scientist says noah's ark made up

reply to post by UxoriousMagnus


See now we're having a conversation... a star for you

Check this out...

could a 500+ year old man build this... even with hired help?

Akragon
reply to post by UxoriousMagnus

 

See now we're having a conversation... a star for you

Check this out...

could a 500+ year old man build this... even with hired help?

well....again...their age was not like ours....if you believe in these things. He had his first son at 500 and men were living into the 800 to 1000 year range. So Noah was a young chap....maybe 30 or 40 in our years.

But the article seems to focus oh how he wouldn't have the knowledge to build it.

It only took us 70 years to go from candle light, outhouses and horse drawn carriages to walking on the moon. 70 years!

Can you imagine if the wright brothers were still alive today and still basically the same age as they were back then? Would they be kicking out some awesome stuff? Would their sons if they were also into planes? Can you imagine (if there is a God) if God was directly helping them with their craft for some reason?

So...if you believe the Bible or at least are nodding your head to it for sake of argument....then there was about 1500 years from Adam to the flood...and men were living 800 to 1000 years. We also enter the nephilim into the picture (for knowledge) and I would think you would have some pretty friggin' smart people running around.

You seem pretty smart....what could you accomplish in 10 lifetimes but not as an old decrepit man/woman but as a young vibrant one?

I am just not convinced that they were stuck in the stone ages like we think they were. Especially with the "knowledge" that the nephilim were giving them....if you believe in such things.

The ark account is considered impossible because it seems impossible that an ancient man and his sons built a massive ark that was capable of taking them and the animals through a cataclysmic flood. But then again, apply the same thinking to stonehenge, easter island statues and the pyramids. Scientists insist that they were the results of human workmanship and dismiss any theories involving ''giants'' and ''ancient aliens'' as bogus. So given the scientific approach to seemingly impossible structures and designs... why couldn't humans have built the ark? _________________________________________I guess some are inclined to dismiss the ark/flood for no reason other than the fact that the bible says so. That only speaks of a confirmation bias. They dismiss the flood account because they see the bible as a collection of myths. Circular reasoning,

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


I think the reason so many people don't believe the great flood happened is because it makes ZERO logical sense. Eight people repopulated the Earth to over 7 billion in just 4,000 years? Eight people are the common ancestors of ALL the different ethnicities, empires, cultures, religions, races, tribes, civilizations, etc. that have existed in the past 4,000 years? You're saying THIS much diversity has been created from only 8 people in only 4,000 years? Really? That is highly unlikely and completely illogical in every conceivable way.

I'd have to say the opposite of what you're saying and that those who believe the flood actually happened only believe it because it is in the bible and/or part of the Abrahamic mythos. Don't kid yourself, the flood is the most ridiculous myth in the entire bible, there's no way it could have happened. The only reason it has been accepted as "fact" for so long is because the common people were mostly ignorant to world history and didn't have the kind of access to information we do today. It will soon be accepted by the majority as a total myth, I guarantee it.

[@3NL1GHT3N3D1....Eight people repopulated the Earth to over 7 billion in just 4,000 years?

Could you please explain where you got the 4000 year figure from? I never mentioned that figure in my post and I've never identified as a young earth creationist anywhere.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


It's estimated that the flood happened around 2300 B.C.E. according to the biblical record. The number has nothing to do with a young Earth but the account contained within the bible. If the biblical account is correct it puts the flood at about 4,300 years ago.

@ 3NL1GHT3N3D1 ... according to the biblical record...

no such thing as a biblical record for the ''year'' of the flood. All you are going to find are estimates of people attempting to calculate a ''year'' for the flood. Before the flood, Genesis 6 speaks of the time ''when mankind had spread all over the world...'' so for humans to spread all over the world...it would have taken much, much, much longer than what some people claim. The flood marked the end of an age in human history.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Ok, I'll be generous and say it happened 10,000 yesrs ago. Even in that timespan it is illogical. If it happened over twice as long ago as the biblical narrative implies, where did all that history go? Did god not find it important enough to mention in his book? Did nothing memorable happen in that timespan?

Face it, the great flood could have never happened, there isn't enough water in the world to cover the entire Earth over 5 miles deep. If there was we'd all be drowning right now.

It is hard to except that anyone actually believes a biblical flood happened. Even if you can get past the fact there isnt enough water in the world to cover everything how can anyone ignore the fact that such a deluge of water would have killed99% of marine life. If you don't believe that just try adding salt to a freshwater aquarium or adding fresh water to a saltwater one then report back on what survived in those tanks.

