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?

[OnceConvinced]

Yep, all animals lived in the middle east pre flood and took the bones of all the deceased ones, as well as the fossils aboard the ark with them. All the Koalas, Flightless birds, Wombats, Native New Zealand and Australia spiders and Aussie snakes... after the flood... all traveled across thousands of miles of inhospitable terrain (with their fossels and bones of deceased ancestors on their backs) to get to the necessary habitats. Even the carnivores ate vegetation along the way rather than other species of animals so as not to make any extinct. Once at their destinations, they buried the bones and fossils of their ancestors. Then God caused a huge catastrophic earthquake which flung Australia and New Zealand thousands of miles out into the ocean. And in super quick time all the animals evolved into new types of the same species and multiplied in super fast time to get what we have today.

It all makes perfect sense.

[Hamsaka]

Yep, all animals lived in the middle east pre flood and took the bones of all the deceased ones, as well as the fossils aboard the ark with them. All the Koalas, Flightless birds, Wombats, Native New Zealand and Australia spiders and Aussie snakes... after the flood... all traveled across thousands of miles of inhospitable terrain (with their fossels and bones of deceased ancestors on their backs) to get to the necessary habitats. Even the carnivores ate vegetation along the way rather than other species of animals so as not to make any extinct. Once at their destinations, they buried the bones and fossils of their ancestors. Then God caused a huge catastrophic earthquake which flung Australia and New Zealand thousands of miles out into the ocean. And in super quick time all the animals evolved into new types of the same species and multiplied in super fast time to get what we have today.

It all makes perfect sense.

LOL. I think the point is, that it does not and never did need to make sense.

It's just that about 100 years ago, some Protestants got together and decided that unless every word in the Bible was God's Word that the whole religion 'didn't make sense'. And since sinful, limited human beings could not be trusted to determine what was history and what was myth, the Protestants chose the only option that they felt would salvage their faith in God -- consider every tot and jittle the inerrant word of God to his followers.

That they chose this, rather than throw in the towel altogether, indicates to me anyway that 'sense' has nothing to do with it. Because humanity had progressed to the point that scientific thinking (reason and logic) was taking hold in the culture, these Protestants were faced with a choice that might have been the first of its kind. Inerrantism is a direct result of modernity. Before that, no one knew to even ask the question 'is it a fact?' the way we do it today.

The choice was between self-reassurance and the loss of a traditional worldview. I'm thinking that it was a very tough choice to make, because it still is a tough choice to make.

[H.sapiens]

Yep, all animals lived in the middle east pre flood and took the bones of all the deceased ones, as well as the fossils aboard the ark with them. All the Koalas, Flightless birds, Wombats, Native New Zealand and Australia spiders and Aussie snakes... after the flood... all traveled across thousands of miles of inhospitable terrain (with their fossels and bones of deceased ancestors on their backs) to get to the necessary habitats. Even the carnivores ate vegetation along the way rather than other species of animals so as not to make any extinct. Once at their destinations, they buried the bones and fossils of their ancestors. Then God caused a huge catastrophic earthquake which flung Australia and New Zealand thousands of miles out into the ocean. And in super quick time all the animals evolved into new types of the same species and multiplied in super fast time to get what we have today.

It all makes perfect sense.

LOL. I think the point is, that it does not and never did need to make sense.

It's just that about 100 years ago, some Protestants got together and decided that unless every word in the Bible was God's Word that the whole religion 'didn't make sense'. And since sinful, limited human beings could not be trusted to determine what was history and what was myth, the Protestants chose the only option that they felt would salvage their faith in God -- consider every tot and jittle the inerrant word of God to his followers.

That they chose this, rather than throw in the towel altogether, indicates to me anyway that 'sense' has nothing to do with it. Because humanity had progressed to the point that scientific thinking (reason and logic) was taking hold in the culture, these Protestants were faced with a choice that might have been the first of its kind. Inerrantism is a direct result of modernity. Before that, no one knew to even ask the question 'is it a fact?' the way we do it today.

The choice was between self-reassurance and the loss of a traditional worldview. I'm thinking that it was a very tough choice to make, because it still is a tough choice to make.

Tough? I think not. I agree, "unless every word in the Bible was God's Word that the whole religion 'didn't make sense." Guess what? Lots of words make no sense, ipso facto ...

[earendil]

.

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.

There are MANY great deluges all over the world – frequently. Those occur in lowlands, coastal areas and river valleys. It is not surprising that legends and stories develop based on some of the major floods affecting various cultures.

great diluges...frequently...references?

