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?

[McCulloch]

The point is that variation occurs from generation to generation. Variations that make survival more likely are favoured by selection and variations that make survival less likely are if not eliminated, reduced by selection. Believers in the flood tale accept this. They believe that Giant Pandas, Grizzly Bears, Polar Bears and a whole lot of other bears evolved since the flood from a single pair of bears in only a few thousand years. They have no evidence or explanation for this hyper-fast evolution other than it is a logical necessity of the flood story and Noah's arc.
Yet, ironically, they deny the possibility of Humans, Chimpanzees and Bonobos evolving from a common ape ancestor over several millions of years.

[Yahu]

You are making way to many assumptions like that the number of species then is the same as it is now.

Correction: I observe that there are millions of species and question / challenge claims that anyone might make regarding how many species existed at the supposed time of the "flood".

Concerning assumptions: notice how many assumptions (or guesses) must be made in attempting to rationalize the flood tale and make it appear to make sense.

If any hypothesis I encountered required similar amounts of mental gymnastics, speculation, departures from what is known of the real world, etc I would consider it untenable and would seek a more accurate hypothesis – one that could be verified by multiple disconnected sources through observation and experimentation.

There are ways that explain the genetic diversity we see now.

Excellent. I look forward to your explanation of that diversity.

As to the appearance of the water, what would happen if an ice comet passed close to the earth and the tail passed through the atmosphere dumping massive amounts of water onto the planet in a short time?

The amount of water required to flood the Earth to the tops of mountains is one BILLION cubic miles. That would be a cube 1000 miles on each side. Kindly demonstrate that (and how) a comet could "dump" that much water.

Comet nuclei studied have ranged in size "from a few hundred metres to tens of kilometres across and are composed of loose collections of ice, dust, and small rocky particles." So that guess doesn't fit very well, does it?

What kind of tides would the comet produce?

Let the proponent supply and support the answer.

What impact would a large body coming close to the earth cause on earth?

Ditto

Could the orbit of the earth have changed allowing more solar radiation to shorten life spans?

Ditto (and show how proposed change in solar radiation is related to life spans).

Was there even more then one continent before the flood

Once it is determined when the fabled flood was to have occurred one can consult geophysicists concerning the configuration of continents at that time.

or did the flood cause the split into continents?

Those who study plate tectonics do NOT propose flooding as a cause of plate movement. Shall we disregard modern knowledge in order to believe ancient folklore?

Current thinking among those who study such things is that Pangaea broke apart beginning about 175 to 200 million years ago. That is a BIT before humans (including "Noah") appeared.

Current measurements indicate that crustal plates tend to move at about the rate that fingernails grow.

If someone wishes to claim that the timing or rates were different "once upon a time", they are asked to supply EVIDENCE – NOT conjecture, speculation, guesses, opinions.

Who says that any carnivores were adults?

Since that information is not supplied by the tale one can speculate however they wish.

Why couldn't they be infants that rely on milk?

Rely on milk for a year? Even if that was possible, where did the milk come from and how would it be preserved for many months without refrigeration?

Perhaps Noah and company milked enough tigers (or other big cats) to get a year's supply of milk, kept it from spoiling for a year without refrigeration, and nursed the cubs – in addition to all the other duties performed by eight people aboard the ark. It almost seems illogical, doesn't it? Why would anyone accept such tales – unless they were committed to believe ancient religious writers / promoters?

There are ways the story could be 100% accurate but we just lack all the facts of what happened then and since. For all we know, aliens could have visited and done genetic engineering on animals to create new species since then.

When one is speculating and fantasizing anything can be proposed. There are literary genre for such tales – folklore, fantasy, fiction, science fiction, mythology, etc.

Many of the thousands of proposed "gods" are claimed to have performed all sorts of supernatural feats on grand scale. Do we regard them all as "we just lack all the facts of what happened then and since"?

Most modern sciences follow uniformitarianism and don't account for sudden massive changes.

Very few modern Earth scientists adhere strictly to uniformitarianism. However, when departures are claimed from what is presently existing or occurring, the proponents are expected to provide EVIDENCE to support their contentions. "I think so" doesn't gain much traction among critical / analytical thinkers.

