But the continents are covered with sedimentary rock, which contradicts what we would expect if there were a flood 5,000 years ago.Īnd that's just geology. And if there had really been a flood that covered the entire world, most of the sedimentary rock on Earth would lie at the bottom of the ocean. There are other examples, too - the dunes and other desert deposits that exist in various places on the planet would not be there if the world had been inundated by water.
(Which God would have already had to do for Adam and Eve anyway.) That doesn't make it any less gross, but at least the human race and every animal on the planet wouldn't be doomed to endlessly splash around in a dangerously shallow gene pool.Īccording to the Skeptical Inquirer, you can find evidence of drying in some parts of the world that correspond precisely to the time the Earth was supposedly completely covered with water. Because God, being God, could simply have provided each animal and person onboard with super genetics that would have erased the entire problem, thus making inbreeding a non-issue. So that explains why Joffrey Baratheon was such a jerk, but it doesn't settle the debate about Noah's ark for many believers. The number of identical inherited genes he got from both parents was higher than if his parents had been brother and sister with a normal tree before that. Charles II of Spain was so disabled he didn't learn to walk until the age of 8, and that's because of all the inbreeding in his extended background. Even with eight people as a base, the gene pool would be too small to make world repopulation feasible.Īccording to the BBC, you can look at history for an example of why inbreeding is bad. It's not just Hollywood and long-held social taboos and the overall ick factor that warns us against inbreeding - it's been scientifically proven to be a super, extra-bad thing. Now those master's students can go back to questions that have maybe a little more immediate impact on us. But it did prove one of the larger questions about the feasibility of such a voyage. And the study did not calculate things like the physical size of each creature, only its weight. For example, the measurements figured on Noah's boat being so heavy that the water level would stop just below the top of the ship, which means it would have been pretty vulnerable to waves, especially the sorts of waves that were happening as the storm raged on for 40 days and 40 nights. There are issues with their conclusion, though. Their conclusion: Noah could have put 70,000 animals onboard and the ship would have floated. They used the Biblical measurements to calculate the size of the ark, then they used the density of the water to figure buoyancy, and from there determined how much weight the ship could endure before sinking. These days, Ballard seems more focused on mapping the seafloor on the opposite side of the planet.Īccording to the Telegraph, in 2014 a group of master's students at Leicester University decided to settle the question.
Ballard claimed to have also found structures in the area, but we really haven't heard much about the expedition since those first reports came out 20 years ago. Ballard's team found evidence of an ancient shoreline 400 feet below the surface and determined through radiocarbon dating that the area was likely flooded during the time of the Biblical Noah. In 1999, the theory attracted the attention of underwater explorer Robert Ballard, who you might remember from such historic discoveries as the wrecks of the Titanic and the Bismarck.
This wasn't just a gradual increase in sea level, either, but an "enormous wall of water" that came hurtling into the region with 200 times the force of Niagara Falls. According to ABC, one such theory was put forward by two scientists at Columbia University, who believe the Black Sea was once a freshwater lake that became inundated by rising seawater from the Mediterranean.
0 kommentar(er)
