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?

[JLB32168]

But you don't show how strong this possibility is. You have this thing that you claim could be the highest good, that you also claim is inscrutable. Since it's inscrutable, you have no way of determining whether or not it actually is the highest good.

I don’t need to determine if it’s the highest good, Dude. The possibility remains that it might be the highest good and you’ve conceded as much. Whether or not you agree that it’s the highest good isn’t the question before us.

I am not saying that 'good' and 'inscrutable' are mutually exclusive.

Then we’re agreed that directing Noah to put animals on the ark, when God could have merely created more out of the mud, might be the better of the two options.

I have no reason to believe that this thing is both good and inscrutable, since in order for you to make the case that this thing is good, it has to be examinable.

What you choose to believe isn’t of much interest to me, believe it or not. I’m merely interested in showing my argument is logical. Of course, if it is logical it might also be true and that’s all I require to prove my point – that it might be true.

Therefore, for you to then call it good means you have no evidence. You have disqualified yourself. It's as stupid and asinine as claiming that even though you were in the middle of the jungle for five years with literally no contact with the outside world, you somehow are able to determine who the winner of the last Superbowl was.

My claim is that God’s actions in directing Noah to take animals into the ark, rather than just creating more animals from the dirt, is that it might have accomplished the greater good. Thus far all you’ve argued is that it’s a stupid to automatically conclude that this was the highest good but that’s just mocking an opponent’s argument. It says nothing and contributes nothing to the conversation.

That's what you look like to me.

Again, please disabuse yourself of the notion that your opinion of me matters much to me. I could not possibly care less w/o being comatose or dead. Your incessant need to repair to the haven of ridiculing an opponent doesn’t speak well for your ability to defend your point and jeopardizes your credibility much more than it jeopardizes mine.

[1213]

[Replying to post 169 by 1213]

How have I twisted scientific research?

Your suggestions, for example, that the food storage problem on the ark could have been solved by breeding rats, or fishing. To suggest such a thing is to disregard everything known about breeding rats, the dietary requirements of many large animals, and of course the impossibility of eight people somehow managing to fish or grow plants on a boat in apocalyptic flood conditions.

Ok, I admit, maybe rats are not good source for food in the Ark conditions. I had wrong knowledge of how fast they breed. I didn’t intentionally disregard any knowledge in that argument.

However I think fishing is still plausible option. I don’t have any good real reason why it couldn’t be possible.

But maybe there was some other food source than fish. Unfortunately I don’t have enough knowledge about it. Still, I think we don’t have any real evidence for that it was not possible that they had enough food.

To contrast us atheists and people such as creation.com, answer yes or no to the following question. Do atheists have a tendency to proclaim one book infallible and proudly admit to discarding any evidence that contradicts this book?

It seems to me that many atheists have decided that evolution theory and old earth is infallible truth. One example of that seems to be the article reviewer who said that no evidence will be enough (as I showed in my last post).

However I think this is not useful matter. Maybe atheists are, or are not, it doesn’t really matter in this topic. Therefore I renounce from all arguments about atheists and try to focus on the arguments about more important topics.

I think that means, you also have statement of faith.

How so? I have not proclaimed a single book infallible, nor have I said that I will discard any evidence that contradicts what I have previously declared to be true.

If I have understood correctly, you have said you reject everything from creationists.com, because they have statement of faith. In my opinion that is basically the same as reject everything that contradicts Bible.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 192 by 1213]

It seems to me that many atheists have decided that evolution theory and old earth is infallible truth.

Notice that evolution theory and old earth are not the same thing or things as a single book. I honestly doubt you'll find anyone who'll say "Darwin's On the Origin of Species is correct and always will be", given that in decades since Darwin published it, much new knowledge has been discovered and some facets of his original research have been falsified.

However I think fishing is still plausible option. I don’t have any good real reason why it couldn’t be possible.