In engineering if someone proposes a radical new bridge or building design are they taken seriously and the structures undertaken if they cannot supply extensive supporting evidence?

Assuming that the situation then is the same is as it is now is just plain wrong.

WHO, exactly, assumes that "the situation then is the same as it is now"?

Genetic Diversity:
What do you know of Nephilim? What knowledge of genetic engineering did they possess? According to scripture, carnivores were not even created by Yah but life was modified by the Watchers and the Nephilim pre-flood. I believe it also occurred post flood by the same source that generated the giants of the Canaanite bloodlines and were worshiped as the ancient pagan gods that co-existed with man between the flood and the tower of Babel.

Yes, in order for the flood story to be true, something had to have done extensive genetic engineering post flood to produce the variation that exists today. I do not believe in evolution as is commonly taught but a form of intelligent design although I don't credit the creator with all that design.

That option isn't even considered by those that laugh at the flood story. I had never considered it in my youth either but I met a girl in the Air Force who was a high priestess of Ashtoreth, one of those ancient goddess. She explained who and what her goddess was and the activities of that period of time. She knew her goddess was the daughter of an angel, born post-flood to a human mother. She had also rejected the bible stories but was told by her goddess that they were all true BUT didn't contain the whole stories. She explained the activities of those ancient 'gods' to discredit scripture and their modification of species.

I understand the opposition to the flood story. It started just a few generations down after the flood.

Source of the Waters:
Have you read any of Immanuel Velikovsky's books like 'Worlds in Collision' or 'Ages in Chaos'? He covers major catastrophic events in the earth's past. Events like the Mammoths of Siberia instantly moving from a temperate zone to freezing and buried in ice.

Now you claim it would require a billion cubic miles of water for the flood. That is ASSUMING that mountains then are the same height as now yet those mountains were raised by tectonic plate movements according to science. Far less water is needed if the mountains didn't exist at their current heights.

A celestial body close to the earth would also produce super tides dragging massive surges of water over the land. Could Mars even have interacted with the earth at that time that the earth pulled all the surface water off Mars and dumped it into our atmosphere?

Pre-flood environment:
We know from scripture that life spans were different pre-flood and conditions on the earth were different. It is assumed by science that the current orbit of the earth has always been consistent. That doesn't conform to the scriptural account or even myths from all over the earth. For example, what if Earth was once a large moon of Jupiter or Saturn? What events occurred to put us in our current orbit?

Even if 99.99% of all theories explaining flood story events turn out to be false, if one option is possible, that is all it takes. It doesn't matter how unlikely all those events have to be for the story to be true.

It is unlikely that an individual will win the lottery but people do even with the odds nearly impossible.

Proving the flood story false is impossible IMO just as proving it is true is equally impossible. It all comes down to a matter of faith. We just plain don't have enough facts either way.

[Yahu]

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man

Here is another example of your false assumptions. You equate a 500 year old man as being old. The problem is, he was only middle aged by the recorded life spans of that age according to scripture. If people didn't age at the same rate they do today, what difference does his age of 500 years prove?

For all we know, he could have been 8' tall and had the strength of Hercules and was in his adult prime. You are comparing a man now of 500 years old to a man then of 500 years old. Was a year then even the same length of time it is now?

According to non-canonical writings, Noah's wife Na'amah was over a 100 years older then him and they didn't even get married until she was over 500 years old before even starting to have children.

Age comparisons between then and now are meaningless. What environmental conditions cause aging? How was the environment different?

Assuming conditions now are the same as they were then is a failure in logic.

There is no reason IMO that a man in his prime with 3 sons couldn't build a large wooden boat in a 100 years of construction. This is especially true if the actual number of species on that boat were far fewer then expected.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 223 by Yahu]

Thank you for supplying an Apologist's position on this matter.

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man

Here is another example of your false assumptions.

I make NO assumptions about the boat dimensions or the age of people supposedly involved in its construction – but instead report what Bible stories claim.

Quoting Will Rogers "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts." Change "government" to "Apologist" . . . and "jokes" to "debate points".

You equate a 500 year old man as being old.

Yes I do – how strange – on the day when the world's oldest man died at 112.

The problem is, he was only middle aged by the recorded life spans of that age according to scripture.

The modified Will Rogers quote applies here too.

If people didn't age at the same rate they do today, what difference does his age of 500 years prove?

The operating term is IF. Kindly provide evidence from sources other than unverifiable Bible stories to show that people a few thousand years ago lived 500+ years. Archeological evidence would be appropriate.

For all we know, he could have been 8' tall and had the strength of Hercules and was in his adult prime.

If we are playing the "could have been" game, he could have had six arms, ten legs, three eyes, horns, a tail, and hooves instead of feet. All that is lacking is evidence to support the fantasy.

You are comparing a man now of 500 years old to a man then of 500 years old.

Is there sound, verifiable reason to consider the 500 year old claim as anything other than folklore, legend, myth, fantasy?

Kindly remember that the Bible is NOT considered authoritative in these debates.

Was a year then even the same length of time it is now?

Many ancient cultures understood that a year is the time from one Winter Solstice to another (one revolution as we now know – at least some of us). If someone wishes to claim that the period of revolution (speed in orbit or elliptical distance) has changed radically in a few thousand years (in an effort to "explain" religious tales), they are welcome to present information supporting that contention.

According to non-canonical writings, Noah's wife Na'amah was over a 100 years older then him and they didn't even get married until she was over 500 years old before even starting to have children.

Will Rogers is working overtime in this post.

Age comparisons between then and now are meaningless.

Show your work – show that human lifespans were much longer a few thousand years ago. Don't just claim "things were different then" – show how they were different and WHY – backed up by something more than ancient tales and modern conjectures – show credible, verifiable EVIDENCE.

What environmental conditions cause aging?

Consult biologists and medical people.

How was the environment different?

You tell me – or rather, SHOW, readers of this thread (4000 views so far) how the environment WAS different a few thousand years ago. Show them (us) evidence that the environment WAS different – not just speculation or supposition.

I make no claim that it was different. Those who DO make such claims have the burden of proof in reasoned and honorable debate.

Just making claims and telling stories may work in church but not here in debate.

Assuming conditions now are the same as they were then is a failure in logic.

Let's examine where "failure in logic" applies and what assumptions are made.

Those who actually study the real world understand and state that environmental conditions were different in the past. Continents were positioned differently, climates were very different, plants and animals present were different – changes occurred over millions or hundreds of millions of years.

Those whose information comes from ancient texts assume that tales told were accurate and truthful enough to use as a basis for conclusions.

Which is a failure in logic?

There is no reason IMO that a man in his prime with 3 sons couldn't build a large wooden boat in a 100 years of construction.

Opinion noted. That may seem quite reasonable to you (generic term). Now, show readers how that is / was possible – including building a seaworthy wooden ship of the specified dimensions.

This is especially true if the actual number of species on that boat were far fewer then expected.

Okay. Show how the millions of present species worldwide came to be if all species (or "kinds") not aboard the ark were wiped out according to "God" in the Genesis tale.


Wouldn't it be far more rational to acknowledge that the flood tale was folklore, legend, myth rather than literal truth?

I like to debate the flood topic because 1) I have a strong background in Earth science, 2) the assumptions / claims of the story are preposterous, and 3) exposing flaws in the "literal" flood tale casts doubt upon the reliability of other Bible tales.

[Danmark]

Have you read any of Immanuel Velikovsky's books like 'Worlds in Collision' or 'Ages in Chaos'? He covers major catastrophic events in the earth's past. Events like the Mammoths of Siberia instantly moving from a temperate zone to freezing and buried in ice.

Yes, more than 30 years ago. He was a psychiatrist, not a cosmologist. He was popular for a short time among Christian apologists. Turned out he was completely wrong and thoroughly discredited.

Velikovsky's ideas have been almost entirely rejected by mainstream academia (often vociferously so) and his work is generally regarded as erroneous in all its detailed conclusions. Moreover, scholars view his unorthodox methodology (for example, using comparative mythology to derive scenarios in celestial mechanics) as an unacceptable way to arrive at conclusions. Stephen Jay Gould offered a synopsis of the mainstream response to Velikovsky, writing, "Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan—although, to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong... Velikovsky would rebuild the science of celestial mechanics to save the literal accuracy of ancient legends."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Even if 99.99% of all theories explaining flood story events turn out to be false, if one option is possible, that is all it takes.

