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]

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.

I wouldn’t do that. The question was just about the theory that there was one continent that sunk, which made things look so that water rose, although it was the dry land that sunk and water level remained the same all the time, until it begin to be collected to glaciers and evaporate into space.

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?

I could ask how it was done. And that has been one of my points in here to try to explain how it happened. Even if God did it, there is some way how it happened. And Bible tells one story about it, which I think is terribly understood by most people.

Evolution would be falsified if we found a fossil out of place.

Why? It would just mean that the animal did live also in different era, not just in the one that is now known. It would be really easy to explain to fit in evolution theory. Good explainer can fit anything to evolution theory.

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 we take this as the order of fossil record:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=fos ... ajaxhist=0

It shows that the first animals that were drowned were those that live in coastal areas and are not very agile. If flood came and carried the “dust� on earth, it would have buried them first, because they are small and not able to escape. Next would go those sea creatures that live in shallow coastal water.

There are several reasons why creatures were stuck into sediments:
a) Lived in wrong place, where they were more easily drowned
Mammals generally live in different areas than reptilians. And If Bible is correct; more advanced animals were near the garden of Eden. Therefore it is possible that they were drowned in different and later “era�.
b) Didn’t have enough power to escape
How long can T Rex run in comparison to for example rabbit?
c) Starved to death and were therefore drowned
Different animals have different food. In flood case food was ending. It is possible that many advanced species were able to eat longer.
d) Too small against the current.
Those animals that were first drowned were small and not able to float.
e) Not agile enough
Which is more agile, monkey or T Rex?
f) Different attributes
Animals have different structures and densities, which means they get drowned differently. Some animals float when they die, and therefore they will be buried later than animals that don’t float. That seems to be one reason why more advanced animals are not in older strata.

[1213]

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."[/i]

One problem with argon dating is that air has good amount of AR40 to cause wrong results. It is possible that long ago, when stone was formed, some amount of AR40 was also included. And now when it is measured, it looks like the stone is older.

But potassium Argon is ok, if you are willing to make baseless assumptions.

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)??

Actually there is no need for great conspiracy. Most people believe blindly that evolution is true and all evidence for it is true and then all they find, they fit to that world view, because that is how is must be. There is no other explanation for those and nothing else is possible.

Here is one example of what happens when you find something inappropriate.

“…The Discover article went on to document the unwillingness of many in the scientific community to believe the findings. Even to the point that Dr Schweitzer ‘was having a hard time’ trying to get her work published in scientific journals….�
http://creation.com/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery

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

That seems to be baseless claim.

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?

That would mean that there is possible systematic error. And that is easily because the dating is usually calibrated to fit to the idea of how old the thing should be one basis of earlier “knowledge� that is without any good base.

If someone is interested to know more accurately about the problems of carbon dating, here is one good text about it.
http://www.contenderministries.org/evol ... rbon14.php

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

It would just mean for example:
a) St. Bernard evolved earlier
b) St. Bernard was mixed into wrong era by some miraculous natural event.
c) It is counterfeit by evil creationists.
d) There is just some unknown error. Find next, maybe we then will think another excuse.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 153 by 1213]


For someone who complains that those of us who hold to evolution do so "blindly", you do link to sites that are guilty of just that.
You linked to creation.com. Here's what I found on their site.

http://creation.com/about-us#what_we_believe

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority, not only in all matters of faith and conduct, but in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

I'm honestly wondering why you're accusing everybody else here of the very things that you are guilty of, of linking to people and sites that are guilty of the very things you accuse us of.

[Looncall]

[Replying to post 153 by 1213]

What systematic error? Please be specific: show your math. Radioactivity is very well understood, and not subject to environmental disturbance. What, exactly,is it that you claim causes errors?

[KenRU]

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."[/i]

One problem with argon dating is that air has good amount of AR40 to cause wrong results.

Right, it is the same margin of error found when we date ice cores in the artic, tree rings, dna evidence and all other forms of dating.

