Noah Isn’t Accurate Because It Can’t Be

By Kyle Hill | March 28, 2014 1:11 pm
Image credit: Paramount Pictures

Image credit: Paramount Pictures

Religious moviegoers are concerned about the film Noah. Debuting this Friday, the movie will not be an exact retelling of the biblical tale, and this irked religious leaders and commentators enough that a disclaimer was put into Noah without director Darren Aronofsky’s knowledge. Artistic license met biblical literalism, an awkward compromise was reached, but prominent Christian activists will still probably leave disappointed and the controversy will go on.

The problem is that Noah doesn’t need a disclaimer or a controversy. Aronofsky has the right to retell a story that is necessarily inaccurate.

The Story of Noah*

Under pressure from religious leaders and audiences, Aronofsky’s Noah will feature the following disclaimer:

The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis.

It’s understandably frustrating when a movie fails to faithfully adapt a story from a book. Harry Potter wasn’t perfect, Fight Club was a bit neutered, and World War Z only had its title in common. Some things just don’t translate, and modern, flashy films demand a bit more action and less exposition. Book lovers can be frustrated, but they also have to understand the constraints of filmmaking. But Noah is different.

Regardless of what poll asks what question about biblical creationism, it’s safe to say that a lot of Americans take Noah’s story of the Ark and the Flood seriously. So when Darren Aronofsky decided to make Noah a bit differently than the Bible would dictate, for the devout it could be like changing the way the Revolutionary War happened. And here in lies the problem—a disclaimer is unreasonable for a story that likely never happened. Putting the equivalent of “based on true events” in front of each Noah showing gives the impression that there is a true story to hold up as the standard. There isn’t.

Jurassic Ark

Noah, now with a disclaimer, is in an odd position. Most movies implying they were based on true events…have true events to base a script on. Noah does not for a number of reasons. (It’s not my objective to fully “debunk” Noah and his Ark. However, I do think that this particular marketing plan does advance the wrong ideas about what we know in a number of scientific disciplines. So, I will proceed.)

First and maybe most obviously, Noah would be long dead by the time God flooded the Earth. Genesis says that when it’s time for him to build the Ark, he is at the fledgling age of 500. No human has ever lived this long, and likely never will based on the biological constraints of aging.

Next, the Ark would never survive the newly formed seas. Basically a gigantic wooden box, the Ark was supposedly made out of gopher wood—a terrible material for building larger vessels (there is a reason we use materials like steel). It would break apart likely from just the distribution of animals inside it or anything other than completely calm waters.

Then there are the animals. Where did they come from? If the Earth was created in its present form, then a great number of animals had to swim from separate continents to somewhere in ancient Mesopotamia—not a small task for almost 350,000 species of beetles. And how many animals were there? Most scientific estimates put the number of species on Earth in the millions, which means that almost double that number had to fit on the Ark (two of each sexually reproducing animal). A few thousands organisms could barely squeeze between the wooden ribs of the Ark.

The questions really start to pile up here. How could literally millions of animals ranging in size from fruit fly to African elephant fit on one creaky boat? How could all the food required to feed these animals for 40 days and nights not at least double the weight requirements of the Ark and break the boat? If only “clean” animals were included on the Ark, how do we have more than just clean animals today? Evolution? What about the dinosaurs? Creationist interpretation puts T. rex and Noah in the same era. Were two of each gigantic carnivorous lizard on the boat with a 500-year old man and thousands of juicy mammals?

What about animal welfare? How could millions of species survive, cramped in the confines of the Ark without exercise, special and varied diets, proper ventilation, or hundreds of people on sanitation duty? How did these animals exit the Ark and make it across the oceans to all the continents we see them on today?

What the hell happened to all the world’s plants?

And then there is the geological and historical record. There simply is no good evidence that a global flood ever happened. Mountains would have an erosion record that matched across the globe. Stratigraphic analysis would show consistent, Earth-wide layers of sediment (akin to how we see a layer of iridium across the globe marking the dinosaur’s extinction event). Tree ring data would also document a great catastrophe. But nothing matches up. Early Egyptian history would have recorded the great flood and mentioned at least one thing about it. It doesn’t. The world’s population would have rebounded very slowly—probably not at all—after all but one family was wiped out. The Bible says otherwise. Noah lives long enough after the flood to see cities in just one generation.

The story of Noah is self-contradictory, uncorroborated by independent historical evidence, and is generally at odds with everything we know about our planet’s geology, biology, and species diversity. I admit it’s gratuitous to subject an ancient myth to such scrutiny, but if documentary-style disclaimers are to be put on Noah for its supposed inaccuracy, it should be held to documentary-level standards. That standard seems arbitrarily high for a story out of the Bible, which is why director Darren Aronofsky had every right to make angels into giant rock monsters.

Rebooting The Bible

Noah1

Image credit: Paramount Pictures

If the biblical story of Noah can’t be considered on the same historical footing as the Vietnam war, for example, what the disclaimer resulting from religious blowback represents is a movie studio protecting profits. Seeing as most of America is Christian, offending most of America before a major movie release is a terrible business move. That’s just pragmatism. But such appeasement gives the impression that the original story the movie is based on has more truth to offer. That simply isn’t true, and it sets a dangerous precedent of conflating what we believe to be true with what we know is true objectively.

Like how a book changes when it becomes a movie, there is also an argument for biblical reinterpretation here. Many modern Christian scholars do not take all the stories of the Bible literally. Jesus walking on water is an allegory, not fluid mechanics. God destroying the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is a warning, not a historical battle. Doubting Thomas is an example, not a person. The story of Noah, with all of its scientific and historical impossibilities, can be read the same way. It’s a story of punishment and redemption and family, not physics, biology, and history. Director Darrren Aronofsky should therefore be afforded the leeway to “spice-up” Noah. As long as the basic message remains, having Russell Crowe fend off some doomed would-be shipmates is just not something to demand disclaimers over. Allowing these interpretations without incident would show a modern, understanding religious base that might put aside small “inaccuracies” to embrace the massive communication effort Noah represents.

Noah is sure to hit audiences differently than reading Genesis verses 5:32-10:1. But when there is literally nothing besides the Bible itself to confirm the story of the Ark and the Flood, a few changes are expected, inevitable, even justifiable. The story of Noah is just that—a story, not a history of Earth. Knowing what we now know about biology and geology and physics, it’s hard to argue that such a reboot wasn’t Aronofsky’s right as an artist, no matter what the Bible says.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: top posts
  • Buddy199

    Interesting that during the Babylonian exile the Hebrew writers of the Bible drew upon the ancient Sumerian flood story as inspiration for their version, with an overlay of their interpretation of its religious significance.

    • cmom

      You work with the material you have.

    • TPAINE

      And what is the evidence you have to prove Hebrew writers “drew upon” Sumerian flood myths “during the Babylonian exile”? The Babylonian captivity occurred in 586BCE; Genesis was likely written before this around 900BCE.

  • Just Me

    I really dislike how I thought this was a movie review and spent 20 minutes listening to an opinion that tries to disprove God, Noah and the like. You’re not a scientist. Go home.

    • Sean

      The only opinion the writer gave is that he doesn’t think a disclaimer is necessary. Nobody spent any amount of time trying to disprove god. The writer also wasn’t trying to disprove the story of Noah…it has already been disproven.

      • SayWhat?

        Really? Let me know when you have disproved faith.

        • Geoff Offermann

          Faith is belief without evidence. No proof is required therefore disproof is no possible. All we can do is disprove any specific claims made by faith. Or at the very least, show evidence that contradicts such claims.

  • Neil Charlton

    I would not argue that Aronofsky could do anything with his movie he wants to. He could make Noah into a zombie killing warrior for all I care, like President Lincoln became a vampire slayer. I believe movie makers and book authors have that right when they create a story line including any historic or fictional character. My problem with this article is that the writer Kyle Hill chose to attempt a debunk without apparently doing any research of the subjects he wrote about. Specifically the Genesis story, the Epic of Gilgamesh, or doing a little internet research on ancient boat and shipbuilding.
    I am not defending the Biblical flood story here, but I am saying he attacked points of it that highlighted his ignorance of the story: the animals taken on board where 2 of every unclean and 7 of every clean, it wasn’t just 40 days and 40 nights they were on board of the Ark that was just how long it rained. They were on board for months if you read Genesis and add up the days.
    Moving on from Hill’s Biblical inaccuracies I was taken aback with his statement about tree ring data and the Egyptian records not mentioning the flood. What tree ring data would you consult? I don’t know anywhere in the world that we could access tree ring data that would tell us anything about that era, either biblical or historical. Maybe petrified wood, but I am not aware of any that would date back that far. Did Hill mention the Egyptian record because they have no mention of a flood in their record? If so, the Egyptians are not the only ancient cultures who kept records that have been translated. Sumerian, Hittite, Akkadian, and more in the eastern Med and areas of Persia have records of floods, hence the earlier mention of the Epic of Gilgamesh.
    Finally, Mr. Hill implied ancient cultures could not have built large sturdy ships that could stand up to stormy ocean weather without steel. I believe that Exes of Persia, Themisticles of Athens, many Roman sailors and the Ancient Minoans would disagree.
    Come on Mr. Hill you are supposed to be a science writer, if you are going to set about debunking a common story of three religions (even though you singled out Christians, both the Jewish and Islamic faith share the flood story) using historical and scientific information as well as relying on the religious text do your research please. Yes, I am a Christian, one who is well educated and enjoy pastimes like ancient historical research and archaeology. I don’t get offended when people challenge my beliefs, but I am disappointed when they enter a discussion and and try to defend their approach with shoddy research. You seem to write well, back it up with top notch research. Not what you think you “know” about a subject.

    • Amber Worth

      You make some valid points, the Ark was just 300 cubits long – 450 feet or 520 feet depending on which cubit you use – that’s not too big for wooden construction . . . though it might be a little too small for all those animals, and if they were in the ark for months, that would considerably increase the food requirements.

      Looks like you’re wrong on the tree rings though:

      [wiki]“Fully anchored chronologies which extend back more than 11,000 years exist for river oak trees from South Germany (from the Main and Rhine rivers) and pine from Northern Ireland.[1][4][5]
      Furthermore, the mutual consistency of these two independent
      dendrochronological sequences has been confirmed by comparing their
      radiocarbon and dendrochronological ages.[6] Another fully anchored chronology which extends back 8500 years exists for the bristlecone pine in the Southwest US (White Mountains of California)”.

      • cactusren

        Amber Worth: Can you name a wooden ship that is 450 feet long? (Hint: check here for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_wooden_ships).

        The longest well-documented wooden ship to make a successful voyage was the Rochambeau, at 377 feet (and 50 feet of that was a ram). “She was not particularly stable or seaworthy, even with her substantial metal components, and only made one voyage in the open ocean to reach her new owners.”

        As to the tree rings–I don’t understand your point. Yes, there are dendrochonological records going back 11,000 years. Do they show any evidence of a worldwide flood? On a related note: can trees survive for months underwater? If not, the very fact that there are trees known to be over 8,000 years old verifies that there was not a worldwide flood roughly 4,000 years ago.

