As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

A CSL Fan Saying CSL Was Wrong · As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

This C.S. Lewis Argument Only Works Until You Read the Bible
Mindshift | 9 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYhHZlo0kQg

15:49 I accept 15 cubits.

Noah had built the Ark on the highest mountain of the pre-Flood world, so if the water line of the Ark was 15 cubits (half of the height, pretty normal for a water line) and Noah understood the waterline (he had 600 years of life experience, instructions from God and access to a pre-Flood Nodian civilisation lost to us), he knew exactly when the water was 15 cubits above that top, and hence at least 15 cubits above the other tops.

I would say this mountain may have been flattened by the Flood so the remainder where it's cut off is called the Meseta in Spain.

Even if you project the Meseta up to all the height possible of the angles leading up to it, that mountain will be lower than Mount Everest. Now, Mount Everest and Himalayas are post-Flood phenomena.

And the earliest parts of it rising were the fastest, and you don't find human habitation on the Sivalik hills (foot of Himalayas) until a few centuries after the Flood. Which on my calculations is adequate, given the earliest part was too violent to be safe for human even roaming in the vicinity.

So, where do you get "100 % incorrect" from?

I

Das Bus

@dasbus9834

So, where do you get "100 % incorrect" from?
Floods don't flatten mountains. And the Himalayas are of course way, way older. Also everyone would have suffocated on that ship with one tiny window. And so on.

So yeah, that story fails on absolutely every level. It is 100% false.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@dasbus9834 "Floods don't flatten mountains."

High pressure water with oversaturation of mineral particles does "sandpaper" even stone.

The point is, the Flood had enough water, enough speed and enough oversaturation to do this with a mountain. Not comparable to "a flood" as we see them today.

"And the Himalayas are of course way, way older."

Even if it were true, and we didn't have the Bible to tell the opposite, it would be unknowable.

"Also everyone would have suffocated on that ship with one tiny window."

Thou shalt make a window in the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish the top of it: and the door of the ark thou shalt set in the side: with lower, middle chambers, and third stories shalt thou make it
[Genesis 6:16]

In a cubit shalt thou finish "the top of it" ... how much was the rest of it? Does this mean "the height" and no mention of width and length given? Does "a window" stand for multiple windows by a figure of speech that Noah understood?

Some creationists have interpreted this as a series of windows all 1 cubit high.

"And so on."

Like your summing up, this isn't an extra objection.

Das Bus

@hglundahl High pressure water with oversaturation of mineral particles does "sandpaper" even stone
"Sandpapering stone" and flattening mountains are not the same thing. By far.

The point is, the Flood had enough water, enough speed and enough oversaturation to do this with a mountain. Not comparable to "a flood" as we see them today.
Then the energies involved would not have allowed a wooden boat to survive. And the effects of these forces would show still today. Which they don't.

Even if it were true, and we didn't have the Bible to tell the opposite, it would be unknowable
It isn't unkowable though, and the Bible is wrong.

Some creationists have interpreted this as a series of windows all 1 cubit high.
Whatever fan fiction they need to make the story slightly less ridiculous.

Like your summing up, this isn't an extra objection
No. Those I gave are already enough. No reason to mention the countless further facts that make the story impossible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "are not the same thing. By far."

The difference is one of quantity.

"would not have allowed a wooden boat to survive."

Except for the mile or so of depth between the sandpapering and the water surface with the Ark.

"would show still today."

Flattening of whatever was above the Meseta is not unique. Welcome to actual geology.

"It isn't unkowable though,"

Allegation without argument.

"and the Bible is wrong."

At this level of argument, allegation without argument.

"to make the story slightly less ridiculous."

Or, other possibility, the "window" is not concerned with the ventilation at all, but only with the light. Ark Encounter had an article in 2012 to that effect.

"Those I gave are already enough."

To give me a nice little taste of the sport called "refutation" ...

Das Bus

@hglundahl The difference is one of quantity
Nope. It's a qualitative difference. One is a surface effect, the other is structural. What you're proposing wouldn't reshape the mountains, it would melt them.

