A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

You accept ideas as truth, so I think that would make you no different to the guy you consider to be irrational.

I accept ideas as truth that are substantiated by evidence. I reject ideas as truth that are refuted by evidence.

If a source is considered reliable, and it was, or is wrong in the first place, then the view that is was, or is reliable, is a myth.

You conflate "Reliable" with "Infallible". Einstein's theories are reliable as they withstand scrutiny; but he nonetheless errored in clinging to the Static Infinite Universe model (and admitted the same). Newton, the Father of Physics, remains reliable and most of his theories and equations remain in use today; yet it took others following his work to solve puzzles he failed to solve.

I do understand the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence". You don't have it, evidently.

If you understood the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence", then you would at least be able to be honest enough to say, "Noah's Flood is not substantiated by evidence and is, in fact, refuted by evidence. But I believe it anyway". Where you fail is pretending that evidence contrary to the myth does not exist, then pretend that our views on the reality of whether or not this event actually occurred are equally valid. They're not. One is based on evidence (or the lack thereof) and the other based on belief. I think it's time you stop pretending that science somehow validates the myth as being an actual historical event.

 

[blü 2]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
What geological record, specifically?

The various strata of the earth, which you find when you either dig downwards, or consider a part of the earth that gives you a side view, like the sides of the grand canyon (to take one of endless possible examples).

And as I've remarked to you before, what they'd have to show had there been a flood such as Genesis describes is a single flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor.

But as you know, there's no such thing.

- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.

I was not aware they dug up the whole world. I though they said the fossil record was incomplete for that reason, among others.

The earth is about 4,5 bn years old, so a flood layer in the last (say) 10,000 years will not be so far from the top. But of course it's not there, and neither are there enormous numbers of bones of all the animals said to die in the story. It's not a question of having to dig up the whole earth ─ it's a question of finding nothing like what would have to be there had there really been a Flood, no matter where you dig.

- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.

Before they multiplied? Not according to Genesis. The Bible says, they multiplied, and there is no place that says Noah ran out of the food supply they brought on the ark.

But they didn't have a freezer, so they'd have been running a very busy slaughterhouse ... gee, I wonder how many species went lost forever at that time just to keep the tigers fat!

Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).
Oh. Those hypotheses... but those are ideas NewGuyOnTheBlock . Sort of like the ones you have.[/qutoe] No, it's not hypothetical ─ if a population of critters has come from a small total at some time in the past, it creates a genetic bottleneck.

And in the story, at some time in the last 10,000 years all land animals were reduced to one, or two, or seven, breeding pairs. Leaving aside questions of how small a population can be for the species to be expected to survive, if the Flood yarn were true, then every species, humans included, would have a genetic bottleneck ─ and every species' bottleneck would date to the same date.

But as you know, we find nothing of the sort. (I was going to say 'nothing of the kind' but of course that would confuse matters.)

Oh, and did you ever find that extra billion cubic miles of water needed to cover Mt Everest like the story says?

No?

Then I guess what everyone knows is correct is indeed correct ─ there never was such a flood, not in reality anyway.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Noah took produce on the ark. We can't assume he didn't take corn.

Sure we can. Because the dimensions of the ark are given in the scripts as well as everything else he took with him. And it doesn't fit!

I just looked up this bit of information.
The oxygen minimum zone (OMZ), sometimes referred to as the shadow zone, is the zone in which oxygen saturation in seawater in the ocean is at its lowest. This zone occurs at depths of about 200 to 1,500 m (660–4,920 ft), depending on local circumstances.

So you found something that seems to agree with you. Do you have an explanation you would like to share about the OMZ and how water far below this OMZ could be oxygenated? Would you like to share this information and these formulas and submit them to peer review by publishing them in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

There is evidence for this event, but science just gives it a different explanation.

No evidence presented for the "flood" stands up to educated scrutiny. There is no evidence for this event, but the apologist wants you to think there is.

This is the same argument used twice, and it is wrong both times. You do not seem to understand why the temperature drops as one goes up. It is height above sea level that causes the drop. As one goes up there is less atmosphere above you and more atmosphere below you. There would be no problem with air pressure. I would drop this one from your repertoire.

Not necessarily the same argument twice, as one was based on temperature and the other on oxygen levels. But your criticism of these phenomenon being based on sea level is accepted.

