Major unanswered issues regarding the "literal flood"

[Zzyzx]

.
In the Head to Head debate between Osteng and Zzyzx, many issues have been raised to cast doubt upon the flood being literally true. The issues have been addressed briefly, shallowly or not at all while Osteng insists upon expounding upon a "Flood Model" that purports to be "better" than geology and other natural sciences at explaining Earth features, materials, processes, and present and past life forms.

Since the issues have not been successfully addressed, I choose to open them to general discussion. Perhaps there are theists who can help by providing information to support the "literal flood theory" or theist members who regard the flood tale as less than literally true and who might have helpful comments -- or non-theists who might care to comment on the issues.

Note: Some of the issues raised below are from applicable genesis passages (quoted by Osteng in post #3 of the Head to Head debate). Others are in response to claims made in favor of the "Flood Model".

There is ONE condition for discussion in this thread substantiate, substantiate, substantiate with real world, credible, verifiable information. Conjecture is NOT welcome in this thread. Saying, "It could have been possible" is NOT acceptable as substantiation (that is known as a "wuss-out"). "Goddidit" and "because the bible says so" do NOT constitute valid arguments in this thread.

Although twenty issues are presented below, I suggest dealing with ONE topic at a time or one per individual post.

Major unanswered issues that cast doubt upon the "literal flood".

1. How were the animals gathered from around the world to go aboard the ark? No rational explanation has been offered for the gathering of animals worldwide (other than a suggestion that a pair of each "kind" of animal swam, flew, walked, crawled, etc from wherever they lived worldwide to get aboard) and no credible explanation was offered for their return to their native habitats after the flood and cruise -- all without transportation

2. How were thousands or millions of animals fed and cared for on the ark? There has been no satisfactory explanation how thousands or millions of animals aboard a boat could be fed and cared for by eight people during a one-year voyage with 100% survival to insure that species did not become extinct.)

3. How did Noah build the ark? It has not been shown to be feasible for primitive people without known experience to build a boat larger than any wooden boat known to exist (as long as one and a half football fields and as tall as a five story building -- and 1.5 times as long as the longest wooden ships known to have been built) during an era when tools were probably stone and when the wheel was unknown (yet millions of pounds of wood were supposed cut, transported, hewn and placed).

4. How did fresh water and salt water fish survive the flood? Survival of freshwater and salt water fish through drastic habitat changes has been addressed only superficially with the claim that "no provision is necessary because they live in water" and "fish could have been different before the flood". No evidence has been presented that fish were significantly different a few thousand years ago, that the evolved rapidly into present form and that they then stopped evolving rapidly.

5. How did plants survive a year of being flooded? Survival of plants after a year of flooding has been addressed very superficially by citing means of reproduction NOT survival of plants per se with conjecture to indicate that restoration of the worlds vegetation happened. No reasoning or evidence has supported the contention. Any plant that could not survive and/or reproduce after a year of flooding would be extinct.

6. How could a dove "return with an olive leaf"? Instantaneous sprouting of an olive leaf just in time to be found by a dove has been weakly discussed and the very un-dovelike behavior (not shown to be characteristic of doves) of plucking a leaf and returning to the ark has not been shown to be anything other than a childrens bible story.

7. How could fossils have been sorted as thoroughly as we know them to exist in present rock strata if all sedimentary rock was deposited during the flood? No rational answer has been offered to the question of how fossils were sorted into distinct layers (as known to geologists) if all life forms were wiped out at the same time.

8. Unsupported Claim: "The mountains were lower before the flood" has been claimed with NO indication that the mountains were substantially different a few thousand years ago and no explanation of how the mountains grew suddenly then slowed or stopped growing. This is diametrically opposed to what is understood by those who study the Earth and nature.

9. Unsupported Claim: "The atmosphere was a blanket of water before the flood and it never rained" (even though people obviously lived on Earth before the flood) is pure conjecture with NO substantiation whatsoever.

10. Unsupported Claim: "The climate was more moderate before the flood" has been claimed. When challenged, the claim was "supported" by citing data relating to climate 50 Million years ago rather than 5 Thousand years ago. AND, the use of such inappropriate and inapplicable data was irrationally "defended" as being representative.

