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?

[Elijah John]

.
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.

[puddleglum]

.
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

It is very unlikely that Noah did all the word himself.

2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward

The number of animals was much smaller than that. God told Noah to bring two of each kind. Here is an article that discusses the question of how many animals were on the ark:

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... ft-behind/

He wouldn't have had to go all over the world to gather them. He could have found some of every kind near where he lived.

3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward

The water didn't just appear. It came from two sources.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
(Genesis 7:11 ESV)

And the water didn't just disappear after the flood. It is still here in the oceans. After the flood land rose up out of the oceans to form the continents that exist today.

You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
At your rebuke they fled;
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight.
The mountains rose, the valleys sank down
to the place that you appointed for them.
You set a boundary that they may not pass,
so that they might not again cover the earth.
(Psalm 104:6-9 ESV)

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

No. They only appear to be implausible because you don't really understand what the Bible says on the subject. Flood stories similar to those in the Bible are found in many other cultures in all parts of the world. Doesn't this show that the flood actually occurred? Here is a good place to find out more information about the flood:

https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by puddleglum]

Just focusing on Z's point #2. On the ridiculous notion that Noah gathered animals from all over the world. You assert that they all lived NEAR Noah..presumably the Middle East.

The Canadian Lynx, the Moose, the American Bison, the Polar Bear, the Artic Fox, the Reindeer, the Alaskan Brown Bear, the Grizzly Bear, etc, etc...lived nowhere NEAR Noah and the Middle East.

The biodiversity of the planet alone argues against a literal flood story, unless of course, you want to believe in an accelerated evolutionary process.

But folks who believe the Flood story literally usually don't believe in evolution at all, right?

[Zzyzx]

,

1) A wooden boat much larger that any known to exist and built by a 500 year old man

It is very unlikely that Noah did all the word himself.

It is very unlikely that any such boat was built – period. The size alone is beyond structural limitation of wooden ship construction according to marine engineers (people who design and build ships). Of course, in imagination and fantasy anything is possible.

2) Millions of animals gathered from all over the world and redistributed afterward

The number of animals was much smaller than that. God told Noah to bring two of each kind. Here is an article that discusses the question of how many animals were on the ark:

https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/ ... ft-behind/

He wouldn't have had to go all over the world to gather them. He could have found some of every kind near where he lived.

The "Answers in Genesis" article implies that "kind" means biological / taxonomic family level (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, sea animals, arthropods).

1) There is no assurance that "kind" means biological family
2) Perhaps someone at AiG should have consulted biologists / taxonomists to learn that taxonomic families are very numerous and diverse – AND are scattered in widely separated regions of the Earth. https://books.google.com/books?id=C60gA ... es&f=false

According to AiG, present living species (millions) developed from 938 families SINCE the flood. That would require very rapid evolution – much more so than is proposed by biologists. And, aren't most Creationists opposed to evolution?

3) A billion cubic miles of water sudden appearing -- then disappearing afterward

The water didn't just appear. It came from two sources.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
(Genesis 7:11 ESV)

The present Earth total water supply (300 million cubic miles) is insufficient to flood the Earth to tops of mountains (and anything less than that depth does not meet the Genesis claim).

And the water didn't just disappear after the flood. It is still here in the oceans.

Keep in mind that ALL of the Earth had to be flooded to meet the Genesis account of "to tops of mountains" and killing all life forms (unless one proposes that water can pile up on continents and not drain off in the process). Thus, water must cover the entire Earth to the depth of Mt. Everest (29,035') INCLUDING oceans.

How can water run off continents into oceans which are ALSO under 5.5 mile deep water?

After the flood land rose up out of the oceans to form the continents that exist today.

Those who propose that "land rose up out of the oceans" post-flood a few thousand years ago are asked to provide evidence that such thing actually occurred (with something more substantial than imagination – ancient or modern).

It is also difficult for Apologists to explain how Mt. Ararat (16,000') was present for the fabled ark to land upon if mountains arose after the flood.

Tangled webs?

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

No. They only appear to be implausible because you don't really understand what the Bible says on the subject.

I base my understanding on the real world we inhabit – not upon tales by ancients written in an age when knowledge of the size and configuration of the Earth were unknown.

Flood stories similar to those in the Bible are found in many other cultures in all parts of the world. Doesn't this show that the flood actually occurred?

Floods are common in many lowlands, coastal areas, river valleys – NOT on or over mountain tops.

If flood legends of ancient cultures referred to the biblical flood, how did the originators of those tales survive the flood?

Tangled webs again?

Here is a good place to find out more information about the flood: https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/

Perhaps one would be prudent to consult sources of information concerning the Earth other than AiG. Biology, geology, geophysics, hydrology, oceanography, etc would be a good start.

Only by ignoring or dismissing what has been learned about the Earth scientifically during the past few centuries can the flood tale be regarded as literally true and accurate.

[Hamsaka]

.
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?

Magic. The rational explanation doesn't itself need to be rational, does it ?

Even though moose and penguins would have literally withered and cooked to death in ancient Mesopotamia, God's omnipotent abilities would prevent that. If there is nothing an omnipotent God is incapable of doing, bringing millions of animal pairs or groups and preserving them in an equally impossible ark is no more or less than feeding two thousand with a couple of loaves and a fish.