        • DanShive

          Science says it could float
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10740451/Noahs-Ark-would-have-floated…even-with-70000-animals.html

          • cactusren

            That study is simply calculating buoyancy, not the stresses that would be placed on the wood by torsional forces in moving water. The problem with large wooden ships isn’t that they can’t float, it’s that wood doesn’t have the strength to withstand the stresses put on it by anything other than completely still water.

            Also, I’m not sure where that estimate of 35,000 animal species came from. I mean, there are 400,000 species known of beetles alone, so their estimate is way off.

    • Eric Jennings

      You’re funny. You bring up the Epic of Gilgamesh, yet don’t even acknowledge that Utnapishtim in the Epic IS Noah.

      As to ships “large sturdy ships”, not much in the ancient world had the size the ark is described as. Did you even click on Hill’s link? Go ahead and do it, I’ll wait…

      Okay, so now you know that couldn’t have kept from sinking if it was constructed as described in Genesis. How about Hill’s other points about the amount of space for the animals and their food (and please don’t bring up that tired old trope “kinds” to reduce the amount)

      The only people who have a vested interest in proving the Noah story true are Young Earth Creationists, not Christians in general who can accept an allegorical view of the bible. The problems with them are too numerous for just one blog reply.

      • Amber Worth

        The thing that makes the Ark different to other large sea going wooden ships was that it wasn’t required to move anywhere, so it didn’t need to be strong enough to withstand the additional loads imposed by sails, also, this lack of destination means that it could be over built by the standards of other ships.

        As an analogy, ice is a lousy material for building ships but large icebergs can survive rough seas.

        I’m not saying the Biblical Ark was built, it wasn’t,I’m just saying I don’t think such a vessel is a physical impossibility.

        • Nicole

          As an engineer, I am telling you it is not possible to build a ship out of wood that can meet the requirements of /two of every animal/

          • Amber Worth

            So?

            How about a wooden barge 450 feet long?

          • hillsider62

            Noah was with Yahweh! No matter how weak the Ark was built, it was protected. And all the animals onboard therein were taken care of. Yahweh was with them.

          • Elias

            Exactly. That’s the power of gods. They can do whatever the storytellers says they can do. Whether it’s a tower of stone that can reach the heavens, a really big boat with two of every living creature or walking on water mythological stories are parables for the magic of life.

          • Mich

            For God NOTHING is impossible

          • Sinuhe Sinny

            For example, for “him” it’s impossible to get rid and stop gullible morons like you from entering the internet.

          • Geoff Offermann

            “For God NOTHING is impossible”

            Surely then he could have thought of a better way to eliminate evil than to kill innocents (human or otherwise) with the guilty.

            And by the way, how did that work out for him? Was it effective?

            Please. Let’s all get real here. Though it was probably written to be an audience that took it literally, we should not.

          • David Probasco

            Well then why bother with the ark and the animals?

            If god is all powerful and can bring back all the trees and plants, why not just wipe out everything and start over, or why not just wipe out those he didn’t like. The entire point of the story is illogical if god exists and is all powerful.

          • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Ron King

            He, god, is obviously not all powerful because he screwed up his first try at making life. Why didn’t he fix what he’s already made instead of killing them and starting over. There is no way you can twist these stories around for them to make sense. Besides there are several conflicting stories about the flood too, like everything else in the Bible. If one of them is literally true, then the others are in error.

          • John Barba

            Oh yeah, what about the tardis? Or is that just a wooden police box?

          • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Joel Getschel

            I am also an engineer. The writers of the Bible, nor the people at that time knew the earth was a globe. What we think as regional was the whole world to them. They only needed a few animals from that small region on the world…if at all really.
            Realize the writers of the Bible needed to explain things to people that knew nothing about the world or science that we know. It was like explaining things to kids.

        • Eric Jennings

          Soo, you’re saying the ark was at anchor because it wasn’t going anywhere? Come on, that’s a lousy excuse. It’s not the sails that imposed the load, it’s the cube foot ratio that prevents the hull from having structural integrity at that size, especially in a square shape.

          And what about the other points brought up? Still waiting.

          • Amber Worth

            “Soo, you’re saying the ark was at anchor because it wasn’t going anywhere?”

            As I said it was never built that seems unlikely.

            I’m saying a heavily built wooden vessel 450 ft long and adrift could survive.

            “And what about the other points brought up? Still waiting.”

            Try reading what my comment actually says, rather than imagining what you want it to say.

          • Meister Omega

            No. It could not. Even “god” must obey the laws of physics.

          • rodmarcia

            Certainly the God of the Bible does not have to obey the laws of physics. Indeed, there are many instances in the Bible where God “disobeys” the laws of physics.

          • Marion Storms

            not percicely he wrote the laws of physics and while he like to stay within them he is more than capable of going beyond them

        • Dwight Reid

          Obviously you aren’t going from the Mormon version where the ark had to sail from Missouri to Turkey. This also calls into question more things, like the ability of marsupials to get from Australia to Missouri and the availability of gopher-wood in the Jackson county area.

        • KateGladstone

          Ships HAVE been built of ice (with an adulterant) — http://www.bing.com/search?q=pykrete&form=APIPA1

    • David Probasco

      You do know we have living trees older than 6,000 years right? How did they survive?
      We also have tree remains from the time period we can look at the rings on and see if there was any data change in the rings. there wasn’t.

      • rodmarcia

        Just curious–how are living trees “dated” as being older than 6000 years old?

        • cactusren

          You can drill a small core out of the tree from the edge to the center without killing the tree. This allows you to count the growth rings.

    • Klae A. Klevenger

      Bristlecone pine tree ting data dates back 4000+ years.

  • Amber Worth

    The Gopher wood thing was explained in the movie Evan All Mighty, Go-4-Wood was the name of the timber merchant Noah bought the wood from – it wasn’t actually built from gopher wood – that would be silly.

    • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Michael Gurak

      Actually you’ve got it backwards. God told Noah to build the ark out of gopher wood. That’s why “God” had the phone number on the bill “go-4-wood”.

  • Skip Nordenholz

    The bible is not even consistent with its self with respect to Noah’s flood in one passage it says two of every kind of animal, in another its something like seven pair of clean animals and 2 pair of unclean animals, clean and unclean animals are clearly documented in the bible and would total about 50 animals all together.

    • karlt6

      One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that in addition to the reproducing numbers of animals, more would be needed as FOOD for the carnivores….. So, how many of which animals were brought on board to feed animals such as lions, tigers, etc?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Kieseyhow Kieron Seymour-Howell

    I think this movie is going to spark a great number of debates and arguments all around the world. Brilliant marketing ploy if you ask me!

  • Matt Williams

    A story from the epic of Gilgamesh retold in the Bible. How quaint.

  • http://laspas.gr/ Stratos Laspas

    There’s the legend of a great flooding in all of the ancient cultures of Eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia. The story in Gilgamesh (Mesopotamia) features a hero named Utnapishtim. The Greek version has Deucalion (see wikipedia) as “Noah” and the story is much more believable than the Hebrew version. As Hebrews were not a seafaring people, their iteration includes many seamanship misunderstandings.

    • KateGladstone

      Ok, what WAS the real purpose of releasing doves?

  • Tao4mind

    Noah is a story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle and has nothing to do with scientific engineering. Has to do with the power of God.

    • karlt6

      ‘….the power of God’? And just what would that be? There isn’t a single event credited to ‘God’ where he was actually present to perform said action. Not a one…. And the only times he supposedly showed himself to humans he did so ‘disguised’ as a human and yet again still did not perform any sort of miracle. Does that mean you believe any person who claims to be ‘God’ yet is unable to do anything to back-up that claim?

      The miracle and virgin birth tales didn’t appear until well after the guy named Jesus was supposedly crucified. (Oddly enough not one person recorded even the year of this supposedly horrific event. Not even after he supposedly came back to life) Now, if the 4 canonized gospels don’t agree with each other, and they don’t agree with the non-accepted gospels such as Thomas, and the tales of miracles and virgin birth do not appear until the 7th and 9th decades C.E., just what do you put faith in to call Jesus a messiah? Do you understand that not even an ancient tale can be found which even states Jesus was actually on a cross? They just say he was ‘up’. (Gunnar Samuelsson) Did you believe David Korash was Jesus simply because he said he was?

      • Deihlefamily Deihlefamily

        I would suggest you do some research on the foundational principles of Christianity before you go around condescendingly trying to somehow disprove it. Then shut off your computer.

        • karlt6

          I don’t have to ‘disprove’ Christianity; it does a remarkable of job of being unable to prove itself.

          Christianity is nothing more than a first century cult movement bolstered by tall tales passed to uneducated, ignorant people, then ‘sanctioned’ by a self-serving group (Council of Nicaea) in 325 C.E. under the direction of Constantine.

          Bishop John Shelby Spong is an excellent source of truth, explanation and translation of biblical tales, specifically New Testament tales.

          • SayWhat?

            “Faith” need not be proven, lest it becomes “knowledge”, and by definition would no longer be “faith”.

          • http://oberoncartoons.blogspot.com/ B Krzic

            A very good article. Well written, but in fact useless. The religious fanatics won’t buy any of these arguments anyway, while the rest of us already knew the ark was impossible. I’ve seen the trailer. That’s one film I wont bother watching.
            I wonder if anybody has read this article? http://news.discovery.com/earth/plants/874-million-species-on-earth-110823.htm

  • grace fernando

    obviously you got the wrong idea.. the dinosaurs and noah existed in diff periods in the geologic time scale.. dinos lives millions of years bfore adam and noah!! creationists r so wrong..why belive them? believe in the geneticists and evolutionists!

  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Uncle Al

    If it rained fresh water, what happened to all the saltwater species? It was cruel of Noah to include all human parasites and pests but leave behind the unicorns. A heavily loaded long ship caught in the trough between two waves breaks its spine (Edmund Fitzgerald). Rotovirus anybody?

    Noah fed all the animals with fish and loaves. No problem. What about all the plants, especially trees? Clear cut the planet? Problem.

    • karlt6

      Not to mention that the whole idea of the flood was to remove evil from Earth. Yet what happens after the supposed flood? Noah passes-out drunk, then his son watches him as he sleeps naked.

      Guess old God didn’t do a good job of picking-out ‘righteous’ people to survive his flood….

      • adamweishaupt

        It seems “God” skipped Genetics 101, ha ha ha.

        • karlt6

          The ‘irony’ in that statement is that I myself have a genetic mutation that causes my body to hoard iron. From what they can determine it originated in the Celts about 40,000 years ago in response to a lack of red meat. haha

    • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Gene Partlow

      Yeeesss! Thanks for noticing a major but orphaned argument in these go-arounds on the absurdities of creationism or any other fundamentalist literalism (whether or not it’s Christian): What ABOUT all the fresh-water denizens of lakes and rivers? Did it just rain fresh water over them and salt water over everything else (sound of head spinning)? And since all shallow water bottom-dwelling sea life (lobsters, oysters, reefs, say) would have been crushed flat as pancakes (which hadn’t even been invented yet for comparison!) by the stupendous pressures at even the most shallow bottom of that Noachian planetary sea (as deep as Everest, mind you)… ahhhh, why go on?