They all have the same margin of error.

And scientists are making assumptions?

It is possible that long ago, when stone was formed, some amount of AR40 was also included. And now when it is measured, it looks like the stone is older.

To the same erroneous degree as all other forms of dating methods. That seems reasonable to you?

But potassium Argon is ok, if you are willing to make baseless assumptions.

No disrespect intended, but you are making the baseless assumption that ALL dating methods are wrong and to the same degree wrong.

Baseless: without a base.

Multiple dating methods all support each others findings. I assume then that these methods are somewhat accurate. How is that baseless? Wouldn't that be the exact OPPOSITE of baseless?

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)??

Actually there is no need for great conspiracy.

Then you shouldn't have mentioned this as a possible explanation.

Most people believe blindly that evolution is true and all evidence for it is true and then all they find, they fit to that world view, because that is how is must be.

The scientific community does not do this. The proof is in the advancements made in science and the fact that it is entirely not resistant to new data.

There is no other explanation for those and nothing else is possible.

Right. No scientist (Christian or otherwise) could ever be motivated to buck the system that you imagine exists and try to make a name for himself or his cause.

I repeat, the first scientist who ever disproves evolution would be a world superstar and the religious community would place this person on a pedestal.

But, no, according to you, this is not possible.

Here is one example of what happens when you find something inappropriate.

“…The Discover article went on to document the unwillingness of many in the scientific community to believe the findings. Even to the point that Dr Schweitzer ‘was having a hard time’ trying to get her work published in scientific journals….�
http://creation.com/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery

I remember reading of this. Yes, her evidence was met with skepticism, but has since been confirmed - though I am not certain of this. A quick internet search seemed to indicate that her findings were verified. But I'm not sure of your point, as this seems to prove what I am saying - that the scientific community tried to falsify her data, couldn't, and then confirmed it to be legit.

That is the way the system is supposed to work. And it seems to me it did. Your point?

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

That seems to be baseless claim.

Its a baseless claim that storms create chaos and mix up the contents of whatever they hit?

Have you ever seen the effects of a hurricane? Would you describe the aftermath as orderly, or a violent disaster?

How do you figure that my claim is baseless? Do storms in your area of the world organize things instead of smashing and destroying?

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?

That would mean that there is possible systematic error. And that is easily because the dating is usually calibrated to fit to the idea of how old the thing should be one basis of earlier “knowledge� that is without any good base.

I've already showed you a list of various dating methods that do not do this. It would probably behoove you to stop asserting this.

If someone is interested to know more accurately about the problems of carbon dating, here is one good text about it.
http://www.contenderministries.org/evol ... rbon14.php

Where should I go if I want to find the problem of explaining the fact that ALL dating methods yield the same timeline for the age of the earth and its inhabitants?

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

It would just mean for example:
a) St. Bernard evolved earlier

Which would invalidate evolution and the inverted tree model.

b) St. Bernard was mixed into wrong era by some miraculous natural event.

Is this the same as saying "goddit"?

c) It is counterfeit by evil creationists.

Then it should be able to be falsified.

d) There is just some unknown error.

Then other dating methods would indicate this. Remember, you are saying that all dating methods are wrong and wrong to the same degree.

Find next, maybe we then will think another excuse.

It seems to me that you are the one making excuses, and saying things like, "they all must be wrong".

You have yet to address why you believe that all dating methods in varying scientific fields are wrong and wrong in the same manner.

If you don't have anything better than a flippant response, perhaps that is a strong indicator that more information and knowledge is needed.

all the best,

[Danmark]

Right, it is the same margin of error found when we date ice cores in the artic, tree rings, dna evidence and all other forms of dating.

They all have the same margin of error.

For me at least, this is conclusive. All the dating systems are in agreement to the extent their system is appropriate to the era in question. They are also consistent with starlight and geologic stratification as well as being consistent with evolution and everything else we know from science. The only outlier is mythology.

