Noah's Ark
Offline Someone please explain to me how this story is even logically possible.
•First of all, where did all the water originate and where the heck did it go?
•How did all the animals get loaded onto the boat, and how did they all fit harmoniously?
•How could some of the animals with special climate requirements and special diets survive a year on the boat?
•Where did the animals get fresh food? How could the boat have been kept clean of all that waste?
•How was the boat ventilated? How did all those creatures get the fresh air they needed?
•What about the short-lived animals like flies and other insects? How could they survive a whole year?
•How do you explain the ice caps? The flood would have broken them up.
•Why did some mountain ranges become more eroded than others?
•Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice cores that date back thousands of years? If the world were flooded for a year, you would see at least a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, etc.
•How did all the fish and marine life survive? Fresh-water creatures and salt-water creatures can't co-exist.
•How did all the plant species survive?
•How did animals at the top of the food chain survive with nothing to prey on?
•How did so many different species get to such remote locations?
There are so many pieces that just don't fit.
My final question: How could anyone believe in such far-fetched folklore?
Technorati Tags: Kill 'em with Kindness
Check this out too - Analyzing the global flood from a perspective of math at RRS.
As to the original questions, I'm sure I'm going to hear this theist response: "God can do anything, so he made it all magically happen."
Who are you asking? Does anyone on this board actually believe in a literal flood? (I Honestly cant remember if some do...)
Well, they obviously trust their scriptures more than scientists....
As a meteorologist, my two favorite arguments against Noah's Flood are from meteorology and thermodynamics.
Here's the gist of the meteorology argument:
In order for it to rain, generally the atmosphere needs to have low barometric pressure. In order for the barometric pressure to be low, it has to be high somewhere else, because the barometric pressure at all points will always be about 1 atmosphere (1013 millibars, 29.92 mmHg, whichever you prefer). Therefore, it's impossible for rain to be falling everywhere, because then the average global barometric pressure would have to be less than 1013 millibars.
And for more fun, thermodynamics!
Let's imagine all the water in the atmosphere did suddenly condense and fall as rain over a 40 day period. When water condenses, it absorbs latent heat. Specifically, its "latent heat of condensation" is -2272 Joules per gram of water being condensed. Given the maximum amount of water the atmosphere can ever hold is about 1.27×1019 grams, so that's 2.89×1022 joules being removed from the atmosphere. The heat capacity of dry air is about 1 J/gK. Energy/(specific heat × mass)= (change in temperature), therefore, the atmosphere would have warmed by 2700 Kelvin. I'm not going to bother converting that to Fahrenheit for you, because those temperatures are so unimaginably warm.. the temperature of the sun is 5000K at it's corona, so 3000K on the Earth's surface is indeed impossible.
Toxicat, most (if not all) of the Christians on this board adhere to a local flood, just so you know.
it seems we have the same questions about this obviously unture story.
but you have one question that was wrong, they weren't on the boat for a year, it was only 40 days and 40 nights.
i think the best question asked:
how could a 600 year old man build a 450 foot ship by himself, as well with any problems that might occure?
considering the christian faith believes that noah was 600.
i find it amusing [:
you haven't been posting a lot p-dunn, i miss it.
you should come back, or tell me where you are, you are fun to debate with
Almost all of my posts lately have been in the Freethinkers Debate forum, so if you want to join in twag, go ahead.
My initial thought would be to say "wow, talk about overanalysis", but having been a fundo myself for quite awhile, I do understand the need to have a myriad of rational arguments against even the most obvious absurdities. I'd like to find out just how much water 40 days and nights of rain would produce. My guess is not nearly enough to cover the highest mountains, even if you account for the magical springs that supposedly existed. But by far my favorite argument from the fundos is from good ol' Kent Hovind, who argued that most tribal cultures had a worldwide flood legend. Of course, in each of those stories it was one of their own that was the only one to survive, so doesn't that pretty much disprove such a story? Hmmm...