However, is there ONE verifiable example of the tops of mountains being covered?

The only problem with the Bible version was that they exaggerated it.

Exactly. A local or regional flood with survivors and animals in a boat was transformed into a tale about one of the gods flooding the entire Earth and killing all life.

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).

If one proposes a worldwide flood, a massive amount of water is required worldwide – which poses the question "Where did the water come from?" (and where did it go after the flood?).

This is a good question...and quite the puzzler. About ten years ago I investigated this problem.

My current theory is that, unlike the general drift of the continental plates, there can occur cataclismic shifts. These can occur within a single day. When this happens, the plates may lower (as they are in fact floating on the magma of the Earth's outer core). This allows for sea water to encroach upon the land area. Thus the water is not increased or diminished. It is actually a bit of a problem as it might be possible that a similar event could occur again.

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.

There were probably MANY people who survived a local flood by using a boat and perhaps taking domestic animals with them. In fact, wouldn't people be foolish to NOT get in a boat (if available) during rising water – and take a few animals if possible?

We only have historical evidence to a single case, so if you should claim many cases, you are simply making things up.

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

The Bible tale contains quite a number of very questionable claims.

(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.)

If anyone other than those aboard the ark survived that belies the Genesis account.

1) God supposed said that all life would be destroyed
2) The biblical flood supposedly covered the tops of mountains so a cave would be flooded if the account was accurate.

I already stated that the Genesis account is not accurate.....so what?
You need to understand the mentality of the people at the time of the writing of the story. For them God was causing everything. If their neighbor was sick, they would claim that he was being punished for some sin. So in the case of this unprecedented flood, the people surmised that it was caused by God....but if he caused it, it must be based on something. If people were evil..then God would want to destroy them all...therefore the flood would have to destroy them all...so this is how the exaggeration came about.

This is interesting because Jesus saw through this kind of moral justification for specific world events.

John 9:1-3
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?�
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,� said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him."

So Jesus saw that it just happened, but saw it as an opportunity to display the miracles of the present....and so proceeded to heal him.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

There are MANY great deluges all over the world – frequently. Those occur in lowlands, coastal areas and river valleys. It is not surprising that legends and stories develop based on some of the major floods affecting various cultures.

great diluges...frequently...references?

List of 184 great floods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
Additional references

http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3754082
https://top5ofanything.com/list/96a77a8 ... in-History
http://www.lolwot.com/20-deadliest-floo ... d-history/

Is anyone actually unaware that major floods occur?

However, is there ONE verifiable example of the tops of mountains being covered?

The only problem with the Bible version was that they exaggerated it.

Exactly. A local or regional flood with survivors and animals in a boat was transformed into a tale about one of the gods flooding the entire Earth and killing all life.

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).

If one proposes a worldwide flood, a massive amount of water is required worldwide – which poses the question "Where did the water come from?" (and where did it go after the flood?).

This is a good question...and quite the puzzler. About ten years ago I investigated this problem.

About fifty-five years ago I began studying Earth science, which includes geology, hydrology, climatology, meteorology. Forty-five years ago I began teaching those subjects at university level, from introductory to graduate school. I participated in the shift to acceptance of plate tectonics (as an early proponent).

My current theory is that, unlike the general drift of the continental plates, there can occur cataclismic shifts. These can occur within a single day.

One's "current theory" is of no significance in debate.

As you say, references?

Has any credible geologist or geophysicist suggested a single-day cataclysmic shift in crustal plates? References? Or, is this just something you thought up or got from a creationist website?

When this happens, the plates may lower (as they are in fact floating on the magma of the Earth's outer core).

Freshman geology students learn that the crustal plates are separated from the outer core by about 1800 miles. The region known as the Mantle separates the two.

Magma is a term for isolated areas of liquid rock within the upper mantle and crust. It has nothing to do with "floating" of crustal plates.

This allows for sea water to encroach upon the land area.

Powerful imagination. References?

Sea water does "encroach upon the land area" in tsunamis – for a very limited distance.

Thus the water is not increased or diminished. It is actually a bit of a problem as it might be possible that a similar event could occur again.

Has the US Coast and Geodetic Survey been notified of the potential problem of rapid plate movement causing inundation?

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.

There were probably MANY people who survived a local flood by using a boat and perhaps taking domestic animals with them. In fact, wouldn't people be foolish to NOT get in a boat (if available) during rising water – and take a few animals if possible?

We only have historical evidence to a single case, so if you should claim many cases, you are simply making things up.

Perhaps after making things up about one-day cataclysmic plate shifts allowing flooding by sea water one is likely to suspect that others do the same thing.

