The Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 1: The Great Flood & Noah's Ark
This article is the first in a series of articles I plan to write (depending on my available time and interest) objectively examining popular biblical stories to establish their veracity or likelihood of having actually occurred. While many people might view the stories as fables and allegories, some do view them as actual, literal events that have occurred (Looking at you Ken Hamm, lol). These stories have significantly influenced people and societies throughout the centuries. So I will analyze the empirical evidence which either supports or refutes the stories as portrayed. For this Part 1, I will examine the biblical Great Flood and Noah's Ark mythos.
In a nutshell, the Great Flood/Noah's Ark goes like this: God was ticked off at humanity's shenanigans and decided the best way to deal with the situation was genocide via mass drowning (save for Noah & few of his followers, along with certain animals). So God instructed Noah to gather two of every animal and build a great ark to house them during the 40-day/night deluge that would flood the world and kill virtually every living thing on the planet. Afterwards, he would release the animals and themselves to repopulate their respective species.
This story has so many problems with it, it's difficult to know where to begin. To simplify, I will not be focusing on other cultures earlier flood myths, which probably influenced the creation of the biblical flood myth. Neither will I be focusing on God's own imperfection (or incompetence), as his Creation had some major design flaws forcing him to essentially reboot Creation over again. I also won't delve into the implausibility of rapid repopulation over a short time after the flood either. So here are some problems with the Flood story:
1. The sheer number of animals that had to be aboard the Ark : For this, I'm going to assume that the animals on the ark were all land animals. According to the California Academy of Sciences, there are approximately 6.5 million species of land animals. I'll be conservative and round down to 6 million, give or take a million. Since we have two of every animal, the ark must be capable of holding and supporting 12 MILLION animals for an extended duration, without additional support. That alone makes the Flood story quite implausible (even more so if one includes dinosaurs as passengers). Anyone who has been in a pet store will know housing many animals takes up quite a lot of space and resources. To put that into perspective, a single adult elephant (the largest land mammal in the world) can weigh upwards of 14,000 pounds, grow up to 35 feet long, and eat 200-600 pounds of food and drink 50 gallons of water PER DAY! And Noah had 12 million animals to feed and water daily, which is an impossible task for the relatively few people aboard the ark (never mind cleaning up after the animals too). In addition, it is supposed to believed that many of those animals traveled thousands of miles, some over the ocean, and from remote places like Antarctica, outside of their natural environments and ecosystems, in time to board the ark before the flood. Really?
2. The lack of paleontological evidence : Once the flood occurs, that means EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL not on the ark dies (and PETA takes issue with people wearing furs? They should have quite the issue with God's cruelty to animals here). Not only land animals left behind, but this also includes all land based plant life, insects that feed off of plants, amphibians and avians that feed of the insects, ect.. Essentially, the Flood would destroy entire ecosystems, collapse the food chain, and cause a sudden mass extinction event. This would also include sea based plants and animals, as the sudden influx of freshwater rain would dilute the salinity of the oceans, thereby disrupting the environmental conditions ocean based life requires to survive. If such an extinction event occurred, we would expect to see LOTS of fossils or remnants of the deceased lifeforms all at the same geological strata evenly distributed all over the earth. But we clearly do not observe that being the case. To be fair though, fossilization would require a burial in sediment layers thick enough to preserve them. But we're not seeing that in any sediment layers going back approximately 4000+ years (the time of Noah). Another thing to consider is, when the flood receded and the Ark landed, we should see a large collection of fossils or remains of all the animals that lived and died within a region around the ark. In other words, we should expect to find (for example) penguin remains mixed in along with kangaroo remains in the same general area. Needless to say, we do not see that.
3. The lack of geological evidence : So if a worldwide flood did indeed happen, there would be geological evidence of the event. However, geologists have not discovered any evidence to support the flood story. Just the opposite actually, current geological evidence directly contradicts the idea of a world wide flood covering landmasses. If there were such a Flood event, we would see mountains and other rock formations have a relatively uniform smoothing or massive erosion from the receding Flood water equally around the world. Of course, that is not the case. We would also see erosion and sedimentation occurring simultaneously, which we do not. Not only would we find even sedimentation layers around the world if there were a flood, certain sedimentation layers we see today could not exist.