[KenRU]

Right, it is the same margin of error found when we date ice cores in the artic, tree rings, dna evidence and all other forms of dating.

They all have the same margin of error.

For me at least, this is conclusive. All the dating systems are in agreement to the extent their system is appropriate to the era in question. They are also consistent with starlight and geologic stratification as well as being consistent with evolution and everything else we know from science. The only outlier is mythology.

I admit that I am no scientist (as those of you in the scientific community probably already could tell, lol), in fact, my degree is in English. But I have had my share of religion, gospel, anthropology and evolution courses in college and I agree with you, the evidence to support evolution and the age of the earth is conclusive - staggeringly conclusive.

In my experience, the flippant and dismissive responses to an old earth and evolution usually originate in a person's lack of knowledge about the subject. An honest search for these answers should remedy such bias.

all the best,

[Zzyzx]

.

Actually there is no need for great conspiracy. Most people believe blindly that evolution is true and all evidence for it is true and then all they find, they fit to that world view, because that is how is must be. There is no other explanation for those and nothing else is possible.

Here is one example of what happens when you find something inappropriate.

“…The Discover article went on to document the unwillingness of many in the scientific community to believe the findings. Even to the point that Dr Schweitzer ‘was having a hard time’ trying to get her work published in scientific journals….�
http://creation.com/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery

It pays to research a topic beyond creationist websites. It is not uncommon for religionists to grab onto any scientific research that appears to support their claims, "interpret" it to mean something very different than the data supports, and declare they were right and science was wrong (except when it can be distorted enough to seem to support YEC tales).

Read below what the Christian scientist says about misuse of her work by Creationists.

After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,� she says, looking at the image on the screen.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,� says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.� The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth� creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.� On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,� declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.�
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 69/?no-ist

Thus, a Christian scientist who did the research disagrees with the YEC who distort her work to support their notions. Yet we still have people referring to her work and claiming that it supports what it does not.

Perhaps that isn't surprising for those who are accustomed to "interpreting" their religious literature / Bible to mean whatever they want – regardless what it actually says – regardless what Christian scholars and theologians say.

One problem with argon dating is that air has good amount of AR40 to cause wrong results. It is possible that long ago, when stone was formed, some amount of AR40 was also included. And now when it is measured, it looks like the stone is older.

But potassium Argon is ok, if you are willing to make baseless assumptions.

A great example of baseless assumptions is someone with no evidence of knowledge of the topic declaring that radiometric dating produces "wrong results" (wrong = disagree with ancient tales).

[Danmark]

As far as I can tell creationist websites serve only one purpose; to reassure and soothe creationist bias and raise funds for themselves. They have zero impact on science and and a negative impact on Christianity because when Christians start to talk about creationism they give the impression they do not care about facts or truth, or are grossly ignorant. All they succeed in doing is bringing ridicule upon themselves.

My advice to creationists, especially the YEC version, is to avoid the subject because it just hurts their own cause. This is advice I do not expect them to take.

[Zzyzx]

.

As far as I can tell creationist websites serve only one purpose; to reassure and soothe creationist bias and raise funds for themselves. They have zero impact on science and and a negative impact on Christianity because when Christians start to talk about creationism they give the impression they do not care about facts or truth, or are grossly ignorant. All they succeed in doing is bringing ridicule upon themselves.

My advice to creationists, especially the YEC version, is to avoid the subject because it just hurts their own cause. This is advice I do not expect them to take.

I advise them to keep on citing phony sources and condemning science -- and help discredit / diminish Christianity. The most effective voices AGAINST Christianity are those raised in attempting to defend the religion and its literature in open / public debate -- and those who are public spectacles.

The ancient tales upon which Christianity is based do NOT fare well when challenged by reasoning based upon modern knowledge. Incredible claims made about supernatural entities and events may have seemed convincing to pre-scientific people (and to modern science-deniers), but on a level playing field of debate they don't hold water.

I venture a guess that if Christians read these debates for a month or two MANY would view religious dogma much differently.