Noah's Flood: Revisited

[Acriku]

This is spawning from another thread where an unnamed person declared the Noah's Flood to be impossible, logically, scientifically, and logistically; and in response another person said nay. So now we get an entire thread to discuss it! :)

I think it's best that we each post our opinions on whether or not it happened, could have happened, or is a metaphor for something else, before we get into the gritty stuff. So, post your thoughts!

As for my thoughts, I was the unnamed person declaring the flood impossible and will attempt to demonstrate why as the thread goes along. I really think that the Noah's Flood was not thought out well, and at best is a hyperbolic metaphor for cleansing the old, and bringing in the new. Nothing more. Nothing less. Oh and if evolution is correct (being a fact, it certainly is) then there must be some fast ass mechanism to have allowed the animals to evolve into what we see today. Some say God, I say bologna.

[Khan]

Nope definitely didn't happen, at most it is an extremely exaggerated version of something that did happened.

[Dante]

There was a documentary on some time ago that theorised that Noah was in fact based on some King or other from the area that is now Iraq/Iran etc. The river Euphrates flooded, bursting its banks and generally making life difficult for everybody (in that they drowned). Noah, being king, could afford a big boat to live on. He is also supposed to have taken his family, and a whole load of animals. This being for reasons of survival more than anything else. After googling, I think a site that quite closely resembles the theory in the documentary can be found here.

In other words it's not a metaphor per se, just a greatly exaggerated story.

[Kiyouta]

Penn and Teller made a great satirical episode of 'Bullshit' about it. Named 'Bible History' from Series 2. Give it a watch! :)

[Andrew]

Any idea how Noah went around the whole picked up 2 of every animal, then dropped off the two animals throughout the earth (as some animals are indiginous to a certain geographical area)?

I don't remember any archiological finds that point to a massive flooding of Earth.

My guess is there was a flood that flooded a small area (say a country/province) in which some guy had a boat and put his livestock on it and then told a story. Or it's all made up.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Any idea how Noah went around the whole picked up 2 of every animal, then dropped off the two animals throughout the earth (as some animals are indiginous to a certain geographical area)?

I don't remember any archiological finds that point to a massive flooding of Earth.

My guess is there was a flood that flooded a small area (say a country/province) in which some guy had a boat and put his livestock on it and then told a story. Or it's all made up.

I gave more info than you asked for andrew... so i bolded the content titles so you can find what you want to read easily.

A growing number of scientists believe that geological evidence indicates our world has undergone a catastrophic flood. This is causing them to question whether or not the biblical account of Noah's ark could be true. Many people are rereading the Biblical description of the Ark to ascertain the feasibility of such a vessel to fulfill its designated purpose in light of present day knowledge of both zoology and our present day knowledge of shipbuilding.

HOW BIG WAS NOAH's ARK?

"And God said unto Noah... Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt though make in the ark, and thou shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of... the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A window shalt thou make in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side therof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it." (Gen. 6:14-16)

A cubit is the distance between an adult's elbow and tip of the finger, no less than 18-inches [45.72 centimeters].

Most Hebrew scholars believe the cubit to have been no less than 18 inches long [45.72 centimeters]. This means that the ark would have been at least 450 feet long [137.16 meters], 75 feet wide [22.86 meters] and 45 feet high [13.716000000000001 meters]. Noah's Ark was said to have been the largest sea-going vessel ever built until the late nineteenth century when giant metal ships were first constructed. Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over. In every way, it was admirably suited for riding out the tremendous storms in the year of the flood.

These dimensions are especially interesting when compared to those given in the mythical, Babylonian account of the Ark. Here the ark is described as a perfect cube, extending 120 cubits in all directions and with nine decks. Such a vessel would spin slowly round and round in the water and from the standpoint of stability, would be a disaster.

BUT WAS THE ARK BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS REQUIRED?

The total available floor space on the ark would have been over 100,000 square feet, which would be more floor space than in 20 standard-sized basketball courts.

Assuming an 18-inch cubit [45.72 centimeters], Noah's Ark would have had a cubic volume equal to 569 modern railroad stock cars.

The total cubic volume would have been 1,518,000 cubic feet [462,686.4 cubic meters] --that would be equal to the capacity of 569 modern railroad stock cars.

NOW COMES THE QUESTION, HOW MANY LAND DWELLING AIR BREATHING ANIMALS WOULD HAVE HAD TO BE TAKEN ABOARD THE ARK TO SURVIVE THE FLOOD?

