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?

[polonius]

In considering the historicity of the flood tale, two facts should be considered.

THe Hebrew story of the flood tale is very simiar to the Sumarian epic of Gilgemesh writteen mush earlier and of which there are two extant copies as cruniform engravings.

Most archeologist considr the first seven books of the Bible to have beedn written a a folk tale between 700 and 800 BC. (See for example: The Bible Unearthed)

[Danmark]

I don't think the flood tale is even worth discussing as a literal, historical world wide event. It's preposterous. However, the real question for me:
Does your belief in God or Christianity depend on the flood myth being historically true?

[OnceConvinced]

[*]Marsupials began to migrate to Australia and New Zealand from North America in the late Cretaceous/early Tertiary. The route of migration crossed Antarctica and into Australia. As Australia broke off from Antarctica and moved northwards, its isolation from other landmasses was complete and the independent evolution of marsupials in Australia and New Zealand began, resulting in some spectacular species that are now extinct including the lion analogue Thylacoleo here shown attacking Diprotodon, a hippopotamus-sized wombat

You may need to edit this as there are no marsupials in New Zealand. Never have been. Too cold for most of them. Zoos tend to have kangaroos and wallabies, but not much else. In fact the only creatures native to New Zealand are birds, insects and a few things like lizards, bats and frogs. Everything else has been introduced.

http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native-animals/

What this demonstrates to me is that the Noah's Ark story is impossible because, apart from the birds there is just no way these native creatures could have made it to New Zealand after the flood. Our native fresh water fish for instance could not be there if there had been a worldwide flood.

[OnceConvinced]

Why allow children 'to make their own conclusions'? Do you even have a framework for this? At what age? Do we give one hour for scientific evolution and one hour for Biblical creationism? What about other religions, other cultures?

And this a huge issue. Christians want bible in schools but if we have the bible, we should also have the koran, the Bagavad Gita, Dianetics and all the others too. And if Christianity, which version? Mormanism? Jehovah Witness? Catholic? Or what about Baptist? Anglican? Presbyterian? Who gets to do it? You open up a huge can of worms with differences in doctrines.

Should classes in New Zealand have one hour for scientific evolution, one hour for Christian Biblical creationism and one hour for the myths of the Maui people (e.g. that the islands of New Zealand are the remains of a giant fish caught by an ancestor patriarch of the Maui people)?

Funny you should mention this. At primary school in the 70s, we used to have that. We had bible in schools and then we also had Maori Culture class (Maui is the mythical Maori character who fished up New Zealand and did a lot of other absurd things.). So we did get all three. However once I got to high school, the Maori Culture and Creationism was dropped. Now a lot of schools are doing away with the bible in schools altogether, because they're seeing it has little value. The Maori culture garbage remains though, because the Maori would be outraged if we didn't acknowledge it in our schools.

[H.sapiens]

[*]Marsupials began to migrate to Australia and New Zealand from North America in the late Cretaceous/early Tertiary. The route of migration crossed Antarctica and into Australia. As Australia broke off from Antarctica and moved northwards, its isolation from other landmasses was complete and the independent evolution of marsupials in Australia and New Zealand began, resulting in some spectacular species that are now extinct including the lion analogue Thylacoleo here shown attacking Diprotodon, a hippopotamus-sized wombat

You may need to edit this as there are no marsupials in New Zealand. Never have been. Too cold for most of them. Zoos tend to have kangaroos and wallabies, but not much else. In fact the only creatures native to New Zealand are birds, insects and a few things like lizards and frogs. Everything else has been introduced.

What this demonstrates to me is that the Noah's Ark story is impossible because, apart from the birds there is just no way these native creatures could have made it to New Zealand after the flood.

Fossils reveal New Zealand’s indigenous ‘mouse’

Fossil bones of a mouse-sized creature that died between 16 million and 19 million years ago have been discovered on the South Island of New Zealand. It is the first hard evidence that the islands once had their own indigenous land mammals.

Today the only land mammals that live in New Zealand are animals like Australian possums – which have arrived since human settlement – although the country does have its own species of bats, seals and sea lions.

The find, by Trevor Worthy of Adelaide University, Australia, and colleagues, includes two jawbones, and one thigh bone, from at least two of the creatures, says team member Suzanne Hand. “The amazing thing is, it is unlike any other fossil mammal found anywhere else,� she says.

The shape of the fossil bones suggest a very primitive mammal that would have evolved before the mammal-line split into placental mammals and marsupials, 125 million years ago, says Hand of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. As the fossil bones are only around 16 million to 19 million years old, it appears the mammal managed to survive for at least 100 million years before going extinct.

“Blind serendipity�

The lack of fossils of New Zealand land mammals had long been considered a major mystery. There are plenty of fossils of land mammals in Australia that date from 125 million to 100 million years ago. During that time New Zealand and Australia were both part of the same landmass, which suggests that land mammals also lived in New Zealand, and were perhaps driven to extinction at a later date.

The new discovery suggests that land mammals did indeed roam New Zealand, but have simply proved difficult to find.

