The remains of Noah's Ark?

How did a Sumerian barge get on top of Mount Ararat?

Just shows you how creative those "national security analysts" are when they see WMD's and missiles and stuff in their satellite images.

Honestly, wouldn't the arc have to "be" Mt Ararat in order to fit the size requirements of the flood story? The only way that this could be true is if there was some sort of historical (and astronomical) exaggeration in the story of the flood.

(In other words, it was a local disaster that Noah and family -along with some livestock- managed to escape in a boat.)

The book by Robert M. Best explains EXACTLY how the Sumerian epic got mistranslated and became the Noah myth.

You wonder who these "scientists" with their Mediterranean flood theories and these "national security experts" slept with to get their jobs.

By the way, why did Noah forgot to take the dinosaurs with him on the ark? ;-)

Honestly, wouldn't the arc have to "be" Mt Ararat in order to fit the size requirements of the flood story?

Did you actually read the article? It clearly explains why they originally thought it might be the ark from the Old Testament:

The Genesis blueprint of the Ark detailed the structure as 6:1 length to width ratio (300 cubits by 50 cubits). The anomaly, as viewed by satellite, is close to that 6:1 proportion.

And yes, I am quite aware of how many people dispute the existence of the Biblical ark that is irrelevant to my point. I am simply saying that the article clearly states how they thought the picture lined up with the Biblical account.

Oh my God! First I woke up this morning and saw a giant white badger hiding in the clouds, and now this!

And what if it were true? A lot of cynics and hardened hearts out there. You seem to have all the answers. Put away your copies of the Da Vinci Code and let's all go have a look-see. Or at least support the man's quest for an answer. Could be nothing but it could also be the most important archaeological find in modern history.

Did you see that archaeologist's beleive that they have found the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem recently?

God will reveal His mysteries to all according to his timetable and not ours. His revelation is perfect and assured.

Discovery just had a really good show about Noah not too long ago - some items I remember:

The arc in the bible would have been impossible due to it's sheer size (something close to modern day tankers) since the wood would not have been able to support itself.

Since the boat would be made of wood it would long be gone rotted by now - and if it was frozen in the glacier it would have been kicked out by now (glaciers move expelling items)

There is zero evidence of a world flood - infact there is tons of evidence to say that it didn't happen.

The time frame required to gather 2 of every animal in the world or even in Noahs part of the world would have been impossible.

Instead discovery determined that the Sumerian epic is most likely the correct one.

thank goodness the beer was saved :)

There probably is some real event that the myth was based on, but you don't really think this is the arc do you. The same arc that held every species currently known to man, and evenly distributed them to there right places on the planet. Such as the marsupials in Australia and so on. A world flood that would have deposited an arc on the top of a mountain at an altitude where there is thin oxygen. Come on there is myth then there is common sense.

There has been some suggestion that the Noah Story may be tied to the flooding of the Mediterranean Basin, which may not have always been under water. I was fairly certain that the timbers in this case had been carbon dated and shown to have been too young to be Noah related. I could be wrong.

There is zero evidence of a world flood - infact there is tons of evidence to say that it didn't happen.

Actually, the Grand Canyon shows plenty of evidence of a catastrophic flood.

The issue of evidence does not seem to be in the amount of evidence available, of which there are literally mountains that either side can try to claim, but in the interpretation of the extraordinary amount of evidence that argues for/against a global flood. If you are looking for a flood, you will see one in the fossil layers and eroded strata of the grand canyon, as well as the supposedly early (in the evolutionary model) creatures such as sponge fish that show up in the top layers of the grand canyon. If you are looking for evolution and a lack of a global flood, you will see exactly this scenario in the stories of local floods and the fossils buried in layers all over the place. I listed just a couple out of literally thousands of pieces of evidence that could come into question, and newsvine comments are not the place to start listing facts that either side can claim as evidence.

The point is, the facts/evidence don't change, the opinion/interpretation of the person observing the evidence does change.

By the way, why did Noah forgot to take the dinosaurs with him on the ark? ;-)

That's because they never existed, Silly ;)

The point is, the facts/evidence don't change, the opinion/interpretation of the person observing the evidence does change.

