There are several versions of the biblical flood story – or more accurately the story a bunch of exiled Bronze Age sheep herders stole from the Babylonian epic of Gilgamesh. They essentially fall into the literal and figurative categories.
There are two types of literal flood views. The first is that it was a local flood, and this is plausible, as the breach of the Bosphorus dam flooded the area some 8000 years ago as the North American ice sheet melted. There is also some evidence of local river flooding. This however would not be what the bible was referring to, as according to Genesis 6:19-20, the flood supposedly covered even the highest mountains on earth (Everest is over 29 000 ft high). Some non conservatives may quibble about the translation of this, but you still have to account for why the ark ended up on the mountains of Ararat.
Most likely, the story was intended to mean exactly what it says, and Jesus (Matt 24:27) and Peter (2 Peter 2:4-5, 3:5) talk literally of a flood. This Earth covering flood is one of the most ridiculous stories in the bible. There are plenty of good scientific rebuttals of this Myth, but I want to point out a few that an inquisitive 5 year old could use to refute this claim.
1. How did Noah stop all the animals eating each other?
2. How did he get space for all the Dinosaurs? (An adult Argentinasaurus weighed 100 tonnes).
3. Where did he keep all the food? What did the carnivores eat?
4. What about fresh water?
5. What about all the shit? (It is a source of disease after all, see Q9).
6. Why did all the fish not die (fish generally have very restricted salinity tolerances – think about it fundies)? Were there fish tanks on the ark? How was correct temperature maintained.
7.How did Kangaroos get to Australia (There is a big problem with biogeography – and paleo-biogeography?
8.Why did the termites not eat the ark? (Or indeed beetle grubs or fungi?)
9. Did Noah take germs on the ark? (Think about it fundies – every pathogen in existence? How did Noah’s family avoid dying of small pox, syphilis, malaria etc…?).
10. How did Noah collect all the animals? (I worked out, using a conservative estimate of 10 million species, that in the week god allowed him to collect the animals in, he would have to round up and put one species on the ark every 60 microseconds.
What a laugh!
The final type of flood story claims that it did not actually happen, but it is a moral tale that teaches you not to fuck with god or he will kill everything , including your babies and cute puppies and bunny rabbits. Now, how is this a just and loving god? Really, what does it have to do with him what I do? Is he not then restricting my free will? Remember, the bible defines love and god fails to live up to his own standards.
20 comments:
Billy,
Though I've read a few things over the years regarding the sheer crassness and abject buffoonery of the belief in a literal flood, I must confess I hadn't until I read this post considered the question of why the termites didn't eat the ark!
Too, I must confess the idea of Noah and his family pitching up on Mt Ararat riddled with syphillis and malaria wasn't one I'd considered either, though it did raise a smile...And yet Noah supposedly lived to be 950!...They bred them tough in, well, completely made up stories...
1. How did Noah stop all the animals eating each other?
Not just when they are on the ark, but what happened when they got off?
A Lion wants to eat a Zebra but cannot for a few dozen generations or he will make the Zebra extinct.
Also, the story seems to imply that it never rained before this flood - since Noah had never seen a rainbow before (or God gives shit gifts that have always been there)
Either that or the sky wasn't blue back then and God changed has light defracts in the Earth's atmosphere.
There are just too many problems with the literal story - a problem for a fundie who thinks. This is why they ignore the problem normally I find.
Lee
Ah, the etcha-sketch end of the world as Eddie Izzard called it.
"Ahhh bugger it!" said God, who was being played by James Mason :)
The flood story cracks me up, some people STILL believe this to be true - that chap txtpiper on RD.net for one. Its based on a bloody POEM for Quetz's sake!
I love watching people attempt to justify it all!
I think the best one I have heard is "Well, how else do you think the Grand Canyon got there?"
Priceless!
Mark,
I wonder if any fundy has worked out who must have had which particular STIs - Who had clap, drippy dick, herpes, knob rot etc. But, that would be another problem for the fundies: Noah and his family were supposedly righteous, so god must have just given them all STIs - what a bastard!
Lee, Have you ever considered the implications for universal constants etc if rainbows did not exist before the flood.
