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

[Dan From Smithville]

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


Wait. A reliable source needs to be questioned? Well there goes your entire argument.
If something is found to be reliable, and you question it, you are saying, you don't want to accept it.
What would make it reliable... a more reliable person.

This is a non sequitur. Questioning a resource is not a criteria to demonstrate that a resource is unreliable. Questioning it does not indicate that it is not accepted either. You are not very good at hiding your logical fallacies. The funny faces don't even cover for you.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Any decent fundie can negate all that you have written with just one word: GodDidIt.

Ahh. The universal one answer to everything.

I can easily see a fundie saying, "Top that one"!

 

[Twilight Hue]

I like the seed aspect. Most seeds won't survive in oxygen depleted water.

Corn seeds itself for example won't go much past 4 days in oxygen depleted water.


Corn and Soybean Survival in Saturated and Flooded Soils

I think people forget plants as well as seeds are living organisms.

A year underwater? No. Not likely for most plants and their seeds.

 

[nPeace]

I like the seed aspect. Most seeds won't survive in oxygen depleted water.

Corn seeds itself for example won't go much past 4 days in oxygen depleted water.


Corn and Soybean Survival in Saturated and Flooded Soils

I think people forget plants as well as seeds are living organisms.

A year underwater? No. Not likely for most plants and their seeds.

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

 

[The Hammer]

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

Considering Noah is from the middle east, and Corn is only found in the Americas, that's gonna be a no go.

Corn has only been domesticated for food for about 9000 years.

Corn | History, Cultivation, Uses, & Description

 

[nPeace]

I like the seed aspect. Most seeds won't survive in oxygen depleted water.

Corn seeds itself for example won't go much past 4 days in oxygen depleted water.


Corn and Soybean Survival in Saturated and Flooded Soils

I think people forget plants as well as seeds are living organisms.

A year underwater? No. Not likely for most plants and their seeds.

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. OMZs are found worldwide, typically along the western coast of continents, in areas where an interplay of physical and biological processes concurrently lower the oxygen concentration (biological processes) and restrict the water from mixing with surrounding waters (physical processes), creating a “pool” of water where oxygen concentrations fall from the normal range of 4–6 mg/l to below 2 mg/l.

 

[nPeace]

Considering Noah is from the middle east, and Corn is only found in the Americas, that's gonna be a no go.

Corn has only been domesticated for food for about 9000 years.

Corn | History, Cultivation, Uses, & Description

Noah didn't eat corn. I have no idea.

 

[Deeje]

You know @nPeace you have to wonder why any Christian would argue so strenuously against something that Jesus himself mentioned as an actual event, foreshadowing what we are experiencing in the world right now (Matthew 24:37-39)....and since Jesus was an eye witness to this flood, (as he has existed as the “Logos” from the “beginning”) I believe that the motive for denial is itself very questionable.

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

‘Without faith, we cannot please God’, so those who demand “proof” for something God said was an actual event, (described in detail) expose themselves as lacking faith.

Yet when pressed to provide “proof” for the theory of evolution, we see the same kind of faith exercised in science, but not in the God they claim to worship.....weird, isn’t it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Over all your arguments are very good with a couple of exceptions:

- 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.

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.

- 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.

This is almost correct. There are no land bridges now. But there were in the past during the ice age. The problem is that they would not have existed before the flood, unless one wanted to argue that some of the magic water stuck around afterwards. Though again we know that is not the case. Sea levels rose after the end of the last glaciation and we do have records of that. Record of the flood, not so much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know @nPeace you have to wonder why any Christian would argue so strenuously against something that Jesus himself mentioned as an actual event, foreshadowing what we are doing experiencing in the world right now (Matthew 24:37-39)....and since Jesus was an eye witness to this flood, (as he has existed as the “Logos” from the “beginning”) I believe that the motive for denial is itself very questionable.

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

‘Without faith, we cannot please God’, so those who demand “proof” for something God said was an actual event, (described in detail) expose themselves as lacking faith.

Yet when pressed to provide “proof” for the theory of evolution, we see the same kind of faith exercised in science, but not in the God they claim to worship.....weird, isn’t it?

Jesus used poetic language quite often. But go ahead. Claim that Jesus was just a man. It does not bother me all that much.

 

[robocop (actually)]

- 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.

Maybe the flood was a tidal wave.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe the flood was a tidal wave.

Any flood that would affect humanity would leave a record. The flood myth predicts massive evidence and none is to be found. There is no such record. There was no flood.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Any flood that would affect humanity would leave a record. The flood myth predicts massive evidence and none is to be found. There is no such record. There was no flood.

I'm just saying maybe it wasn't a flood. Maybe it was a tidal wave.

 

[John1.12]

What is ridiculous is that you don't understand that it's a STORY.

It never says that .

 

[robocop (actually)]

I'm just saying maybe it wasn't a flood. Maybe it was a tidal wave.

And if it wasn't a tidal wave, how about a shockwave?

 

[MJ Bailey]

I agree with your argument, but would like for you to consider how long ago this was to have taken place., I would imagine that even in one geological area, to the populace it may appear to be the entire world. As far as the two of every animal, maybe it was only the "important" animals in which were known to the natives. Just saying I a hard time with the argument either way due to the ability of seeing both perspectives

 

[74x12]

ents

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.

