Fonkou Djoendia

This conversation is closed.

Scientifically speaking, is it possible for the Noah's ark story to have happened?

Scientifically speaking, is it possible for the Noah's ark story to have happened?
Why or why not?

  • thumb
    Aug 11 2012: there's no need to literally interpret myth and faith. in fact, i don't believe even the bible was meant to be taken literally.

    world myth and folk tales go beyond the human tendency to measure everything with rulers and charts. take the entertainment value and the lesson (if there is one).

    always keep in mind that we may be considered to be living in 'dark ages' by civilization in several hundred years time. it's easy to believe we are at the pinnacle of our knowledge. i don't think we're anywhere near it..
  • Aug 11 2012: I would suggest science, logic, reason, and common sense often have a conflict with religion.

    *Immaculate conception and virgin birth?
    *Turning water into wine, walking on water?
    *The entire Sodom and Gomorrah story?
    *A bush that burns forever?
    *Talking snakes?
    *A man gets 72 virgins in heaven if he blows himself and innocent children up to protect Islam in that name of Allah?
    *Jesus sailed to America from Israel 2000 years ago and The Garden of Eden was in Missouri?
    *Post Mortem Baptisms, secret golden tablets buried in the dirt that were translated by an angel, Africans have black skin due to being cursed descendants of Cain because he killed his brother, Abel?
    *75 million years ago, Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth (it was called Teegeeak then) in a spaceship, killed them, and packed their souls around volcanoes?
    *Countless other "unbelievable" religious beliefs that are indoctrinated into people from birth...

    Where is the proof for any of these things, yet millions and even billions of people just believe these things happened because it is written in a certain book or their parents told them it is true. The scientific method is not allowed to be applied to these beliefs; the known laws of nature are just brushed aside for the belief in "divine" magic.

    Either you believe these things or you don't. I respect a person's right to follow whatever religion they choose as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, but let's not call it science. Most religious beliefs are not fact, not provable, and go against known laws of nature. This is the exact opposite of science. Noah and his Ark fall into this category for all of the reasons mentioned below in the many posts which explain why it would be impossible for this story to be true.
    • thumb
      Aug 11 2012: Regardless of one's stance on religion, the above appears really arrogant to me. Let me take just one easily refutable point. Water into wine? Isn't this what actually happens every single day on this planet?. Rain falls, and plumps a grape and with the help of time and a little history, people pick, crush and add a bit of sugar and voila there is wine. If we keep our eye on that rain water it does actually become wine.

      There are also scientifc incidences of I think Turkey eggs which when pricked with a glass rod begin to turn into turkeys. Thus, I think it behooves us all to be respectful to one another. No one has a monopoly on truth.
      • Aug 11 2012: You choose to see arrogance in my post and I choose to see an attempt at showing a difference in a "personal truth" and a "scientific truth". You choose to hold "respect for someone's religious belief" in higher esteem than "respect for someone's right to disagree". I never said any of the above mentioned ideas were false (except for the Ark). I can not prove they are false, but no one can prove them true either. I said that they go against the known laws of nature and therefore do not line up with scientific thinking, which is what the original poster asked about.

        And please find me one religious person who believes the "water into wine" story as something close to what you describe.
        • Aug 12 2012: Hi Jason, just one thing. There is a very basic difference (the source) in the "*" list you made. Part of that list is in the Bible, the other parts are human interpretations of the Bible text. That Indeed is dangerous stuff because we can take text (often out of context) and construct anything we want to believe (including that God does not exist)..

          Whatever you read in the Bible has nothing to do with human history. On the lowest spiritual level (there are three) It was written to contain the spiritual development of each human individual that decides to become spiritual. That process goes through seven stages. All seven stages are in details of the journey from Egypt (kind of science) to Canaan (heavenly state of mind).
          The talking serpent is our body-senses which tell us 'that's all there is and we are in charge (not God). That attitude makes our mind spiritually "void" and takes us out of Eden (the heavenly state of mind). That's why at the end of the Bible (when everything is done right, Eden is back.

          If you'd just like to have a look at the parable of Adam and Eve, so you know where I'm coming from, here it is, enjoy and have a great weekend.

          There is also the parable of Babel, and several others.
        • thumb
          Aug 17 2012: She's right it sounded arrogant, but some people are like that. They cannot disagree with someone else in an amiable fashion. I believe it's called "the tone of your reply".

          I understood what you were getting at and such arrogant retorts roll of me like water off a ducks back. Some people, however, like to point out how arrogant we sound sometimes. I wonder why?
      • Aug 12 2012: Hi Adriaan

        I actually agree with most of what you say. The issue is that these parables are taught to young, innocent, impressionable children in Sunday School as fact. These children grow up believing these stories are legitimate human history. This faulty software that is uploaded to the minds of otherwise intelligent people is almost impossible to be extracted at some point. Religious indoctrination has many people believing that the bible is 100% accurate when it has many errors and contradictions and impossible fairy tales. This is the "Religion" that I speak of and it is by no means limited to Christianity.

