Posted on 03/06/2004 4:50:17 PM PST by Pokey78
The Biblical story of Noah's ark is a "great myth", devoid of any scientific or historical credibility according to a new BBC programme about the great flood.
Noah's Ark, which has been produced by the Corporation's religion and ethics division, argues that there is no evidence to support the idea of an ark, a global flood or even a man called Noah. It claims that the story in the Book of Genesis was a fabrication inspired by the story of King Gilgamesh, who was caught up in a flood while trying to transport his own livestock.
Gilgamesh, who was King of Uruk in Babylonia in around 2,700 BC, had a shaved head and wore make up as well as a kilt. He bore no resemblance to the traditional image of Noah as displayed in countless paintings.
He and his family were stranded at sea when a freak flood swept them from the river they were in. Unable to drink seawater they stayed alive by drinking the beer that they were transporting.
Jeremy Bowen, the programme's presenter, tells viewers: "It is time to forget the original story and start again. The traditional notion of the Noah story does not pass any sort of rational or historical test. Maybe it was not meant to, maybe it was made up."
In the programme, Bowen interviews a number of scientists and historians who dismiss the idea that the world was engulfed by a global flood. They say that there is not enough water in all of the world's oceans to support a torrent of such proportions. Bowen further concludes that even 40 days and nights of continuous rain would not have produced enough water.
Recent claims that the flooding could have been caused by a comet bursting onto the earth's surface are also dismissed.
Bowen and his team also contradict traditional notions about the ark itself, saying that such a huge ship - two thirds the size of the Titanic - would have not been possible with the level of technology available at the time. Loading so many animals onto a single vessel would have taken 35 years, it claims.
They conclude that the Noah story was invented by Jewish scribes who embellished the story of Gilgamesh to evoke an all powerful and vengeful God.
Noah's Ark will be shown on BBC1 on Sunday March 21 at 7.00pm.
"Pollution" (i.e. particulate matter) assists in the formation of rain, but it's in no way essential, and rain will still form and fall in a "pure" atmosphere of just gasses and water vapor. So that explanation is out.
Even rain actually did require nucleation sites to form, an Earth with a 100% pure gas/vapor atmosphere (and it wouldn't be -- dust storms, etc. would "dirty" it in a hurry), then there would still be the issue of the supersaturated atmosphere contacting the "dirty" surface of the Earth, at which point you'd get rapid condensation on surface objects (trees, grass, dirt, people, etc.) and if there had actually been enough water vapor in the atmosphere to flood the Earth, then the Earth would have quickly "dewed" itself into an underwater state like a dehumidifier coil in a sauna.
People lived hundreds of years during that time, typically 500, 600, 700 years. [...] Also interesting to note that people after the flood -- immediately after it -- lived a lot shorter, to maybe 120 or less years. Makes you wonder if that water layer protected people from bad sun rays?
If so then there should be a significant difference in the longevity of people who are housebound than those who spend a lot of time outdoors. There isn't. Nor do long-term prisoners live longer, nor lab animals that spend their entire lives indoors (even in deep basements).
In any case, there's a lot of fascinating scientific consistencies in that part of Scripture.
There may be, but I don't think this is it.
Consider the fossil record: billions of dead things buried in sedimentation ("laid-down-by-water rock") found all over the earth. Geologist Dr. John Morris explains, "Sedimentary rocks, by definition, are laid down as sediments by moving fluids, are made up of pieces of rock or other material which existed somewhere else, and were eroded or dissolved and redeposited in their present location." [1] Over 70% of the earth's surface rock is sedimentary rock (the rest of earth's surface rock is volcanic igneous and metamorphic rock). In these sedimentary rock layers, geologists find some very odd features. For example, fossilized trees buried at all angles, upside-down and right-side-up, often passing through multiple rock layers, obviously the result of a marine cataclysm. These "polystrate" fossils (poly, meaning more than one; strate, meaning rock layer) are a worldwide phenomenon.There's plenty of discussion out there on scientific support for the biblical account of the flood if you're interested in reading up on it. It really is quite fascinating, and quite intellectually satisfying for those with inquisitive and scientific minds.Consider the ratios of dead things we find buried in this sedimentary rock: "95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.74%). 95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%). The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.)" [2]
Also consider the abundant fossil remains of marine life found atop every mountain range in the world. For example, clusters of hundreds of gigantic (300kg/650lbs) oysters found atop the Andes Mountains in South America. [3]
It is a fact that if we cranked up the bull dozers and pushed all the land into the sea, (they would need to be submerisbles in order to "even out everthing), we would indeed have a water world with the average depth of the ocean exceeding a mile!!!!
I'm a regular listener to the BBC World Service.
Of course, I run everything from them though a logic and reasoning filter.
Just the past couple of days, reporting on British troops in Iraq, they preface all stories by "Part of the American led coalition..." and "...human right groups have gone to the ICC to see if the war was illegal...", etc.
I must confess their brief readings from "Pompeii" have just about gotten me to buy the book.
The concept of the globe was widely understood as far back as 250 BC, when Eratosthenes successfully measured the circumfrence of the Earth.
OK I've picked my side ...............
"All right, the three of you boys run out and get me two lions, two tigers, two polar bears, two grizzly bears, two leopards, two cheetahs, two rhinos, two buffalos, two elephants, two wolves, two jaguars, two gorillas...Here, take this tranquilizer gun with you boys. Those predators can get feisty... Now, y'all be back by supper..."
I used to love to watch Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom when I was a kid. Marlin Perkins would talk to the camera while Jim and five or six strapping natives would wrestle one animal in the background. Marlin and Jim wouldn't have lasted one day on Noah's crew I reckon ;-)
I did nothing of the kind.
I stated that it was odd that cultures all over the world had references to a flood. I should have been clearer a WORLDWIDE flood;
I understood you just fine. That's what I took to you to mean when you used the phrase "the flood" (as opposed to "a flood") in the first sentence of your post, and this post of yours now confirms that I understood you correctly.
not a "local" flood as you wish to believe in.
It's not a matter of what I (or you) "wish" to "believe in".
It's a matter of the flood stories from various cultures describing events differing more from each other than you implied.
You said that it was "odd" how cultures around the world have references to "the flood" (i.e. Noah's flood). I replied by pointing out that those various stories appear to be refering to historically memorable floods local to their own cultures, instead of matching up well enough for them all to be pointing clearly to the same single event.
I also pointed out that when you said "it happened just as stated", that this begs the question, as stated *where*, since the various flood stories from around the world differ so much in their details. Which one do you consider canonical, and why do you choose that one over any of the many available variations?
I also pointed out that if you're refering to any story of a supposedly worldwide flood, that the mountains (in some cases literally) of available evidence raises major problems for that scenario.
Nowhere did I "twist your words" or engage in "wishing" to believe (or not believe) anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.