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?

[1213]

You need to learn some genetics, perhaps then you will understand just how wrong and in just how many ways your example is wrong.

If it is multiple ways wrong, I would like to see even one way. By what I know, it is not wrong.

[rikuoamero]

You need to learn some genetics, perhaps then you will understand just how wrong and in just how many ways your example is wrong.

If it is multiple ways wrong, I would like to see even one way. By what I know, it is not wrong.

Except that you telling me that the knowledge you have is correct, is not credible. Your claim is not credible. You have in this thread offered multiple ideas, said that they were probably true, only for myself and others to poke all sorts of holes in them, showing that you in fact do not know much of the subject.
Time after time after time, you fail to demonstrate any understanding of the subject at hand. You fail to demonstrate evidence, you fail to demonstrate any grasp of logic or consequences. So I'm not confident about your claim to understand or know genetics. I don't believe that you do.

[H.sapiens]

You need to learn some genetics, perhaps then you will understand just how wrong and in just how many ways your example is wrong.

If it is multiple ways wrong, I would like to see even one way. By what I know, it is not wrong.

Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonymous_substitution

There are many others. Go get yourself education

[1213]

Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonymous_substitution

There are many others. Go get yourself education

I am not sure what you wanted to say with that.

In earlier post I said that mutations are mistakes in copying of DNA, and I compared it to this:
Original: Implausibility
copy 1: Imlpausibility
copy 2: Imlpasuibility
copy 3: Impasubiility
….

And now I notice, I should have been more accurate and I should have said, mutations are results of mistakes in DNA copy. Was that what you wanted to say? Or do you thing mutations are not results of mistakes in DNA copy, like Wikipedia for example claims?

Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

[Looncall]

[Replying to 1213]

What you are leaving out is that selection prunes the errors.

Your text would have an editor before it is published.

[Zzyzx]

.

There are many others. Go get yourself education

Perhaps we should not recommend that anyone get an education. Saying that might insult them AND many do not want actual education / learning or even steadfastly resist learning anything that contradicts their preconceived notions.

That can be a case of willful ignorance "A bad faith decision to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt." http://www.definitions.net/definition/w ... 0ignorance

In the vernacular: "Don't confuse them with facts, their mind's made up."

Of course this is a general statement that is not intended for anyone personally.

[H.sapiens]

.

There are many others. Go get yourself education

Perhaps we should not recommend that anyone get an education. Saying that might insult them AND many do not want actual education / learning or even steadfastly resist learning anything that contradicts their preconceived notions.

That can be a case of willful ignorance "A bad faith decision to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt." http://www.definitions.net/definition/w ... 0ignorance

In the vernacular: "Don't confuse them with facts, their mind's made up."

Of course this is a general statement that is not intended for anyone personally.

I agree with you in theory. The problem with demonstrating willful ignorance is that it is only definitively demonstrated after a series of exchanges, in each of which the willful ignoramus demonstrates the internet equivalent of a propensity for running in circles, ears plugged with fingers, blinders on, yelling waa, was, waa.

[Zzyzx]

.

I agree with you in theory. The problem with demonstrating willful ignorance is that it is only definitively demonstrated after a series of exchanges, in each of which the willful ignoramus demonstrates the internet equivalent of a propensity for running in circles, ears plugged with fingers, blinders on, yelling waa, was, waa.

I suspect that at about the second circle most readers catch on to the comedy act.

The implausibility of the flood tale is an excellent demonstration of the concept when all sorts of weird "explanations" are offered -- such as:

The mountains might have been much lower a few thousand years
The continents floated on a layer of water and/or there was a layer of water above the Earth
A wooden ship larger than any ever known to have been constructed was built by a 500 year old man
Animals assembled from all over the globe to the Mid-East then dispersed afterward.
Eight people fed and housed thousands or millions of animals for the duration
Those same eight repopulated the Earth in a few thousands of years -- with great variations among people
Etc, Etc.

Even rudimentary knowledge of the Earth and its inhabitants belies the tale -- but many still try to defend it as literal truth by condemning any scientific studies that contradict what ancients wrote.

[1213]

[Replying to 1213]

What you are leaving out is that selection prunes the errors.

Your text would have an editor before it is published.

Do you think that means, no mutations happen? Or that no mistakes in copying DNA happen? If you believe mutations happen, what do you think are the reason for them?

[Looncall]

[Replying to post 219 by 1213]

What it means is that, while mutations certainly do happen, selection keeps deleterious ones from persisting in the population.

Therefore, mutations do not necessarily mean degeneration over time.

Mind you, degeneration is a hopelessly vague concept in the first place.