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]

.

The description of how to build the Ark (disregarding the very large dimensions) suggest the Phoenicians, master sailors, as a possible source of information. Maybe. 'Gopher wood' just might be derived from the Phoenician word for cedar, a suitable wood for ship building. (Reference)

Link had to be modified to work for me.

I am not familiar with the availability and characteristics of cedars found in Mediterranean areas (or deserts of the Middle East). However, a bit of research indicates that Cedars of Lebanon are / were adequate for boat building and were used by Phoenicians for that purpose.

That, of course, does not lend any credibility to tales of massive "ark" dimensions claimed.

In the book version of the recent TV series about the Bible, there is a scene where the Lord tells Noah to build an ark. Noah asks "What's an ark, Lord?" "It's the same as a boat." Desert dwelling Noah then asks "What's a boat?"

I liked Bill Cosby's version of Noah (before his fall from grace " Cosby, not Noah). It is still funny but he is not.

The fabled ark, as described, is more a barge than a boat or ship because no provision was evident for propulsion and steering.

[Ancient of Years]

.

The description of how to build the Ark (disregarding the very large dimensions) suggest the Phoenicians, master sailors, as a possible source of information. Maybe. 'Gopher wood' just might be derived from the Phoenician word for cedar, a suitable wood for ship building. (Reference)

Link had to be modified to work for me.

I am not familiar with the availability and characteristics of cedars found in Mediterranean areas (or deserts of the Middle East). However, a bit of research indicates that Cedars of Lebanon are / were adequate for boat building and were used by Phoenicians for that purpose.

That, of course, does not lend any credibility to tales of massive "ark" dimensions claimed.

Some of the Egyptian solar barges " buried with Pharaohs " were built of cedar. (Reference)

Lebanon cedar is good for boat building because it is strong but not too heavy, its tight grain keeps the water out and it resists weathering, but is easy to work and to get a smooth finish.

In the book version of the recent TV series about the Bible, there is a scene where the Lord tells Noah to build an ark. Noah asks "What's an ark, Lord?" "It's the same as a boat." Desert dwelling Noah then asks "What's a boat?"

I liked Bill Cosby's version of Noah (before his fall from grace " Cosby, not Noah). It is still funny but he is not.

Ice Cream!

It must be 50 years since I heard that album.

The fabled ark, as described, is more a barge than a boat or ship because no provision was evident for propulsion and steering.

Neither did it have a keel, making it subject to rolling and unexpected directional changes. The combination of those during a storm together with the large length to cross section ratio would lead to serious torsional forces and probable catastrophic failure.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 102 by Ancient of Years]

Neither did it have a keel, making it subject to rolling and unexpected directional changes. The combination of those during a storm together with the large length to cross section ratio would lead to serious torsional forces and probable catastrophic failure.

But...but...I thought Noah was a master shipbuilder? I thought he knew more about ships than even our best educated today? 1213 implied such! How could Noah forget something so basic?

[1213]

What about their remains? Where are the remains of snakes with vocal cords? To my knowledge, not one remain of a snake, either flesh or fossil, indicates that it had the capability for speech.

Do you really expect that we should be able to find all remains of all possible animals?

And yet, you are ardent in your belief that there were men who lived hundreds of years, you treat it as a fact, all without a single piece of a single fossil.

Fossils dont prove anything else than that there has existed things that got fossilized at some point. They dont tell age in any case.

You have no idea how long it takes for oil and gas to form, do you? Here's a question - if oil and gas don't take millions of years to form, how come the oil and gas corporations spend billions each year looking for new sources, instead of just producing it rapidly?

Oil is formed from organic material. If organic material is not stored in cavities as in the flood, we dont get oil fields that obviously need great amount of organic material.

If true, we should see different animals in different layers. We should see a bunny rabbit in the same layer as a T rex for example.
Except that hasn't happened.

And it shouldnt happen, because different animals have different abilities and environments where they live. Maybe you should study what happens if bunny dies in river and what happens if crocodile dies in river.

Why can't something be accurately measured to be millions of years old?

We dont have any method for that, which would not require some assumptions.

You assumed things and all without doing a single test. Not one measurement has been done by you.

Maybe, but my point is not making you to believe, but make you to understand what we really know and what can be really true and that the great flood is possible.