      ….I should feel a certain guilt I suppose, shredding silly fairytales, rather like Stravinsky, commenting on Disney’s rendition of The Rite of Spring, “..I have no desire to criticize an unresisting imbecility, but..”

      Fundamentalist absurdities are what they are, and would at best deserve merely bemused tolerance, were its practitioners not so blasted belligerent these days. As I say this, I can almost hear them clicking off the safeties of their many, many assault rifles and polishing their rocket grenades. Sigh.

      • TPAINE

        Scientists have shown the Black Sea went from Salt Water instantly to fresh water and later back to Salt water, which was due a deluge of the Mediterranean area.

  • jumbybird

    This movie is going to flop…

  • karlt6

    So many things get overlooked in the Noah tale.

    As I mentioned in a reply below, how many extra of which animals were brought along to serve as food for the carnivores?

    Just how did this olive tree survive fully submerged for so long?

    Which fish/water-based mammals were able to survive the flood waters? Fresh water? Salt water? A mix?

    Where did all the water disappear to as the waters subsided?

    What was the relative humidity of the atmosphere with a planet fully covered in water? Wouldn’t it likely have been high enough to make it impossible for oxygen-breathing creatures to breath?

  • SayWhat?

    Has it occurred to anyone, (author included) that we’re talking about what amounts to a story of divine intervention, and that you cannot apply physics or history or anything human to it to try and explain it? It’s called faith. And if God wanted to put all the animals on a snowflake, he could have done that too. And perhaps he just used Noah and the story thereof as a divine metaphor. Something the people of that time could relate to.

    It boggles the mind when I see religion being discussed in a science forum. There is no proof of god. You either believe, or you don’t. End of story. And not one atom of speculation or experimentation will ever shed any light on why some believe and some don’t. Now all the non-believers may say, “how convenient”, that it requires no proof. But you’re all just missing the point. In order for it to BE faith there CANNOT BE proof. Once something is proven it exits the domain of faith, and enters into something else – called knowledge.

    The movie’s disclaimer is spot on: “The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the essence, values, and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of FAITH for millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the book of Genesis.”

    The author of this article seems frightfully confused.

    • Deihlefamily Deihlefamily

      I agree with much of what you say. Yet I am generally amazed at the fact that this author has the audacity to even write a movie review in a science magazine in the first place, not to mention a review which aims at scientifically debunking an act of God that need not apply to the laws of physics–just like Jesus walking over water, a miracle, which is what reveals Him as God–which, to cap it all off, has no footnotes/end notes/works cited with actual RESEARCH done on the ever-important details. Wow, guy, you like to talk off the cuff like Pope Francis. Just remember, people are reading your article.

      • Aiolus

        lol.

    • Phil Nagy

      I posted this above in reply to someone else, but you should also know about this, so I repost this as a reply to you:

      Really? There is no proof of God? Hasn’t been discovered? Really?

      I wrote the following long post accompanying what I wanted to really show here, but I especially wanted to point people in the direction of this scientific documentary film that shows proof of God, if you don’t feel like reading my long post, at least watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

      I’d beg to differ – since Atheists absolutely love trying to discredit the possibility God – using scientific arguments from their limited understanding of science. Also, they do so ironically ignoring the fact that the most accepted story of the creation of this Universe in the scientific community – the “official” story – the Big Bang – requires an outside CREATOR of this ball of energy that exploded and became the Universe.

      Yeah, that is one thing that’s right in front of you – the commonly known theory taught to billions of people worldwide – that directly implies an outside Creator. It’s right in front of you, but Atheists just ignore and forget the implication. They come attacking religion with some kind of Scientific authority, but the problem is if you wish to do so you have to take the whole of science, not just cherry-picking this and that and completely ignoring other equally important things (like the Big Bang and its implications). Many Atheists criticize Christians (and probably other religions (mainly Christians though)) for cherry picking the Bible – but they themselves are guilty of cherry-picking science. Science by the way, is a new-age pseudo-religion – especially to Atheists – they cherry-pick it, they blindly believe anything they hear, and they ignore things they disagree with or dislike. If that’s not a pseudo-religion, I don’t what is.

      You want more proof than that important fact? Well, sure, there’s plenty of more proof – and all of it through a scientific perspective – can be seen in this video, watch it – it was made by all sorts of scientists that admit some amazing things. But you never heard of these, and so no-one who wasn’t aware of these things can be accused of being ignorant – they don’t teach you this in school – because they don’t want you to consider the idea that there may be a God (or Creator). They may not teach it, but these things are scientific fact – not some faith-based pastor telling you about the mightiness of the Lord. No, instead it’s a an actual documentary, made by what turned out to be Muslims – they only mentioned it in the end of the movie. I believe in Jesus and His Father, not the Koran, but Abraham made Isaac and Isaiah, and both religions come from Jewish beginnings, and many of the same early stories (pre-Abraham, anyway). But the point is, so what if the film was made by Muslims, the way the makers of it put it together – is amazing – they put together so much scientific fact to show real proof of a God, if anyone watched it from beginning to end – they will be amazed, and may have to rethink their perspective on life.

      Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

    • Texas follower of Christ

      It is true that is by faith we believe but the truth of God is in all He created. It is not true that there is no proof of God. The proof is all around us in what He has made. The problem is the world chooses to ignore or doesn’t see Him in His creation. Therefore there is no way we believers can change their minds about the existence of God. They have to find if for themselves. See Romans 1:19-20: “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
      I didn’t write this against you but to show the nonbelievers what God’s word says to them about their nonbelief.

      .

  • Bilal Kun

    i am sorry to interupt and sorry if my comment is out of discussion… as I read this article and discussion, most of people refer to the bible….

    has anyone refer to Al-Quran (Holy book of Muslims)…?

  • Mich

    The story of Noah is not something u should question like he couldn’t have lived 500 years of course he could! Back in those days it was normal too live that longwhen God made Adam and Eve he made them perfect to live forever for them and there descendents but they ruined it for us and for them because they disobeyed the one law God gave them. Other things like how is it possible for the animals to fit there or how is it possible that the ark could manage those waters I mean shut up! The answer is Jehovah God (read Psalms 83:18) he created each and every single one of us he made all the little cells that make up our body he made so many beautiful things he’s the creator and he is powerful and almighty of course he can handle holding up an ark with alot of animals in it and all that. I saw the movie and was pretty dissapointed they made Noah look like the bad guy in this movie like trying to kill his family that never happened! Also not letting his son have a wife the bible said THEY ALL HAD WIFE’S AND THEY ALL WENT THERE SEPERATE WAYS TO FILL THE EARTH! Another thing Noah preached to all those people and told them please come in the ark there is a storm coming and it will kill u all and they would laugh and not belive him but the movie made Noah look bad for not wanting to let those people in and it made God look bad too! God wouldnt let any innocent die! I understand they wanted to make the movie different than the way it Bible but making Noah and God look like bad guys in the film any person who dosent read the bible will be like ok wow Noah was crazy and horrible and so was God. And that’s not right. I was really dissapointed after this movie.

    • TheCrazyFreak

      Quote: “The story of Noah is not something u should question like he couldn’t have lived 500 years of course he could! Back in those days it was normal too live that long”

      Hahahaha!! This is hilarious. Actually, “back in those days” the average life expentancy was the mid 30s. If you lived to be 90, you were extremely lucky as it was very rare.

      Quote: “God wouldnt let any innocent die!”

      Is that why so many children die each day around the world? Because they’re not innocent? Um, I don’t think so.

      Your whole comment is so hilarious that I don’t even feel like replying to the rest of it. Lmao!

    • Sinuhe Sinny

      Damn! The stupid thing one has to read on the internet. LOL.

  • Brad Handley

    Wow, what brass balls you have….”when there is literally nothing besides the Bible itself to confirm the story of the Ark and the Flood,”
    How about the “Flood Myths” that permeate ancient societies? IF Noah happened it would be a story shared by the world and WOW!!! we can find the Flood story in the Incan/Mayan cultures and in ancient cultures all around the world.

  • Tom

    I wish “Prometheus” had a similar disclaimer… Blasphemy!

  • P Healey

    What if the flood covered just Noah’s world, in the area where he lived? What if he boarded some of the animals in this area. That would explain a story otherwise seeming impossible to be true based on logic and science. The biblical account may be about Noah’s known world being covered by water, not the whole world along with all the animals in it. The most logical explanation is errors in our interpretation of the written account.

    • disqus_atlq8Zmtsd

      Except there is still no evidence of even a regional flood, and Genesis was not written by Noah but rather someone many years later. So if we are to be told that the book is divinely inspired and accurate, should we not that that divine inspiration would extend to actually communicating its intent?

      No. The most logical explanation is errors in oral history OR the retelling of a myth over many generations. Without asserting the the complete infallibility of the Bible, there is no way to assert the reliability of the basic integrity of the story to a nonbeliever without a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

      • P Healey

        I don’t disagree with the errors in oral history but that doesn’t discount possibility of errors in our interpretation of the writings too, not to mention the losses in translations. My point is that most people think the whole world was flooded when there’s is a possibility it was just the area where Noah lived. They think he took two of each species when he may have taken any number of animals. If it was a regional flood then it makes more sense. To him it would have been his whole world had he not known of life and land beyond.
        I have no problem with the story because I know even supposedly true stories are often misrepresentations of what may have actually happened. Many stories of the bible are like that. Though considered infallible, they were written by man. They may have been inspired by God but they were still written by man. Their message reads loud and clear however, and that is the part that is infallible. Can anybody really look at the 10 commandments and say that they aren’t a good guide to live by. Those are infallible words of God in my mind.
        The gospels are the infallible word of God. Maybe not word for word, but the message they contain absolutely is. After recently being blessed by the holy spirit the words just came alive for me. Its not that I can explain it to anyone, its the spirit within. Its like seeing things in the words that I never saw before. Its a total understanding now. No cognitive dissonance with me. Seek with all your heart and you will find.

      • ScottinOttawa

        There was a huge ice dam that gave way over top of what is North America 8,000 years ago and the rise of the oceans would have caused all the seas of the middle east to rise and flows to reverse direction. The sudden inflows of water would have temporarily shut down the ocean conveyor and changed weather patterns.

        http://www.livescience.com/873-bursting-ice-dam-flooded-ancient-ocean.html

  • P Healey

    For those of you doubting miracles. Look up “Fatima” which was witnessed by thousands of people. Look up the miracle of Lanciano.

  • Aiolus

    Quit thinking fairy tales are literal. Grow up…

  • David Schlaepfer
  • ScottinOttawa

    Here is where the mythology likely began…

    There was a huge ice dam that gave way over top of what is North America
    8,000 years ago and the rise of the oceans would have caused all the
    seas of the middle east to rise and flows to reverse direction. The
    sudden inflows of water temporarily shut down the ocean
    conveyor and changed weather patterns.

