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?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 40 by Kenisaw]

We should also ask about inbreeding and incestuous relationships.

If, according to the tale, there were only eight people from one family left on Earth, with whom did they reproduce? The options for the first generation born post-flood seem to be cousins at the most and alternatively siblings, parents, grandparents.

At some point in-pew Christians may catch up with Christian and Jewish scholars and theologians who recognize that the flood tale is myth, legend, folklore. Many of the most astute seem to understand that the story was borrowed from earlier stories that are regarded as mythical.

Of course, it took centuries for religionists to accept that Earth is not the center of the universe . . . so let's not stand on one foot waiting for that enlightenment to occur.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by 1213]

Yes, some penguins are fine in 20 degree C temperatures. I should know, considering there are some penguins at Dublin Zoo, Ireland, I've seen a few times, and here in Ireland, we think any temperature above 25C is boiling hot.
Tell me though, is Peru or South Africa, the same kind of climate as the Middle East?

It would be interesting to see how it would be explained. I don’t think it would make any difference,

How about we cross that bridge once we come to it, instead of making excuses for why there is no evidence and why you won't present it? I don't like being accused of twisting evidence, especially evidence that I have not seen and evidence that you refuse to present!

That is why I don’t think there is any good reason to go through all the trouble.

Except it would be hard evidence that what people who have been teaching evolution for decades had predicted...was in fact wrong. Current evolutionary teachings say that marsupials are only in Australia, that the fact that Australia is an isolated area meant that animals could evolve in all sorts of different ways and forms, unlike animals elsewhere and that this was because it was isolated.
If a kangaroo fossil a thousand years old is found elsewhere, that would overturn all that.
What (most) scientists do and hope to accomplish is to prove some accepted scientific theory wrong. Every mathematician or physicist worth his/her salt wants to publish a paper that says that something Einstein said is wrong.
What I see from people such as yourself with this attitude of "no good reason to go to the trouble [of presenting the evidence]" is that you want to promote creationism or the flood tale as being true, without having to go through the rigours of the scientific process. I'm not accusing you directly of this, but others like yourself who believe this have and do tend to want this to be taught as 'scientific' truth without going through the scientific method.

Actually I am not sure is it even necessary to think so. For me it is enough to understand that it can be possible.

Then you are a very different creature than myself. Yes, more or less anything is possible. But and here's a question that I would bet my live savings on you have never asked - is it probable? What is the likelihood of this thing being true? (this is what the title of the OP means, that word implausibility)
All sorts of things are possible, but do we go around saying just about anything is true? Do we go around teaching that the myth stories of every and all religions are equally true? Should we waste time in classrooms teaching that the flood story happened, despite a lack of evidence to support it along with the stories from the Maui people of New Zealand about how their country formed?
Or should we recognise that we have only limited time in the classroom and thus, give time only to those explanations and theories that have evidence supporting them, that have gone through the rigours of the scientific process?

What evidence we have against that?

DNA evidence for one. Supposing the flood story to be 'true', you have no explanation, none whatsoever, for the genetic diversity of life on this planet.
There's also the water that flooded the planet, calculated as necessarily being 3 times the volume of water that actually is on Earth. Where did 3 times the volume of water that actually is on Earth go?
There's also the fact that the Ark as described would not have been seaworthy, even in sea conditions a hundred times less as violent as a worldwide flood would have been.
There's the fact that the Ark would have resulted in the deaths of all aboard, given problems of food storage, lack of space and ventilation.

Penguin fossils have allegedly been found in Peru also.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11420635
In my opinion that proves they are not entirely Antarctic species.

I notice what you did not quote from that link. The fact that the fossil was dated at 30 million years, and...wait for it...had SCALES!
As in, the fossil being talked about here is NOT the same creature as a penguin in Antarctica today. It is somewhat similar yes, being an ancestor but not the same.

When I challenged you before to find me a penguin fossil, what I meant was this
1) A fossil very close to, if not identical, to what penguins are like today
2) Located in the Middle East
This fossil that you talk about is not number 1 and it most definitely is not number 2. Peru's climate is very different to the Middle East, even 30 million years ago.

I hope you understand that by the logic you give, I could ask, fossil about some intermediate fossil.

Every fossil is intermediate.

And if you can’t show it, I could say, ok then the whole evolution theory can’t be true.