Here's ALL of the information on the Ark as written in Genesis. I am taking the following from the NIV.
1) Made of cypress wood
2) Made with rooms, and coated with pitch
3) Three hundred cubits long, fifty wide, thirty high
4) Below the roof is to be an opening one cubit high
5) One door, and three decks

That is all the Bible tells us about the Ark. That's it. There is nothing else. That is what I worked with when I asked all those questions.

I call it not possible because the Ark is supposed to house two of every animal and bird (or according to literally the next chapter, seven pairs of every clean animal, and only one pair of unclean animals, and seven pairs of each kind of bird).
That's a LOT of animals, most of whom would have specific diets (probably the other animals on the boat!)
Where was the food stored? How was the food stored? How was their waste removed? How were the animals cared for by 8 people lacking a modern education?
How did the 8 people have time to care for tens of thousands of animals while trying to keep a wooden ship afloat?

We dont know the accurate number of species in the ark, and as you show, we know wery little about the ark and how it was constructed. By that knowledge it is not reasonable to say it impossible.

And again, you provide no data to show how this is even possible. So something that grew. This would mean having the meat-eaters starve.

I meant, there could have been for example rats that multiply fast and could be food for carnivores. Rats could eat things that they could capture from water.

Also, where was this food supposed to be grown?

I dont see why there couldnt have been plants on the deck of the ark.

[1213]

Piling rocks atop one another does not constitute great building ability.

Isnt that quite subjective opinion? Could you do the same as for example that can be found from Chichen Itza?

Where is the evidence of great ancient building ability? Did it magically disappear?

Actually some abilities have been lost and then later found again. For example concrete. Because of that, it wouldnt be miracle, if some other knowledge has also been lost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete

So, I dont see any water animal deaths in that.

Is this to claim that the Earth could be flooded "to the tops of mountains" and NOT wipe out aquatic species? Most of us are aware that such species have very different habitat requirements " some are fresh water, some saline, some brackish " some require warm water, others cold water " some are shallow water dwellers others deep water.

My claim was, Bible doesnt say that water creatures died because of the flood.

However, great salt deserts show for example that world has a lot of salt that could be result of the water that was in the original sea water during the flood time.

Also there were easily areas with shallow water in mountains areas. And water makes even nowadays different layers by different salinity levels, which makes it possible for different animals to live.

We dont have any scientific reason to assume that there couldnt have been suitable environment for different water animals.

[Zzyzx]

.

What about their remains? Where are the remains of snakes with vocal cords? To my knowledge, not one remain of a snake, either flesh or fossil, indicates that it had the capability for speech.

Do you really expect that we should be able to find all remains of all possible animals?

Nope. Do you really propose that donkeys and snakes actually conversed in human language?

And yet, you are ardent in your belief that there were men who lived hundreds of years, you treat it as a fact, all without a single piece of a single fossil.

Fossils dont prove anything else than that there has existed things that got fossilized at some point. They dont tell age in any case.

Those who study, and have studied, paleontology, geology, physics, chemistry, etc over the past couple centuries have developed sophisticated, complex methods of determining ages of organic and inorganic materials.

Are they all (including many who are Christians) falsifying their studies to make bible tales look bad?

Do Bible Believers know better about such things after NOT studying them than do dedicated professionals who spend entire careers studying the field?

Does it make sense to declare scientific studies false in order to cling to belief that Bible tales are actual descriptions of events? Does it NOT make more sense to accept that those ancient tales are legends, fables, myths and/or folklore written by people with an agenda of promoting their favorite religion?

You have no idea how long it takes for oil and gas to form, do you? Here's a question - if oil and gas don't take millions of years to form, how come the oil and gas corporations spend billions each year looking for new sources, instead of just producing it rapidly?

Oil is formed from organic material.

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?

If organic material is not stored in cavities as in the flood, we dont get oil fields that obviously need great amount of organic material.

Organic materials accumulate and may eventually form fossil fuels WITHOUT any need for a fabled flood.

The process of coal formation is less complex than petrochemicals and is easier for anyone to understand

The Coal Formation Process.

