A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

[nPeace]

I would just to add the following.

If the flood of Genesis did cover mountains, including the elevation of Everest, then it would destroy land plants due to crushing depth.

The deeper anything are submerged in water, exponentially greater pressures are around them. In World War 2, German U-boats (submarines), they imploded at depth at 280 metres and less. Modern nuclear submarines can go pass the depth of 800 metres, but it is not recommended to go deeper than 1000 metres. The ability to withstand increasing pressures is dependent on the design and built of the submarine hulls.

But land vegetation are not biological built to be underwater of even 100 metres let alone a kilometre, especially being submerged for months.

And that enough reasons why trees and other land vegetation cannot survive months of being underwater.

All land plants required 3 things to survive:

1. Water
2. Carbon dioxide
3. Sunlight (all 3 electromagnetic radiations: visible light, infrared and ultraviolet, and especially ultraviolet)

These three things are needed for plant’s photosynthesis, because photosynthesis is how plants chemically convert carbon dioxide and water into CARBOHYDRATES (as well as releasing unneeded oxygen).

Carbohydrates are basically sugars, and sugars provide the nutrients and energy needed for plants to survive and to live.

Being underwater too long would kill the plants by drowning, because of excessive water.

Being too long underwater will not allow carbon dioxide and sunlight to reach the plants, hence photosynthesis would not take place, hence killing the plants.

And the deeper the plants are submerged, the colder it is, and land plants cannot months of cold water.

The land vegetation cannot survive the Genesis Flood if it was true. There wouldn’t be any olive trees still living after months of being underwater.

We can assume that this tree or that would not survive. However, we can make other assumptions as well - such as... What Noah refered to as Olive, may be a species we call by another name. We don't know, but various species of trees can survive submerged for a whole year.

Submerged in darkness: adaptations to prolonged submergence by woody species of the Amazonian floodplains
In Amazonian floodplain forests, >1000 tree species grow in an environment subject to extended annual submergence which can last up to 9 months each year. Water depth can reach 10 m, fully submerging young and also adult trees, most of which reproduce during the flood season. Complete submergence occurs regularly at the seedling or sapling stage for many species that colonize low-lying positions in the flooding gradient. Here hypoxic conditions prevail close to the water surface in moving water, while anaerobic conditions are common in stagnant pools. Light intensities in the floodwater are very low.

We could even assume that the trees living during Noah's day, were much more larger, and taller, and more resilient.
We can assume until assumptions run out.
However, that wouldn't prove anything, would it?

 

[gnostic]

Maybe the flood was a tidal wave.

A wooden vessel don’t survive so well or undamaged from tidal waves, and it would even be worse for the size as described in Genesis 6.

And have you ever been in ocean where there are no lands thousands of miles. People who have sailed south of Africa, of Australia and of South America, will tell you constant waves 2 to 3 times larger than the tsunami that occurred in the Indian Ocean(30 metres) after the earthquake in 2004.

 

[robocop (actually)]

A wooden vessel don’t survive so well or undamaged from tidal waves, and it would even be worse for the size as described in Genesis 6.

And have you ever been in ocean where there are no lands thousands of miles. People who have sailed south of Africa, of Australia and of South America, will tell you constant waves 2 to 3 times larger than the tsunami that occurred in the Indian Ocean(30 metres) after the earthquake in 2004.

I shouldn't tell you this, but my church says the ark was held in God's hand/taken to heaven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm just saying maybe it wasn't a flood. Maybe it was a tidal wave.

You need to work on those listening skills.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I shouldn't tell you this, but my church says the ark was held in God's hand/taken to heaven.

Yes, lots of churches have silly beliefs.

 

[gnostic]

We can assume that this tree or that would not survive. However, we can make other assumptions as well - such as... What Noah refered to as Olive, may be a species we call by another name. We don't know, but various species of trees can survive submerged for a whole year.

Submerged in darkness: adaptations to prolonged submergence by woody species of the Amazonian floodplains
In Amazonian floodplain forests, >1000 tree species grow in an environment subject to extended annual submergence which can last up to 9 months each year. Water depth can reach 10 m, fully submerging young and also adult trees, most of which reproduce during the flood season. Complete submergence occurs regularly at the seedling or sapling stage for many species that colonize low-lying positions in the flooding gradient. Here hypoxic conditions prevail close to the water surface in moving water, while anaerobic conditions are common in stagnant pools. Light intensities in the floodwater are very low.

We could even assume that the trees living during Noah's day, were much more larger, and taller, and more resilient.
We can assume until assumptions run out.
However, that wouldn't prove anything, would it?

You are talking about 10 metres.