Maybe the flood was a tidal wave.

That's not what the Bible says.

Well I think you can question the Bible and you should; but it will be found true you just have to dig deeper and you'll find the answers. I know I can't answer all questions already; but I can trust what I've already learned and that's enough to convince me. I build on what I know and I learn more.

I think a lot of your doubts about the flood can be answered with a bit of thinking or research. But we creationists can't be expected to discard our belief in the scriptures just because we can't answer every single doubt or question that may arise. Because as I said we're already convinced based on other things we've learned.

1 - The Bible has not answered one scientific question to any satisfaction; and
2 - The very definition of "pseudoscience" is setting out to prove a point true rather than setting out to determine if it were true (or to be more precise, setting out to prove an idea false).

I was just reading an article from the website "Peaceful Science". It seems to be a site where scientists - whether experimental, or otherwise, who identify as Christian, write articles.

Indoctrination disguised as education.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not necessarily the same argument twice, as one was based on temperature and the other on oxygen levels. But your criticism of these phenomenon being based on sea level is accepted.

It is the same. Do you know of the Ideal Gas Law? PV = nRT. Drop the pressure, drop the temperature. Also if you drop the pressure you drop the concentration of O2. A lot of people do not realize that air pressure is due to the mass of the air directly above you. At the top of Everest you are five miles high and there are five miles of atmosphere below you. There is a lower mass holding down the air so the pressure drops.

There would be a very small drop in air pressure due a slightly larger base. You are further from the center of the Earth so the area of the surface is larger.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

We can assume that this tree or that would not survive. However, we can make other assumptions as well - such as... What Noah refered to as Olive, may be a species we call by another name. We don't know, but various species of trees can survive submerged for a whole year.

If there was a tree called an Olive Tree that is the same tree today, then the Hebrew language had a word for it; thus we have a word that we translate to "Olive Tree". If it were an unknown tree, the Hebrew texts would not have called it an "Olive Tree". This argument fails.

We could even assume that the trees living during Noah's day, were much more larger, and taller, and more resilient.

Why can we assume that when there is no evidence to substantiate that assumption?

However, that wouldn't prove anything, would it?

Sure it would. It would prove that we have no evidence, only assumptions.

I shouldn't tell you this, but my church says the ark was held in God's hand/taken to heaven.

The Bible doesn't say that.

If that's what they want to believe....meh. Does it really matter to me? I can't think of how it does.

For most people, it doesn't matter to me what they believe; it's just an entertaining diversion.
For some people, it matters a great deal; such as in the case of those in positions of leadership or power whose personal beliefs affect their decisions; and their decisions affect the rest of us.

What is important however is that no evidence exist proving that this account did not occur.
Your attempt to offer this evidence -whilst impressive- still falls short of doing this.

I speculate that it was Ms. Peacock in the Conservatory with a Gun.

Based on this speculation, we would expect to find powder residue or other evidence of Ms. Peacock holding, processing, etc a gun; blood of the victim in the conservatory; a gun that has been fired; and a corpse with a bullet hole. But instead we find the corpse in the Kitchen that is much too heavy for dainty Ms. Peacock to move with abrasions on its neck, which clearly indicate that it probably wasn't Ms. Peacock and the murder weapon was probably the rope.

If we fail to find what we expect to find if a given conclusion were true, then the given conclusion must not be true.

So read the list again for the things that we would expect to find were the story true; and then ask yourself, if we don't find what we expect to find were the conclusion true, then how can the conclusion be true?

Here are a couple "cherry picked" points from the list that address what we would expect to find were the story true (which we do not find).

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).

OMG! I just used a child's board game to illustrate a point on how science is done! Who am I debating against!?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It is the same. Do you know of the Ideal Gas Law? PV = nRT. Drop the pressure, drop the temperature. Also if you drop the pressure you drop the concentration of O2. A lot of people do not realize that air pressure is due to the mass of the air directly above you. At the top of Everest you are five miles high and there are five miles of atmosphere below you. There is a lower mass holding down the air so the pressure drops.

There would be a very small drop in air pressure due a slightly larger base. You are further from the center of the Earth so the area of the surface is larger.

I see your point. Thank you for the information!

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If you worry that 6,000,000 year old dinosaur bones prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years, God could change perceptions or realities.

That would be a deceptive God.