11. Unsupported Claim: "The oceans were much smaller before the flood" is another claim that is made with no substantiation at all. No credible hydrologist, geologist, oceanographer has ever (to my knowledge) proposed that oceans were significantly smaller a few thousand years ago.

12. Unsupported Claim: "The continents were all together before the flood" (unsubstantiated). This represents a distortion of geological studies (based upon actual and accurate measurements) that conclude that continents are moving (on the order of centimeters per year) in relation to one another and have occupied different configurations in the past (millions of years ago not thousands of years ago).

13. Unsupported Claim: "Water for the flood came from vast caverns ten miles below the Earths surface". NO evidence has been presented that such caverns existed or that they were filled with water. The claim is pure conjecture without even an attempt to provide support or verification.

14. Unsupported Claim: "Water gushing out of the [supposed] caverns shoved continents apart". No evidence is provided to even suggest this is true or that it is possible. The rate of movement apart of North America and Europe would have had to be a minimum of approximately ten miles per day (when actual movement is measured at a few centimeters per year).

15. Unsupported Claim: "Gushing water" formed the mid-oceanic ridges, carved the edges of continents, eroded materials and produced all of the Earths sedimentary rocks, ejected material to form comets, (and did not disturb the ark in its journey).

16. Unsupported Claim: "The Earths sedimentary rocks were deposited during the flood" thousands and tens of thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks supposedly deposited in less than a year.

17. Unsupported Claim: "Dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time" (up until the flood). No answer is offered to explain why dinosaur and human fossils are never found in the same rock strata. All studies in anthropology, geology, paleontology, paleobiology, and other natural sciences (based on actual examination of conditions and materials) conclude that dinosaurs were extinct for approximately 65 Million years before Humans appeared. (Emotionally disputed by creationists based on scripture only).

18. Unsupported Claim: "Coal was formed rapidly" [during the flood]. This contrasts with the process of coal formation well known to geologists as well as mining engineers (people actually involved with the subject) a sequence from peat, to lignite, to bituminous, to anthracite a slow process.

19. No explanation has been provided for the accumulation of thick layers of salt and gypsum among layers of other sedimentary rocks. Both salt and gypsum are "evaporites" materials deposited when transporting waters evaporate (as in the case of Great Salt Lake and Bonneville Salt Flats). Evaporites are formed very slowly and NOT by flooding.

20. No explanation has been provided for the presence of limestone which consists of small, often microscopic, calcium-rich body parts of marine organisms. Deposits of limestone are known to geologists to require warm water and to be a very slow process. Deposits of limestone layers hundreds or thousands of feet thick did NOT occur in a year or in a flood condition.

21. At least twenty separate "miracles" would be required to "explain" the above since no rational reasons, reasoning, or evidence has been provided to substantiate any of the claims beyond "it could have been possible" (if enough unsupported assumptions are accepted).

22. If "miracles" are invoked to "explain" how the flood was literally true, this is no longer a debate and is no longer scientific it is pure theology and guesswork opposing the real world and science. "Goddidit" and "miracles" void any claim that reasoning, knowledge, experience, observation, measurement, validation have formed the basis of ideas, theories, or arguments presented.

[micatala]

Moderator Warning

Bullshit ad hoc justification for a myth, for the lose.

"Profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate."

Still busted.

Except it's xxxxxxx not, and I don't give a good goddamn what you'd like to say about my vocabulary. You've dismissed this in three words: "Godidit". This works nicely when you're trying to induce an irrational group-mentality experience in Church, but it doesn't pass muster amongst individuals accustomed to thinking. How did God do it? Did they swim? Were they teleported? Did they grow wings and fly through the air? Enlighten us, Easyrider. It shouldn't be that hard.

Oh, and you've introduced something new into science: Goddidit. Thanks for that, Easyrider. We can now effectively throw out everything because everything is contingent on God's not altering it - the twenty-four hour day, for instance.

Whether Easyrider cares about your vocabulary or not is not the point. The rules, however, are relevant within all threads and profanity is against the rules, as our personal attacks.