How? Honestly, how could the act of fishing be performed by eight people on a boat in global flood conditions? While they are attempting to care for thousands of animals? Whether flood or land sinking, it wouldn't exactly have been safe to go up on deck with a fishing rod or net, now would it?
Also again, dietary requirements. Not all animals eat fish.

I had wrong knowledge of how fast they breed. I didn’t intentionally disregard any knowledge in that argument.

Do you want to know what I did after you guessed rats for the first time? I put "breeding rate of rats" into Google. That's all I did, and I got that number of weeks I reported back.
It appears now that you didn't even bother doing that much. From my point of view, you did intentionally disregard any knowledge, in that you couldn't be bothered doing even the simplest bit of research. What you thought you knew about how fast rats breeded was wrong, and you didn't check to make sure what you thought you knew was correct, before trying to pass it off as a potential food source on the ark.

But maybe there was some other food source than fish. Unfortunately I don’t have enough knowledge about it.

So why attempt to downplay the impossibility of providing food in ark conditions if you don't have this knowledge? If you've got a story where it seems, no matter how you look at it, that food simply couldn't have been provided, why attempt to say there must have been some food but that you honestly haven't got a clue what it is or where it came from?

If I have understood correctly, you have said you reject everything from creationists.com, because they have statement of faith. In my opinion that is basically the same as reject everything that contradicts Bible.

Wrong. Incorrect. I do not have faith in one book, I do not proclaim one book infallible and that any evidence found that contradicts it I ignore. I do not make proclamations about future scientific discoveries.
My reason for ignoring Statement of Faith'ers (as I call them) has nothing at all and is in no way similar to, evidence contradicting I believe. It has to do with the Faith'ers admitting that they manipulate and ignore evidence that contradicts them. Their declarations are fruit of a poisoned tree.

[1213]

How? Honestly, how could the act of fishing be performed by eight people on a boat in global flood conditions? While they are attempting to care for thousands of animals? Whether flood or land sinking, it wouldn't exactly have been safe to go up on deck with a fishing rod or net, now would it?
Also again, dietary requirements. Not all animals eat fish.

Actually some animals are able to swim and capture fish by themselves. People didn’t necessary have to do that. I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t have been safe to fish after the boat was floating.

I had wrong knowledge of how fast they breed. I didn’t intentionally disregard any knowledge in that argument.

Do you want to know what I did after you guessed rats for the first time? I put "breeding rate of rats" into Google. ..

It was well done. I should have done that before I wrote. However I think the point is still valid. Maybe rats don’t solve the food issue. But the truth is that some animals breed fast. For example mice can give birth approximately every 25 days after they are 50 days old and have 10 pups, nowadays. Obviously this may not solve the whole food issue, but I think it can be one part of it. And according to the Bible, there were 7 pure animals aboard, maybe part of them were fast breeding that could have been food to others. The flood lasted 150 days. That is quite long time and in best scenario, in that time there could have been a lot of mice, even if part of them were eaten.

But maybe there was some other food source than fish. Unfortunately I don’t have enough knowledge about it.

So why attempt to downplay the impossibility of providing food in ark conditions if you don't have this knowledge?

Because I think there is no real evidence to prove it impossible, and I think all should understand it. My point is to try to show why it is not necessary impossible for those who otherwise would possibly blindly believe everything that you say. Especially I hope that people understand that lack of knowledge is no proof for anything.

[Looncall]

[Replying to 1213]

Since it is obvious that a worldwide flood of relatively recent times would have left easily-discovered traces, and that none such are apparent, it is clear that Noah's flood never happened.

Why bother with all this intellectual tap dancing?

Surely you need to establish that the event took place before you fuss about its details.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 194 by 1213]

Actually some animals are able to swim and capture fish by themselves. People didn’t necessary have to do that. I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t have been safe to fish after the boat was floating.