No, that would simply mean the odds are 10,000 to one that you are wrong. But that would be overly generous.

[Student]

Eight people fed and housed thousands or millions of animals for the duration

The problem of feeding all the animals pales into insignificance when one considers the logistics at the other end of the process, so to speak. Namely the problems of waste disposal. Anyone who has ever worked on a farm will vouchsafe the enormous volume of solid and fluid effluent even a few ruminants are capable of producing. Not to mention gaseous waste. If the Ark were inadequately ventilated there would have been a substantial risk of asphyxiation let alone that of explosion.

The bible is silent on the sanitary arrangements, so just how did the unfortunate incumbents of the fetid Ark keep from drowning in a deluge of their own making?

[Danmark]

Eight people fed and housed thousands or millions of animals for the duration

The problem of feeding all the animals pales into insignificance when one considers the logistics at the other end of the process, so to speak. Namely the problems of waste disposal. Anyone who has ever worked on a farm will vouchsafe the enormous volume of solid and fluid effluent even a few ruminants are capable of producing. Not to mention gaseous waste. If the Ark were inadequately ventilated there would have been a substantial risk of asphyxiation let alone that of explosion.

The bible is silent on the sanitary arrangements, so just how did the unfortunate incumbents of the fetid Ark keep from drowning in a deluge of their own making?

Easy. They cut a hole in the bottom of the boat.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 222 by Yahu]

She had also rejected the bible stories but was told by her goddess that they were all true

If you're still in contact with this woman, kindly direct her to
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... p?p=756257
Just like I don't believe certain people on this site when they say they are in communication with a supernatural being, I don't believe your claim that you know people who do do such. I await the evidence before believing such.

We know from scripture that life spans were different pre-flood and conditions on the earth were different.

No, we don't know. You're using the claim as the evidence for the claim. Literally using the Bible as the evidence for the Bible. The claim is that life spans were different pre-flood. What evidence do we have for this claim, outside the Bible? You provide none. You come up with all sorts of hypothetical scenarios, such as Earth being a moon of Jupiter, to try and make the Bible stories true, but these scenarios you don't provide any evidence for either. There's also the evidence you don't consider that works against these scenarios - namely, that Earth if it were a moon of Jupiter or Saturn, would have been too far from the sun to receive enough warmth to support life.

[Yahu]

If you're still in contact with this woman, kindly direct her to
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... p?p=756257

No Im not still in contact with her. I helped get her sent to prison for her criminal activities. That conversation was in 1988 and was the last time I spoke to her directly. I recorded that phone conversation and it was used to help convict her.

I heard she got out of prison years later, reverted back to Catholicism but was run out of her home town with her family a few years later. I have no idea if she is even still alive. She grew up in the same Catholic church as my ex-wife and her family.

She had gotten involved with Ashtoreth worship from praying to the 'queen of heaven' as a Catholic school girl but Asthoreth appeared to her when she was 14. I knew her in her early 20's while stationed with her in the Air Force. She had joined the Air Force under a 'buddy program' with the girl I married and took away from her.

I learned from my ex-mother-in-law what happened to her years later.

If you have any way to locate military court transcripts, she was convicted on March AFB, that conversation would have been played at the sentencing portion of the trial. March AFB closed and reopened as March ARB. I could never find out what happened to the court transcripts when it converted to a reserve base. I never got back the recording.

[Student]

Eight people fed and housed thousands or millions of animals for the duration

The problem of feeding all the animals pales into insignificance when one considers the logistics at the other end of the process, so to speak. Namely the problems of waste disposal. Anyone who has ever worked on a farm will vouchsafe the enormous volume of solid and fluid effluent even a few ruminants are capable of producing. Not to mention gaseous waste. If the Ark were inadequately ventilated there would have been a substantial risk of asphyxiation let alone that of explosion.

The bible is silent on the sanitary arrangements, so just how did the unfortunate incumbents of the fetid Ark keep from drowning in a deluge of their own making?

Easy. They cut a hole in the bottom of the boat.

It's so obvious it's brilliant. A hole in the Ark's bottom. Is that from whence we derive the term "Arks-hole"?