4. The amount of water needed to flood the earth does not exist on earth : The volume of water on Earth is fairly constant: it evaporates form oceans, lakes, rivers, ect., condenses in the atmosphere into clouds, and falls back to Earth as rain, where the cycle repeats. So 40 days & nights of rain would have to drop enough water to cover ALL of Earth's landmasses, up and including Mt. Everest, at 29,028 feet above sea level (God wouldn't want to have a little animal stay safe on the peak of Everest while he's trying to smite every living thing, right?). The problem with that is there is not enough water on Earth to actually flood it to the level described in the bible. According to certain estimates , it would take 813,875,076 CUBIC MILES of water to sufficiently cover the entirety of Earth. That's a lot of water. By comparison, all of Earth's oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, equals approximately 321,000,000 cubic miles. I would expect that volume of water to fall in 40 days would be less like being constantly under rain, and more like constantly under a waterfall. Then there's the problem of where all that extra water went after the flood (I know, some people might invoke God's magic and all that).
5. The Ark itself is implausible : Now we get to the centerpiece of the Flood Story, Noah's Great Ark itself. By now, many people are probably familiar with Ken Hamm's Ark Encounter park in Kentucky, where Mr. Hamm built a supposedly accurate, full-size replica of Noah's Ark. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use Mr. Hamm's Ark as a "functional" duplicate of Noah's Ark. So the Ark itself is 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high, smaller than the Titanic (and yet 12 millions animals were housed on board? Really?). I don't think the bible states Noah was a master carpenter or ship builder with the skill to construct a vessel of this magnitude or for the conditions it would face. Presumably, Noah only had wood and the simple tools of his time to construct the Ark. The problem here is, wood is not the ideal material to construct large seagoing vessels. The largest wooden vessels built by master shipbuilders of the recent era was the 6 mast schooner Wyoming, which had an overall length of 450 feet. The problem with such large wooden vessels is that sea travel would cause the wooden hull to twist and warp, resulting in leaks or even structural failure. So the Ark, built by unskilled individuals with primitive tools, meant to remain stable on water rather than actually sail over it, somehow, even with all it's gross tonnage of material, animals, and any cargo, was able to withstand stormy weather and oceans without breaking apart or becoming water logged enough to cause sinking? That seems highly unlikely to me. as does the Great Flood story itself.
Tags
Who is online
157 visitors
So what do you think? Could the Great Flood and Noah's Ark actually have occurred? I don't think so.
We, meaning modern history may never know. This was a very old Earth ago. And the people doing the 'listing' are very, very, long gone. Does any one have a Rabbi's perspective on Noah's Ark?
The people in the story may well never have existed.
Yes it was (for a YEC perspective). That's why we have to look at the geologic and paleontological evidence, which keeps a natural "record" of events from log ago. Both fields of science not only does not support the notion of a biblical global flood, but seems to directly contradict or discredit it.
I found this :
The Flood commenced on the seventeenth day of the second month. The gates of heaven broke loose, and the depths of the earth opened to send forth streams of raging, boiling water, swallowing everything in its path. Rain fell for forty days and forty nights and the water which covered the earth rose higher and higher. It covered the peaks of the highest mountains. Every living thing died, and all growing things were destroyed. Amid this terrible scene of ruins and devastation the Ark, guided by G‑d, floated securely. But the ship was fiercely tossed about and shaken at the heights of the stormy flood, so that it seemed to Noah that it was about to break apart.
Geez, can God overkill or what? Not only does he drown every living thing, but He boils them alive first.
True. It is a very, very, very, (well you get it) time ago. Mostly people at that time may have not shared or could demand of each other the level of meticulousness to details (in writing) which we do today. Although, people did seem to have systems which build upon themselves.
"The people in the story may well never have existed."
That is possible. You hedged your statement. I understand why it is necessary to do so.
In modern times, there is no shortage for 'amazing' tales, stories, and myths-making. All the while, we are more careful and critical in our beliefs, ideas, and opinions. Still, just imagine some of the many things which we will leave confusing to future generations about "today."
There are places in the New Testament of the Bible which are still being discovered, for example, the Pool of Bethesda. Once thought (by some modern people) to be a myth: discovered.