 

[nPeace]

You know @nPeace you have to wonder why any Christian would argue so strenuously against something that Jesus himself mentioned as an actual event, foreshadowing what we are doing experiencing in the world right now (Matthew 24:37-39)....and since Jesus was an eye witness to this flood, (as he has existed as the “Logos” from the “beginning”) I believe that the motive for denial is itself very questionable.

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

‘Without faith, we cannot please God’, so those who demand “proof” for something God said was an actual event, (described in detail) expose themselves as lacking faith.

Yet when pressed to provide “proof” for the theory of evolution, we see the same kind of faith exercised in science, but not in the God they claim to worship.....weird, isn’t it?

Uh... Christian?
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.

An experimental physicist specializing in atomic, molecular, and optical physics, said this, when presenting his view on the resurrection...
A Scientist Looks at the Resurrection
If [the resurrection] did not happen, then Christianity would be a false religion. A scientist (or any rational person for that matter) would have no reason to believe it to be true.

Clearly, the resurrection of Jesus is unique, even within the context of many other claimed miracles about Jesus. Indeed, it is foundational to the Christian faith. From the days of the early church, it was central to the gospel message they preached: that Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose again, and appeared to many of his disciples (1 Corinthians 15:3-6, see also Acts 2:22-32). On the other hand, if Jesus had died and stayed dead like any other human being, then as Paul says, Christians are most to be pitied of all people, for their faith would be based on a lie (1 Corinthians 15:19).

I heard someone ask, how can one call themselves Christian, and not believe in the resurrection, and what Jesus said about it. I don't know the response they got, but if one does not believe the things Jesus said... and did, etc. they can call themselves Christians. I know what the Bible calls them. Paul described the "Christians" that would exist today, in his second letter to the Thessalonians.

As regards the many ideas proposed in the various "theories", yes, a lot of faith is put in those.
The reliability of the Bible is often seen, but they ignore it.

Take for example this statement...
However, geology has won the argument on these matters and we know the flood could not have covered the whole earth and that Noah could not have rescued all living species. But, recent scientific work has shown that the biblical story of the Flood may recall a real event even if many of the details are fictitious.

They alway make the claim, they know, when they don't know.
I like how they usually come back later, and say, "Scientists assumed...", and follow up with, "but we now know." So funny. Always knowing and never know.

I see they now have great flood hypotheses.
We also see there is an underwater archaeologist - Robert Ballard, commited to what he considers evidence of the Biblical flood.
However, we are not waiting on these to confirm what we know from a reliable source.

 

[gnostic]

- 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.

I would just to add the following.

If the flood of Genesis did cover mountains, including the elevation of Everest, then it would destroy land plants due to crushing depth.

The deeper anything are submerged in water, exponentially greater pressures are around them. In World War 2, German U-boats (submarines), they imploded at depth at 280 metres and less. Modern nuclear submarines can go pass the depth of 800 metres, but it is not recommended to go deeper than 1000 metres. The ability to withstand increasing pressures is dependent on the design and built of the submarine hulls.

But land vegetation are not biological built to be underwater of even 100 metres let alone a kilometre, especially being submerged for months.

And that enough reasons why trees and other land vegetation cannot survive months of being underwater.

All land plants required 3 things to survive:

1. Water
2. Carbon dioxide
3. Sunlight (all 3 electromagnetic radiations: visible light, infrared and ultraviolet, and especially ultraviolet)

These three things are needed for plant’s photosynthesis, because photosynthesis is how plants chemically convert carbon dioxide and water into CARBOHYDRATES (as well as releasing unneeded oxygen).

Carbohydrates are basically sugars, and sugars provide the nutrients and energy needed for plants to survive and to live.

Being underwater too long would kill the plants by drowning, because of excessive water.

Being too long underwater will not allow carbon dioxide and sunlight to reach the plants, hence photosynthesis would not take place, hence killing the plants.

And the deeper the plants are submerged, the colder it is, and land plants cannot months of cold water.

The land vegetation cannot survive the Genesis Flood if it was true. There wouldn’t be any olive trees still living after months of being underwater.

 

[rational experiences]

Why a scientist stating all natural conscience observations says hence in science the terms Noah's Ark owned other human reasoning that was not explained how it had been told.

Science in men's life says I know it all but I must experiment to prove self right or wrong.

You can only be correct by design then reaction a machine status.

As a natural human the same human we all are.

Science said my men agreed status said never give earth O as God a named status in science ever again.

Ignored by egotism.

Science said the sun big bang blasted earth and converted it's mass. Law in space stopped that attack.

For science to continue to attack God earth places that choice as one status past the presence reaction of a sun.

In science reality what you chose.

Why the Noah's Ark stone covenant said the attack on wood the nature garden evicted our life.

By calculus use carbon coal past its body presence as burnt pre existing mass.

You were all told what you had done wrong destroyed destruction.

Science told science you never built the flood. You theoried about earths origins of stone sealed in its irradiating conversion by water.

What you then imposed as reasoning to use water to cool conversions yet natural history water had already stopped converting earth.

So it was a virtual I will put earth back in time to reinstate a condition where the law had not stopped the sun attack blasting earth. Converting earth mass.

In space reality. What you were taught. You had learnt science of the nuclear is pure evil as compared to life's continuance.

You write a document as proof human science had studied life's attack and had been one hundred per cent informed it was our destruction.