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?

[Danmark]

.

As far as I can tell creationist websites serve only one purpose; to reassure and soothe creationist bias and raise funds for themselves. They have zero impact on science and and a negative impact on Christianity because when Christians start to talk about creationism they give the impression they do not care about facts or truth, or are grossly ignorant. All they succeed in doing is bringing ridicule upon themselves.

My advice to creationists, especially the YEC version, is to avoid the subject because it just hurts their own cause. This is advice I do not expect them to take.

I advise them to keep on citing phony sources and condemning science -- and help discredit / diminish Christianity. The most effective voices AGAINST Christianity are those raised in attempting to defend the religion and its literature in open / public debate -- and those who are public spectacles.

I was trying to give them GOOD advice.
YOURS, they'll take.

[1213]

[Replying to post 153 by 1213]

What systematic error? Please be specific: show your math. Radioactivity is very well understood, and not subject to environmental disturbance. What, exactly,is it that you claim causes errors?

Here is one example that shows many problems and also how the systematic error can come:

"…One reason the group believes the uranium-thorium estimates to be more accurate than carbon dating is that they produce better matches between known changes in the Earth's orbit and changes in global glaciation…."
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/er ... ating.html

If we believe what the NY times tells, it is good thing that people try to check the results. Curious thing is, would that have been done, if the results would fit to atheistic world view. However, that is not important matter in this case.

Now, as you notice, Carbon dating doesn’t fit into the “known information�. So, all dating methods are not matching contrary to what some people seem to think here. And as it can be also seen, there is some knowledge that determines what results are correct. Dating results are compared to more “reliable� information. That can lead to systematic error, if all methods are calibrated by same standard or measurement and the standard is wrong. This means, key question is, is the information that is used for calibrating correct? This often seems to lead to circular reasoning. To know is there really circular reasoning, we must know, on what the timing of “changes in the Earth's orbit and changes in global glaciations� are based on, because that information seems to be the pivotal matter that determines what are correct results. Maybe someone here can explain it so that we can see is there circular reasoning and is there really any good evidence that the knowledge is actually correct. To me it is disturbing that if I want to study these deeply and really check the results, I am always left with some bedrock assumption that is not really based on any real evidence or proof that couldn’t mean something else also. And the bottom assumption always seems to be the godless world view that needs old earth to be convincing. However I understand that I don’t know all and I how someone corrects if I said something wrong in this, or tells if there is some real knowledge to support that the dating is not systematically wrong because of some bedrock assumptions that have not really any solid evidence.

I apologize if I accused somebody about conspiracy, or twisting information or that people don’t really even try to explore honestly. Maybe all science is pure. That is not relevant to this subject. Relevant matters are how the dating is done and what the problems in it are. Hopefully I managed to show in this post better what I think is the main problem and why it seems to be circular reasoning. And thank you all for all interesting arguments.

[1213]

...I remember reading of this. Yes, her evidence was met with skepticism, but has since been confirmed - though I am not certain of this. A quick internet search seemed to indicate that her findings were verified. But I'm not sure of your point, as this seems to prove what I am saying - that the scientific community tried to falsify her data, couldn't, and then confirmed it to be legit....

It was an example of what happens when contradictory evidence for evolution and millions of years is found.

It shouldn’t be possible to find soft tissue of creatures that lived “millions� of years ago. But if the finding is true, it must be fit into modern scientific world view. And it is interesting to see how it is done.

Interesting thing is also if this is true: “Dr Schweitzer ‘was having a hard time’ trying to get her work published in scientific journals... ‘I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?� And he said, “None.�’…�. If science in high level is not biased, why did Dr Schweitzer have this kind of problems in publishing his study?

In my opinion it is ok to be skeptic, but if no evidence is enough, it seems to be more likely biased thinking than skepticism.

In my opinion information should not be rejected only because it is from “evangelical� person, or from person that has otherwise “wrong� world view. Real science should be objective, in my opinion.

[Zzyzx]

.

Interesting thing is also if this is true: “Dr Schweitzer ‘was having a hard time’ trying to get her work published in scientific journals... ‘I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?� And he said, “None.�’…�. If science in high level is not biased, why did Dr Schweitzer have this kind of problems in publishing his study?

Did you overlook (or ignore or deny)

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth� creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.� On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,� declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.�
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 69/?no-ist

One of the strong points of the Scientific Method of study is that it encourages dispute of ANY of its work or conclusions -- and to minimize the influence of bias.

One of the weak points of religion is the drive to discourage questioning of its pronouncements / literature and denies, ignores, dismisses studies that disagree with its claimed "truths" (as we often see occurring in these debates).

[Looncall]

[Replying to post 163 by 1213]

I suggest you start by learning how the methods actually work. Checking various methods against each other does not imply errors. It is a prudent way of avoiding errors. Carbon-14 dating is complicated by variations in C-14 production in the atmosphere, which does not apply to other techniques.

I am not impressed by your snippet dredged up from the 1990s. It smacks of something close to quote mining.

Whatever uncertainties there may be in radiometric dates, they are nowhere near enough to rescue the idea of a young earth from the oblivion it deserves.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 163 by 1213]

In my opinion information should not be rejected only because it is from “evangelical� person, or from person that has otherwise “wrong� world view. Real science should be objective, in my opinion.