Welcome to the board, MusettasWaltz!
i just may have to do that, no one gives me good logical responses, not that my arguments are that intellectual, but it is good to have a fight.
In order to flood to the top of Mt. Ararat in 40 days and nights, water would have to pour down at 11.5 feet an hour.
Hydraulic Mining, anybody?
All of everything would be washed into the depths of the oceans, only crystalline rock would remain on the land.
There are countless problems with the story of the flood, another of the conveniently dubbed "metaphors" of the Bible. I suppose you'd need to fall to a new level of ignorance to take it seriously.
but you have one question that was wrong, they weren't on the boat for a year, it was only 40 days and 40 nights.
Supposedly it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, but the world was "flooded" for about a year.
That's okay, I just wanted to discuss it.
.. the temperature of the sun is 5000K at it's corona, so 3000K on the Earth's surface is indeed impossible.
Wow. I never thought about it that way
!
Yeah it rained 40 days and forty nights. They entered the ark the 17th day of the 2nd month, and left the 27th day of the 2nd month the next year. However, this is probably not a 365 day year; I'd have to find out how many days were in a Jewish month and year to get an exact amount.
I'll play the Devil's Advocate for a bit...err...The "Global Flooders" Advocate...
Hydraulic Mining, anybody?
Ararat wasn't as tall back then as it was. The flood would have been a great source of sediment that indeed made it taller.
Evidence please?
End global flood advocation.
It's not that we're conveniently labeling it as a metaphor...I'm certainly not. I still believe in a flood, though I don't believe it was global.
So what area(s) of the world do you believe were flooded?
well, i guess we must believe in floods, because they happen all the time. but the christian flood, around 2004 B.C. was said to wipe out the entire earth population. but, i don't want to start an argument considering it is 12:30 here in georgia!
Just to kind of add to that when I saw this post I thought of some other questions and things to add.
If you look at the bible...
So, Noah took either two or seven of each animal?
I don't quite understand that one. I guess the claim is two of each or two of some and seven of the clean animals or something. I think if I'm remembering right. Doesn't make much of a difference either way it still isn't logically possible.
You also have to think an animal like a panda would be difficult to keep considering they are picky eaters (as an example of animals with harder to care for diets).
Also with all the animals I think Noahs family be feeding them literally all the time.
The climate on the ark couldn't have been right for animals like reptiles and animals that need cold climates.
I'm also not sure but as far as fish go also the temperature of water also brings up another issue and salinity as you said (or I think you were implying).
How about Noah being six hundred years old when the flood was supposed to have come to the Earth?
And of course bible isn't consistent on how long the flood lasted.
Genesis 7:24
Genesis 8:3
Both say 150, not 40.
Also you'd think the animals need exercise, no?
Thought of one more thing:
What did Noahs family and the animals eat after the stay on the ark?
I decided that Noah's ark , the one they think they found COULD be it..
BUT, only if ALL the animals were shrunken to the size of peanuts:) then MAYBE
Noah's Flood: Global or Local? by Donald Hochner and Richard Anthony.
The first question, the one about the water. I find it rather amazing how many people overlook Genesis 7:11.
While some may say that that may not account for all the water, it does open up quite a large problem to the rain calculations. Also, for consideration, there have likely been massive changes to the Earth's face since such an event. (I'd like to note that to my knowledge, the age of the Earth is inconsequential.)
There, that's my little insight/input for the day. Good night all! ^^,
Most Christians do not believe in an entire flood, but like P-Dunn says a local flood. But problems do still occur with that theory:
Sailing 101
Boats made from wood are not very water-proof. This is why boats made until the Ironclads had bilgers.
Bilgering 101
Its the procces of taking out water from a ship, and with a ship holding every animal within the Middle East its a big boat. Big boat, big holes. Noah and his family would need a little help running the bilgers, maybe continuosly.
I believe in a local flood.
