Doubts on the Deluge

"Sea is the name given to that water which is wide and deep, in which the waters have not much motion." - Leonardo da Vinci


This post is combining two posts: "Doubts on the Deluge" 3-12-2011 & Creationism debate 4-5-14


"DOUBT 

Here a doubt arises, and that is as to whether the Flood which came 
in the time of Noah was universal or not, and this would seem not to 
have been the case for the reasons which will now be given. We have it 
in the Bible that the said Flood was caused by forty days and forty 
nights of continuous and universal rain, and that this rain rose ten 
cubits above the highest mountain in the world. But consequently if it 
had been the case that the rain was universal it would have formed in 
itself a covering around our globe which is spherical in shape; and a 
sphere has every part of its circumference equally distant from its 
centre, and therefore on the sphere of water finding itself in the afore- 
said condition, it becomes impossible for the water on its surface to 
move, since water does not move of its own accord unless to descend. 
How then did the waters of so great a Flood depart if it is proved that 
they had no power of motion? If it departed, how did it move, unless 
it went upwards? At this point natural causes fail us, and therefore in 
order to resolve such a doubt we must needs either call in a miracle to 
our aid or else say that all this water was evaporated by the heat of 
the sun. c.a. 155 r. b " - Leonardo 





The main arguments:
  • There wouldn't have been enough quality trees or a way to cut them down and turn them into lumber in the time frame with 5 people.
  • A wooden boat of that size would taken even longer to construct and require tools and techniques which would themselves be as difficult to develop as the ark itself.
  • A wooden boat of that size may after multiple life times (even if they lived to be over 100) but wouldn't be sea worthy as wooden boats have a max size before they break/ leak especially considering the upheaval the ocean would be in the initial period. It would be like going down the niagara falls.
  • For it to rain enough and fast enough to raise the sea level to above the himalayan mountains is impossible. "the amount of water that needed to be supplied (and disposed of) in the Great Flood is about 1.1 billion cubic miles.[11] The atmosphere today is only capable of holding the equivalent of one inch of precipitation (over the entire world) in the form of water vapor. The amount of rain per second that would be falling to generate 1.1 billion cubic miles of water over 40 days is almost unimaginable, the equivalent to 289 cubic miles per second."
  • There is not enough water on earth for it to cover all the land, if there was it would be already covered. 
  • There would not be enough space on the boat for 2 of every kind of animal, their food, or enough people to care for them let alone all of the complications of such a feat.
  • How would the animals that could not swim on other continents get across the ocean to the boat? 
  • The biblical flood story wasn't the first of it's kind, or the only. 
  • There are tree's older than the story still alive. There is no archeological evidence - which alone makes the story impossible since there would be a uniform layer across the entire globe - obvious and containing humans, dinosaurs, and billions of other animals and essentially everything that existed at the time of the flood. 
In essence the story acts as a warning against water based natural disasters and to anticipate and prepare for them. In the same way the story of the three pigs which build their houses of different materials to demonstrate the idea of safety - the ark story is similar. If taken literally it requires a lot of ignorance, denial, and magical thinking to make even remotely possible. As children without tv, movies, and modern education it can seem likely but in light of today and what we know about history, archeology, animals, naval construction and etc. etc. it is a story based on probable real life stories of surviving floods - which there were, of course, but none at anywhere near this scale. 

--Original posts:-


Many people believe, based on the bible, and other flood stories that the earth once went through a period of time where water covered the entire earth. For 40 days and 40 nights it rained so much that everything was covered with water. This comes from a book that was written by someone around the black sea.



How did he know that water covered the whole earth when he wasn't able to see the whole world? Its very likely that Noah's flood wasn't world wide but actually only happened in a certain area that -to the people there- seemed as if it encompassed the entire globe. Some people have theorized that that flood was really the black sea filling up. There is no doubt at all that the water level has changed over time, sometimes a lot at a time. There are plenty of ancient cities under water where the coast of the Mediterranean used to be.


