Now, psychics are frauds just as much as creationists, astrologers, homeopaths, Holocaust deniers, and these, but I can't help myself here, making predictions about the results of this expedition. Here are my predictions. I believe they'll be more accurate than those of most "psychics".
1. The expedition will spend a lot of money.
2. They won't find anything.
1. The expedition will spend a lot of money.
2. They won't find anything.
3. They'll blame evil atheists or each other (the Christians and the Muslims) for their failure to find anything.
4. None of them will even for one second consider that the story of Noah's ark might be false.
Here's the gist of it (from the same article, the last paragraph):
Geologists say even though there is evidence of a flood in Mesopotamia in Sumerian times, it is not possible for a ship to make landfall at an altitude as high as Mount Ararat.
Here's the gist of it (from the same article, the last paragraph):
Geologists say even though there is evidence of a flood in Mesopotamia in Sumerian times, it is not possible for a ship to make landfall at an altitude as high as Mount Ararat.
Exactly. Also, the flood was local, not global as the bible says, and finally, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY that Noah would be able to fit all species of animals into the ark (and don't give me 'kind' crap unless you have a clear, unambiguous definition of 'kind' to go with it.)
The fundamentalists have only two arguments for the flood, although these two can come in endless varieties.
Argument 1. "Look at all the cultures that have myths of a worldwide flood! It can't be a coincidence!"
Well, actually, it can. You see, first civilizations appeared where agriculture was easiest to develop, and yielded the largest crops. Such places are few and far between, and usually they are in the valleys of large rivers, like the Tigris, Euphrates, Ganges, Indus, Nile, and Yantzee. These places, while fertile, are prone to large annual floods. A large flood served as a good mythological explanation for a transition from a previous age where gods and mortals were in direct contact, and the current age, when they were not. If the story of Noah's ark was true, the flood myths of all cultures would be similar, since all these people would descend from Noah. But the real flood myths are very, very different from one another.
Argument 2: "The bible says there was a flood, so there was!"
Argument 1. "Look at all the cultures that have myths of a worldwide flood! It can't be a coincidence!"
Well, actually, it can. You see, first civilizations appeared where agriculture was easiest to develop, and yielded the largest crops. Such places are few and far between, and usually they are in the valleys of large rivers, like the Tigris, Euphrates, Ganges, Indus, Nile, and Yantzee. These places, while fertile, are prone to large annual floods. A large flood served as a good mythological explanation for a transition from a previous age where gods and mortals were in direct contact, and the current age, when they were not. If the story of Noah's ark was true, the flood myths of all cultures would be similar, since all these people would descend from Noah. But the real flood myths are very, very different from one another.
Argument 2: "The bible says there was a flood, so there was!"
This is what it usually comes down to, and the debate has nowhere to go from there.
There are a lot of better, more productive uses for the money that will be spent on that expedition. I feel sad for those who decided to finance it. If you expect a return on your investment, forget it.