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?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 87 by 1213]

Woah, it sounds like you are suggesting that human ingenuity could get us into heaven if only we had the will to do it? The verse provided does not actually say that had those in the flood could have survived had they spent their time building their own ark instead of wasted their time eating and drinking.

[Zzyzx]

.

Thank you. Thus, there is no valid reason to assume or even suggest that ancient boat builders were "better" than modern builders.

Maybe so, but we don’t either have valid reason to assume we are in their level or better.

There has been a steady progression in the size and quality of ships built over the centuries. Is it rational to suggest that amateur ship builders thousands of years ago could build ships better than modern ships? Upon what would such an assertion be based?

Correction: Genesis 6:21 clearly says "Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

Hmmm… that is interesting. When I read many different translations, they all seem to say in Genesis 6:21: “Take with you of all food that is eaten, and gather it to you; and it will be for food for you, and for them�. Where do you get your version?

Congratulations, you caught a mistake – a typo. As those who are familiar with the bible realize, "everything perished" is Genesis SEVEN (7);21.

Now, kindly address the matter of discussion – that swimming creatures perished according to the tale (unless they were aboard the ark – which poses further problems for the crew of eight).

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 91 by Bust Nak]

Woah, it sounds like you are suggesting that human ingenuity could get us into heaven if only we had the will to do it?

Isn't that what God is afraid of in the Tower of Babel story? That the humans will build a tower high enough to reach to heaven?

[rikuoamero]

And that right there is the problem. If something is shown to be impossible and refutes a story told in an old book, then that old book is wrong. But you don't want that conclusion.

Because that conclusion is not based on any good fact or evidence. I don’t believe something is not correct, if the claim is not well proven to be true.

And in case of the Bible, I think it shows great knowledge that is way ahead of modern official understanding of world. That is why I have no problem to believe it. Instead I have problems in believing modern “scientific� assumptions and conclusions and arguments that in my opinion are irrational and untruthful.

I have to ask...why is it you are unwilling to admit that a book can be wrong?

I can admit that book can be wrong. But I have no good reason to believe Bible is wrong.

Then you and I must be reading two completely different books. Literally nothing in the Bible indicates a greater understanding of the world, ahead of our own in 2015. You say it does, so tell me...where in the world can I find a talking snake? Where can I find the remains of men hundreds of years old? Where is the geological evidence that the land sunk (as you say)?

believing modern “scientific� assumptions and conclusions

You have scientific there in quotes. Okay, so that means that you think that these things are not done scientifically.
I issue you a challenge then, one I fully expect you to either ignore or fail at. If you prove me wrong, well done.
The challenge is this:
1)Define what scientific is, what it means to do science.
2)Find a piece of scientific research (I know, you don't think it to be scientific) that refutes the flood (as in, proves it false to a high degree) and explain how, in your opinion, it isn't scientific
3)Then counter with scientific research of your own.

The reason I fully expect you to fail is because to date, nothing of what you have provided in support of your assertions is itself scientific. I've gone through your website. The page you have for the flood does not mention you doing science at all; you quote the Bible and then have a few pictures you drew based on the descriptions of the world from the book.
That's it.
So I find it a bit rich for you to call other people's research "scientific" with the word in quotes, as if it isn't.

I can admit that book can be wrong. But I have no good reason to believe Bible is wrong.

Then what of all the reason I gave for why the ark is a death trap? I remember making a very long paragraph of reasons why. I must have done about ten or so reasons.
Did you refute them? I don't recall you doing so. So as far as I can see, my 'death trap' reasons still stand, and thus, from my point of view, the Bible is wrong, when it says 8 humans and an un-counted number of animals survived a catastrophe of at least 20% of the world on a wooden boat with little to no food, no exercise and only one small window for air (which if I recall correctly from the Bible, was actually closed?)

[1213]

Is it rational to suggest that amateur ship builders thousands of years ago could build ships better than modern ships? Upon what would such an assertion be based?

If we look at the stone structures ancient people build, they were clearly wery good in building things. It is possible that they were as good in boat building. And I have no reason to assume that they couldn’t have been better than modern people.