It is just a story written by people who knew nothing of science. Don't trade your cows for magic beans people its a scam.

Regarding Noah's Flood: people throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have a highly embellished story in the Bible that claims Noah saved every single animal species on the planet by placing them in the ark, that the entire world flooded so that all the ground was covered, and that all animals and humans descend from this event.

We know from hundreds of different angles that this can't possibly be anywhere near true,

THEREFORE

Noah's Ark is a myth.

Which is entirely the wrong way to look at it. Mythology is NEVER "literally true," but because we deem the Noah fable to NOT be "literally true," we throw the whole thing out as nonsensical. FURTHER, that blinds us to the possibility that the myth is grounded in something that happened to all of humanity many thousands of years ago and has been transmitted through the ages via stories, by mythology, by tales such as the Bible's "Noah's Ark," one of literally hundreds of flood stories which show up worldwide in a vast number of disparate cultures, from Asian folk tales to Native American legends, to Gilgamesh and Sumerian tales. Tales of a flood, the one constant here, the Ark notwithstanding, are all over--literally.

So what about a flood? There are people here who claim "there is no evidence" of a flood, and I wonder what planet they are living on. We all know about Ice Ages, right? When was the last one, the one called the Pleistocene Glaciation? Well, it was from 110,000 YBP to about 12,000 YBP (Years before present) And what do you think happened when all that water in all those glaciers melted about 12,000 years ago? Where did it go? And how much was it?

NASA, surely not an uneducated source, says sea levels rose about 80 meters in the last 15,000 years. 80 METERS. Now, lest you think this was a gradual event that took hundreds or even thousands of years, please investigate the lake Missoula Flood which is pretty well settled science. That flood is responsible for the looks of Eastern Washington State today. The vast flood released by the breaking ice dam wiped out all the top soil and killed everything in its path from Montana down the Columbia River Valley and into the Pacific Ocean.

Now look at Hudson Bay.

You think that might have had an effect on coastal civilizations, maybe even worldwide? You think maybe anything existing on the coast might have been effectively wiped out? You think maybe the people there might have deduced that the whole world flooded? You think maybe they talked about it and told stories about it?

There's your flood. No God required. No Ark required. No "saving of animals," no "worldwide flooding" beyond the coast lines, anyway, and no real mystery at all. Just a natural event.

So get beyond your disdain for religion, especially Judaeo-Christian religion, and think beyond your petty little prejudices to what the mythological story of Noah's Ark might actually be telling us.

When you piously say, with great pride in your advanced intelligence, that "Noah's Ark never existed!" well OF COURSE IT DIDN'T! Proclaiming such does not make you erudite. But what CAUSED the Noah's Ark story? Where did it come from? That's a lot more interesting than simply dismissing the story outright.

reply to post by schuyler


I think the difference here is that the bible claims to be the inerrant, infallible word of god. If Noah's Ark is just a tall tale, what else could be a tall tale within the biblical timeline? Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection? How can we know what is true and what is false, what is literal and what is symbolic?

If we can agree that the great flood never happened based on its logical and scientific impossibility, then why can't we agree that Jesus rising from the dead after 3 days never happened based on its logical and scientific impossibility as well?

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by schuyler

 

I think the difference here is that the bible claims to be the inerrant, infallible word of god. If Noah's Ark is just a tall tale, what else could be a tall tale within the biblical timeline? Sodom and Gomorrah, the Exodus, the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth, the miracles, the resurrection? How can we know what is true and what is false, what is literal and what is symbolic?

But that's not what people are doing. This Is not just a religious debate, or a debate about the literal word of God, about what is or is not true, literally, in the Bible. If THAT is what you are doing on threads like this, simply pitting yourselves against people who claim the Bible is the Word of God, literally, well, then, those people are clearly nuts. End of story. Why are you still even bothering with it? You are never going to convince people who believe that sort of thing; they're never going to convert you. It's a moot point. Given that you're not debating anyone (these threads tend to appear with no instigation) it's really a bit of a yawner.

The overall point here is the proscription that Noah did not exist. The Ark did not exist, therefore no flood happened!
And that very likely (though not definitively) is not true. People insisting on disproving the literal truth of the Bible take it one step too far. And that mistake makes their argument as deceptive as those who claim literal truth. You've missed out on some pretty important history that may have implications today (Global warming comes to mind.)