Well that is a rendering alright! The writers, all, keep describing an event in time. What exactly it could be is a matter of faith, now. In my opinion. I say this is a matter of faith, because Jewish people teach on Noah; Jesus commented on Noah's life (as a Jewish 'leader' in his day), and Jesus was closer in time to Noah than any group of moderns. (I add this just as a means to broaden discussion - my Christian faith does not hinge on the times or flood of Noah's day.)
Then that doesn't lend any credibility to the story as actually occurring.
That's fine. But the point of the article is to focus on the Flood story itself and establish its veracity.
How do you intend to establish its veracity or status as a tale without any new information? Curious.
Read the article. I took all the available information into account and analyzed it. It's doubtful there's going to be anymore forthcoming to significantly alter the conclusion. But if you have something, then by all means let's hear it.
I read the article. It is impressive for its purposes. And as you are certainly aware, the Bible goes beyond nature as we know it in many ways.
The "available" information can only get you so far. As Sandy stated @1.1.1, "may" is the operative word, though it leaves the door open for a 'flood' of new information, pun intended. The Pool of Bethesda (where Jesus healed a paralyzed man) was though to not exist until it was discovered in Jerusalem. Incidentally, you hedged just now when you wrote, "It's doubtful. . . ."
Discoveries happen (from in the ground) when the ground is dug up just so. But, what do I know about ancient lands I have never been privileged to visit or study? It is just more 'background' in the frame of faith (for people like me).
I have no ideas about Noah; I only know what is taken as an article of faith about him written down in "the Book."
That's all we have to go on. So there's no reason to assume the Flood event occurred, especially since the available evidence, which is compelling in its own right, suggests otherwise.
Not at all. I even said in the article the Flood was highly unlikely.
Like I said, when new evidence is found, then we can reevaluate.
Thank you.
I take it more as a storybook rather than a literal account of events.
Then we are in agreement, that we should stick a pin here? And shall we wait? Or, do we carry on blindly supposing that the ancient world has yielded more than enough of its secrets regarding Noah?
We can carry on until new evidence, if any, emerges.
But would it be discipline or indulgence at work? There are plenty people of the faith persuasion who 'beat' the scriptures mercilessly, I often pray they could display more control of their subject matter.
For example, we have to discuss God, when we discuss Noah and the Flood. The reason is, we only are told about Noah because God delivered him a task to perform.
Or we are told a story that was made up about a god and a man, both of whom were likely made up. Much like many myths.
God commanding Noah and flooding the world is all we really need about god. God is just a side character in the Flood. It's the details of the Flood itself that is under scrutiny.
You wrote (above). Like you, I can not confirm or deny. For us, these things are strictly matters of faith, then.
Okay, then what does the book say about where Noah gets the directions (instructions) for the proportions of his ark (that would save him from a world where others would be condemned)? And what value is righteousness to a man who places no stock in it?
Ok, I'll even go so far as to say that the Biblical Noah, who lived for hundreds of years and built a ship big enough to hold 2 of every species (or 2 of every unclean and seven of every clean animal), made from wood, and capable of supporting its passengers and livestock for a year, almost certainly did not exist.
"Almost" means there is a chance. But, I digress.
And faith adds no veracity to the idea. That is what flies in the face of those who need to be persuaded that something is true. There is no taking something on faith because that practice does not get one any closer to the truth.
I suspect Sandy means it in this sense:
I seen this one on various articles. It fact it is what was going through my mind when I commented. But we all know a 'crack' can grow into.a garage you can park a 747 inside! Discoveries!
I think you are missing a vital element: The Spirit. It is the "born again" experience. That is something we 'know' occurred in some of us you know it has not occurred for some of you here. Unfortunately, we have been front-row to seeing how some believers mishandle spiritual gifts in the modern era. Yet, some others manage their gifting quite admirably.
I detect this discussion is not about faith or these other matters, nevertheless. It is about Noah and the Ark (he built).
Evidence, Cal. This is entirely subjective. We aren't missing it. You can't show it's there to be missed.
The statement stands. It is attested to by many throughout recorded (New Testament) history and the life testimonies of millions upon millions, and not a mere handful. I can't give you (nor need I try) anything more than this. You are free to qualify this stated experience when you write of it as something we say about ourselves.
While I realize you have nothing more to give, note that a preponderance of belief does not make something true (or even more likely true). Remember the world used to think the sun and other stars orbited our planet.