Congratulations, you caught a mistake – a typo. As those who are familiar with the bible realize, "everything perished" is Genesis SEVEN (7);21.

Now, kindly address the matter of discussion – that swimming creatures perished according to the tale (unless they were aboard the ark – which poses further problems for the crew of eight).

Ok, thank you, Gen 7:21 says:

All flesh died that moved on the earth, including birds, cattle, animals, every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.
Gen. 7:21

In this case we should know that Bible calls dry land earth:

God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:10

So, I don’t see any water animal deaths in that.

[1213]

Literally nothing in the Bible indicates a greater understanding of the world, ahead of our own in 2015. You say it does, so tell me...where in the world can I find a talking snake?

Bible doesn’t claim that talking serpents would be here always.

Where can I find the remains of men hundreds of years old?

That I don’t know, and even if I would know, I don’t think we have any real way to check is that true.

Where is the geological evidence that the land sunk (as you say)?

Orogenic mountains, Mid Atlantic ridge, oil and gas fields indicate that land collapsed. Land must have been so that organic material could have gone to the cavities to form oil and gas. If the original continent collapsed, we should see lines where the continent was broken, like for example Mid Atlantic ridge and other continent edges. If the continent collapsed, the edges would have been compressed and would form orogenic mountain formations. Also if animals died in that flood, it would mean we should found a lot of fossils in sedimentary rocks. World has all the signs that would exist, if the flood happened and original continent sunk. And I think all the evidence exists and you can found it from scientific books. I don’t have to find evidence, because they are already known. Now people should just understand what the evidence means.

The challenge is this:
1)Define what scientific is, what it means to do science.
2)Find a piece of scientific research (I know, you don't think it to be scientific) that refutes the flood (as in, proves it false to a high degree) and explain how, in your opinion, it isn't scientific
3)Then counter with scientific research of your own.

Science is method to study things. And things that are studied by scientific method are scientific.

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Things that are not empirical or measurable are not scientific.

Scientific is for example that we have found fossil, and it is measured. Not scientifically is to claim it belongs to animal that lived millions of years ago, because that can’t be scientifically and accurately measured. All assumption based claims are not scientific, if they can’t be tested.

We don’t have any real scientific matter that would refute the great flood. Assumptions and circular reasoning is not scientific.

So I find it a bit rich for you to call other people's research "scientific" with the word in quotes, as if it isn't.

All assumptions or circular reasoning are “scientific�, because they are not tested and are not measured facts.

Then what of all the reason I gave for why the ark is a death trap? I remember making a very long paragraph of reasons why. I must have done about ten or so reasons.
Did you refute them? I don't recall you doing so. So as far as I can see, my 'death trap' reasons still stand, and thus, from my point of view, the Bible is wrong, when it says 8 humans and an un-counted number of animals survived a catastrophe of at least 20% of the world on a wooden boat with little to no food, no exercise and only one small window for air (which if I recall correctly from the Bible, was actually closed?)

I can accept that your idea of the Ark is death trap and would not last in the conditions you imagine with no clear understanding of how weathers behave and why. I think you don’t have enough information about the Biblical Ark to call it not possible.

It had window and door. Door was closed. Bible doesn’t say window was closed and I think it doesn’t even say what the size of the window was.

According to the story, they had enough food. That is all that is said. We have no way to know what was the food and how much there was food. If it lasted long enough, possible reason could be that the food was something that grew.

It is ok, if you don’t believe the story. But I think it is baseless claim that it is not possible.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 96 by 1213]

Bible doesn’t claim that talking serpents would be here always.

What about their remains? Where are the remains of snakes with vocal cords? To my knowledge, not one remain of a snake, either flesh or fossil, indicates that it had the capability for speech.
Anyway, all that Genesis says regarding the talking snake is that they'll be cursed to crawl on their belly. No mention is made of their capability for speech being removed.
So logical quandary here - where is the evidence that snakes EVER had the capability for speech?

That I don’t know, and even if I would know, I don’t think we have any real way to check is that true.

And yet, you are ardent in your belief that there were men who lived hundreds of years, you treat it as a fact, all without a single piece of a single fossil.

