Science writer lists several objections to the biblical account of Noah and the flood.
The new Noah film starring Russell Crowe, which just opened in theaters, is only loosely based on the biblical account of Noah and the Flood (Genesis 6-8) and should not be considered a faithful depiction. (See Ken Ham’s review). However, the movie has motivated at least one science writer, Live Science’s Benjamin Radford, to review and attack the Genesis description of the event. Not surprising, his piece is just loaded with inaccuracies and mistakes in judgment.
Quoting a 1984 book by Henry Morris, Radford writes, “The flaws in Morris's calculations become evident when you consider that, according to many creationists, Noah's Ark included hundreds of dinosaurs. That would mean, for example, the brachiosaurus (two of them, of course), each of which weighed about 50 tons and reached 85 feet (26 meters) long.” I have never read or heard of any creationist who has said “hundreds of dinosaurs” were on board the Ark. Radford is apparently confusing the biblical word “kind” with the modern word “species.” Creationists generally equate the word “kind” more or less with the word “family” in the current classification system. While there were thousands of species of dinosaurs, there were only about 50 families, and therefore at most likely only about 50 varieties of dinosaurs were on the ark. Also, the average size of a dinosaur was only about that of a large sheep or bison. Even the larger dinosaurs could have been much smaller juveniles when brought on board. For more, see: Dinosaurs on the Ark.
“There's also the problem of collecting all those animals in the first place …How would koala bears from Australia, llamas from South America and penguins from Antarctica have managed the trip to the ark's location in the Middle East?" How do monarch butterflies and various species of birds manage their migrations without human intervention? How are Pacific salmon able to migrate for thousands of miles and then return after one or several years to the very same stream where they hatched? Creationists and other Christians don’t deny that God was involved in gathering the animals for Noah’s ark, but who designed the migrating animals to do something so similar today? As for land animals being able to cross open waters, secular and creationist scientists alike believe the present continents were once joined in a supercontinent.
“Another problem with the Ark story arises because there is no evidence for a global flood.” This is an often-heard objection to the biblical account of the Flood, and while there is no physical evidence to absolutely prove the Flood, there is evidence all over the place to strongly suggest it. First, the billions of fossils. Scientists admit few fossils are being formed today. Because living things have to be covered rapidly to become fossils before they can decay or be eaten, a massive flood that could have killed and rapidly covered so many creatures is the best explanation for the billions of fossils found all around the world.
Second, fossils of marine animals found in mountainous areas. And what about the discovery of 80 whale fossils found in a desert in Chile? Again, a massive flood would seem to be the best explanation for how these fossils have gotten to where they were found.
Third, the strata such as at the Grand Canyon which had to have been laid down on top of each other over a short period of time, because there is no evidence of erosion between the layers. Erosion would be evident if the strata were laid down with millions of years between each layer, as secular scientists believe.
Fourth, the flood stories commonly found among cultures all over the world. To my knowledge, there are no widespread legends of a global catastrophe of a different kind, such as the Earth being burned up by a global fire or a disease wiping out almost all humanity — because such events never happened. It is logical to assume the flood legends are so common because they were based on a real occurrence. The differences in details among the stories can be easily explained by the distortions that would have occurred over time as the stories were passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation.
Mr. Radford is correct that no physical evidence for Noah’s Ark has yet turned up. One possible explanation for this is that the ark was dismantled for firewood or building materials by Noah’s family and descendants, or it could still be buried under ice on one of the several mountains where it could have landed (“mountains of Ararat” Genesis 8:4) if an Ice Age followed the Flood, as many believe. Nevertheless, the absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence for an absence. As I write this, there is no evidence yet for the Malaysian jetliner which apparently went down over the Indian Ocean, and yet we know the airplane existed.
Friday, this blog discussed the ridicule which believers in a literal Genesis must endure. The Bible tells us that life as a Christian won’t always be easy or comfortable. (“We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). Whether the world agrees with the Bible or not is not the important thing for us. Remaining faithful to the Lord is.
“This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls” (1 Peter 1:4-9).
Reference: Benjamin Radford, “The Ark: Could Noah’s Tale be True?” LiveScience.
PRINT (Black type on white background)
**************************************
Want to be automatically notified each time there is a new post? Just e-mail your request to admin@lutheranscience.org].
****************************************
QUESTION OF THE DAY
If a computer could count a trillion stars a second, how long would it take for the computer to count all the stars in the observable universe?
About 300 years. It is estimated the observable universe contains stars numbering 10 to the 22 power.
Source: Jonathan Sarfati, “Stars,” Creation (April-June, 2014), page 41
****************************************
NOTE ON VISITOR COMMENTS: Visitor comments are invited including those containing alternate views. However, comments containing profanity, personal attacks or advertisements will not be published. After posting a comment, please allow several hours for it to appear on the blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment