Proofs Against Noah's Flood?

[Traditio]

In another thread, it was claimed that scientists have proven that Noah's Flood did not occur. Inquiring how such a thing could be proven, another poster indicated various methods. I open this thread inviting persons who doubt Noah's Flood to present their proofs in the following form:

1. If Noah's Flood happened, then x must be true.
2. X is not true.
3. Therefore, etc.

or

1. If Noah's Flood happened, then x must not be true.
2. X is true.
3. Therefore, etc.

Any takers?

Also offer supplementary proofs for your major premises (i.e., what you should be proposing as premise 1).

 

[OCTOBER23]

When you meet NOAH in about 10 years , you can ask him if the Flood was true.

 

[alwight]

Did the supposed "proof" of something not happening get cited in the other thread?
Proof of a negative would be interesting to see. :think:

 

[Traditio]

Did the supposed "proof" of something not happening get cited in the other thread?
Proof of a negative would be interesting to see. :think:

No. I made the request for such a proof, but the thread was closed before anyone could actually meet it. That said, there was a claim that scientists apparently made such claims of having evidence against a global flood.

Note, proofs of negatives are, contrary to popular expression, quite possible.

If all of the rain forests burned down this morning, then there would be none remaining.
There are rain forests remaining.
Therefore, it is not the case, etc.

Again:

If A stabbed B repeatedly, A would most probably have wounds on the bottom of his hands.
A has no such wounds.
Therefore, A most likely did not stab B repeatedly.

 

[alwight]

No. I made the request for such a proof, but the thread was closed before anyone could actually meet it. That said, there was a claim that scientists apparently made such claims of having evidence against a global flood.

Note, proofs of negatives are, contrary to popular expression, quite possible.

If all of the rain forests burned down this morning, then there would be none remaining.
There are rain forests remaining.
Therefore, it is not the case, etc.

Again:

If A stabbed B repeatedly, A would most probably have wounds on the bottom of his hands.
A has no such wounds.
Therefore, A most likely did not stab B repeatedly.

Let's be realistic here, if I claim that green elephants exist on Earth then to "prove" that false would require you scouring every nook and cranny on earth to eliminate that possibility. On the other hand I'd only have to produce one or two.

 

[Traditio]

Let's be realistic here, if I claim that green elephants exist on Earth then to "prove" that false would require you scouring every nook and cranny on earth to eliminate that possibility. On the other hand I'd only have to produce one or two.

Yes, that's true. Different claims have different kinds of proof, though.

At any rate, are you admitting that you are aware of no way of disproving Noah's Flood?

 

[alwight]

Yes, that's true. Different claims have different kinds of proof, though.

At any rate, are you admitting that you are aware of no way of disproving Noah's Flood?

Science doesn't do formal proof that's for mathematics and whisky.
Since there is evidence of many non-global floods and ice ages on Earth would it not be reasonable to expect to see evidence of green elephants a global flood, and to assume that in this case a lack of evidence is actually evidence and informal proof of absence?

 

[patrick jane]

It happened

 

[Traditio]

Science doesn't do formal proof that's for mathematics and whisky.
Since there is evidence of many non-global floods and ice ages on Earth would it not be reasonable to expect to see evidence of green elephants a global flood, and to assume that in this case a lack of evidence is actually evidence and informal proof of absence?

The prerogative is on you to indicate specifically what evidence you would be looking for and why its absence contraindicates its happening.

What specific signs of a flood would you take as evidence of its happening, and, if absent, as evidence of its not happening?

Otherwise, you're simply arguing ad ignorantiam, which is an informal fallacy.

 

[Stripe]

In another thread, it was claimed that scientists have proven that Noah's Flood did not occur. Inquiring how such a thing could be proven, another poster indicated various methods. I open this thread inviting persons who doubt Noah's Flood to present their proofs in the following form:

1. If Noah's Flood happened, then x must be true.
2. X is not true.
3. Therefore, etc.

or

1. If Noah's Flood happened, then x must not be true.
2. X is true.
3. Therefore, etc.

Any takers?

Also offer supplementary proofs for your major premises (i.e., what you should be proposing as premise 1).

Elvolutionists don't use those forms of argument.