        It amazes me that each person views the more elaborate fantasies of their own religion as normal, but they will be so quick to point out the crazy parts of a different religion. Critical thinking is only lost on them when it comes to the faulty software that has been uploaded to their brain. The rest of the "software" and obviously the "hardware" is intact.

        You won't get any arguments from me when you say that the Bible has nothing to do with human history (although I believe it does contain actual history mixed in with the made up parts), but you will get many objections from religious people.

        I wonder if you would be willing to list some of the supernatural parts of the Bible (new and old testaments) that you do believe as fact? This is an honest question. It is a personal question for most and I understand if you choose not to answer. I am assuming you believe in the immaculate conception, Jesus' miracles, and the resurrection? Why was the part added that says all of the graves opened up and the dead roamed the Earth for a few days after? I also am curious as to exactly how you interpret the difference between what is literal and what is not in these books. Does science ever have anything to do with the decisions?
        • Aug 12 2012: Thanks Jason,
          --"Religious indoctrination has many people believing that the bible is 100% accurate when it has many errors and contradictions and impossible fairy tales."--
          That's why my religion believes in another fairy tail LOL We believe the Second Coming has taken place. As promised by the Lord God Jesus Christ, the Spirit of Truth will come and tell us plainly of the Father. That new Revelation is what we base our beliefs on. As you say, in the literal text there are indeed many errors and contradictions. But in the spiritual sense those are used and become realities and truths.

          I do not see such difficulty in kids believing parables while young. A belief in Santa may have some good points too and shape a kid for the good. Often it is better for a child to hear a made-up story than being explicitly told e.g. how we are made and born. There is nothing more important than to protect a child's innocence.

          Yes, we believe that God revealed Himself differently to different continents or parts of the human race. What worked best for each (and each individual as well) was used. So we do very much believe that EVERY good person of whatever religion will go to heaven. That's why my personal motto is IF whatever you believe, makes you a better person, believe it!

          Love questions!
          Except for the first 10.5 chapters in Genesis, which were copied by Mozes from earlier (oral?) belief systems, everything that happened did happen. However, it was written from a human perspective. God said we had to destroy this, God wanted us to kill those etc. etc. are written, again, based on the human opinion that's what God wanted. Now all that text does, again, have a spiritual meaning. When the Israelites said 'they were told' to kill a whole tribe or city, in order to get into Canaan, that portrays how we as individuals have to destroy and kill the evil and bad influences we've let in our mind. Including the source (adults), the derivatives (children) and also bad habits (cattle).
        • Aug 12 2012: (cont' )
          You mentioned "I am assuming you believe in the immaculate conception, Jesus' miracles, and the resurrection?" Yes very much so, because God came down to earth in a body He made in Mary. This sounds easy because everyone says that. Not so. Most Christians believe in three Gods (while saying one), and other things that we do not agree with. This is how we see Jesus,

          At this moment my internet connection is intermittent, but this is how we see the Sacred Scripture and I'll have to ask someone about the graves that were opened..

          Again, we love questions, as we also believe we did not get our smarts just to become smart shoppers.. :)

          - - - - - - -
          I forgot your last question about science being involved. No science is not because there is nothing spiritual in science, as you know. That's why science can tell us that we think but not what we think.
          There should be a good and friendly relationship between science and religion, and there can be if both realized what they can and cannot do. It is somewhat the same as building a house. Science can build us the greatest mansions, but it is only the spirit or love that can make it a home.
          Everything I say here is based on what was revealed through Emanuel Swedenborg and he was a perfect example of a healthy relationship between religion and science. He was a famous scientist first, much liked by the Swedish king and queen. E.g he wrote extensively about NDE's and was given his own chapter in the book "Life After Life" by R. Moody.
        • Aug 17 2012: Dear Jason, sorry for the hold up, we just had internet restored at the cottage.
          You asked about if there is a spiritual meaning to other parts of the Old- and New Testament. Swedenborg’s most popular book “Heaven and Hell” explains that issue in the first couple of pages.

          But your question about the tombs being opened after the Lord’s Resurrection is much appreciated.

          We believe God came down to earth in human form (because evil spirits cannot tempt God) so He could resolve another flood of evil by exposing evil and sending it to hell. He did not want to kill devils because the God of love, loves even devils (not what they love and do). Ever heard of a child screaming at its parent “I hate you!!” and the parent replies “But I love you anyway.”

