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?

[Danmark]

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"?

I'll have to check the Greek. Or the Norsk. I think it's from a Norwegian fisherman joke. It's a companion to marking the side of the boat to be sure to be able to return to a good fishing spot.

[KenRU]

...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....

It was an example of what happens when contradictory evidence for evolution and millions of years is found.

But it is not contrary to evolution, as has been shown in the article.

It shouldn’t be possible to find soft tissue of creatures that lived “millions� of years ago.

Unless I'm mistaken, the findings are that it is highly unlikely, but not impossible.

But if the finding is true, it must be fit into modern scientific world view. And it is interesting to see how it is done.

Interesting thing is also if this is true: “Dr Schweitzer ‘was having a hard time’ trying to get her work published in scientific journals... ‘I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,’ says Schweitzer. ‘I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?� And he said, “None.�’…�. If science in high level is not biased, why did Dr Schweitzer have this kind of problems in publishing his study?

The reluctance of one scientist or a few is irrelevant. History has shown that the scientific community did accept this finding and has adjusted its thinking.

This goes counter to your point.

In my opinion it is ok to be skeptic, but if no evidence is enough, it seems to be more likely biased thinking than skepticism.

Then your fault is with that one scientist and you should be more embracing of science (as it accepts her findings now) not more skeptical.

By your own arguments.

In my opinion information should not be rejected only because it is from “evangelical� person, or from person that has otherwise “wrong� world view. Real science should be objective, in my opinion.

Agreed, which was borne out in the case you cited.

Not sure I follow your logic.

all the best,

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I hold to the view that the flood was a local flood and did not need to flood places like Antarctica, just universal in the sense that it only covered areas where early man lived in. One could accept this view without having to compromise scripture inerrancy. Inerrancy does not mean read everything literally btw.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I hold to the view that the flood was a local flood and did not need to flood places like Antarctica, just universal in the sense that it only covered areas where early man lived in. One could accept this view without having to compromise scripture inerrancy. Inerrancy does not mean read everything literally btw.

I also adopted this view before I ditch the flood story altogether.
Once I studied evolution outside of church and my Christian school, I also adopted the view that evolution was how a god put man here.
I'm not sure about you, but I change my beliefs on a great many things in order to maintain my Christian status for as long as I could.

However, aren't you ignoring the fact that early man lived all across the globe, and not just in the middle east?

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 234 by Clownboat]

the flood story may or may not have taken place in the middle east. It could have taken place in northern africa but the case is that mankind inhabited those areas before they expanded to Antarctica and New Zealand with the Kiwis. To say that I change my views in light of scientific discoveries doesn't mean that the bible is therefore wrong (if scripture really says that everywhere on the entire surface of earth). The bible is a literary book and I take some things as literal or figurative or something in between like Revelations is mostly all figurative, or the flood I believe used some hyperboles. I would be worried if I was the only Christian with that view and I would see if there is some inconsistency with my interpretation but the fact that scripture leaves room for interpretation on an area that's not essential to its main message doesn't worry me that much. In truth all theologians and everyone that reads the bible brings in their own philosophies when they read it, and the bible says what is says but if one reads it through a naturalistic perspective then one would receive a different message on some parts than someone who reads it all literally entirely or someone who reads it literarily and consistently. Like for example, about the creation account in the bible, about the six days, when I was a child and learned about it, for some reason I never imagined those days as literal 24 hour periods but rather periods of time. As I studied more on the claims between young earth creationists, old earth creationists, I actually learned that the hebrew word for days has more than just one meaning which included the one I thought. About the 6,000 years, that's just a unrealiable calculation that someone tried to do to count of the genealogies from the bible, which the bible in some verses states to never use genealogies other than creating ties. I know I mentioned a lot of points and I apologize :/ but I do it with good intentions, I tried to provide a well defined perspective, but I have to learn how to be more concise X) I apologize still

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
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?

This is Hebrew myth, and has been rightly criticized in Danmark's thread on the subject. That thread for it's problematic morality, this one for it's scientific implausablilities.

This is a perfect example why the Bible cannot be regarded as a book of science, for the reasons you enumerate.

And as a morality tale, it is problematic to say the least. That is if one focuses on the slaughter of the innocents, (babies and animals) victims of God's categorical, collective punishment.