Does any rational person doubt that boats have been used to survive floods?
https://www.google.com/search?q=people+ ... 11&bih=810

Here is a reference to boats specially made to survive floods http://www.realworldsurvivor.com/2015/0 ... stinfema-5

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

The Bible tale contains quite a number of very questionable claims.

(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.)

If anyone other than those aboard the ark survived that belies the Genesis account.

1) God supposed said that all life would be destroyed
2) The biblical flood supposedly covered the tops of mountains so a cave would be flooded if the account was accurate.

I already stated that the Genesis account is not accurate.....so what?

Agreed – the Genesis account is not accurate – so it cannot be rationally regarded as anything more than myth, legend, folklore.

Wait a minute – what about "other than that the biblical story is spot on"?

You need to understand the mentality of the people at the time of the writing of the story.

Any "understanding" of the mentality of the people at that time is speculation.

For them God was causing everything. If their neighbor was sick, they would claim that he was being punished for some sin.

That mentality persists today among some people – particularly in underdeveloped areas. However, even in advanced cultures where causes of diseases are known, some religionists continue to believe / insist that gods cause illness (or recovery).

So in the case of this unprecedented flood, the people surmised that it was caused by God....but if he caused it, it must be based on something. If people were evil..then God would want to destroy them all...therefore the flood would have to destroy them all...so this is how the exaggeration came about.

I agree that is a possible or probable way that the Noah's Flood myth developed.

This is interesting because Jesus saw through this kind of moral justification for specific world events.

John 9:1-3
As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?�
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,� said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him."

So Jesus saw that it just happened, but saw it as an opportunity to display the miracles of the present....and so proceeded to heal him.

So goes the tale. Is there evidence that it is true and accurate? Was that or any other of the claimed "miracles" or healing or rising from the dead reported by anyone other than religion promoters decades or generations later (people who cannot be shown to have witnessed what they describe)?

[1213]

We are all aware that penguins are Antarctic dwellers adapted to cold climates and are not hot desert inhabitants, aren't we?

Are you saying Wikipedia information is wrong, and penguins don’t live in South America (near Equator) and Africa and also in Australia, or is South Africa also Antarctic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Penguin_range.png
For example Magellanic penguin are fine with 20℃ temperatures, in Patagonia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_penguin

Then show me any sign of a marsupial, any marsupial, between Turkey and Australia.

Let’s hope we find marsupial from Middle East. It would be interesting to see how it would be explained. I don’t think it would make any difference, it would be twisted in evolutionary thinking, or it would be silenced as inconvenient fact for the atheistic point of view. Either way, it would not make any difference. That is why I don’t think there is any good reason to go through all the trouble.

Then what reason do you give to convince us that there were indeed penguins in the Middle East just a few thousand years ago?

Actually I am not sure is it even necessary to think so. For me it is enough to understand that it can be possible.

There is much evidence against what you say, and any possible evidence that might vindicate you is mysteriously absent.

What evidence we have against that?

Why is it that we can find fossils for creatures but only in areas where they live, areas they are adapted to survive in, but curiously none for areas where they could not possibly survive?

Penguin fossils have allegedly been found in Peru also.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11420635
In my opinion that proves they are not entirely Antarctic species.

Here is other interesting article about this:
"The fossil record shows us that Inkayacu and other giant penguins were very successful … [ranging] all over the southern hemisphere,"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/s ... found-peru

I hope you understand that by the logic you give, I could ask, fossil about some intermediate fossil. And if you can’t show it, I could say, ok then the whole evolution theory can’t be true. You would probably think it would be ridiculous. If we don’t have some fossil, it is no proof for anything, because there can be many reasons why that fossil doesn’t exist. There is just not good conditions for fossilization for every possible animal, in every possible place. If for example penguins would have lived in Finland, we probably wouldn’t found any fossils, because there is not suitable conditions for fossilization. If there would have been penguins, their remains would have been destroyed. This doesn’t mean that there was in Finland penguins, it just means, we couldn’t know that by fossil records. Same can be true in many places with many species.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 2 by Elijah John]

This [the flood] is Hebrew myth...

It is a Babylonian myth, plagiarized by the Hebrew. History and timeline are important.
Aside from the fact that the Babylonian tale predates the Hebrew inclusion by ~500 years (?), the Babylonians acknowledged it as a fable or fairy tale. So, as gullible and stupid as we mistakenly believe our forefathers were, they knew Utnapishtim/Deucalion was just an impossible story, with an impossible boat, and impossible people.