Coal Formation starts with accumulation of organic matter (bits of dead plants) in a low oxygen setting such as a peat bog. The organic matter accumulates and forms a bed of peat. The peat bed gets buried by other sediments and under heat and pressure begins to transform to a low grade coal - a Lignite. More heat and pressure further metamorphose the lignite into Bituminous coal. Even more heat and pressure metamorphose the bituminous coal into a nice hard shiny Anthracite.

Coal is usually classified into three grades: Lignite, brown coal; Bituminous coal, soft coal; and Anthracite, hard coal. Anthracite is dense, nice and hard, and shiny.

The first step in the formation of coal is the accumulation of plant debris in low oxygen conditions, such as in this damp low spot on a moor.
http://www.athro.com/geo/trp/gub/coal.html

And

Coal is formed when peat is altered physically and chemically. This process is called "coalification." During coalification, peat undergoes several changes as a result of bacterial decay, compaction, heat, and time. Peat deposits are quite varied and contain everything from pristine plant parts (roots, bark, spores, etc.) to decayed plants, decay products, and even charcoal if the peat caught fire during accumulation. Peat deposits typically form in a waterlogged environment where plant debris accumulated; peat bogs and peat swamps are examples. In such an environment, the accumulation of plant debris exceeds the rate of bacterial decay of the debris. The bacterial decay rate is reduced because the available oxygen in organic-rich water is completely used up by the decaying process. Anaerobic (without oxygen) decay is much slower than aerobic decay.

For the peat to become coal, it must be buried by sediment. Burial compacts the peat and, consequently, much water is squeezed out during the first stages of burial. Continued burial and the addition of heat and time cause the complex hydrocarbon compounds in the peat to break down and alter in a variety of ways. The gaseous alteration products (methane is one) are typically expelled from the deposit, and the deposit becomes more and more carbon-rich as the other elements disperse. The stages of this trend proceed from plant debris through peat, lignite, sub-bituminous coal, bituminous coal, anthracite coal, to graphite (a pure carbon mineral).

Because of the amount of squeezing and water loss that accompanies the compaction of peat after burial, it is estimated that it took 10 vertical feet of original peat material to produce 1 vertical foot of bituminous coal in eastern and western Kentucky. The peat to coal ratio is variable and dependent on the original type of peat the coal came from and the rank of the coal.
http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm

If true, we should see different animals in different layers. We should see a bunny rabbit in the same layer as a T rex for example.
Except that hasn't happened.

And it shouldnt happen, because different animals have different abilities and environments where they live. Maybe you should study what happens if bunny dies in river and what happens if crocodile dies in river.

Sedimentary rocks are deposited in layers known as strata " that are thousands of feet thick in some places. The bottom layers were deposited first (except in extreme cases of "overturned strata" at margins of crustal plates) and are therefore oldest and are overlain by successively younger strata. Make sense so far?

When geologists / paleontologists study the fossils contained in the various strata they find fossils of simpler, more primitive plants and animals in the lowest strata and progressively more developed, more complex, more modern fossils in successively higher / younger strata.

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.

If a "flood" deposited the sediment as proposed by many Bible Believers, HOW was that separation of fossils accomplished? Did "the devil do it to confuse man" (an argument that has been used by Theists in the past " but now seldom heard).

Why can't something be accurately measured to be millions of years old?

We dont have any method for that, which would not require some assumptions.

There are MANY methods to determine age based upon actual study of such things. Any assumptions involved pale by comparison to "Goddidit".

You assumed things and all without doing a single test. Not one measurement has been done by you.

Maybe, but my point is not making you to believe, but make you to understand what we really know and what can be really true and that the great flood is possible.

Floods happen frequently in lowlands, coastal areas, floodplains " not "to the tops of mountains". Very fanciful and unverifiable "explanations" are offered in order to claim "it is possible" or "it really happened". However, those attempts require massive assumptions and great departures from what we know of the real world.

Here's ALL of the information on the Ark as written in Genesis. I am taking the following from the NIV.
1) Made of cypress wood
2) Made with rooms, and coated with pitch
3) Three hundred cubits long, fifty wide, thirty high
4) Below the roof is to be an opening one cubit high
5) One door, and three decks

That is all the Bible tells us about the Ark. That's it. There is nothing else. That is what I worked with when I asked all those questions.