Explain

If we don’t have some fossil, it is no proof for anything, because there can be many reasons why that fossil doesn’t exist.

(We meaning Creationists?) Yes, because we use Occam's Razor. Before reaching for the explanation that involves magic and wholesale violations of natural law that has little to no evidence in support of it, scientists look for a natural explanation first.

There is just not good conditions for fossilization for every possible animal, in every possible place.

Agreed. That doesn't mean though that I can say that penguins were definitely in the Middle East.

If there would have been penguins, their remains would have been destroyed.

So why pretend to say that there were penguins in Finland, if there is no fossils, no evidence at all of them being there? What is rational about the claim?

[H.sapiens]

Then show me any sign of a marsupial, any marsupial, between Turkey and Australia.

Let’s hope we find marsupial from Middle East. It would be interesting to see how it would be explained. I don’t think it would make any difference, it would be twisted in evolutionary thinking, or it would be silenced as inconvenient fact for the atheistic point of view. Either way, it would not make any difference. That is why I don’t think there is any good reason to go through all the trouble.

There are no marsupials today anywhere but in the New World and in Australia, NO WHERE ELSE! This is proof perfect that either there were none on the Arc or that the Arc story is a fairy tale. The fact that they are found, however, in the New World and in Australia nails it down as a fairy tale.

Here are the facts (source: Univ. of Edinburgh):

• Marsupials evolved, along with placental mammals, from Therian mammals.
• Marsupials diverged from Eutherian mammals approximately 90 million years ago.
• Marsupials evolved in North America, expanded into South America and the Pacific rim of Asia. During this period of migration the North American marsupials became extinct, followed by extinctions in Europe during the Miocene epoch of the Tertiary period.
• When North and South America rejoined in the Pliocene/Pleistocene, South American marsupials migrated back into North America, where Didelphis virginiana, the American opossum evolved. South American marsupial included now extinct forms such as the sabertooth cat analogue Thylacosmilus:
  
  
• Marsupials began to migrate to Australia and New Zealand from North America in the late Cretaceous/early Tertiary. The route of migration crossed Antarctica and into Australia. As Australia broke off from Antarctica and moved northwards, its isolation from other landmasses was complete and the independent evolution of marsupials in Australia and New Zealand began, resulting in some spectacular species that are now extinct including the lion analogue Thylacoleo here shown attacking Diprotodon, a hippopotamus-sized wombat
  
  as well as Zygomaturus, a pygmy rhinoceros analogue:
  
  
  and Palorchestes, a horse sized marsupial possessed if a short proboscis:
  
  

You can hope all you want, pray even, but it's not happening. Were any sign of marsupials found in there it would require a major rewrite of bio-geographic history, that is the kind of stuff that careers are made of. It would be interesting to see how it would be explained. It would make a huge difference. You think that, "it would be twisted in evolutionary thinking, or it would be silenced as inconvenient fact for the atheistic point of view." But that's just because you don't understand science or how science works so you slip your cognitive dissonance into overdrive and invent a paranoid delusion of some from of plot, and then discount your action with: "Either way, it would not make any difference. That is why I don’t think there is any good reason to go through all the trouble." The reason for "going through all the trouble" is to determine which view is more likely to be correct, all that data points away from the Arc and toward evolution ... with the exception of the bible fairy tale. Hmm ... what would a rational logical person do?

[1213]

They are, however, aquatic animals and not desert dwellers. Note that the distribution map cited shows them to be nowhere near the Middle East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Penguin_range.png

I can agree that they are not desert dwellers. But I have no reason to assume that there couldn’t have been suitable environment for penguins earlier. If the flood actually happened, climate and environment has been wery different in many times.

Those who do not have evidence can still hope. Apologists can cling to the hope that the ancient tales they revere could be true – and hope those penguins swam and walked thousands of miles . . .

But if it is true that penguins have been found from Peru and Antarctic doesn’t that prove they have walked or swim long distances?

Doesn't it seem more rational to acknowledge that the ancient tales are myth, legend, folklore, etc? Why cling to the hope they are anything more?

I think myth is myth after it is proven to be myth. Until then, it can be truth and not myth. I don’t have any reason to make hasty decisions without good knowledge.

[1213]

Tell me though, is Peru or South Africa, the same kind of climate as the Middle East?

