Marshall Brain's Blog

AMEN!!!
 

I like this treatment of Noah's Ark: Understanding Noah's Flood
 

Funny - if you tell someone that Jack and the beanstalk is a fairy tale, they will agree. If you tell someone that noah's ark is a fairy tale, and the person is religious, he will accuse you of blasphemy, intolerence, religious persecution, etc.
 

America has millions of crackpots who believe in Noah. So many that CNN feels it is profitable to pander to them.
 

Merely adds to the ever-lengthening chain of evidence confirming the futility of using reason to argue with religionists. Religions are not based on reason, so why should one expect religionists to respond positively to it? It seems naïve to the point of a sort of indifference to reality, similar to that of the religionists, to expect that they would. -- blzbob
 

The gospels indicate that Jesus believed in Noah as well, so fundamentalist christians have a lot at stake in defending the Flood myth as historical.
 

The Whole Silly Flood Story
 

"Why do we have whales, tuna, etc. on the planet? That much fresh water would have killed all of the salt-water fish in the ocean."

Are you classifying whales as fish? Since whales (mammals) are air-breathers, would the fresh water really doom them? ;^) -- blzbob
 

Exactly -- why do otherwise reputable news media outlets report on this type of stuff? Shouldn't it be their job to work towards debunking the myths of religion?

Also -- I *think* that salt water mammals are effected by freshwater in that their cells will explode in fresh water -- due to the concentration gradients.
 

From: http://www.whalecenter.org/curriculum/pibasbio.htm
"Species Diversity --
Cetaceans live all over the world -- in every ocean, in most seas and even in a few rivers. They inhabit both salt and fresh water and range over tremendous areas spanning thousands of miles." (no mention about 'exploding cells') Amazing what you can find on the web -- it you'll bother to look.
-- blzbob
 

I absolutely love your stuff and the way you think, but I am extremely surprised by this particular blog.

Your argument may be indisputable proof that the picture to which you refer isn't Noah's Ark. But I don't think it is indisputable proof that the Great Flood didn't take place. In fact, a significant number of geologists would disagree with you on this. There is a body of robust physical evidence,(porous and semi-porous rocks across many regions), which indicates that a flood did indeed take place.

What people cannot agree on is exactly when it happened. Part of finding the answer may depend on finding out when mankind definitively arrived on the scene. But we may never know the answer. And maybe we need to learn to get comfortable with uncertainty.

Similarly, you would have to be pretty crazy to believe the world was created in seven days. But let us suppose when the earth was formed it took a billion years to revolve once on its axis instead of 24 hours, because it was cooling or whatever, then the events that took place during those billion years could rightly be classified as a day. It rather depends on how you define the word "day".

In other words the flood story could be a metaphor for something else that we are as yet unable yet to comprehend.

I am surprised that someone as intelligent and imaginative should want to dismiss something so many people hold as sacred, and so easily, especially when it is just about the only religious story that both Muslims and Christians believe in.

When you seek to knock people’s faith, you cannot do it with mere arguments, because faith by its nature requires the believer to take something on trust – otherwise it wouldn’t be faith. In failing to recognise that, your blog doesn’t merely risk upsetting such sensitivities, it could undermine your credibility.
 

If the argument is whether or not the Bible is historical truth, then that could easily be answered by historical exigesis. If the argument is just about whether the "Great Flood" existed, the historical exigeis should be applied. Whether or not the Ark exists may be proved by historic exegesis, but only arecheological proof would "prove" it to the most ardent non-believers. There are many people who do not believe that anyone has landed on the moon, but the disbelief does not mean we haven't done so. Historical exegesis of the moon landing is proof for me and Biblical exegesis is proof to me that Noah built an ark and that it "landed in the mountains of 'rtt'".

By the way, what does genetic/DNA studies show about the relation of the world's population of today with Noah?
 

It is interesting to see all you experts who know that Noah's Ark is a myth. I'll bet that Cho Hui didn't believe in Noah's Ark either. That's why he dared to commit 30+ murders. There are more eyewitnesses who have seen Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat than the number of witnesses at any murder trial I have ever read about. Yet they convict the people of murder, and don't believe the witnesses to Noah's Ark.
 

Let me refer you poor brainwashed fools to some real info on Noah's Ark from one who has been studying the search for over 35 years. It is still on Mt. Ararat and is in a number of pieces.

www.fellowshipinhislove.com/index81.html
 

I have recently done a study of the story and my results can be found in a pdf file on box.net the link is Biblical Flood Study

My main source for this study was the catholic bible itself with some logic and common sense thrown in.
 

It goes to show you how most people know nothing about about science. There is not a chance in one billion that this fairy tale is true. There was never an ark. Period. The story of Santa Claus is more believable. Let's look at Humpty Dumty. All the king's horses and the king's men could not put Humpty Dumpty together again. Why? Because there was never a Humpty Dumpty. As there was never an ark.