Subject: The Flood and creation
}Subject: Noah's Ark - the construction problems
}What to leave behind
}Subject: the issue of marine animals being left behind
}The Noah's Ark Myths
}misc concerning the flood
} hydraulic sorting
} timing problems
} folded rocks show that it was done when they were soft
By Davis A. Young, a conservative evangelical writer who is also a
geologist. Autor of two books devoted to separating evangelical
theology from young-earth and creation-science theories.
"What is much more likely to undermine Christian fath is the dogmatic
and persistent effort of creationists to present their theory before the
public, Christian and non-Christian, as in accord with Scripture and
nature, especially when the evidence to the contrarty has been presented
again and again by competent Christian Scientists
(e.g. Davis A. Young, Creation and the Flood, D. E. Wonderly's God's
Time-Records in Ancient Sediments, and numerous articles published
over the years in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation)
It is sad that so much Christian energy has to be wasted in proposing
and refuting the false theory of catastrophic Flood geology. But
Christians need to know the truth and to be warned of error."
"The faith of many Christian people could be hindered when they
ultimately realize that the teachings of the creationists are simply
not in accord with the facts."
"Furthermore, creationism and Flood geology have put a serious roadblock
in the way of unbelieving scientists. Although Christ has the power
to save unbelievers in spite of our foolishness and poor presentation
of the gospels, Christians should do all they can to avoid creating
unnecessary stumbling blocks to the reception of the gospel."
"We are all dealing with God's world and with God-created facts...We
must handle the data reverently and worshipfully, yet we should not
be afraid of where the facts may lead. God made those facts, and they
fit into His comprehensive plan for the world."
"Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to
the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem
to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize
that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology
creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in
accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must
be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The
persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their
points of view established in educational institutions can
only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously
expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a
respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand
of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the
forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend
credence to the idea already entertained by so many
intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its
modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear
that it will."
[_Christianitiy and the Age of the Earth_, by Davis Young,
Zondervan 1982. p. 163.]
This is from G.T. Bettany, _Encyclopedia of World Religions_, a reproduction
of an 1890 manuscript. My copy is (partially) copyright 1988, Dorset Press,
New York. This is all direct quotes, with my comments in square brackets.
Keep in mind that this predates many important discoveries, including,
I think, the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Book V., Egyptian and Semitic Religions
Ch. 2, The Babylonian, Assyrian, and Phoenician Religions
[discussing the find, in 1872, of a set of Chaldean cosmology tablets
by one George Smith. No dates attached, other than they represent
comparatively late versions of a very early set of legends]
But while there is great interest in finding a Chaldean legend
agreeing in some features with that of Genesis, there is no warrant
for saying that either of the accounts has given rise to the other;
but that they have some connection is very possible. They are of
special importance, however, in anthropology as examples of the ways
in which the human mind has explained creation...
Among other early Chaldean fragments is one which appears to describe
a parallel incident to the confusion of tongues at Babel...
In the great Epic of Izdubar or Gishubar, also discovered by Mr. Smith
in 1872, we have a Semitic translation of the exploits of an early
Accadian king or primitive Hercules, arranged on a solar plan
[reference to the format of the tablets? not sure], which accords with
the representation of the hero as sun-god. In many ways the events
recorded in the epic corespond to the twelve labours of Hercules; and
it may be that the Izdubar legend is one of the early forms from which
Phoenicia and then Greece derived the famous myth. The most perfect
tablet is that which describes a deluge, which has been very generally
identified with that of Noah. The character of Izdubar corresponds
exactly to that of Nimrod in Genesis; and it is not certain that the
names may not be identical, for Izdubar is but a provisional
The deluge, according to the Chaldean epic, was due to the judgment of
the gods Anu, Bel, and Ninip, and Ea told the "man of Surripak",
Samas-Napiati (the living sun), to build a ship to preserve plants and
living beings; it was to be 600 cubits long, and 60 broad and high.
Numerous details of the building and construction are given; and
Xisuthrus with his people, and animals, and plants, and food had
entered the ship, "the waters of dawn arose at daybreak, a black cloud
from the horizon of heaven. Rimmon in the midst of it thundered, and
Nebo and the wind-god went in front." The earth was covered, and all
living things destroyed. Even the gods were afraid at the
whirlwind,and took refuge in the heaven of Anu. After six days and
nights the storm abated, and the rain ceased, and the wind and deluge
ended. "I watched the sea making a noise, and the whole of mankind
were turned to clay, like reeds the corpses floated...In the country
of Nizir (east of Assyria) rested the ship; the mountain of Nizir
stopped the ship,and to pass over it it was not able...On the seventh
day I sent forth a dove, and it left. The dove went, it returned, and
a resting-place it did not find, and it came back." Later a raven was
sent forth, and it did not return. Then the ship was opened, the
animals came forth, sacrifice was offered to the gods, and Xisuthrus
became the father of Izdubar, himself being later translated to live
as a god. We cannot attempt a detailed comparison of the Chaldean and
Noachian floods, for which reference must be made to Professor Sayce's
edition of Mr. Smith's "Chaldean Account of Genesis"; but we may
remark that this deluge narrative, perhaps more than anything else,
shows how closely the narratives in Genesis are related to Chaldean
traditions or sources of information.
Book VI, The Jewish Religion
Ch. 1, Early History - Moses
...There are many indications in the Pentateuch that it was at least
extensively revised long after the date of Moses; and indeed, there is
nowhere in the Pentateuch any assertion that Moses wrote the books
which have generally been attributed to him, and which speak of him in
the third person...
A most conspicuous result of modern criticism of the Pentateuch, is
the discernment of at least two authors or documents, one describing
the supreme God as Elohim, "the Mighty", a plural title which well
understoof by the peoples surrounding the early Israelites, and among
whom the briefer El was a common designation for their own chief
deity; the other using the term Jehovah, or Jahveh, translated "the
Lord". A third variation is found when the names are coupled together.
The passage in Exodus vi.3...appears to fix all narratives in which
the name Jehovah is used as later than that revelation to Moses; but
this is by no means agreed upon by critics. We may, however, study the
religious development of the Jews in two periods -- that in which the
name of the Deity was some form of El or Elohim, and that in which it
[stuff of some interest on the Creation descriptions in Genesis, I
hope to get back to this later]
[The preface to the Pentateuch in my New Scofield Reference Edition,
1967, say in part:
Certain critics have denied that Moses wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy
despite the fact that they were attributed to Moses by the Lord Jesus
Christ (where did he say that? I'm curious and haven't been able to
find it). The arguments against Moses' authorship are chiefly based on
the variation of the names of God (Elohim and Jehovah), the
differences in style and vocabulray, and the presence of more than one
account of the same event, e.g. the creation of man Gen. 1:26 and 2:7.
These contentions have been adequately answered in that the variation
in divine names is for the purpose of revealing certain aspects of
God's character; the style is dependent on the subject matter; and the
so-called parallel accounts, well known in ancient Near Eastern
literature, are intended to add details to the first account.
[Pretty weak arguments, to me, remembering that authorship was
considered relatively unimportant until recent times. We now return
you to your regularly scheduled Bettany.]
In the history of Noah we come into closer contact with the traditions
of other nations, and especially with the Chaldean deluge story,
already referred to (p.494). Moral evil had risen to a great height,
owing, as the early Hebrews believed, to an intermixture of the
daughters of Adam with a powerful race, the sons of Elohim, or the
mighty ones, giving rise to "giants". [why haven't we seen fossils of
these giants?]...We need not follow the details of the Flood...The
conception of a plain only broken by comparatively low hills, covered
by water as far as the eye could see, suffices to adequately fulfill
the conditions really demanded. The "mountains of Ararat" are rendered
the "mountains of Armenia" by many, and it is nowhere said that the
highest mountains were meant...
[Weren't the other races supposed to have been descended from Adam's
other children? How did they survive the Flood?]
...The rainbow was to Noah the sign of this covenant, a fact by no
means implying, what so many have imagined, that the rainbow then
The next great cosmological conception in the Book of Genesis is in
the story by which the variety of languages was accounted for. It is
closely paralleled by some fragments of Babylonian tablets in which
are described the anger of Bel at the sin of the builders of the walls
of Babylon and the mound of the towerr or palace. The builders, whose
attempts were directed against the gods, were confounded on the mound,
as well as their speech...
[Bettany goes on to say that accurate historical accounts, in his
opinion, begin with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.]