In our time and in da Vinci's there has been a consensus that the sea, only a few thousand years ago covered the entire globe. The only things to survive this "flood" was Noah and the animals on his boat. Two of every kind. Implying that every animal that is now on earth, including us humans, co-inhabited a single boat. Somehow Noah was able to get an:




elephant: both an asian and african version, and a wolly mammoth, and a poison frog from south america, and a wolf, and a parakeet, and a cat, and a lion, and a tiger, and a donkey, and a horse, and a zebra, and a polar bear, and a cow, and a desert tortoise, and a salamander, and a honey toad, and a platapus, and a beaver, and a wolverine, and a giraffe, and a wilder-beast, and a Hinayana, and a scorpion, and a rattle snake, and a python, and an anaconda, and a bee, an and ant, and a Gardner snake, and a toad, and a dog, and an antelope, and a moose, and a mountain lion, and a african grey parrot, and a snail, and a cricket, and a crocodile, and a ale-gator, and a cayman, and a butterfly, and a quail, and a duck, and a turkey, and a chicken, and every kind of bird, and every kind of reptile, and every kind of mammal, and every kind of insect, and every kind of plant, and every kind of everything - all fit on one boat. An ark:






"Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high! It could have been larger, because several larger-sized cubits were used. But the 45-centimeter (18-inch) cubit is long enough to show the enormous size of the Ark."




I don't know about you but I have 4 different animals. A cat, a dog, and two birds. I wont get into the fact that I can't get my two birds to have babies, but If I were to try and get them all together in one room it would take a LOT of effort on my part to make sure they got along. I would have to try really hard to make sure my cat wouldn't kill my birds, and my dog to not kill my cat, and so forth. Honestly... I could do it. I could make sure my dog didn't hurt my cat, and my cat didn't hurt my birds, and i could feed all 4 of them. For a time. But what about me? I have to eat. My animals have to eat.




I think, based off of the bibles description of the ark I could feed all of us and make sure they dont eat each other, with enough food, for a couple months. But to make sure that two of every animal on earth in even a few miles worth of space was well fed, and didn't kill each other- would be literally IMPOSSIBLE. What would I feed a lion, a tiger, a mountain lion, a cat, a sibertooth tiger, .. there are 36 known different species of cats on earth. They HAVE TO eat meat to survive. So did Noah and his family cut up, and.. uh, freeze, hundreds of thousands of pounds of meat to anticipate the time on the boat?






An elephant has to eat 800lbs a day alone, so for two it would be over 1000lbs a day. For over 40 days and 40 nights? Thats a lot of food.



What about the 3800# of species of Lizards? What about the over 10,000 living species of birds? 2900 species of snakes? 5,500 species of mammals? What about the 6 to ten MILLION species of Insects?



Bee's dont just have "Two of every kind" they have workers, the queen, and the drones. So did Noah just collect one of each? What about two of each of the rest of the rest of the 10million? What about the 22,000 different species of ants? Did he get two of each of those? Plus the drones, plus the workers, plus the drones?



I'm not even going to try to imagine the size of an ark that would be able to hold two of every species of animals on earth but i'm going to imagine that it's a LOTTT bigger than the dimensions that are mentioned in the bible. That would be a very large boat, and a very awesome captain that would be able to keep all those animals in line, and feed them for over 40 days, and 40 nights. I think my cat would start attacking and trying to eat me, or i would start to eat him after 40 days together. If I had to deal with two lions, two tigers, two mountain lions, two crocodiles, two polar bears, two grizzly bears, two kimodo dragons, and ALL of the other animals that eat meat.... really?



ALL animals need food, most on a daily basis. If you were to calculate even the most basic number of animals it would take to re-populate the earth- two of each, and figure out the weight of the food it would take to feed all of them for 40 days and 40 nights.... let alone keep them from eating and attacking each other. It's inconceivable. Dare I use the word impossible...



If what I have just stated didn't convince you that the story of Noah's Ark is a story and nothing more than lets see what the greatest genius the world has ever known has to say about it:



"Here a doubt arises, and that is: whether the deluge, which happened at the time of Noah, was universal or not. And it would seem not, for the reasons now to be given: We have it in the Bible that this deluge lasted 40 days and 40 nights of incessant and universal rain, and that this rain rose to ten cubits above the highest mountains in the world. And if it had been that the rain was universal, it would have covered our globe which is spherical in form. And this spherical surface is equally distant in every part, from the centre of its sphere; hence the sphere of the waters being under the same conditions, it is impossible that the water upon it should move, because water, in itself, does not move unless it falls; therefore how could the waters of such a deluge depart, if it is proved that it has no motion? and if it departed how could it move unless it went upwards? Here, then, natural reasons are wanting; hence to remove this doubt it is necessary to call in a miracle to aid us, or else to say that all this water was evaporated by the heat of the sun."



