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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 70 by tfvespasianus]

Or maybe it was actually this (just did a Google Image search for Noah's Ark and this was a result)

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 69 by rikuoamero]

And not to quibble, but the word ‘ark’ means something like ‘box’ (e.g. the ark of the Covenant). So, the ark was meant to be something like a box and not a boat or ship (things there were both words for if that was what was meant).

I we can take anything from the Bible as evidence [not saying we can], its dimensions were set out in Genesis 6:15
This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits.
Odd shape for a box, but who am I to argue with God?

[tfvespasianus]

[Replying to post 72 by Danmark]

Proportionally, I guess that would be kind of like a box one would put roses in (i.e. it is much longer that it is tall or wide).

So, yes, like a rose box except it carries two of every animal in the world (putting aside the ‘clean’/unclean’ instructions in the story’s doublet) and it is more than seaworthy.

That’s a tall order for something about 300 feet long, but I heard there was a shrink ray involved or they were animal zygotes or something.

[1213]

Not really worth my time, if you are interested go to wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

You don’t seem to understand what proving means. There is no real proof in your link. If animals have similar genes, it is no proof that they have common ancestor. Similarity could be also because God created similar animals.

Where in the bible did is say that Noah collected, from all over the earth, the seeds of every plant and then was able to carry them on the Arc without having them sprout or rot?

Noah didn’t have to collect them, because it is possible that they survived below the water.

[1213]

Can anyone SHOW that ancient boat builders were "better" than modern boat builders?

I can’t, because I can’t take you back in time. And even if I could, you could say it was just fake trip.

The Antonov An-225, the world's heaviest aircraft, has a maximum takeoff weight greater than 640 tons. The biggest of Stonehenge's stones, known as sarsens, are up to 30 feet (9 meters) tall and weigh 25 tons. Thus, modern aircraft can be twenty-five times as heavy as the largest Stonehenge rock.

Yeah, but the crucial thing is the density, not the weight.

Stonehenge stones are not very heavy. I meant for example this stone:

…It measures 19.6 meters (64 feet) in length, 6 meters (19.6 feet) wide, and is at least 5.5 meters (18 feet) high. Its weight is estimated at a daunting 1,650 tons (that's 3,300,000 pounds, or 1,496,850 kg)…
http://io9.com/archaeologists-discover- ... 1664281050

It would be quite difficult to make that fly.

How many people did evolution create?

All people, according to biologists / geneticists / people who actually study such things and do not merely pontificate based upon unverifiable ancient tales.

I meant, at the point when first humans appeared, how many were there? We all didn’t exist at that time, so there must be some smaller number and I would like to know that.

Perhaps it would be prudent to consult Gensis 6:21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

Thus, unless all water creatures were also aboard the ark, they PERISHED – no ifs, ands or buts about it according to Genesis. Do you dispute what is clearly stated in scripture?

Firstly it is Genesis 6:20: that says:
Of the birds after their kind, of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive.

Secondly,
In seven days, I will cause it to rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights. Every living thing that I have made, I will destroy from the surface of the ground."
Gen. 7:4

It tells about animals on the surface of the ground. Bible doesn’t claim that water creatures were killed.

Not every plant grows from a seed. Some plants, like ferns and mosses, grow from spores. Other plants use asexual vegetative reproduction and grow new plants from rhizomes or tubers

That is true. But the other forms could have survived also below the water. And that seems to be what the Bible claims, because it tells for example this:

The dove came back to him at evening, and, behold, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off. So Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
Gen. 8:11

[1213]

I also have to remind you that we have the dimensions and materials of the Ark from the Bible. Master shipbuilders from modern times have said on more than one occassion that such a ship is not seaworthy.

I don’t think they have really understood how it should be done. For example, how would they use the pitch?

Again, I have to remind you, evolution is the ONLY one that has evidence supporting it. Can you imagine if this entire thread happened in a classroom? I'd have laughed you out of the building. I'd have provided fossils, and measurements and calculations, and there you'd be holding a Bible and nothing else.

Fossils are evidence for the great flood. Not for evolution. If we found many fossils, it doesn’t prove that they are relatives.

And fossils don’t have anything that could prove that they are relatives. If they would have DNA, it could maybe possible to prove something, but it shouldn’t be possible, if the fossils are really as old as they should be according to modern “knowledge�.

I understand already your case. However, by saying you're not trying to convince me, this means you don't have confidence in your own arguments.

If I wouldn’t be confident in what I believe, why would I even be here?

I have no doubt about what the Bible tells. But I know that I can’t prove anything that happened a moment ago.

That evidence being...? You have yet to provide one iota of evidence for the flood story on this thread.

Sorry, I think I did that already. Here are the evidence for the Biblical flood:
- Modern continents, remains of the original continent that collapsed and sunk.
- Orogenic mountains, result of collapsed continent
- Sedimentary rocks, original continent was covered with dust, according to the story, the flood carried it and formed many great sedimentary rock formations.
- Mid Atlantic ridge, result of collapsed continent
- Fossils, result of actions described above.
- Oil and gas fields, result of actions described above. These prove that at some point a lot of organic material was buried.
- Glaciers, the storage of the water.
+ Many stories about the great flood, in many cultures, not just in the Bible

*Facepalm*. What does the Bible indicate the purpose of the flood WAS? Go on, remind me. If I'm not totally mistaken, I think it's something to do with WIPING OUT ALL LIFE (except for what's on the ark). This would include the fish.

Bible speaks only about animals on surface of ground, not sea creatures included.

