Implausibility of the flood tale

[Zzyzx]

.
In a thread discussing the different lengths of time Genesis assigns to the Earth being flooded, mention was made of other implausibilities of the flood tale -- including:

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man
2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward
3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward
4) Eight people providing for millions of diverse animals (some carnivores) for a year
5) Repopulating all the continents with humans and other animals in a few thousand years (and producing the great genetic diversity known to exist).

Are those (and other) implausibilities sufficient grounds to conclude that in all likelihood the flood tale is fable, legend, myth, folklore or fiction?

If not, why not? What rational explanation can be made for them?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 131 by 1213]

1213, simple question for you if you don't mind.

How do you explain that no fossils have ever been found/dated outside of its expected and predicted timeline by evolution?

If current dating methods are just inferences, than surely we would have a couple of anomalies, i mean after all, according to you it isn't an exact science. But we don't find anything (ever) outside its expected date.

How can all of these sciences (paleontology/geology/biology/genetics/astronomy) all be erroneous in the same manner and to the same degree? And all point to the same timeline?

Doesn't this thinking border on the absurd?

all the best,

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 131 by 1213]

Please notice artistic illustrations are no evidence.

...1213, would you kindly remind the class which person in this thread has offered drawings as evidence for his beliefs?

But it is easy and fast explanation and fits well to Godless world view that needs such miraculous events.

A godless world view...needs miraculous events?

This is example number I don't even know high it is, of a theist projecting.

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 131 by 1213]

How can all of these sciences (paleontology/geology/biology/genetics/astronomy) all be erroneous in the same manner and to the same degree? And all point to the same timeline?

On the previous religion discussion board in which I participated, I asked a very similar question to a similarly convinced science denialist. The response was basically that it was some sort of conspiracy – a global conspiracy by academia that is so thorough that it even has the power to stifle views that contradict ‘Christianity’ in non-Christian countries/cultures. I think logically, this would be the only other ‘viable’ alternative to the idea that highly trained (i.e. advanced degrees at reputable institutions of higher learning) specialists in their respective levels of expertise are not only incompetent, but are incompetent in the same ways.

Still, if someone is going to posit a global conspiracy motivated by ‘hatred of The Truth’, I don’t think there’s much I can do. To have a constructive conversation there must be some shared values with respect to metaphysics (i.e. what is the nature of reality) and personal experience (e.g. knowing a research scientist personally).

Take care,
TFV

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 131 by 1213]

How can all of these sciences (paleontology/geology/biology/genetics/astronomy) all be erroneous in the same manner and to the same degree? And all point to the same timeline?

On the previous religion discussion board in which I participated, I asked a very similar question to a similarly convinced science denialist. The response was basically that it was some sort of conspiracy – a global conspiracy by academia that is so thorough that it even has the power to stifle views that contradict ‘Christianity’ in non-Christian countries/cultures. I think logically, this would be the only other ‘viable’ alternative to the idea that highly trained (i.e. advanced degrees at reputable institutions of higher learning) specialists in their respective levels of expertise are not only incompetent, but are incompetent in the same ways.

Still, if someone is going to posit a global conspiracy motivated by ‘hatred of The Truth’, I don’t think there’s much I can do. To have a constructive conversation there must be some shared values with respect to metaphysics (i.e. what is the nature of reality) and personal experience (e.g. knowing a research scientist personally).

Take care,
TFV

I agree. It's tough to debate your opponent when they offer "global conspiracy" arguments. I guess the best one can do is to ask for evidence of said conspiracy, but then your opponent is likely to re-assert the Young Earth argument: completing the circle of paranoia.

Q: How do you know the earth is 10k years old?
A: My bible tells me.
Q: All the sciences say it is much older. How do you account for that?
A: They are wrong. Its a global conspiracy.
Q: Do you have any evidence of this global conspiracy?
A: Yes, the bible says the earth is only 10k years old. So it must be a conspiracy.
Q: Sigh.

all the best

[McCulloch]

I don’t think we have any reason to reject modern real knowledge. All real knowledge supports what the Bible tells, or at least doesn’t revoke Bible. The conclusions that are interpreted from real knowledge are the thing that I don’t accept, when it is not reasonable.

So you admit that you assess evidence based on whether it agrees with the Bible. How then did you determine that the writers of the Bible are true? If you say evidence, you end up sounding circular. You only accept evidence that agrees with the Bible, yet you believe the Bible because of the evidence?

[Liteninbolt]

.
In a thread discussing the different lengths of time Genesis assigns to the Earth being flooded, mention was made of other implausibilities of the flood tale -- including:

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man
2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward
3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward
4) Eight people providing for millions of diverse animals (some carnivores) for a year
5) Repopulating all the continents with humans and other animals in a few thousand years (and producing the great genetic diversity known to exist).

Are those (and other) implausibilities sufficient grounds to conclude that in all likelihood the flood tale is fable, legend, myth, folklore or fiction?

If not, why not? What rational explanation can be made for them?

OPINION

It could be that God may have had an active hand in making that all possible as far as I can rationally explain it.

[Zzyzx]

.

It could be that God may have had an active hand in making that all possible as far as I can rationally explain it.

When Goddidit is injected we are no longer debating. Though you (generic term) may believe that, others of us do not accept claimed supernatural involvement as an explanation for anything.

Real world experience and observation does not square at all well with the flood tale. Some Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that Genesis is likely folklore, oral tradition or myth. However, many in-the-pew Christians seem to know more that the experts.

[Liteninbolt]

.

It could be that God may have had an active hand in making that all possible as far as I can rationally explain it.

When Goddidit is injected we are no longer debating. Though you (generic term) may believe that, others of us do not accept claimed supernatural involvement as an explanation for anything.

Real world experience and observation does not square at all well with the flood tale. Some Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that Genesis is likely folklore, oral tradition or myth. However, many in-the-pew Christians seem to know more that the experts.

Well, as you have so poignantly pointed out, we all don't think the same. As a point of note I qualified my previous post as being an 'opinion' as you had on another topic. I felt this gave me valid leeway to do so also.

[Zzyzx]

.

Well, as you have so poignantly pointed out, we all don't think the same. As a point of note I qualified my previous post as being an 'opinion' as you had on another topic. I felt this gave me valid leeway to do so also.

Apologies if I gave the wrong impression with "OPINION" earlier -- which was intended as an answer to the question "Question for debate...what makes a religion or sect of a religion "aberrant"?" My answer was "opinion".

Although we are all entitled to opinions -- they have no merit in debate.

[Liteninbolt]

.

Well, as you have so poignantly pointed out, we all don't think the same. As a point of note I qualified my previous post as being an 'opinion' as you had on another topic. I felt this gave me valid leeway to do so also.

Apologies if I gave the wrong impression with "OPINION" earlier -- which was intended as an answer to the question "Question for debate...what makes a religion or sect of a religion "aberrant"?" My answer was "opinion".

Although we are all entitled to opinions -- they have no merit in debate.

My apologies also. In any of the discussions at this site I make on any given subject, (especially religious ones) most likely it will be an opinion. My aim in participating here is to exchange ideas and thoughts in hopes of everyone benefiting from the exchange. I'm not out to win anything. I suppose different people have different goals because the pursuit of truth begins with honest offerings,