You should realize that Leonardo was 500 years ago, a time in which you would be killed for asserting such things. Today anyone can say anything about the bible and only get some angry comments on the internet or angry stares in "real Life" but when he was alive, if you said the same things you could be burned alive. LitERALY. What you read above and everything you read in da Vinci's journals were personal and not published. We can read them now, but back when he was alive, and up until a few years ago no one else could read them.




Leonardo has thousands of pages of "quotes"/ Journals that mention things that would have inspired "book Burnings" but today we read them and think- oh wow how did he know that back then?



It's kinda sad that even today, in 2011 that there are millions if not billions of people that would take most of what he wrote as Heresy! How dare someone question the bible and it's authenticity?! They should not be questions, "God" made sure that everything in the bible is completely correct.



How do you explain that the story of Noah's ark is just that, a story?



There are literally people who will tell you will all authority that the earth is only 6000 years old and all life on earth descended from his boat. They will argue with you and tell you that you are going to hell if you dont agree with them. They will say that it's true because it says it in the bible. So it's true?




Although i'm not living in the world Da Vinci was, I'm still met with the same dumbocracy. But unlike Leonardo I have millions of people that are smart enough to realize that a world wide flood is impossible.



Although it is very LIKELY that there have been many fluctuations in the earths sea levels, and even more fluctuations in the worlds populations, there hasn't been a world wide flood that covered the entire earth in hundreds of thousands of years - if ever. WHy? how?



Well. There is a certain amount of water compared to that of earth. When rain falls it comes from the evaporation from the ocean.



Da Vinci asked, and i'm asking?: How much water is there on earth, the planet, compared to earth itself? Is there even enough water to cover the entire earth? NO.



Even if the entire ice caps melted,there wouldn't be enough water increase the sea level to cover the entire earth. There just insn't enough water.




This proves that a world wide flood would be impossible. It doens't matter what the bible says. It just didn't happen. THe end.



"Some assert that it is true that the earth, which is not covered by water is much less than that covered by water. But considering the size of 7000 miles in diameter which is that of this earth, we may conclude the water to be of small depth."





There are fresh water fish, and salf water fish. And fresh water species and salt water species. Each cannot live in each others waters. If you put a fresh water species in a salt water it will die. If you put a salt water species in a fresh water environment it will die.




I've had plenty of fish tanks and if the water chemicals isn't "just right" all the fish will die. The ph balance and such. It's complicated and there really has to be a specific water for a specific fish.




SO if water covered the entire earth, then all the fish, in all the lakes, and all the rivers, and all the streams, and alll the seas, would be combined. Once that happened they would all, die. If you put a fresh water fish in salt water - it will die. If you put a salt water fish in fresh water - it will die. thats a fact.



So how could water cover the whole earth, and all the fish in the world, which are both salt and fresh water fish survive?



Creationist Debate:





With the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate going on I thought I would re-visit it. For those not aware Bill Nye the science guy agreed to debate young earth creationist Ken Ham regarding the, well, age of the planet.

*Video of debate is on the bottom of this page or you can click HERE*



Ken Ham believes that the earth is only 6,000 years  old - according to the bible. When presented with evidence such as tree rings, sedimentary layers,  fossils, dna models, ice drilling, and literally thousands of other types of evidences supporting an earth much older than a few thousand years - he is not swayed.

When asked "What would it take to change your mind." He  replied. "Well, I'm a christian." Implying that by being a christian you must take the bible literally and there is no way to ever change your mind - no matter what - no matter what evidence - nothing else can be true but what has already been written.

Bill Nye would give evidence and the reasons scientists think, scientifically, that the earth is billions of years old. Ham would argue that there is a difference between Observational science and Historical science (he made this up) Which is essentially saying that we can only understand what we are able to observe and since we were not around to see it, everything could have worked differently back then than it does today. So tree rings, ice layers, sedimentary layers, and radioactive decay - which are provable and always consistent today - didn't work that way in the past. The only reason he says that they 'must have' worked differently is because they directly conflict with an early earth - SO they must have. This is what he has titled: "Historical Science" - which is basically anything that conflicts with his beliefs. "Observational Science" is just science science - and what satellites, rocket ships, atomic clocks, computers, medicine, genetics, weather prediction,  etc use today.


