I'm fascinated by the idea of Noah's Ark. I've done a lot of reading up on it lately, and came to the following conclusion: It couldn't possibly have happened. There are many reasons to believe this. If you look at the evidence the Earth provides, in abundance, there is absolutely no evidence at all for a global flood. In fact, all the evidence says it didn't happen. I've seen a few arguments from people who believe it happened, but they seem pretty weak. They generally involve "what ifs", "maybes", and theories that fly in the face of scientific fact (marine life surviving such conditions etc..). As far as I can see, the only possible reason somebody can have to believe it is that they believe every word in the bible. What the bible says clearly contradicts what the Earth says. Personally, I believe the Earth to be the more credible witness. I just can't believe so many intelligent people believe the story. I'm guessing that they have to, because the story cannot be discounted without discounting the entire bible, a common problem faced by christians these days... I'm just wondering, are there any christians who don't believe it ever happened? Are there non-christians who believed it did?
I don't believe in the bible and I'm an atheist, but there is some archeological evidence of a local flood. The theory states that the Black Sea was created by a huge flood. Evidence: there are several thousand year old building blocks on the bottom of the sea. It was once inhabited by humans. This could well be the flood of which the bible tells about.
In fact, I think there is evidence for several local floods throughout history. I have no problem accepting this. Global Flood is a different story though. And the bible account can't be referring to a local flood, as it is quite specific.
You seem to forget when the accounts in the Bible (and elsewhere) were written. What did the Romans, Egyptians or the Babiloneans mean when they claimed their empires "spanned the world from edge to edge"? Having said this, how many world-wide legends of a "global deluge" did you have to ignore to come to a conclusion that the "earth itself" holds evidence against such an event? See: Flood stories from around the world If you live in Europe - have you seen any evidence recently for kilometers thick glaciers covering the continent in the past?
When the Romans etc. claimed their empires to span the world from edge to edge, this is obviously just misunderstanding the true size (and shape) of the Earth. Again, I thought the bible was pretty clear - God's intention was, after all, to kill everything that was't on the Ark. World-wide legends of gobal deluges... well, there are untold legends of sea monsters, but they just turn out to be misunderstandings. Such global floods cannot be confirmed without sailing around the world, which I have no doubt that the origanal authors/tellers of these stories did not do. I agree, there are a lot of such stories, but they are either pure fantasy, or local floods exagerated. Ancient stories aren't evidence for anything. If they were, we would still believe in sea monsters, dragons, and goodness knows what else. A global flood would leave its mark in the Earth, and there is no such evidence. As for kilometers thick glaciers in Europe - no, obviously I can't *see* the evidence. But it wouldn't take me long to find documentation telling me when, why and how they existed. It just appears to me, from what I have read, that pretty much everything that has happened to the Earth is recorded in the Earth itself. This isn't true for a global flood. I'd be fascinated if you could point me to some evidence. You must surely concede that had such an event occured, there would be indisputable evidence in abundance? I'm sure that such a massive, recent event would be well represented in the Earth's crust.
http://www.icr.org/index.html Most of the evidence - for and against - is technical, geographic stuff. Smart people saying smart things. Even when you read it, you can easily choose to believe it or not, depending on your prejudice. There is simply too much that needs to be considered or conjectured. The difference is that you see "overwhelming evidence" while I see "overwhelming lack of evidence". I refer you to the Institute for Creation Research. There are a few papers on flood geology. Another site that seems to have a lot of resources is Answers in Genesis. Please keep in mind that by referencing these sites I do not imply that I agree completely with everything they offer.
I had a quick look - everything I looked at seemed incredibly complicated - too difficult for the layman to read. But I'm not sure if that site is a very good reference. It is bound to support the flood, it is hardly likely to show contradictory evidence... I guess the major over-riding factor that influences me, are the sources of the evidence. I have no reason to believe, that the vast majority of geologists and scientists are looking for anything by accurate historical truth. They are simply looking into the Earth to see what has happened, and draw conclusions. They find evidence, then draw conclusions based on all of that evidence. The people presenting evidence on a creationist site I find less trust worthy. They are looking for evidence that fits with their ideas, rather than formulating ideas based on evidence. So there are two distinct sets of ideals here, and I it is the scientists that I trust. This is what I'd expect: If there had been a global flood, covering even the highest mountain, only a few thousand years ago, there would be evidence to support it in the Earth, and on the Earth. Scientists would have found this evidence, and we would all (pretty much) (both religious and non-religious) believe it happened. The evidence in the Earth to be beyond doubt. This clearly isn't the case. But geology isn't the only area that tells me the global flood didn't happen. The actual ark of building such an ark, getting the animals, caring for the animals etc... seems equally impossible. The more I think about the details, the less likely it becomes..
