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?

[Zzyzx]

.

Does it make sense to declare scientific studies false in order to cling to belief that Bible tales are actual descriptions of events?

Actually I don’t have to declare scientific claims false. I expect that scientific claims are proven to be true. If that is not done, there is no need to claim them false, when it hasn’t even been proven correct.

Scientific studies conclude that donkeys and snakes lack vocal apparatus capable of producing speaking human languages. If one maintains that donkeys and snakes did converse in human language they are, in fact, declaring the sciences false.

You shouldn’t move the burden of proof for me, when it belongs to scientists who make these claims about ages or other things.

Those scientists DO provide evidence that their conclusions are accurate. Is there evidence that tales of talking donkeys and snakes or worldwide flood are accurate – evidence, not conjecture or myth-quoting.

Nice dodge. Notice the question asked about length of time required to form hydrocarbons.

How do you know that? Do you believe scientists who say so? Isn't it being inconsistent to cite scientific evidence when it supports a position but deny science when it conflicts with chosen positions? Is that eating one's cake and having it too?

The time depends on the pressure.

What makes you think this is true? Does this information come from science? Kindly cite sources.

I can accept all science that can be tested and shown to be true, or could be well reasoned.

Can you accept forensic biology science that details decomposition processes that occur beginning with death of animals, including humans, and are irreversible?

There are NO examples of modern plants and animals in low / old rock layers and NO fossils of ancient simple extinct plants and animals (such as trilobites or fern trees or dinosaurs) in more recently developed strata.

And that is good, because if the great flood happened, that should be expected, because more advanced species are able to escape, and are not as easily drowned.

Is this to propose that rabbits and dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago and that dinosaurs were more easily drowned than rabbits?

Is this to propose that ancient fern trees were "drowned" before more advanced / modern plants?

Nearly every aspect of the flood tale conflicts with what is known about the real world. It may have seemed reasonable to people living thousands of years ago.

Please give one example of true fact that conflicts the flood story.

Water flows downhill / down-slope / off continents unless constrained or restricted.

Look at the stretches made in attempts to try to make sense of the mythical tale – rats getting food from the water to become in turn food for carnivores.

I don’t see how that would be stretched. If there were rats, as we may assume, and by what we can know about rats, they could easily have been fast multiplying food for some animals.

Do all carnivores use rats for food?

That would be a pretty crowded deck since there are nearly a half million known plant species – many of which require very specific habitats (cold, warm, wet, dry, etc).

Does it NOT make more sense to accept that the flood tale is not literally true?

Please notice, I didn’t mean that all possible plants were there on the deck.

Where were the non-deck plants and how did they survive? Did they have sunlight and proper environmental conditions?

At this point I have no good reason to believe the flood couldn’t have happened.

What you believe or do not believe makes absolutely no difference in debate. What does make a difference is evidence that what you say is truthful and accurate – something more substantial than more opinions or possibilities that cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination.

And I don’t see why I should accept your claims with no good evidence or proof or reason.

Kindly cite a claim of mine that has "no good evidence or proof or reason". Simply throwing out unsubstantiated accusations is NOT debate.

To me, all that can be observed from nature indicates that there was great flood as the Bible tells.

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" might apply. It might be prudent to actually learn about the natural sciences before reaching conclusions.

In my opinion there is no other reasonable explanation for the massive geological formations that we can see (fossils, orogenic mountains, vast sediment strata, oil fields…).

Those who actually study geology understand that geological formations, fossils, mountains, sedimentary strata, oil fields do NOT require a great flood. Those who learn their "geology" from ancient scripture or modern preachers / creationist websites / television often disagree with those who actually study such things.

[dianaiad]

You're again demonstrating your ignorance towards science....
I am doing a facepalm here. You still don't get it do you? You're still doing what you've been doing all along. You're throwing not even half baked guesses to try and salvage what you believe. .....

Moderator Comment

Please address the content of the posts only. Do not make personal comments about the writer of the post.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[1213]

Scientific studies conclude that donkeys and snakes lack vocal apparatus capable of producing speaking human languages. If one maintains that donkeys and snakes did converse in human language they are, in fact, declaring the sciences false.

