Noah's Flood: revisited

[Acriku]

Before I get into this, there are people out there that believe Noah's Flood to be a true story right? Otherwise, I'm talking to the wind here. If there are, come forward! Your salvation is at stake! (ok not really, but it might move you to post here)

Now, a buddy online made a very good point that I want to see your reactions to. He said that besides the inconsistencies of the actual flood and the boat's improbable dimensions, there is something else that needs to be addressed. If you look at the survivors of Noah's Flood, being Noah, his wife, two sons and their wives, they are all white (or mildly middle-eastern). Now, most agree that the flood happened around 2500-2300 B.C.E. With that in mind, how can there be diversity in race as much as we have today (being I believe eight major races and many minor races) in just that amount of time, with only Noah's family? How can there be Asians? We're not just talking about difference in race, we're talking about differences in the genes that encompass eyelid distance, amount of melanin in the skin, etc. How in the world did eight major races come out of one family since ~2500 B.C.?

This gets even more problematic when the Chinese Empires date back to the 18th to the 12th century B.C.E. (1100-1700 B.C.E. I believe)! That's only a thousand years of difference from the flood and we have that much diversity!

What's your response?

[TagDaze]

Allow me to coin something here.

The bible says that Noah's sons spread out after the flood. Some went in the direction of Europe, some to Asia and some towards Africa.

From that point on, it's a matter of micro-evolution. People getting a darker skin, et al.

As for the diversity, we are much taller now than we were a couple of hundred years ago. Castledoors are usually smaller (at least in Holland, they are), so that gives you a nice idea how quick some things can go. Over thousands of years, more than just height could happen...

Discuss.

[Acriku]

Allow me to coin something here.

The bible says that Noah's sons spread out after the flood. Some went in the direction of Europe, some to Asia and some towards Africa.

From that point on, it's a matter of micro-evolution. People getting a darker skin, et al.

As for the diversity, we are much taller now than we were a couple of hundred years ago. Castledoors are usually smaller (at least in Holland, they are), so that gives you a nice idea how quick some things can go. Over thousands of years, more than just height could happen...

Discuss.

Despite this, history of these cultures shoot back from within a thousand years of the story of Noah's time. Cultures that have the same racial phenotypes as they have today like the Chinese could not have "micro-evolved" in a mere thousand years (a little over ten generations)! That's very speedy evolution to have taken place, and then all of a sudden slow to a crawl. Seems like the story of Noah is inserted into history like a fat man in a shirt sized Medium, eh?

[Andrew]

The Whole Silly Flood Story

Lengthy article on the flaws of Noah's Flood.

[Gunwounds v2.0]

The Bible also says God used a supernatural pillar of fire to hold back the egyptians while the israelites camped by the Red Sea.  It also states that God made a Donkey speak in human language.  It also states that a man came back to life after being crucified.  It also states that a man healed the blind and the diseased, and brought others back from the dead.  It also says a man walked on water.

God aparently performs supernatural events in history according to the Bible. 

It appears the Flood Story would require supernatural elements to make it plausible, such as supernatural hibernation, migration, protection, and post flood speciation.

This is not necessarily a problem since God appears to have no qualms about exercising supernatural powers when He sees fit.

If Elijah can sit on a mountain and have a squad of soldiers approach him to subdue him and he says "Let fire come down and consume you" .... and afterwards the guards are promptly roasted..... then the flood story is not any more supernatural than anything else in the bible.

Dissecting the Flood story to make a point to a religious believer is pointless if they believe in deity's with no begining, talking donkeys, people walking on water, coming back from the dead, and pillars of fire.

So even if you could make the Flood story seem unscientific/implausible, its fruitless because there are far more unexplainable occurences in the Bible which are impossible to dissect that people will believe forever.

The Flood story doesnt have to make scientific sense.  Just like talking donkey's, walking on water, coming back from the dead, people dying by touching a mountain, fire raining from heaven on command, pillars of fire, the sun stopping in the sky for a day,  etc, etc, dont have to make scientific sense either. God is above science, because in the bible he defys scientific law time and time again.  How would science explain Joshua asking God to hold the sun in the sky for a day?  Where is that missing day in astronomy?  God's power and supernatural events are the Royal Flush of the Great Poker Game that is the Bible Debate.

Halo

[Andrew]

I'd have to agree Halo. The bible and some of its stories are scientifically unprovable/impossible. In order for things to have happened a greater force would be required. I don't know if the bible should be taken literally, but the morale of the stories are probably the main point to be taken (e.g. 10 commandments).

[Khan]

But if God could do all of those supernatural things whats the point in the flood? Why not just kill everyone by willing them dead, or why not dispense with the Ark and just let everyone He wants to save survive underwater.

It seems to me its less of a royal flush than it is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "na-na-na-na-na-na-na" in a debate.

[Gunwounds v2.0]

But if God could do all of those supernatural things whats the point in the flood? Why not just kill everyone by willing them dead, or why not dispense with the Ark and just let everyone He wants to save survive underwater.

It seems to me its less of a royal flush than it is the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "na-na-na-na-na-na-na" in a debate.

Why does God have to do things your way Khan?  I find it amusing when someone says "why didnt God just do it this way?" , as if your way of doing things is somehow superior.  Perhaps God decided there was to be a flood.  End of story.  There is no "naa naa naa" going on... I'm simply stating that all kinds of wild and amazing things happened in the bible and therefore if the book is *that* supernatural its pretty silly to single out one story and try to dissect it for scientific value.

"naaa naaa naa" would also assume that someone is ignoring something.  I'm not ignoring anything.  I am simply bringing to light what you are ignoring. And that is that God and the Bible cannot be scientifically scrutinized.  If "God" wasnt an entity mentioned in the Bible, if the Bible were merely a simple record of history, then yes you could scrutinize it all to hell and back.  But due to the fact that the Bible says it records events that were put in motion and divinely influenced by.... an all powerful God... its impossible to dismiss anything in the Bible, as you could never know if divine intervention occurred.

Halo

[Acriku]

The Bible also says God used a supernatural pillar of fire to hold back the egyptians while the israelites camped by the Red Sea.  It also states that God made a Donkey speak in human language.  It also states that a man came back to life after being crucified.  It also states that a man healed the blind and the diseased, and brought others back from the dead.  It also says a man walked on water.

God aparently performs supernatural events in history according to the Bible. 

It appears the Flood Story would require supernatural elements to make it plausible, such as supernatural hibernation, migration, protection, and post flood speciation.

This is not necessarily a problem since God appears to have no qualms about exercising supernatural powers when He sees fit.

If Elijah can sit on a mountain and have a squad of soldiers approach him to subdue him and he says "Let fire come down and consume you" .... and afterwards the guards are promptly roasted..... then the flood story is not any more supernatural than anything else in the bible.

Dissecting the Flood story to make a point to a religious believer is pointless if they believe in deity's with no begining, talking donkeys, people walking on water, coming back from the dead, and pillars of fire.

So even if you could make the Flood story seem unscientific/implausible, its fruitless because there are far more unexplainable occurences in the Bible which are impossible to dissect that people will believe forever.

The Flood story doesnt have to make scientific sense.  Just like talking donkey's, walking on water, coming back from the dead, people dying by touching a mountain, fire raining from heaven on command, pillars of fire, the sun stopping in the sky for a day,  etc, etc, dont have to make scientific sense either. God is above science, because in the bible he defys scientific law time and time again.  How would science explain Joshua asking God to hold the sun in the sky for a day?  Where is that missing day in astronomy?  God's power and supernatural events are the Royal Flush of the Great Poker Game that is the Bible Debate.

Halo

I'm glad we can agree. You're right, for this to have occurred at all there had to have been divine intervention. But that's begging further questions, which is not a viable solution. Either it's false or had divine intervention. Obviously, believers will say intervention without any reasoning whatsoever, as it is their hail mary play for these kinds of situations.

HOWEVER, a bit caveat here!, the Bible can IN FACT be scrutinized by science in ever way, shape, and form. Science is about knowledge, about the world around us. Now, the Bible makes some claims based on the world around us, altering the reality science is shaped around. Science can't help BUT scrutinize the Bible, and as it should. The Bible is basically another educated guess as to our origins and must be treated with the same level of scrutiny.

[Khan]

Why does God have to do things your way Khan?  I find it amusing when someone says "why didnt God just do it this way?" , as if your way of doing things is somehow superior.  Perhaps God decided there was to be a flood.  End of story.  There is no "naa naa naa" going on... I'm simply stating that all kinds of wild and amazing things happened in the bible and therefore if the book is *that* supernatural its pretty silly to single out one story and try to dissect it for scientific value.

"naaa naaa naa" would also assume that someone is ignoring something.  I'm not ignoring anything.  I am simply bringing to light what you are ignoring. And that is that God and the Bible cannot be scientifically scrutinized.  If "God" wasnt an entity mentioned in the Bible, if the Bible were merely a simple record of history, then yes you could scrutinize it all to hell and back.  But due to the fact that the Bible says it records events that were put in motion and divinely influenced by.... an all powerful God... its impossible to dismiss anything in the Bible, as you could never know if divine intervention occurred.

Halo

So what was so special about back then? Why so many pillars of fire and plagues from above? Why have we seen not even the slightest miracles lately? Its easy to say that God can do anything because of things he did in the past that there's no proof of.

Its "na-na-na" because you are arguing something which is futile, you have no evidence for any miracles yet you still use them as a smoke screen.

[Gunwounds v2.0]

So what was so special about back then? Why so many pillars of fire and plagues from above? Why have we seen not even the slightest miracles lately? Its easy to say that God can do anything because of things he did in the past that there's no proof of.

Its "na-na-na" because you are arguing something which is futile, you have no evidence for any miracles yet you still use them as a smoke screen.

1.)  Why does there need to be Miracles today?  Who says Miracles occurring in the past makes the past special?  Some would say that having grace today and not needing miracles is a much better world to live in.  We don't need proof that God can do anything, because the concept of a God already demands acceptance of the concept of divine intervention.  Just like the concept of a unicorn demands the acceptance of a single spiraled magical horn.  We don't need proof that unicorns have a spiraled magical horn because that's what they have by definition.  God by the Bible's definition tells us that God has supernatural powers that allow Him to commit divine intervention.  No proof is needed as the definition is a core part of the entity.  If God exists then divine intervention is a real possibility.  End of story.

2.)  Arguing something that is futile?  Smokescreen?  What on earth are you on about?  I'm simply stating that the Bible includes a God entity in its record, the very concept of a God allows for divine intervention, and the Bible shows numerous examples of it.  The only reason that you are even arguing about the validity of the Flood is because the Bible doesn't specifically go into detail about whether God used divine intervention for certain events during/after the flood.  I don't see anyone making a thread about Joshua asking God to hold the sun in the sky for a day making the universe pause for 24 hours.  Where are the astronomers attacking this scripture?  Shouldn't they be attacking it just like the evolutionists are attacking the Flood?  No you don't see them doing that because the Bible clearly states that it was Divine Intervention by way of Joshua lobbying God and having the actual request granted.  So my point is this, if people wont attack things in the Bible where divine intervention is explicitly referred to, such as Resurrection and Time/space distortion, then what is the point in attacking other events where divine intervention could have occurred.

3.) There are many divine intervention pieces to the Flood story.  God told Noah how to build the Ark.  This means the Ark was divinely inspired.  God closed the door of the Ark, God watched over the Ark. Supernatural protection. What is to say He didn't watch over plants underwater, or cause supernatural regeneration of plant and animal life? The Bible states the Flood was no ordinary flood, it states the wells of the deep broke open.  Supernatural Destruction.  So you see its silly to take a supernatural event and try to dissect it for scientific value.  What's next?  Use Quantum Theory to try to extrapolate how Jesus manipulated superstrings to carry out miracles?  C'mon.

4.) To reiterate my point,  Science scrutinizing a book that states it records events that were put in motion and divinely influenced by.... an all powerful God... is complicated, as divine intervention cannot be quantified or measured by the scientific method. It is like science scrutinizing whether my consciousness is real or whether the color blue that i see is the same color blue that you see.  If "God" wasn't an entity mentioned in the Bible, if the Bible were merely a simple nonreligious record of history, then scrutinizing it would be as easy as scrutinizing an erroneous textbook.  But unfortunately its not that simple. Divine Intervention overrides scientific inaccuracy.  The only real value of scrutinizing the Bible with science is to help us better understand what parts of the Bible had divine intervention and which parts didn't.  But even that isn't completely true.  Why?  because some things like the parting of the Red Sea which is described as divine intervention can also be explained by science as natural events.  But this only means that natural events prompted to occur at certain times by supernatural Will is synonymous with divine intervention.  What does that mean?  It means some events according to the Bible are:

[1] divine intervention and supernatural.

while other events are:

[2]divine intervention and natural. 

So scrutinizing the Bible scientifically does NOT tell us whether the event is true or false, it only achieves clarification of which type of divine intervention event we are dealing with, natural or supernatural, But that begs the question.... does that really matter?  It is worth deciphering between the two?  I think that's a personal answer.  And for a believer it most likely would not matter if the event was natural or supernatural.  The only thing that would matter to them is that God had a hand in the matter.

Halo

[Khan]

Except, of course, that there is no evidence for 'divine intervention'. It's used as a smokescreen when a blank needs to be filled in: "God wanted to show his wrath [pillars of fire][flood][etc..]" besides I'm arguing against the flood not for the reasons you stated:

The only reason that you are even arguing about the validity of the Flood is because the Bible doesn't specifically go into detail about whether God used divine intervention for certain events during/after the flood.

But because people believe it and I don't, and I've had people drilling into my head that the bible is true for almost 16 years and I like drilling the other way now. Pure and simple you say divine inspiration is part and parcel of God, and I say he isn't up there, so the bible is full of unfounded claims which go against the laws of science. Laws which I believe cant be broken, so I'm going to use that to disprove your claims about deluges and biant boats and herds of migrating animals from across the world.

[Gunwounds v2.0]

Except, of course, that there is no evidence for 'divine intervention'. It's used as a smokescreen when a blank needs to be filled in: "God wanted to show his wrath [pillars of fire][flood][etc..]" besides I'm arguing against the flood not for the reasons you stated:

But because people believe it and I don't, and I've had people drilling into my head that the bible is true for almost 16 years and I like drilling the other way now. Pure and simple you say divine inspiration is part and parcel of God, and I say he isn't up there, so the bible is full of unfounded claims which go against the laws of science. Laws which I believe cant be broken, so I'm going to use that to disprove your claims about deluges and biant boats and herds of migrating animals from across the world.

Ah you have personal issues then, i thought i sensed some hostility.  Its a shame people drilled your head. I'd hate that too.  Point is, if you dont believe in God then there is no point in even opening a Bible to read any of the recorded events to even try to dissect or scrutinize.  Because the events depend on divine intervention and planning, so the Bible depends heavily on a God existing.  Therefore if you dismiss the possibility of God existing, then the Bible isnt even debatable for you.  There is no point trying to argue the tiny details of each Bible story if you dont even believe the God that created the events exists.  The only reason to debate the details of a Bible story is if you believe in the premise of God and want to figure out if the event was divine intervention natural or divine intervention supernatural.

I have no problem with anyone not believing in God or the Bible, or the Flood story.  But i think that person should just say, "I dont believe in that story because i dont believe in God" , instead of "I dont believe in that story because of X scientific data".  Because if you believe in an all powerful entity, science is irrelevant and is nothing more than man's understanding of the universe at time point X in area Y.  Which is pretty limited.  Some scientists believe that gravity functions differently in other parts of the universe which could explain some odd celestial behavior.  So what you believe to be "Physical Laws which cant be broken" , may very well be breakable (or so flexible that laws are meaningless on the grand scale).  Can the laws be broken on earth? Perhaps not here, right now, by us........however if they can be broken elsewhere naturally, then surely if a Deity were to exist, they most certainly could be broken here, right now, by Him.

Halo

[Acriku]

Ah you have personal issues then, i thought i sensed some hostility.  Its a shame people drilled your head. I'd hate that too.  Point is, if you dont believe in God then there is no point in even opening a Bible to read any of the recorded events to even try to dissect or scrutinize.  Because the events depend on divine intervention and planning, so the Bible depends heavily on a God existing.  Therefore if you dismiss the possibility of God existing, then the Bible isnt even debatable for you.  There is no point trying to argue the tiny details of each Bible story if you dont even believe the God that created the events exists.  The only reason to debate the details of a Bible story is if you believe in the premise of God and want to figure out if the event was divine intervention natural or divine intervention supernatural.

So, if you don't believe in God then you shouldn't be arguing against God or the Bible, correct?  ::) In any argument, there are premises. God existing is a premise for the Bible. As in any other argument, a debater will question and argue against a weak premise in order to show how weak the argument is. If the argument whole-heartedly depends on that one weak premise, then it's only natural to debate against that premise, right?0

I have no problem with anyone not believing in God or the Bible, or the Flood story.  But i think that person should just say, "I dont believe in that story because i dont believe in God" , instead of "I dont believe in that story because of X scientific data".  Because if you believe in an all powerful entity, science is irrelevant and is nothing more than man's understanding of the universe at time point X in area Y.  Which is pretty limited.  Some scientists believe that gravity functions differently in other parts of the universe which could explain some odd celestial behavior.  So what you believe to be "Physical Laws which cant be broken" , may very well be breakable (or so flexible that laws are meaningless on the grand scale).  Can the laws be broken on earth? Perhaps not here, right now, by us........however if they can be broken elsewhere naturally, then surely if a Deity were to exist, they most certainly could be broken here, right now, by Him.

Halo

This is kind of a scary notion you're bringing up Halo. You're saying that any dissenters involving rational evidence should instead just say "I don't believe in God." Well, to the rest of the world that actually lives in reality and at least attempts to be rational, they're going to see flaws in that. Anybody can make up a religion and claim it's true and shouldn't be debated because it involves "divine intervention" of their new god. What good will that bring us? Anyway, what if someone does believe in God but sees the Flood stories and such as mere storytelling of morals and, well, stories? Are they allowed to argue against it?

[Khan]

Ah you have personal issues then, i thought i sensed some hostility.

No you didn't I don't have hostility towards believers I just think they should be opposed, otherwise it will give rise to faith for its own sake and we all know that's just no fun.

[Gunwounds v2.0]

1.)So, if you don't believe in God then you shouldn't be arguing against God or the Bible, correct?  ::) In any argument, there are premises. God existing is a premise for the Bible. As in any other argument, a debater will question and argue against a weak premise in order to show how weak the argument is. If the argument whole-heartedly depends on that one weak premise, then it's only natural to debate against that premise, right?0

2.)  This is kind of a scary notion you're bringing up Halo. You're saying that any dissenters involving rational evidence should instead just say "I don't believe in God." Well, to the rest of the world that actually lives in reality and at least attempts to be rational, they're going to see flaws in that. Anybody can make up a religion and claim it's true and shouldn't be debated because it involves "divine intervention" of their new god. What good will that bring us? Anyway, what if someone does believe in God but sees the Flood stories and such as mere storytelling of morals and, well, stories? Are they allowed to argue against it?

1.)  If you have an opinion about the existence of God you can express it.  You can then use the result of that opinion to decide whether you accept the Bible.  These "arguements" are nothing more than opinions based on what people wish to believe, whether they be atheists or believers.  By all means express what you believe.  Its your right.  I'm just saying its pointless to try to criticize a religious story for scientific value when the story is based off of a Deity which science cannot quantify.  If a story were secular, such as the description of Marie Curie's protocols, then it would make absolute sense to critique it for scientific value, philosophy would be meaningless here.  However, science cannot claim falsehood for the Bible as it claims to be divinely inspired.  To claim falsehood for the Bible, one does not use science, one uses subjective personal opinions based off of lifehood experiences, parental influences, and personal wishes.  One uses philosophy , not science to debate religion.  Thats what I've been trying to get at.

2.)  Yes anyone can make something up and claim its true, however science cannot prove their stories false, only your personal beliefs and philosophy will "prove" them "wrong" in your own mind.  If someone does believe in God but sees the Flood story as unnatural, then yes they can argue against it being a natural event.  Which would mean it would have to be a supernatural event.  If that same person doesnt believe it was supernatural then they are claiming their holy book to be fictional in an instance where it is claiming to be fact. This person would have to re-assess their beliefs.  If it is not their holy book (i.e. muslim crtiticizing the Bible) then that is just a matter of differing philosophies and not science.  The point here is NOT that you are forbidden to express your opinion about something..... its that science should be used to invalidate erroneous secular events (i.e. I claim i am anna nicole smith's baby's father yet thru DNA testing i am not), NOT mysterious religious events (i.e. Jesus rose from the Dead).  The only way to "invalidate" a mysterious religious event is through your own personal philosophical belief system.  Basing religious beliefs off of science, instead of philosophy, is simply out-of-context and flawed.

Halo

[Acriku]

Yes, and with your logic we should respect the faith of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or worse yet - Scientology. Both obvious jokes, but if it is said to be divinely inspired then we can't question it with anything but other supernatural faiths!

[Gunwounds v2.0]

Yes, and with your logic we should respect the faith of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or worse yet - Scientology. Both obvious jokes, but if it is said to be divinely inspired then we can't question it with anything but other supernatural faiths!

I made several changes to my post above.  I dd not mention respecting a faith.  I said you can express your opinion that the spaghetti monster is non-existent.  But you cannot use science to prove the spaghetti monster is false. You must use your own personal beliefs based off of common sense.  Common sense is not scientific.  Personal philosophical beliefs are not scientific.  You will never find a scientific protocol to prove or disprove the existance of a Spaghetti Monster.  The point is that you dont say that the Spaghetti Monster is fake because of X Scientific Data.  You simply say its fake because its "obvious a joke".  Which is a personal philosophical belief, you simply dont believe that such things exist.  Its really not that hard to understand.  One must use philosophy to debate philosophy, not science. 

Halo

[Acriku]

The great thing about it is that we don't have to find scientific data to disprove the spaghetti monster. Believers of the FSM are left with that burden. But, I still disagree with the basic core of your argument: that science cannot aid in disproving a faith or its texts. For instance, the Bible claims to involve a global flood that lasted for four decades. The great thing about science is that everything can be tested. If a global flood did occur, several things would be left behind as evidence of that. We do not see such evidence. Now, are we left to assume God mopped up afterwards? Or can we safely conclude that a global flood most likely did not happen?

p.s. The FSM and Scientology were in fact jokes, read up on it.

[Andrew]

::)

[nemafakei]

Acriku:

Halo's philosophical conjecture is not internally inconsistent. There is no scientific way to prove that God did not flood the earth, de-flood it, and then hide the evidence. Indeed, all of history, our archaeological records, and even our memories could have been fabricated - or altered - just before breakfast this morning, and we wouldn't be any the wiser.

Furthermore, Halo's not unaware that the FSM is a joke - that's his point, and it's a rather neat one: their weakness is not because it can be scientifically disproved, but because the idea is philosophically or religiously so internally inconsistent that no-one would seriously and honestly dedicate their lives to Pastafarianism.

Halo:

The problem I have, the problem I think you need to address is whether the idea of a god who creates a flood, makes sure it's recorded in his own holy book, but ensures the subsequent geological, zoological, and archaeological evidence contradicts that book is a plausible one.

[Acriku]

Arguing to that end, in that God could have fabricated memories and records, is merely filling in whatever gaps that are brought up, and can be argued ad infinitum. It has no substance.

[nemafakei]

Sure, I mean if we're going to have a debate on that level, we're very limited in what we can do, and in many discussions it's a pretty pointless (/annoying) thing to bring up, but I think here it is relevant, for the reasons he gives.

[Acriku]

Say you're right, and it is relevant. The big question that is begging to be asked is this: Why? Why would God make a huge flood to eliminate a bunch of people and then go out of his way to remove any evidence of it? And then have it talked about it in the Bible! Just doesn't make enough sense to me for it to be a valid argument.

[Andrew]

Because God is testing us. Seeing if we truly believe in him without any proof. Blind faith as it may. ;)

There is such thing as faith, people can believe whatever they want. Maybe I have faith I will get a job/promotion tomorrow, or get rich in 20 years, someone will defeat cancer, or that I'll go to heaven when I die if I'm a good person.

I guess people have faith in the bible/God, even though there is no proof. Maybe they think that the bible is a history book and that it is proof. They don't need proof or evidence that everything in the bible is 100% true. If believing in it makes them happy so be it. If spreading the "good word" makes them happy, well I guess good for them (although it could make others unhappy). Maybe we are unhappy that people can believe in something without proof and that boggles our mind so much it "does not compute".

Sorry for the rambling.