Book III, Brahmanism
Ch. I, The Early Vedic Religion
In the Satapatha-Brahmana, perhaps the most interesting of all these
books, there is found an early tradition of a flood. Manu, a holy man,
was warned by a fish that a flood would sweep away all creatures, but
he would resce him. He was directed to build a ship and enter it when
the flood rose; he did so, and fastened the fish to the ship, and was
drawn by it beyond the northern mountains. When the flood subsided
Manu was the only man left; a daughter was mysteriously born to him by
virtue of religious rites, and ultimately the world was peopled with
the sons of Manu. In later times it was said that the fish was an
incarnation of Brahma, who assumed that form in order to preserve
[I seem to also recall, from my days as a Boy Scout learning Indian
history, that some American Indians (who are underrepresented in
Bettany's book, IMHO, getting only about eight pages total) (Iroquois,
perhaps? certainly eastern) had a legend of an Indian who survived a
great flood on a simple raft.
} - There is evidence of a catastrophic flood.
um, i think what you're describing here is not a global flood, but a global
wash, and i suspect that the forces necessary to push water 5+ miles up and
thousands of miles horizontally would certainly be enough to kill everything,
animal and vegetable. it would certainly smash a little boat to toothpicks.
btw, under either model, global flood or global wash, how was all the
vegetable matter retained, i.e. how come we still have trees?
} - seashells on mountains
Underwater land was raised by plate tectonics. In many places you can see
this process in action (though you need good measuring equipment).
Subject: Noah's Ark - the construction problems
Returning once again to the procedural difficulties involving Noah's Ark,
based on the work of Robert Moore in "Creation/Evolution", issue XI,
we have the assurance of Tim LaHaye and Henry Morris that Noah and his three
sons could have easily constructed the ark in only 81 years (it being a
good thing that the average lifespan at the time was several hundred
years). According to Moore, the construction "... includes not merely the
framing up a hull but: building docks, scaffolds, workshops; fitting
together the incredible maze of cages and crates; gathering provisions for
the coming voyage; harvesting the timber and producing all the various
types of lumber from bird cage bars to the huge keelson beams --
not to mention wrestling the very heavy, clumsy planks for the ship into
their exact location and fastening them. What's worse, by the time the
job was finished, the earlier phases would be rotting away -- a difficulty
often faced by builders of wooden ships, whose work took only four or five
For waterproofing, we are told that God instructed Noah to coat the
ark with pitch inside and out with the naturally-occurring hydrocarbon
pitch, which causes a bit of a problem since, according to Whitcomb and
Morris, all oil, tar and coal deposits were formed when organic matter
was buried DURING the flood.
In addition, the structural soundness of the ark was extremely questionable
since, according to ship-building authorities, there was an upper limit
of about 300 feet on the length of wooden ships, beyond which they were
subject to 'hogging' or 'sagging'. Moore again,
"The largest wooden ships ever built were the six-masted schooners,
nine of which were launched between 1900 and 1909. These ships were
so long that they required diagonal iron strapping for support;
they "snaked" or visibly undulated, as they passed through the waves,
they leaked so badly they had to be pumped constantly, and they were
only used on short coastal hauls because they were unsafe in deep water."
The longest six master, the U.S.S. Wyoming, was only 329 feet long,
yet we are presented with the image of an ark well over 100 feet longer
having to cope with the most severe conditions imaginable.
What to leave behind
---- -- ----- ------
Given the limited room on the ark and the vast number of species of
organisms, several creationists attempt to salvage the situation somewhat
by leaving various families of animals to fend for themselves -- the birds
who are left to fly until dry land reappears and the marine animals who
must must survive the silt-choked, turbulent waters of the great Deluge
until the Flood waters recede. Unfortunately, any attempt to save space
on the ark this way flies rather drastically in the face of Scripture,
since Genesis 7:4 states rather clearly, "For yet seven days, and I will
cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and
*every living substance that I have made* will I destroy from off the
face of the earth."
To ensure that there is no misunderstanding, Genesis 7:23 repeats
the same information, "And every living substance was destroyed which was
upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping
things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the
earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."
One would think that the exact wording of these passages leaves very little
latitude for interpretation.