          So because of this strong evil presence, God protected good people that had died, in a hidden section of the spiritual world (the ‘lower earth’), so the devils could not approach and hurt them. When God’s work was done by subjugating the hells, He was resurrected. Now there was again a perfect balance between good and evil, which restored the freewill of all humans. So this made it possible for those in the ‘Lower Earth’ to be let go and go to heaven. The Holy City Jerusalem (or Canaan) is not talking about the literal city but means heaven. The earthly city Jerusalem certainly could not be considered as holy because it had just crucified its God.

          Swedenborg often, while going from verse to verse explaining them, also goes to other parts of the Bible where it supports what he says or also applies. The above is based on what he wrote in his books about Revelation (Apocalypse Explained, vol 4, par. 659:15). This link is to that book and if you use “find” to go to page 2251, then you’ll be on the spot.

          Hope ot hear from you, and that my internet keeps working :)
        • thumb
          Aug 17 2012: Jason these parables are also taught to full grown Aborigines in other, primitive countries. The result of this teaching is that some women, children and men are doused with gasoline and set on fire with the full authority of the religious order that tolerates such behavior because they disagree with the teachings or are believed to be witches, wizards, etc.

          Such teachings can be dangerous to primitive mind sets causing them to act and/or behave in violent ways. Children have been known to set one another on fire or stoned to death for the same reason. In some primitive countries where the people are not as scientifically sophisticated as modern western people, they still stone their women to death for religious reasons. The middle east comes to mind.
    • thumb
      Aug 11 2012: Hi Jason.
      You doubt the ability of the creator of the universe to do party tricks ?
      If you want evidence; just look around.... Don't see it.?...........Better go with the Big Bang then :-)
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2012: I agree with most of your comments Jason and am not sure how they could be seen as arrogant.

      Some straight forward observations of religious teachings that some take literally.

      I'm not sure turning grapes (that contain water, sugars etc) into wine via a time consuming process of fermentation is what the bible is suggesting when it claims Jesus turned water into wine.

      Some might take the supernatural and mythical aspects with a grain of salt yet still believe in the bits that make sense to them. There are infinite ways to interpret a collection of books like the bible.

      They might even ignore that the flood story is about exterminating humankind, a failed creation, global genocide, the work of a Divine monster.

      While I'm all for freedom of religion, within limits, on principle and because atheists are a minority where I live, I have no issue questioning and challenging the ideas the beliefs the morals etc.
  • Aug 10 2012: Fonkou,
    I don't know if science can prove Noah lived at the time the entire planet was covered. Apparently the planet was entirely covered many thousands of years before he lived. Likely no humans were present. Noah apparently was a real person, but if we assume his limits of knowledge about the world at his time, it seems reasonable he (or people later) thought the entire world was flooded. The flood likely was a region that was annually deluged and his people knew only this world portion. Compare their world awareness to our capability today!

    Food for thought.
  • thumb
    Aug 10 2012: No. A boat that could carry two, of a million different species, would not be able to float, or be built buy a 900 year old man. Also, all the animals would eat each other, and would need their weight in food to survive. Also, they would all die of thirst at sea, there's no water you can drink.

    The metaphor, of earth being angered at our constant torment of it, and swallowing us whole however, should not be lost on a generation that cares about global warming.
    • thumb
      Aug 10 2012: What if the boat or star ship had DNA samples which could be reconstituted later? (and a couple of good milk source who were full grown by the end of the voyage?)
    • thumb
      Aug 10 2012: Die of thirst ? Maybe it was raining ?

      • Aug 10 2012: I am astounded, well, not too astounded, that you forgot to mention what they all ate. But I would not worry of anything. If I believed as you do, why care about any such problems? It's all magic after all. The animals shrank to such infinitesimally small size, or something. The ark was much bigger in the inside than the outside, like the tents in Harry Potter. Whatever. With absolute magic there is no need for answers.
        • thumb
          Aug 10 2012: i was thinking of doctor who's tardis.
      • thumb
        Aug 11 2012: I am a savant of nonsense, but still... that may have been the single dumbest thing I have said in a ted conversation, in a history of rediculous absurdity. What's worse, I can't even delete it, because you made fun of me in a way which cleverly hints at the pompousity and elitism with which science dismisses religion... Good show sir.