After and before the great flood, climate was probably different than now, because the changes (collapse of the original continent, flood and rain). Climate probably got colder, because things that cause heating died and also because rain water cools. After the flood, penguins could have moved slowly as the conditions change.

Except it would be hard evidence that what people who have been teaching evolution for decades had predicted...was in fact wrong.

I believe the evidence would be buried, ridiculed or twisted. Modern evolution theory seems to be like religion and it would not be allowed to be revoked.

But and here's a question that I would bet my live savings on you have never asked - is it probable? What is the likelihood of this thing being true?

When I seek the truth and real knowledge, probabilities are not wery meaningful. Many things are improbable, yet they happen. But still I also evaluate probabilities. And I have come to conclusion that Earth as we know it is more probably by the events that the Bible tells than by the modern “scientific� theory.

All sorts of things are possible, but do we go around saying just about anything is true?

No, but if something is possible, I don’t think it is wise to say that it can’t be true.

Should we waste time in classrooms teaching that the flood story happened

I think it is enough if we teach things that we know and allow children to make their own conclusions on basis of real knowledge and not on some “scientific� fantasies. This means, I think it is good to teach what we have found, what people have said, and what some people believe. That all animals are offspring of single species is also belief, I think that would be also good to learn. The difference between, knowledge, wisdom and intelligence would also be good to learn.

Supposing the flood story to be 'true', you have no explanation, none whatsoever, for the genetic diversity of life on this planet.

What is there to explain? For example people are from 8 people, according to the story. Now we have much more people that all look little different. That means, there must be some system that makes it possible for changes in looks. Same can be with animals. This means, evolution in some sense can be true, and seems to be true. Bible and parts of evolution theory are not in contradiction.

In my opinion more plausibly explanation is that God created in the beginning the ancestors of all modern species. Those were all good, as the Bible tells. And later they became corrupt, which has led to this situation. Therefore I think evolution is wrong word and I would rather use devolution, all modern animals are degenerated offspring of earlier animals.

I also think that modern definition for species is not correct. For example all bears should be one species, with different races, similarly as humans are not different species, but different races.

There's also the water that flooded the planet, calculated as necessarily being 3 times the volume of water that actually is on Earth. Where did 3 times the volume of water that actually is on Earth go?

I think that is wrong assumption. Bible story indicates that water didn’t actually rise, but dry land sunk, which made it look like rising water. Here is more about the principle.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

There's also the fact that the Ark as described would not have been seaworthy, even in sea conditions a hundred times less as violent as a worldwide flood would have been.

I have no reason to believe it would not be possible. But I can easily believe that atheist could not do the same.

It is possible that there were calm, because if there is no land, and if sun is behind clouds, there is not much temperature differences that normally cause winds.

There's the fact that the Ark would have resulted in the deaths of all aboard, given problems of food storage, lack of space and ventilation.

I have not enough information about the amount of species in the boat. However, there could have been species that eat things that can be caught from the water and that breed fast and can be eaten by other animals. And it is also possible that all the animals were not fully grown when they went into the ark.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 45 by 1213]

rikuo said

There's also the fact that the Ark as described would not have been seaworthy, even in sea conditions a hundred times less as violent as a worldwide flood would have been.

to which 1213 says

I have no reason to believe it would not be possible

I have to question the honesty of this statement. Earlier in this thread, information was given to you about other wooden ships that have been constructed, large and made of wood, using modern shipbuilding techniques. By and large, they were not seaworthy. Most of them sank. So if we have a collection of ships that were better built than Noah's Ark, by trained shipbuilders with more knowledge on the topic of shipbuilding than Noah would have had, with far better materials, and these ships sank in conditions much less violent than a worldwide flood...why would one think that Noah's Ark would be seaworthy in a worldwide flood?
Why would you say that you have no reason to believe it's not possible? Did that list of other wooden ships not get processed by you?

After and before the great flood, climate was probably different than now, because the changes (collapse of the original continent, flood and rain). Climate probably got colder, because things that cause heating died and also because rain water cools. After the flood, penguins could have moved slowly as the conditions change.

I notice you say probably a lot. That is the kind of word used by a person who is making guesses at something for which he has little to no information to go on.
I have no use for "probably". I want data, which you do not provide (or when you do, you do not parse it as thoroughly as you should, such as when you mentioned the fossil of the penguin like creature)

I believe the evidence would be buried, ridiculed or twisted. Modern evolution theory seems to be like religion and it would not be allowed to be revoked.