The exact number of kinds ("baramin") that were taken aboard the ark
depends upon which creationist is performing the calculations and when
these calculations were done -- LaHaye and Morris in 1976 arrive at the
figure of 50,000 "kinds", an upward revision from Whitcomb and Morris's
1961 figure of 35,000 but a far cry from the figure of 1,544 due to
Dr. Arthur Jones.
In spite of Scriptural contradiction, there remains a valiant attempt
to determine just who can be left to fend for themselves in the Flood
waters and still have a fair-to-middling chance of surviving. The
first obvious candidates are the marine animals but, as Robert Moore
points out, there are some immediate problems:
"Although creationists seem to think that once you're wet, it's all
the same, there are actually many aquatic regimes and many specialized
inhabitants in each. Some fish live only in cold, clear mountain lakes;
others in brackish swamps. Some depend on splashing, rocky, oxygen-rich
creeks, while others, such as a freshwater dolphin, a manatee and a
thirteen-foot catfish, live only in the sluggish Amazon ...
"The salinity of the oceans would have been substantially affected
by the flood; Whitcomb and Morris lamely address this concern by noting
that some saltwater fish can survive in freshwater and vice versa and that
"some individuals of each kind would be able to survive the gradual mixing
of the waters and gradual change in salinities during and after the flood."
It is left to the reader's imagination to ponder how "gradual" a worldwide,
mountain-covering deluge would be.
Subject: the issue of marine animals being left behind
Three issues back, we discussed the rather drastic changes in salinity levels
that would result as a consequence of a world-wide flood, but Robert Moore
goes on to point out that, given the rest of the environmental hazards that
would accompany the Noachian Deluge, the problem of the salinity level would
be "a fish's least concern."
In addition to making the water intolerably muddy (Moore calculates a ratio
of 2.06:1 water-to-rock), the accompanying volcanic and seismic activity
would be truly unimaginable, since,
"... most of the world's volcanic activity, sea-floor spreading,
mountain-building and continent-splitting was supposed to have occurred
at this time as well, filling the seas with additional huge volumes of
rock, ash, and noxious gases. Undersea volcanoes usually decimate all
life in the surrounding area, and their extent had to be global during
this terrible year. The earth's pre-diluvian surface would thus have
been scoured clean, and forests, multi-ton boulders and the debris of
civilization hurtled about like missiles. Finally, this tremendous
explosion of energy would have transformed the seas into a boiling
cauldron in which no life could possibly survive."
Moore calculates that the temperature of the oceans would have been
increased by at least 2700 C,
"Yet amidst all of this, creationist icthyologists aver that life went
on as usual, with a few minor adjustments to the "gradual" changes.
The salmon swam to their (long-vanished) riparian breeding grounds that
fall as they always had; sea anemones clung to their rocky perches,
which were on the beach one month and the abyssal plain the next;
blue whales continued to strain for krill even though their baleen
plates were choked with mud; corals, which grow in clear, shallow water,
continued to grow anyway; hapless bottom dwellers, their lives carefully
adjusted to certain conditions of pressure and temperature, suddenly
saw the former increase by more than 5000 pounds per square inch
and the latter fluctuate in who knows what directions."
Given the above, it seems fairly clear that there is no question
of leaving any species to fend for themselves, which brings us to
yet another creationist technique for conserving on valuable space --
bringing along only young specimens or, in extreme cases, eggs.
However, Moore quotes Wildred T. Neill ("The Geography of Life"), as stating
that "the mortality rate is usually very high among seedling plants
and young animals; but once the critical juvenile stage is passed,
the organism has a good chance of reaching old age."
Moore follows this up with, "Furthermore, the young of many species
cannot survive without parental care and feeding ... and even if they
can, the lack of a normal social environment often results in severe
behavioral disturbances... As for the dinosaur eggs, how did Noah know
whether one would yield a female, the other a male -- or even that both
were fertile? And since no eggs require a year's gestation, he soon
would have had a hoard of fragile hatchlings on his hands."