None view as literal

Uh. No. There are those who do. Never heard of Ken Ham's "Ark Encounter?"

Walk Through the Ark Encounter with Ken Ham

 

[King Phenomenon]

That would be a deceptive God.



Uh. No. There are those who do. Never heard of Ken Ham's "Ark Encounter?"

Walk Through the Ark Encounter with Ken Ham

Uh yup
Uh don’t care

 

[robocop (actually)]

Sure we can. Because the dimensions of the ark are given in the scripts as well as everything else he took with him. And it doesn't fit!



So you found something that seems to agree with you. Do you have an explanation you would like to share about the OMZ and how water far below this OMZ could be oxygenated? Would you like to share this information and these formulas and submit them to peer review by publishing them in a peer reviewed scientific journal?



No evidence presented for the "flood" stands up to educated scrutiny. There is no evidence for this event, but the apologist wants you to think there is.



Not necessarily the same argument twice, as one was based on temperature and the other on oxygen levels. But your criticism of these phenomenon being based on sea level is accepted.



That's not what the Bible says.



1 - The Bible has not answered one scientific question to any satisfaction; and
2 - The very definition of "pseudoscience" is setting out to prove a point true rather than setting out to determine if it were true (or to be more precise, setting out to prove an idea false).



Indoctrination disguised as education.

"That's not what the Bible says."

How would the Bible describe a concept people couldn't understand,?

 

[robocop (actually)]

If there was a tree called an Olive Tree that is the same tree today, then the Hebrew language had a word for it; thus we have a word that we translate to "Olive Tree". If it were an unknown tree, the Hebrew texts would not have called it an "Olive Tree". This argument fails.



Why can we assume that when there is no evidence to substantiate that assumption?



Sure it would. It would prove that we have no evidence, only assumptions.



The Bible doesn't say that.



For most people, it doesn't matter to me what they believe; it's just an entertaining diversion.
For some people, it matters a great deal; such as in the case of those in positions of leadership or power whose personal beliefs affect their decisions; and their decisions affect the rest of us.



I speculate that it was Ms. Peacock in the Conservatory with a Gun.

Based on this speculation, we would expect to find powder residue or other evidence of Ms. Peacock holding, processing, etc a gun; blood of the victim in the conservatory; a gun that has been fired; and a corpse with a bullet hole. But instead we find the corpse in the Kitchen that is much too heavy for dainty Ms. Peacock to move with abrasions on its neck, which clearly indicate that it probably wasn't Ms. Peacock and the murder weapon was probably the rope.

If we fail to find what we expect to find if a given conclusion were true, then the given conclusion must not be true.

So read the list again for the things that we would expect to find were the story true; and then ask yourself, if we don't find what we expect to find were the conclusion true, then how can the conclusion be true?

Here are a couple "cherry picked" points from the list that address what we would expect to find were the story true (which we do not find).



OMG! I just used a child's board game to illustrate a point on how science is done! Who am I debating against!?

"The Bible doesn't say that. " it's in my religion's cannon, the pearl of great price.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Maybe the last one. The other two, no. Mankind was never threatened by a worldwide flood.

But if isotopes were effected, before and after could overlap in an undetectable manner.

 

[viole]

And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....

Well, since they believe the skipper got 900 years old, or that prophets can live a few days inside a fish, among the rest, I would say the sky is the limit of what they can believe.

But that is not what puzzles me; at the end of the day, you just have to invoke a miracle to explain everything. What puzzles me is that a literal interpretation of the Bible does not affect salvation, apparently. Which is obvious, considering that the vast majority of Christians laugh at Adam and Eve, talking serpents and such. For instance, WL Craig calls YEC an embarrassment for Christianity.

So, it looks to me like pure intellectual masochism, that exposes to global ridicule, also coming from most Christians, without any real advantage.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

It never says that .

Nor does any other fictional story ever told. And yet somehow we all manage to understand the idea of suspending our disbelief for the sake of the story, and for the ideals they may convey to us apart from factual accuracy.

 

[Faithofchristian]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).

And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....

So if you can believe ... or even question ... whether or not there was really a world wide flood from 6 to 10 thousand years ago, then you have not questioned the tale or are unwilling to do so.

My question is to you is who exactly said the flood of Noah's as being a worldwide flood?
In case you didn't know..the flood of Noah's was not a worldwide flood.
And how exactly do we know that..