        Still it's a metaphor, treat other human beings better, and the planet better... or... It'll get ya : )
        • thumb
          Aug 11 2012: Kudos to you David, we've all done it, you just got caught. :)
          Noah was 600, not 900. On the number of required animals. You are presumably looking at this from an evolutionary perspective. This view tends to multiply the amount of 'species', or different 'kinds' of animals. If you take the biblical scenario in it's entirety (ie. creation), the number of animals is quite manageable.
          Here's the deal David. Most people write off the flood etc. as religious mumbo jumbo. This results in a negative view, & folks don't really give the evidence a fair assessment. Time & again I meet folks who obviously know nothing about the subject, but are willing to form an opinion from heresay.
          I had similar reservations. At the end of the day though; if this stuff is real, then it holds out the prospect of eternal life. Logically, it makes a lot of sense to give it a thorough going over in a positive frame of mind. We should be disappointed if it's not true; but the prevailing culture just assumes it's not true, & put's down those who think it is. We are far too concerned with what other's think. Check this stuff out for yourself.

        • thumb
          Aug 11 2012: a sprightly 600 years old. equivilent to 50 to 60 today.

          And he may have had help from his family, (Deleted)

          Even 16000 kinds seems a bit of stretch. I'm guessing when they wrote the bible they were not aware of all the kinds unique to Australia, America etc. I'm impressed how the platypus made it to Australia after the flood and is not seen anywhere near the middle east.

          Funny how all the intermediate species we see in fossils didn't make it. Like the ones scientists argue over whether they are a mammal like reptile or reptile like mammal, or the semi aquatic intermediate species to whales found in the Indus valley.

          I know some theists who refuse to believe in a deceptive god. To make it look like we evolved, that the earth and universe are billions of years old.
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2012: Hey Obey.
          Your doing it again; a little knowledge ......
          The drunk / naked incident was AFTER the flood.
          Noah did not kill his son.
          It doesn't look to most folk that we evolved.
          I see no reason to suspect that the earth is billions of years old. If anything, the whole setup seems very temporary.

        • thumb
          Aug 12 2012: Okay I retract that Noah bit. Mixing up stories. Ham was cursed not killed after the naked drunk incident. Still global annihilation is not particularly nice.

          I guess you don't think the earth is billions of years old because you ignore radiometric dating, the time it takes for starlight to reach us and anything else that conflicts with the bible.

          It looks like it is old and we evolved to science and to me and many others not attached to taking the bible literally.
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2012: Hi Obey.
          I responded to the starlight thing below at Stewart.
          I don't trust radiometric dating because of the parameters that have to be guessed at. Just one wrong assumption illustrates the point. It is assumed that there was no worldwide flood. If there was then much of the radioactive elements would be leached out of the rocks, thus giving a much 'older' result. Of course many more assumptions have to be taken into account. Many results have been proven wrong on samples of known age, it doesn't work.
          But you know the arguments (presumably).

        • thumb
          Aug 12 2012: I can't think of one radio-isotope that is used for dating rocks and is water soluble
        • thumb
          Aug 13 2012: Hi Peter.
          You may be right, I am taking the word of others. However google managed this in .0005/sec.

          ""water-soluble radioactive isotopes (such as Caesium) would dissolve in the water
          column, dilute and disperse as the water column moved.""

        • thumb
          Aug 14 2012: Thats why we use Uranium and other isotpes that are chemically bonded to the rock.
      • thumb
        Aug 11 2012: Ah Peter, the bedrock of religion and you just hit it square on, eternal life, the fear of death.
        And your attempt to reduce the number of animals on the ark is rather weak. Could you explain exactly what you mean by manageable numbers? Was their two wolves and then after those two wolves evolved into dogs and foxes and coyotes and dingoes etc etc? Was their two big dinosaurs who then got off the ark and evolved into spinosaurus and t rex and then quickly died? Was there only two marsupial which then evolved into the wide variety there is today?
        • thumb
          Aug 11 2012: If eternal life is no incentive for open-minded enquiry, then what would be ?
          You are just as capable as I of investigating the ark question, the detail of which is a bit beyond here & now. Especially as you are more interested in debunking the whole idea. I guess you are on the right track with the wolves. Most of earth's creatures are equatic. It is reckoned that around 16000 different pairs would cover the rest.

          No doubt the Darwinists & others could argue over the detail for the rest of the millennium, good luck to them.
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2012: Love the word Darwinist. I'm also a gravitationalist. I also partial to physics, chemistry, and other aspects of biology (that has evolution at its core). So I must be an einsteinist etc.
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2012: Darwinist & Creationist go hand in hand. They are both faith positions. Gravity is an established fact. The other two are historical & rely on interpretation of the evidence.

