I mean, the Atra-Hasis had a flood account too, right. I don't think it's necessarily impossible...

I thought this explanation for the flood was pretty reasonable.

Anyways, from here:
One of the photos in question (it seems):

There seems like there is other interesting talking points on that link, but it's too late for me to read through them. :p

I love how they mention photographic evidence, but don't bother providing any. Thanks, sidran!

And Noah's ark looks like a dinghy.

Erm, it doesn't really give any explanation for the Noahs ark myth.

If a global flood was caused by a god that wiped out all mankind and the only survivor god deemed worthy was a drunk guy and his family then that gods an ass. If it's a myth then, well, it's just a myth.

Well, of course the story of a great flood is present in many different cultures. That's because floods happen in many different parts of the planet. I've read two different geological accounts as to why the Black Sea flooded, but the people who inhabited the area during that time didn't have that kind of knowledge. No wonder they thought God was angry. In every religious culture, great disasters occur because some deity is pissed.

I find science and mythology equally fascinating, but I know better than to confuse the two. Mythology is just an ancient way of trying to explain scientific phenomena.

The explanation was the idea presented at the end. I actually saw the show, which said that the "worldwide" flood could have been caused by a natural dam breaking causing the valley where the Black Sea now is to flood all of a sudden. It was an archaeology show, and they were doing digs in the area. "Noah's" family could have lived in the valley, and at the time, it would have been, to them, "the world". I don't believe for a second that the Great Flood covered the entire planet. There were no cultures at the time of the writing of the story who had contacts around the entire globe, or who had a global perspective. To us, the world is the entire planet, but to them, the world is the known world.

Actually, and this is one of the points that was hounded into us when I took the Myth, Legends, and Folklore course in college, one of the points about mythology was that it is not bad science (meaning it is not an attempt to explain scientific phenomena). Myths serve a different purpose than to explain scientific phenomena, and it would be better appropriate to recognize that.

Exactly. At that time people still thought the Earth was flat and that the world ended at the horizon. I think a lot of people who take the Bible stories literally don't realize that.

Really? What purpose do they serve then? Note, that's not me being a smartass, I actually want to know. :)

I'd always been taught (both in Mythology class and Theology classes in high school...obviously, I went to a very progressive Catholic school) that myths and legends served to explain the unexplainable (including where we come from and where we go when we die) and to provide us with morality lessons, as well as to pass down cultural beliefs and practices through generations.

That's right, they had a very limited perspective hence all the 'miracles' the man Jesus performed and the account of creation and the talking animals and the way that natural occurrences got twisted into god sent plagues in Egypt.

It's pretty much a book of myth and folklore written by those who only had the knowledge that was generally available at the given time of writing.


This is exactly my argument as to why the bible isn't inspired of a divine, omnipotent being but rather a work of man. The bible would show a much great depth of knowledge, knowledge ahead of it's time had it being inspired by a god.

Glad we finally agree on something

*edit*

Genesis 7 : 17-24

The problem is that once you concede that the bible is inaccurate in some areas you can't really argue that any of it is reliable or factual.

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. 21 Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Very clearly states a global flood. "Every living thing on the face of the Earth", isn't really open to interpretive wiggling.

It's describing a global flood


Logically following what is contained in the bible about the flood one concludes a global catastrophe, if this isn't the case then the bible is inaccurate

If this is merely metaphor or limited human knowledge at play then why isn't the same true of the entire bible?

I'd get out my notes but they exist on the hard drive that is in my dead laptop. :( I'll have to find my brother's and swap them out one of these days so I can get the files off it. It has a list that would be exactly the answer you'd want, too bad I can't remember it exactly right now.

Anyways, myths serve other purposes. They aren't science, but they are there in order to teach more abstract concepts, like our place in the world, some values, and to express cultural concepts and ideas. Many times they actually were based on historical events and/or people, but over time through oral tradition and simple human nature, many things turn out to be much grander or extravagant than the original event actually was. Consider it like a game of telephone. But it doesn't lose its value one bit because of it, because it simply becomes a way to present these cultural ideas. It may not be fully historically accurate, but it wasn't supposed to be in the first place. A little bit of historical relevance is useful, but it is not the point.

If I could get my notes I'd give a more concise answer, sorry about that.

Right. You kind of made a point easy for me to make. Man thought the earth was flat, and that water would just fall off the edge...how do you flood that? God knew the earth was round and flooded it...all. If it was written by man they wouldn't conceive a world-wide flood. If different cultures tell the same story...doesn't that give it credence. We too easily call things myth because they are old stories. My favorite is the dragon. Has to be myth, who else has heard of a lizard like creature large enough to kill entire villages...nothing in science like that is there? Except maybe the dinosaur. It is possible that they were not all wiped out at the same time. In Africa they say that it is important to listen to the ancients and their wisdom. Sure we have made some archeological discoveries that tell us about the past, but it is also important to listen to stories from the people that were actually there.

Almost forgot to add. Although I would love to see proof of the Ark, I believe the phenomenon in this picture has been proven to not in fact be the Ark. It was a long time ago, and the Ark was made of wood, it is possible that we will never find physical evidence of it.

Dude, you're totally right. Noah took 7 of every clean animal and 2 of every unclean animal into a giant boat and then god flooded the whole earth killing millions. The only ones who survived were drunken Noah and his family.

It all makes perfect sense.

There's no scientific data and logic that can argue with the mighty book and 'God dun did it' so I won't even give it a go.

Just because something is older doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Can the earth flood? Sure, why not? SCIENTISTS have warned us about melting icecaps and SCIENTISTS have proven large disasters like metor strikes, floods, changes in magnetic poles... etc.

Is it so hard to believe that a guy named Noah survived?

Most ancient cultures actually have a flood story. In some the culture survives because they climb a mountaintop, in other cultures they survive because of a boat. There is Usually a universal flood story though. "The maker" "wipes the earth clean" "Only a few survive."

But I'm sure doggy is right. He would know more than any of the historians of every major world culture who just happened to make up the same exact story from around the world. THAT is much easier to believe than the fact that a worldwide flood occured and only (1%?) a few people survived.

Pathetic snideness aside, the empirical evidence for a global flood within the last 6,000 (Biblical timescale) is nil.

Great reading here

The fossil record simply does not fit with the biblical account. Am I an expert, no, I am offering an opinion based on my knowledge.

What I am arguing against from logic is the biblical account and the myth surrounding Noah and the reasons given in the bible for a global flood, god was mad and flooded the whole world killing millions.

You can choose to take the bible as fact if you wish, I don't.

Whoever's downvoting comments just because they disagree should knock it off right now. That's bulls**t and that's not what the downvote button's for. Both Interesting and Tragluk are just expressing their beliefs and being, for the most part, polite about it.


Play nice or you all get spankings, and not the fun kind.

Mine are getting DV'd too, no big deal as I see it.

Oops...yours weren't in the negatives so I just assumed that (for once) you were in the clear.

Downvoting due to a difference of opinion is a big sore spot with me. If Interesting had tacked on "And all you nonbelievers can burn in hell" at the end, I'd understand but merely having faith and expressing it shouldn't earn you a downvote.


I dislike organized religion and put my trust in science, but I respect others with faith so long as they aren't hypocritical about it (i.e. the "Jesus loves and accepts everyone except for you and you and those guys" people). I think different beliefs are what make this world (and on a smaller scale, this website) interesting.

An interesting consideration is the plant life that survived underwater for 150 days. Also the freshwater fish that survived the inevitable saltwater/freshwater mix that would have occurred and the saltwater fish that survived in freshwater

...a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black

Care to comment on the actual topic?