The Noah's Ark Myths
"Do you seriously suppose that we are unable to prove our point,
when even to this day the remains of Noah's Ark are shown in the
country of the Kurds?" [Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (315 to 403 CE)]
Scholars have known that there are two interwoven creation myths in
Genesis for over 200 years . Current scholarship places the number
of authors for Genesis at no less than four (i.e. Moses is entirely
legendary). The older creation myth is generally referred to as the
"J" (for Jehovah or Yahveh) document while the younger myth is known as
the "P" (for Priestly) document. The "P" document is characterized by
its impersonality, heavy usage of statistics (numbers) and genealogies,
and reference to their chief diety as "Yahveh Elohim". The more
primative "J" document refers to their chief diety as simply "Yahveh".
Note that Elohim is really the plural form (gods). This is entirely
logical since the entire creation myth was actually "borrowed" (a
euphemism for stolen) from the Babylonians who in turn "borrowed" their
version from the Sumerians. Virtually all monotheistic religions
evolved from earlier polytheistic religions. [2,3,4]
In the "J" document, god shapes man out of clay, while in the "P"
document god creates man with just his spoken word. In the earlier
references to man, the Hebrew word "adam" is used. This is translated
as "mankind" (i.e. generic man); the Hebrew name for "a man" is "ish".
Adam as a proper name does not appear until Genesis 5:1 (the Jerusalem
Bible). The dozens of contradictions that appear in Genesis are due to
the different authors and the haphazard way that the various versions
were combined into one book (c.f. animals by "twos" in one place and
by "sevens" in another).
The Babylonian flood story has been known to Western scholars for
several centuries through Greek fragments of the records of the
Babylonian historian Berosus (nineteenth century discoveries have
allowed a complete recovery). Between 1848 and 1876 Austen Henry
Layard (British Museum archaeologist) discovered several thousand
tablets in excavations at Nineveh of the library of the Assyrian king
Ashurbanipal (668 to 626 BCE). Although many of the cuneiform tablets
were destroyed by flames, water, and ransacking hoodlums, laboriously
painstaking effort resulted in the reconstruction of the famous
Gilgamesh epic in twelve cantos. The eleventh tablet contains the
Babylonian version of the universal deluge. The twelve cantos seem to
represent the twelve signs of the zodiac. [5,6]
On December 3, 1872 George Smith (British Museum archaeologist)
presented this quite important discovery to the Society of Biblical
Archaeology. In 1876, he published "The Chaldean Account of Genesis"
which showed the close relationship with the opening chapter of
Genesis. The Mesopotamian creation myth was in use in the New Year
ritual at the shrine of Marduk in Babylon as early as the time of
Hammurabi (1723 to 1686 BCE).
[ Another comprehensive explanation of the origin of much of the Old
Testament is "Bible Myths", by T. W. Doane, in which the author
demonstrates the similarities between the OT and myths from older,
surrounding cultures, particularly Chaldean, Babylonian, Etruscan and
Mesopotamian. - Robert P. J. Day ]
The Turkish Government excavated a tablet at Abu-Habbah (ancient
city of Sippar) which contains a version of the flood story complete
with the great deluge and a large ship (built by Atrakhasis) by which
people are to be saved. The tablet was dated the twenty-eighth day of
the eleventh Babylonian month in the eleventh year of the king
Ammizaduga (about 1966 BCE). Professor H.V. Hilprecht (University of
Pennsylvania) discovered a tablet fragment in the excavations at Nippur
that is no more recent than 2100 BCE. In this tablet, Ea (a god) tells
Atrakhasis (alias Ut-napishtim) to build a great ship to save his
family and the beasts of the field and the birds of heaven since he
will cause a deluge which will kill all life on earth. The Babylonian
creation myth is about 1,200 years older than the Hebrew version and
the Sumerian (pre 3,000 BCE) creation myth predates the Babylonian
version by over one thousand years. The obvious civilization sequence,
according to Biblical scholars, is from the Sumerians down to the
Babylonians and then down to the Hebrews. 
Note that according to Greek mythology King Ogyges reigned during a
great flood. There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence
supporting the existence of a world wide flood; there is evidence for
several large local floods. 
There have been more than forty different organized expeditions to
search for Noah's Ark since World War II. Since 1970 at least eleven
books and three movies have been made about the search for this ever
elusive object. Despite their complete lack of success, "arkeologists"
 continue to search for that large box anyway (ark means "box" or
"chest"). Mount Ararat (Agri Dagi) is the most recent of no less than
nine different "final" resting places for the ark (and the least likely
of all). [9,10]
The arkeologists' basic idea seems to be that if Noah's Ark is found
then evolution will somehow be proved totally wrong. They generally
ignore a number of rather important issues (i.e. where all that water
came from and where it went after the flood). In "Genesis vs.