A much more interesting (and, IMO, intellectually honest debate) would be along the lines of "We can't take the Bible literally, but what can we learn from the mythology and stories that are there?" That's a lot more stimulating then the hundreds year old argument of "The Bible is true. No, it's not." stuff we've all heard forever.

Some people think the "Ark" theories came from ancient Mediterranean tsunamis.

In the Mediterranean, Killer Tsunamis From an Ancient Eruption

Ancient Mediterranean Tsunami May Strike Again

xuenchen
Some people think the "Ark" theories came from ancient Mediterranean tsunamis.

If the "ark" theories, or, more broadly, the "flood" theories were restricted to civilizations around the Mediterranean, I could see it. However, flood myths are pervasive and exist in places like India, China, Japan, and even Native American mythology. That would point to a more widespread phenomenon.

xuenchen
Some people think the "Ark" theories came from ancient Mediterranean tsunamis.

schuyler
If the "ark" theories, or, more broadly, the "flood" theories were restricted to civilizations around the Mediterranean, I could see it. However, flood myths are pervasive and exist in places like India, China, Japan, and even Native American mythology. That would point to a more widespread phenomenon.

True.

I don't know enough to make any smart speculations.

But floods and tsunamis happened a lot in ancient times over thousands of years in many coastal areas worldwide.

It might make sense that legends came from real events and were frequently recalled over generations in many civilizations.

The ice meltings could have played a part in floods.

The entire timeline for such stories could span 10,000 years?

Again, I don't know enough. Just thinking out loud.

reply to post by schuyler


I wasn't discounting the possibility of the great flood being based on an actual historical event, but the topic of the thread, as far as I can tell, is the story of Noah and his family building a ship to survive a world-wide flood and the validity of that narrative.

Sure, their are records of floods from civilizations across the world but that could be attributed to localized floods in each region. The Mediterranean isn't the only area to have ever had a flood and all those stories aren't necessarily talking about the same event.

I agree that I went off on a tangent that included the bible as a whole in that particular post but I feel the majority of my posts so far have been on topic. You saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" made it seem as though you were talking about the whole bible in general. Sorry if I assumed wrongly about your post.

UxoriousMagnus
We know the Jewish community is and has always been very good history keepers.....

No. They told history from THEIR point of view. That's not necessarily being a 'very good history keeper'. For instance ... they totally screwed up the Moses leaving Egypt story.

but we try and try to prove the flood and Noah were fake.....

No one 'tries and tries' to prove the story wrong. The facts are all 'right there'.
The Noahs Ark Story is absolutely and completely false and impossible.

If Noahs Ark happened .. then this 80,000 year old tree colony wouldn't have survived.
PANDO Tree Colony

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant,[1][2] is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.[5] The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms.[6][7]
Pando is located 1 mile southwest of Fish Lake on Utah route 25.[8] in the Fremont River Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah, at N 38.525 W 111.75.

Science Daily
At this time there are 6.5 million land animal species on the planet. There were even more back in what was supposedly Noahs time. Two of each animal would mean at least 13 million animals on that boat. NOT A CHANCE!! Couldn't happen.

Light doesnt penetrate the ocean more than about 500 ft. if the earth were submerged under 29,000 ft. in order to cover mt. everest, no marine plant life would have survived and the oceans would be dead. Obviously that didn't happen.

Could Noahs' Ark Have Actually Happened?

If the 2350 date were correct, then human civilization would’ve had to undergo an extreme population explosion in the millenium following the flood. According to Biblical sources, there would have been millions of Jews leaving Egypt, so assuming a global population of 40 million around that time (~1350 BC), and comparing that to global population estimates later in history (an estimated 200+ million by 0 AD), would require an incredibly high population growth between 2350 BC and 1350 BC (5,000,000 fold increase in 1,000 years), and a much lower population growth after 1350 BC – usually less than 5 fold population growth within any 1,000 year period between 1350 BC and 1800 AD.