Here is what they use:

1. If Noah's flood happened, then X must be true.
2. Y is true.
3. Therefore, Noah's flood never happened.

and

1. If X is true, then Noah's flood happened.
2. X is not true.
3. Therefore, Noah's flood never happened.

but mostly

1. Noah's flood never happened.
2. Therefore, Noah's flood never happened.

 

[Traditio]

Elvolutionists don't use those forms of argument.

What relationship do you see between evolution and Noah's flood?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

When you meet NOAH in about 10 years , you can ask him if the Flood was true.

Is this one of your phony prophecies?

 

[alwight]

The prerogative is on you to indicate specifically what evidence you would be looking for and why its absence contraindicates its happening.

What specific signs of a flood would you take as evidence of its happening, and, if absent, as evidence of its not happening?

Otherwise, you're simply arguing ad ignorantiam, which is an informal fallacy.

It seems to me that you would simply have to accept that green elephants exist merely because I said so, that you think the onus is on you show that they don't exist even though it was something I asserted?
Surely the onus is on me to demonstrate that green elephants exist if I say they do?
Why on earth would I insist that you define which specific signs of green elephants you would accept in advance of presenting my evidence?
I would surely be expected to offer my evidence of green elephants so that we could put it to the test, since my claim would stand or fall by it.

 

[rako]

I don't believe that you can disprove Noah's flood and ark story, just as you cannot disprove 100%:
1) That some unknown, extremely hard form of tree existed.
2) That the ark was made of petrified wood and that enough petrified wood existed to build it
3) That "gopher wood" refers to some other material than real tree wood
4) That some strange, unknown, extremely strong building material and design exists like tar made out of something as strong as titanium
5) That God miraculously provided any of the above mentioned criteria
6) That Noah didn't build his ark out of a combination of ice and sawdust (Pykrete) a combination that has been shown to serve as suitable materials for a modern large seagoing ship.
7) That God didn't provide enough miracles to make such a ship feasible

Why do I least these 7 challenges about Noah's ark?
Because Noah's ark, built to the Bible's specifications is unfloatable as we know it.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen, Noah's ark is a sinker.

When a wooden boat is built to the scale of Noah's ark, it sinks. It is torn apart at the seams by the "torque" of water. That is why no boat has ever been built of that size or larger. The best that architects have been able to do when floating a wooden boat the size of the ark is float it on barges, that is, float it on another boat that is not made of wood. Because wooden boats of that size and scale are torn apart by the torque of water.

But guess what? Just because a wooden ark of that size is impossible by our knowledge of physics and boat design does not disprove it. Why? Because... miracles. Because we don't know what "gopher wood" is. Maybe "gopher wood" was an expression for iron, and Noah had a method for making iron in enough quantities to build the boat, which ancient man temporarily forget as a result of the flood. Nothing is impossible. Maybe miracles held the boat together. Maybe they discovered Pykrete and found a way to make real wood from a "gopher" tree into Pykrete.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

How could he anticipate the effects of roll, pitch, yaw, and slamming in a rough sea? How did he solve the differential equations for bending moment, torque, and shear stress?

...in the words of A. M. Robb, there was an "upper limit, in the region of 300 feet, on the length of the wooden ship; beyond such a length the deformation due to the differing distributions of weight and buoyancy became excessive, with consequent difficulty in maintaining the hull watertight" (p. 355). Pollard and Robertson concur, emphasizing that "a wooden ship had great stresses as a structure. The absolute limit of its length was 300 feet, and it was liable to `hogging' and `sagging' " (pp. 13-14). This is the major reason why the naval industry turned to iron and steel in the 1850s. The largest wooden ships ever built were the six-masted schooners, nine of which were launched between 1900 and 1909. These ships were so long that they required diagonal iron strapping for support; they "snaked," or visibly undulated, as they passed through the waves, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly, and they were only used on short coastal hauls because they were unsafe in deep water.
http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

Yes, he says that, but look what the Smithsonian says:

Could Noah’s Ark Float? In Theory, Yes
Basic physics suggests that an ark carrying lots of animal cargo could float

...according to Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, the strength of a wooden beam decreases with its size, so because when things get bigger they break more easily, the beams that held this huge ark together might have been extremely fragile. Else the beams were short, which would also introduce structural weaknesses due to the higher number of seams between wood planks.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...oat-theory-yes-180950385/#VOpljOgeHVaoCfAD.99

It cannot be disproven, because of the 7 reasons I listed at the top.