In Genesis 10:1-5.
1--"Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, and unto them were sons born after the flood"

Now in Verse 5, here we find,
"by these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands, every one after his tongue, after their families, and their Nations"
Now the question arises where did the Gentiles come from if there was a worldwide flood????

As there is no where in the bible/scriptures as saying the flood of Noah's as being a worldwide flood..
Now of course by man's teachings and doctrines in the churches will tell you that the flood of Noah's as being a worldwide flood..
But where in the bible/scriptures is it written that the flood of Noah's as being a worldwide flood????

 

[Faithofchristian]

Well, since they believe the skipper got 900 years old, or that prophets can live a few days inside a fish, among the rest, I would say the sky is the limit of what they can believe.

But that is not what puzzles me; at the end of the day, you just have to invoke a miracle to explain everything. What puzzles me is that a literal interpretation of the Bible does not affect salvation, apparently. Which is obvious, considering that the vast majority of Christians laugh at Adam and Eve, talking serpents and such. For instance, WL Craig calls YEC an embarrassment for Christianity.

So, it looks to me like pure intellectual masochism, that exposes to global ridicule, also coming from most Christians, without any real advantage.

Ciao

- viole

This where you show that your knowledge of the bible/ scriptures are limited..

That fish that swallow Jonah was not a fish as we know a fish to be.
God created that whale for a special purpose..
As written in Jonah 1:17--"Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah"
Therefore that Great Fish is not a fish as we know a fish to be..
But was specially prepared to swallow up Jonah..
So that fish was not an ordinary fish as we know a fish to be..

 

[Aštra’el]

A catastrophic regional flood in ancient Mesopotamia is the likely inspiration for Noah, Utnapishtim, and Atrahasis. Besides... in the early myths, it was just their livestock and some people from the village who boarded the ark until the storm had passed. Nothing too unbelievable to disprove there.

 

[John1.12]

Nor does any other fictional story ever told. And yet somehow we all manage to understand the idea of suspending our disbelief for the sake of the story, and for the ideals they may convey to us apart from factual accuracy.

No I think the bible actually describes it as happening. Now either they made it up , believed that it happened or it really did happen . Its not Just Moses that wrote about the worldwide flood, other authors write about it as happening also. Fine if you don't believe it happened but the authors definitely wrote it as an actual event .

 

[nPeace]

You have heard of Everest, haven’t you. The Indian plate is still pushing into the Tibetan Plateau, so Everest is still rising half a centimetre each year, which is currently 8848 metres.

Multiply that with 4500 years, you will get 2250 cm or 22.5 m.that would mean Everest would be shorter, with elevation of 8826 m.

Everest and the Himalayas are rising due to uplifts because of 2 tectonic plates pushing into each other, not by volcanic activities. Everest isn’t a volcanic mountain.

Edit:

And since you are being so childish, why don’t you show me pics of the Ark or Noah’s remains?

This is how much of claimed science goes doesn't it. Making assumptions, and concluding that those assumptions are correct. There are hypotheses - ideas that you have to assume are correct.
No one knows the rate of growth of any mountain centuries into the past. Ever growing and shrinking
Erosion can, paradoxically, accelerate mountain growth.
Of course, you know how grey your hair is, but unless you record the process step by step, you can only guess at it's growth spurts.

"Lets wind the clock back", works with the assumption that your clock has a constant, fixed rate - like our clock... every sixty second will be the same. However, you are creating the circumstances and deciding what those circumstances are. Then claiming they are correct.
This is not science. It's pseudo yes, so it's easy to bring that to a forum, and be dogmatic about it.

There are always surprises around the corner for scientists.
In fact, no real scientist today will say that what they don't know is not possible.
Yes, there are many factors that can result in rapid mountain growth.
Mountains may experience a "growth spurt" that can double their heights in as little as two to four million years several times faster than the prevailing tectonic theory suggests.
A young mountain can have growth spurts too. It's in there "genes"
Another surprising recent discovery....

PS
Cranky? Miserable? Whatever is biting you, hope you feel better as time goes by.

 

[nPeace]

Yet another major blow for Bible oriented literalists.

How so?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But if isotopes were effected, before and after could overlap in an undetectable manner.

How would they be? Hand waving is not an argument. Be specific.