Land must have been so that organic material could have gone to the cavities to form oil and gas.

You have no idea how long it takes for oil and gas to form, do you? Here's a question - if oil and gas don't take millions of years to form, how come the oil and gas corporations spend billions each year looking for new sources, instead of just producing it rapidly?

Also if animals died in that flood, it would mean we should found a lot of fossils in sedimentary rocks.

If true, we should see different animals in different layers. We should see a bunny rabbit in the same layer as a T rex for example.
Except that hasn't happened.

Not scientifically is to claim it belongs to animal that lived millions of years ago, because that can’t be scientifically and accurately measured.

Why? Is millions of years old (MYO) just forbidden? If I date something to be 6 million years old, that's automatically wrong? Just because? Why can't something be accurately measured to be millions of years old?

All assumption based claims are not scientific, if they can’t be tested.

That is what your posts on this thread have been. They have all been assumptions. You used if, could, maybe, probably. You assumed things and all without doing a single test. Not one measurement has been done by you.

We don’t have any real scientific matter that would refute the great flood. Assumptions and circular reasoning is not scientific.

Except maybe for genetics which refutes entirely the concept of a bottleneck in all species 4,000 odd years ago.

All assumptions or circular reasoning are “scientific�, because they are not tested and are not measured facts.

What tests have you provided or done yourself? You claim that others have not done tests, and yet not once on this thread have you indicated that you did yourself. The page on your website about the flood, I have to say for about the fourth or fifth time now, is all about you reading the Bible and drawing a few pictures.
That's it.

I think you don’t have enough information about the Biblical Ark to call it not possible.

I don't have enough information? You do realise how short the story in Genesis is, don't you? The story takes up just three chapters.
Now, instead of maybe "correcting" me and providing me with this data on the ark that you seem to think I do not have, you just leave it out. How about I do the work you should have done?
Here's ALL of the information on the Ark as written in Genesis. I am taking the following from the NIV.
1) Made of cypress wood
2) Made with rooms, and coated with pitch
3) Three hundred cubits long, fifty wide, thirty high
4) Below the roof is to be an opening one cubit high
5) One door, and three decks
6) There is no number 6

That is all the Bible tells us about the Ark. That's it. There is nothing else. That is what I worked with when I asked all those questions.
I call it not possible because the Ark is supposed to house two of every animal and bird (or according to literally the next chapter, seven pairs of every clean animal, and only one pair of unclean animals, and seven pairs of each kind of bird).
That's a LOT of animals, most of whom would have specific diets (probably the other animals on the boat!)
Where was the food stored? How was the food stored? How was their waste removed? How were the animals cared for by 8 people lacking a modern education? How did the 8 people have time to care for tens of thousands of animals while trying to keep a wooden ship afloat?
I notice that AGAIN you do not answer these questions. You try to fob off the food storage problem by simply saying

According to the story, they had enough food. That is all that is said. We have no way to know what was the food and how much there was food. If it lasted long enough, possible reason could be that the food was something that grew.

And again, you provide no data to show how this is even possible. So something that grew. This would mean having the meat-eaters starve. Also, where was this food supposed to be grown? Remember, the boat is full of animals. Where is the space for growing crops? How can crops be grown on a wooden boat with one small window (if you honestly think it was open during this FLOOD...) You are aware that most crops require sunlight? And fresh water, and not seawater, right? And time? While these magical ship-growing crops were being grown, what was being eaten?
You handwave away all sorts of problems with a shrug and a "they could have done this or that" without ever showing HOW they could have done this or that.


As far as I can tell, your biggest problem on this topic (about the Ark) is that you don't ask questions of yourself. You don't ask of yourself "Well, what did Noah and the animals eat?" You think of an answer really quickly "Maybe they grew food" without EVER asking yourself the question of "Wait...how could they grow food on a boat? And wouldn't this mean they'd starve anyway?"

[Zzyzx]

.

Is it rational to suggest that amateur ship builders thousands of years ago could build ships better than modern ships? Upon what would such an assertion be based?

If we look at the stone structures ancient people build, they were clearly wery good in building things. It is possible that they were as good in boat building. And I have no reason to assume that they couldn’t have been better than modern people.