Funny, I could say the same for proponents of creationism. They by and large overwhelmingly have things like Statements of Faith, where they say that any evidence that does not fit their narrative gets thrown out.

When I seek the truth and real knowledge, probabilities are not wery meaningful.

So in other words, you look only for absolute certainty, and do not actually do real science at all. Real science does not pronounce absolute certainty on anything, it works on odds, probabilities.
Given that you do not practice scientific methodology, why should I or anyone give credence to you when you attempt to portray your beliefs in a scientific manner? Your website has all sorts of diagrams and such, that to a random passerby may look scientific, but actually are not.

But still I also evaluate probabilities.

Which is why, when given that list of wooden ships that were either the same size of the Ark or larger that were also made of wood and most of them sank, you...instead doubled down on proclaiming the Ark to be a perfectly seaworthy vessel, even in the conditions of a worldwide flood?

No, but if something is possible, I don’t think it is wise to say that it can’t be true.

If something is extremely unlikely, do we waste time teaching it as if it were true?

I think it is enough if we teach things that we know and allow children to make their own conclusions on basis of real knowledge and not on some “scientific� fantasies.

I notice that the point of my question must have escaped your grasp. The point of my question has to do with the fact that class time is limited, finite. There are only so many hours in the day. In order to ensure that children receive the best education possible, it is only rational that they be taught things that have the evidence to back them up.
Your creationism does not have this evidence. It falls apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny.
Why allow children 'to make their own conclusions'? Do you even have a framework for this? At what age? Do we give one hour for scientific evolution and one hour for Biblical creationism? What about other religions, other cultures? Should classes in New Zealand have one hour for scientific evolution, one hour for Christian Biblical creationism and one hour for the myths of the Maui people (e.g. that the islands of New Zealand are the remains of a giant fish caught by an ancestor patriarch of the Maui people)?
I see this as sneaky. It's a violation of church and state (to use public classrooms to teach religious dogma); plus it's just trying to get creationism the same status as scientific evolution without having done the work, without presenting the credentials!

That all animals are offspring of single species is also belief, I think that would be also good to learn.

But not in a scientific context, precisely because there is no data to back it up. You, yes you in particular have no data to back it up. All you have are guesses, maybes and probablies.

What is there to explain? For example people are from 8 people, according to the story. Now we have much more people that all look little different. That means, there must be some system that makes it possible for changes in looks. Same can be with animals. This means, evolution in some sense can be true, and seems to be true. Bible and parts of evolution theory are not in contradiction.

That system is called evolution and it IS in conflict with the Bible, in every way. The Bible states in Genesis that animals were created out of nothing in their current forms. This is about as far away from evolution as you can get. You can't get a viable population from just 8 individuals, the problems of inbreeding would have ensured the deaths of the species in question (especially when 5 of those individuals are already close relatives to begin with!)

In my opinion more plausibly explanation is that God created in the beginning the ancestors of all modern species.

Notice that you don't provide any data that might even hint that this is true. None whatsoever. Just your opinion.

Those were all good, as the Bible tells. And later they became corrupt, which has led to this situation.

So if I were to dissect an animal now, what then is 'corrupt'? What is 'corrupt', what does it mean? How is it defined? What parts do I point to and say "That part is corrupt"?
This is another major problem with your belief on this topic - it's so vague and unclear, instead of being clear, sharp and to the point.

I also think that modern definition for species is not correct. For example all bears should be one species, with different races, similarly as humans are not different species, but different races.

Every single biologist would disagree with you. Your proposed system is far too untidy.

I think that is wrong assumption. Bible story indicates that water didn’t actually rise, but dry land sunk, which made it look like rising water. Here is more about the principle.

In trying to convince me of something that you believe, how about you point me to something other than yourself? With some actual data, and not just a few pretty pictures that you drew? I notice that in that link do you NOT at any point indicate that you went out and performed measurements or took readings or do anything of that nature.
No your process is
1) Read the Bible
2) Take your lackluster understanding of various branches of science and attempt to make sense of the Bible story
3) Draw pictures
4) Profit!!!
In case a mod reads point 2, no, this is not me insulting 1213. It is an observation.
THAT is your methodology and THAT is why you will always lose out to real scientists. You do not look at the real world. You read a book and draw a few pictures.