Except for the mile or so of depth between the sandpapering and the water surface with the Ark
Insufficient to isolate the boat from the heat alone, even if we disregard the resulting vortices. Your version would have cooked off the oceans. It's that simple.

Flattening of whatever was above the Meseta is not unique. Welcome to actual geology.
Actual geology doesn't show flattening. It shows slow erosion, no cataclysmic reshaping of whole mountain ranges.

Allegation without argument
None needed to dismiss your unfounded bare assertion.

At this level of argument
As your entire argument is "the Bible says so", you should probably start improving yours first.

Or, other possibility, the "window" is not concerned with the ventilation at all, but only with the light
That seems likely given how it was insufficient either way. Doesn't make the problem of ventilation go away of course.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "One is a surface effect, the other is structural."

When surface is eroded, what's below it is the new surface and so on. In other words, this sooner or later becomes structural (as can be seen in old buildings collapsing after too much erosion).

"it would melt them."

Allegation. I've seen a few of that precise type before.

"Insufficient to isolate the boat from the heat alone,"

Heat? Melting allegation? I mean some heat from below may have been welcome when lots of water surface allowed heat to radiate from Earth and cool it.

"even if we disregard the resulting vortices."

Why would underwater vortices have any effect a mile up other than a pretty comfortable "out in the ocean" tsunami?

"Your version would have cooked off the oceans."

Did you read a paper by Soroka and Nelson too uncritically?

"It shows slow erosion,"

Which sometimes adds up to precisely flattening. And "slow" is guess work.

"no cataclysmic reshaping of whole mountain ranges."

You haven't read Mitchener's Centennial. Specifically not the first chapter, which is on geology.

"As your entire argument is "the Bible says so","

More like "the Bible says so" and "this is how it is possible."

"Doesn't make the problem of ventilation go away of course."

Could very well mean that the ventilation is a separate issue the preserved descriptions don't deal with and the better detailed instructions God gave Noah did deal with.

Das Bus

@hglundahl When surface is eroded, what's below it is the new surface and so on. In other words, this sooner or later becomes structural (as can be seen in old buildings collapsing after too much erosion).
Buildings aren't mountains. But I can see how that would be an appropriate description if the effect happened over many millions of years.

Allegation
Basic physics.

I mean some heat from below may have been welcome when lots of water surface allowed heat to radiate from Earth and cool it
Ocean surfaces radiate less heat than land masses. Your cooling gets worse. No good position for your unfortunate boat people to be in.

Why would underwater vortices have any effect a mile up other than a pretty comfortable "out in the ocean" tsunami?
Because vortices and tsunamis aren't the same thing.

And "slow" is guess work.
It's based on evidence.

You haven't read Mitchener's Centennial. Specifically not the first chapter, which is on geology.
Yeah no reason to waste my time with creationist drivel.

More like "the Bible says so" and "this is how it is possible."
Only it's not possible, and the Bible is still wrong.

Could very well mean that the ventilation is a separate issue the preserved descriptions don't deal with and the better detailed instructions God gave Noah did deal with.
So more fan fiction. Too bad you're still stuck with one window as per the story. So much for ventilation then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "if the effect happened over many millions of years."

Or with loads of more water.

"Basic physics."
"Ocean surfaces radiate less heat than land masses."

I think water has a higher heat capacity, so, it takes more energy to heat up water.

"Because vortices and tsunamis aren't the same thing."

Doesn't remotely answer my question why currents sandpapering the former land surface on sea bottom would generate vortices.

"It's based on evidence."

You are not being precise on which one, and I smell uniformitarian ideology.

"to waste my time with creationist drivel."

Mitchener isn't creationist. He believes in millions and billions of years. They involve, on his view, very cataclysmic changes overall.

"Only it's not possible,"

You haven't remotely given any reason.

"and the Bible is still wrong."

And you are out of truth ...

"Too bad you're still stuck with one window as per the story."

Not necessarily for the ventilation if that isn't what it talked about.

Das Bus

@hglundahl Or with loads of more water.
Then that's no longer erosion, so it wouldn't look like erosion.