Now, whether it's realistic or matches our knowledge of the normal workings of nature and shipbuilding is a different question.

Do I believe the Noah's ark story? No. The fact that such a wooden boat, if we built it today, would normally get ripped apart by the waves minus some intervening, unmentioned element like a covering of iron is just one of numerous reasons why I think it is far too unlikely to be real. But since such a strange, "unrealistic" thing could "theoretically" occur, it can't be disproven either.

 

[ok doser]

When a wooden boat is built to the scale of Noah's ark, it sinks. It is torn apart at the seams by the "torque" of water.

unless, of course, it has a lot of bracing inside


like walls, floors and ceilings for all the different rooms that would be needed

 

[ok doser]

In another thread, it was claimed that scientists have proven that Noah's Flood did not occur. Inquiring how such a thing could be proven, another poster indicated various methods. I open this thread inviting persons who doubt Noah's Flood to present their proofs in the following form:

1. If Noah's Flood happened, then x must be true.
2. X is not true.
3. Therefore, etc.

ok, i'll take a crack at it

1. if Noah's Flood happened, then it must be true that my laundry was finished last night.
2. My laundry was not finished last night.
3. Therefore, etc.



howzat? :banana:

 

[Selaphiel]

In another thread, it was claimed that scientists have proven that Noah's Flood did not occur.

Proved? No. Asking science for such a thing is to completely misunderstand the entire scientific method. However, data suggests that there has been no such global event, as it would leave very specific geological evidence behind. The lack of data to support it is good reason to doubt the reality of a global flood event of that magnitude. It is akin to asking for evidence that 10 meters of water did not crash through the entirety of Manhattan last week. The lack of evidence is reason enough to seriously doubt such a claim.

And of course, the idea that all animals except a pair of each survived and then repopulated the earth is ridiculous from a genetics point of view, insufficient genetic variation which would lead to ridiculous inbreeding problems.

 

[Stripe]

What relationship do you see between evolution and Noah's flood?

:AMR: None.

I don't believe that you can disprove Noah's flood and ark story.

Sure, you could. It's called scientific investigation. :up:

Noah's ark is a sinker. When a wooden boat is built to the scale of Noah's ark, it sinks. It is torn apart at the seams by the "torque" of water.

How do you know?

 

[User Name]

In another thread, it was claimed that scientists have proven that Noah's Flood did not occur. Inquiring how such a thing could be proven, another poster indicated various methods. I open this thread inviting persons who doubt Noah's Flood to present their proofs in the following form:

1. If Noah's Flood happened, then x must be true.
2. X is not true.
3. Therefore, etc.

I'll take a crack at it:

1. If a global flood happened some 4,500 years ago, then we should expect to find one very large layer of sedimentary rock (much thicker than any other layer), and we should be able to find within it the remains of virtually every life form that has ever existed. We should find this layer everywhere around the planet, except in areas where erosion may have removed it.

2. Instead, what we find around the globe are many distinct layers of different types of rock (igneous metamorphic and sedimentary). Furthermore, each sedimentary layer corresponds to a different depositional environment and the fossils contained within each layer are specific to that layer's corresponding environment.

For example, the Grand Canyon is composed of many different layers of different types of rock. One of those layers is the "Kaibab Limestone," which was laid down by an advancing warm, shallow sea. Shark teeth have been found in this formation as well as abundant fossils of marine invertebrates such as brachiopods, corals, mollusks, sea lilies, and worms. A separate layer is known as the "Hermit Formation," and it contains the fossilized remains of winged insects, cone-bearing plants, and ferns as well as tracks of vertebrate animals. So what we have are different formations of different composition. Each of these layers requires a different depositional environment, and each of these layers contain fossils that are specific to that layer's requisite depositional environment.

3. Therefore, it is impossible that all of these layers could have been deposited in a single event.

 

[rako]

unless, of course, it has a lot of bracing inside


like walls, floors and ceilings for all the different rooms that would be needed

It would have to be more bracing than we have found possible.