Whoever wrote the bible were pre-stoneage humans. An event in the scale of a flood forming a sea could seem as a global flood to them. Imagine a mega-super-giant tsunami or perhaps many mega-super-giant tsunamis closing on you from the horizon from every direction. It would look global to me. Now you'd say that if its scale was that gigantic, who could have survived to tell the story? Well, I think that nobody actually survived to tell it, but perhaps nomads who'd been to that region before the flood and returned there after it saw a sea where there wasn't one before. The only reasonable explanation for people whitnessing this and who lack any knowledge in earth sciences is "the people of this region have sinned and God flooded them in return as a punishment by pouring rain on them for a very long time". They also probably streched it a to a global scale to show Gods might. I don't believe there was a global flood either. I'm pretty sure there is not enough water to cover every single piece of land on earth.
This is that way it goes: 1) To live healthily and comfortable people need daily intake of water. 2) As such people tend to live near a fresh water source (like a river). 3) Rivers flood. 4) People used to worship in such a way as to interpret natural disasters as messages from the gods (incidentally, some people still do - there was a funny post here about a Christian priest who was struck by lightning – of course a sign from God! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 5) After a larger than normal flood people write the story into their religious books and 2000 years later other people think that the whole wide wonderful world was flooded and that all the animals were crammed onto a little boat and floated around for about a month. The "typical" Noah’s Ark story is completely and without a single doubt a work of fiction. (That is the traditional world-wide flood story, a pair of animals, etc..). Could there have been a regional flooding? Sure, and that may be the source of the story. Or . . . it could all be bull shit. Although I didn’t look through in detail - Jenyar posted a link to floods that have happened at different times in different cultures. This is obviously common knowledge (the flooding ocurrs) and indicates that 1) people live near rivers 2) rivers flood 3) people interpret said flood as message from god 4) stories are exaggerated as time goes by (Caesar was descended from Ancus Marcius and the goddess Venus sort of stuff). POOF Noahs Ark Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Simple huh.
Its funny, noah's ark proves the only "world" "god" knew about was the middle east. I thought god created all of earth? Hmmmm, seems as though god only ever knows as much as the people at the time do. Almost makes one start thinking people made god up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you're looking at the above links, bear in mind that the Institute of Creation Research does no actual research. Nor do the people at AnswersinGenesis. Both of these bodies are creationist mouthpieces who have been caught out time and again in blatant lies and distortions of the truth.
Its just another case of an oral legend being copied. Nothing huge. FYI: You could melt every bit of ice on earth and most of it would still be above water.
Maybe but still does not disqualify a supernatural flood. I'm sure that you could lower sea levels and spread out the oceans to cover the entire earth. Anyways the account of Noah's ark in the bible is textually impossible to produce any real claims from it. Of course a flood did occur and this some how got into the oral tradition of the Hebrew people. http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/CH1/CH1_2A1.HTM
You fools, you say that its impossible to have a world wide flood.......but guess what, since God is omnipotent NOTHING is impossible for him. God can do ANYTHING what he wants to.
If he existed, and existed in the form you believe he does, then yes, he could do anything. But my quesiton to you is this: Wouldn't it have been easier just to kill all the evil people with lightning or something, rather than have to perform umpteen miracles to save a few people and a bunch of animals in a boat? Especially as once the flood had ended, God had to go to the great trouble of erasing all traces of it from the Earth so that modern scientists can find no trace of it.
If what agent smith said was true why didn't god just think "you know what, these sinning people really aren't working out, I might just make everyone and everything perfect instead. Hey why didn't I think of this earlier?" ? Oh yeah, because what agent smith said wasn't true, my bad.
What do you measure "ease" by? Wouldn't it have been "easier" for the earth to be just flat? All the hard work of having to push around tectronic plates...
It is funny how the stories in the bible are so... well.. biblical Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)) in nature and scope. Fire raining from the sky. Floods of global proportions. Epic disasters. If God is omnipotent, and wanted everyone dead but Noah's family and a breeding pair of all animals, all he would have to do is will it and it is done. *>poof<* no?