The Flood tale is implausible without persistent magical thinking, something the ancient Hebrews came by honestly -- they didn't know any better.

But modern humans do know better, and the people behind AiG and ICR do know better, too. That's why they've gone to the trouble of recasting Bible tales with whatever bits of modern scientific fact that superficially 'fit', trusting that Christians who read there won't think too deeply about it.

[1213]

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?

If the story is true, all people are from 8 people. Still, if we look at modern world, we have over 8 different looking people. So obviously there seems to be some kind of differentiation in offspring. It is possible that same is with animals. For example there could have been on kind of bears onboard and all modern bears are offspring of those original bears. That is why it can be possible that the amount of animals was suitable for the ark.

The story seems to indicate that there was one continent at the beginning that collapsed when the flood event happened. That means, animals could have been in same continent and walked to the ark. It means also that the amount of water didn’t necessary increase, the dry land just sunk so that it was covered at one point.

Later when the rain ended and water begun to lower, it probably ended to glaciers so that at some point, there were paths that are nowadays sunken.

In my opinion the flood is easily possible and we don’t have any good argument that would make it impossible.

If interested, here are some pictures about how the event went.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

If the story is true, all people are from 8 people. Still, if we look at modern world, we have over 8 different looking people. So obviously there seems to be some kind of differentiation in offspring.

If the story was true it would require extremely rapid "differentiation" (evolution) for a few thousand years and then a slowing of evolution more recently.

Is there any substantiation for that actually occurring?

It is possible that same is with animals. For example there could have been on kind of bears onboard and all modern bears are offspring of those original bears. That is why it can be possible that the amount of animals was suitable for the ark.

There are presently quite a few "kinds" (genera) of bears

Types of bears
American black bear
Cinnamon bear
Kermode bear
Asian black bear
Baluchistan bear or Pakistan black bear
Formosan black bear
Brown bear
Atlas bear
Bergman's bear
Blue bear
Eurasian brown bear
European brown bear
Gobi bear
Grizzly bear
Himalayan brown bear
Ussuri brown bear
Kamchatka brown bear
Kodiak bear
Marsican brown bear (critically endangered)
Mexican grizzly bear
East Siberian brown bear
Syrian brown bear
Giant panda
Sloth bear
Sri Lankan sloth bear
Sun bear
Polar bear
Ursid hybrid
Grizzly–polar bear hybrid
Spectacled bear
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bears

Did those all develop in a few thousand years from a pair on board the ark? Notice that several of the bears are restricted to very narrow habitats.

The story seems to indicate that there was one continent at the beginning that collapsed when the flood event happened.

Geologists and geophysicists (people who actually study such things – and perhaps are better informed than ancient story tellers) indicate that the breakup occurred about 200 MILLION years ago.

Shall we dismiss modern knowledge in favor of ancient tales?

That means, animals could have been in same continent and walked to the ark.

A single super-continent had to be tens of thousands of miles across. Even walking, crawling, swimming or flying VERY rapidly would require a lot longer than the seven days Noah had to get animals aboard according to Genesis 2

It means also that the amount of water didn’t necessary increase, the dry land just sunk so that it was covered at one point.

Kindly cite supporting evidence for land sinking a few thousand years ago – and then presumably rising again a few months later.

Later when the rain ended and water begun to lower, it probably ended to glaciers so that at some point, there were paths that are nowadays sunken.

Glaciologists (people who study glaciers) indicate that they form through hundreds and thousands of years of accumulation of snow – not from liquid water. Sea ice is very different from glacial ice.

Note also that ice (glacial or other) FLOATS on water.

In my opinion the flood is easily possible and we don’t have any good argument that would make it impossible.

Opinions are not evidence, are of no importance in debate, and need not be refuted. "That which is offered without evidence can be disregarded without reasons."

If interested, here are some pictures about how the event went.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

Hypothetical illustrations do not constitute evidence.

[earendil]

.
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?

There was a great diluge and it has been recorded in many different cultures (see Velikovsky's first book). In direct interview with Navaho I have heard their version of the great flood. It is also known in Aztec legend. The Sumarians mention the man who survived the great flood. In digs in Iraq, they found 7 ft of silt between different stratta, both with signs of civilization.

The only problem with the Bible version was that they exaggerated it.
I suspect that there was in fact a great diluge which affected probably about 20% of the world's land area (which unfortunately include many inhabited regions).
I also suspect that Noah was a real person (probably not so old) who actually built an ark. He put only those domesticated animals needed for human survival into the ark.

Other than that...the Biblical story is spot on.

(oh..and he was not the only survivor. The Aztec ancestors survived in a cave in a mountain...and some groups were not affected at all.)

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by puddleglum]

And the water didn't just disappear after the flood. It is still here in the oceans. After the flood land rose up out of the oceans to form the continents that exist today.

Calculations have been done on this, and if I'm recalling them correctly, the amount of water needed for the flood would have been THREE TIMES what Earth has.
Three times. Think about that.

I must also point, yet again on this site, that AnswersinGenesis is simply not trustworthy. They have a Statement of Faith on their website where they proudly proclaim, as if it's a virtue, that they have a pre-conceived conclusion of what the truth is, and happily ignore any and all evidence that can ever be found that says otherwise.