But in a contemporary sense, note the beliefs of the billions of Muslims in the world. The fact that billions hold beliefs such as that Jesus was an ordinary man, a prophet, but was not divine in any way does not make their beliefs true.
Well, the spiritual realm, the born again experience, are not lending themselves to scientific observation, research, and critique—sadly. However, it is how I, and millions upon millions, profess to live so we would be liars and dishonest to NOT tell others about this aspect of our lives. That would be unsatisfactory.
Moreover, having repeat discussions about the improbability of Noah existing and building an ark, when researchers are still not absolutely sure he did not exist or build strains credulity (too). Albeit, an exercise. One serving what purposes?
Today, we have an example of the Coronavirus (COVID 19) which is savaging people all over the world. We know little about the virus definitively until the facts reveal themselves—if they do.
In the case of Noah and this flood (and those who reported on it), we may never know the truth of it, because all the relevant parties who shared and explained the narrative are long gone.
That makes it a take it or leave it set of propositions.
On extremely wobbly legs. It's just an unsupported assertion, and can be dismissed as such.
That's your opinion. You are welcome to hold it. However, I will thank you to not try and tell me that the last 25 plus years of my profession is 'wobbly.' I've lived it. Some six or seven years of the last years counting backwards of it on social media engaging you and many others. But, I digress. You can not remark properly on my experiences (I know) you can only take my word for it. Dismissing it? Not even a question.
Now let's move back to the topic. This is not about any one Christian's spiritual journey back and forth/up and down!
Sigh.
It's still subjective, Cal. There's just no getting around that. You tell us we're missing that which you can't provide evidence exists.
What profession is that? Would help clarify your post.
Good catch. (a) profession of faith.
See @1.1.26 "Well, the spiritual realm, the born again experience, are not lending themselves to scientific observation, research, and critique—sadly. However, it is how I, and millions upon millions, profess to live so we would be liars and dishonest to NOT tell others about this aspect of our lives. That would be unsatisfactory."
Therefore, it is what it is. (We don't control this.)
Seems unlikely...
There are stories of epic floods well before the bible. One of them is Gilgamesh, I believe.
I think it comes down to there being actual floods yet people only knew of their own area at the time.
And of course all stories get exaggerated over the years.
In the Mesopotamia flood story, they build a round boat.
There is a Aztec flood story, a Greek flood story, a Hindu flood story, A Buddhist, Chinese, A Norse story but they were flooded with blood, the Aborigines, Native Americans.
It is thought the Great Flood was directly borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, Or at least was inspired by it. But many cultures of the period and region have some kind of flood myth. So it's no stretch that such stories were borrowed, passed around and probably altered or embellished.
A regional flood is the most likely scenario. But in people's limited world view of the time, to them, it may have seemed like the whole world was flooded. Certain religions just ran with it.
Indeed. First a riverbank flooding suddenly becomes entire cities being submerged becomes whole regions submerged becomes the whole world flooded. It's the Bronze Age version of Telephone.
Round works for rafts. Not sure how well an actual boat would fare.
Basically, any civilization that grew around a river probably has a flood story, and for good reason.
I was going to say the same thing as Ender. We know that the region in question was at one time also much wetter than it was today. We have proof with the sphinx, since the erosion we see at the bottom is now known to have happened by water. I think that as the last major ice age ended a lot of places flooded and there were huge fluctuations in weather. And as the Supertramp song goes:
There are times when all the world's asleep
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
Please tell me who I am
As for the ark, I am sure that there were people who gathered supplies and try to wait it out on a boat. This might have become legendary, so to speak.
At best, the biblical flood was really just a regional flood. But certainly not like the one depicted in the bible.
I would have to agree that it was regional, but given the time, it could have been going on worldwide, but not to the extent, that it covered all the land.
I don't think that's very likely. There's no evidence to suggest that might have been the case.
Like the game "telephone." Stories exaggerated, modified, or completely changed from the original.