Try over 8000 metres if the Genesis Flood hypothetically covered Everest. Even over 5000 metres of Ararat’s tallest peak (Greater Ararat) would be too much for land vegetation, which the Ark supposedly landed when water began to recede.

You are comparing 10 metres against 5000 metres? Seriously?

We could even assume that the trees living during Noah's day, were much more larger, and taller, and more resilient.

Seriously, can you even named these trees?

You need evidence...all I am getting are speculative excuses. Evidence and names of these species of trees.

The only trees that were implied Genesis 8, was leave from olive tree, and they are definitely not capable of being submerged for months under depth higher than that of the Greater Ararat.

You are making it up excuses without facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We can assume that this tree or that would not survive. However, we can make other assumptions as well - such as... What Noah refered to as Olive, may be a species we call by another name. We don't know, but various species of trees can survive submerged for a whole year.

Submerged in darkness: adaptations to prolonged submergence by woody species of the Amazonian floodplains
In Amazonian floodplain forests, >1000 tree species grow in an environment subject to extended annual submergence which can last up to 9 months each year. Water depth can reach 10 m, fully submerging young and also adult trees, most of which reproduce during the flood season. Complete submergence occurs regularly at the seedling or sapling stage for many species that colonize low-lying positions in the flooding gradient. Here hypoxic conditions prevail close to the water surface in moving water, while anaerobic conditions are common in stagnant pools. Light intensities in the floodwater are very low.

We could even assume that the trees living during Noah's day, were much more larger, and taller, and more resilient.
We can assume until assumptions run out.
However, that wouldn't prove anything, would it?

Wow! A depth of 10 m. Now how deep would the flood of Noah have been? To cover the highest mountains it would have had to have been up to 8850 m deep. Just a skoosh more than 10 m.

 

[Jose Fly]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).

And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....

So if you can believe ... or even question ... whether or not there was really a world wide flood from 6 to 10 thousand years ago, then you have not questioned the tale or are unwilling to do so.

Of course it's ridiculous. That's why the issue was settled (scientifically) by the early to mid 1800's.

But a few people will still believe it, no matter what, because it's important for their religion, just as some folks still believe the earth is flat for the same reason.

If that's what they want to believe....meh. Does it really matter to me? I can't think of how it does.

 

[nPeace]

I shouldn't tell you this, but my church says the ark was held in God's hand/taken to heaven.

If your Church suggests that, they are being extremely ridiculous imo, because no man has ascended to heaven but the son of man - Jesus Christ.
Protected by God, and carried safely through the water, is keeping with the Biblical account.
Maybe you shouldn't have told us.

 

[robocop (actually)]

You need to work on those listening skills.

A shockwave?

 

[robocop (actually)]

If your Church suggests that, they are being extremely ridiculous imo, because no man has ascended to heaven but the son of man - Jesus Christ.
Protected by God, and carried safely through the water, is keeping with the Biblical account.

A good church tries to please everyone.

 

[Neuropteron]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).

And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....

So if you can believe ... or even question ... whether or not there was really a world wide flood from 6 to 10 thousand years ago, then you have not questioned the tale or are unwilling to do so.

Hi,
No one can claim that there is scientific proof for Noahs' ark and the flood.
What is important however is that no evidence exist proving that this account did not occur.
Your attempt to offer this evidence -whilst impressive- still falls short of doing this.

all that is required to disprove the flood is one conclusive scientific fact. In absence of this a flood of pseudo scientific evidence designed to make rational discussion very difficult are not a good alternative.
An examination of your first three "proof" are not conclusive.

NewGuyOnTheBlock: The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.

Wyoming was a wooden six-masted schooner, had a rounded hull, a rudder and was for controlled seafaring.
The ark was of a completely different construction and was simply meant to stay afloat. Ark is derived from the Latin word arca, meaning “chest,” which is akin to the Latin verb arcēre, meaning “to hold off or defend.
To compare apple and oranges because they share some similarities can never be conclusive.


NewGuyOnTheBlock: The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".

It doesn't help that archaeologists have made multiple false claims.
Top 10 Bizarre & Controversial Archaeological Discoveries
Fake News In Biblical Archaeology

NewGuyOnTheBlock: The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.

The assumed landing of the Ark was Mt Ararat not Mt Everest.
Little Ararat's elevation is 3,896 m (12,782 ft).[5]
Ararat average temperature. The temperatures are highest on average in January, at around 20.0 °C | 68.0 °F. At 7.6 °C | 45.6 °F on average.
Mt Everest elevation (snow height) of 8,848.86 m (29,031.7 ft)

four physics graduate students at the University of Leicester wondered. As part of a special course that encourages the students to apply basic physics principles to more general questions, the team did the math and found that an ark full of animals in those dimensions could theoretically float. They recently published their research in a peer-reviewed, student-run publication, the Journal of Physics Special Topics.