I'm ignoring those parts because there is no evidence to support this contention, that the land sunk. Not only no evidence, but it also totally contradicts the story you're trying to support, in that the story mentions RAINFALL. Not a sinking of land.

The story tells that water came also from the fountains of great deep, which seems to mean, below the original continent was huge amount of water that came out during the great flood.

To him that stretched out the earth above the waters:"
Psalms 136:6

...on the same day all the fountains of the great deep were burst open, and the sky's windows were opened. The rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.
Genesis 7:11-12

[1213]

So basically, if I, a non-believer don't believe what the Bible says (such as Noah's Flood), you don't think it necessary to provide anything more than just the Bible alone.

What I say on my website continues by:
It is enough to know what is that what God wants us to be. He wants us to be righteous. If you don’t want to be that, when you don’t know surely if God exists, it doesn’t really matter if you would know better that God exists. If knowledge doesn’t make you righteous, it is not very important, in eternal life point of view.

The part you quoted means, if you are not, or don’t become righteous, it doesn’t really matter do you believe that God is real. Also belief in great flood is not very meaningful, if you are not righteous, or don’t become righteous.

Bible is mainly about good and evil, or right and wrong. And belief that God exists is not helpful, if you don’t understand what is right or wrong, or don’t want to do what is right.

It is different thing, is Bible only enough for to believe that the great flood happened. If we wouldn’t see things that would be result of the great flood, then the story would probably be not true.

[1213]

[Replying to post 45 by 1213]

Why is it important that there is a plausible explanation for how the ark could be seaworthy, how the animals could survive and so on, when you are talking about a worldwide supernatural event? Why jump through so many hoops when for once "God did it" would actually suffice as an answer?

Bible tells how it was done. So, if it couldn’t be done as the Bible tells, Bible would be wrong. I think that is the point of many debaters here. And it is the reason why I try to show that the Bible story is possible by the way it tells.

[Zzyzx]

.

Can anyone SHOW that ancient boat builders were "better" than modern boat builders?

I can’t, because I can’t take you back in time.

Thank you. Thus, there is no valid reason to assume or even suggest that ancient boat builders were "better" than modern builders. That is pure speculation – which ignores or denies what is known about ship construction (in the real world, not imagination).

And even if I could, you could say it was just fake trip.

Isn't fantasy wonderful?

The Antonov An-225, the world's heaviest aircraft, has a maximum takeoff weight greater than 640 tons. The biggest of Stonehenge's stones, known as sarsens, are up to 30 feet (9 meters) tall and weigh 25 tons. Thus, modern aircraft can be twenty-five times as heavy as the largest Stonehenge rock.

Yeah, but the crucial thing is the density, not the weight.

Okay, if density is "the crucial thing, not weight", gold is about seven times as heavy as average crustal rock (SG 19.2 vs SG 2.63). Does that mean it cannot be transported? Note: gold weighs about 1200 pounds per cubic foot vs. about 165 pounds per cubic foot.

Stonehenge stones are not very heavy.

Twenty-five tons / 50,000 pounds is "not very heavy"? That is the load capacity of typical 18-wheel truck / trailers.

I meant for example this stone: …It measures 19.6 meters (64 feet) in length, 6 meters (19.6 feet) wide, and is at least 5.5 meters (18 feet) high. Its weight is estimated at a daunting 1,650 tons (that's 3,300,000 pounds, or 1,496,850 kg)…
http://io9.com/archaeologists-discover- ... 1664281050

It would be quite difficult to make that fly.

The stone to which you refer is in a quarry. Your point is?

How many people did evolution create?

All people, according to biologists / geneticists / people who actually study such things and do not merely pontificate based upon unverifiable ancient tales.

I meant, at the point when first humans appeared, how many were there? We all didn’t exist at that time, so there must be some smaller number and I would like to know that.

If one is interested in knowing such things they can study anthropology.

Perhaps it would be prudent to consult Gensis 6:21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

Thus, unless all water creatures were also aboard the ark, they PERISHED – no ifs, ands or buts about it according to Genesis. Do you dispute what is clearly stated in scripture?

Firstly it is Genesis 6:20: that says: Of the birds after their kind, of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every sort shall come to you, to keep them alive.

Secondly, In seven days, I will cause it to rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights. Every living thing that I have made, I will destroy from the surface of the ground."Gen. 7:4

It tells about animals on the surface of the ground. Bible doesn’t claim that water creatures were killed

.
Correction: Genesis 6:21 clearly says "Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind.

Was the part in bold red above an ERROR in the Bible tale?

Not every plant grows from a seed. Some plants, like ferns and mosses, grow from spores. Other plants use asexual vegetative reproduction and grow new plants from rhizomes or tubers

That is true. But the other forms could have survived also below the water. And that seems to be what the Bible claims, because it tells for example this:

The dove came back to him at evening, and, behold, in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off. So Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. Gen. 8:11

Kindly demonstrate that olive trees can survive being under water for months or a year.

After doing that, also show evidence that ferns, mosses and other asexually reproducing plants survived the fabled flood.

There is no assurance that the dove with olive leaf is anything more than myth, legend, folklore, fantasy or fabrication.


Thank you for supplying an Apologist's position on these matters for readers to compare to a Non-Theist position.

[Danmark]

I can’t, because I can’t take you back in time.

That does not suffice. We have thousands of facts of history and science that we accept because of present evidence of what happened in the past. You can't take me back in time to the life, presidency and death of Abraham Lincoln. But I accept the facts of his life without having to be "taken back in time."