And I can accept that scientists have not found any modern snake or donkey that could speak. I am not claiming that modern donkeys or snakes could speak, and I don’t think Bible is claiming so.

Bible tells that serpent spoke to Eve. We don’t know what kind of serpent that was. And so we can’t really truthfully say it couldn’t be possible. Also in this case it may be that Satan or something like that spoke through the “serpent� and it was not actually the serpent otherwise than it accepted that. You don’t have to believe this, but I hope you understand that the matter is not necessary as simple as people want to see usually.

And about the talking donkey Bible says:

Yahweh opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?
Num. 22:28

That seems to mean, God made the donkey to speak. I don’t think it means donkeys normally would speak, but in that special case, God made it happen. How? I don’t know. But on basis of what is written, it is not normal thing even for ancient donkeys. and maybe that could be compared to stones that will speak:

He answered them, "I tell you that if these were silent, the stones would cry out."
Luke 19:40

The time depends on the pressure.

What makes you think this is true? Does this information come from science? Kindly cite sources.

Sorry I didn’t find any study about this. But according to Wikipedia, pressure is one thing that is needed. And obviously, if the pressure is formed faster, the result would also become faster.

Crude oil found in all oil reservoirs formed in the Earth's crust from the remains of once-living things. Crude oil is properly known as petroleum, and is used as fossil fuel. Evidence indicates that millions of years of heat and pressure changed the remains of microscopic plant and animal into oil and natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_reservoir

Can you accept forensic biology science that details decomposition processes that occur beginning with death of animals, including humans, and are irreversible?

I can accept that certain things happen, if it can really be seen. But if I now see something, it doesn’t prove that same happened yesterday, or 2000 years ago and that same would happen in any possible situation.

Is this to propose that rabbits and dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago and that dinosaurs were more easily drowned than rabbits?

I have no need to say how long ago, because I don’t really know that time. On basis of the skeletons, dinosaurs were heavier, which means, they would sink easier. But maybe they lived in same area and were as easily drowned; we just don’t have yet found fossils of rabbits from that time.

Is this to propose that ancient fern trees were "drowned" before more advanced / modern plants?

Can you show where we can find fern tree fossils and modern tree fossils on top of them?

Please give one example of true fact that conflicts the flood story.

Water flows downhill / down-slope / off continents unless constrained or restricted.

Please explain how does that conflict with the flood story?

Where were the non-deck plants and how did they survive?

Actually I don’t know. I guess they could have been submerged and survived as seeds for example.

[Zzyzx]

.

Scientific studies conclude that donkeys and snakes lack vocal apparatus capable of producing speaking human languages. If one maintains that donkeys and snakes did converse in human language they are, in fact, declaring the sciences false.

And I can accept that scientists have not found any modern snake or donkey that could speak. I am not claiming that modern donkeys or snakes could speak, and I don’t think Bible is claiming so.

Tales in the Bible describe a donkey and a snake conversing in human language. Do they not?

Bible tells that serpent spoke to Eve. We don’t know what kind of serpent that was. And so we can’t really truthfully say it couldn’t be possible.

Of course anything is "possible" in fantasy, fiction, folklore – even though it does not happen in real life.

Also in this case it may be that Satan or something like that spoke through the “serpent� and it was not actually the serpent otherwise than it accepted that.

See above.

You don’t have to believe this,

Thank you

but I hope you understand that the matter is not necessary as simple as people want to see usually.

I understand that Apologists may wish to make the talking donkey and snake seem "not simple" by claiming supernatural influences. However, they cannot demonstrate that any such thing happened or happens.

And about the talking donkey Bible says:

Yahweh opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?
Num. 22:28

That seems to mean, God made the donkey to speak.

Ventriloquists make dummies "speak." How is that different?

I don’t think it means donkeys normally would speak, but in that special case, God made it happen.