The common explanations offered for this are that the ark only contains two of each 'kind'. A 'kind' is an undefined term, but it seems to be used to define creatures at a high phylogenetic level ... major clades that are at the taxonomic level of genus or family. So the ark, per this way of thinking, would have had a pair of apes who, in theory, would serve as the progenitors for all variations of apes we see today. (Well, except for humans.) And the explanation goes on to argue that the larger animals were taken young. So the lions (or, really, the 'kind' from which lions emerge) would not be full grown but simply cubs. By inserting all this presupposition into the story, apologists can winnow the number of physical animals down. Of course the Bible is unclear as to whether one pair or seven pairs of a 'kind' was on the ark because it does not clearly identify the clean from the unclean animals. So that seven pair factor would bump up the numbers yet again.
They have no answers for how these animals are kept from eating each other, how they are fed (where did the food come from), how waste is disposed of, etc. The task, as you point out, for managing all these animals with such a tiny crew of caretakers is insurmountable. The fable, as told, is ridiculous.
That means biblical literalists just supported evolution, albeit on a very accelerated scale. Progenitors branch off into different variations, which is what we see with evolution. I wonder how they reconcile that with the belief that god created everything just as is?
That leaves the problem of how the young could survive on their own after the ark landed.
Even then, I doubt it would be enough to justify the number of animals can actually fit onto the ark.
True. But for the sake of argument and within the context of the article, I'll just assume it's meant as an actual pair-2 animals per species.
Building enclosures for them would only take up more space.
Or the water.
That's why Noah kept is followers around, Lol
Agreed. Any honest review of the story would lead one to that conclusion.
The SS Armeneia was torpedoed in 1915 while transporting 1422 mules for the French Army.
She was 512 feet long, 60 feet wide and about 35 feet high. The trans Atlantic voyage was expected to take 3 to 4 weeks.
The normal crew was increased to 175 in order to care for the mules properly.
Can you imagine how many people would have to have been on Noah's Ark to feed and maintain thousands of different kinds of animals with different diets?
No, neither can I.
Which is one reason why the whole Noah story is rather implausible.
I doubt that any religious person I know outside of a forum actually believes the Noah's ark story is fact. Typically it (as with much of the Bible) is considered to be simply an allegory.
That is why it is fascinating to find people on forums who literally believe the story. Likewise it is fascinating and unfortunate that there are groups like Answers In Genesis working daily to indoctrinate young minds into these literal beliefs (and trying to twist science to do so).
Which is how it should be taken. But when taken literally, as some apparently do, then the story shows lots of problems and inconsistencies.
Indeed. It's no different than believing Mother Goose or Grimm's fairy tales are literal stories.
Not to mention make science or those "pro-science" seen as something bad or to be avoided.
Not to mention .. there would have been no food once the waters receded, with all the animals killed and the plants dying from such long submersion, and all the freshwater would have become saline. And the genetic bottleneck would be obvious.
Using critical thinking and not knee jerk emotional thinking, no, the flood and the ark did not happen.
The lack of paleontological evidence :
Yeah this is where the apologists have an extremely hard time. Somehow clusters of animals such as the marsupials in Australia and the penguins in Antartica just magically poofed over to their distant homes leaving no trail whatsoever. If they had migrated, there would have been a trail of fossils. Nada.
Some apologists hypothesize that a land bridge existed between Europe and Australia (for example) but that this land bridge has since disappeared (entirely by the way ... as if it were never there).
I've heard "explanations" like there were land bridges. Of course, those bridges no longer exist and amazingly, there is not a single trace of them nor any evidence discovered to that effect, even with all our modern imaging, oceanography, diving, ect.. Quite the mystery, eh?
There also would have been fossils leading away from the ark landing site. Many animals can migrate. But not the distances that would have been involved.
The lack of geological evidence
This is another tough one for apologists. Amazingly we see apologists claiming that the Grand Canyon was not formed by runoff via the Colorado river but was actually formed by the Great Flood. They seem to ignore the fact that the layers of fossils correlate with older species at the bottom and younger at the top rather than a mix of species in existence at the time of the flood that would have resulted if made all at once by a flood.
They also ignore the sediment layers distributed throughout the canyon, indicating a long period of time, sedimentation, and layering. Basically, if the Flood formed the Grand Canyon, there would be very few, if any sedimentation layers at all.
The amount of water needed to flood the earth does not exist on earth
Well this one is simply passed off as a miracle. God poofed in the water and then poofed it away.