According to Ernest Mayr, America's leading taxonomist, there are over 1 million species of animals in the world.

God only provided the Ark for the protection of humans and land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures. A huge number of animals would not need to be taken aboard the Ark because they are water dwellers. Representatives would be expected to survive the catastrophe. With God's protection against extinction during the Deluge, survival would have been assured.

However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.

HOW MANY ANIMALS NEEDED TO BE BROUGHT ABOARD TO MAINTAIN ANIMAL "KIND"

Doctors Morris and Whitcomb in their classic book, "The Genesis Flood," state that no more than 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark. In his well documented book, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe suggests that far fewer animals would have been transported upon the ark. By pointing out that the word "specie" is not equivalent to the "created kinds" of the Genesis account, Woodmorappe credibly demonstrates that as few as 2,000 animals may have been required on the ark. To pad this number for error, he continues his study by showing that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.)

[GUNWOUNDS]

There was a documentary on some time ago that theorised that Noah was in fact based on some King or other from the area that is now Iraq/Iran etc. The river Euphrates flooded, bursting its banks and generally making life difficult for everybody (in that they drowned). Noah, being king, could afford a big boat to live on. He is also supposed to have taken his family, and a whole load of animals. This being for reasons of survival more than anything else. After googling, I think a site that quite closely resembles the theory in the documentary can be found here.

In other words it's not a metaphor per se, just a greatly exaggerated story.

I think it is erroneous of that man to sound so sure that his particular explanation of a documented flood is that of the biblical flood... when there are many severe floods documented that could be attributed to Noah's Flood.

[Andrew]

If no water dwelling animals were brought onto the ark, how would a salt water or fresh water animal survive the flood since they would not be able to survive anything other than their natural habitat? I'm guessing God did something about that.

Read again and saw that God protected the water animals.

So God gathered the animals or somehow made them all go to the ark. I assume that God put them back where they came from or made them somehow go back to where they came from. How would a tasmanian tiger go from europe all the way to Tasmania?

Also I don't remember reading anywhere, but approx. when did this flood occur?

Just wondering how native americans survived the flood and how 8 people were able to populate the world.

Thanks for the explanations. :)

[Dante]

How such a huge ship could be constructed so quickly (or at all) with the materials and methods to hand would also be interesting. As would how the plants survived. Certainly seeds can be transported, but I doubt that your average cactus would be able to survive in the same enviroment as a venus flytrap. Which in turn begs the question of how the plants, which are generally non-motile, could have spread across the world. They couldn't have done so naturally, as this would have required a non-seed specimen, and not all species could have survived where the ark landed, wherever that was.

Besides, as someone in Gunwounds' own link states: "We think that with the hundreds of explorers who have visited the region, if the ark was jutting out of the ice, it would be obvious."

The picture looks likea rock in any case. And furthermore, it wasn't that long ago that someone was rubbishing National Geographic as a decent source of infomation.

GO here to see why national geograhic is a fraud ran by a bunch of super zealots

[EWS]

I found this whilst browsing the internet on this subject.  I can't really tell how credible the article is, but one thing does concern me - the lack of any precipitation.

Expedition to find Noah's Ark

[GUNWOUNDS]

c]

So [national geographic] it's all a pile of horsefeathers until you find something that supports your own theories? Nice double standards there.

Actually Dante, there are numerous expeditions planned which are not funded by national geographic... i merely posted that one because i thought the national geographic example would be the only one you would listen to since you loooooove national geographic so much.

[Caid Ivik]

How such a huge ship could be constructed so quickly (or at all) with the materials and methods to hand would also be interesting.

How such an artificial mountain could be built so quickly (or at all) with the materials and methods to hand would also be interesting.

[GUNWOUNDS]

How did fish survive the flood?

[GUNWOUNDS]

How such an artificial mountain could be built so quickly (or at all) with the materials and methods to hand would also be interesting.

damn good point.

[Dante]

How such an artificial mountain could be built so quickly (or at all) with the materials and methods to hand would also be interesting.

Don't think that I'm not aware of that.

How the pyramids were constructed is still mostly theory, based mostly on guesswork and feasibility. The difference between the two examples is that the pyramids stand as testament of their own existence. The ark, so far, does not. And in any case, stone is in some ways much easier to work with than wood. It's simpler to put one block on top of another than ensure a leak-free boat.

