The Flood One of the most debated topics throughout the history of mankind is whether or not there was a world wide flood that killed all humans except for eight. Most creationists, who believe that the God of the Bible created the world in 7 literal 24-hour days, believe that God also purged the world about 6,000 years ago with a flood that wiped out the entire human race except for Noah and his family. On the other hand, many non-believers argue against the flood theory and say that there isn’t enough scientific data to confirm it. One such person is Dr. Kenneth L. Feder, the author of several books, such as Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries and a professor of anthropology at Connecticut State University. In his book Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries, Dr. Feder says:

If a universal Flood occurred between five and six thousand years ago, killing all humans except the eight on board the Ark, it would be abundantly clear in the archeological record. Human history would be marked by an absolute break. We would see the devastation wrought by the catastrophe in terms of the destroyed remains of pre-Flood settlements.....Unfortunately for Flood enthusiasts, the destruction of all but eight of the world’s people left no mark on the archeology of human cultural evolution. Dr. Feder is arguing that the flood, Noah’s ark, and the death of all the people is just a hoax. He argues that there is not enough scientific proof for one to say “Yes, there was a universal flood that killed all humans except eight and it happened around 6,000 years ago.” He says that if the flood were to have actually existed, than there would be evidence that undoubtedly proved it. But, as he says, there exists no such evidence. He says that the archeological record shows no absolute break, therefore, the flood never happened. He also says that if the flood happened, then we would have found the remains of pre-flood settlements. However, the archeological record shows no sign of human cultural evolution being stopped at a certain point in time and then starting up again. So, now that I’ve clearly explained Dr. Feder’s argument, we must then evaluate his argument to see whether or not it is believable. In order to do that we have to see in what way the argument is set up. First off, we have to decide whether it’s a deductive or inductive argument. In this case it would be a deductive argument because when we assume the conclusion is true (the flood never happened), the premises MUST be true and if the premises are true, than the conclusion has to be true. Now that we’ve decided it’s a deductive argument, we have to examine it’s form. This argument goes in a “If (a), then (b)” form. The (a) in this case would be that the flood actually happened, and the (b) is that the archeological record would show an absolute break. According to Feder, the archeological record does not show an absolute break, therefore the flood never happened. So now we have this: If (a), then (b). Not (b), therefore, Not (a). So Feder says that if the flood happened (a), we would see an absolute break in the archeological record (b). We do not see an absolute break in the archeological record (not b), therefore the flood never happened (therefore, not a). Next, we have to determine if Dr. Feder’s argument is valid or sound. A valid argument is one in which the premises prove the conclusion to be true. An invalid argument is one where the premises are false, therefore the conclusion might also be false. An example of a valid argument is: (1) Anyone who is in Baghdad is in Iraq. (2) Colbert is not in Iraq. (3) Therefore, Colbert is not in Baghdad. An invalid argument goes like this: (1) Anyone who is in Baghdad is in Iraq. (2) Colbert is in Iraq. (3) Therefore, Colbert is in Baghdad. Dr. Feder’s argument is invalid because his premises are false. That does not mean, however, that his conclusion is false. In this specific case, we can’t prove whether