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?

[Clownboat]

But please notice, my goal and point is not make people believe. The point is to help people understand how the flood could have been possible. I hope you also could understand that.

I for one think you have done a fantastic job. The flood is possible if we use our imagination.

It is possible, sure, but it is not reasonable due to there being no evidence to support the imagination.

[Clownboat]

.

It could be that God may have had an active hand in making that all possible as far as I can rationally explain it.

When Goddidit is injected we are no longer debating. Though you (generic term) may believe that, others of us do not accept claimed supernatural involvement as an explanation for anything.

Real world experience and observation does not square at all well with the flood tale. Some Christian scholars and theologians acknowledge that Genesis is likely folklore, oral tradition or myth. However, many in-the-pew Christians seem to know more that the experts.

Well, as you have so poignantly pointed out, we all don't think the same. As a point of note I qualified my previous post as being an 'opinion' as you had on another topic. I felt this gave me valid leeway to do so also.

Not when you call it rational.

You and I both know of hundreds of invented gods. There is no evidence for any non invented god concepts. So for you to then insert your favorite one and call that a rational explanation is anything but rational IMO.
(Even if it's just an opinion, it would still be an irrational one it would seem).

[1213]

How do you explain that no fossils have ever been found/dated outside of its expected and predicted timeline by evolution?

By what I have read, dating always is based on certain assumption of how old the dated thing should approximately be. So, if someone finds fossil, it is first checked to what time period it should belong and then the dating is done. It works because circular reasoning works, because circular reasoning works…

But unfortunately I don’t really know, have there been any anomalies in fossil records. It is possible that they would be thrown away, if they contradict the bellowed evolution theory. It seems to be so that person who claims that he found something that doesn’t fit into official theory is ridiculed and there is a risk that the person loses his job, if he has wrong ideas.

If current dating methods are just inferences, than surely we would have a couple of anomalies, i mean after all, according to you it isn't an exact science. But we don't find anything (ever) outside its expected date.

But that can be also because of how the animals were drowned in the great flood. It is possible that animals had such living areas and habits and attributes that they were drowned so that it looks like there is some kind of evolutionary order. The order can as well be evidence also for the great flood, therefore I don’t see it meaningful evidence for evolution.

But would it really even show evolution theory wrong, if we would find anomalies? No, it would just make the theory more accurate. There is really nothing that would refute evolution theory for those who have strong faith in it.

[1213]

I don’t think we have any reason to reject modern real knowledge. All real knowledge supports what the Bible tells, or at least doesn’t revoke Bible. The conclusions that are interpreted from real knowledge are the thing that I don’t accept, when it is not reasonable.

So you admit that you assess evidence based on whether it agrees with the Bible.

Really? I am sorry. I must have been unclear, because that is not what I meant or what I think.

All real evidence that can be seen is ok. Evidence that is based on circular reasoning or bedrock assumptions can be ok, if it is reasonable.

Obviously I believe what the Bible tells, but I believe it because I see evidence and good reasons for that belief, not because of circular reasoning. However, if we would really have evidence that would clearly prove Bible wrong, I think it should be accepted. I have not yet seen anything like that.

[1213]

I for one think you have done a fantastic job. The flood is possible if we use our imagination.

Thank you

It is possible, sure, but it is not reasonable due to there being no evidence to support the imagination.

Hmmm… that sound odd. Can you explain why wouldn’t modern continents, oil fields, Mid Atlantic ridge, orogenic mountains, sedimentary rocks and fossils be evidence for the Great Flood? After all, if the flood happened as I have explained here, those would be the results. (Short explanation: one continent that was mainly above water collapsed, organic material was carried to cavities, dust on dry land was carried into sedimentary rocks and catch many animals to fossils at the same time).

[Clownboat]

I for one think you have done a fantastic job. The flood is possible if we use our imagination.

Thank you

It is possible, sure, but it is not reasonable due to there being no evidence to support the imagination.

Hmmm… that sound odd. Can you explain why wouldn’t modern continents, oil fields, Mid Atlantic ridge, orogenic mountains, sedimentary rocks and fossils be evidence for the Great Flood? After all, if the flood happened as I have explained here, those would be the results. (Short explanation: one continent that was mainly above water collapsed, organic material was carried to cavities, dust on dry land was carried into sedimentary rocks and catch many animals to fossils at the same time).

I would prefer to not debate your imagination. I could hypothetically prove all of this incorrect, and then you can imagine aliens as the cause next, or a magic wizard, and then demand that I prove that imagination wrong, ad infinitum.

Show that you are doing more than imagining things and we can then discuss those things. I could imagine that Allah caused a great flood, but why would you give a hoot unless I can show my imagination has a basis in reality?

Evolution would be falsified if we found a fossil out of place. This never has happened. I notice that you used your imagination again to imagine that a violent global flood could cause this uniformity somehow and that you imagined some global scientific conspiracy against Noah's flood. Can you show that your imaginations are worth any consideration? Can you evidence how a flood would cause fossil uniformity or show evidence for this scientific conspiracy?

If not, consider that your desire for these myths to be true is what is driving your imagination.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 144 by 1213]

By what I have read, dating always is based on certain assumption of how old the dated thing should approximately be. So, if someone finds fossil, it is first checked to what time period it should belong and then the dating is done. It works because circular reasoning works, because circular reasoning works…

Not exactly.
It works in a concept similar to evaporation.
While something lives, it keeps the same amount of Carbon 12 in it. That C-12 begins to "evaporate" after death. Like:
If you keep some water in a glass, an ambient conditions the same you lose water to evaporation.
The differences-carbon never returns to the glass.
It is nuclear, requiring nuclear energies to defy the process.