    See: http://www.livescience.com/873-bursting-ice-dam-flooded-ancient-ocean.html

  • Meister Omega

    If there is empirical evidence of “God”, it has not been discovered. Is there something bigger than us? Sure there is. Look up in the sky every night and note the powerhouse factories of creation twinkling via the planet’s atmosphere creating all the elements that compose us and our environment. Energy, matter, and fusion created all that you see with your naked eye. What brought it into being is the undiscovered answer, but for one to posit that one single being brought it into existence, watches over you at all times, resides on another plane called “Heaven”, and has an opposing former minion in the bowels of the planet (should that be where hell is) is downright ludicrous. Believing in “God” as an explanation stymies discovery, and human progress.

    After thoroughly studying anthropology, theology, and the psychology of primitive cultures one chooses to believe in an omnipotent being which has left no real evidence of it’s existence, that is a personal choice.

    However, it is one I in good conscience for the sake of sanity cannot make.

    God is a human construct, and the Bible though based on a true story in many cases is not evidence.

    When God shows up in person, maybe I’ll change my mind. Until then, there is ZERO proof of the existence of such a being other than the anecdotal musings of a group of primitive people who had not the knowledge or ability to accept or understand the reality and function of the Universe which surrounds them. Additionally, religion has been a useful weapon to control, intimidate, and execute people who did not agree with it’s status quo.

    As I stated, and will always state it is a human, abstract construct with no proof to back it up.

    • Phil Nagy

      Really? There is evidence of God’s existence? Hasn’t been discovered? Really?
      I’d beg to differ – since Atheists absolutely love trying to discredit the possibility God – using scientific arguments from their limited understanding of science. Also, they do so ironically ignoring the fact that the most accepted story of the creation of this Universe in the scientific community – the “official” story – the Big Bang – requires an outside CREATOR of this ball of energy that exploded and became the Universe.
      Yeah, that is one thing that’s right in front of you – the commonly known theory taught to billions of people worldwide – that directly implies an outside Creator. It’s right in front of you, but Atheists just ignore and forget the implication. They come attacking religion with some kind of Scientific authority, but the problem is if you wish to do so you have to take the whole of science, not just cherry-picking this and that and completely ignoring other equally important things (like the Big Bang and its implications). Many Atheists criticize Christians (and probably other religions (mainly Christians though)) for cherry picking the Bible – but they themselves are guilty of cherry-picking science. Science by the way, is a new-age pseudo-religion – especially to Atheists – they cherry-pick it, they blindly believe anything they hear, and they ignore things they disagree with or dislike. If that’s not a pseudo-religion, I don’t what is.
      You want more proof than that important fact? Well, sure, there’s plenty of more proof – and all of it through a scientific perspective – can be seen in this video, watch it

      • August Berkshire

        Sorry, I don’t have time to watch a two-hour video that wastes time at the beginning with a persecution complex. While the Bing Bang was the start of THIS universe, we don’t know that it was the start of material existence. If material existence had a start, we don’t know what it was. And why does your god get to be exempt from causation? Your god is a special pleading god-of-the-gaps. We don’t know what your god is nor how your god did it. Your god is never an answer to anything because it supplies us with NO INFORMATION. Your god is just a more complicated question. Your god “answer” is a non-answer, more empty than empty space.

      • jesuswasaliberal2

        Total piffle, Phil. Unless you claim to be in personal contact with your so-called “god”, then all the “information” you think you “know” came from another human being who got it from another human being, etc. if there was actual proof that god exists, there would be no debate, now would there. If a god wanted us to believe in him/her, it could easily reveal itself in no uncertain terms. People like you have to make up excuses, and create answers to that and many deeper questions. Go ahead and have your faith in your anthropomorphic “god”, but PLEASE don’t confuse faith with fact!

        • Phil Nagy

          My reply to my post was to both you and August Birskshire. But you sir, must be having serious critical thinking problems. Did I say I was personally in contact with God? Did I even say that there was without a scientific doubt a God who “wanted us to believe in Him/Her, it (could easily reveal itself in no uncertain terms…)” Funny, not only did you refuse to watch an actual scientific documentary made by real scientists, but you didn’t even bother to actually think before you wrote a response to me.
          I never once said there’s proof that the God I believe is the real God. All I said is that actual science has now found real signs of a Creator (of the Universe), and that video shows these discoveries. I did say I believe in YAHWEH and Jesus. But just because I believe in that, doesn’t mean that that’s what science says, I came to you with a scientific point of view, not religious, I only revealed my religion to clarify my own beliefs. Not once did I say that others should believe in what I believe, believe what you want. I got plenty of friends that are atheists, believers of a God (but not sure which), Muslim, as well as Christians. I believe in freedom, and I believe everyone’s entitled to believe in whatever they want to. All I was saying is if you want to attack believers like

          • jesuswasaliberal2

            Phil, I have a degree in theology, so I doubt very much that I could be said to have “critical thinking problems” about the subject. In addition, if you read more carefully, you would have understood that I did NOT say you had “personal contact with god”. (Check out the word “unless”.) You say you believe in YAHWEH, yet you acknowledge that you don’t have proof that the god you believe in is the “real” god. Very confusing, Phil. Do you mean that there are OTHER gods who may be more or less real? Yahweh is the Jewish god of the Bible, Phil. The one Christians usually refer to when they speak of god in the traditional sense – the all powerful, all knowing, eternal god. Do you or don’t you believe in THAT god? No matter what god you believe in, it is, as I correctly stated, a matter of faith. Faith, by definition, is belief without factual substantiation. But here is what I I believe about science “by real scientists” as opposed to science by true believers: echoes of the so-called “big bang” have been identified at last – giving support to Einstein’s theories. I seriously doubt that there is anything in your video that can trump that information. Be sure to let me know if your video contains something more astounding than the most recent discoveries about the big bang. I have re-read my post several times, and I have YET to find where I “viciously verbally attacked” you. Sadly, like so many evangelicals – and I’m NOT saying you ARE one – you play the victim card with the first hint that someone disagrees with your religious statements. These so-called “Christians” are ALWAYS being persecuted – in THEIR minds. So pathetic – especially in THIS country! So, Phil, try to become comfortable with uncertainty. The old chestnut that if something exists, then there must have been a “creator” of that something falls apart when you ask the same question about that creator. Despite good intentions, we don’t know everything, and we never will. Our entire universe may have been an outcropping of another universe that existed before ours – and so on and so on. Who knows? I don’t respect people who claim to know what they cannot possibly know. And stop saying you are “attacked” when you are merely being disputed. It’s unbecoming.

          • Phil Nagy

            I have only read a small amount of your long reply, and it’s Friday, so I’m going to a bar after work. But, to address a couple points you made at the beginning I just wanted to say a couple things. Firstly, you said “(you) have a degree in theology, so (you) doubt very much that (you) could be said to have “critical thinking problems” about the subject” What subject? I wasn’t coming from a religious perspective, I only revealed that I’m a Christian to just say that’s what I believe in, but my overall message wasn’t about my religion, or any specific religion. My words were completely about science not religion. Don’t mince my words. Maybe you have some degree in theology, but are you an actual scientist? Do you read science magazines? I’m not a scientist, but I not only believe in God, I also respect a lot of science, it’s obvious it has helped our civilization in many ways. I don’t read scientific journals either. But, in the video I pointed to, it’s funny because these serious scientists revealed some things that amazed me and surely could amaze anyone.

            Also, you went onto talk about how “(I) say (I) believe in YAHWEH, yet (I) acknowledge that (I) don’t have proof that the god (I) believe in is the “real” god. Very confusing”. As I said you must have a serious lack of critical thinking. I actually feel guilty judging you, Jesus told me not to judge others. But the fact of the matter is I was using what is known as abstract thought. I was just saying I believe in YAHWEH and Jesus, but what I was trying to really talk about was scientific evidence of a Creator that is for real – that most people aren’t even aware of. Well, you see, the way I see it is, among other things, the Bible is enough proof to me that the God I believe in is the real God. But the point I was making was the video and the scientific evidence in it doesn’t exactly point to my God being the true God. That evidence is true, real science. To me with the mix of that scientific evidence showing there must be a Creator and the Bible, it makes me feel my religious choice is the right choice. I don’t doubt that YAHWEH is the real God. I just was talking in an abstract way of thought, a theoretical supposition, mixed with the actual scientific facts I was pointing to.
            I love how typically, the stereotype of a religious person is a dumb person. Well, their are plenty of highly intelligent Christians out there.

          • jesuswasaliberal2

            “The right choice” (is there a wrong choice?) “The “real” god”. These are childish notions that comfort people who believe in superstitions handed down by word of mouth (totally undependably) from a time when people knew almost nothing about – let’s be honest – almost anything. I absolutely agree that there are highly intelligent Christians, Phil. But if the Bible – a highly disjointed ancient tome of superstion and magical thinking – is “proof” enough for you – It’s just that you’re not one of them.

          • Phil Nagy

            You are clearly a hypocritical idiot. I find it absolutely laughable as well as absurd that so many people who are so strongly anti-Christian know so much about my religion. Why on Earth did you study theology? Why on Earth do you have a degree in theology? It’s absolutely absurd. If you are so anti-Christian then why on Earth did you feel the need to study the Christian religion? There are some things in this world that I don’t agree with, like child prostitution in Thailand or Europe and other places. But I don’t study everything I need to know about it. Or, I don’t like people who are actual Satanists, but I don’t study everything I need to know about that. I’m pretty sure most Christians did not do any form of study on the Satanist religion, although clearly we’re inclined to oppose such a religion. Why did you choose my religion? Why didn’t you study about the Hindu religion? Why’re you so strongly opposed to Christians in particular?

            Quite frankly, I don’t know what to make about this. I don’t even know if I’m to suppose you’re an atheist or something else (like, I don’t know, an agnostic). Now you say ””The right choice” (is there a wrong choice?) “The “real” god”. These are childish notions that comfort people who believe in superstitions handed down by word of mouth (totally undependably) from a time when people knew almost nothing about – let’s be honest – almost anything’ – what are you even disagreeing with me on here? Is it my belief in YAHWEH (and so you say the real God is someone or something else)? Or is it that I believe in a God at all? I came here to point anyone interested in real science to see a video that shows signs of a Creator. It wasn’t my desire to convert atheists or agnostics into Christians. I only came here to show people that there is lots of absolute scientific proof of a Creator of the Universe. If you choose to believe in YAHWEH – good for you. If you choose another religion, good for you, too, I don’t care. Choose to be or stay an agnostic, I don’t care. I believe in freedom, so believe in what you want to believe.

            Lastly, when you said “I absolutely agree that there are highly intelligent Christians, Phil. But if the Bible – a highly disjointed ancient tome of superstion and magical thinking – is “proof” enough for you – It’s just that you’re not one of them”, I found it to be truly amazing. Other than your petty spelling error “superstion”, you are aware that that word is spelled superstition, aren’t you, you should go back to school and learn how to spell, it’s pathetic. Also, in that quote, you spoke a complete oxymoron, which shows how moronic you are. A person claiming to be Christian, and being smart at the same time absolutely cannot be in agreement with “if the Bible – a highly disjointed ancient tome of superstion and magical thinking – is “proof” enough for you” – sorry, whether you’re highly smart, or quite a dumb man (or woman) – if you chose Christianity as your religion – belief that the Bible is good enough proof – is in itself the definition of belief in Christianity.