In debate "Goddidit" doesn't fly. Not all of us agree to accept tales about such things as though they were true.

How? I don’t know. But on basis of what is written, it is not normal thing even for ancient donkeys. and maybe that could be compared to stones that will speak:
He answered them, "I tell you that if these were silent, the stones would cry out."
Luke 19:40

Most of us do NOT live in a world that includes speaking stones, donkeys, snakes, gods, or spirits. Such things may happen in illusion, fantasy, fiction, fables, hallucinations, delusions, imagination, mental episodes, etc.

The time depends on the pressure.

What makes you think this is true? Does this information come from science? Kindly cite sources.

Sorry I didn’t find any study about this. But according to Wikipedia, pressure is one thing that is needed. And obviously, if the pressure is formed faster, the result would also become faster.

Crude oil found in all oil reservoirs formed in the Earth's crust from the remains of once-living things. Crude oil is properly known as petroleum, and is used as fossil fuel. Evidence indicates that millions of years of heat and pressure changed the remains of microscopic plant and animal into oil and natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_reservoir

What you cite does NOT show any relation between time and pressure.

Can you accept forensic biology science that details decomposition processes that occur beginning with death of animals, including humans, and are irreversible?

I can accept that certain things happen, if it can really be seen.

Many things which can be seen to happen conflict with Bible tales. This requires Apologists to perform feats of mental and linguistic gymnastics (and/or flights of fantasy) to "explain" or excuse conflicts with reality in favorite religious stories.

But if I now see something, it doesn’t prove that same happened yesterday, or 2000 years ago and that same would happen in any possible situation.

Is this to say that bodies didn't decompose "yesterday, or 2000 years ago" or didn't happen in some particular case? If so, kindly supply evidence to support that claim.

Is this to propose that rabbits and dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago and that dinosaurs were more easily drowned than rabbits?

I have no need to say how long ago, because I don’t really know that time.

Agreed, you (generic term) do not know when the proposed flood occurred or even IF it occurred. Certain unverified tales by unknown writers claim that a worldwide flood occurred; however, that is no assurance that any such thing actually happened.

On basis of the skeletons, dinosaurs were heavier, which means, they would sink easier. But maybe they lived in same area and were as easily drowned; we just don’t have yet found fossils of rabbits from that time.

According to paleontologists (people who actually study such things) rabbits first appeared 40 million years ago while dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. Thus, they missed each other by at least 25 million years.

Rabbits belong to the order of mammals called Lagomorpha, which includes 40 or so species of rabbits, hares and Pikas. Fossil records suggest that Lagomorpha evolved in Asia at least 40 million years ago, during the Eocene period. - See more at: http://www.bunnyhugga.com/a-to-z/genera ... KHO8w.dpuf
http://www.bunnyhugga.com/a-to-z/genera ... bbits.html

And

Most dinosaurs were already under gradual extinction long before a large asteroid fell to Earth about 65 million years ago which became the final blow for them.

This conclusion was reached by a new US-German research, shedding more light on one of the biggest enigmas in the history of the world, the extinction of the dinosaurs, a landmark event that paved the way for the prevalence of most mammals and eventually of human.
http://www.learning-mind.com/why-did-th ... -evidence/

Of course, many Theists (who rely upon scripture rather than evidence) assume they know more than paleontologists, geologists, anthropologists, biologists (who rely on evidence rather than scripture).

Is this to propose that ancient fern trees were "drowned" before more advanced / modern plants?

Can you show where we can find fern tree fossils and modern tree fossils on top of them?

Yes

Please give one example of true fact that conflicts the flood story.

Water flows downhill / down-slope / off continents unless constrained or restricted.

Please explain how does that conflict with the flood story?

Continents cannot be flooded "to the tops of mountains" unless oceans are similarly flooded because water runs off continents unless constrained or restricted. Mt. Everest summit is 30,035 feet above sea level – 5.5 miles. That requires one BILLION cubic miles of water (three times the Earth total water supply) to magically appear to flood the Earth and then magically disappear post flood.

Where were the non-deck plants and how did they survive?