I have not enough information about the amount of species in the boat.

Yes you do. Do not try and pretend that you don't. The Genesis story has God telling Noah in two different chapters two different commands. In Genesis 6, it's take a male and female of every animal and bird. In Genesis 7, it's seven pairs of ritually clean animals, one pair of unclean animals and seven pairs of birds. We're given specifics here.
Notice also that at no point is the question raised of fish or other sea animals, who would have also ALL died out, every single one, in a worldwide flood event. Where did they come from afterward then? Are we to believe that God magicked them up, just like in Genesis? What data do you have to back this up?

However, there could have been species that eat things that can be caught from the water and that breed fast and can be eaten by other animals.

Notice again the language you use. You're using could. Notice that you don't provide any evidence at all. You come up with a halfway plausible explanation but don't actually bother trying to find evidence to see if it could be true.
Do you have any idea of how much food tigers and lions need to eat in order to survive? Do you have numbers that indicate birth rate? Have you done any calculations regarding the removal of animal faeces from a boat supposedly filled with tens of thousands of animals, with a crew of only 8 people? Have you factored in the complete lack of exercise these animals would have being trapped on a boat for about a year, and their resultant ill health?
No, you don't. Your attempt at a half-way plausible explanation for food storage is completely without merit since you have not one iota of information to support it!
Heck, what about methane? Animals produce methane when they fart. The Ark had only one window. One, and it was tiny. It had no other means of circulating air.
About eating food caught from the water...what food? What was the flood supposed to do? Oh yes, it's purpose was to KILL EVERYTHING! So what food would have been caught in the water? Are you seriously suggesting that during the weeks of heavy torrential floods (30 feet of rainfall per hour, as has been calculated would be necessary to cover the whole earth to the tops of the tallest mountains in the amount of time indicated by Genesis), that Noah let the bears out for a swim? Or that the 8 person crew had time to fish (for rotting fish that had died out from the mixture of salt and freshwater), while tending to the health of thousands of animals and fixing any leaks or other damages to the ark?
THAT is why I call the Ark a death trap. There is no way, none, for 8 people and thousands of animals to survive on that boat for a year while out at sea in a worldwide flood.
Oh yes, here's ANOTHER problem. What about sea life? They too would have all died in such a flood. Where did they come from afterward? Did Noah keep two or seven pairs of all types of fish, sharks, squids, etc on the Ark?
What food would the animals have eaten after the whole ordeal had ended? They'd have walked off the boat onto a completely desolate wasteland, with no life whatsoever.

I can agree that they are not desert dwellers. But I have no reason to assume that there couldn’t have been suitable environment for penguins earlier. If the flood actually happened, climate and environment has been wery different in many times.

Could...if. Those words again. Prove the if. If there was a flood...the environment may have been different. Well, I don't have any reason to suppose the environment was that drastically different, and in order for me to even entertain the notion, you'd need to prove the flood, which you have not done

But if it is true that penguins have been found from Peru and Antarctic doesn’t that prove they have walked or swim long distances?

Not penguins. Penguin-like ancestors. When you or I say penguins, we're talking about the penguins of today. The fossil that you showed us is NOT the same as a modern penguin. It had some rather stark and different features, such as the scales. So no, it doesn't mean that penguins travelled long distances. Only that an ancestor of theirs that resembled them was in a different location and in a different environment than is typical of modern penguins.
And again, Peru and South Africa are NOT the Middle East. They're far closer to Antarctica than they are to the Middle East.

I think myth is myth after it is proven to be myth. Until then, it can be truth and not myth. I don’t have any reason to make hasty decisions without good knowledge.

Hasty decisions? Remind me which one of us is calling something truth without doing the slightest bit of legwork to find data in favour of it?

[H.sapiens]

Tell me though, is Peru or South Africa, the same kind of climate as the Middle East?

After and before the great flood, climate was probably different than now, because the changes (collapse of the original continent, flood and rain). Climate probably got colder, because things that cause heating died and also because rain water cools. After the flood, penguins could have moved slowly as the conditions change.

Where are the signs of penguins or marsupials having ever lived in the middle east?

Except it would be hard evidence that what people who have been teaching evolution for decades had predicted...was in fact wrong.

I believe the evidence would be buried, ridiculed or twisted. Modern evolution theory seems to be like religion and it would not be allowed to be revoked.