Geology", Stephen Gould examines the plausibility of the Great Flood
and, in particular, the plausibility of the various proposals
creationists have dreamed up to explain where the water came from and
the even harder problem of where it went afterward. Gould uses this to
form the basis of a general discussion of "scientific creationism" and
the "scientific" creationists. 
Some additional difficult problems include : how did Noah save all
the different human diseases and parasites? How did giant earthworms
and marsupials make the trip to Australia? Did Noah save any dinosaurs
or plants? One of the Biblical flood myths claims that the earth was
completely submerged for 365 days; long enough to kill off all of the
land plant life. There are an estimated 10,000,000 to 40,000,000
plant and animal species on earth (more than 15,000 different mammals,
250,000 different beetles, and 250,000 different plants). Try
calculating just how big of a box is required to hold all of the
species (including their food) that survived the "flood". Imagine the
few people aboard the ark dealing with several tons of animal waste
each day (according to the Biblical myth the ark's only opening was a
window). This is only a miniscule list of the more formidable problems
that creationists must overcome. Then they get to show why virtually
all of modern science is completely wrong. (Several creationists are
involved in completely redefining science!) Evolution forms the very
foundation of physical anthropology, cosmology, and biology, to name
but a few. Evolution is also a basic component of linguistics,
cultural anthropology, archaeology, and several other branches of
modern science as well. [12,13]
Some of the more visible arkeologists include Kelly Segraves, John
D. Morris, and James Irwin. (John D. Morris is the son of Henry
Morris.) Morris has written two wonderfully silly books titled
"Adventure on Ararat" and "The Ark on Ararat". Although the Morris
expedition claimed several "sightings" of the ark they returned with
exactly zero. The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) started these
expeditions in 1971 and has yet to show anything in the way of
scientific evidence. The ICR claims to have received "miraculous
protection" (presumably from themselves) on at least one of their
expeditions. A member of the ICR has rationalized the whole failure
with "the Lord will reveal the Ark at a time of His own choosing". The
search for the ark has become such an embarrassment that the ICR now
disavows any involvement despite the evidence of several of their own
books, films, and slides! 
Former astronaut James Irwin's expedition was funded by an
evangelical religious group ("High Flight") based in Colorado Springs.
Like all arkeologists, Irwin is certain that the ark is up there
somewhere. On one expedition he suffered a serious fall and was forced
to donate three teeth to the current monument to creationist credulity
(Mount Ararat). After being released from the hospital, Irwin planned
to search the mountain with a helicopter to narrow down the location.
Why didn't he think of that before trying to cover the entire mountain
 "The Anchor Bible" untangles the different documents in Genesis.
 Eunice Riedel, Thomas Tracy, and Barbara Moskowitz, "The Book of
The Bible", Bantam Books Inc, New York, 1981, pp. 515-518. Riedel and
Moskowitz are anthropologists.
 Isaac Asimov, "Asimov's Guide to The Bible", Avenel Books, New
York, 1981. This was originally published as a two volume set.
 Alexander Heidel, "The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels",
University of Chicago Press, 1946. Heidel was on the research staff of
the Oriental Institute (University of Chicago) until his death in 1955.
 James George Frazer, "Folklore in the Old Testament", Hart
Publishing Company Inc, New York City, 1975. "The Great Flood", pp.
46-143. This is an extraction about the Old Testament from Sir
Frazer's classic twenty volume work "The Golden Bough". Frazer is one
of the greatest names in anthropological literature.
 LLoyd R. Bailey, "Where is Noah's Ark?", Abingdon, Nashville
Tennessee, 1978. Bailey is an associate professor of Old Testament
Studies at Duke Divinity School.
 "The Skeptical Inquirer" Volume 3, #4, Summer 1979. A review of
LLoyd Bailey's book on Noah's Ark, pp. 61-63.
 Stephen Jay Gould, "Genesis vs. Geology", "The Atlantic",
September 1982, pp. 10-17. Professor Gould teaches biology and
geology at Harvard University. Gould was awarded the 1981 American
Book Award for Science with "The Panda's Thumb". He is also a frequent
contributor to Natural History magazine.