Actually I don’t know. I guess they could have been submerged and survived as seeds for example.

Of course you don't know – but can GUESS all sorts of things while trying to make an irrational folk tale sound rational. One can guess that Paul Bunyan had a giant blue ox named Babe too.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 113 by 1213]

We don’t know what kind of serpent that was. And so we can’t really truthfully say it couldn’t be possible.

Snakes are cold blooded, cold blooded animals have lower metabolism than warm blooded animals. This directly impacts their ability to have cognitive ability. Human speech requires a high degree of cognitive ability that not many animals possess. Snakes simply cannot perceive speech let alone speak it. There is also the problem of the fact that all snakes don't have a larynx nor is there any evidence of a vestigial larynxs in snakes.

The only reasonable answers are magic did it or it is a morality fable. Suggesting it is naturally possible for a snake to speak is to disregard science.

[KenRU]

Is this to propose that rabbits and dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago and that dinosaurs were more easily drowned than rabbits?

I have no need to say how long ago, because I don’t really know that time. On basis of the skeletons, dinosaurs were heavier, which means, they would sink easier. But maybe they lived in same area and were as easily drowned; we just don’t have yet found fossils of rabbits from that time.

Well that may be true for sauropods, but not theropods. Theropods, if I remember my college courses correctly, had hollow bones, like birds. In fact, most theropods were the size of chickens or smaller, if memory serves.

So, no. Many dino's would not "sink easier".

You do realize how many hurdles you have to leap just in order to make sense of this fantastic event, right?

-all the best

[1213]

Tales in the Bible describe a donkey and a snake conversing in human language. Do they not?

Bible says serpent spoke. I am not sure can it be understood to mean snake as we nowadays know, because the specific serpent had also legs, which is also feature that modern snakes doesn’t have. However I understand that we don’t see in nature talking snakes of donkeys. I don’t think it is enough reason to say that what Bible tells didn’t happen.

Many things which can be seen to happen conflict with Bible tales.

That is like saying, if I saw here in Finland red car and you saw blue car near you where you live, our observations conflict each other and you are wrong.

According to paleontologists (people who actually study such things) rabbits first appeared 40 million years ago while dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. Thus, they missed each other by at least 25 million years.

And is there any other reason to believe than that “scientists� say so, so you must believe?

Continents cannot be flooded "to the tops of mountains" unless oceans are similarly flooded because water runs off continents unless constrained or restricted. Mt. Everest summit is 30,035 feet above sea level – 5.5 miles. That requires one BILLION cubic miles of water (three times the Earth total water supply) to magically appear to flood the Earth and then magically disappear post flood.

If the flood happened as the Bible tells, water didn’t have to climb, because the continent collapsed and the water below the continent covered the dry land. Later the water was collected to glaciers and the water level decreased. (Allegedly part of the water evaporates to space even now. So part of the water has vanished into space. If we believe what some studies say).

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 117 by 1213]


Why not throw out all modern scientific knowledge that conflicts with Bible tales – and live with the knowledge level of thousands of years ago?

Tales in the Bible describe a donkey and a snake conversing in human language. Do they not?

Bible says serpent spoke.

The Bible says many things that conflict with what is known of the real world. That is not uncommon in folklore, myth, legend, fiction, etc.

Yes, ancient writers of unknown identity told tales about talking snakes. Some people believe those tales incorporated in their favorite religion (but not necessarily tales of other religions). Some of us do not accept the tales as being literally true. I, for one, did not believe the tale even in childhood.

I am not sure can it be understood to mean snake as we nowadays know, because the specific serpent had also legs, which is also feature that modern snakes doesn’t have.

There is some evidence that certain species of suborder Serpentes have vestigial leg structures within their body – and some indication that ancestor snakes may have had legs 100 million years ago. How does that fit with the Bible tale?

However I understand that we don’t see in nature talking snakes of donkeys. I don’t think it is enough reason to say that what Bible tells didn’t happen.