I think water has a higher heat capacity, so, it takes more energy to heat up water.
You talked about radiative properties, not heat capacity.

Doesn't remotely answer my question why currents sandpapering the former land surface on sea bottom would generate vortices.
That's not what you asked. And if you don't understand how forces strong enough to remove mountains would create vortices, then that's unfortunate.

You are not being precise on which one
Basic geology.

Mitchener isn't creationist
If his claims directly support YEC and the flood, then they're nonsense. If they don't, they're irrelevant.

You haven't remotely given any reason
Or maybe you just don't like the reasons.

And you are out of truth
I have reality. That's all the truth I need.

Not necessarily for the ventilation if that isn't what it talked about
It doesn't talk about any purpose for the window. It does talk about one window though. Anything else is still fan fiction.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@dasbus9834 "Then that's no longer erosion,"

Well, yes, it is. Water taking away matter is erosion. Some looks pretty quick.

"You talked about radiative properties, not heat capacity."

I'm not a natural scientist, my bad, looked it up in the meantime.

"Basic geology."

You're not precise about what aspect.

"If his claims directly support YEC and the flood, then they're nonsense."

They are not meant to and are practically taken from geology text books.

But you show a huge display of bias here.

"If they don't, they're irrelevant."

Not if they indirectly support it.

"you just don't like"

I do like refuting specific reasons, when given.

"That's all the truth I need."

Let me rephrase. You are out of reality.

"Anything else is still fan fiction."

Any explanation about the past going beyond immediate evidence is fan fiction. Your evolution and geology does it to rocks as much as we to the Bible text.

II

Rohan

@newsystembad

Any "global flood" would have eradicated ALL terrestrial plant life and left all land unfit for agriculture for the rest of time. To say nothing of the ludicrous thermodynamics that would've baked every living creature on the ark to a crisp.

Noah's flood is a myth.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad "would have eradicated ALL terrestrial plant life"

Except flotsam.

"and left all land unfit for agriculture for the rest of time."

You are presuming pre-Flood seas were pretty salt, right?

"the ludicrous thermodynamics that would've baked every living creature on the ark to a crisp."

I've already adressed that allegation in the original form given by Soroka and Nelson.

19:08 Jericho was off by 300 years?

From what?

I pose the Exodus in 1511 BC which places the fall of Jericho, first year after the desert, in 1471 BC. The carbon date given is 1550 BC. The only problem is, how I account for the extra years, and my answer is, the atmospheric carbon 14 level of 98.929 pmC is the last stage of a Biblical calibration diverging from the uniformitarian one. Earlier parts have lower carbon 14 in the atmosphere and thus more extra years.

Rohan

The walls of Jericho fell from an earthquake, not from the supposed "conquest" featured in ancient Israel's school shooter fanfic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@newsystembad The conquest involved as miracle that would look in retrospect like an earthquake.

20:08 What if:

• the moral atmosphere of the Amalecites was such as to make cohabitation impossible
• and the counterpart of a CPS action on part of Israelites (with relation to Amalecite children) was not in the least feasible?

The children were not being punished, they were suffering very briefly to punish their fathers. But the parents, both sexes, were punished even into the killing of their children.

23:03 Not the exact thing.

The underlying moral principle is in Exodus:

He that shall steal a man, and sell him, being convicted of guilt, shall be put to death
[Exodus 21:16]

That's why God freed Israel, and that's why (after some compromise), Catholics and Wilberforce ended up freeing slaves all over the Christian world.

However, the Chanaanean slaves were presumed guilty. Even if taken by people themselves guilty of above offense, they would probably have done a similar thing the year before they ended up in slavery. In the Catholic compromise, there was miscommunication between the Pope and Portugal, but theologians making sense of it were saying "we presume this slave was taken in a war trying to enslave others or sold by his own people for an offense against justice" (and obviously, this was the cynic part, one trusted the own kings' to have made a sufficient declaration of principle to this effect).

In Chanaan, the guilt of a slave then sold to Israelites was more probably presumable than in Black Africa, even if Black Africa prior to Brazza did lots of warmongering in order to take and sell slaves.

Obviously, a man deserving death, deserves slavery.