I also find tghis interesting:
The bible states that after noah, life spans started to decline.
from a scientific point of view this makes sense because water is obviously made from hydrogen and oxygen. and to get that much oxygen u would have to take it from somewhere. i believe it was taken from the ozone layer. so on thinning it out, we were affected more by solar radiation leading to genetic info loss wich leads to death and shorter life spans.
aha
i know i said all of the that in the most confusing way possible >.<
My atheist boyfriend confronted his mom with some of these questions. She's a strong, close-minded Christian and her response was:
God took care of everything.
HAHA! There is no room for logic in religion I guess.
Regardless of the confusingness, that means nothing.If you're saying the hydrogen and oxygen, and the oxygen from the ozone. For one, where would the hydrogen come from? Air contains almost no hydrogen. Why? Because it explodes violently with oxygen.
Secondly, you are far overestimating the size of the ozone layer. Ozone is only a few parts per million, even in the stratosphere, which is the place with the most dense concentration of ozone. Whatever thinning could be done would barely make a difference. Second, solar radiation causes basically no genetic information loss. Finally, genetic information CHANGE(not loss) will most likely, have no effect, not kill people sooner.
hydrogen is the most abundant elemnt in the universe and there such a thing as genetic info loss. Look up point shift mutations
point shift mutations change, not lose genetic information. Only deletions remove information. However, this point is not useful for two reasons.
One:
You have now addressed Lamarckian evolution, which...didn't happen(at least on earth), wonderful. The thing is, only germ-line mutations are passed on.
Two:
Most mutations are not bad, and have no effect at all. So of germ-line mutations, only a few would be passed on. And they would not stick around if they were bad, because of natural selection. If your theory were true, the constant mutation would have had a seriously detrimental effect. But the bad mutations would be weeded out by natural selection.
Finally, what type of mutation would cause shorter lifespans on average? When we refer to bad mutations, they tend to be disastrous, like protein imbalances, or susceptibility to certain diseases. THings like extra fingers or so forth are not really all that harmful. All the bad mutations(or at least most) would have been rendered irrelevant by medicine, except the drastic ones, like down's syndrome and so forth(the loss of a chromosome is considered a mutation, right?)
when talking about such drastic mutations in a situation with low technology, we would not be talking about a lowering in how long people could live, we would just see far more deaths because of them. But the majority of mutation free, fully healthy beings would still be living to those ages. This argument simply doesn't work.
Hydrogen is very common in compounds, and in the center of suns, yes, but in free air? Free hydrogen, the type which would easily bond is almost nonexistant
.000055% of the air. Since free hydrogen is almost always a gas, we can assume that that is about the general percentage of free hydrogen.
I’d be happy to answer.
First of all, not all Christians take Noah’s flood literally. Many think it to be just a local flood.
However, as a Young Earth Creationist, I do take Noah’s flood literally. Here are the answers. First of all, a link to the page of Answersingenesis.org on the Flood: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/really-a-flood-and-ark
Now, to answer:
-The water probably originated from huge underground reservoirs. Most of it became the modern oceans; some sank back into the ground, some became air moisture.
-Supernatural guidance is all that is needed for harmonious existence of animals on the ark. As for large animals, no age is defined- they could have been small, young animals.
-Animals with special diets and living conditions probably did not exist at the time of the Flood, but developed by natural selection. (Yes, Natural Selection. Creationists do acknowledge the God-given ability of animals to make small changes to adapt to the environment.
-If the ark was big enough to store animals, it could store food. Also, the resident humans could feed and clean the animals. It’s not like they have much else to do.
-How are modern boats ventilated? It’s possible, so the Ark could be ventilated.
-Flies could be dying and reproducing the whole time.
-Young-earth creationists believe that the Ice Age happened shortly after the Flood, due to the immediate conditions. The ice caps have receded since. Answers in Genesis page on the Ice Age: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/fit/chapter7.asp
-A lot can happen to mountains over thousands of years.
-Did you see those ice cores form? How do you know how long they take to form? How do you know that the conditions of the earth have always been the same for these cores to form at a constant rate?
-The difference between fresh-water and salt-water fish could have developed later.