How extraordinary that the flood is responsible for the fossil record, yet all those dead human bodies and dead dinosaur bodies were never distributed in the same strata. Oh, well. I guess I'll just have to interpret that.

Okay... let's go with the Bible story:

c. 7,600 years ago, everyone jumped on a boat as the earth was flooded...

Noah had two dodos, two of those creepy fury lobsters, 2 gnats, 2 everything and 8 people...

Options:

1) Incest isn't a sin.

2) Evolution exists in animals, but not people.

3) Ark was the size of Kansas.

That whole story (as interpretted literally and applied to the idea of evolution) reminds me of the math studies of how fast Santa would have to go to get to every house in one night.

If anybody is interested in what a literal view of Scripture says, the questions presented by ryleeys are clearly answered in the Bible. This only applies to those who take the Bible literally; those who choose to believe some parts and ignore others will not be able to answer such questions.

1) If you actually read the Bible, incest was clearly forbidden after the flood in the Levitical laws. If you choose to take the entire Bible literally, this makes sense in that model, because if God created two original people with flawless DNA, there would be few-to-none genetic mutations already present. The main reason for incest's dangers, as we all know in modern times, is the issue of harmful genetic mutations. That early in the timeline, the number of mutations would have been quite low, and the risk of incest apparently negligible. For more on the issue of the Bible and incest, see an article about Cain's wife.

2 & 3) No intellectual literal-interpretation Creation/Flood supporters would argue the ability of natural selection to create the species. Natural selection, however, has never once been recorded to add genetic information, only destroy it through harmful mutations. So the "kinds" of animals in Scripture were obviously higher on the classification tree than species. For a more thorough explanation of this topic from a literal view of Scripture, as well as a discussion on the necessary size of the ark (these 2 topics are heavily related), see an article written on both topics. If you are not interested in being honest in your representation of the Bible and what its proponents say, by all means, don't read the article, and continue unfairly comparing Noah to Santa Claus.

That's a pretty good presentation sunetos...

So, is the basis for incest being a sin genetic or moral?

If it is the genetic one (fear of corrupting DNA), then are incestuous relationships that can't result in children okay?

The basis for any sin, at least in the literal Biblical model, is usually as simple as God commanding not to do it. Incest was not universally sinful until the giving of the Levitical law. From that point on, it would always be considered sinful. The rationale, however, for God waiting until the giving of that law to pronounce it sinful, is that "incest" in the sense of just sexual relations among close relatives, was of course required to propagate the human race if it indeed began with just two people, and God intended for sex to propagate the species. However, to protect the human race back when it did not understand mutations and DNA, He forbade it (this is the part that is not explicitly given in Scripture, but is the general conclusion of most literal Biblical commentaries). As family structures changed, etc. there are quite likely other moral reasons for forbidding incest by that point in time, but the point is that God restricted it, so from that point on it is "sinful" in the Biblical sense.

simplydeuce.com writes:

Actually, the Grand Canyon shows plenty of evidence of a catastrophic flood.

According to Wikipedia, There is no authoritative theory on the formation of Grand Canyon. However, you'd probably have to be a strict creationist to buy into a single flood causing that much erosion into rock. The evidence suggests that the Canyon began to form some six million years ago with most of the cutting occuring over the past two million years. Erosion simply doesn't happen overnight (or in 40 nights, even).

@ Jason Coleman

Some evidence I was referring to was the evidence shown for the Coconino Sandstone layer, which you can read here.

Erosion simply doesn't happen overnight (or in 40 nights, even).

There was a canyon in Georgia that has been formed within the last 150 years, and it is still growing. Obviously it is no Grand Canyon, but there doesn't have to be millions of years for canyons to form -- just the right conditions. You can read about that canyon here

simplydeuce.com: I appreciate your response and the fact that you have provided linked information. However, I'm familiar enough with answersingenesis to know what they (and I presume you) are getting at. I'm not a young Earth creationist by any means. I know enough about Arizona and Georgia geology to know that water eroding karst soil and/or clay over 150 years really doesn't mean much for the sedimentary rock of Arizona. Further, even 150 years is a little long for a single flood, even one of biblical proportions.

Oh, Jason. But God said it, don't you see? The Bible told me so. And if I question this, pretty soon I'll have to question whether Jesus really loves me. And that makes me uncomfortable.