Also: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10415144

and: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarl ... dy-d8.html

and: https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news16544.html

and: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/51/19419

[1213]

I have to question the honesty of this statement. Earlier in this thread, information was given to you about other wooden ships that have been constructed, large and made of wood, using modern shipbuilding techniques. By and large, they were not seaworthy.

If modern people are not good boat builders, it doesn’t prove that ancient man couldn’t have been. If we take for example ancient great and heavy stone structures, modern people don’t understand how they were made, yet they exist. In my opinion those prove that ancient people should not be underestimated.

And then you say:

I notice you say probably a lot. That is the kind of word used by a person who is making guesses at something for which he has little to no information to go on.
I have no use for "probably". I want data,

I taught you would appreciate that, because after all you say also this:

Real science does not pronounce absolute certainty on anything, it works on odds, probabilities.

I would say that sound a bit contradictory.

Do we give one hour for scientific evolution and one hour for Biblical creationism? What about other religions, other cultures? Should classes in New Zealand have one hour for scientific evolution, one hour for Christian Biblical creationism and one hour for the myths of the Maui people (e.g. that the islands of New Zealand are the remains of a giant fish caught by an ancestor patriarch of the Maui people)?

Teachers are on my behalf free to teach what they want. However, I just say, in my opinion it would be good to tell carefully what the truth about origin of life and earth. It is not necessary to tell all possible scenarios, but it would be wise to tell, this what I say now is one point of view, there are also others, and then help the kids get the best possible tools to think by themselves and evaluate matters to make best possible conclusions. Teachers don’t have to tell the Biblical point of view, but I hope they don’t tell something as a fact, when it is not.

That system is called evolution and it IS in conflict with the Bible, in every way. The Bible states in Genesis that animals were created out of nothing in their current forms.

That is not true. It doesn’t say “in current form� what would that even mean, the form at 2015, or the form of year -6000 or more? Bible tells that God created animals at the beginning and they were good. And then later they become corrupted. And for example people lived earlier, according to the Bible, hundreds of years, until the time was limited.

You can't get a viable population from just 8 individuals, the problems of inbreeding would have ensured the deaths of the species in question (especially when 5 of those individuals are already close relatives to begin with!)

How many people did evolution create? We have to remember, if the Bible is correct, at Noah’s time, people were better, they were not yet as degenerated. Therefore it was not as big problem.

So if I were to dissect an animal now, what then is 'corrupt'? What is 'corrupt', what does it mean? How is it defined? What parts do I point to and say "That part is corrupt"?

Rudiments are one evidence for corruption, or degeneration.

In trying to convince me of something that you believe,

No. I try to help you and other people to understand. You are free to believe whatever you want; it is not a problem to me. But I believe, if person understand well, he sees eventually the evidence for the Bible.

Notice also that at no point is the question raised of fish or other sea animals, who would have also ALL died out, every single one, in a worldwide flood event.

I have no reason to believe that. There could easily have been suitable environments for different water creatures. For example water forms layers by different salinity levels.

Are you seriously suggesting that during the weeks of heavy torrential floods (30 feet of rainfall per hour, as has been calculated would be necessary to cover the whole earth to the tops of the tallest mountains

You don’t seem to read my posts. If you would read, you would know that assumption is not correct. There was no need for that much rain, if it was the dry land that sunk, as the Bible suggests.

Could...if. Those words again. Prove the if. If there was a flood...the environment may have been different. Well, I don't have any reason to suppose the environment was that drastically different, and in order for me to even entertain the notion, you'd need to prove the flood, which you have not done

It can be reasoned. Winds for example are formed when air that is warmer rises and colder air flows in place of that. Now typically air gets warmed on top of land. That means, if there was just one continent, winds would have been different than now when we have many continents. And also everyone that lives in region where sometimes rain could notice that it has influence to the temperatures. And everyone who has studied a little about climate things can know that coastlines, mountains have influences to winds and rains.

[1213]

Then lets just day that it is so unlikely that it approaches impossibility as a limit. Is that better?

I don’t think it is unlikely.

Yes, REAL KNOWLEDGE! Teach what we have found ... the Arc story is a fairy-tale! Genetics and genome analysis proves that all "all animals are offspring of single species." That is not a belief.

Please explain with your own words how genetics and genome analysis proves that all "all animals are offspring of single species."?

Yeah, I've also heard it said that Noah was a master geneticist and actually brought all the animals aboard as germ plasma. Even if that was true, which it clearly is not, how do you account for the survival of all the plants, many of which can not survive long term immersion.

Plants can exist as seeds.

[H.sapiens]

I have to question the honesty of this statement. Earlier in this thread, information was given to you about other wooden ships that have been constructed, large and made of wood, using modern shipbuilding techniques. By and large, they were not seaworthy.

If modern people are not good boat builders, it doesn’t prove that ancient man couldn’t have been. If we take for example ancient great and heavy stone structures, modern people don’t understand how they were made, yet they exist. In my opinion those prove that ancient people should not be underestimated.