Odd thing is that if one is inclined to accept this level of magic (miracle) then really they could buy that God miniaturized all the animals and put them into hibernation for the almost year time the ark was afloat. That solves all the logistic problems right there. Of course, if one is willing to impose such presuppositions then why the ark in the first place? Why would God go totally iron age manual with the construction of an ark via a skeleton crew when He was going to just make it all logistically possible via a grand miracle?
How convenient. You would think if god can "poof" something in or out of existence, it would have been easier for him to simply poof all evil and "sinners" out of existence rather than trying to flood them out. But no, he apparently had a rather elaborate plan in mind, in which he still botched the results.
Because...reasons. See previous statement.
The Ark itself is implausible
Yes, the best wooden ship builders in history have never built any sea-worthy wooden ship the size of the ark. But Noah did, and it was seaworthy for almost a year.
Again, all one can do is claim miracle because the laws of physics do not support the claim of the grand wooden ark.
Even more amazing given he was probably unskilled and had more primitive tools and resources. Even the ark of the Ark encounter was only built because of modern building techniques.
And that's what some probably will claim and leave it at that.
I saw a show about that a little while back. The Ham ark was built with modern tools and crews of people. They said there was simply no way a small group of people with simple tools could have built something that size.
The logistics, hoisting things in place, the beams needed, the timber that would have been needed.
I know some grand things have been built in ancient times but they were all thinking this was not plausible.
They're not the only ones who think it's implausible. Bear in mind, great projects of ancient times like the pyramids or the Great Wall utilized tens or even hundreds of thousands of manpower for construction over a period of many years. And they were known accomplished engineers too. The idea that Noah and a small, unskilled group could build something like the ark and actually have it capable of floating for a long period of time is quite implausible indeed.
Ham's ark is actually just a facade. There is a concrete structure (a building) behind the ark. It is a building made to look like an ark. As built, it is not even remotely sea-worthy. And, as you note, even then it was a major construction effort and involved modern day engineering (even though they brought in wood crafts-persons for many of the details).
I tend to think Noah's Ark would also sink like concrete.
It might, hard to say without the specific engineering specs. I am sure Noah had them tucked away somewhere.
What is likely is that the ark (without any animals on it) would last a few days at sea before taking on so much water due to stress leaks that it sunk. With all the animals it was charged to carry and all the supplies required for almost a year survival at sea, I doubt that it would be sufficiently buoyant to last a minute. But, then again, the Bible is horribly vague about what animals would actually be loaded on the ark.
Vagueness is what's needed to twist biblical stories to suit ones narrative. It essentially allows one to make things up as they go along.
Makes things subjective to say the least.
Indeed it does. It also reduces the veracity of those stories.
Imagine when it encountered a storm.
Thing is, just normal ebb and flow of the waters would stress a wooden ship of those dimensions and expose leaks that would sink it. Remember Bill Nye's argument on that and the fact that nobody in history (that includes the finest wooden ship builders that ever existed) has ever built a wooden ship of those dimensions that proved seaworthy.
Of course a literal interpretation of the Noah story is completely impossible (without magic).
However a couple things were missed in your well written article, an argument could be made that the ship would also had to carry fish as well. This is due to the waters of the becoming brackish with all the flooding and most fish evolving to being able to only survive in either fresh or saltwater. The other thing is how did we and all the animals avoid the genetic roadblock that would have followed an extinction event of this magnitude.
Magic, miracles, divine intervention, whatever you want to call it, is the theistic deus ex machina.
I did say I was focusing on land animals. However, if marine life, or avian, amphibian, insect, ect. were to be included, then the number of animals can rise significantly, posing an even greater implausibility to the ark.
I alluded to that in the second point pertaining to paleontological evidence.
That is a separate matter with its own implausibilities and logical inconsistencies. That's why I said I wasn't going to look at the aftermath of the flood event.
More meta and taunting and still not discussing the points of the article, much less supporting your assertions with any evidence or facts. Simply declaring the flood as "very real historically accurate" is meaningless and unconvincing without evidence to back the claim up. It certainly doesn't refute the evidence suggesting there was no such flood. Try again!
If all you're going to do is cut and paste from religious sites and proselytize, then every argument you make will be deleted for being off topic or proselytizing. If you want to engage in an actual discussion, then feel free to address the points made and support your position with something rational, analytical, and of relevance or value. Simply regurgitating something from a religious site and thinking that is sufficient or meaningful is a waste of time.
