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?

[rikuoamero]

I can’t, because I can’t take you back in time.

That does not suffice. We have thousands of facts of history and science that we accept because of present evidence of what happened in the past. You can't take me back in time to the life, presidency and death of Abraham Lincoln. But I accept the facts of his life without having to be "taken back in time."

What 1213 said there sounds an awful lot like Ken Ham's "You weren't there" 'historical' science thing.

[Bust Nak]

Bible tells how it was done. So, if it couldn’t be done as the Bible tells, Bible would be wrong. I think that is the point of many debaters here. And it is the reason why I try to show that the Bible story is possible by the way it tells.

The point is you CAN stick to how the bible tells it without adding in all these mundane naturalistic explanation. Do you understand the implication of insisting that the ark was actually seaworthy is? It means that the people God intended to kill in the flood, could have survived on their own by building their own ark, the only reason why they didn't was that they didn't know the flood was coming. Do you believe that human ingenuity alone could potentially out do God's plan?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 78 by 1213]

Bible tells how it was done. So, if it couldn’t be done as the Bible tells, Bible would be wrong.

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.
What you're doing is just like if someone kept insisting that waving a stick and saying "Expelliarmus!" would result in me losing whatever it is I'm holding, just as it says in the Harry Potter books. When I point out that no matter how many times he waves the stick and says the word that it will not happen, that fellow will insist that its possible, that the books can't be wrong.
What if that fellow tried what you are doing here, and inventing things out of whole cloth (this is a reference to your land sinking hypothesis), just so he can continue to say "it's probably true"?

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

[catnip]

.
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?

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.

The only problem with the Bible version was that they exaggerated it.
I suspect that there was in fact a great diluge which affected probably about 20% of the world's land area (which unfortunately include many inhabited regions).
I also suspect that Noah was a real person (probably not so old) who actually built an ark. He put only those domesticated animals needed for human survival into the ark.

Other than that...the Biblical story is spot on.

(oh..and he was not the only survivor. The Aztec ancestors survived in a cave in a mountain...and some groups were not affected at all.)

The problem with that is also that while there is a flood horizon found almost everywhere, the flood horizon is not found on the same level--which suggests much smaller localized flooding rather than one deluge.

You seem to be hanging halfway between science and myth. I would go with some foundation on fact because I think myths are oft-told tales that have grown over time, but favor the much smaller version. lol

[1213]

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.

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?

[1213]

That does not suffice. We have thousands of facts of history and science that we accept because of present evidence of what happened in the past. You can't take me back in time to the life, presidency and death of Abraham Lincoln. But I accept the facts of his life without having to be "taken back in time."

Apparently you have great faith for some storytellers. That is fine. I also am faithful to many storytellers.

However I find it interesting what people accept as evidence and how some interpretations of “evidence� are accepted as truth, just because there is good story that is nice to believe.

[1213]

...It means that the people God intended to kill in the flood, could have survived on their own by building their own ark, the only reason why they didn't was that they didn't know the flood was coming. Do you believe that human ingenuity alone could potentially out do God's plan?

I have understood that the other people knew the same as Noah, they just didn’t believe. And when it could have been obvious that those people would not believe, it doesn’t matter even if you tell how to survive, they will not act on basis of that anyway. And if they would have listened, I think it would not have been against God’s plan.

Interesting thing is that similar thing will again happen, according to the Bible:

"As the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days which were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they didn't know until the flood came, and took them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
Matt. 24:37-39

Most people have probably heard how to survive from the next “flood�. But how many will care, believe and act on basis of it, probably only few.

[1213]

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.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 54 by OnceConvinced]

I have to ask - is that Maori culture taught in the same vein as science, as if it were true?

No, definitely not. No teacher ever claimed that they really happened, but there are some Maori who will be offended if you insinuate those crazy tales are fictional.

I can remember chuckling in class when being told those stories and I seem to remember even the teacher being amused. Funny thing is I believed the equally as crazy stories in the bible!

Or was it like my Islamic Studies classes, where we were taught "These are the tenets of the Islamic religion, the Five Pillars of Islam, what Muslims believe" with no confirmation that these things are actually true?

I don't think it even went that far. The main object of Maori Culture classes was to learn about history and the culture surrounding the Maori. The Treaty of Waitangi between the Maori and Europeans ensures that these classes remain.

Some of it was actually quite cool. And we even got to stay at school camps on Maori Maraes and experience the rituals that came with it.

[Danmark]

That does not suffice. We have thousands of facts of history and science that we accept because of present evidence of what happened in the past. You can't take me back in time to the life, presidency and death of Abraham Lincoln. But I accept the facts of his life without having to be "taken back in time."

Apparently you have great faith for some storytellers. That is fine. I also am faithful to many storytellers.

It is ridiculous to compare photographic and historical evidence consisting of first person written evidence with original documents to copies of copies of copies of copies of plainly impossible events such as Hebrew, Roman, and Norse mythology. Yours is a false equivalence argument, that because nothing can be proved absolutely there are not relative strengths of proof. Essentially what you are saying that you heard that Johnny read an article about seeing a unicorn is the equivalent of evidence Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States.