-Seeds were preserved through the flood.
-Carnivores may not have developed until after the Flood. According to a young earth creationist view, every animal was vegetarian at the time of original creation, and didn’t begin to fight until after the Fall of Man.
-Land bridges between continents existed long ago, and more stationary creatures could have developed after they migrated.
-One person’s far-fetched folklore is another’s Word of God.
If you're going to cite Answers in Genesis as a valid source, might I suggest No Answers in Genesis.
Could you actually refute my points or present your own, please, rather than just post a link?
Didn't feel like it since I haven't debated creationists in a long time, so I'll just respond to one:
So why do you find it unlikely that those small changes could have added up over time? Macroevolution is microevolution over a period of time. They are the same thing, creationists only attempt to distort it.
No. Microevolution is the prevalence of already-existent genes due to natural selection. Macroevolution is the creation of new genes, which has never happened naturally, and when artificially produced, it has never been beneficial.
Wtf. I'm no biologist but I can tell you're just defining them your way. Here's a debunking from the RRS:
This of course is the crux of the matter. This is why I have devoted four points to it. Much of evolutionary theory is not controversial, like adaptation and microevolution. On the other hand, speciation and macroevolution are. The idea that simple cells can progress to man. All of the axioms I mentioned can be observed in bacteria, which is why they are irrefutable even to the most ardent creationist idiot. From penicillinase secreting enzymes to VRE, bacteria have this extraordinary ability to evolve so fast because evolution works at a rather different scale in those sizes. Since the number of organisms and generations is so vast, the immediate survival advantage of the useful genetic mutations that allow certain individuals to survival antibiotic bombardment is massively multiplied, and bacterial resistance can be spawned very fast. Prokaryotic evolution is like speeded up Eukaryotic evolution because they reproduce so much faster and so many more offspring.
Theists often say: I believe in microevolution, I can see small changes in an organism, but I refuse to believe in macroevolution, the idea that organisms can completely change. This is an idiotic argument which uses subjective wordplay. At what point do we decide whether the cumulative mutation has been so much that it is macroevolution? If the organism changes color? During a speciation split? If it grows another eye?
In fact, macroevolution as so many successful mutations occurring within a pool that the phenotype of the organism is totally altered. This is essentially the same as microevolution, just over a longer time frame. DNA changes are not a microevolution topic. This is an extremely common misconception. Genes are very powerful, and they can easily massively alter the phenotype of an organism. You seemed to define macroevolution as speciation. That is, that the cumulative genetic change in an individual and their descendants has been large enough that the gametes no longer match with the original species of the prototype, that is the very first organism of a species that carried a mutation with a slight advantage, which over many hundreds of thousands of years and generations, eventually became so much that the gametes will no longer fuse with those of the original species, if it still exists.
The trick to macroevolution is a probability function called cumulative mutation. A prototype organism is bestowed with an advantageous mutation. He has increased survival probability and passes it on to his children. He reproduces more than the other organisms of the same species because of this advantage. So do his children, and the gene becomes more and more prominent in the pool. Since there are more of this mutated version of the organism of the sample, the probability function states that there is a higher likelihood that one of the mutated children will chance upon an advantage mutation, and then...the cycle continues. Go through this 200 times, and the organism will be unrecognizable. This is macroevolution.
The absolutely most common error ever in the history of evolutionary skepticism is claiming that scientists are extrapolating microevolution into the macroevolutionary model. There is no extrapolation involved. You cannot run a mile without taking steps. Macroevolution is the word we (the scientific community) use to define multiple micros strung together like a polypeptide. One change is micro. A change following a change following a change following a change…is macroevolution. We can see before our eyes cumulative mutation. One mutation is followed by a mutation followed by a mutation based on the mathematics described by the probability functions.
(I'd recommend you read the whole thread here.)
He only cites bacteria mutations... which just happen to be loss mutations. No beneficial mutation that actually adds information has been observed.
Oh, and my definitions aren't exact, I know, but they're close enough.