Do you have any evidence of burial? Can you point to a rational claim that has been ridiculed (remember, it is reasonable to ridicule the ridiculous)? How about a rational claim that has been twisted? Can you make a case for the TOE, "being like religion" or for why it should be "revoked?" If you can't answer those things, I'd suggest that you're just paranoia and absurdism to make and argument from ignorance.

But and here's a question that I would bet my live savings on you have never asked - is it probable? What is the likelihood of this thing being true?

When I seek the truth and real knowledge, probabilities are not wery meaningful. Many things are improbable, yet they happen. But still I also evaluate probabilities. And I have come to conclusion that Earth as we know it is more probably by the events that the Bible tells than by the modern “scientific� theory.

That is a claim unsupported by any sort of rational evidence.

All sorts of things are possible, but do we go around saying just about anything is true?

No, but if something is possible, I don’t think it is wise to say that it can’t be true.

Then lets just day that it is so unlikely that it approaches impossibility as a limit. Is that better?

Should we waste time in classrooms teaching that the flood story happened

I think it is enough if we teach things that we know and allow children to make their own conclusions on basis of real knowledge and not on some “scientific� fantasies. This means, I think it is good to teach what we have found, what people have said, and what some people believe. That all animals are offspring of single species is also belief, I think that would be also good to learn. The difference between, knowledge, wisdom and intelligence would also be good to learn.

Yes, REAL KNOWLEDGE! Teach what we have found ... the Arc story is a fairy-tale! Genetics and genome analysis proves that all "all animals are offspring of single species." That is not a belief.

Supposing the flood story to be 'true', you have no explanation, none whatsoever, for the genetic diversity of life on this planet.

What is there to explain? For example people are from 8 people, according to the story. Now we have much more people that all look little different. That means, there must be some system that makes it possible for changes in looks. Same can be with animals. This means, evolution in some sense can be true, and seems to be true. Bible and parts of evolution theory are not in contradiction.

The bible and the TOE are incompatible except for minor accidental overlap stretched to the limit by christian apologists.

In my opinion more plausibly explanation is that God created in the beginning the ancestors of all modern species. Those were all good, as the Bible tells. And later they became corrupt, which has led to this situation. Therefore I think evolution is wrong word and I would rather use devolution, all modern animals are degenerated offspring of earlier animals.

That is your claim, but you don't support it, you just state it. You have to do better than that if you want to be taken seriously.

I also think that modern definition for species is not correct. For example all bears should be one species, with different races, similarly as humans are not different species, but different races.

I don't know what you think the "modern definition" of "species" is. It is a word and a concept, rooted in ancient Platonic Idealism that modern biology has all but dispensed with.

There's also the water that flooded the planet, calculated as necessarily being 3 times the volume of water that actually is on Earth. Where did 3 times the volume of water that actually is on Earth go?

I think that is wrong assumption. Bible story indicates that water didn’t actually rise, but dry land sunk, which made it look like rising water. Here is more about the principle.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

Are you serious? That web site doen't even make it to "fairy-tale" status.

There's also the fact that the Ark as described would not have been seaworthy, even in sea conditions a hundred times less as violent as a worldwide flood would have been.

I have no reason to believe it would not be possible. But I can easily believe that atheist could not do the same.

It is possible that there were calm, because if there is no land, and if sun is behind clouds, there is not much temperature differences that normally cause winds.

No, a wooden ship the size of the alleged Arc would work, even in relatively calm seas and leak like a sieve.

There's the fact that the Ark would have resulted in the deaths of all aboard, given problems of food storage, lack of space and ventilation.

I have not enough information about the amount of species in the boat. However, there could have been species that eat things that can be caught from the water and that breed fast and can be eaten by other animals. And it is also possible that all the animals were not fully grown when they went into the ark.

Yeah, I've also heard it said that Noah was a master geneticist and actually brought all the animals aboard as germ plasma. Even if that was true, which it clearly is not, how do you account for the survival of all the plants, many of which can not survive long term immersion.

[rikuoamero]

1213 - Here's a suggestion.

Next time that you have one or two days off, travel to your local zoo. Volunteer there (if they accept volunteers). Ask them how many animals they have. Ask them how many staff. Do some work and pay close attention to how difficult it is to care for the animals.