 "Creation/Evolution" Issue #9, Summer 1982, "Six `Flood' Arguments
Creationists Can't Answer" by Robert J. Schadewald, pp. 12-17.
 "Creation/Evolution" Issue #11, Winter 1983, "The Impossible
Voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore, pp. 1-43. The entire issue
is about the ark. Moore lists over one hundred references.
 "Creation/Evolution" Issue #6, Fall 1981, "A Survey of Creationist
Field Research" by Henry P. Zuidema (paleontologist), pp. 1-5. Also
see "Arkeology : A New Science in Support of Creation?" by Robert A.
Moore, pp. 6-15.
 "Science 81", December 1981, "The Creationists", pp. 53-60.
(1) "Creationism as a Social Movement" by John Skow,
(2) "Creationism as Science" by Allen Hammond and Lynn Margulis,
(3) "The impact on education : an update", and
(4) "What do the creationists say?".
 Isaac Asimov, "In The Beginning... Science Faces God in The Book
of Genesis", Stonesong Press, Inc, 1981, pp. 151-188. Asimov presents
a very even-handed comparison of the Biblical creation myths and the
modern scientific view of origins.
 Martin Gardner, "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science", Dover
Publications, Inc, New York, 1957. "Geology verses Genesis", pp.
123-139. This was originally published under the title "In the Name of
 Barbara C. Sproul, "Primal Myths Creating The World", Harper and
Row, 1979, pp. 91-135. Sproul is Director of Religion at Hunter
College of the City University of New York.
 Free Inquiry "Science, the Bible, and Darwin". Summer 1982,
Volume 2, #3. "Creationism: 500 Years of Controversy" by Gerald Larue,
pp. 9-14. Professor Larue is emeritus professor of archaeology and
Biblical history (University of Southern California, Los Angeles). And
"Geology and the Bible" by Charles Cazeau, pp. 32-34. Charles Cazeau
is professor of geology (State University of New York at Buffalo).
 Howard M. Teeple, "The Noah's Ark Nonsense", Religion and Ethics
Institute, Inc, Evanston, Illinois, 1978. Teeple is a member of the
association of professional Biblical scholars, "the Society of Biblical
Literature" and an ex-fundamentalist with a Ph.d in Bible.
 Also see almost any contemporary encyclopedia under "Biblical
Criticism", "Exegesis", "Higher Criticism", "Lower Criticism", "Flood,
The", "Creation, The Story of", "Gilgamesh", and "Ut-Napishtim".
 Gerald A. Larue, "Ancient Myth and Modern Man", Prentice-Hall,
Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1975. Larue provides an extensive
bibliography. See  for author information.
 Howard M. Teeple, "The Historical Approach to the Bible", Religion
and Ethics Institute, Inc, Evanston, Illinois, 1982. Teeple provides a
very extensive bibliography. See  for author information.
 Robert Graves, Raphael Patai, "Hebrew Myths The Book of Genesis",
Greenwich House, New York, New York, 1983. Graves is world renowned as
a classicist and poet. Dr. Patai is an anthropologist, folklorist and
 The less sophisticated creationists are usually unaware that there
are two creation myths in Genesis while the more sophisticated usually
insist that such claims are merely an unproven hypothesis. This is an
actual example of the latter : "Perhaps the `faith-like' reliance upon
the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis of the 19th-century (re: Genesis JEPD
theory) reveals either a lack of knowledge of post-WWII theological
progress or an imbalanced diet of Bible literature." The same
individual also insisted that the ancient Hebrews knew that the earth
was spherical despite massive evidence to the contrary! (i.e. the
Bible is a flat-earth book from cover to cover.)
 When I asked a local member of the American Scientific Affiliation
(ASA - a creationist organization) for the evidence supporting a global
flood he stated "the fact that all early civilizations had flood
stories proves the universal deluge recorded in the Bible historically
accurate." This typifies creationist thinking. Firstly, not all
ancient people had flood stories; only those located in regions where
floods naturally occur. Secondly, several thousand fables do not
somehow add up to a single fact.
 This whimsical name was invented by skeptics.