1213, this is going to be my last try to try to get through to you. Watch the following video please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX3kFCgvKp4
Now imagine that ship is made of wood, and imagine the storm is about a hundred times worse. At least. Now imagine yourself up on deck. Would you be willing to be up on deck with a fishing rod or net, in that kind of weather?
As for the animals? What animals would be fishing in that kind of weather? How would Noah and his team have gotten them in and out of the water?
In order for it to be safe to fish, there has to be NO disaster. According to the following
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/fishing ... board.html

Between 2000 and 2014 there were 210 fatal falls [of commercial fishermen] overboard in the United States

That's the fatality rate for modern fishermen, using modern equipment, modern safety techniques, on modern ships.

Do you see what I'm doing here? I'm utilising REAL DATA to expose holes in your arguments. You say there was a widespread disaster of some sort, that an old man and his 7 family members loaded up thousands of animals onto a boat and that they were perfectly safe and able to fish.
NO THEY WOULD NOT.

It was well done. I should have done that before I wrote.

Yes, take your advice and do that, before you try and pass something off as being true. Research how safe it is to be up on deck in stormy weather. Research what methods of food storage were available 4 thousand years ago. Research the level of knowledge people had as to veterinary practices.
When this thread was started, when you first joined in, you had done NONE of that. That's why I get annoyed; people such as yourself pass something off as being true, while having done none of the work necessary.

But the truth is that some animals breed fast.

Fast enough to feed the carnivors? Also, don't forget, there's no hope here of feeding the herbivores. Do some research please; look up how much food it takes to feed say two lions, then two tigers, then two bears.

For example mice can give birth approximately every 25 days after they are 50 days old and have 10 pups, nowadays.

What are the carnivores supposed to eat while the mice breed into a large enough population, then? Also...MICE? They're supposed to satisfy the hunger of big carnivores like a lion? There's a reason lions and tigers and animals like that are known to hunt down big game like gazelle and zebras; those are the size of animals that satisfy their hunger.

Because I think there is no real evidence to prove it impossible,

Then this means that every single piece of information I and the others have raised that DO show how and why the ark would have been a death trap, you just ignore. Do us a favour please and actually do some research to show it, rather than constantly tossing out half baked ideas. If you want to posit that small animals bred fast, then do the research FIRST. Look up breeding rates, look up how much food animals require DAILY.
Remember, from Genesis, we have the exact dimensions of the ship. We have the materials the ship is made out of. We're told in the story that two or seven pairs of each animal were loaded onto the ark. We're told, by you, the ark was afloat for 150 days. What did the animals eat? They cannot have fished, not in stormy weather like that. They could not have eaten meat, because even the fastest breeding animals would have bred too slow to provide enough food. They couldn't have eaten plants and/or nuts, because there wouldn't have been room to store them, and it wouldn't have been possible to grow them (not in stormy weather, with only one small window, without any sunlight). They also would have rotted long before the 150 days were up.

The story is fine if it's just that, a fictional story. However, it falls apart when you try to bring it into the real world.

Here's a challenge, 1213. Elephants would be regarded as unclean animals. So at most two of them on the ark. I want you to look up the dietary requirements of two elephants. Look up what is needed for them to stay healthy in terms of healthcare, exercise and so on. Then I want you to try to imagine two elephants on the ark, being unable to move, for 150 days. What would the elephants eat and where would they get their food from?

[1213]

Since it is obvious that a worldwide flood of relatively recent times would have left easily-discovered traces, and that none such are apparent, it is clear that Noah's flood never happened.

What do you think would be the traces?

I think the flood left traces and they are for example most of the sedimentary rocks and formations of sedimentary rocks, ancient coastlines, most of the fossils, oil and gas fields, and modern continents. All of those are the result of the flood event, if it happened as the Bible suggests (One continent collapsed and sunk).

[1213]

1213, this is going to be my last try to try to get through to you. Watch the following video please.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX3kFCgvKp4
Now imagine that ship is made of wood, and imagine the storm is about a hundred times worse.

Why should I imagine the storm? Bible doesn’t tell there was a storm.

What are the carnivores supposed to eat while the mice breed into a large enough population, then? Also...MICE? They're supposed to satisfy the hunger of big carnivores like a lion? There's a reason lions and tigers and animals like that are known to hunt down big game like gazelle and zebras; those are the size of animals that satisfy their hunger.