Since we were not around to see it - we can't know how it worked. The only way to know for sure is to go by what it says according to genesis. He said that we can't know things that happened in the past unless they were written down in the bible - and only the bible. Which is contradicting himself - how were people who wrote the bible  able to write about what happened in the past - if they weren't there to observe it? Who wrote the bible? Who translated the version into the language you are referring to? Which parts are suppose to be taken literally and which are poetry? If there are some errors does that mean that it's all wrong? Are ideas written thousands of years ago more accurate then today? What about the dozens of other creation stories from other cultures that are just as old if not older than the one in the bible? What makes the bible unique or special compared to another book written before or after it by other people?

I think the easiest way to understand why this 'debate' isn't really even debatable is the evidence. Image that only 100 years ago a group of people decided to build a city. Outside of this city they dug a really deep hole to use as a trash pit. So day after day they threw their garbage and dead animals and books and used furniture etc. After 100 years you could go back and as you dug down into this pit you would travel into the past. Towards the top of the pit would be the most recent garbage - and the further you went down the older the stuff would be. If there were a newspaper it would have the date on it and if that was at a certain level then you would know that it must have been after or around that date. The earth does this exact same thing and this is how we study the age of the earth and the evolution of time and animals. If you dig down you don't find a computer or newspaper from 2 years ago at a layer that is 99 years old. You also don't find a dinosaur fossil with a chihuahua. We are also able to get approximate dates of each layer by this thing called "Radio carbon dating" which is similar to a body dying and then rotting. If an investigator finds a dead body they can estimate how long it's been dead by how much it has decayed. If you find a body that is still warm you know that it must have just died. If you find a body that has been rotten - then you know it must have been dead for X amount of time. If you find a dry skeleton then you know it's y amount of time. If you find a fossil then you know it had to have been z amount of time because that's how long it takes for a fossil to form. So when a scientist dates something they are able to do this by testing how much it has decayed - but at an atomic level. They also use at what level it was found and combine that with the carbon dating and guess what - it works out. The dating techniques align with the different levels of sediment and fossils. 

This is why it's so hard to take the early earth people seriously. You can test this out and it works. Anyone can go out and verify it. All of the evidence supports it. It's not a "theory" it's not "controversial" it's not debate. Once people realized the earth worked this way they kept testing it and over and over again for hundreds of years it's come to the same conclusion. 



Another big difference is that people came to this conclusion based on the evidence and not because they were trying to prove something. They didn't want the earth to be old or were trying to prove the earth was old. They saw these layers and realized that the Earth must be really old. 



This is what I wrote down on my ipad after I finished watching the 3 hour debate live last night:

He's (Ham) perfected his craft at being convincing with seemingly complicated sound bites that sound truthful because he has blind and unwavering faith in what he believes. There are no new thoughts allowed because he has had every conceivable argument in his head a thousand times, any question or statement, (true or not) can be retorted with saying the same thing: the bible is true and that means this must be true so nothing else can be true. He doesn't realize the whole point (of science) is to find the truth, not to keep something "true" even if it is not.

He is a old man trying to prove how Santa delivers the presents to the entire world in one night.  No, he isn't even trying to prove it, he is just saying that it is true because "Santa is real and delivers presents" so Santa is real and must deliver them somehow, because Santa is real. If the base belief is false then any argument against it is in vain if there is no accepting that it can't be false, when it is. The same could be said of something as a fact, that anything against it is automatically false. The difference between science and faith is that science is open and aware that some things that were accepted as true can be false and it seeks to rectify, not to defend the facts and figures but the truth itself.


A man was told by his father that Santa was real. His father died and for the rest of his life he clings onto the story, believing it to be true. If anyone attempts to tell him it isn't, shows him any evidence, he will get angry and say " are you calling my dead father a liar?!" There is no right answer, or at least none that he wants to hear or will accept until he understands that he is not the creator of truth.
 You can't say something is true because IT says that it is true. "It's true because it's true." "It's true because it's true." What is the evidence? "It's true because it's true." "It's true because it's true."