As myth of regeneration and recovery, based on blessing of the remnant...then one can find value in the tale. Or as an ancient "sci-fi" story.

In the movie Red State, the Phelps-like preacher of hate Aiden Cooper states, "Now a God that would drown a whole world because of mankind's wickedness, does that sound like a God who loves you? One who forgives your sin?"

No accident that director/writer Kevin Smith used the tale of the flood as one of Cooper's spiritual weapons, to support his hate. It is a horrible story at worst, problematic at best. And in no way scientific.

Unless the flood myth is seen AS a myth of regeneration, THAT principle is scientific anyway. The body heals, nature re-claims. And from a Thesitic point of view, God has built into His Creation regenerative powers.

This is a remarkably sage reply. I learned long ago that anyone determined to believe that this story is historically factual will not be dissuaded by simply listing out all of the various reasons why it is so unbelievably ridiculous. I prefer to hop straight to Joshua's
"Day The Earth Stood Still" tall tale (Josh.10:12-13) to make sport of them.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 234 by Clownboat]

the flood story may or may not have taken place in the middle east. It could have taken place in northern africa but the case is that mankind inhabited those areas before they expanded to Antarctica and New Zealand with the Kiwis. To say that I change my views in light of scientific discoveries doesn't mean that the bible is therefore wrong (if scripture really says that everywhere on the entire surface of earth). The bible is a literary book and I take some things as literal or figurative or something in between like Revelations is mostly all figurative, or the flood I believe used some hyperboles. I would be worried if I was the only Christian with that view and I would see if there is some inconsistency with my interpretation but the fact that scripture leaves room for interpretation on an area that's not essential to its main message doesn't worry me that much. In truth all theologians and everyone that reads the bible brings in their own philosophies when they read it, and the bible says what is says but if one reads it through a naturalistic perspective then one would receive a different message on some parts than someone who reads it all literally entirely or someone who reads it literarily and consistently. Like for example, about the creation account in the bible, about the six days, when I was a child and learned about it, for some reason I never imagined those days as literal 24 hour periods but rather periods of time. As I studied more on the claims between young earth creationists, old earth creationists, I actually learned that the hebrew word for days has more than just one meaning which included the one I thought. About the 6,000 years, that's just a unrealiable calculation that someone tried to do to count of the genealogies from the bible, which the bible in some verses states to never use genealogies other than creating ties. I know I mentioned a lot of points and I apologize :/ but I do it with good intentions, I tried to provide a well defined perspective, but I have to learn how to be more concise X) I apologize still

I'm glad that common sense is being used with the flood tale.

Now, let's check for consistency...
What is your take on a dead, decomposing body, with nearly liquefied organs coming back from the dead after 3 days? Is it up there with the flood tale and talking animals, or must you believe this claim due to the fear of what you have been told will happen to you if you don't?

Thanks for your perspective, concise or not. (Paragraph breaks would a little easier on the eyes though).

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 237 by Clownboat]

The way I view science and the supernatural (including God) is the following.

[center]Faqs/Disclaimer/Preface[/center]

1) God or Unguided Naturalism could both be equally inferred by the evidence of the record of nature. Either one of those things are primary causes and secondary causes are the results that we could actually see and measure, although one may interpret it as either Naturalistic Evolution or Theistic Evolution or even Intelligent Design. Philosophies and possible revelations could shed light in our pursuit of truth.

2) The philosophy that you bring in could make a difference how you view things. I found good reasons to not limit myself to naturalism as Godel's Incompleteness Theorem (logical/Axiomatic mathematical structures) as well as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle by empirical evidence from Super Symmetry (in the realms of physical science) convinces me if one should look for truth, one shouldn't be limited to naturalism and verificationism (there are other logics and natural phenomena that aren't incompassed in what we consider as truth or possible and for the sake of progress of knowledge). One could say that pointing out the weaknesses of current theories or models is fallacious but actually since this is a double edged sword it would be wise to not close off the existence of other things, and who are we to define what is natural or supernatural? I could provide more mathematical, philosophical or scientific details and proofs about this point but these make an objective point.

3) As for the revelation/inspired scriptures aka the bible, two important factors that one could consider A. Interpretation and B. Interpretation and Scientific Implications. At 4 I'll discuss about the other supernatural events that don't impact these two points.