I call it not possible because the Ark is supposed to house two of every animal and bird (or according to literally the next chapter, seven pairs of every clean animal, and only one pair of unclean animals, and seven pairs of each kind of bird).
That's a LOT of animals, most of whom would have specific diets (probably the other animals on the boat!)
Where was the food stored? How was the food stored? How was their waste removed? How were the animals cared for by 8 people lacking a modern education?
How did the 8 people have time to care for tens of thousands of animals while trying to keep a wooden ship afloat?

We dont know the accurate number of species in the ark, and as you show, we know wery little about the ark and how it was constructed. By that knowledge it is not reasonable to say it impossible.

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.

And again, you provide no data to show how this is even possible. So something that grew. This would mean having the meat-eaters starve.

I meant, there could have been for example rats that multiply fast and could be food for carnivores. Rats could eat things that they could capture from water.

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.

Also, where was this food supposed to be grown?

I dont see why there couldnt have been plants on the deck of the ark.

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? I do not really accept Fervent Believers / Fanatics / Fundamentalists / Literalists to understand or accept, but do trust that the majority of people / readers who are not among those groups can understand that ancient tales may not be truthful and accurate.


Thank you for presenting a religionist perspective on these matters for readers to compare to that of non-religionists.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 104 by 1213]

Do you really expect that we should be able to find all remains of all possible animals?

Where did I ever suggest that we should be able to find the remains of ALL (possible) animals. No, what I meant was that if a person goes around saying that "Animal {X} once had the ability {Y}" that they provide some evidence. How about this? Elephants could once fly. Do I have fossils or other evidence showing that maybe elephants had wings? Nope. So why should anyone believe my claim? Why should anyone believe your claim that snakes could once talk?

Fossils dont prove anything else than that there has existed things that got fossilized at some point. They dont tell age in any case.

You're again demonstrating your ignorance towards science. You can place an age to fossils. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you've never once dug up a fossil in your life, never gone to a natural history museum and looked at some?

Oil is formed from organic material. If organic material is not stored in cavities as in the flood, we dont get oil fields that obviously need great amount of organic material.

You ignored the question entirely. If oil and gas can be formed quickly (as in, NOT millions of years as you claim) then oil and gas companies would be spending their money on ways to form oil and gas quickly, rather than prospecting for new sources.

And it shouldnt happen, because different animals have different abilities and environments where they live.

Bunny rabbits are more or less everywhere. If your flood story was true, we'd see them in the same layers of rock as dinosaurs or other ancient animals. Or how about this? We'd have a fossil of a T rex or other carnivorous dinosaur with human bones in in its stomach. There have been fossils of dinosaurs found with their last meals in them.

We dont have any method for that, which would not require some assumptions.

Says the person who just assumes the Bible to be true, and has yet to produce one single iota of evidence in support of it, one measurement or piece of physical proof. You're projecting what you're doing onto others.

Maybe, but my point is not making you to believe, but make you to understand what we really know and what can be really true and that the great flood is possible.

I reject your point that you "really know". There are subjective experiences in your own life that you know (such as when you went to McDonald's a few weeks ago, for example) and that you can never show, but this is not the same as that. You are making a claim for objective reality, that you say you "really know" it, and yet you have NO evidence in support of it. No, you do NOT know it. You BELIEVE it, which is not the same as to know something.
Nothing of what you say "can be really true", since there are all sorts of problems with it. I've pointed out well over a dozen problems with the Ark story, so it boggles my mind as to how you can just be sitting there, ignoring those problems entirely and going "yup, the ark can be really true".

We dont know the accurate number of species in the ark, and as you show, we know wery little about the ark and how it was constructed. By that knowledge it is not reasonable to say it impossible.

There are two possibilities for the number of species on the ark, both fraught with logical impossibilities.
If the number is very small, then there would have been room to keep the animals. However, this does NOT explain where we got the rich diversity of animals we have today, if the flood was just a few thousand years ago.
If the number of species was very large, then there would not have been room to keep them. They would have starved to death, and there still would be no explanation for the rich diversity of animals that we have today, if the flood was just a few thousand years ago.

We can reliably tell how the ark might have been constructed, given that the story mentions it was made out of wood. There's only so much you can do with wood alone. There's no mention of it being made out of metal and other users in this thread have shown that even if you make a large ship out of both wood and metal, it still tends to sink far more often than not. The likelihood of a ship without a rudder or keel, being made entirely of wood, not sinking in flood conditions is extremely low, to the point of absurdity.