Actually Dante, there are numerous expeditions planned which are not under national geographic... i merely posted that one because i thought the national geographic example would be the only one you would listen to since you loooooove national geographic so much.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well virus particles didnt have to go in the Ark, they can live in the soil, caracasses, and even go into a crystalline state and survive for thousands of years.

[Dante]

Not all bacteria produce spores. Not all viruses are proven to survive crystaline 'hibernation.' And there is no reason to assume that all of the species at the time were capable of such feats either. Especially as some organisms (mistletoe springs to mind) are incapable of surviving without a host of some kind.

I didn't describe the pyramids as placing one stone atop another. I said that it was easier to place one block on top of another than ensure a leak-free boat. The 'And in any case' part of the previous sentance was to seperate pyramids from basic block-placing. Hence also the smaller term 'boat' rather than ark.

If ancient humans were so capable (which they no doubt were in order to build pyramids and stone circles), then why stop at one ark? Why not build more? And once you have ark-building down, why not continue to use them after the flood? Why didn't the Greeks, Phoenicians or Romans ever have such massive craft at their disposal?

[Anathema]

Just curious, if the Noah tale did happen, how many years BC would it have taken place according to scholars?

[Andrew]

Yes, when did this flood take place? I looked on teh net and I havn't been able to find a year.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Pyramids take years to build with thousands of people (an empire?)?

Doesn't say anything about bacteria. :O

I'm sure we can debate this and nothing will change, at least we can educate each other on why we believe what we believe. Wish I could find an image I was looking for I saw once. Would be funny.

[Dante]

Are those dinosaurs near the front of the line? ???

[Andrew]

Yep. Apparently dinosaurs were put on the ark. So that puts the arks timeline about 65 years ago. Before man could build such a boat, and before man as we know it. Contradiction. Of course God probably had something to do with it... Or no proof has been found of this flood when dinosaurs were around with civilization.

So confusing.

[Andrew]

No, I'm saying that if dinosaurs were put on the ark, and dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, it would not be possible for the ark to have occurred before 65 milion years ago. Homo Sapiens did not exist 65 million years ago.

Interesting article

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

Says the flood occurred 4300 years ago. And that dinosaurs were put on board.

Skimming over other parts of that website makes my head hurt :( (Like how the universe is only 6000 years old.)

Some people believe that there were dinosaurs on noahs ark.

Unless there were no dinosaurs put on the ark because it did not occur that early in history.

But saying that dinosaurs were put on it makes noah's ark story ridiculous.

So, if I draw a picture of a battle in Iraq, but put swords in the hands of soldiers, does that mean it never happened?

That's correct. As far as I know the soldiers did not use swords to fight the battle. Did a battle occur? Yes. But not with swords.

If you're trying to say that I am saying "because there is an image with dinosaurs on the ark, noahs ark did not exist" that is not the case. I'm saying that putting dinosaurs on noahs ark makes it more absurd and that it could not have existed 65 million years ago.

Noah's Ark at wiki is nice.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Yep. Apparently dinosaurs were put on the ark. So that puts the arks timeline about 65 years ago. Before man could build such a boat, and before man as we know it. Contradiction. Of course God probably had something to do with it... Or no proof has been found of this flood when dinosaurs were around with civilization.

So confusing.

wait a minute... did not a japanese fishing boat catch an aquatic dinosaur back in 1977 or somesuch year?

[Caid Ivik]

How the pyramids were constructed is still mostly theory, based mostly on guesswork and feasibility. The difference between the two examples is that the pyramids stand as testament of their own existence. The ark, so far, does not. And in any case, stone is in some ways much easier to work with than wood. It's simpler to put one block on top of another than ensure a leak-free boat.

Simpler, but you must be a damn strong for it. But the point is that as Egyptians were able to find a solution how to handle ton-weighing stones, so also Mesopotamians found a way to built a large ship. And it wouldn't be needed to have a specific testament of its existence, as we may so talk about greek wonders or Casablanca-class aircraft carriers, of which is no existant yet as well...

[Khan]

What did the carnivores eat? Remembering that some big cats will only eat fresh meat there must have been animals kept aboard for that alone. Where did he get the food for pandas, koalas and so on, which only eat food from their native countries, or did they bring it with them when they made the trek. How long was this trek that the animals made, must have taken years for lots of animals, especially sloths what did they eat on the way there?

Where did all the water go to after the flood ending, considering if there was that much water in the atmosphere at one time we'd drown just from breathing in.