[center]A. Exegesis and Hermeneutics is important when trying to understand the meaning of the text. For example one could say that the bible is an ancient document and should be interpreted in light of how those people would have understood it, or another method could include seeing scripture and science as both truths and revelations and one shouldn't be used to interpret the other unless one has evidence that could help interpret ambiguity from the other which is Progressive Creationism, or grammatico-historical hermeneutic, which is similar to the approach that textual critics of the bible follow except it doesn't necessarily assume naturalism entirely.

A weak approach would be Concordism which says that either science should interpret the bible entirely with modern science ideals or the bible should interpret the science entirely, similarly weak like literalistic hermeneutic. Although I am not a Concordist or Literalist, I do accept the biblical testing method that Hugh Ross created which helps interpret natural phenomena describe in the bible (like what kind of natural phenomena is the bible talking about, how is it affected? What is the point of reference that the text tells us, what are other possible (and likely) phenomena alternatives in light of what the text says in its original language interpretation. Here's a break down of this method,[/center]

• Identify one or more of the physical phenomena that the particular biblical text investigates, describes, and/or explains.
• Identify the frame(s) of reference or point(s) of view to be used in studying and describing the phenomenon or phenomena.
• Determine the initial conditions for the phenomenon or phenomena.
• Take note of the description of the phenomenon/phenomena and determine what takes place when, where, and in what order.
• Note the final conditions for the phenomenon/phenomena.
• Form a tentative explanation, or hypothesis, for how and why things transpired as they did.
• Test the hypothesis with additional biblical texts that address the same phenomenon/phenomena.
• Revise the hypothesis accordingly.
Reference:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/interpr ... fic-method

[center]I'll provide examples of how this method with good hermeneutics could help answer some passages (which scriptural critics of any literary discipline use, and the ones that I listed that I find strong are a few of others that I hold). I am not using this as a way to defend the bible, I am rather using it to really understand what it's saying and whether or not I find a logically impossible phenomena that would be recorded in nature which the bible explicitly claims without a doubt and makes it irreconcilable for one to consider the bible a really reliable revelation.

B. Things that science can confirm or disconfirm
(disconfirm in the logical and empirical sense, if there isn't any positive evidence to refute a claim then it isn't disproven, not disproven by the lack of any confirming or disconfirming evidence)
about claims from the bible that are explicitly stated that have no other possible interpretations in light of reasonable hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is a respectable field to understand truth meaning from literary texts of all kinds, and unfortunately the bible was written in languages that used literary devices in a contextual sense, so a direct literal reading of all of it would be to grossly misunderstand it all.

Points/Arguments

• Flood Tale - In this case like the other cases that I'll post here that talk about a phenomena (whether supernatural or not) that in the nature of the events would have affected the natural world in such a way to provide confirming or disconfirming evidence. If one takes a Literal approach in interpreting the text then a worldwide flood would have provided evidence that would have easily disproven the bible with objective proofs, that are independent from it. But if one takes a Historical and Literary approach, then the position that I listed such as a local flood would make sense, sense mankind wasn't in places like Antarctica or New Zealand when humankind was this early.

The Historical approach gives us historical context from the text as well as outside historical accounts to consider, and the Literary approach gives us insight of whether this text was a poem, whether it should be read figuratively, or Historical with some literary devices and genres used like hyperbole. Universal for example is open to various interpretations that would have included to an extend from either all of the surface of the earth or to the extend as far as mankind had lived in.

• The earth being created in six 24 hour days and the universe being 6,000 years - This is a really important area where hermeneutics really makes a difference on this really important scientific topic. If one doesn't take the Young Earth Creationist from both of these areas, then one could conclude that the days in Genesis are open to mean long periods of time in Hebrew, and the seventh day never ended. The 6,000 comes from a approach known as the Ussher chronology. This tries to guess the age of each individuals listed in various parts from the bible, all the way to adam to estimate an age of 6,000 years approximately. Not only aren't most of the ages from those individuals mentioned, but also similar passages that mention the same genealogies often leave out some names from other paralleled passages which seems to suggest that the genealogies aren't reliable for certain specific data other than creating ties. Titus 3:9 and 1 Timothy 1:4 say the same thing explicitly, at a theological level.