Which, as always, bodes my question:
If the originators of the myth called it false, how is it it is taken seriously in a religious work?

How does it feel to know, that if we brought a Babylonian here from the distant past, and showed him this argument about whether Noah, aka Utnapistim, was real he would laugh his tooshie off?

"You mean to tell me, 3000 years in the future, you folks are debating whether or not a childrens' story is true?" LOL.
"Don't you folks have anything important to discuss?"

-Any Babylonian dad.

[Replying to post 31 by OnceConvinced]
This post is iconic!!!!

[Zzyzx]

.

We are all aware that penguins are Antarctic dwellers adapted to cold climates and are not hot desert inhabitants, aren't we?

Are you saying Wikipedia information is wrong, and penguins don’t live in South America (near Equator) and Africa and also in Australia, or is South Africa also Antarctic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Penguin_range.png
For example Magellanic penguin are fine with 20℃ temperatures, in Patagonia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_penguin

I stand corrected about the temperature requirements of penguins. They are, however, aquatic animals and not desert dwellers. Note that the distribution map cited shows them to be nowhere near the Middle East. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Penguin_range.png

Penguins (order Sphenisciformes, family Spheniscidae) are a group of aquatic, flightless birds living almost exclusively in the Southern Hemisphere, especially in Antarctica. Highly adapted for life in the water, penguins have countershaded dark and white plumage, and their wings have evolved into flippers. Most penguins feed on krill, fish, squid and other forms of sealife caught while swimming underwater. They spend about half of their lives on land and half in the oceans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin

Does that somehow indicate that Penguins swam and walked thousands of miles (according to the distribution map) to get to the ark.

Then show me any sign of a marsupial, any marsupial, between Turkey and Australia.

Let’s hope we find marsupial from Middle East. It would be interesting to see how it would be explained. I don’t think it would make any difference, it would be twisted in evolutionary thinking, or it would be silenced as inconvenient fact for the atheistic point of view. Either way, it would not make any difference. That is why I don’t think there is any good reason to go through all the trouble.

Those who do not have evidence can still hope. Apologists can cling to the hope that the ancient tales they revere could be true – and hope those penguins swam and walked thousands of miles . . .

Doesn't it seem more rational to acknowledge that the ancient tales are myth, legend, folklore, etc? Why cling to the hope they are anything more?

[Hamsaka]

Yep, all animals lived in the middle east pre flood and took the bones of all the deceased ones, as well as the fossils aboard the ark with them. All the Koalas, Flightless birds, Wombats, Native New Zealand and Australia spiders and Aussie snakes... after the flood... all traveled across thousands of miles of inhospitable terrain (with their fossels and bones of deceased ancestors on their backs) to get to the necessary habitats. Even the carnivores ate vegetation along the way rather than other species of animals so as not to make any extinct. Once at their destinations, they buried the bones and fossils of their ancestors. Then God caused a huge catastrophic earthquake which flung Australia and New Zealand thousands of miles out into the ocean. And in super quick time all the animals evolved into new types of the same species and multiplied in super fast time to get what we have today.

It all makes perfect sense.

LOL. I think the point is, that it does not and never did need to make sense.

It's just that about 100 years ago, some Protestants got together and decided that unless every word in the Bible was God's Word that the whole religion 'didn't make sense'. And since sinful, limited human beings could not be trusted to determine what was history and what was myth, the Protestants chose the only option that they felt would salvage their faith in God -- consider every tot and jittle the inerrant word of God to his followers.

That they chose this, rather than throw in the towel altogether, indicates to me anyway that 'sense' has nothing to do with it. Because humanity had progressed to the point that scientific thinking (reason and logic) was taking hold in the culture, these Protestants were faced with a choice that might have been the first of its kind. Inerrantism is a direct result of modernity. Before that, no one knew to even ask the question 'is it a fact?' the way we do it today.

The choice was between self-reassurance and the loss of a traditional worldview. I'm thinking that it was a very tough choice to make, because it still is a tough choice to make.

Tough? I think not. I agree, "unless every word in the Bible was God's Word that the whole religion 'didn't make sense." Guess what? Lots of words make no sense, ipso facto ...

It is 'tough' for some individuals, a subjectively 'tough' experience, especially when a person puts a lot of emphasis on religious beliefs. But as an endeavor? No, not tough at all, it's just shifting over to depending upon facts, just the facts, ma'am, and respecting the limitations of the fact set we currently know.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

I've always wondered which one of Noah's family carried gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, crabs, hepatitis (all of them), whooping cough, scarlet fever, mumps, measles, genital warts, chlamydia, HPV......