Science | Smithsonian Magazine
The outcome:
Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes
Basic physics suggests that an ark carrying lots of animal cargo could float,
The students are quite clear about the fact that their study does not settle debate over the veracity of Noah’s story. “We’re not proving that it’s true, but the concept would definitely work,” said Morris.

The fact is that all we have is theory, to state we have uncontested proof one way or another is misdirection.

 

[nPeace]

You are talking about 10 metres.

Try over 8000 metres if the Genesis Flood hypothetically covered Everest. Even over 5000 metres of Ararat’s tallest peak (Greater Ararat) would be too much for land vegetation, which the Ark supposedly landed when water began to recede.

You are comparing 10 metres against 5000 metres? Seriously?

See post #3.
You are making assumptions. 8000 meters? Show me the picture.

 

[nPeace]

A good church tries to please everyone.

Good to whom?

 

[gnostic]

I shouldn't tell you this, but my church says the ark was held in God's hand/taken to heaven.

So more fantasy and even lesser reality?

Then why bother building the ark? Why gather the animals to the Ark? And why bother with them being in the Ark during Flood for 12 months?

You are simply adding more fantasy with already mythological Ark and Flood?

It is excuse like this, that make creationists being absurd before all others.

 

[robocop (actually)]

So more fantasy and even lesser reality?

Then why bother building the ark? Why gather the animals to the Ark? And why bother with them being in the Ark during Flood for 12 months?

You are simply adding more fantasy with already mythological Ark and Flood?

It is excuse like this, that make creationists being absurd before all others.

That is why I shouldn't have shared it, but you can probably answer those questions yourself.

 

[Pete in Panama]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood"...

Unfortunately we'll have to stop right there because you're making up a straw-man argument that's easy for u to blow away. The original text never said "world wide flood". It was more like "שיטפון ברחבי העולם" (remember ur reading right to left here) and the gestalt of what's being conveyed here is more along the lines of how Issac Asimov described it (from Asimov's Bible book) --

With time, as the story is told and retold it is dramatically inevitable that a flood which spreads out over parts of Sumeria and neighboring regions with great loss of life will be said to have covered "all the world," meaning the entire region. It is further inevitable that later generations, with a much broader knowledge of geography, would accept the phrase "all the world" literally and reduce themselves to needless speculations on the impossible.

(A well-known example of this is the statement frequently met with among the ancient historians that Alexander the Great "conquered the world" and then wept for "other worlds to conquer." What was meant was merely that Alexander had conquered a large part of those sections of the world which were well known to the Greeks of the time. Actually, Alexander conquered only 4 or 5 per cent of the earth's land surface and had plenty of room in which to extend those conquests.)

A good thought experiment might be to consider the truth behind the Iliad and the Odyssey.

 

[gnostic]

See post #3.
You are making assumptions. 8000 meters? Show me the picture.

You have heard of Everest, haven’t you. The Indian plate is still pushing into the Tibetan Plateau, so Everest is still rising half a centimetre each year, which is currently 8848 metres.

Multiply that with 4500 years, you will get 2250 cm or 22.5 m.that would mean Everest would be shorter, with elevation of 8826 m.

Everest and the Himalayas are rising due to uplifts because of 2 tectonic plates pushing into each other, not by volcanic activities. Everest isn’t a volcanic mountain.

Edit:

And since you are being so childish, why don’t you show me pics of the Ark or Noah’s remains?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Considering Noah is from the middle east, and Corn is only found in the Americas, that's gonna be a no go.

Corn has only been domesticated for food for about 9000 years.

Corn | History, Cultivation, Uses, & Description

Yet another major blow for Bible oriented literalists.

 

[gnostic]

Unfortunately we'll have to stop right there because you're making up a straw-man argument that's easy for u to blow away. The original text never said "world wide flood". It was more like "שיטפון ברחבי העולם" (remember ur reading right to left here) and the gestalt of what's being conveyed here is more along the lines of how Issac Asimov described it (from Asimov's Bible book) --A good thought experiment might be to consider the truth behind the Iliad and the Odyssey.

True, it never said that but it does say it will cover all the lands including the high mountains, and the Ark supposed rest on the peak of Ararat.

And it say it will kill all life that are not onboard of the Ark.

Those actually implied global flood.

But even if Flood was more regional flood than global, then why build an Ark at all?

Noah had a hundred warning from God, it would have been far easier to move his family and some animals to higher ground, unaffected by the flood.

Alexander the Great marched his army from Macedonia to India, then back to Babylon in less than a decade, hence thousands of kilometres of travel. Noah had a hundred year to move his family and animals to a safe haven, so building Ark for only a regional flood don’t make sense.