          • jesuswasaliberal2

            Phil, Phil, Phil. I could hardly sleep last night, being “viciously attacked” (your words) by your calling me a “hypocritical idiot”. I’m not sure I’ll EVER recover! And then, attacking me over AGAIN for a spelling typo – well, I just fell to the GROUND! Phil, you just LOVE to hear yourself talk – on and on and on. It’s amazing that you say so little. You obviously have a very innocent, almost childlike vision of religion: angels and devils, one god against another god, the acceptance of primitive fairy tales in a book you believe (I assume) that somehow god wrote by, I don’t know, talking to some various people thousands of years ago. You employ the typical circular reasoning: I believe (this or that) god exists because it says so in this book I like – that is loaded with errors and misinformation. And I believe the book, because it was written by the god whose existence I’m trying to prove!. So typical of your type of Christian. In addition, you seem to lump all Christians into a completely homogenous group of believers who all believe the same thing! This is absolutely not true. Another thing that is not true is that theologians are some kind of parish priest or minister with the same kind of education that priests and ministers get. I’m afraid you would be shocked and dismayed that theologians are not in the business of making happy god talk from a pulpit of a church to the true believers every Sunday. There is even doubt who wrote which words and when in the bible, and the politics of what to include and what to leave out, etc. etc. Probably a little more complex than someone who gets hung up on spelling would enjoy. My point is that many Christians to not believe or require the Bible to believe in Christ. Many Christians realize the Bible is a fantasy story (like Noah, for example) but believe in Christ all the same. Some Christians are not even positive that Christ even existed as described, but believe and respect the values that are attributed to Christ. So many different kinds of belief – some much more sophisticated than others. My belief is that the Bible does not PROVE anything, although it suggests many things. I think it’s time for Phil to follow the words of Saul of Tarsus. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” I won’t be reading or responding to your overlong posts any more, Phil, so don’t bother. Enjoy your own beliefs and stop thinking it matters than a person’s religious beliefs are “right” or “wrong”. It’s all conjecture, and it JUST DOESN’T MATTER!

          • Phil Nagy

            I really don’t care of your generalisations. Either way, you obviously have some kind of dislike for believers of Christ. Which highlights the fact that it’s absolutely absurd you chose to study theology. You didn’t even address that, and just brushed it off like I had no point. You think like a child, not me. What? You think just because you choose to ignore an important point – the doesn’t exist – or wasn’t said? No, it was said, and it remains. You’re ridiculous and pathetic. I generalised too, but to address your points, fine, you are right that there’s some Christians who don’t believe the content of the Bible, but respect its moral teachings. Even the extremely rare Christians who even question the existence of Christ, I would assume they still respect the moral teachings in the Bible. So, my other point still stands, this doesn’t change the fact that ALL Christians view the Bible as an important book. There’s a difference between liking a book and agreeing with every single word in it. As I said you clearly lack critical thinking, you couldn’t even understand earlier when I was talking in a hypothetical, and you took my words literally (it was obvious I was being hypothetical, but you lacked the skill to discern that). You give a ridiculous oxymoron on your last comment, and then double down on you oxymoron on the most recent one – by making such a ridiculous claim. I repeat, you don’t have to agree with every single word in a book to like it. For example, if you’re an investor (of stocks and other investments) and you read a book by some highly respected investor, and you like everything in it, except for Chapter 10, 11, and 17 – because they made some points that you just cannot agree with. Or say you bought a cook book, and you like most the recipes found in it, but just can’t agree with some of them – they don’t match your style and taste. I can give you a thousand examples, but there’s no point. Just because you don’t agree with every word in a book doesn’t mean you don’t like that book. Suggesting I think like a child is petty. I’m not the one that’s aloof and lacking critical thinking, as I just pointed out in detail, if you don’t respond to this, I can only assume it’s because you have nothing to say to defend yourself.

          • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Victor Freitas

            The first reason someone studies something is because they don’t understand it…
            It’s a different thought from religious people… And there’s a really big flaw in it… Why are the flowers so pretty? God made them that way. Why do child rapists rape children? Because God made them. Oh wait or was it Satan? Oh yeah, I forgot in Christianity there is no hell. Damm… What a punk God, He makes the most amazing things but makes the worst too… Ah ah… That’s just a linear thought to that problematic… And if you really look well at them you’ll find dozens alike…
            At least Scientists struggle to understand what they do not, on the other hand religious people think they already know everything…
            Oh, and has for you oxymoron, I can see you’re not stupid, you can write a full text with meaning (well that’s a bit debatable), use strong and complicated words, in a few occasions you show you can make a few good deductions. The fact that you believe in god doesn’t contradict what I said about you before. So you can be intelligent guy and believe in very stupid things. One doesn’t contradict the other!

          • Phil Nagy

            Again, another grammatically error-filled reply to another post of mine. Do I have to correct your mistakes? Well, your whole reply was scattered with them, for example:

            “That’s just a linear thought to that problematic… And if you really look well at them you’ll find dozens alike…
            At least Scientists struggle to understand what they do not, on the other hand religious people think they already know everything…
            Oh, and has for you oxymoron, I can see you’re not stupid”

            Should have been written:

            “That’s just a linear thought that is problematic. If you really look well into it you’ll find dozens that are similar.

            At least Scientists struggle to understand what they do not, on the other hand, religious people think they already know everything.

            Oh, and as for your oxymoron, I can see you’re not stupid”

            Well, at the least you have the honor, respect, and ability to recognize truth (that me being religious doesn’t discount my intelligence) to not call me an idiot like jesuswasaliberal2 lacked. But, truthfully, you made better points in your first reply to my earlier post (which you copy and pasted below). In this one, other than having the decency to recognize my intelligence, the only obvious point you made was that apparently in Christianity there is no hell. Where did you hear that? Who told you that? Now, on the reply to your other comment I said I will get quotes from the video, and then proof to back it up. But, as I said, I am short on time, and that would take me quite some time. But, to get quotes from the Christian Bible and hell/the lake of fire, that’s easy cake.

            Here are just four, out of about 20 I found at http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/hell-bible-verses/ :

            Revelation 21:8

            But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

            Read Revelation 21 | View in parallel | Compare Translations

            Matthew 25:46

            “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

            Read Matthew 25 | View in parallel | Compare Translations

            Psalm 9:17

            The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God.

            Read Psalms 9 | View in parallel | Compare Translations

            2 Thessalonians 1:9

            They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

            Read 2 Thessalonians 1 | View in parallel | Compare Translations

          • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Victor Freitas

            Jesus did not tell you anything since the bible or any of the writings that where chosen and inserted there where written way after or way before Jesus walked the Earth. So anything that is written there about Jesus was a story that was told trough the ages until some guy put it on paper way after his death (centuries after). And has anyone with simple experimentation can find out, if you pass on a story from person to person, after a few retellings, the beginning story will be totally different from the one at the end. So even if the story about Noah have happened I’m with 99,9% confident that it happened in a totally different way.
            And as for you’re Science based documentary, let me just say this: Any scientific discovery or invention must be backed up by other scientists and by other experiments. So many “scientists” (mind the quotes) come to the media saying they made this and that discovery just to be debunked after, by others who try to recreate that invention and fail to do it, one after the other, because it was either a hoax or they were just looking for the media attention. You know to make money for years writting books and going to talk shows, radio shows, or rally to support on this and that matter that is just plain dumb… You know like anti-vacination supporters… Its all about money and the need to make others believe in what you believe!
            If you get to a conclusion in a study, you have to back it up with proof and that proof has to be verified by others. Or else is just you’re word… And why should I believe you if you have nothing to back your claims?
            See now how difficult it is to make real science?
            I didn’t saw you’re “Documentary” for one reason only: I’m already tired of watching documentaries on the subject of proving the existence of GOD… And the reason why I saw so many of them? Because deep inside I wish that you could show me he exists, not by your words, not by unproven facts (pls read “not facts”) I mean really show me. I understand the comfort it is for anyone to believe, since anything you can’t understand is a miracle or God intervening. But the reality is you cannot prove it.
            Now, after this idea if you don’t understand something, before saying is God just analyze it… You might find is something a lot more interesting!

          • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Victor Freitas

            Jesus did not tell you anything since the bible or any of the writings that where chosen and inserted there where written way after or way before Jesus walked the Earth. So anything that is written there about Jesus was a story that was told trough the ages until some guy put it on paper way after his death (centuries after). And has anyone with simple experimentation can find out, if you pass on a story from person to person, after a few retellings, the beginning story will be totally different from the one at the end. So even if the story about Noah have happened I’m with 99,9% confident that it happened in a totally different way.

            And as for you’re Science based documentary, let me just say this: Any scientific discovery or invention must be backed up by other scientists and by other experiments. So many “scientists” (mind the quotes) come to the media saying they made this and that discovery just to be debunked after, by others who try to recreate that invention and fail to do it, one after the other, because it was either a hoax or they were just looking for the media attention. You know to make money for years writting books and going to talk shows, radio shows, or rally to support on this and that matter that is just plain dumb… You know like anti-vacination supporters… Its all about money and the need to make others believe in what you believe!

            If you get to a conclusion in a study, you have to back it up with proof and that proof has to be verified by others. Or else is just you’re word… And why should I believe you if you have nothing to back your claims?

            See now how difficult it is to make real science?

            I didn’t saw you’re “Documentary” for one reason only: I’m already tired of watching documentaries on the subject of proving the existence of GOD… And the reason why I saw so many of them? Because deep inside I wish that you could show me he exists, not by your words, not by unproven facts (pls read “not facts”) I mean really show me. I understand the comfort it is for anyone to believe, since anything you can’t understand is a miracle or God intervening. But the reality is you cannot prove it.

            Now, after this idea if you don’t understand something, before saying is God just analyze it… You might find is something a lot more interesting!

        • TPAINE

          Please enlighten us as to how the God of the Bible is “anthropomorphic”? Unlike the Greek, Sumerian and Babylonian gods, Yahweh is not anthropomorphic, nor does he rely on other gods. He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient and there is no God beside Him.

          • jesuswasaliberal2

            First, you ask a question: how is god anthropomorphic? Then, you supply your own answer: “Yahweh is NOT anthropomorphic”. Why should anyone bother to respond to a person who has no intention of engaging in an open discussion? The qualities you attribute to god are your OPINIONS. And WHERE did you get those opinions? From other human beings’ opinions, of course. You might benefit from looking up the definition of anthropomorphic, and consider all the ways people attribute human qualities to their god: God is HAPPY, god HATES sin, god gets ANGRY god is LOVING, god WANTS us to love him/her/it. Sounds like a needy human to me! When you folks make up a god, you have no more imagination than to load him/her/it chock full of human qualities! – hence, anthropomorphic!

          • Phil Nagy

            In the Bible God said He created us in His image. If this is true, than surely we will also have many of His characteristic attributes as well, wouldn’t you think?

            For example, now, I hope you do know what a clone is, it is not an exact copy per se, but very close nonetheless – the closest thing to an exact copy. Now, if we cloned some purely-schizophrenic people like – Charles Manson, Jeffrey Domler, or, say, Hitler, I’m sure we’ll get yet another deranged individual as the original. Or, if we cloned Ghandi, or, say, Martin Luther King, we’d get one hell of a great man yet again.