Now, compare that to the Noah story. There is a hard maximum of 8 people on the boat. They could not possibly have had the benefit of a modern education in animal husbandry, veterinary, shipbuilding, food storage, nutrition, etc. They would have known far far less than a modern day college educated zoo worker.
Let's say that the zoo you go to has...200 animals. How many staff do they have? To give an example, here are the numbers for Dublin Zoo in Ireland.
http://www.dublinzoo.ie/4/animals-amp-habitats.aspx
"a 28 hectare park of gardens, lakes and wonderful natural habitats for over 400 animals."
http://www.dublinzoo.ie/139/careers.aspx
"Dublin Zoo employs almost 70 core staff, plus a number of extra seasonal staff every year."
That's SEVENTY staff, and not all of those 70 staff members do anything directly with the animals. Some tend to the grounds, some teach, some are customer services. So let's say 50 take care of 400 animals.
50 people are about enough to care for 400 animals, on dry land, in a wide open space, with all the benefits of a modern education and a well financed support network.
Contrast that with the Ark story - thousands, probably tens or hundreds of thousands of animals, cramped into a large but still finite sized boat, no exercise, little to no air (since there's only the one window), no food storage capabilities of any kind (no refrigerators), all tended to by 8 people who lack any understanding of scientific methodology and and who do not have a support network of any kind?
How likely is it that anyone would have survived?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 48 by rikuoamero]

50 people are about enough to care for 400 animals, on dry land, in a wide open space, with all the benefits of a modern education and a well financed support network.
Contrast that with the Ark story - thousands, probably tens or hundreds of thousands of animals, cramped into a large but still finite sized boat, no exercise, little to no air (since there's only the one window), no food storage capabilities of any kind (no refrigerators), all tended to by 8 people who lack any understanding of scientific methodology and and who do not have a support network of any kind?

Silly rikuo! (cordially, you'll see how in a moment

Haven't you been paying any attention at all? you don't need

the benefits of a modern education and a well financed support network.

or any other resources with god. In fact, these are a detriment!

He'll wind up all that divine juice to keep a few hundred thousand animals alive in a small space, and use water to kill everything else, rather than a more expedient way. Like a freak radiation storm, which would have the same effect for fractions of the energy expenditure, leave all the neutral animals alive, and without all the logistical problems. Except, it does make everyone believe in him. (I believe in an all-powerful semitic god because of a flood story that was stolen from a Babylonian child's fable, don't you?)
But won't wind up any divine juice to keep a rogue train on course, or prevent a rape or something.

You see, if you had non-magic food, education, or a financed logistics system, you wouldn't have faith!

Ah well...
Like I always say. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
How much worse are the effects of evil when a good god does nothing?

[earendil]

.

There was a great diluge and it has been recorded in many different cultures (see Velikovsky's first book). In direct interview with Navaho I have heard their version of the great flood. It is also known in Aztec legend. The Sumarians mention the man who survived the great flood. In digs in Iraq, they found 7 ft of silt between different stratta, both with signs of civilization.

There are MANY great deluges all over the world – frequently. Those occur in lowlands, coastal areas and river valleys. It is not surprising that legends and stories develop based on some of the major floods affecting various cultures.

great diluges...frequently...references?

List of 184 great floods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
Additional references

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3754082
https://top5ofanything.com/list/96a77a8 ... in-History
http://www.lolwot.com/20-deadliest-floo ... d-history/

Is anyone actually unaware that major floods occur?

What a strange question. Did these floods cover 20% of the Earth's land area...so why even bring them up unless one is trying to argue in a deceptive way.

Does any rational person doubt that boats have been used to survive floods?
https://www.google.com/search?q=people+ ... 11&bih=810

Here is a reference to boats specially made to survive floods http://www.realworldsurvivor.com/2015/0 ... stinfema-5

Any person making a boat even close to the size of Noah's arc with the goal of surviving a flood which covered 20% of the Earth's land area?

Why are you using all this deception? What are you trying to gain?

This is interesting because Jesus saw through this kind of moral justification for specific world events.

John 9:1-3
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?�
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,� said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him."

So Jesus saw that it just happened, but saw it as an opportunity to display the miracles of the present....and so proceeded to heal him.

So goes the tale. Is there evidence that it is true and accurate? Was that or any other of the claimed "miracles" or healing or rising from the dead reported by anyone other than religion promoters decades or generations later (people who cannot be shown to have witnessed what they describe)?

You missed the point.