Implausibility of the flood tale

[Zzyzx]

.
In a thread discussing the different lengths of time Genesis assigns to the Earth being flooded, mention was made of other implausibilities of the flood tale -- including:

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man
2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward
3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward
4) Eight people providing for millions of diverse animals (some carnivores) for a year
5) Repopulating all the continents with humans and other animals in a few thousand years (and producing the great genetic diversity known to exist).

Are those (and other) implausibilities sufficient grounds to conclude that in all likelihood the flood tale is fable, legend, myth, folklore or fiction?

If not, why not? What rational explanation can be made for them?

[Danmark]

The bible is silent on the sanitary arrangements, so just how did the unfortunate incumbents of the fetid Ark keep from drowning in a deluge of their own making?

Easy. They cut a hole in the bottom of the boat.

It's so obvious it's brilliant. A hole in the Ark's bottom. Is that from whence we derive the term "Arks-hole"?

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

[KenRU]

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

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

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

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

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

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

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 234 by Clownboat]

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

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.
In a thread discussing the different lengths of time Genesis assigns to the Earth being flooded, mention was made of other implausibilities of the flood tale -- including:

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man
2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward
3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward
4) Eight people providing for millions of diverse animals (some carnivores) for a year
5) Repopulating all the continents with humans and other animals in a few thousand years (and producing the great genetic diversity known to exist).

Are those (and other) implausibilities sufficient grounds to conclude that in all likelihood the flood tale is fable, legend, myth, folklore or fiction?

If not, why not? What rational explanation can be made for them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 234 by Clownboat]

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

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

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

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

[shushi_boi]

[shushi_boi]

[Replying to post 237 by Clownboat]

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 238 by shushi_boi]

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

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