Philip, love the Eddie Izzard story. I should probably start a thread on the most stupid flood claims. There was one fossil called "Scrotum humanum" that some fundy claimed was the nut sack of a sinner drowned in the flood - WTF! It is actually a Megalosaurus femur. It's a shame one of the first named dinosaurs was relativly small. It made it a bit harder to name the really big ones. Still, we do have Ultrasaurus and Seismosaurus. Wonder if we will discover Reallyfuckinghugeasaurus?
Billy-
I think "Colossasaurus" is a good name.
10. How did Noah collect all the animals? (I worked out, using a conservative estimate of 10 million species, that in the week god allowed him to collect the animals in, he would have to round up and put one species on the ark every 60 microseconds.
Actually I think you'll find its 9,879,363 species. Remarkable! And to think that God had time to design them all too.... Hmmm now I think about it, he's had since the pre-Cambrian..... No, that can't be correct, if it was, how could you explain away Anne Widdicombe.
only 500 million years older than the quartenary you know!
Have you ever considered the implications for universal constants etc if rainbows did not exist before the flood.
Firstly, I think I should have said refracted, not defracted – always get them the wrong way round.
But to answer your question - not sure about the physical constants, would need to think about that a little more (I think the chemistry will be a little different due to the electron levels in the atoms for one) but I’m not sure if you have to go down to that level to see that they are fucked – with thinking about it a little more it would be a bloody weird looking world without rainbows – the physics/optics our eyes use is the same physics that cause rainbows…. The bending of light when it changes from one medium to another.
Bet the fundies didn’t see that coming – ha ha
Lee
Lee, would be a good one to use on those YECS that claim fine tuning - by their silliness, the constants must have been different, so they contradict their claims that these are the only constants that will allow the universe to be (of course, basing your physics on a sheep herders imperialistic manifesto is dodgy to say the least)
would be a good one to use on those YECS that claim fine tuning
Yeah, how the fundamental laws of physics just seem to change due to a bad hair day for God.
Very few fundies want to discuss Noah and the flood though with me – I really believe most have not stopped to think how stupid it is. (Remember Mark when we pressed him? He replied something like “Erm… I’ve never really thought about it, but here is the excuses I have been told before” (paraphrasing of course)
I’ve never heard a ‘reason’ for the rainbow part of the story – I would love to hear it and have asked enough times as you can imagine.
Lee
Remember Mark when we pressed him?
Yeas, and he is one of the brighter ones - by far!
I have asked Bruce about it in person before and he said he didn't know enough about it to comment. That to me is strange, because it suggests a presupposition that the bible must be true, as whether the flood happened or not, it would not change his faith. Basically any flood problem would be put down to a lack of his understanding and not because the bible is nuts (seems the most appropriate word)
On the subject of rainbows, I found this little gem for those who want to test your fundy's knowledge of where they came from.
http://www.ncas.org/condon/text/s5chap01.htm#s3
Hang on, is that Iris the Egyptian Goddess I see mucking about with rainbows BEFORE Yahweh? Tut, tut!
Hang on, is that Iris the Egyptian Goddess I see mucking about with rainbows BEFORE Yahweh? Tut, tut!
No, Tut came later.
One "explanation I heard was that it didn't rain before the flood. Water just welled up from the ground - so, lets see, evaporation= clouds; clouds = rain....so, evaporation did not happen either. I'm only just begining to realise just how stupit you have to be to believe in the literal bible.
Stephen Fry was not kidding when he told Alan Davis to read genesis "it's absolutely hilarious"
Hi Billy,
I have asked Bruce about it in person before and he said he didn't know enough about it to comment.
How can a theist not know enough to comment?
Either the flood account is 100% true or it isn’t – that is simple enough to make a comment on?
Was it a global flood that went higher than the highest mountain – as described, and did rainbows exist before the flood or was God giving Noah something that already existed as a sign He would not flood the Earth again?
Come on – this stuff was even taught at my primary school and I knew enough to comment back then i.e. BULLSHIT
Basically any flood problem would be put down to a lack of his understanding and not because the bible is nuts (seems the most appropriate word)
This would be a very weak copout… but I do seem to remember a similar response to the evolution question.
One "explanation I heard was that it didn't rain before the flood. Water just welled up from the ground - so, lets see, evaporation= clouds; clouds = rain....so, evaporation did not happen either.