}misc concerning the flood
Concerning the Flood, the Biblical tale is a copy of an old
Mesopotamian tale; the Tigris and Euphrates rivers sometimes flood,
and a flood can seem like one of "all the world" to someone living in
nearly level terrain. In the tale of Noah's Ark, we do not learn why
Noah did not take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to get rid
of all the "unclean" animals once and for all. In early modern times,
it was commonly thought that fossils were the remains of animals and
plants buried in the Flood; the Free Thinker Voltaire felt compelled
to discredit this seeming evidence for Noah's Flood -- he suggested
that fossils were fakes or were dropped by pilgrims. But closer
examination of fossils suggested too-neat layering for an all-at-once
flood, and Flood advocates retreated to some of the most recent
sediments (see Stephen Jay Gould's essay "The Freezing of Noah" in
_The Flamingo's Smile_). In the early nineteenth century, even that
seeming evidence was shown to be the work of glaciers (floods of solid
water), and only in the more northern parts of the globe. Gould even
reproduces the "recantation" of one of the last reputable "Flood
Geologists", concerning this subject.
} hydraulic sorting
Well, let's see. Let's look at the usual creationist Flood theory, i.e.
that the ordering of fossils is determined by hydraulic sorting (some shapes
will settle faster than others), differential mobility (some life forms
could flee the Flood longer than others), and differential habitat (some
animals live at higher elevations than others). Let's pick a nice case that
looks at one of these mechanisms and controls for the other two. There are
certain plants that often grow at sea level, near the shore. There are many
mollusks that only grow in shallow water near the shore, and attach
themselves to rocks. No differential mobility, no sorting since both types
of organism stay put. Unfortunately, the particular class of plants involved
(I'll have to check my notebook at home for the exact reference -- I think
it's the angiosperms) doesn't show up in the fossil record until mammals
appear and is never found in lower layers with mollusks that should have
} timing problems
let's look at the Biblical dates. I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years
passed from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on the
first temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from the
cevenant with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. The chapters of
Genesis after the Flood accound give the periods in years that passed
between the births of various individuals from Noah to Abraham, giving a
period of 390 years from the Flood to the covenant with Abraham. Thus,
according to the Bible, the Flood took place 1300 years before Solomon began
construction of the first temple.
a) This is a clear, direct, falsifiable claim. These are clear,
unambiguous statements that a period of X years elapsed between
b) The event itself (a global Flood that wiped out all but 8
humans) would be pretty hard to miss or gloss over.
c) Because there were any number of literate cultures in the
near East, who recorded dynastic lists, raised monuments
giving dates and length of reigns, and sent ambassadors to each
others' courts, we can pretty reliably construct chronologies
for near Easter history, particularly for Egypt, and without
reference to (but supported by) dating methods such as carbon-14
with corrections from tree-ring sequences.
d) The upshot of which is that the building of the first temple
can be dated to 950 B.C. +- some small delta, placing the Flood
around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egytians (among others) have
written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great
Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years
before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian
inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C.
e) Therefore, either we have to reject the historicity of the
Flood account; accept the historicity of the Flood account,
but explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event; or
accept the Biblical account and chronology, and reject the
massive amount of written and archaological evidence estab-
lishing the chronology of history in the near East.
} folded rocks show that it was done when they were soft
}He next stated that when you hit something that's hard, it breaks or
}shatters. These folds are smooth, so it must be that the rock (he
}showed and mentioned sandstone) was still forming from mud, and was
}still soft. This means that the layers formed very rapidly, to still
}be soft (down at the bottom layer) when the whole shebang got
}His (inevitable) conclusion: it all formed during Noah's flood.
>Rebuttal: nothing "hit" that rock. Conventional geology understands
>the strength and brittleness of these things: they can and have been
>measured in labs. Note, I'm not saying that rocks of a given type
>are identical. The point is that science has dealt with all this
>quantitatively. The rocks got folded by compression, not by sudden
>impact: and in fact some rocks do shatter. I've seen examples - for
>instance, hard black fragments embedded in a softer gray rock. The
>gray rock had flowed while the black shattered.
Folding can happen in a lot less than geological time. If you
go to the Roman dig at the Fort at Housesteads, in Northumbria,
you can see the remains of Roman barracks which now lie in definite
waves, because of the movement of the earth beneath them. The
mortar between the stones is still intact.