Why assume that the carnivores were big? It is possible that they were not yet fully grown. It is possible that all the big animals were just pups when they went to the ark.

According to the story, Adam gathered food to the ark. Probably it was the main source of food, at least in the beginning of the voyage. One possible source for food could have been also the dead animals that could have floated near the ark.

But I agree, if we imagine the event to be impossible, it is impossible. I just don’t think it is reasonable to make up scenario that is not possible and then claim it was not possible, because I just twisted it to be impossible.

Here's a challenge, 1213. Elephants would be regarded as unclean animals. So at most two of them on the ark. I want you to look up the dietary requirements of two elephants. Look up what is needed for them to stay healthy in terms of healthcare, exercise and so on. Then I want you to try to imagine two elephants on the ark, being unable to move, for 150 days. What would the elephants eat and where would they get their food from?

Obviously the conditions were not optimal for any animal. However, elephants survive in bad conditions, like in dry seasons or circus or zoo also. And again, there is possibility that they were not yet fully grown. So the amount of food was not necessary as much as if we take the worst case scenario.

In this case it is difficult to estimate the amount of needed food, because we don’t know accurately what kind of elephants there were. It is for example possible that there were “dwarf� elephants only and all modern elephants are their offspring.

It is possible that all animals in the ark could move as much as for example in circus conditions.

The food that was needed probably was from the storage that Noah had collected. On possibility may also be the plants that could have floated near the ark.

[Looncall]

[Replying to post 197 by 1213]

There is the discipline of geochemistry, you know. The processes that form sedimentary and metamorphic rock, and oil and gas, are pretty-well understood. An important point is that they take long times and sometimes great heat and pressure to occur. The idea that a short flood could produce what is found is pathetic balderdash.

Neglecting the patient labours of scientists over centuries in favour of the campfire yarns of ignorant savages is laughable arrogance.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 198 by 1213]

Why should I imagine the storm? Bible doesn’t tell there was a storm.

Now you're just flat out lying.

Genesis 6:17 NIV
" I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
7:4
"Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.�"
7:17-20
"For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits."
8:4
" and on the seventeenth day of the seventh month the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat."
In order for a boat to make it to the top of a mountain that is 5,137m tall, it would need to have been on top of a wave of water that is itself a bit taller than 5,137m.
There is no way to read the story and not imagine there's a storm of some kind. Whether it was a flood or a continent sinking as you say, it would have meant it was a virtual death sentence to be up on deck in that kind of weather.
Calculations have already been done that indicate that in order for there to have been enough rainwater to cover to the tops of the highest mountains, as indicated in the text, there would need to be 30 feet of rain PER HOUR, for the forty days and forty nights. Not a storm, my rear end.

Anyway, I'm done with you. You once again tossed out half baked ideas without doing research (such as the dead animals you mention). Not all animals eat carrion. There are carnivores that eat only fresh kills and would refuse to touch corpses taken from the water. Again, you don't attempt to even explain how such dead animals would have been retrieved.

It is for example possible that there were “dwarf� elephants only and all modern elephants are their offspring.

Yeah, this idea of yours makes complete sense. IF I IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DISCOVERED ABOUT GENETICS AND EVOLUTION.
That's what is required for this story and most importantly your interpretation of it. We have to ignore vast swathes of knowledge and science to make it sound even the least bit plausible. I can do that with Harry Potter or Star Wars or Star Trek. I can pretend that faster than light travel is possible as long as I ignore the cosmic speed limit. But I don't. Not until it's been shown to be possible.
You don't do any of that. You toss out an idea of dwarf elephants and don't think through the implications, such as where did full size elephants come from then, where did the genes for full size elephants come from.


I'm throwing in the towel. There's no point in my debating with you if you constantly refuse to think things through, and just constantly repeat "yeah it's possible" without ever showing how, without checking your ideas for errors or problems.