Since most of us are aware that snakes and donkeys talk in cartoons, fairytales, legends, myths, folklore, etc, it is reasonable to regard Bible tales of such things as similar. Those who wish to claim that the tales are true are asked to provide evidence to support the claim (something more than the tales themselves).

Many things which can be seen to happen conflict with Bible tales.

That is like saying, if I saw here in Finland red car and you saw blue car near you where you live, our observations conflict each other and you are wrong.

Correction: it is like saying that bible claims of long dead bodies coming back to life, virgins giving birth, donkeys and snakes conversing in human language, Earth stopping rotation ("sun stood still") for hours, etc do not match what we know of the real world.

A better analogy would be claiming that in Finland cars conduct an orchestra.

According to paleontologists (people who actually study such things) rabbits first appeared 40 million years ago while dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. Thus, they missed each other by at least 25 million years.

And is there any other reason to believe than that “scientists� say so, so you must believe?

I have actually done some of the research in geology (and taught to university graduate school level). What I have not done personally I may accept provisionally when it is verified by multiple disconnected sources, preferably worldwide.

Continents cannot be flooded "to the tops of mountains" unless oceans are similarly flooded because water runs off continents unless constrained or restricted. Mt. Everest summit is 30,035 feet above sea level – 5.5 miles. That requires one BILLION cubic miles of water (three times the Earth total water supply) to magically appear to flood the Earth and then magically disappear post flood.

If the flood happened as the Bible tells, water didn’t have to climb, because the continent collapsed and the water below the continent covered the dry land.

Does the Bible actually say that "the" continent collapsed and water "below the continent covered dry land"? Kindly cite biblical passages to support that claim. The cite studies that demonstrate the concept.

Or, is it someone's guess / opinion / conjecture used to "explain" ancient tales that don't make sense?

It would be interesting to hear how vast quantities of water were "below" continents. Most of us realize that rock (continental material) SINKS in water immediately. Average crustal rock is 2.63 times as dense ("heavy") as water.

Anyone who doubts this relationship can perform a simple experiment by filling their bathtub with water, adding a large rock "above the water" and observing what happens.

Later the water was collected to glaciers and the water level decreased.

It might be prudent to check with glaciologists (people who actually study such things) and learn that if all glacial ice melted sea level would rise 200 feet.. That doesn't do much to explain where water went after flooding mountains (even the fabled Mt. Ararat is 16,000 feet above sea level).

(Allegedly part of the water evaporates to space even now. So part of the water has vanished into space. If we believe what some studies say).

What is the rate of water loss by this means? How is it determined?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 117 by 1213]

And is there any other reason to believe than that “scientists� say so, so you must believe?

Do you treat "what scientists say" as if it's the same thing as "what the Bible says"? Do you not realize the fundamental difference between these two things?
One has measurements, evidence, that they go out and collect, in order to back up their findings. The other doesn't, but just makes grand sweeping declarations without the slightest shred of proof.
It's not a case of who we should trust blindly, as you do with the Bible. It's a case of which one has evidence backing up their argument.
Where is the evidence that the land sunk, as you say? Do scientists just say "the Earth is 4 billion years old" without bothering to provide evidence, in your view?
If scientists DIDN'T have evidence, I'd be dismissing what they say too, just like I dismiss what the Bible says.

I'd like you to explain just why you seem to think it's a situation of blind trust, with scientists on one side and the Bible on the other. It's not.

[Yahu]

.
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?

I have an engineering degree and I don't have any problem with the story of Noah's flood as being an actual event.

You are making way to many assumptions like that the number of species then is the same as it is now. There are ways that explain the genetic diversity we see now.

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? What kind of tides would the comet produce? What impact would a large body coming close to the earth cause on earth? Could the orbit of the earth have changed allowing more solar radiation to shorten life spans? Was there even more then one continent before the flood or did the flood cause the split into continents? Who says that any carnivores were adults? Why couldn't they be infants that rely on milk?

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.

Most modern sciences follow uniformitarianism and don't account for sudden massive changes. Assuming that the situation then is the same is as it is now is just plain wrong.