• The fourth day of Genesis, sun and plants - Using the biblical scientific model that Hugh Ross has listed, when reading Genesis 1:14-19 critics often claim that the earth being created before the sun or plant life existing before the sun would have been impossible as seen through empirical evidence from the order of natural history. Long answer short, if one reads a little before day four, through the "point of reference" part from the biblical testing method that Hugh Ross created, where God is hovering over the waters and says let there be (second time) light at the heavens of the earth, then one could conclude that the atmosphere of Earth's surface was opaque and that the sun had already existed, its just that its light didn't penetrate through.


What about plant life before the sun? I could type out the whole response but I'll summarize again and link to resources. Through discoveries made in nature, ancestors to plant life actually existed underwater before the earth's atmosphere was transparent. Here are fossil proofs, whether you call them plant life or not, it wouldn't be a definitive response or contradiction, so its up to you to decide how you'll make up your mind with this ambiguity

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 09943.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 08213.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 09811.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 09904.html

• Joshua's day being longer - During this battle Joshua called out to God to make the sun and moon stand still so that their battle would not end because he needed more time. If one actually studied the Hebrew text saying "sun and moon stand still" it's basically saying that Joshua wanted more time. Joshua only wants the conditions that will allow him to achieve his goals, not the necessarily speaking about the sun or moon specifically but anything that will give him time as that saying usually references time in other contexts of the Hebrew language (following this exact structure). Where the debate is at for Hebrew scholars today is whether Joshua is asking for the light to be extended or the darkness to be extended (but consensus is at that he wanted the time of the darkness to be extended).

God could have brought about such effects through a supernatural meteorological event that blanketed the region with heavy darkness or refracted or reflected extra light into the desired location. Alternately, God could have shone his Shekinah glory into the Valley of Aijalon or used His “hand� to block out the Sun and Moon’s light. These (including a possible eclipse that occurred during this time of Joshua) possibilities are ones that God has already used in the past that could have provided the sufficient conditions for that specific event, without bringing about far more disturbing meteorological consequences by using the sun or moon, which would have been recorded historically.
[/center]

4) About other supernatural events such as a talking donkey, or the resurrection of Christ and so fourth, how would one go about to provide evidence to prove or disprove these events? Not scriptural or witness testimonies, but actual physical proofs that correlate directly to these phenomena? The Shroud of Turin for example some had argued is a possible Christ image that has a shroud imprinted by some sort of glowing light. Just for the fact that this was possibly Christ is not conclusive nor the physical effects left on the shroud itself a direct physical proof that directly proves a risen bodily Christ. The only grounds one could dispute these supernatural events would be to adopt a naturalistic perspective and also a verificationist one that presupposes that lack of evidence/ physical evidence equals non existent which I have argued and proved to be wrong. (for the sake of scientific and also knowledge progress).


About my motives, they aren't due to me trying to prove my position out of fear that if I am proven wrong that I would heavily doubt it and burn in hell (I'm an annihilationist that believes that the final judgement will actually be either eternal life or eternal annihilation after all events in Revelations occur). I'm in search of truth and I have good reasons, from independent areas that make me come to this conclusion, but I am interested in researching and challenging different positions as well.

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 237 by Clownboat]

As for this post, this is not meant to veer off topic and talk about or debate other specific natural or supernatural causes mentioned in the bible (which would have to take place on the Christianity and Science debate Index). The purpose for this response is to show the revelancy of the impact of naturalism, in the sense that sort of philosophy as well as unguided neo-darwinism are unreliable, that would further support my previous points in different ways. Not really to say that they are unreliable positions, but one should consider the ramifications of such views in light of debate, that is that they also come with faults that could grossly misinterpret the interpretation of the bible. These should also provide interesting debate idea materials if others wanted to dig deeper. This is where I also found the current position of Apologistics in regards to Science and Theism, but it doesn't have to be specifically for Christianity either.

Abiogenesis, DNA information and origin of life as famously argued by Dr. Stephen Meyer, claimed that if reality was really only unguided through natural process as proposed by naturalism, that life itself would be astronomically impossible to have arisen without an intelligent designer
(impossible in the sense that it would be astronomically impossible, in the sense that the number of subatomic particles throughout the entire universe or the amount of seconds since the beginning of time are smaller numbers than that probability, so much so that if you randomly picked out a random particle from the universe and it shuffled with all of the other particles, that the chances of getting that particle again would be more likely life emerging through naturalistic unguided means).
Not only is the formation of basic properties of cellular life very unlikely but the source from which information (which happens to be a source from intelligent agents such as us in motherboards) is not feasibly answered by unguided evolution, or naturalistic causes. This point and other points that are serious problems to naturalism or unguided evolution do not postulated a God of the Gaps or Naturalism or Unguided Evolution of the Gaps argument but rather show real logical weaknesses to these important theories where they really matter most (which help define those theories), and we are dealing with secondary causes not primary ones. Here's more on this point,


Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity, further drives the nail on the Neo-Darwinian view in light of Stephen Meyer's work and research.
If one is more philosophically inclined I could include Dr. Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism to further refute naturalism, if evolution is true.