(3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”)

(4) Genetic evidence shows that human beings are far to genetically diverse to be descended from a single family in 2350 B.C. If Noah’s Ark were true, then all men alive today would’ve gotten their Y-chromosomes from Noah, and all human mitochondrial DNA would come from Noah’s wife and the three daughter-in-laws. Studies of the human Y-Chromosome show that you’d need far more than 4,300 years to accumulate that many mutations. Human beings could not be descended from a single male in 2350 B.C. What the studies show, instead, is that, in order to explain the number of mutations in the human Y-Chromosome, you have to allow for roughly 60,000-90,000 years. Similarly, human mitochondrial DNA requires roughly 160,000 years to accumulate that many mutations — showing that Eve could not have lived 6,000 years ago as the Bible says.

AND MORE INFORMATION AT THAT SITE.

Adam and his Eves - A lesson on DNA and population distribution for you

Creationism vs Biodiversity

Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.

National Geographic - Human DNA Journey
For Noahs Ark to have happened exactly as the bible claims, we'd expect the highest levels of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East. But the fact is that the highest levels of human genetic diversity occur in Africa where humanity evolved.

Noahs Ark Doesn't Float

Miles of coral reef, hundreds of feet thick, still survive intact at the Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The violent flood would have certainly destroyed these formations, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived for over 100,000 undisturbed years. Similarly, the floodwaters, not to mention the other factors leading to a boiling sea, would have obviously melted the polar ice caps. However, ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica date back at least 40,000 years.

Impact craters from pre-historical asteroid strikes still exist even though the tumultuous floodwaters would have completely eroded them. If these craters were formed concurrently with the flood, as it has been irresponsibly suggested, the magnificent heat from the massive impacts would have immediately boiled large quantities of the ocean, as if it wasn’t hot enough already. Like the asteroid craters, global mountain ranges would exhibit uniform erosion as a result of a global flood. Unsurprisingly, we witness just the opposite in neighboring pairs of greatly contrasting examples, such as the Rockies and Appalachians.

Even if we erroneously assume there to be enough water under the earth’s surface in order to satisfy the required flood levels, the size of the openings necessary to permit passage for a sufficient amount of water would be large enough to destroy the cohesive properties of the earth’s crust. However, the outer layer is firmly intact, and there’s no evidence indicating that it ever collapsed. All this hypothetical escaping water would have greatly eroded the sides of the deep ocean fissures as well, but no such observable evidence exists for this phenomenon either.

We can also observe algae deposits within the fossil layers, a phenomenon that could not have formed during the flood because they require sunlight to thrive. It’s quite reasonable to assume that the clouds would have thoroughly obstructed the sunlight during such a tremendous rain indicative of the flood. Setting aside this and all other known fossil inconsistencies with the Bible, archaeologists have found human footprints within the upper layers. Moving water simply could not have deposited these markings. As I alluded to earlier, this seemingly endless list of geological problems was completely unforeseeable to the primitive authors, thus the Bible offers no justifications or explanations for our discoveries.

MORE
India and the Indus Valley Civilization

The Indus Valley Civilization, which spread and flourished in the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent from c. 3300 to 1300 BCE in present-day Pakistan and northwest India, was the first major civilization in South Asia.[2] A sophisticated and technologically advanced urban culture developed in the Mature Harappan period, from 2600 to 1900 BCE.[3]
This civilization collapsed at the start of the second millennium BCE and was later followed by the Iron Age Vedic Civilization, which extended over much of the Indo-Gangetic plain and which witness the rise of major polities known as the Mahajanapadas. In one of these kingdoms, (Magadha), Mahavira and Buddha were born in the 6th or 5th century BCE and propagated their Shramanic philosophies.

So for the DNA distribution to be what it is today, you'd have to go back 160,000 years in order for things to have gotten started with a handful of people ... not just a few thousand years as is claimed in the Old Testament Noahs Ark story. And 160,000 years ago there was NO ONE on the planet that could possibly have built a boat ... they were living in caves and grunting to each other. IMPOSSIBLE.

And for them to have built a boat that could hold 'two of each animal' would mean it would have been a boat holding at least 13 million animals. In fact, it would have been more because there were more species on the planet 6,000 years ago. IMPOSSIBLE.

And for this to have happened, the 80,000 year old Bondo trees would be dead, and the sea coral reefs would have been disturbed, etc etc... It didn't happen.

@3NL1GHT3N3D1.....Ok, I'll be generous and say it happened 10,000 yesrs ago....

thanks, but no. This matter does not rest on your ''generosity'' or your assumptions. If Genesis 6 speaks of humanity spreading all over the world, it could just as well speak of a timeframe spanning 10 million years. Why are you so eager to confine it to a mere 10,000 years?