Why would God make a perfect place like the Garden of Eden and put a trap that (God being all knowing) his top level creation would get in to?
I tried to believe what they said in Sunday School and church when I was little but it did not make sense (even then) and when I asked the questions I had people got mad at me
I remember hearing the same stories when I was a kid and even then I thought they were BS! Of course, trying to ask questions or pointing out logical inconsistencies with those stories didn't sit too well with some. I suppose some things don't change.
Of course not. Some people are too intellectually dishonest or stubborn to rationally question their own beliefs or the logically implausible biblical stories.
Just wait until I dive into the Adam & Eve mythos! Perhaps for Part 2?
A view from a movie watcher:
Of course, many of the stories in the bible are allegorical at best, which could well be primitive descriptions of events that were not so catastrophic. But they also serve as sources for great speculative science fiction movies, such as the movie "2012", which used the Mayan prediction for 2012 as its impetus, but the world-wide flooding and the building of massive "arks" to save humanity (and animals) does borrow from the biblical story. My question about that movie, which I never thought of until I read this article and comments here would be: "Where the hell did all that water come from?"
Looking forward to the next article, the "Adam and Eve" one - I've got a great Sci-Fi theory for that one.
The water in the movie 2012 came from the destabilizing of the Earth's crust causing continents to sink and other areas to rise.
As for the Noah's ark story, this is my perception of it, Gilgamesh and Noah are different versions of the same event adapted to reflect the different societies using it as their history. It was a tsunami on the Black Sea which was more expansive during the glacial melt and a mountain on the western side collapsed from water infiltration of its base into the sea. What I take from the story is Noah, or whoever, knew ahead of time that he needed to prepare for a flood and felt so strongly about it that he took steps, no matter how much he was ridiculed, to insure some survived it.
But didn't it rain "for forty days and forty nights"?
(Or am I confusing that with another movie?)
I think that's happening in China these days - maybe God is teaching China a lesson for it's not letting Christians proselytize and Uyghurs commit terrorism.
The story of the great flood fails all kind of common sense checks. Many have been mentioned all through the comments here.
There is one aspect that I find revolting in the whole fable. If this is to be believed, only one family was spared death by drowning, Noah's. We have Noah, his wife, his children and their wives That would make the entire population of earth the result of incest.
Just like with the Adam & Eve story. Then I think there was Lot & his daughters too. It seems biblical authors had certain fetishes.
I was going to mention those but your article focus on Noah and the flood. Didn't want to stray.
I appreciate that. But I am always open to suggestions. I am currently working on the Adam & Eve story. I plan to post it soon.
I'll wait. Don't want to be "that guy".
It's all good.
I am skipping the comments and just assuming that no one is actually dumb enough to defend the ark (here come Trump's handjob expert or whatever the name is).
I see you skipped over a few posts then.
Hey everyone, the Fallacy of Biblical Stories, Part 2: Adam & Eve is now posted. Check it out. Thanks.
1. The sheer number of animals that had to be aboard the Ark . This is the ancient world how many species might there have been in this ancient world, region, or area?
About the same number of species there are now, about 6 million. The Flood was supposed to have occurred approximately 4000 years ago,
Well you got me with that one. I am not a young earther Christian. There are many Christians who do not even know of the phrasing, "young earth Christians."
Over a period of mere several thousand years, the total number of species probably did not fluctuate much, as there were no significant environmental or climatological events to cause a mass extinction. If anything, there were probably more species back then, as humans did not have significant numbers or industry to cause significant changes to an ecosystem.
I have no idea. It clearly won't be "remedied" here and now with limited information about the period.
Curious, if a lack of "significant industry" was an issue for ecosystem change, then the further we go back before Noah period we probably find even more swelling number of species, yes?
So, in your opinion or factual knowledge is this planet inhabitants evolving or devolving?
Not necessarily. Before modern industry or large human populations, the environment was probably not significantly altered. So the number of species was probably stable. Of course, you can go back millions of years to a mass extinction event and that will be a different story. But when humans industrialized and the population grew, that infringes on ecosystems, potentially causing a decline in other species numbers, up to and including extinction.
Perhaps a little bit of both? Evolution is merely an organisms response to a change in the environment.