Does anyone seriously think that ancient people "could have been better" at building structures and ships than modern people? Did ancients have the technology, including knowledge of metals? Did any ancients build structures that higher, longer, heavier, with greater volume?

Piling rocks atop one another does not constitute great building ability.

Where is the evidence of great ancient building ability? Did it magically disappear?

So, I don’t see any water animal deaths in that.

Is this to claim that the Earth could be flooded "to the tops of mountains" and NOT wipe out aquatic species? Most of us are aware that such species have very different habitat requirements – some are fresh water, some saline, some brackish – some require warm water, others cold water – some are shallow water dwellers others deep water.



Attempting to defend ancient mythology as though it was literally true appears to lead to illogical positions and statements.

[rikuoamero]

.

Is it rational to suggest that amateur ship builders thousands of years ago could build ships better than modern ships? Upon what would such an assertion be based?

If we look at the stone structures ancient people build, they were clearly wery good in building things. It is possible that they were as good in boat building. And I have no reason to assume that they couldn’t have been better than modern people.

Does anyone seriously think that ancient people "could have been better" at building structures and ships than modern people? Did ancients have the technology, including knowledge of metals? Did any ancients build structures that higher, longer, heavier, with greater volume?

Piling rocks atop one another does not constitute great building ability.

Where is the evidence of great ancient building ability? Did it magically disappear?

So, I don’t see any water animal deaths in that.

Is this to claim that the Earth could be flooded "to the tops of mountains" and NOT wipe out aquatic species? Most of us are aware that such species have very different habitat requirements – some are fresh water, some saline, some brackish – some require warm water, others cold water – some are shallow water dwellers others deep water.



Attempting to defend ancient mythology as though it was literally true appears to lead to illogical positions and statements.

I'd also like to point out that even if we grant the point about stone structures, that stone structures =/= boats. A person or a society that is well versed at one craft does not mean they are equally as versed in other crafts. The process of building large stone structures on dry land is a completely different task than building a ludicrously large wooden boat for stormy weather.
The ancient Egyptians built pyramids, yet no-one goes around saying that they built large wooden ships just as good if not better than the ships of the Europeans in the 1600's.

[Ancient of Years]

.

Is it rational to suggest that amateur ship builders thousands of years ago could build ships better than modern ships? Upon what would such an assertion be based?

If we look at the stone structures ancient people build, they were clearly wery good in building things. It is possible that they were as good in boat building. And I have no reason to assume that they couldn’t have been better than modern people.

Does anyone seriously think that ancient people "could have been better" at building structures and ships than modern people? Did ancients have the technology, including knowledge of metals? Did any ancients build structures that higher, longer, heavier, with greater volume?

Piling rocks atop one another does not constitute great building ability.

Where is the evidence of great ancient building ability? Did it magically disappear?

So, I don’t see any water animal deaths in that.

Is this to claim that the Earth could be flooded "to the tops of mountains" and NOT wipe out aquatic species? Most of us are aware that such species have very different habitat requirements – some are fresh water, some saline, some brackish – some require warm water, others cold water – some are shallow water dwellers others deep water.



Attempting to defend ancient mythology as though it was literally true appears to lead to illogical positions and statements.

I'd also like to point out that even if we grant the point about stone structures, that stone structures =/= boats. A person or a society that is well versed at one craft does not mean they are equally as versed in other crafts. The process of building large stone structures on dry land is a completely different task than building a ludicrously large wooden boat for stormy weather.
The ancient Egyptians built pyramids, yet no-one goes around saying that they built large wooden ships just as good if not better than the ships of the Europeans in the 1600's.

The description of how to build the Ark (disregarding the very large dimensions) suggest the Phoenicians, master sailors, as a possible source of information. Maybe. 'Gopher wood' just might be derived from the Phoenician word for cedar, a suitable wood for ship building. (Reference)

In the book version of the recent TV series about the Bible, there is a scene where the Lord tells Noah to build an ark. Noah asks "What's an ark, Lord?" "It's the same as a boat." Desert dwelling Noah then asks "What's a boat?"