            Also, a few things are quite humorous about your reply. Firstly, you don’t address any of the points I made to your last comment(s) – which made all of your previous points look quite dumb-founded.

            Then, secondly there’s the fact that you said you won’t read or bother to respond to any reply I would make to it, but here it is, you chose to come back and reply, quite funny.

            I haven’t come back here in the last 7 days because I’ve been busy, and I actually assumed you won’t reply. But then, on this morning, I decided to check and see if you and/or anyone else has replied. To my surprise, I found you lied when you said you won’t read my comment, and didn’t even address any of the things I said in it, instead choosing to make yet another ridiculous point, which I yet again showed the complete lack of logic therein. Have fun trying to come back with yet another logic-lacking comment, though.

          • jesuswasaliberal2

            My old buddy – Phil! How ya doin? I can’t believe that after all this time you are STILL craving attention from me. You must live a very sad life, indeed. I’m breaking my silence to you this once, because it’s Easter season and my family has come to visit. I let them read your thread, and we all just laughed and laughed. My grandson pointed out that you didn’t know how to use the term “dumb founded” (and he was right!) Phil, I would never LIE to you. You just aren’t important enough to lie to. To prove my point, and to show what a relentless twit you are, you may notice that I replied to someone called “TPAINE” and not you. I don’t respond to your points because they are simply not worth responding to – (he said as he responded to Phil’s point.) As far as lacking logic, you must have me confused with someone who believes in God and attends some kind of religion – those are the people who lack any sense of logic. Finally, the Bible is a book of fairy tales that some people – without any evidence whatsoever – think is the word of their imaginary god. I would never quote it as a reliable source of proof for anything. So, for the second and last time, farewell Phil.

          • Phil Nagy

            Once again you show your complete disdain for anything that resembles a sensible set of ideas. Need I remind you, it is you who keeps on bringing it back to my religion. If you haven’t noticed (I guess you lack the intelligence quota), my arguments against you have consistently been about a bigger picture, not about my religion. But you keep bringing it back to that. You claim you won’t respond to me, but you keep coming back and responding to me. I bring you valid points that highlight your incredible lack of logic, but you insist on not addressing them. You claimed two replies ago you won’t even read any response from me or respond to it, but two comments later, you’re still reading and responding. I have a sad life? No, I have quite a happy one on the contrary. I work for a living, and I have plenty of friends. I’m all about freedom and liberty, unlike you. I respect all my friends’ beliefs, whether they agree or disagree with me. If you had it your way, it would be the law that no one is allowed to believe in a God – everyone must be an atheist – or go to jail. You did not say that directly, but your comments seem to imply that mind frame. You’re the sad one, not me.

            Peoples arguments against the religious does not necessarily apply to me. If you’re gay, fine so be it, don’t flaunt it though. If you’re a robber, good for you, just don’t rob me. If you’ve killed others, don’t get me involved. If you are a rampant adulterer and have no plans on finding a wife, then don’t flaunt it to me either. I’m currently kind of young, and yes I’ve had my share of women (we all are sinners), but I plan on finding a wife and making a family. I’m as strong of a believer in freedom as I’m a believer in God. You on the other hand would probably prefer taking all our freedoms away in the name of your self-righteous logic. I only argued with you on more of a theoretical level, but you insisted on being more specific and personal on my own personal beliefs. You, sir, are the sad one.

          • Phil Nagy

            Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, you showed your family who came to your house on the weekend of the Jesus’ death – to celebrate what? Some kind of variation of, say, Spring Festivus? Do you have a nice pole in your living room right now? You show your family my last comment, but did you show them the many before it where I exposed your complete lack of logical thought? If they saw that, and didn’t see the idiocy in your thinking, well, like father, like mother, like daughter, like son. You guys are obviously not the brightest bunch. So, if anything I should do a 180 on you, why should I read your comments? Why should I respond to you? I bring you valid points to show your lack of intelligence, and you don’t even take them in, and ignore them instead, why? Because you have nothing to say to defend yourself, every single point you said to me, most of which lacked logic, and I got to get to work, so I can’t summarize it right now, but you can just as easily read my earlier comments and see what I mean (if you have forgotten them, which I wouldn’t be surprised). One quick example was how you said I said God is not anthropomorphic which I never once said directly or using other words, not once, but you claimed I did. Most of your points against me were of similar flavor. But even the few valid points you made, I came and defended myself and showed that I have a good point on that level as well. But you insist to ignore my valid points, as if I never said them. You clearly are highly ignorant and pretty stupid.
            You have a degree in theology? Does that make you smart? I, obviously, am highly well versed in the English language, as well as speak Hungarian, am learning Spanish. Oh yeah, as well as I know quite a bit of algebra, and am well versed in many computer languages, like C#, jQuery, javascript, XML, T-SQL, and html, among others. How many languages do you know? How many computer languages do you know? Also, I’m very good with my hands and mechanics, something I learned more recently, but life to me is a constant learning experience, and I’m learning something new every day, because I have a high desire to keep learning more. So your arguments of me lacking intelligence fall flat on their face. Have a nice day, and happy Spring Festivus. I may or may not respond or read your next message(s) – I will not make a promise as you have (only to break it) – instead I give you the possibility that I might not read or respond to you. If I do, I probably won’t read or respond for several days as the last time, because my life is busy, and I don’t have the time to argue with an idiot on the internet every day.

          • Phil Nagy

            I never said there was another God, all I said was that I came here to show others who simply believe there is no God at all that there is scientific evidence of a God. I didn’t say I believed there might be another God, but I did say that there is no scientific proof that God is Yahweh, there is only scientific proof of a God. I made this perfectly clear on my previous posts, please reread those. Also, please read the content of some ones words before you respond to them, you are merely making the same argument jesuswasaliberal2 made earlier, which I already had addressed.

          • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Victor Freitas

            Hey Phil, sorry if my English is not good enough for you, it ain’t my mother tongue. Most incredible, is the fact that you understood what I was saying but felt the need to correct me… For that I even thank you… Now, can you speak read and write French, Spanish and Portuguese at my level? Ok… now, moving on… You asked me to watch your documentary, and I will, as soon as you find me any peer review research published on a scientific journal proving what you say are scientific facts… I’m not looking for interpretations, for that we already have you here… I mean I want to see a research that any scientist with knowledge on the subject could also conduct and have the same results, and in the end I’ll watch your documentary.
            Now just to end this silly talk, two things:
            1. You say: “But, unlike you, no matter what you say can make me believe otherwise.” Yes, I’m nothing like you, if you prove me wrong, i’ll start to believe it, but to prove me you have to actually prove something. I believe some things to be true, but i’m not to say that I can’t be wrong, that those are in fact universal trues. There is only one truth mankind has for sure (at the moment) The truth that death is inevitable. (for now)
            2. You say “On the other hand, whether you like it or not, as I point out in the next paragraph, I can prove you wrong on your science points” Sorry, but you said you’ll prove it to me and yet you proved nothing! And more, science points? I don’t think my statements can be referred as science points. Those were just common sense, or verifiable simple experiments!

          • Phil Nagy

            I can’t actually find the comment you were referring to, but I do remember writing it. Also, I apologize, I didn’t know English wasn’t your main language. I just assumed you were another idiot living in my continent (North America) educated by our ridiculously sad quality education system that according to the numbers can’t write at grade 4 levels at grade 9 (which leads to idiot adults, like the 40% of Americans who believe the Sun rotates around the Earth). But to your point number 2, I said I’ll prove it to you in the next paragraph – now as I said, I can’t read my actual comment you were referring to, but to my memory, I said that, and then in the next paragraph I pointed out that I didn’t have the time to get you quotes from the video, and then actual facts backing those quotes up from other sources. That was the “proof” I was referring to – not a proof that I can give you immediately, but a proof an assurance that I will provide it to you at a later time. If you don’t get that concept, than it must be lost in translation (or something…)

      • Phil Nagy

        Both of you are showing your lack of intelligence, you are responding to still under the impression that there is no proof of a God. By the way, let’s say my beliefs are wrong, let’s say whoever God is is not the God I believe in and pray to. The video I shared to did not have an actual faith-message promoting any religion at all until the last 10 minutes where they say Islam is the true religion, and I disagree with that. But, just because I and you Atheists disagree with that doesn’t change the fact that no religion is promoted in the most of the entire video, and the video is completely based on science. Sure the beginning is a little long and makes more of an emphasis on spirituality and religion (but not any religion in particular), the first 10 minutes aren’t as important, what really is the main part of the movie

    • TPAINE

      When He shows up in person, it will be to judge this world for its unbelief and rejecting the sacrifice of his Son Jesus, and it will be too late then to “change your mind”.

      • Derrick Schnur

        Ooohhhh, we’re trembling with fear! Even if you were correct, and God showed up and began judging, I would not change my mind. I would spit my last breath at God. Behold the crucifix, what does it symbolize? Pallid incompetance hanging on a tree! What a joke. I’ll tell God that he is an as*h*le! You see, God is a jungian construct. He was created by small minded men to serve their needs according to their needs. It was said that we were created in his image, but people couldn’t extend the similarity beyond that. Where do you people live? Under a rock?
        Did someone mention a Satanist in a prior rant? It was Phil. Well Phil, you need to learn proper grammer as well. Satanist, like Christian, begins with a capital letter.
        I just wish this discussion was face to face in a public location–how fun it would be!

        • Phil Nagy

          I wrote satanist without a capital out of disrespect, I don’t recognize that as an authentic religion, does that make sense to you? Did you notice I wrote Muslim with a capital M? Or Hindu with a capital H? I don’t agree with those religions, but at the least respect those that believe in them.

  • Elias

    I wish they had put a disclaimer on the Clash of the Titans remake…

  • TheBrett

    Honestly, taking the Flood Story seriously would be like taking the Greek myth of the Atlas Mountains forming from Atlas being turned to stone seriously. It’s just another kind of creation myth, this one about a division between the strange, mythical past and the more mundane present.

    • ScottinOttawa

      The event itself is not that ridiculous. An ice dam broke over what is
      now North America 8,000 years ago releasing an amount of fresh water
      equal to 7x the great lakes and causing massive flooding around the
      world. As a result of the rising ocean many of the seas of the middle
      east flooded and the weather changed drastically. I believe this event
      was the basis for the arc mythology.

  • Daniela Buia

    Not to mention that a flood story with differently named heroes is in “Gilgamesh”which was wriiten a thousand and some years before the Noah story…..

    • P Healey

      Gilgamesh may have been documented well before the story of Noah was written, but Hebrew stories and traditions were passed from generation to generation with much more tenacity than those of Babylonia. Them being writings of the same event is a possibility, but just because one was written before the other doesn’t make it more accurate.

  • John Barba

    Hmmm what about the literary format and the meaning of the story? I don’t know who’s worse, the literalists who deny science or the scientists who deny philosophy. Ever hear faith and reason?

    • Derrick Schnur

      I’m an Audio Engineer (close enough to scientist) and I don’t deny philosophy. Ever heard of Friedrich Nietzsche? Anton Szandor LaVey? That is my philosophy!

