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

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

- 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.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Physics 3333 / CFB 3333 Noah's Flood

 

[nPeace]

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

- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
What fossil record is that. The one that is scant?

- 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 Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
Seas, or sea of water? You know this? How?

- 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.
If you assume the world in Noah's day was the same as today, and assume that your assumptions are correct, you have created your own story, and gone away from the Noah's account.

- 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.
Again making assumptions that the world of Noah's day was the same as today, twists the Noah's account, and so you are creating a story to fit your assumptions.

- 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.
Seeds remain in the earth for years until their death when the produce a plant. Noah did not leave the ark before vegetation started to spring... according to the Biblical account.

- 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.

- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
Would the same be true of the people? Proof please.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
Unnatural with the assumption that we are applying today's knowledge, circumstances, and make up to back then? That's to twist the account to suit our assumptions.

- 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.
Assumptions. Again, applying what we have today to back then.

- 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.
This is assuming to a very great degree that animals didn't all adapted to be what they are today, from being quite different.

- 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.
Boats did. For centuries, and man used them to move and trade living animals.

- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
Possibly. What of it, though? Aside from that, there are assumptions made here as well.

- 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 ....
50,000 animals? Who took the photo of that? I'd be happy to see what film looked like 4,000 years ago.

- 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.
Not sure what this has to do with the flood, and where it fits in, but I think we can both make assumption about the world before and after the flood. Only, they will just be assumptions.

- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
Ah. A mosquito. I wonder why the lions didn't eat everything on board.

- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
Just read Genesis, from Chapter 6, and try not to imagine that the world of Noah's day was what we see to today.

- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
If we read Genesis, we can see where it 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).
Oh. Those hypotheses... but those are ideas NewGuyOnTheBlock . Sort of like the ones you have.

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.

There is no need to question a reliable source, but I think if one thinks there is reason, or are reasons for doing so, then they rightly should do what you are doing.
It's commendable to examine the facts, and try to evaluate truth.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

@nPeace --

Your response is expected; a simple hand-wave of contradictory evidence with simple, pat explanations or open-ended, answerable, questions in a failed attempt to cram reality into the fantasy. An utter dismissal of reality as a whole in order to ardently and fervently cling to ideologies that are patently and absorbedly false. Demonstrates not only a dismissal of, what is nearly, the entirety of our scientific knowledge (ranging from biology to geology to plate tectonics to meteorology), but an absolute non-understanding (or non-acceptance) of the same.

Your tenacity is admirable and with these differences in views aside, I'm quite certain that you are probably a decent person who would be welcome to my home for dinner. But you can not defend the indefensible -- and Noah's Tale is indefensible.

There is no need to question a reliable source, but I think if one thinks there is reason, or are reasons for doing so, then they rightly should do what you are doing.
It's commendable to examine the facts, and try to evaluate truth.

All sources, reliable or otherwise, need to be questioned.

 

[PureX]

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

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

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

I am uncertain to whom this response was directed.

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace --

Your response is expected; a simple hand-wave of contradictory evidence with simple, pat explanations or open-ended, answerable, questions in a failed attempt to cram reality into the fantasy. An utter dismissal of reality as a whole in order to ardently and fervently cling to ideologies that are patently and absorbedly false. Demonstrates not only a dismissal of, what is nearly, the entirety of our scientific knowledge (ranging from biology to geology to plate tectonics to meteorology), but an absolute non-understanding (or non-acceptance) of the same.

Your tenacity is admirable and with these differences in views aside, I'm quite certain that you are probably a decent person who would be welcome to my home for dinner. But you can not defend the indefensible -- and Noah's Tale is indefensible.

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

All sources, reliable or otherwise, need to be questioned.

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.

 

[Native]

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

I see what you mean by your logical questions and arguments and I don´t take the story literal at all.

But then again it is IMO wrong to say the Noah Arc flood is ridiculous.

This story is specifically close connected to the story of creation and as such it is a cosmogonical telling of how the creation looks like - and of course this story didn´t took place in a historic time some 10.000-6.000 BC years ago.