I meant, there could have been for example rats that multiply fast and could be food for carnivores. Rats could eat things that they could capture from water.

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. You don't ask questions as to what it would mean if what you say is true. Rats? How could 8 people capture things from the water while caring for thousands of animals and keeping the boat afloat? Rats don't gestate and be born instantly. Rats take 5 weeks to reach sexual maturity. If this rat hypothesis of yours is true, what would the carnivorous animals eat while waiting 5 weeks (plus another month for the pregnancy) for rats to start breeding?
Why is it that when you throw up a guess to salvage your belief, you don't ask questions of it, you don't wonder "well...how could this actually be a valid guess" of yourself?

I dont see why there couldnt have been plants on the deck of the ark.

Of course you don't see. You conveniently forget that this is supposed to be taking place in a worldwide disaster of some kind (land sinking or torrential rains). You forget that growing plants takes a LONG time. You lack any information or knowledge as to how to actually grow plants for food.


I'm done with you 1213. I won't be responding to you anymore. Your standard tactic is to throw out one eighth baked guesses without thinking of the problems with them, to claim to know things without showing a single shred of proof.

[1213]

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 dont 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 hasnt even been proven correct. You shouldnt move the burden of proof for me, when it belongs to scientists who make these claims about ages or other things.

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

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.

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.

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 dont 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.

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 didnt mean that all possible plants were there on the deck.

At this point I have no good reason to believe the flood couldnt have happened. And I dont see why I should accept your claims with no good evidence or proof or reason.

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

[1213]

Why should anyone believe your claim that snakes could once talk?

Actually I dont have any reason why you should believe it. Why should I believe that things couldnt have gone as the Bible tells?

You're again demonstrating your ignorance towards science. You can place an age to fossils. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you've never once dug up a fossil in your life, never gone to a natural history museum and looked at some?

I know that people can say age for fossil. But there is no way to really check is that really true. I dont believe when someone claims he knows the age of fossil, because there is no good reason to believe it. For me, it is not enough evidence if the person who makes the claim is professor or something like that.

You ignored the question entirely. If oil and gas can be formed quickly (as in, NOT millions of years as you claim) then oil and gas companies would be spending their money on ways to form oil and gas quickly, rather than prospecting for new sources.

Time depends on the pressure. If we would want to make oil fast, we would need strong pressure, which would make it not economical to make fast artificial oil.

Bunny rabbits are more or less everywhere. If your flood story was true, we'd see them in the same layers of rock as dinosaurs or other ancient animals. Or how about this? We'd have a fossil of a T rex or other carnivorous dinosaur with human bones in in its stomach. There have been fossils of dinosaurs found with their last meals in them.

Bunny could be more able to run longer away from the flood.

Even if T Rex could have eaten humans, I dont think it is reasonable to assume that we should find that T Rex fossilized.

I've pointed out well over a dozen problems with the Ark story, so it boggles my mind as to how you can just be sitting there, ignoring those problems entirely and going "yup, the ark can be really true".

You have not given any good reason to not believe the story, only assumptions without any real evidence. Your assumptions are baseless.

If the number is very small, then there would have been room to keep the animals. However, this does NOT explain where we got the rich diversity of animals we have today, if the flood was just a few thousand years ago.

I didnt claim that the flood story would explain the diversity. Diversity can be explained similarly as evolution theory explains it.

We can reliably tell how the ark might have been constructed

I dont think that is true. We know only the main dimensions and main building materials, not how it was constructed. And especially if modern people cant do the same, we dont really know accurately how it was built.

If this rat hypothesis of yours is true, what would the carnivorous animals eat while waiting 5 weeks

Fish

Have you ever tried to think answers, instead of making questions?

[marco]

There was almost certainly a flood of some sort, recorded in the tales of diverse ancient peoples. Some of these myths are told in a better way than the account in Genesis. Incidentally poor Noah had to take unclean animals in pairs but clean ones in groups of seven, male and female. Presumably he brought extra meat to feed the hungry big cats. As with most of Genesis the kindest thing seems to be to regard it as a figurative account. The imagination is strained thinking of the 600 year-old chasing birds of every feather - again in sevens. The atmosphere on the ship must have been rather unpleasant.