Why does science refuse to acknowledge Noah's ark and the worldwide flood?

Answer 1

Outside the Bible and a few other stories from the middle east such as the Gilgamesh epic, there is no evidence for it.

Evidence against it:

1) There is evidence for undisrupted human occupation of many parts of the world for the past 30,000 years or so.
For example, early Chinese civilizations were in place 5000 and 6000 years ago, and record no disruption. This is not simply a matter of carbon dating---there are actual records. Similarly, American Indian cultures and Australian Aboriginal culture only make sense if those people have been in place for well over 10,000 years.

2) There is nowhere near enough water in the world to cover the highest mountains. If all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica melted, the oceans would rise only 300 feet.

3) The distribution of species around the globe completely different from what you would expect from the Noah story. How did all the kangaroos get to Australia, and nowhere else? How did the giant land tortoises of the Galapagos Islands get there (and almost no other land animals)?

4) Aside from evidence of tidal waves, the sea level everywhere on Earth has been lower than it is now, for the past 18,000 years. If the sea level had been higher, there would be clear signs.

5) The Grand Canyon, etc. were not formed by rapid flooding. They were formed by slow erosion---the differences are known to geologists. There are a few geological formations that were formed by rapid, local flooding (for example, eastern Washington State) and these few areas show clear signs. The rest of the world does not.

Answer 2

Science requires fact, and the Noah's Ark and a World wide flood are not proven by fact.
Science does understand that there have been instances of catastrophic flooding in parts of the World, however, there is no proof of a Worldwide Flood. As far the Noah's Ark question, that is a "Story" that was taken from different texts and cultures from the region.

Answer 3

Science does not grant Noah’s flood any credence because the story is an obvious myth, and the so called “defenses” for global diluvium are ostensibly idiotic. A flood of the proportions described in the Bible, even if it were localized just in the Middle East, would have left ample evidence of it occurring. In most cases absence of evidence does not necessarily mean evidence of absence, but when the phenomenon is big enough, absence of evidence does mean that the subject in question did not occur.

If I were to tell you that a massive nuclear explosion hit Miami yesterday, there would be some tell tale signs, such as high levels of radiation saturation in the air, a city engulfed in flames, people vaporized, etc. that would indicate that such a tragedy actually transpired. If you were to go to Miami today, and only see sunny skies, pristinely kept buildings, and exquisite beaches, you would think that I lied, and you would be right. Well Noah’s flood, if taken literally from the Bible, would have left even more evidence than a nuclear bomb, because Noah’s flood was far more destructive, and the depth of the destruction left in the wake of a deluge of that magnitude, would have left evidence of its existence thousands of years after it transpired.

The fact that such evidence is nonexistent is proof enough to disconfirm the story and treat it as a myth.

Answer 4

...basically because a worldwide flood is completely impossible. Where did all that water come from, and where did it go? Except for the odd cometary impact, the Earth has had roughly the same total amount of water for millions (probably billions) of years. Even if all the ice in the polar regions thawed, it would only raise sea level a few hundred feet. There simply has never been enough water on Earth to submerge all the land. ...not by a long shot.

Answer 5

Well, lets see

So say every living thing on earth is destroyed by the flood except Noah's family and the animals

How is it that the Israelites, descendants of Noah and Abraham etc. are enslaved by large, powerful empires just over a thousand years later?

Don't tell me they rebuilt the world in a matter of generations... Regional flood? Sounds good. Big flood? Probable. World destroyed? Impossible.

Answer 6

Why do fundamentalists fail to acknowledge evidence, or lack of in this case? Where is the evidence of this world-wide flood? Please, hard evidence only, not some made up crap spewed from those that are desperate to keep you from the truth.

I could also list the many reasons why the whole Noah's Ark story is nonsense but I fear I'd just be wasting my time.

Answer 7

they didnt acknowledge the ark... because they cant FIND it.
so very hard to prove anything there.
second... i do believe the world has flooded several times in its entire history... so they did aknowledge that...
what i want to know..... is... how did they get two north american buffalo on there?... how about the kangaroos?.....how did they get on the ark?... they swim over?... or did the ark stop by and pick them up within 40 days....?
not trying to be mean.... trying to cause thought
how did animals make it to the ark...when they couldnt cross a ocean... or the land bridge wasnt there anymore?

Answer 8

Actually, a segment of the scientific community does recognize that a Flood of tremendous magnitude took place. And there is speculation about whether the Ark of Noah is in ice on a mountain in Turkey.

Answer 9

don't blame "science"

it's the EVIDENCE that refuses to acknowledge Noah's ark and the worldwide flood. in that there is none for it, and quite a bit that shows a global flood never happened

Answer 10

The same reason scientists refuse to acknowledge the Invisible Pink Unicorn.