The ancestral world perception was/is at the largest a knowledge of the Milky Way galaxy and the Solar System.

In several ancient cultures, the whitish diffuse Milky Way band was imagined as a "river in the Sky". but if priests, scholars and authors have no clues of the astronomical and cosmological symbolism, they all have no other options to take this "river in the Sky" to count literally for a flood which once ran ON the Earth instead of running in the Sky OVER the Earth "high over the mountains".

When understanding this, the Noah Arc telling is astronomical and cosmological a very natural and logical explanation. And all the animals in this arc derives from the entire celestial scenario of constellations and of the zodiac itself.

Links:
Milky Way Mythology
List of cultural Milky Way myths
Ancient Science. The Ancient and native Way of Knowledge

 

[ecco]

- 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.
<snip>
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.

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

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

But then again it is IMO wrong to say the Noah Arc flood is ridiculous.

Then I will rephrase by stating that believing Noah's Ark Flood as literal fact is ridiculous.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

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.

No.

Even reliable sources can be wrong; especially in light of new information. Unlike you (it seems -- I could be wrong), I do not believe in concepts such as "infallibility" or "absolute truth" or "absolute authority". Perhaps someday, you will understand "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" and then we can have a discourse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
What fossil record is that. The one that is scant?

- 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 Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
Seas, or sea of water? You know this? How?

- 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.
If you assume the world in Noah's day was the same as today, and assume that your assumptions are correct, you have created your own story, and gone away from the Noah's account.

- 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.
Again making assumptions that the world of Noah's day was the same as today, twists the Noah's account, and so you are creating a story to fit your assumptions.

- 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.
Seeds remain in the earth for years until their death when the produce a plant. Noah did not leave the ark before vegetation started to spring... according to the Biblical account.

- 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.

- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
Would the same be true of the people? Proof please.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
Unnatural with the assumption that we are applying today's knowledge, circumstances, and make up to back then? That's to twist the account to suit our assumptions.

- 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.
Assumptions. Again, applying what we have today to back then.

- 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.
This is assuming to a very great degree that animals didn't all adapted to be what they are today, from being quite different.

- 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.
Boats did. For centuries, and man used them to move and trade living animals.

- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
Possibly. What of it, though? Aside from that, there are assumptions made here as well.

- 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 ....
50,000 animals? Who took the photo of that? I'd be happy to see what film looked like 4,000 years ago.

- 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.
Not sure what this has to do with the flood, and where it fits in, but I think we can both make assumption about the world before and after the flood. Only, they will just be assumptions.

- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
Ah. A mosquito. I wonder why the lions didn't eat everything on board.

- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
Just read Genesis, from Chapter 6, and try not to imagine that the world of Noah's day was what we see to today.

- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
If we read Genesis, we can see where it 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).
Oh. Those hypotheses... but those are ideas NewGuyOnTheBlock . Sort of like the ones you have.


There is no need to question a reliable source, but I think if one thinks there is reason, or are reasons for doing so, then they rightly should do what you are doing.
It's commendable to examine the facts, and try to evaluate truth.

You really don't have anything do you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No.

Even reliable sources can be wrong; especially in light of new information. Unlike you (it seems -- I could be wrong), I do not believe in concepts such as "infallibility" or "absolute truth" or "absolute authority". Perhaps someday, you will understand "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" and then we can have a discourse.

Good luck to you on that one. You will probably still have to wade through responses laden with varying fonts, bolding, colors, and anything else that can distract from the reading. It is a favorite tactic to distract from what I have seen.

 

[exchemist]

Then I will rephrase by stating that believing Noah's Ark Flood as literal fact is ridiculous.

Yes of course. You are pushing at an open door. Nearly all educated mainstream Christians would agree.

They don't take it as literally true but as an allegory, which repurposes the Middle Eastern flood myth, told in the Epic of Gilgamesh, to make a point.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

30,000 feet of rainfall over 40 days (just under 1000 hours) is about thirty feet of rain per hour, assuming that the entire earth was being rained upon the entire forty days. If the rain fell on only half of the earth's surface, for example, it becomes 60 ft. of rain per hour in those places.

That doesn't happen (the record rainfall for an hour is 12 inches, nowhere near 360 inches per hour needed), and if it did, it would pummel the ark into pieces. From Wiki:

Rainfall records

• Most in 60 seconds (1 minute): 38 mm (1.5 in). Barot, Sainte-Anne, Grande-Terre, Guadeloupe, 11:03–11:04 am on 26 November 1970.[246]
• Most in 60 minutes (1 hour): 305 mm (12.0 in). Holt, Missouri, United States, 22 June 1947.[90]
• Most in 12 hours (½-day): 1,144 mm (45.0 in); Cilaos, Réunion, 8 January 1966, during Tropical Cyclone Denise.[90]
• Most in 24 hours (1 day): 1,825 mm (71.9 in); Cilaos, Réunion, 7–8 January 1966, during Tropical Cyclone Denise.[90]
• Most in 48 hours (2 days): 2,493 mm (98.1 in); Cherrapunji, Meghalaya, India, 15–16 June 1995.[90]
• Most in 72 hours (3 days): 3,929 mm (154.7 in); Commerson, Réunion, 24–26 February 2007, during Cyclone Gamede.[90]
• Most in 96 hours (4 days): 4,869 mm (191.7 in); Commerson, Réunion, 24–27 February 2007, during Cyclone Gamede.[90]
• Most in one year: 26,470 mm (1,042 in); Cherrapunji, Meghalaya, India, 1860–1861.[90]

It's not a beautiful, intelligent, or insightful story. There is no inspiring message or life lesson, just the story of an allegedly perfect deity failing as an engineer, regretting it, indiscriminately killing most of terrestrial life, and then using the same human breeding stock to repopulate the world.

To those saying that it's just a story, I would ask why it appears in the scriptures. As noted, it depicts the god of that Bible as morally and intellectually flawed. There's very likely a good reason for inventing and including such a story. I suggest that it is due to the discovery of marine fossils atop the highest mountains. Today, we understand that as evidence of seafloor lifting, but a few thousand years ago, it was likely seen as evidence of a global flood. What else could do that? And why would God do that? The answer must show that the action was just and necessary, so therefore man deserved it, and I guess the beasts as well.

Also, to those saying that it's a metaphor or allegory, I would ask metaphor or allegory for what? Those term both imply a kind of substitution of this for that, mutatis mutandis. This stands for X, that stands for Y, etc..

That story is no such thing. It's simply an incorrect guess that people don't like to call that, so they use euphemisms like allegory in the hope of keeping the story relevant.

But it's even less relevant than morality tales like the Fox and the Grapes, which actually do represent something and can serve as a cautionary tale. The flood story doesn't do that.

 

[nPeace]

No.

Even reliable sources can be wrong; especially in light of new information. Unlike you (it seems -- I could be wrong), I do not believe in concepts such as "infallibility" or "absolute truth" or "absolute authority". Perhaps someday, you will understand "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" and then we can have a discourse.

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.
One cannot claim that the lie detector is reliable if it is unreliable.

For a source to be reliable, it must prove itself to be.
If human error is responsible for any discrepancies, it's a human failing.
If your source depends entirely on humans who, yes, are not infallible, then any claim that your source is reliable, is fantasy - wishful thinking. Human failings result in unreliability.

For example, a doctor holds an instrument over your eye, and tells you, the instrument is reliable, the instrument should do what it is counted on to do... reliably.
If the doctor's hand causes a problem, the fault lies with the doctor - not the instrument.

Another example... A person who depends on an accurate measure, to allow for a precise "to the hair exact" fit, would need a reliable measuring instrument.
If the instrument does not give an accurate measure, it's unreliable.

I do understand the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence". You don't have it, evidently.
So I guess our "discourse" is over.

Take care.

 

[nPeace]

30,000 feet of rainfall over 40 days (just under 1000 hours) is about thirty feet of rain per hour, assuming that the entire earth was being rained upon the entire forty days. If the rain fell on only half of the earth's surface, for example, it becomes 60 ft. of rain per hour in those places.

That doesn't happen (the record rainfall for an hour is 12 inches, nowhere near 360 inches per hour needed), and if it did, it would pummel the ark into pieces. From Wiki:

Rainfall records

• Most in 60 seconds (1 minute): 38 mm (1.5 in). Barot, Sainte-Anne, Grande-Terre, Guadeloupe, 11:03–11:04 am on 26 November 1970.[246]
• Most in 60 minutes (1 hour): 305 mm (12.0 in). Holt, Missouri, United States, 22 June 1947.[90]
• Most in 12 hours (½-day): 1,144 mm (45.0 in); Cilaos, Réunion, 8 January 1966, during Tropical Cyclone Denise.[90]
• Most in 24 hours (1 day): 1,825 mm (71.9 in); Cilaos, Réunion, 7–8 January 1966, during Tropical Cyclone Denise.[90]
• Most in 48 hours (2 days): 2,493 mm (98.1 in); Cherrapunji, Meghalaya, India, 15–16 June 1995.[90]
• Most in 72 hours (3 days): 3,929 mm (154.7 in); Commerson, Réunion, 24–26 February 2007, during Cyclone Gamede.[90]
• Most in 96 hours (4 days): 4,869 mm (191.7 in); Commerson, Réunion, 24–27 February 2007, during Cyclone Gamede.[90]
• Most in one year: 26,470 mm (1,042 in); Cherrapunji, Meghalaya, India, 1860–1861.[90]

It's not a beautiful, intelligent, or insightful story. There is no inspiring message or life lesson, just the story of an allegedly perfect deity failing as an engineer, regretting it, indiscriminately killing most of terrestrial life, and then using the same human breeding stock to repopulate the world.

To those saying that it's just a story, I would ask why it appears in the scriptures. As noted, it depicts the god of that Bible as morally and intellectually flawed. There's very likely as good for inventing and including such a story. I suggest that it is due to the discovery of marine fossils atop the highest mountains. Today, we understand that as evidence of seafloor lifting, but a few thousand years ago, it was likely seen as evidence of a global flood. What else could do that? And why would God do that? The answer must show that the action was just and necessary, so therefore man deserved it, and I guess the beasts as well.

Also, to those saying that it's a metaphor or allegory, I would ask metaphor or allegory for what? Those term both imply a kind of substitution of this for that, mutatis mutandis. This stands for X, that stands for Y, etc..

That story is no such thing. It's simply an incorrect guess that people don't like to call that, so they use euphemisms like allegory in the hope of keeping the story relevant, but it's even less relevant than morality tales like the Fox and the Grapes, which actually do represent something and can serve as a cautionary tale. The flood story doesn't do that.

Did you read the account? Did it only rain, or are you missing something?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

The geological record of the Earth. Unless you think what we know of Martian geology will help you.

- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".

What fossil record is that. The one that is scant?

Not as scant as you wish it to be. Again, the fossil record found on Earth. What other did you expect?

- 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 entire world should not have to be dug up to find this evidence which no one has found. That is a pretty silly rebuke of it coming from someone that should know better.

- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.

Seas, or sea of water? You know this? How?

Is this really the best you have to offer? Really? You don't have much of a challenge do you? He is claiming that the vessel would not have been seaworthy given the conditions of a global flood. Conditions that any reasonable person would expect to occur in such an event. Sticking your tongue and going Nyah! Nyah! Isn't a reasonable response.

- 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.

If you assume the world in Noah's day was the same as today, and assume that your assumptions are correct, you have created your own story, and gone away from the Noah's account.

Of course, you offer no evidence that the world of the time was significantly different than it is today. Given what we can demonstrate and corroborate, the mountains of today were much as we would expect them then.

- 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.

Again making assumptions that the world of Noah's day was the same as today, twists the Noah's account, and so you are creating a story to fit your assumptions.

Again, responding with a meaningless, data-free response that does nothing to refute the point.

- 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.

Seeds remain in the earth for years until their death when the produce a plant. Noah did not leave the ark before vegetation started to spring... according to the Biblical account.

LOL! And you know this because of your extensive work on all species of plants and their regeneration from seed. It would depend on the season in some cases. Where seeds were available, some would have ended up on the bottom of the oceans never to be seen again. Even if some had survived, there is no gaurantee they would have been plants of any use to people or that they would have sprouted in the right place to survive. Your notion is a childish answer with no foundation.

- 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.

He would have needed an Ark of considerably larger size in order to stock the supplies that amount of animals would have required. They were to multiply on the earth. Your question makes little sense. You think the predators would have left the babies alone?

- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
Would the same be true of the people? Proof please.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.

Unnatural with the assumption that we are applying today's knowledge, circumstances, and make up to back then? That's to twist the account to suit our assumptions.

Once again, you have nothing to offer but unfounded speculation. Do you know that cattle for instance suddenly started having litters of 10 or 20 calves? You suggest a radical, magical change in biology that has no evidence and you cannot even offer reasonable speculation as an objection.

- 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.

Assumptions. Again, applying what we have today to back then.

So you picked a favorite non-answer as your answer. Clearly, you have no evidence to make this more than just your weak speculation.

- 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.

This is assuming to a very great degree that animals didn't all adapted to be what they are today, from being quite different.

You changed up the wording to your non-answer at least. Again, no evidence that animals from that period are radically different from today. You do know that there is evidence that they were not radically different? No. I suppose you don't. That would require objectivity and a desire to learn.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

- 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.

Boats did. For centuries, and man used them to move and trade living animals.

You think kangaroos built boats and organized fleets to the different continents?

- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.

Possibly. What of it, though? Aside from that, there are assumptions made here as well.

You really like to run with nothing.

- 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 ....

50,000 animals? Who took the photo of that? I'd be happy to see what film looked like 4,000 years ago.

There's green smiley face. That sure showed him. Do you need a photo to realize that there wasn't enough space on that boat to do the job that is claimed to have done?

- 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.

Not sure what this has to do with the flood, and where it fits in, but I think we can both make assumption about the world before and after the flood. Only, they will just be assumptions.

Except that you offer not even the most trivial evidence that the world then was different than it is now.

- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..

Ah. A mosquito. I wonder why the lions didn't eat everything on board.

Another green smiley face and a response that means nothing. What does the presence of mosquitos have to do with the appetites of lions? Nothing. Just you shooting in the dark hoping to hit anything.

- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.

Just read Genesis, from Chapter 6, and try not to imagine that the world of Noah's day was what we see to today.

There is not much to get about the world of Noah and the world of today from reading that.

- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.

If we read Genesis, we can see where it went.

If you knew and could support it, you would have been specific about where it 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).

Oh. Those hypotheses... but those are ideas NewGuyOnTheBlock . Sort of like the ones you have.

Not just his idea. A well-known fact that there is no universal genetic bottleneck found in all species that dates to the alleged time of the flood.

There is no need to question a reliable source, but I think if one thinks there is reason, or are reasons for doing so, then they rightly should do what you are doing.
It's commendable to examine the facts, and try to evaluate truth.

It is commendable to examine the facts. You should try it yourself. I cannot imagine someone that claims to speak of truth and reject lies that would claim there is no need for reliable sources. Such a recommendation makes me doubt their veracity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.
One cannot claim that the lie detector is reliable if it is unreliable.

For a source to be reliable, it must prove itself to be.
If human error is responsible for any discrepancies, it's a human failing.
If your source depends entirely on humans who, yes, are not infallible, then any claim that your source is reliable, is fantasy - wishful thinking. Human failings result in unreliability.

For example, a doctor holds an instrument over your eye, and tells you, the instrument is reliable, the instrument should do what it is counted on to do... reliably.
If the doctor's hand causes a problem, the fault lies with the doctor - not the instrument.

Another example... A person who depends on an accurate measure, to allow for a precise "to the hair exact" fit, would need a reliable measuring instrument.
If the instrument does not give an accurate measure, it's unreliable.

I do understand the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence". You don't have it, evidently.
So I guess our "discourse" is over.

Take care.

It can hardly be called a discourse when you bring nothing to the table but smiley faces and irrational objections that have no foundation.