I have heard the no rain ‘hypothesis’ before, and it is very easy to shoot down as you have done with some basic physics (which I actually learnt in geography class at the age of 11 – I wonder if the fundies will start to attack these lessons as well in the states?)
The problem with the flood as written is that it would mean a change to physical laws at the point of the flood… though this is nothing worse than thinking the sabertooth tiger was a vegetarian before (and just after) the flood. It is just as stupid
I'm only just begining to realise just how stupit you have to be to believe in the literal bible.
You need a lot of faith to ignore all the physical evidence against it.
This is why the Noah’s flood is my favourite discussion piece against the fundie… it is just SO wrong and a basic understanding of science shows it.
Stephen Fry was not kidding when he told Alan Davis to read genesis "it's absolutely hilarious"
QI? How I miss that show… how I miss UK television in general
Lee
How can a theist not know enough to comment?
Like I say, I think theists just assume there is some truth in the story, but it is their understanding that is lacking.
Come on – this stuff was even taught at my primary school and I knew enough to comment back then i.e. BULLSHIT
Yeah, we were made to sing "the animals went in two by two"
This would be a very weak copout… but I do seem to remember a similar response to the evolution question.
Yes, it displays a mindset that will just default to the bible. I assume theists who are convinced the literal flood is bollocks and evolution takes place ignore the challenge.
have heard the no rain ‘hypothesis’ before, and it is very easy to shoot down as you have done with some basic physics
again, they would have to concede that physical constants were different - killing their own fine tuning argument - some even claim the speed of light has slowed down.
BTW, we actually have "fossilised raindrops" - or at least the holes made by them when they hit ancient mud.
Lets face it, if it wasnt for geology, physics, chemistry and biology, sane people would still believe the bible was literal. They have to change their interpretation - the bible did not help understand the planet and life.
QI? How I miss that show… how I miss UK television in general
Better not mention Dawkins's new series on Darwin then :-)
Mid you, I used to love the Paul Hogan show when I was a kid - espeially Leo Wanka
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLz5KgBTqPY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-YT-
D0rics&NR=1
Yeah, we were made to sing "the animals went in two by two"
I remember the song – it is pretty evil the brain washing children are given sometimes though I’ve just bought a fisher price ‘ark’ for my new son… but there is only one of each animal so I think that is OK and non-biblical enough.
again, they would have to concede that physical constants were different - killing their own fine tuning argument - some even claim the speed of light has slowed down.
The fundie just has problems after problems… I don’t know how they do it. (oh yeah – teach them young)
If an argument can ONLY be maintained by inconsistently applied logic – then something is wrong in my book.
BTW, we actually have "fossilised raindrops" - or at least the holes made by them when they hit ancient mud.
Cool… I didn’t know that . I suppose the fundie would say this was evidence for the flood rain water :)
Lets face it, if it wasnt for geology, physics, chemistry and biology, sane people would still believe the bible was literal.
As mankind learns more and more about the universe – the bible is more and more wrong.
It did not have to be this way - this is a problem no Christian is prepared to consider.
“Oh but the bible isn’t a science text book”… yeah, but God didn’t need to write bullshit as fact did he?
IF the bible was truly inspired by God, then the more we learn, the more correct and valid the bible should appear… why am I wrong in this assumption?
Better not mention Dawkins's new series on Darwin then :-)
You just did - back then!!!
Grr…
Actually, shows like that we normally get in 18 months time. It’s the comedy shows that they are more ‘selective’.
Mid you, I used to love the Paul Hogan show when I was a kid - espeially Leo Wanka
There are a few good Aussie shows over here – the problem they have though is the TV channels seem to force around 26 episodes to be made each ‘season’.
They don’t seem to understand that quality is more important that quantity.
Lee
me and my stupid double posting...
Cool… I didn’t know that . I suppose the fundie would say this was evidence for the flood rain water :)
Yeah, but they are often sandwiched between other sediments - and they believe in rapid burial - they are just going to have to come up with something even more unbelievable to adhere to their dogma. Their paradigm also offers no way to date them. Sometimes possible fossilised "floods" are found, but the question is so what? How many local floods are there each year? Like I said, they have no means of dating them - we have and surprise surprise, they are all different ages (millions of years old too!
Their paradigm also offers no way to date them.
Yes they have... it was just after the flood - a Tuesday I think :)
Lee
Post a Comment