Art That Survived Noah's Flood

More evidence that Noah's flood didn't happen:

By Farrell Till 

Young-earth creationists, who claim that the earth is only about 10,000 years old, have to reject a huge body of geological and paleontological evidence that says otherwise, but there is also nonscientific evidence that the earth is much older than just 10,000 years. One of these is the paleolithic art that has been discovered in several caves in Southwestern Europe. Some of these paintings have been dated as far back as 20,000 years before the 10,000 that many YECs (Young Earth Creationists) say is the maximum age of the earth. Although there is nothing scientifically unusual about these paintings, their existence is scientific evidence that Noah's flood did not happen in the manner described in the Bible, because it would have been scientifically impossible for these paintings to have survived a universal flood that covered the highest mountains on earth to a depth of 22 to 25 feet (Gen. 7:19-20).

If biblical chronology is trustworthy--and biblical inerrantists must say that it is--then Noah's flood happened 8,430 years ago. This can be determined by just analyzing the chronology that the Bible gave for events and births. The Bible claims that Adam was 130 when he begot his son Seth (Gen. 5:3), who was 105 when he begot Enosh (v:6), who was 90 when he begot Kenan (v:9), who was 70 when he begot Mehalalel (v:12), who was 65 when he begot Jared (v:15), who was 162 when he begot Enoch (v:18), who was 65 when he begot Methuselah (v:21), who was 187 when he begot Lamech (v:25), who was 182 when he begot Noah (v:28). Hence, the Bible claims that1056 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Noah (130 + 105 + 90 + 70 + 65 + 162 + 65 + 187 + 182 = 1056).

Noah was 600 years old--a good round number--when the flood came upon the earth (Gen. 7:6), and it lasted a year and 10 days (Gen. 7:11; 8:13-14), so for convenience, I will round it off to one year. Hence, the flood ended and Noah left the ark about 1657years after the creation of Adam (1056 + 600 + 1 = 1657).

Noah's son Shem begot Arphaxad two years after the flood (Gen. 11:10). Arphaxad was 35 when he begot Shelah (v:12), who was 30 when he begot Eber (v:14), who was 34 when he begot Peleg (v:16), who was 30 when he begot Reu (v:18), who was32 when he begot Serug (v:20), who was 30 when he begot Nahor v:22), who was 29when he begot Terah, the father of Abraham (v:24-26). Hence, 1879 years passed from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abraham's father Terah (1657 + 2 + 35 + 30 + 34 + 30 + 32 + 30 + 29 = 1879).

Common Sense And Noah's Flood

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1993 March-April:

By Farrell Till

"The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark" by Robert A. Moore (Creation/Evolution, Winter 1983) is the most thorough exposure of absurdities in the universal-flood myth that I have ever read. Anyone who can read it and still believe that such a flood actually happened is surely beyond the reach of common sense.

In "Noah's Ark: Fact or Fable," Chris McGowan said, "I find it... hard to believe that I should be sitting at my desk in 1982 documenting the reasons why the flood could not have happened according to Genesis" (In the Beginning, Prometheus Books, 1984, p. 54). I feel much the same way, but because so many sincere people have been duped by fundamentalist preachers into believing that everything written in the Bible has to be true, it is still necessary at times to review the absurdities in the flood story.

One of these absurdities concerns the amount of water that would have been required to produce a flood like the one described in Genesis. The Bible claims that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered" (Gen. 7:19 ). The language is explicit enough to discount the theory that the flood was localized, because a limited flood could not have covered ALL the high mountains under the WHOLE heaven. After the waters had receded, the ark came to rest on "the mountains of Ararat" (8:4 ). Since water seeks its own level, it wouldn't have been possible for a localized mound of water to rise to that height without dropping to a uniform level.

Looking For Reasons To Believe

"The message of the Bible is such that any rational person will want to believe it. And, wanting to believe it, he will look for rea­sons to be­lieve rather than reasons to dis­believe."

The above quote is from a Church of Christ preacher from an article in his weekly publication. A primary message of the Bible is that most humans will suffer forever in Yahweh's eternal hell (Mt 7:13-14). Why would anyone want to believe that? But, really, shouldn't a rational person be looking for the truth rather than only looking for reasons to believe or disbelieve? 

KWH

No Morality Without The Bible?

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1994 / January-February:

 

by Farrell Till

Of all the arguments that fundamentalists resort to in their defense of the Bible, none is more ridiculous than their claim that the Bible is necessary for people to know how to live moral lives. They arrive at this conclusion through a series of assumptions. Their first assumption is that God exists, and onto this assumption, they pile another one: morality (and they even make it an absolute morality) emanates from the nature of God. Then, of course, they assume that their God, in verbally inspiring the Bible, revealed absolute morality to mankind. Hence, man must rely on the Bible to know what is moral and immoral. They envision life without the Bible as a moral chaos reminiscent of ancient Israel before the time of its kings when "everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25).

The whole superstructure of this argument is built upon another assumption that is incredibly cynical on the part of a group that delights in condemning the pessimism of philosophies that question the existence of God. This assumption is that man is incapable of making moral decisions without divine guidance. In other words, man must have God's help or else he just can't determine for sure what is right and what is wrong.

Were it not for the seriousness of fundamentalist attempts to impose this belief on society in general, it would be too ridiculous to deserve comment. We have used human intelligence to cure diseases, split the atom, and invent a technology that has us reaching for the stars, yet Christian fundamentalists would have us believe that we are too stupid to discover that lying, stealing, and killing are harmful enough to the general welfare to be considered morally wrong. That view of life is about as pessimistic as any that can be imagined, infinitely more pessimistic than the mental action of a skeptic who questions the existence of an afterlife for which he can see no verifiable evidence.

This foundation belief of Bible fundamentalism is of course erroneous. It is even contradicted by the Bible itself. In Romans 2:14, the Apostle Paul said that the Gentiles, who had not received the law [of Moses] or, in other words, a revelation from God, had nevertheless sometimes done "by nature the things of the law" and were therefore "a law unto themselves." If this doesn't mean that Paul believed that the Gentiles who had no divine revelation had discovered morality on their own, then pray tell what does it mean? So even if the existence of the biblical god could undeniably be proven, how could bibliolaters, in the face of this statement from their much revered apostle to the Gentiles, justify their claim that man must have direct guidance from God in order to live morally?