The classic debnking of your claim is the 330 ft.Wyoming, built in 1909 that had a tendency to flex in heavy seas, causing the long planks to twist and buckle. This allowed sea water into the hold, which had to be constantly pumped out. You can add to that the similarly sized HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey both built in 1858 that also both suffered structural problems. This was at the apogee of wooden ship construction knowledge when the trees in entire forests were reserved, and individual trees were trained to grow into specific shapes, as a national defense resource.

[H.sapiens]

Then lets just day that it is so unlikely that it approaches impossibility as a limit. Is that better?

I don’t think it is unlikely.

What you "think" is entirely irreverent ... got any evidence?

Yes, REAL KNOWLEDGE! Teach what we have found ... the Arc story is a fairy-tale! Genetics and genome analysis proves that all "all animals are offspring of single species." That is not a belief.

Please explain with your own words how genetics and genome analysis proves that all "all animals are offspring of single species."?

Not really worth my time, if you are interested go to wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

Yeah, I've also heard it said that Noah was a master geneticist and actually brought all the animals aboard as germ plasma. Even if that was true, which it clearly is not, how do you account for the survival of all the plants, many of which can not survive long term immersion.

Plants can exist as seeds.

Where in the bible did is say that Noah collected, from all over the earth, the seeds of every plant and then was able to carry them on the Arc without having them sprout or rot?

[Zzyzx]

.
It is no longer astonishing to me how far people will stretch credibility to maintain belief that ancient tales are true.

If modern people are not good boat builders, it doesn’t prove that ancient man couldn’t have been.

Can anyone SHOW that ancient boat builders were "better" than modern boat builders? "Show" does not include TALES about ancient boats. Anyone can make up tales of whatever strikes their imagination – showing that the boats (or whatever) actually existed outside imagination is a different matter.

If we take for example ancient great and heavy stone structures, modern people don’t understand how they were made, yet they exist.

It would be prudent to actually investigate what studies HAVE been done regarding how ancient stone structures were made. Many suggestions have been made (without claiming absolute knowledge). For example: http://www.history.com/news/solving-the ... nstruction

In my opinion those prove that ancient people should not be underestimated.

Perhaps modern people are the ones who should not be underestimated. Modern people are capable of FLYING objects far heavier than any stones moved by ancients. The Antonov An-225, the world's heaviest aircraft, has a maximum takeoff weight greater than 640 tons. The biggest of Stonehenge's stones, known as sarsens, are up to 30 feet (9 meters) tall and weigh 25 tons. Thus, modern aircraft can be twenty-five times as heavy as the largest Stonehenge rock.

FAR heavier objects can be moved over land – for example:

Almajdouie Logistics Company has been awarded the Guinness World Record for the “Heaviest Item Moved by Road Freight�. The award is based on the transportation of eight (8) evaporator unit each unit weighing over 4891 tons from the manufacture in South Korea to delivered project site in Saudi Arabia.  The combined weight for all the units will exceed 41,000 metric tons
http://www.globallogisticsmedia.com/art ... -logistics

The 4,816 ton, four-story Hotel Montgomery [San Jose, California] was moved 182 feet
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engine ... htm#page=2

Northwest Logistics Heavy Haul spent Friday preparing for what may be the largest load ever moved through the state of Oklahoma. The company, based in Woodward, Okla., will use four trucks to haul a 186-foot-long, 535,600-pound demethanizer to a gas processing plant in Colorado.

Two trucks will pull the two-lanes wide load, and two trucks from behind will help push the demethanizer from the Broken Arrow, Okla., facility it was built at to a gas plant in Fort Lupton, Colo. The total weight for the haul is 1,192,000 pounds [600 tons]. Broken Arrow police believe it may be the largest object ever moved through the state.
http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?S ... m3-9-KfISZ

How many people did evolution create?

All people, according to biologists / geneticists / people who actually study such things and do not merely pontificate based upon unverifiable ancient tales.

We have to remember, if the Bible is correct,

Do we have assurance that the Bible is correct?

at Noah’s time, people were better, they were not yet as degenerated. Therefore it was not as big problem.

If people of Noah's time were "better" and "not yet as degenerated", WHY is God said to have killed all of humanity save eight on the ark?

Keep in mind Genesis 6: 5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.� 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

In what way were people of that time "not yet as degenerated"? EXACTLY what degeneration has occurred in humans since Noah's time?

Notice also that at no point is the question raised of fish or other sea animals, who would have also ALL died out, every single one, in a worldwide flood event.

I have no reason to believe that. There could easily have been suitable environments for different water creatures. For example water forms layers by different salinity levels.

Perhaps it would be prudent to consult Gensis 6:21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

Thus, unless all water creatures were also aboard the ark, they PERISHED – no ifs, ands or buts about it according to Genesis. Do you dispute what is clearly stated in scripture?

Plants can exist as seeds.

Not every plant grows from a seed. Some plants, like ferns and mosses, grow from spores. Other plants use asexual vegetative reproduction and grow new plants from rhizomes or tubers
http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Science-Stor ... hout-seeds

And



This discussion illustrates how basic knowledge of biology (or geology or astronomy) disputes Apologetic attempts to "explain" defects in ancient stories, legends, myths . . .

Does willful ignorance apply? (defined as: to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt).