark_found_again.php
http://northstatescience.blogspot.com/2006/07/what-archaeology-is-not.html
http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2006/06/29/more_crappy_archaeology_report/

if it is Noah's ark in those photos, its in such bad condition that it will not make a hoot of difference to anyone. The only way to make people think that the story might be true is if an almost entirely intact ark is found.

I studied geology, and in my opinion, those are rocks.

I have to side against Ophiolite in one of the few times I can recall in two boards.. that is to say, *if* he's using "ample" in the sense that there is sufficient evidence for Jesus as an historical figure.

However, if he's using "ample" in the sense that there are copious and plentiful accounts of Jesus, then I agree.
I hesitated over the use of the word ample exactly because of the ambiguity of meaning. I decided to include it largely because I like the sound of it as a word. :)
And, yes, the sense in which I meant it is the second one: there is a lot of material about Jesus. Quality? Highly variable. Conclusion? Open to debate.
I would be surprised if he was not a historical figure, largely because a myth creator would find it easier to start with a known figure, then develop from that.

The story of the ark was true but it wasn't a vessel as fortold in genesis but a vessel of DNA ...biblical events are always merged with stories of good and evil, its interpretation together with historical documentation that provide sources to the ark's true physical makeup. Actually the ark with those dimensions in the bible wouldn't be able to hold all that livestock!!.