Well, we are told the story of Noah across five (short) chapters without any more information to draw from or much more to sustain it. Clearly, if there are details to be had-they are not present in the account. Subsequently, I would look for its spiritual meaning to deliver more "umph" than its wording. Remember, Noah is a foreshadowing of the work and times of Jesus Christ.
What we do know of the story is pretty much contradicted by science. So anything else within the story probably has no greater veracity to it.
That's no different than looking to Aesop's fables or Mother Goose stories for a lesson or underlying meaning. But many people do not treat the Flood myth as just a story. They see it as a literal event that actually happened.
I don't know what you wish to emphasize here. People live by faith in something.
After-all, we are looking to science to save us from this terrible virus/pandemic. The vaccine likely will do so. However, the injection itself (which I have seen physically carried out is an "act of faith" that it is being administered full, properly, and proportionally. (In several prominent cases, whole vials and jabs have been inadequately management and improperly administered. Yet, we do not give up hope, but continue onward to correct the deficiency. It is the same with our understanding with these biblical narratives.) Through its shortcomings and failures, we continue to hold up faith (yes) in science to do better.
As to fables, or "Mother Goose" tales - I would hope that an intelligent person has enough of what it takes to comprehend higher writings from children stories. As to what "many people" do - well, let's just say, there is much growth and development needed until maturity can be reached.
The link to Jesus Christ and the Noah account is through its mention as a metaphor,
So today's believer need not establish the physicality of the ancient world to draw spiritual meaning from it. Accordingly, there will be much we can not explain or 'deliver on' in today's world. Even as science awaits its convincing truths on many matters.
Not everyone does.
No, it's administered according to pharmaceutical and medical guidelines by trained personnel. No faith required or necessary.
Sounds more like a logistics and management issue.
Many children stories have "morality" lessons or some other type of lesson (or fable) to impart. It's not much different than biblical stories.
But some believers actually believe in the physical ark and the flood event as factually true. That's the difference.
And all believers alive today believe in an invisible God they have never physically seen or touched as spiritually real. So where do we go from this point?
The recipients receive the jabs in good faith that the medicine will do what it is prescribed to do. However, in some cases, problems have arisen with the delivery of the vaccine medicine possibly questionable cases resulting in death.
We take this medicine (this jab) in faith, we have no 100% science of the vaccine which is given under emergency protocols due to it being a novel coronavirus.
Yes, and? Belief does not equal fact.
Maybe those who don't understand the vaccine or how it's tested do. Some of us know the vaccine, along with other medications, are tested before they are approved for use.
The vaccine is to be administered via intramuscular injection. Sounds like a possible allergic reaction then. Such reactions is possible for any medication taken. There could have also been other underlying issues which contributed to death, and not specifically due to the vaccine.
Nothing is 100% safe and no one has suggested otherwise.
The recipients (as you and I will eventually do?), are taking the vaccine shots based on partial science and part faith in the process. It's already been established our knowledge of this novel virus leaves much more to be 'desired.' No one knows how their individual body will react to this medicine. Data is still incoming.
No one is taking it with the expressed intention to die, nevertheless. So yes, some faith is involved.
And yes, Gordy, I can assure you I am clear on how the scientific method works and manifests itself: I approve of it, in and of itself wholeheartedly. Yes, I highly value the science involved in this enterprise.
Maybe you and others do. I assure you I go by strictly the science.
It's meant to prevent a possible death by viral infection. And the science shows the vaccine to be generally effective.
That depends on the individual.
No one knows how their body will react to any medication until they take it. Sometimes there are side effects of varying degrees of severity. Other times, nothing seemingly happens. That includes vaccines too.
I won't belabor the point, Gordy. (Smile.)
Dude!!! I forgot all about this. Perfect explanation of the "Great Flood" and Noah.
Can't beat British comedy.
And people wonder how anyone could be dumb enough to fall for QAnon conspiracies. Well, gee ... maybe if parents would stop priming their kids to grow up and be dumb as hell by indoctrinating them with idiotic Bible stories before they even know how to think critically, then they wouldn’t be so prone to believing anything they’re told.
To be fair, even grown adults can "learn" how to unthink critically through religion.
Noah's ark carried dinosaurs
As dinosaurs and people did not exist together ever, how did this whack a do teacher ever obtain a teaching certificate.