  • P Healey

    It makes no difference to me if it was a made-up story or an actual fact of a true event. The moral of the story is what’s important.
    The bible gives its message often in this manner of expression. Even the quotes of Jesus himself are often based on stories, such as the story of Lazarus, and the story of the lost son. They are parables and its the message of the story that is divinely inspired. The great flood is similar to what the current sinful world is facing. The story has direct meaning to today’s people, even though it was written years ago. That is that the wrath of God is coming… prepare yourself by giving up your heart to Jesus before its too late..

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Joel Getschel

    People in the day of Noah (and the writers of the bible) didn’t know the earth was round. What we think as regional was the whole world to them. They only needed some animals from that small part of the world, and the whole glob didn’t need to be flooded. Just the world as they knew it.

    People who don’t believe the Bible need to realize things had to be explained to people who knew nothing of the world that we know, or what we know about science. It is like explaining things to kids. You cut corners and leave things simple in a way they will understand. The assumption is people who have gained knowledge will understand that later on.

  • Rain Water Systems

    I recall a story in a science magazine described how something like the Biblical flood could have happened. With much careful study and long words the writer deduced that if the core temp rose enough inside the Earth it would in theory cause the aquifers to expel the groundwater to the surface.
    Then, you look at Genesis and it says some thing like ” and beyold, the sky opened up and it rained 40 days and 40 nights and THE GREAT….ah, here’s the quote genesis 11, states, that “the great fountains of the deep broke up, and the windows of heaven were opened”.

    So, to me, the eternal skeptic, the college boys, probably atheists like this author of this lousy article, we’re beat to the punch by the same book they mock.
    I believe in God, and no amount of propaganda from a ” science ” rag will convince me of anything else.

    • Geoff Offermann

      You’re supposedly a skeptic but nothing can sway your belief? Doesn’t jibe.

      • Rain Water Systems

        God is bigger than our ability to define. Once this is acceptable belief becomes easier.

        • ScottinOttawa

          The event itself is not that ridiculous. An ice dam broke over what is
          now North America 8,000 years ago releasing an amount of fresh water
          equal to 7x the great lakes and causing massive flooding around the
          world. As a result of the rising ocean many of the seas of the middle
          east flooded and the weather changed drastically. I believe this event
          was the basis for the arc mythology.

          Have you watched the newest COSMOS series yet? ..or is this too much for your belief system to handle?

          • basithussain

            Aye capin. That’s right. I agree. Also the Noahs ark, has been discovered on the mount of Judy just east of Mount Ararat, which is basically the same range of Ararat mountains. And this region is in present day turkey. E’s ides almost all ancient cultures, including India, south America, Mesopotamia have epics about this global disaster. The quran also confirms the story of Noah, with certain exceptions. So go ahead kill religion with all your sciences. Truth will remain the truth nevertheless.

          • Rain Water Systems

            I am not one of the loons who claims the Earth is 6k years old. Indeed, we do the best to explain things. Just because your 1977 clitons auto guide doesn’t work on your 2014 KIA doesn’t mean the concept of mechanical skills is foolish.
            Likewise, that there may be flaws in the Bible, and political twists and turns in religion has NOTHING to do with God.

  • swrider

    From _Innumeracy, Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences_ by John Allen Paulos: “The book of Genesis says of the flood that “…all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered…” Taken literally, this seems to indicate that there were 10,000 to 20,000 feet of water on the surface of the earth, equivalent to more than half a billion cubic miles of liquid! Since according to biblical accounts it rained for forty days and forty nights, or for only 960 hours, the rain must have fell at the rate of fifteen feet per hour, certainly enough to sink any aircraft carrier, much less an ark with thousands of animals on board.”

  • CasaMiller

    The Ark was really a spaceship. The flood happened on Mars. The 40 days and nights refers to the 40 million miles distance. The canals on Mars prove all of this. What don’t you pointy heads understand?

  • Stephen Bender

    There are 3 reasons to
    make a movie! First: for the entertainment of a large diverse number of people.
    In fact the more people the better because it brings us to the second reason to
    make a movie, profit! Again, the more people to see the movie the more
    money made from the movie. So, I would say people that have money invested in
    the film probably could care less about the director’s artistic license and if
    a disclaimer would make a large number of christens feel better about watching a
    story that doesn’t follow the way it has been told for over 2000 years. So let
    the disclaimer be written, so let it be done and show me the money! Now the
    third reason and why the director probably doesn’t care about his artistic license
    either is the message promoting climate change, etc… So watch or don’t watch it’s
    your choice, you decide for yourself! Oh! At least with the disclaimer we may
    be spared endless and needless law suits!

  • ThinkTransformation

    OBSERVATIONS: It seems to be great for movie fiction – but bad for the reality of an intelligent mind who questions the feasibility of a story made for the big screen – really? If anything it brings to mind how ridiculous the whole story is in the first place. Proof – we human beings are meaning make machines – especially when there’s a buck to be made. LOL

    • ScottinOttawa

      The event itself is not that ridiculous. An ice dam broke over what is now North America 8,000 years ago releasing an amount of fresh water equal to 7x the great lakes and causing massive flooding around the world. As a result of the rising ocean many of the seas of the middle east flooded and the weather changed drastically. I believe this event was the basis for the arc mythology.

      • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Eric Lipps

        The event is ridiculous as written, for the story says ALL the land was covered–presumably including the peak of Mt. Everest. Even the dreadful “Waterworld” didn’t quite go that far. Where would he water have come from, and where would it go? How would life be quickly reestablished all over the earth, and why aren’t there the remains of kangaroos in the Mideast? On and on, the miracles have to pile up to make the Flood hang together with history.

        • ScottinOttawa

          I’m not a believer; just pointing out that there was an event that could form he basis of the mythology.

  • teledyn

    it’s hilarious to see armchair engineers trolling themselves. It’s sad in a way, but totally hilarious. And I’m comforted in knowing that you’ve all got the time to be so uselessly entertained, but I am disappointed in Discover Rag for wasting pixels on it, unless it was an April Fools punking unleashed on itself, in which case it was brilliant.

  • Jeremy Kraska

    Its a fictional movie bases on a fictional story. I dont see what the big deal is.

    • Barry Goldwater

      Say it isn’t so. I’m pretty sure that the Rock People were major players in the Old Testament.

      It’s a MOVIE. It doesn’t depict reality on any level. If you were entertained, it was successful.

  • Markus Iturriaga

    The Creation Museum in Kentucky has point-by-point rebuttals for most if not all the objections to the story of Noah. Why weren’t there 350k species of beetle on the ark? Because we only needed one, all the other ones diverged afterwards in sort of a young earth perversion of the theory of evolution. It’s all quite fascinating.

  • Wade Carmen

    People complain about the most trivial matters and permit important concerns slide by. Humans cannot evolve unless priorities are categorized properly; most important to least. Noah is a movie most will forget about when the never cinematic blockbuster arrives.

  • Linda J

    I agree with your article, as a scientist I believe that a fair number of the Torah stories are “kind of” true–allegorical or real facts told a thousand times; However, I take exception to where you say Jesus couldn’t, as a matter of physics, have walked on water. I know other people could, my Jewish Mother for example made it clear that was one of her talents, among other things, like eyes in the back of her head… But on the other hand, when the Israelis needed copper, they followed the Torah’s directions to King Solomon’s mines. So there!

  • franciswalexander

    Jesus walking on water implies a supernatural being existing. I respect that Kyle,the author, knows more about physics than me, but humor yourself and look at Revelation 21:23 (New Testament), Revelation 22:5, and Isaiah 61:19 (old testament). a) There is still a lot you don’t know and b) What mythologies have promised that people will exist in a paradise without a sun? Ancients did not know that the sun would die.

  • Lee Elfenbein

    The says that the time in the ark at “sea” was one year…it rained for 40 days and nights. They were also told to bring seven pairs of clean animals.

  • adamweishaupt

    Stupid Christians, We The Annunaki are the Fuc..ng true Gods!!!
    Stupid and Ignorant People ha ha ha.
    We are no Darkness, We are the Light that blind Your eyes, Ha ha ha

  • preilly2

    The horrible thing about the story of the Biblical Flood is not that it’s scientifically impossible, but that it depicts God as a mass murderer who deliberately drowned millions of human beings, including ALL of the struggling babies and children. What a heartwarming story to tell the kids in Bible study.

    • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Mrs Scott-hunt

      This is the best point I’ve read. God as a psychopath: Santa brings you gifts if your good, but God kills your babies if your bad.

      • preilly2

        What would we think of a human parent who vengefully drowned even one of her disobedient children? Yet we’re supposed to accept vastly more hideous actions from God, and worship him to boot.

  • Tom

    The writer of this article is an idiot.
    It is not about truth, but about respect. I am not even a Christian, and I consider most of the bible to be myth. However, I was raised Christian and I understand what they feel. I also watch the news and pay attention to politics.
    Religion is one of these areas that should be treated with respect. We don’t see Hollywood making movies about Islam and taking creative license do we? why? Because they know if they disrespect them a Muslim will put a bullet in the directors head. Because most Christians wont go to such an extreme Hollywood thinks it is perfectly acceptable to take ‘creative liberties’ with bible stories.
    This is disrespectful. If you are going to make a religious movie, then tell it right or don’t tell it.
    If you wanted to make a movie about the ancient flood and do what you wanted then call it “The Flood” and call the main character Ned instead of Noah. Leave out all bible references. But no, Hollywood wanted to capitalize on the mental real estate of the bible, yet disrespect Christians at the same time.
    Like I said, I am not even Christian and even I see how screwed up this is.

    • Derrick Schnur

      People one hundred years from now are going to laugh at this era of superstition. Like the Salem Witch Hunts. They’ll laugh at the last two thousand years of stupidity we have displayed in faith. Religion is like masturbation–it should be done in private!

      • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Mrs Scott-hunt

        Unfortunately, I think it will take much longer than one hundred years.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Alain Denis

    When will you people finally realize that whichever “God” or “gods” you believe in have been created by ignorant men thousands of years ago, trying to find some kind of explanations to everything they could not understand at the time. “God” and “gods” belong in the same category as Santa Claus, Harry Potter and Mickey Mouse. GROW UP AND GET A LIFE!!!

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Joseph Demonte

    Actually, there was a very interesting popular science book published in 2000 about the Flood story as it appears in multiple cultures. It addresses what likely happened and approximately when. The book is called Noah’s Flood by William Ryan and Walter Pitman. They also did some core sampling and archaeology in the Black Sea to bolster a theory of the Mediterranean Sea breaking through to the Black Sea and flooding the communities living on the earlier shoreline. An excellent read and much more likely than creatures going two by two up the gangplank, they suggest a catastrophic, foundational event that later peoples tried to explain and understand.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Lee Graves

    Kyle Hill, et. al.: While pragmatic seekers of the empirical with microscopes, telescopes and rock hammers, there are realities yet to be quantified, catalogued and displayed by man’s ever inquisitive mind. That is part of the human psyche that drives us to ‘discover’ the world and universe about us. Man will always search for the ‘unknown.’ Many claim that there is no God. These are commonly referred to as atheists. There are ordinary atheists (who, while personally convinced there is no God, will allow others to do so) and there are ornery atheists (who declare that there is no God and refused to acknowledge another’s right of belief in God).