      • thumb
        Aug 11 2012: So from two wolves, and only 4000 years you think that they evolved into every other type of Canis that exists today, boy you trust in evolution more than scientists do.
        Also almost all fresh water fish would die in a global flood as I've pointed out to you before, the salt water would cause their cells to become plasmolysed through osmosis hence killing the fish.
        Did horses become zebras and camels and giraffes and tapirs all within 4000 years?
        If this is how you view evolution you do two things 1) grossly misunderstand EVERYTHING about evolution 2) refuse to see why you misunderstand it.
        Does your creationist site have an answer to how exactly sloths crossed the atlantic ocean back to south america? If they dare say land bridges you should feel bad if you've bought that nonsense, take a look at any sea floor map of the atlantic, you'll see 2 things, the mid atlantic ridge and two huge plains of solid rock either side, no land bridges, no connecting structures nothing.
        And no eternal life is not an incentive for free inquiry. Neither does a limited life unless you pursue the gain of knowledge then limited life is the largest incentive for free inquiry and fact gathering.
        Also what's your take on answersingeneiss' answer to fossil layers, the faster animals could run away from the flood water and so got higher up than the slower ones. My take is that this makes more questions and more absurdities within the questions it generates.
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2012: Stewart; all this stuff is well documented. If you were genuinely interested you can read up on it. Then reject it if you will; but why reject it without studying it?

      • thumb
        Aug 12 2012: Unfortunately Peter I have read up on the creationist lies, they gave me a good laugh. though.
        Just gave it a quick glance again, there was no science, it never mentioned dimensions of animals, never mentioned the rate at which the 16,000 kinds evolved into over 5 million species.
        It is laughable so it is, at this evolutionary rate you'd expect to see new species evolving everyday. one day there was a butterfly in you lab, and the next day it's a dragonfly.
        It actually makes me angry, that Ken Ham preaches and lies to his followers that there is no way evolution can have been the reason for the different species, whilst at the same time thinks 16,000 kinds became 5 million species in 4000 years. Does his right hand know what his left hand is doing?
        Here's a question I've never seen answered, was homo erectus on the ark? What about neaderthals
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2012: Hi Stewart.
          I think you've been reading only the one side, otherwise you would know the creationist answers.
          You seem to think that Ken Ham & I believe in evolution; we don't. What we are talking about is adaption by natural selection; a much faster process.
          There are several answers to the starlight problem, take your pick.
          There is also a Big Bang starlight problem commonly known as the horizon problem. Inflation was invented to answer this; again, take your pick. We don't "know", & that is the truth. Your guess is as good as mine; it's interesting, but not important.
          Erectus & Neanderthals are just regular Sapiens, whereas Piltdown & Nebraska Men are just an embarrassment.
        • thumb
          Aug 12 2012: If Neanderthalensis are "regular sapiens" why does their genome have features that appear in gorilla DNA but not modern human DNA?
        • thumb
          Aug 13 2012: No idea .

      • thumb
        Aug 12 2012: I've read both sides, it's just one uses actual figures instead of speculation.
        And are you being serious, of all the stupid things I've heard creationists say, you don't believe in evolution but you believe in adaption by natural selection. That's what evolution is! It's that sort of stupid statement which gets people so angry at you guys, evolution's main driving process is natural selection due to adaptions,
        And erectus is not a sapien, it's part of homo, more lack of knowledge from your side.
        And why change the subject to the big bang? This is about the ark.
    • thumb
      Aug 13 2012: Hi Stewart.
      Evolution in the accepted sense means a simple to complex progression, whereby simple organisms become more complex due to adaption driven by natural selection.
      Adaption of a species to it's environment due to natural selection of pre-existing attributes is another thing entirely.
      The former is called Macro-Evolution, & is contentious.
      The latter is called Micro-Evoltion & is obvious in everyday life. The latter is widely used to give leverage to the former, but this is deceptive. Why it should make folk angry, I have no idea.
      My contention is that there are men & that there are apes, & any resemblance is coincidental. Over the years a great many supposedly different 'homos' have been suggested. I understand this, but am afraid I no longer take it seriously.
      The Big Bang thing was in response to Obey further up; got the two of you mixed up & no time to sort it.

      • thumb
        Aug 13 2012: The idea is that enough micro can lead to macro and that there is no reason why this could not be the case.
        • thumb
          Aug 14 2012: Hi Stewart.
          Micro works with existing genetic information. Macro requires new genetic information to be generated. There is no plausible way for this to occur without intelligent input.

      • thumb
        Aug 14 2012: I have done enough research to be absolutely certain that the Earth is more than 6,000 years... That said... Why does the Bible being metaphor negate eternal life?
        • thumb
          Aug 14 2012: Hi David.
          The bible tells us that originally we were designed to live forever. We were however given the gift of free will. Adam was warned that if he did one particular thing that he would die. He did it & died, & all his offspring inherit the same fate. So this is the reason we die, because Adam sinned against God, & we do likewise.
          The Old Testament tells of a time in the future when God will come to earth & reverse this curse. Adam was initially eternal, Jesus is eternal, so his death has the power to reinstate us. We get the same deal as Adam; we have free will, but we must chose to be obedient.
          OK Jesus came & died, in real time, in our history. We can now chose life & live forever.
          Assume the bible to be true, we have some bullet points..

          . Jesus came in real history to reverse Adam's sin. How could he if Adam never existed?

          . Jesus spoke of the Old Testament tales as literal, is he lying ?

          . We have literal genealogies from Adam to Jesus, both through Mary & through Joseph. Names of fathers & sons, & often ages at which the sons were born. We also have the recorded history (both past, present, & future) of the world. That which we can check is literal. The bible gives no weight to the deep-time theories.

          . If death was always a function of life, as in evolution, then the death of Jesus is irrelevant; & we are dead men.

          So you see; if the bible is literal, then we literally can have eternal life. If the bible is a metaphor, then the best we can hope for is metaphorical eternal life.
          Having said that. Eternal life is granted to those who trust in the power of the death of Jesus to save them from their sin. Many have this trust, but have other views on earth's age etc. I don't for one moment count them out. I have given my views, but no matter how sincerely held, they are still my views.
          Thanks for your interest David; God Bless.

      • thumb
        Aug 14 2012: Really Peter, there's no way for new genetic info to be made? Have you ever heard of those things called mutations. Rather common in the genetic structure.
        • thumb
          Aug 14 2012: Yes Stewart, they kill things.

          First off you have to have something to mutate. That something is presumably employed doing something useful, so you start by messing up what it's doing. I am aware of the theory, but doubt that it has any chance of producing anything useful. By all means believe it if it makes sense to you. It makes none to me.

  • Aug 9 2012: Nope.

    There is no evidence whatsoever of a global flood. No evidence whatsoever of one occurring around 4,000 years ago. Geology contradicts every claim about such stuff. Biogeography contradicts such stuff. Evolution contradicts such stuff. All kinds of science contradict such a thing. It certainly did not happen.
    • thumb
      Aug 10 2012: we have no compelling evidence that a man called noah existed as described in the bibe.
  • thumb
    Aug 10 2012: i suggest it is completely inconsistent with our scientific understandingof species , evolutio,the amount f water, fossils from simple to more complex, the ammount of water, plate techtonics, the age of the planets, genetics etc.

    it is counter to reason and science in my view.

    if you inject a supernatural power anything could happen. this power could even have made it look like it didn't happen.
    • thumb
      Aug 11 2012: I agree it is entirely inconsistent with current scientific understanding.
      Current scientific understanding is a moving target, 100 years ago it was consistent with the flood; 100 years from now; who knows ?

      • thumb
        Aug 11 2012: hi peter. hopefully science is moving because it is increasingly precise and filling in gaps.
      • Aug 16 2012: False Pete, 100 years ago scientific understanding was already inconsistent with "the flood." Several scientists had already discovered that our planet was much older than the Bible suggested and that any evidences for floods corresponded to different epochs, and did not support a global flood at all. Even farther back, the evidence was never consistent with the global flood, only because people did not know of any way to verify things they just assumed that what the Bible said was true.

        So please. Ignorance is not the same as "consistent with the flood." Ignorance is ignorance.
  • Aug 10 2012: I can not speak for scientists, but I do believe it never literally existed. It is a story to pass on a spiritual message.

    The first 10.5 chapters of Genesis were all made-up and not literally true. Even the Creation Story had nothing to do with this physical world but the spiritual start and development of each of our minds.
    There were never serpents that could talk or individuals that became over a hundred years old, if that.

    It is a bit of a read but this book is about that part of Genesis.
    There are in total twelve books that deal with Genesis and Exodus, word for word.
  • thumb
    Aug 10 2012: There is evidence for large scale inundations. There is a reasonable chance that people escaped them using some form of watercraft. someone escaping would want to take with them the means of survival so it is possible they could have taken animals. Most stories become more dramatic in the telling, so it is quite possible that, behind the Noah story is a real event. Or several similar real events.
  • thumb
    Aug 9 2012: Nope, even if the animals were brought on as babies they'd still weigh too much and have to piled about 100 meters high given the dimensions of the boat.
    Then you've to explain how certain animals got there like sloths.
    Also why any plants exist given that the salt water would have killed them and at a depth of over 8000m no light would reach them for 40 days causing them to die.
    Also the amount of rain which actually fell and in what time frame makes further problems.
    The altitude of 8000m+ would have suffocated all animals and noah.
    If you listen to feeble attempts to explain continents you'll hear things like volcanoes and earthquakes etc etc. The volcanoes would have surrounded earth in ash further blocking light and suffocating animals.
    They claim the plates were moving quickly and are now slowing down, there is NO evidence to even suggest this.
    Their best explanation for fossils in rock layers is that the faster animals could run faster and escape the rising water which makes one think just how much water was falling and how fast etc etc.
    Also it doesn't explain how sheep and sloths survived over trex, or saber tooth cats.
    It's also one of many many many many flood myths, almost all cultures have had flood myths and at different times.
    O and with modern methods, the structure of wood actually required to make such a boat would cause it to collapse with animals on it due to weight. In nautical engineering there's a certain limit wooden boats can't exceed or they break.
    Also doesn't explain how animals got where they are now. And why all the marsupials all wandered off to Australia and parts of south america.
    6 people left to repopulate the world, yea.. talk about inbreeding.
    There's also a claim that the waters could form the grand canyon, lies. You'd expect uniform erosion if sudden rain was the cause.
  • thumb
    Aug 17 2012: Scientifically speaking there are no flood stories in Africa. Why?