Some highlights from the Debate: 
“I say to the grown-ups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it, because we need them.”
— Bill Nye
-

"Mr. Ken Ham do you take the bible literally?’

"Why yes I do take that book literally as a metaphor sometimes when it’s poetry."

“I just want to remind us all there are billions of people in the world who are deeply religious, who get enriched by the wonderful sense of community by their religion. But these same people do not embrace the extraordinary view that the Earth is somehow only 6,000 years old.” - Bill Nye
“If we abandon all that we have learned, if we abandon the process by which we know it, if we eschew, if we let go of everything that people have learned before us, if we stop driving forward, if we stop looking for the next answer to the next question; we will be out-competed by other countries, other economies… We have to embrace science education.
We have to keep science education in science classes.”
— Bill Nye








What did Leonardo have to say about the age of the Earth? 
"DOUBT 

Here a doubt arises, and that is as to whether the Flood which came
in the time of Noah was universal or not, and this would seem not to
have been the case for the reasons which will now be given. We have it
in the Bible that the said Flood was caused by forty days and forty
nights of continuous and universal rain, and that this rain rose ten
cubits above the highest mountain in the world. But consequently if it
had been the case that the rain was universal it would have formed in
itself a covering around our globe which is spherical in shape; and a
sphere has every part of its circumference equally distant from its
centre, and therefore on the sphere of water finding itself in the afore-
said condition, it becomes impossible for the water on its surface to
move, since water does not move of its own accord unless to descend.
How then did the waters of so great a Flood depart if it is proved that
they had no power of motion? If it departed, how did it move, unless
it went upwards? At this point natural causes fail us, and therefore in
order to resolve such a doubt we must needs either call in a miracle to
our aid or else say that all this water was evaporated by the heat of
the sun. c.a. 155 r. b " - Leonardo 

Keeping in mind that he was alive 500 years ago and these comments would have been considered "heresy." Both Leo he and his notebooks could have been burned for even thinking such things.This is the reason none of his thousands of pages of notebooks were published during his life time. 

He used his own precursor to the scientific method to deduce that a world wide flood would have been impossible. He goes on to provide why he came to these conclusions and concludes that the evidence shows that it couldn't have happened unless we "call in a miracle." This is in line with more "modern" arguments for the flood story being true when proponents can not explain it other than by "miracle." 

 Besides his understanding of plate tectonics (hundreds of years before anyone else) and the nature of water he noticed fossilized shells on the tops of mountains. He realized that they could not have gotten there by a flood but were remnants of ancient ocean floors that must have, through a very great expanse of time, been pushed up to the tops of mountains. Meaning that living sea shells died and went to the bottom of the sea, then fossilized, then were very slowly transformed into mountains. 
"The stratified stones of the mountains are all layers of clay, deposited one above the other by the various floods of the rivers. . . In every concavity at the summit of the mountains we shall always find the divisions of strata in the rocks." - Leo

This completely conflicted with the age of the earth at the time but despite this Leonardo came to his own conclusions which society took hundreds of years to catch up to. It is strange that someone from 500 years ago can look at something as simple as a shell and realize that the earth would have to be very very ancient. While some people today with 500 years of additional scientific evidence all showing the same thing - still can't accept it as being self evident. 
"Such an opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion -- and here they could not move." 

"If the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time."

"Here a doubt arises, and that is: whether the deluge, which happened at the time of Noah, was universal or not. And it would seem not, for the reasons now to be given: We have it in the Bible that this deluge lasted 40 days and 40 nights of incessant and universal rain, and that this rain rose to ten cubits above the highest mountains in the world. And if it had been that the rain was universal, it would have covered our globe which is spherical in form. And this spherical surface is equally distant in every part, from the centre of its sphere; hence the sphere of the waters being under the same conditions, it is impossible that the water upon it should move, because water, in itself, does not move unless it falls; therefore how could the waters of such a deluge depart, if it is proved that it has no motion? and if it departed how could it move unless it went upwards? Here, then, natural reasons are wanting; hence to remove this doubt it is necessary to call in a miracle to aid us, or else to say that all this water was evaporated by the heat of the sun." - Leonardo da Vinci

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
— S.D. Weitzenhoffer
Comments on Reddit about the debate:







Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

1.2.1 - Shone

Herbivore | Omnivore | Carnivore

Mohenjo Daro