    Hill’s treatise suggests he may fall into the latter category. The revelation of God and His Word is a matter of faith, Mr. Hill. It matters little (though some would strenuously disagree) if the world were created in 6 literal 24 hour days or 6 eons represented as days in Genesis — the point is God created this unjiverse by the Word of His mouth. A fact! How else might one explain The Big Bang? To surmise that all the visible matter (not to count the exponentially larger mass of dark matter) as compressed into an infinitesimally small lump that somehow exploded requires more faith than I have in an infinitely omnipotent God who not only did so — but also provided for the gathering, care, protection and redistribution of all the animals in the Ark of Noah.

    A plethora of postulations can be amassed to debunk the work of an almighty God. Some things are taken as a matter of faith. May I suggest to Mr Hill, et. al., that their intrusion into matters of faith serves to demonstrate the authority of God’s Word when it says, “Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools.” I fully agree with each and every statement that Mr. Hill recites. From a merely human perspective, his argument appears to have great merit. It is after all well crafted and reasonably presented — as any good argument should be. What Mr. Hill fails so terribly to do is to view the issue from God’s perspective. One can only comprehend spiritual truth when illuminated by the Spirit of God.

    May I respectfully suggest that Mr. Hill, et. al., limit their conversation and arguments to the areas about which they are competent to address.

  • wangweilin

    “It’s not my objective to fully “debunk” Noah and his Ark.” Then Mr. Hill debunks the story. Contradict yourself much?
    Believe what you want one way or the other but at least be consistent with what you say and what you do.

  • Bev Kay

    noah movie truly a sucky movie…not even like the bible says… oh but it did have rock monsters…lol

  • http://dcondry.blogspot.com/p/projects.html David

    Wow!
    I lot of different perspectives here. To raise the discussion to a level of
    philosophical integrity (tantamount to a miracle for even the most
    sophisticated cascade of internet comments), a few items need to be brought up:

    1) It is, in fact, possible to dialogue about matters of faith in way that accords with the empirical demands made by science. Steven C. Meyer and William A. Dembski are but two of the many thinkers and researchers whose findings dovetail with some of the propositions commonly made in religious contexts. And contra the unfair brush that their opponents paint them with, they do not establish their research upon any presuppositions to find corroborations to faith. Rather, any such corroborations only ensure from research done with what seems their adherence to the most integral principle of science: go wherever
    the hard evidence leads you, no matter what.

    2) Dismissing details or the entirety of religious narratives like Noah’s out of hand simply because it does not match our current standards of science or language seems irresponsible. The Bible uses numbers and measurements in a manner much differently than we do today. And it’s original readers and writers understood texts far differently than we do today. Because such texts are social artifacts, ignoring factors like these runs afoul of sociological and thus scientific seriousness. One must grapple with the complexity of evidence in all arenas of information, even the information that arises from religious contexts. That the context is religious has no bearing on whether or not said
    information can be shown reliable or not in different ways, under different tests.

    3) We cannot base conclusions on mere assumptions about how planet earth worked during a time that Noah would have lived if he was a real person and his story accurate to any extent. First off, even claiming to know what dates Noah lived by the accepted calendar of today is notoriously difficult — scholars exclusively devoted to such matters yet disagree, and will be the first to tell you that we must tread carefully when making pronouncements about what life was like back then, whenever “then” was. To make this observation tangible, let me ask a few questions: How certain are you that human beings have never lived 500 years? Our observations about human lifespan today may or may not prove helpful to figuring out details like specific human lifespan during an age of history that still remains largely ambiguous, even from the standpoint of cutting-edge scientific research. How certain are we that planet earth never had enough water to sustain a flood like Noah’s? Although our interpretation of items like sedimentary layers and fossil records might lead us to think the flood was impossible, the evidence itself may not merit that conclusion — we may be just as swayed by our own presuppositions of what science should yield.

    4) If Noah truly lived, truly experienced a major flood, does it render his
    story untrue if the entire planet wasn’t covered in water? Perhaps the
    flood was partial but, for the purpose of early human civilization, fuctionally “flooded the earth” (Gen 7:17). And does not the text itself in
    Genesis leave open some possibilities that thinkers in this discussion so far have interpreted indispensable to the narrative’s accuracy? Proving that the entire planet was never fully flooded, for example, would not disprove the Noah narrative since the story itself leaves open the possibility that the flood was localized. In the Ancient Near East, concepts like “the earth” wouldn’t mean “the planet,” since that concept had yet to emerge eons later through astronomy. “The earth” flooded in Genesis may have more to do with a concept like “the land on which humanity at that time occupied.” I’m not forwarding this as a solid conclusion — I don’t know. I haven’t looked at enough research yet. But the research is out there.

    5) And interpreting any evidence’s relevance to the Noah narrative is impossible without reading the narrative itself. Have you read Genesis 6:1-8:22? If not, then you’re actually commenting on the narrative — rather, you’re dealing more with a related (but separate) concept
    in the cultural consciousness of today. Read the story before you comment on its accuracy or lack thereof.

    6) It is actually false to say that no scientific observations support
    the idea that a major flood occurred . On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that could support this idea, along with the assertion that Science and Religion are not intrinsically at odds. Here is a massive list of many resources in this vein, findings and deductions made through research: http://shepherdproject.com/secular-scientific-support-for-noahs-flood/. Although the list of resources was compiled by a religious organization, that should not deter the reader from taking the research seriously. To refuse interaction with a given piece of research simply because it was passed along by religious hands smacks of scientific hypocrisy: pre-judging a potential piece of evidence or information based on mere preference rather than based on rigorous observation and objective inquiry.

    I hope this helps. I seriously hope it encourages a more serious, less cavalier attitude towards re-examining the false dichotomy between religion and science. Religious statements may or may not be truthful, but their potential truthfulness should not be easily disparaged due to an agenda, implicit or explicit, against religion itself. Make a more thorough search of the evidence to find out what is true. Should that truth corroborate or undercut a given religious statement, let it be. But be genuinely open to both possibilities. Anything less than that is bad science.

  • m00ndog

    Hey, it’s about FAITH, silly. When you have an almighty* God, who needs facts, logic or rational thinking??

    *God is almighty so he can do anything he wants, even put dinosaurs on the ark, if he wants. He can do anything, that is, except gather money. For that, he needs special helpers to do the collecting so be sure to put some money in the basket when it comes around because God needs moola. Lot’s of moola and that’s the one thing he cannot do himself.

  • TPAINE

    The writer of this article has absolutely NOTHING to base his false and in objectionable arguments. Saying Jesus ” didn’t walk on water” is saying the writers of the New Testament–who were witnesses–were liars. It’s one thing to say the great flood never happened, it’s another to slander the word of God. Also, he mentions NOTHING of the evidence to support Noah’s story and there’s plenty. If you’re going to use speculation, lies and anecdotal evidence to say it didn’t happen, then you should also present the anecdotal evidence that supports it. How about the Sumerian flood story that’s nearly identical, and the kings-list which separates the kings before and after the great flood? No matter what, Noah’s story is an awesome work of literary art…have some respect.

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Sally Bell

    How did such an interesting discussion degenerate so far into the backstabbing and insults here? Rather disgusting on both sides, really.

    My comment is based on a documentary I saw a couple years ago about some of David Ballard’s (he of Titanic discovery fame) explorations in the Black Sea. He said that the area seemed to show possible settlements hundreds of feet below the current surface, and that the evidence seemed to point to an overflowing and subsequent carving down of the Bosporus or Dardenelles (I never could keep them straight) when sea levels rose at the end of the last Ice Age. This caused a formerly fresh water lake to spread several miles a day for months, meaning people there would have had to flee rapidly or die. A regional flood of that magnitude would have been remembered for many generations, entering the lore of the people,,via the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah. Perhaps the tales have a kernel of truth at their heart. And since the flood destroyed all the world they knew, it came down as a world-wide flood.

  • Jennifer

    I remember when I saw Troy because Eric Bana was in it and looked sooooo handsome and halfway through it I thought, “where are the gods???” Didn’t Greeks and Romans take the Iliad as literal history? They would have hated Troy and it’s artistic license! But it didn’t bother me because I knew it was only a story and has no more historical truth to it than Pride and Prejudice (another story that when transplanted into the world of film seems to suffer quite a bit). Same with Noah.

  • randomperson

    Interesting how everybody is trying to convince everybody else that they are the ones that are right, when really, our brains have already made up their minds for us. It is very difficult to change them. *Got this information from the book Unpersuadables: Adventures with the enemies of science” by Will Storr.* I would say it is very rare for people to change their minds on anything, though I have. I was a Christian, now I’m an agnostic, weak atheist, humanist, truth seeker. Lol! Oh well. But, I bet you anything at least half of the people on here have never changed their minds on their whole system of thinking. So, all people, both religious and non…well, you may be just barking at a tree.

  • Marion Storms

    for noah being 500 years old. it took several generations to feel the full impace of the loss of the tree of life; lifespans gradually decreased to their current length.

    the ark basically used divine blueprints, and after all it took an angel to close the door there easily could have been one of them holding the thing together.

    the bible does say the the water burst from the ground this could have easily been continental drift; there fore the animals would have assembled before the continents had divided.

    in exodus they where fed by manna; the animals could have had a similar food source

    and plants; ever heard of farming? they gathered the seeds. and god has more more amazing stuff than that there could have easily been a small area of plants at the site where they landed

  • http://blogs.discovermagazine.com Mrs Scott-hunt

    Some folks just want to believe in magic. Personally, even tho I was raised catholic, those stories just never seemed real to me. There are literally thousands of religions practiced on our planet, and they can’t all be right. But each one has followers who devoutly believe their’s is the right one. That their stories make no sense seems not to bother them at all. But you have to ignore an awful lot of science, and that’s just not how my brain works.

    • m00ndog

      Me neither. I was about eight or ten years old, sitting in Sunday school, when I heard the story of Jonah and the whale. The teacher assured me it was a true story and that was it for me. Even at that young age I could see that it made no more sense than Santa visiting every house on the planet in one night.

      My mother forced me to keep going to church for a while but I had no interest in such nonsense. I soon stopped and never looked back.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

But Not Simpler

It has been said that you should try to make a problem as simple as possible, but not simpler. Here, that problem is finding the real science behind pop culture. But Not Simpler is a place where you can ask the questions you thought were too nerdy for real answers. The physics of video games? Sure! The chemistry of dragon breath? Why not? When you can find the realities behind your favorite fiction, and seriously nerd-out in the process, everyone wins. Simple.

About Kyle Hill

Kyle Hill is a science writer and communicator who specializes in finding the secret science in your favorite fandom. His work has appeared in Wired, The Boston Globe, Scientific American, Popular Science, Slate, and more. He is a TV correspondent for Al Jazeera America's science and technology show TechKnow and a columnist for Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Find his stream of nerdery on Twitter: @Sci_Phile Email him at sciencebasedlife [at] gmail [dot] com.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »