Categories of Evidence Opposing Noah’s Flood - The Discussion

I would like to list some arbitrary categories of evidence against a literal interpretation of Noah’s Flood for the purpose of determining if such a list is complete. Therefore I would like to ask the members of this board if there are any categories that have been inadvertently left out, if any categories are inappropriate or should be combined under others, if any categories require better explanation, or if any categories are explained improperly.This thread is not to argue over the validity of evidence within each category, which can be done within other threads. I would like to debate the appropriateness and completeness of this list and its contents. However, the list may prove useful in generating more threads should any choose to discuss the merits of any given category despite the fact that most (but not all) have been argued ad infinitum in this forum.In creating this list, I have liberally borrowed from the following sources:Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Shaw Communications
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htmThanks to iceage for providing a core for the geoscience part, to RAZD for inspiration and some particulars, and to all those here who have argued against the myth of Noah’s Flood as fact.I plan on updating the list as more and better content is suggested and to update the entire post periodically.Another potential enhancement would be to link each category of evidence to a currently open thread here.To all who see the absurdity of taking the Noah’s Ark parable literally, please feel free to add categories or suggest improved explanations. That is the purpose of this thread.The List
100 Categories of Evidence Opposing Noah’s Flood

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

What about the inability of Flood jockies to to even be open to critically evaluating evidence?The Noah legend was lifted wholesale from the Epic of Gilgamesh, too. It was Utnapishtim’s flood. The council of the gods decided to flood the whole earth to destroy mankind. But Enki or Ea (I forget who) warned Utnapishtim and told him to build a great big boat and sail off into the sunset.Just for a laugh, check out this link, it examines whether the Noachian flood could be derived from the Utnapshtimian flood; the last few sentances are a hoot. My bold.http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html

Thanks for replying.The fact that many, if not most, the details in the Noah flood myth was lifted from the Gilgamesh flood myth is a potential category of evidence I had not thought of. I believe this could be included in the first update once I figure out the right wording.

Very nicely done.Point 61: I wouldn't use a Mayfly as an example. Ephemeroptera may only live in adult form for a short time, juveniles can swim around for a pretty long time, and maybe even diapause before emerging.I can imagine a YEC claiming that Noah had an aquarium room where he kept a culture of aquatic insects to feed the insectivores on the boat.Just a thought.

---

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

What about something along the lines of:"Themes, descriptions, imagery and indead overall content can be traced to earlier incarnations of flood mythology such as......."

See Bison at La Brea Tar Pits for some of the reasons why:Tar has to be formed from decomposed organic material (Oil, Tar, Coal similar process). Then this has to capture other animals in a pit where they come year by year over many years.If the animals captured in the tar pits all occurred after the flood then MACROevolution occurred at a rate that puts evolution to shame.You seem to be off to a good start with S1WC in the great debate, but you need to pull some correlations between some of the evidence to make a flip answer for one not work for another, else all you will get are flip answers (as already evidenced).Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And the similarities and differences in the different myths. Creationists are so "taken" with the pervasiveness of flood myths that they don't look at the details.Ones that contradict the noah myth include the norse one (flood is of blood, no animals, hollowed tree trunk, etc.It is not just the evidence that supports a hypothesis that needs to be covered for validity of the hypothesis, but the evidence that contradicts it must also be dealt with.Enjoy

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

HelloI'm a new member of this forum and I am going to start with a policy question before I post my actual response.Let me start by saying I don't entirely buy into either camp. I actually have a different approach altogether. I think that your list of 100 is very interesting. While I think many of your 100 points are good questions for the literal creationist, some of these objections are inappropriate or easily answered from the "creationist" perspective. I read the note posted on the list by admin: "Please do not engage in discussion in this thread." If I were to address several of these questions at once and/or make suggestions at removing or altering some of your 100, would I do that here or make suggestions on the actual 100 post?

Myself, I think you can bring one of the "100" here as they would be on topic for a thread that is titled "... evidence opposing...".The only concern is that some may involve a lot of discussion. In that case it would be better to open up individual new threads for each one.Could you list 2 or 3 here or pick one and propose a new topic?

Ok... well then maybe I should give an example. A few of the "100" are inconsequential to a "creationist" because they are based on a limited (or fundamentally different) epistemology. For example:

quote:

---

98. No plausible mechanism to explain where water came from - Overhead ”vapor canopies’ and underground ”fountains’ violate the most basic principles of physics. There is no explanation of where the water came from.

​

99. No plausible mechanism to explain where water went - No remotely valid or rational explanation has been propounded to explain where such flood waters retreated to.

---

Creationists don't see a problem here because they accept the possibility of miracles (which to me is another word for something which we cannot explain due to our current understanding of science). There are several items in this list that aren't an issue with creationists so they either need to be changed (so that they do present a challenge to something a creationist does accept) or removed altogether.So would these be worthy of another thread, discussed here, or put into the original 100 list? I guess I am recommending some of the 100 be dropped or changed (and for those I would probably write the suggestion.) and to me that should go in the 100 thread since it has to do with the 100 itself... but it might evolve into a discussion which means it should go here.I guess I should also note here that I don't necessarily disbelieve the "bare bones" story of Noah... I just find it hard to reconcile some of the details of the Biblical version with certain "accepted scientific facts" that I accept as well. Which is why I think that #95 is a very good point (although I will have to say that the story does not seem to me to be written as a typical parable, but more as an explanation of how things came to be the way they are). Edited by primemover, : Changed word because of incorrect usage

So, god is tricking all the scientist into not believing in the flood?What an asshole, no? The point of the flood was to kill all life. If we realize that there could never be enough water to cover the surface of the Earth, then obviously there could never have been a global flood.Its such a:

quote:

---

DUH!?

---

to me that I don't even see why people still try to argue for it.Well, at least intellectually honest people. People of absolute faith are capable of anything. And that's why I lack respect for them.

In regard to points 98 and 99: The problem with invoking 'miracles' to explain some natural phenomena is that it automatically opens up the consideration they may be used to explain all natural phenomena.After all, a powerful enough deity that is determined to 'trick' scientists into believing in the basic principles of natural science could easily create and place the fossils, the unconformities, the tree rings, the ice layers, the coral layers, the rock layers, and so on with the intent to deceive.It is the study of recent history, namely the last 500 years, that leads one into a position that invoking a deity to explain all natural phenomena is a recipe for failure of state to provide for the common good and ultimately its own survival.It is the study of religion that leads one into a position that invoking a deity to explain all natural phenomena within the narrow parameters of self-proclaimed infallibility of the 'saved' in interpreting ancient documents is a recipe for requiring the deity to be a liar.But I digress, ultimately this is a science thread, so miracles, including last-Thursdayism, where all is Matrix-like illusion, are not allowed as valid criticisms of scientific consensus or indeed, of this given reality.If you disagree with a given point I have made for reasons of scientific evidence, please feel free to start a new thread concerning that exact point. I am fully prepared to back every assertion I have made based upon this reality and the evidence but if you know something I don't, I would sure like to see it.If you disagree with a given point I have made for reasons of religious or political dogma, please feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate venue.If you disagree with a given point I have made for reasons of philosophy concerning any assumptions involved in one's perception of reality, once again please feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate venue.This thread is for a general discussion of the categories and is only meant as a starting point for further discussion. Further detailed examination concerning any debatable aspects of particular points belong in other threads sorted by forum according to the basis for the critique.So please go ahead and suggest a PNT for any point you disagree with based upon any reason and I will likely participate, God willing. Edited by anglagard, : change wording to make it clearEdited by anglagard, : Replace the inaccurate term 'hear' with 'see' as this is forum is primarily visual and not so much audio in conveying information.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

quote:

---

So, god is tricking all the scientist into not believing in the flood?

​

What an asshole, no?

---

LOL. Is it God's fault that the "scientists" you speak of refuse to believe anything but their own science... what in there eyes can be proven? Newton had no way of knowing about the relativity of motion and time at high velocities and would have laughed at the notions that Einstein postulated that changed our understanding of kinematics, disproving that Newton's ideas hold true for all circumstances. So who are "scientists" to scoff at things that may very well be possible? What about wormholes? What about the re-arrangement of matter? What about dark matter?The problem here is that BOTH sides of this argument are dead set that their version of truth is absolute and complete. That is something I find hard not to dislike about BOTH sides. We probably have as many blind scientists as we do religious fanatics. Scientists 150 years ago didn't even dream of many of the things we are capable of doing now with our knowledge. Does that mean that what we do nowadays is impossible? Of course not. AND there IS logical proof of a part of existence that science ignores... but I will start that thread when I have the time. (Being a high school science teacher does not afford me much).Keep in mind that I am not really arguing for any side here... I am simply making the point that from a creationist perspective, some of the points in the list of 100 will not be relevant. I AGREE with some of the points made in the list of 100... I am a scientist after all. But I don't dismiss possibilities just because I cannot see them. I myself can come up with a possible explanation both as a scientist and as a person of faith of where the water may have come from and where it may have gone. I also realize that many scientists would scoff at my ideas just as Newton would have done of Einstein had they been colleagues (with Einstein unable to prove his ideas during Newtons time). I am NOT saying my ideas are right; only that people really need to realize that we do NOT know everything there is to know about reality and that leaves the door open for many possibilities and certainly does not close the door on faith.One more thing:

quote:

---

People of absolute faith are capable of anything. And that's why I lack respect for them.

---

While I agree with this statement, people of no faith are just as capable (if not more) of anything. People are people. There are good people and bad people in all walks of life and in all faiths and in all non-faith belief systems.

Anglagard said:

quote:

---

After all, a powerful enough deity that is determined to 'trick' scientists into believing in the basic principles of natural science could easily create and place the fossils, the unconformities, the tree rings, the ice layers, the coral layers, the rock layers, and so on with the intent to deceive.

​

It is the study of recent history, namely the last 500 years, that leads one into a position that invoking a deity to explain all natural phenomena is a recipe for failure of state to provide for the common good and ultimately its own survival.

​

It is the study of religion that leads one into a position that invoking a deity to explain all natural phenomena within the narrow parameters of self-proclaimed infallibility of the 'saved' in interpreting ancient documents is a recipe for requiring the deity to be a liar.

---

As I understand what you are saying here, I totally agree and do not believe in such a God. Back to the topic...

quote:

---

This thread is for a general discussion of the categories and is only meant as a starting point for further discussion. Further detailed examination concerning any debatable aspects of particular points belong in other threads sorted by forum according to the basis for the critique.

​

So please go ahead and suggest a PNT for any point you disagree with based upon any reason and I will likely participate, God willing.

---

Thank you very much for this clarification. As I said... I'm brand new and still learning the netiquette for this particular forum. It's also good to see that some people here want to learn from each other. . Edited by primemover, : This was meant as a general reply...