    Most of the flood stories are centered around areas where the chance of a huge ice dam was possible during the warming times when the last ice age ended.

    It is possible to assume that an ice dam bursting and flooding all the plains for as far as the eye could see would appear to most ancient peoples as a world flood.

    To most scientists, it is common knowledge that the atmosphere and the world could not contain enough water to cover the tops of all the mountains on earth. Water does not evaporate into space, so to speak and all the water that was ever contained by the earth is still here in one form or another.
  • thumb
    Aug 12 2012: Be careful about letting "Science" be your rule of life. Here are 10 things "Science" deemed impossible at some point in its history:
    1) Analysis of the composition of stars
    2) Meteorites coming from space.
    3)Heavier-than-air flight.
    4)Space flight
    5)Harnessing nuclear energy.
    6) Warm super-conductors
    7) Black holes
    8)Force fields
    9)Invisibility (cloaking)
    10) Teleportation.
    For documentation:
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2012: Maybe not science, but the scientific method is still a good thing to live by
      • thumb
        Aug 13 2012: I agree with one exception Stewart. It's a good thing to gauge NATURAL things by. It does not have any value as a discerner of the supernatural, the spiritual.
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2012: In science there is no "impossible" there is only "not that I'm aware of". eg Q) Is their any way you could fit 16000 pairs of animals and the food required to keep them for 40 days and nights into a boat made of wood?
      A) Not that I'm aware of.
      Considering the high level of our knowledge of the physical properties of wood and the nutritional requirements of animals we are highly unlikely to become aware of any relevent new information so even if we just consider the possibility of the ark existing we can't say it's impossible but it is much more unlikely than an alien invasion or superheroes or majic.
      • Aug 13 2012: It's actually quite worse than that, if I remember correctly... It rained for 40 days and nights, then he floated around for about 100 days, then the waters receded for about 100 days, a few more things happen, he sends out a dove for about a week and by the end of it all, it was something like 1 full year that they were on their wooden boat. So if 40 days is hard to believe, what is 365 days?

        The drinking water requirements are an issue as well. 40 days worth plus a few more is explainable, but a full year's worth? More magic required, I guess. Maybe the boat had a water filtration station as well?
      • thumb
        Aug 13 2012: I am not aware that something cannot be A and Not A at the same time, therefore something can be A and Not A at the same time? Is that what you mean by "In science there is no impossible."? Or are you saying that it is impossible for anything to be impossible? Or, are you saying it is impossible for Science to be wrong? Science is replete with examples of impossibilities and wrong answers.
        • thumb
          Aug 13 2012: A scientist would never claim that anything is impossible. The best you can say is "so highly improbable that it is not really worth pursuing."
      • thumb
        Aug 13 2012: Sorry Peter, I made three bad attempts to determine what you are saying. Do I have it right now?. . . you are saying that if Science decides the account of Noah's Ark in the Holy Bible is "so highly improbable that it is not really worth pursuing." they are saying it is a non-zero probability that the Biblical account did happen. (Impossible=zero probability).
        • thumb
          Aug 14 2012: Yeah that's the idea. Also there is a non-zero probability that God exists as I can't use science to prove he doesn't. Therefore I can't make a definitive statement that the Noah story didn't happen as God could have intervened to allow it to happen. However I do think it's highly unlikely. Fonkou's question is about science, from that perspective we assume that God doesn't exist as his existence is so unlikely. Once that assumption is made the Noah story becomes impossible. But no matter how reliable an assumption is, it still could be wrong.
  • thumb
    Aug 11 2012: Reinterpreting the word 'world' - thousands of years ago, the world was as much of the actual globe, as any particular culture, deemed the 'world.' (So it could of been the 100 mile radius that a certain culture never left...) But, that particular story is older than the Bible... Gilgamesh.

    To look at it, in a semi-reasonable light, think aliens, lol.

