Noah's Ark Discovered ... Again and Again

Skeptical Inquirer ^ | 9-5-06 | Benjamin Radford

[Central Scrutiniser]

In this world there are things that seem on the verge of being discovered every so often, yet never quite materialize. The "Lost City" of Atlantis, for example, has been "found" at least a half dozen times. One researcher is pretty sure it is in Bolivia; another says it is Antarctica; a third claims that Bimini beachrock may be from the lost civilization. So it is with Noah's Ark. The difference is, of course, that the implications of Noah's Ark actually being found extend far beyond archaeology. The weight of all the paired animals in the world is nothing compared to the religious freight that the Ark carries. The Ark story is scientifically implausible; there simply wouldn't be enough space on the boat to accommodate two of every living animal (including dinosaurs), along with the food and water necessary to keep them alive. Furthermore, constructing a vessel of that scale would take hundreds of workers months to complete.

[Coyoteman]

There's no science here. Time to move on.

[Twinkie]

People get so hung up on the stomach contents thing. Yep. Some animals do eat stomach contents, but in any event, there would have been all sorts of varieties of seaweed and other sea vegetables and the like.

Anyway, why are ya'll so hung up on eating? Perhaps the animals just didn't eat for a while. The whole thing was SUPERNATURAL.

But yeah, I can cite evidence. My dog, Dixie, will eat anything, no matter how rotten, no matter how disgusting. She rolls in it and just revels in getting it all over her mouth and fur. I have to think she is kin to the wolf types on the ark, and she is a civilized wuss to what they would have been. I wouldn't, but then I'm not Dixie.

[Twinkie]

Ya'll are all so hung up on EATING.. This was a SUPERNATURAL EVENT.

[Lord_Baltar]

It's not the job of Science to prove the Ark didn't exist,

100% correct. So why is he claiming that science has done exactly that?

it's up to people who say it existed to prove it did.

To whom? Why?

---

Actually Sloth, he cited the fact, with the dimensions given for the size of the Ark, that it was improbable/impossible for the event to have occurred as described.

If he stated that he had proof it never happened, I missed that, and would disagree. I did read, repeatedly, he didn't believe it happened, but belief is not proof.

To Whom, you ask? Well, I dare say anyone who believers would ridicule and or damn as some sort of heretic for not believing it, and daring to say so publicly, that's whom.

As to Why, well, maybe because those believers do believe it so strongly, and expect others to do so as well. It seems it would behove them to be able to prove that what they believe is indeed fact, and not the myth that those they'd want ridicule are claiming it is.

Seriously Sloth, one area mentioned in this thread, Is there a mass fossil layer, showing the results of the flood, world wide? Mass global-level death would tend to leave some evidence.

Clearly, there isn't, otherwise, that would have been a huge bit of evidence. While it may not answer the dimensional problem regarding the number of animals versus the size of the Ark, it would have been enough evidence, that around this or that date, a huge, global deluge engulfed the Earth, then receeded in relatively short order.

[Coyoteman]

What you are doing is making up any excuse for things to come out as the Bible says. No claim is too silly, too outlandish, or too anti-science that it won't be trotted out if a previous claim is discounted.

I generally try to evaluate and discuss the scientific aspects of these claims, but I think you have gone into uncharted territory.

I hereby abandon thread.

[ElkGroveDan]

Okay, I'll bite. What are those things in the picture?

That's the Cadillac Ranch near Amarillo. It's classic roadside Americana.

[Liberal Classic]

Hold on, hold on...I understand. Fine, fine. I get the picture...from you. I had rather been hoping to hear from CS, however.

Well, EXCUUUSE ME!

[SamAdams76]

...every animal on earth is descended from 2 of its own kind on a boat 4300 years ago?

Well I'm thinking Steve Irwin is wishing right about now that Noah left the stingrays behind. Personally, I wish Noah had left off the mosquito, deer fly, hornet, rattlesnake, fire ant, skunk, rat, and the poodle. Damn those poodles. What were they doing on the ark? I wonder if Noah's wife knitted sweaters for them?

[Central Scrutiniser]

From another source:

(according to bible ark is:) 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high.

That's 1,518,750 cubic feet.

From wikipedia:

current species list:

* 287,655 plants, including:
o 15,000 mosses,
o 13,025 ferns,
o 980 gymnosperms,
o 199,350 dicotyledons,
o 59,300 monocotyledons;
* 74,000-120,000 fungi[1];
* 10,000 lichens;
* 1,190,200 invertebrates, including:
o 950,000 insects,
o 70,000 molluscs,
o 40,000 crustaceans,
o 130,200 others;
* 58,808 vertebrates, including:
o 29,300 fish,
o 5,743 amphibians,
o 8,240 reptiles,
o 9,934 birds,
o 5,416 mammals.

However the total number of species for some phyla may be much higher:

* 5-10 million bacteria[2];
* 1.5 million fungi[1];

Now, multiply all that by 2 and tell me how you would fit that in the ark at those dimensions.

[VadeRetro]

All you had to say was "The Lord made a miracle anyplace I need Him to have done so."

Sounds like The Real Science to me.

[Lord_Baltar]

Good point.

That's an awful lot of physical space needed, versus physical space available.