A question, if you please 1213. You have previously linked to sites such as creation.com. These types of sites, by and large, all have Statements of Faith, where they gleefully and proudly admit that they believe the Bible to be inerrant, without error, has to be read literally and, worst of all, they will discard any and all evidence that contradicts scripture.
The amount of times I have seen scientific research being twisted by these people (and by yourself) means that I now, as a rule that I impose on myself, say that if ever someone like yourself promotes creationism and does so by pointing to what these people say, I will go and check them out for one thing. If they have a statement of faith like what I described up above, I will deliberately ignore anything that you or they say.
Is this a fair thing for me to do, in your opinion? In my own opinion, it's a reputation for distrust that you (generic you, meaning Creationists with Statements of Faith) have earned. I cannot trust whatever things you call scientific research. Even if it is actually 100% scientific, how am I to know that? Anytime I read an article from creation.com, at the back of my mind, I'm wondering "what are they NOT telling me? What evidence that discredits them are they deliberately omitting, what have they distorted?"
I generally don't have this fear with non creationists, because non creationists aren't so stupid as to proudly tell me they do this sort of thing. With other scientists, non-creationists, I can presume they follow the scientific method and welcome challenge to their research, I can presume that they don't declare one book to be unchallengeable. I can presume that they won't discard any evidence that falsifies this book.

I'll repeat the question. In your opinion, is it fair of me that when I'm given an article from a creationist group, that I will deliberately ignore what they write after I check up on them and I find they have a Statement of Faith (that I have previously described)?

[1213]

Did you overlook (or ignore or deny)...

No, that part was just not relevant in this case. For me the meaningful thing is, if it is really true that people have found millions of years old soft cells. If I have understood correctly, that was impossible before it was found. But apparently you have no problems in believing that soft tissue survives millions of years?

Please notice, my point is not trying to make people believe in young earth. I think it is possible that earth is old. However I think it is not very reasonable to claim that soft dinosaur’s tissue could survive millions of years.

[Zzyzx]

.

Did you overlook (or ignore or deny)...

No, that part was just not relevant in this case. For me the meaningful thing is, if it is really true that people have found millions of years old soft cells. If I have understood correctly, that was impossible before it was found. But apparently you have no problems in believing that soft tissue survives millions of years?

I am content to let experts sort out such matters. Although I have a background and significant experience in sciences, I do not pretend to be all-knowing. Others who apparently have no background in or understanding of science often seem to feel qualified to critique the work of experts in the field -- as though they (the critics) know what is or is not evident or possible. Remarkable talent.

Please notice, my point is not trying to make people believe in young earth. I think it is possible that earth is old. However I think it is not very reasonable to claim that soft dinosaur’s tissue could survive millions of years.

Those who do not study sciences often have a lot of notions or opinions about complex matters they have not studied.

[1213]

The amount of times I have seen scientific research being twisted by these people (and by yourself)

How have I twisted scientific research?

Anytime I read an article from creation.com, at the back of my mind, I'm wondering "what are they NOT telling me? What evidence that discredits them are they deliberately omitting, what have they distorted?"

I have same problem with atheists and their Bible contradiction claims. Their claims also seem to be twisted always and therefore I probably should even bother to check them ever.

I generally don't have this fear with non creationists, because non creationists aren't so stupid as to proudly tell me they do this sort of thing. With other scientists, non-creationists, I can presume they follow the scientific method and welcome challenge to their research, I can presume that they don't declare one book to be unchallengeable. I can presume that they won't discard any evidence that falsifies this book.

Maybe you should have, because on basis of the article, some scientific article reviewers seem to have that same problem. To Dr Schweitzer it was said that no data would convince that her finding is true.

“Dr Schweitzer ‘was having a hard time’ trying to get her work published in scientific journals... ‘I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?� And he said, “None.�’…�.

That seems to be really biased way of thinking.

I'll repeat the question. In your opinion, is it fair of me that when I'm given an article from a creationist group, that I will deliberately ignore what they write after I check up on them and I find they have a Statement of Faith (that I have previously described)?

I think that means, you also have statement of faith. You are like those creationists that you basically accuse of biased thinking. I think you are free to do so, but I think it would be better, if people don’t practice biased thinking. Personally I try not to reject things just because it is said by atheists. I try to look what is the point and check is it reasonable and believable by the arguments merits, not by who said it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 169 by 1213]

How have I twisted scientific research?

Your suggestions, for example, that the food storage problem on the ark could have been solved by breeding rats, or fishing. To suggest such a thing is to disregard everything known about breeding rats, the dietary requirements of many large animals, and of course the impossibility of eight people somehow managing to fish or grow plants on a boat in apocalyptic flood conditions.

I have same problem with atheists and their Bible contradiction claims. Their claims also seem to be twisted always and therefore I probably should even bother to check them ever.

To contrast us atheists and people such as creation.com, answer yes or no to the following question. Do atheists have a tendency to proclaim one book infallible and proudly admit to discarding any evidence that contradicts this book?

Maybe you should have, because on basis of the article, some scientific article reviewers seem to have that same problem.

I am aware of course that there are individual people, even on the atheist side, who will manipulate evidence. What I was getting is that generally, this isn't a fear or worry I have when it comes to the average atheist, versus the worry I have when it comes to someone like creation.com or Ken Ham.

I think that means, you also have statement of faith.

How so? I have not proclaimed a single book infallible, nor have I said that I will discard any evidence that contradicts what I have previously declared to be true.
Here's how it works for me. Let's say that creation.com and atheist scientist Bob both do research on the same thing. They do their experiments and publish articles. Given creation.com's Statement of Faith, this means I will deliberately ignore everything creation.com says. It could be they are correct, but they are not credible in my eyes. They are untrustworthy.
Instead, I will listen to Bob. I will investigate his research and if possible, I will attempt to falsify it, but at the very least I will read his article.

Personally I try not to reject things just because it is said by atheists

I think you misunderstand me. I do not deliberately ignore creationists. The people I deliberately ignore are those creationists who have a Statement of Faith where they admit to discarding and/or manipulating evidence that contradicts their chosen holy book.
If you (generic you) are a creationist but who does NOT have a Statement of Faith like that, then I will NOT deliberately ignore you.