    But, no, scientifically we would have no way to explain how every animal available could be gathered up and protected from a natural disaster thousands of years ago.

    *Prepare now for ignorant bashing...
  • thumb
    Aug 10 2012: Hi Fonkou.
    You may be interested in this video which explores the possibility of the sedimentary layers all being laid down within a short timescale. This is 1 of 4; you will need to watch all 4. Hope this helps.

    • thumb
      Aug 13 2012: Re the Tonto Group
      1) Where did the water come from?
      2) Why are the layers in the Tonto group chemically different aswell as different in particle size?
      3) After the water receded, and the unconsolidated sediments were exposed. Why didn't the wind blow them into dunes?
      4) Why do experiments on sedimentation in a unidirectional current when the vast majority of natural sedimentation occurs on flood plains and the floor of the ocean?
      • thumb
        Aug 15 2012: Hi Peter.
        The answers must be speculative, so I'll give my opinion.

        1) the majority of the water was subterranean gushing up through the sea bed, which also rose up & spilled the sea over the land.

        2) The water advanced in tsunami type events over a period of months. Perhaps due to earthquakes, tidal rhythm or such events. The debris carried by one tsunami did not necessarily originate from the same place as the next.

        3) The layers would be compacted by overburden to an extent before the waters receded & when exposed would presumably bake in the sun, giving some resilience. They still today are weathered, but is the short timescale of a few thousand years, many tombstones survive.
        If we talk specifically about the Grand Canyon; it is generally thought it was formed by a breached dam some hundreds of years later, so it is an exception.

        4) The experiments were designed to establish the characteristics of layer formation. This is easier to do in a straight line, maybe someone will do more for swirls,etc. From the global flood perspective though, it is thought most water movements would be linear, as in tsunami type flows.

        Sedimentation on the sea floor is pretty slow these days. It is far more obvious at river deltas. As an aside; some guys think that the continental shelves are sediment from the general run-off as the continents rose. There are also extinct undersea volcanoes (seamounts); the larger of which all have their tops flattened off at a similar height. This may indicate a previous ocean level, where the tops were chopped off by wind & water erosion over a longish period.

        It's all very fascinating, ut ultimately unknowable.

        • thumb
          Aug 15 2012: You really need to do a geology degree.
      • thumb
        Aug 16 2012: I get that a lot. :-)
      • Aug 17 2012: He does not need a degree in geology, a basic course would do. As long as he could get past his creationist propaganda misconceptions and try and understand the actual science, rather than hold to the creationist cartoons of it.
  • thumb
    Aug 9 2012: Hi Fonkou.
    Bible believers have no problem with the literal flood, ark etc. The many layers of silt, hardened to rock, filled with many fossils are testimony to this event. In order to become a fossil, a creature must be buried extremely rapidly to avoid decomposition. So fossils are at odds with the popular concept of the layers taking millions of years to deposit.
    On the ark, animals etc. try this link :-

    • Aug 9 2012: The question was about scientifically Pete, not creationist-propagandistically.

    • thumb
      Aug 10 2012: Actually an animal or plant doesn't need to be buried at all to avoid decomposition. It just needs to be in a low oxygen environment. This can occur in still waters like in wetlands or in caves in limestone, as the limestone releases CO2 which is heavier than air and sinks to the bottom filling the cave. Animals that fall in suffocate and are mummified. Plus I never could understand how one flood could lay down thousands of layers of silt. Wouldn't it be one big layer if it was one big flood?
      • thumb
        Aug 10 2012: Hi Peter.
        You are probably right, but we must consider what is more likely on a worldwide scale.
        What we are dealing with is massive tectonic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, & the like. Flume tests have shown that with every change in velocity another layer is added to the total. So any given tsunami can be laying down several layers on each pass. Over the period of a year or so thousands of layers could be deposited. Then in the final stages when the land rose back out of the water, we get the massive erosion like that of monument valley where the majority of the layers are removed, leaving standing pillars of layers. The pillars are rapidly being eroded presently; shouldn't they be long gone by now ?

        • thumb
          Aug 12 2012: The order in which the sediments are released in flume tests doesn't match what we see in sedimentary rock strata, so velocity change doesn't explain the observed data.
      • thumb
        Aug 12 2012: Peter I had to correct you on something above on DNA and this is the only place I could, you said that there is no neanderthal DNA in humans, but so far as I know we're about 4% neanderthal and especially me, the ginger gene is most likely a mutation started within neanderthals which got into sapiens via interbreeding.
        • thumb
          Aug 13 2012: I didn't mean there was no neanderthalensis DNA in Sapiens, just that there is some that appears in neanderthalensis and other primates but not sapiens. It shows that the neanderthalensis lines diverged before sapiens.