[Coyoteman]

Now, multiply all that by 2 and tell me how you would fit that in the ark at those dimensions.

Hot bunking?

[Twinkie]

No Coyoteman, don't abandon thread. If you are a human being, you are a descendant of Noah, and Noah stuck with difficult things (like building the ark for a very long time). Think about it. All the people on the earth were drowned except for Noah and his family. If you and I (and everyone else) hadn't been in Noah or his sons at that time, we wouldn't be here today. If we had been in the reproductive parts of any other people on the earth, we would have perished with them. We were all, in fact, present on the ark - in a very minuscule form, of course.

[Twinkie]

No, it wasn't me personally who needed the miracle of clothing that didn't wear out in the wilderness, it was actually the Israelites. The animals needed the miracle of their metabolisms adjusting on the ark, so they did. People ate a lot simpler back then, and that wouldn't have been a terrible problem either. Actually, WE were all on the ark if you think about it - in one sense of the word. Everyone on earth now is kin to Noah, but a lot of people have gone off in all directions since then.

[Coyoteman]

No Coyoteman, don't abandon thread. If you are a human being, you are a descendant of Noah, and Noah stuck with difficult things (like building the ark for a very long time). Think about it. All the people on the earth were drowned except for Noah and his family. If you and I (and everyone else) hadn't been in Noah or his sons at that time, we wouldn't be here today.

OK, one more try. But I have little hope.

Archaeological evidence (as does evidence from many other specialties) flat-out contradicts your scenario.

There is a cave in southern Alaska, from which an individual dating to about 10,000 years ago was recovered. His mtDNA matches the local village, as well as other individuals, both living and skeletal, all along the west coasts of North and South America. There is no break at 4300 years ago with mtDNA replacement from the Noah line (actually, their wives, as mtDNA is transmitted on the female side).

I have a similar example from my own research, with a different mtDNA pattern, and dating to only 5250 years ago. But its the same story -- modern individuals have the same mtDNA pattern, with no break for a global flood.

I don't know if I want to stay on this thread for a response or not. The absolute disregard for science (both findings and methods) that is generally associated with trying to defend the global flood story is painful to watch.

Your previous posts have some of the most outlandish suppositions (eating the stomach contents of year-old animal corpses after the flood) that I'm not sure I can take any more.

To those of us who respect science, it is pretty depressing to see data, theory, logic, and several hundred years of hard work by tens of thousands of dedicated scientists tortured the way it is on some of these threads.

[Twinkie]

No, you don't understand; we aren't trying to defend the flood. We don't have to defend what the Word of God says happened. All this carbon dating mumbo jumbo is subject to many slips 'twixt the cup and the lips. So called science has its limits and I'm sincerely sorry scientists have wasted so much time and that so many people choose to stake their immortal souls on human foibles and human brains that are, at the best, only operating at about 20% of their capacity - and that's the best of them. 10% is a good day for the majority they say. Now, THERE'S science for you!

I don't know why ya'll keep harping on FOOD! It has been keeping me running to the kitchen for snacks. Enough about food already!

[Lord_Baltar]

It seems time to bring forth, the Flying Spagetti Monster.

[Coyoteman]

I wrote in part:

To those of us who respect science, it is pretty depressing to see data, theory, logic, and several hundred years of hard work by tens of thousands of dedicated scientists tortured the way it is on some of these threads.

You responded:

No, you don't understand; we aren't trying to defend the flood. We don't have to defend what the Word of God says happened.

But then you promptly started bashing science:

All this carbon dating mumbo jumbo is subject to many slips 'twixt the cup and the lips. So called science has its limits and I'm sincerely sorry scientists have wasted so much time and that so many people choose to stake their immortal souls on human foibles and human brains that are, at the best, only operating at about 20% of their capacity - and that's the best of them. 10% is a good day for the majority they say. Now, THERE'S science for you!

Let me ask you a question. Your claim about radiocarbon (C14) dating -- what is it based on? Have you studied the subject? Have you ever gathered samples, had a lab perform a suite of dates, and then interpreted the data? Or did you just visit a creationist website? Do you know what you are talking about, or are you just repeating anti-science hearsay (which you said you didn't need to defend the flood)?

This is what bothers me. I have spent about 35 years studying in this field, and done hundreds of dates. I spend many weekends trying to figure it out, to make sense of thousands of pieces of data. And here you come, probably totally ignorant of the subject, but imbued with faith and simply dismiss all this research, by thousands of scientists, with your "carbon dating mumbo jumbo..." line.

At least you have been polite; that is far better than some of our FR colleagues, and I appreciate it.

But I am afraid this site is going to the dogs, with anti-science and outright science bashing becoming de rigeur. Its sad to see. Conservatism is not anti-science.

Here is a commentary by Longshadow which has been posted many times on FR. It makes a good read, but is rapidly becoming a thing of the past as many scientists are being driven away from FR.

[balrog666]

All you had to say was "The Lord made a miracle anyplace I need Him to have done so." Sounds like The Real Science to me.

That does seem to cover every myth ever written down.

[balrog666]

All you had to say was "The Lord made a miracle anyplace I need Him to have done so." Sounds like The Real Science to me.

That does seem to cover every myth ever written down.