Therefore, though your understanding is otherwise excellent, you need to add that carbon dating did fall under the exception you noted, except when you do it hundreds of times, it becomes increasingly accurate.

God = Iovè

[KenRU]

How do you explain that no fossils have ever been found/dated outside of its expected and predicted timeline by evolution?

By what I have read, dating always is based on certain assumption of how old the dated thing should approximately be.

As I understand the dating method, this is incorrect. One of the more common methods is Radiometric dating.

From Fact Monster: http://www.factmonster.com/dk/science/d ... ssils.html

"There are some radioactive elements in rock that decay by giving off energy and turning into different, more stable elements. This radioactive decay takes place at a constant rate for each radioactive element. Scientists know exactly how long it will take for half the quantity of the element to change, and this state is known as its half-life. After another half-life has passed, the element will have decayed to a quarter of its original amount. After another half-life has passed, it will have decayed to an eighth, and so on.

A good example of this is potassium-argon dating. The half-life of potassium-40 is 1,310 million years, after which half of its substance will have changed into stable argon-40."

So, if someone finds fossil, it is first checked to what time period it should belong and then the dating is done. It works because circular reasoning works, because circular reasoning works

As you can see above, there is no circular reasoning employed.

But unfortunately I don’t really know, have there been any anomalies in fossil records. It is possible that they would be thrown away, if they contradict the bellowed evolution theory.

By everyone? Since science started? You don't find it highly unlikely that no one (in god's name and truth) would have stepped forward to display such a find??? Not even for selfish reasons (publicity/money)??

It seems to be so that person who claims that he found something that doesn’t fit into official theory is ridiculed and there is a risk that the person loses his job, if he has wrong ideas.

Any evidence to support such an assertion? It is my understanding that the scientific community thrives on finding new data that challenges preconceptions.

I assume you know of a scientist who found valid evidence who was ridiculed? If not, isn't this just a rationale employed to defend a preconceived belief system?

If current dating methods are just inferences, than surely we would have a couple of anomalies, i mean after all, according to you it isn't an exact science. But we don't find anything (ever) outside its expected date.

But that can be also because of how the animals were drowned in the great flood.

No, it couldn't. There would be some mixture of species from different time periods found together - but there isn't.

It is possible that animals had such living areas and habits and attributes that they were drowned so that it looks like there is some kind of evolutionary order.

That would be some massive coincidence. So, no, wouldn't it be more accurate to call it improbable?

Remember, ALL various dating methods agree. All branches of science agree. They would all have to be wrong (staggeringly wrong) and your above assertion would have to be 100% true, for all time periods and all living things.

This is beyond credulity, wouldn't you agree?

The order can as well be evidence also for the great flood,

No it can't. If there were a great flood, the likes of which could drown the world, everything would be mixed up. It would look like one big pot of stew, swirled around and mixed thoroughly. No order whatsoever.

therefore I don’t see it meaningful evidence for evolution.

It would seem to me that it might be prudent for to learn a little more about dating methods and the sciences.

Remember, if your assertion is true, then all of the dating methods (link: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Datin ... iques.aspx) would have to be wrong, and not just wrong, wrong in the same manner and to the same degree!

Is that even possible?

But would it really even show evolution theory wrong, if we would find anomalies?

If they were divergent enough, yes. It would necessitate a whole lot of rethinking and restructuring.

No, it would just make the theory more accurate.

Explain how finding a T Rex next to a Saint Bernard would make evolution more accurate?

There is really nothing that would refute evolution theory for those who have strong faith in it.

This is utter nonsense. The first person who can falsify evolution would be a worldwide superstar. Not only is there a religious motivation for this to happen, but there is a financial and selfish reason as well. So, why hasn't it happened?

Because there is no evidence to support such a claim.

All the best

[Zzyzx]

.

By everyone? Since science started? You don't find it highly unlikely that no one (in god's name and truth) would have stepped forward to display such a find??? Not even for selfish reasons (publicity/money)??

Remember, ALL various dating methods agree. All branches of science agree. They would all have to be wrong (staggeringly wrong) and your above assertion would have to be 100% true, for all time periods and all living things.

This is beyond credulity, wouldn't you agree?

Long ago it surprised me when Apologists declared that all of modern science (that conflicts with their beliefs) is WRONG, that all scientists (including Christian scientists) falsify studies to discredit religion, and that all of this is a great conspiracy by scientists worldwide for generations or centuries.

However, after encountering that attitude repeatedly here and elsewhere it is no longer surprising when Apologists dismiss and demean modern science while putting great confidence it ancient folklore.

I consider that willful ignorance (though it may not be willful in many instances) and/or a state of denial accompanying cognitive dissonance.

Of course, NO evidence is presented to show that (and how) scientific studies are wrong – only opinions opposing radiometric dating -- which is based upon measured rates of change in elements – not upon speculation, rumor, hearsay, myth, fable, folklore, etc.

Why would anyone, rational or not, favor ancient tales over actual real world studies?

[Looncall]

[Replying to post 147 by Clownboat]

If there had been a worldwide flood, it would have left traces dateable to the same time everywhere on the earth. No such traces are found, so there was no such flood. See? Easy!

We even have a case to practice with: the meteor that landed around the time the dinosaurs faded away. That left traces of Iridium that are found all over the world and date to the same time.