Naturalistic/ Neo-Darwinian Evolution is contradicted by the Cambrian Explosion (a popular parallel event from the claims made in the bible about life), the Cambrian Explosion poses the single most problematic issue for universal common ancestor that Neo-Darwinism depends upon. The actual tree of life (fossil record) is actually doesn't fit the Darwinian tree as there are actually different separate small trees rather than a big single one (as most of the phyla had emerged in the Cambrian Explosion). Science has not yet found any complex life forms that are transitional to the ones that abruptly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion, not like a few decades of not finding evidence, but actually this has been going on for some hundreds of years with still no results for the history of life. (Not much bearing if one day proven true or not for the Theist, just those who subscribe to Intelligent Design).


Positive claims for Biblical Creation Account where singularity from Big Bang and Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin's Past-Finite Universe, Vilenkin suggest that a singularity is more likely than imaginary or virtual variables that caused a potential infinite inflation (which wouldn't be past eternal as even in that instance a boundary would still be present, but never reached). Although more likely, this isn't conclusive but reasonable reasoning until a general quantum theory is created (which naturalism would not help). As for other past eternal models, there are some that are mathematically possible but due to measurements from the microwave background radiation of the universe and the second law of thermo dynamics, no infinite rebound or past eternal models are feasible at this point and the Christian Theist seems to be at a promising position. Not me trying to insert Christian Doctrine or Dogmas, but positing a real strong position, which is supported by an independent party from the theological persuasion.
(MIT Tech News will break this down)
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4277 ... beginning/

Aside from this point for the Christian, the probability of the first conditions for our universe to be conducive to life, as well the probability of the formation of our galaxy to be the best structure to support life, all the way to all of the solar systems in it including ours that affects all parameters to the formation of our own solar system to the finest and most minute details of every planet we have as well as certain conditions to our very own planet which makes life possible really is a big point that suggests that this improbable life was not really designed (inference to the best explanation) which again by this astronomical improbability makes unguided naturalism a very unfeasible coincidence, although probable, not sensible to rationally accept. This isn't to say that's its the specific Christian God but it's a case for Intelligent Design (as both naturalism and Intelligent Design have to inference from the best possible solution as they are both dealing with secondary natural factors that's open to design). There are figures that I could throw out and Intelligently Designed (that are important to life) features that specify the Intelligent Design position.

In astronomy and cosmology, similar to the arguments made for whether mathematics is invented or discovered, guillermo gonzalez' work on the "privileged planet" discovered that the current time that intelligent life (us) exists is a crucial time that allows us learn best about astronomy. You may ask, "Well what does that have to do with Yawvhwehrx?" and you would be right to be ask, as this isn't the case for the Christian directly, as this would be more in the realms of Intelligent Design. Not only is the timing right, but the exact position to make almost all possible cosmological observations is this very spot that we are on. Not only are we in the perfect time and place in the short window of the universe to be able to see all of its history, but the conditions that the universe needs to be conducive for life overlaps/correlates with conditions (location and time) for scientific discovery, and these places and times have to be really exact. What does one get from this? We learn that we have the perfect opportunity to learn about the Universe, an intention and purpose specifically for us.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 238 by shushi_boi]

My Goodness! That's a long way 'round to talk about a preposterous and impossible legend that just plain never happened. OTOH, it perfectly fits the criteria for a myth. If one had any doubts whatsoever, simply consulting the preexisting Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh should confirm the diagnosis.

I have little doubt that if Genesis contained a story about the Moon being made of green cheese, a cadre of pseudo scientists motivated by "Biblical Truth" would come up with several scenarios to explain how it happened and how even now the giant cheese ball is covered with a mere dusting of space dust, a rind that testifies to the provenance of the celestial cheese.