[OnceConvinced]

I think God just clicked his fingers. Or he spoke and it was done. Easyrider does have a point in that God could use supernatural means if he wanted to. But then if God chose to use supernatural means in some of these cases, why not just use supernatural means instead of a flood? Why not just strike all the evil people down dead, rather than send a massive flood. It would be a lot quicker and a lot easier. Why did God create work for himself? I think the sudden death of every evil person in the world would be as an incredible event as a world wide flood, don't you? It would be considered a true supernatural event, a true act of God, unlike a flood, which is considered these days to be a natural disaster.

[QED]

I think God just clicked his fingers. Or he spoke and it was done. Easyrider does have a point in that God could use supernatural means if he wanted to. But then if God chose to use supernatural means in some of these cases, why not just use supernatural means instead of a flood? Why not just strike all the evil people down dead, rather than send a massive flood. It would be a lot quicker and a lot easier.

But somehow flat and uninteresting. For memes to propagate effectively they have to be memorable.

Why did God create work for himself? I think the sudden death of every evil person in the world would be as an incredible event as a world wide flood, don't you?

Perhaps once judged too incredible to be portrayed in a memorable story?

[OnceConvinced]

Ah, but QED, a similar thing did happen. It was the Passover, which a celebration was put in place every year for. That was pretty memorable and I don't think that was the entire world.

[Cephus]

That's for God to know and you to try to figure out. Next...

In other words, you have no explanation, as usual. And you wonder why people find your ideas so pathetic?

[Zzyzx]

.
In spite of the OP, evidently one of the Christians on my ignore list couldn't help but evoke the "goddidit" multipurpose "answer" for impossibilities. When the bible is obviously not literally true, those who continue to wish it was true "explain" the incredible or impossible bible stories using imagination and unverified claims of more magic tricks. Of course the animals all delivered themselves to the ark on orders from an invisible super being (or were given a divine ride). That makes as much sense as the rest of the story (and the rest of the bible).

In the Head to Head debate it was stated that the animals from Antarctica had "no problem" getting to the ark because "all inhabitants of the continent can fly or swim". That certainly is a creative and "very sensible" "Christian explanation". I calculated the straight-line distance the nice animals flew or swam to take the cruise 7000+ miles. Doesn't that create an interesting mental picture? Evidently there are no animals of limited mobility and no microscopic animals residing in Antarctica. Animals from other parts of the world journeyed 12,000+ miles to take the cruise.

It is gratifying to read nonsense "explanations" that cast foolishness on the proponent, upon the religion and upon the bible itself. The more irrational the presentation, the more effective a recruiting tool for Anti-Christianity.

[Easyrider]

.
In spite of the OP, evidently one of the Christians on my ignore list couldn't help but evoke the "goddidit" multipurpose "answer" for impossibilities. When the bible is obviously not literally true, those who continue to wish it was true "explain" the incredible or impossible bible stories using imagination and unverified claims of more magic tricks. Of course the animals all delivered themselves to the ark on orders from an invisible super being (or were given a divine ride). That makes as much sense as the rest of the story (and the rest of the bible).

Of course you're basing your entire premise on a totally unfounded belief that science has proven that God and the supernatural do not exist. That is your fallacy, and your leap of faith.

[Easyrider]

Zzyzx: 3. How did Noah build the ark? It has not been shown to be feasible for primitive people without known experience to build a boat larger than any wooden boat known to exist (as long as one and a half football fields and as tall as a five story building -- and 1.5 times as long as the longest wooden ships known to have been built) during an era when tools were probably stone and when the wheel was unknown (yet millions of pounds of wood were supposed cut, transported, hewn and placed).

Once more, Zzyxz appeals to rationalism as his authority.

It seems pretty clear from Genesis 6 that God gave Noah instructions on how to build the Ark. Considering he created the entire universe, I doubt he would have too much of a problem with an Ark.

# 3 busted.

[Easyrider]

Zzyzx's Reach: 22. If "miracles" are invoked to "explain" how the flood was literally true, this is no longer a debate and is no longer scientific it is pure theology and guesswork opposing the real world and science. "Goddidit" and "miracles" void any claim that reasoning, knowledge, experience, observation, measurement, validation have formed the basis of ideas, theories, or arguments presented.

A very self-serving prognostication.

Once again, Zzyzx makes an unwarranted conclusion that science cannot back up. In order for Zzyzx to make this claim stand up he needs to provide the scientific studies that prove that God and the supernatural do not exist. Otherwise it's a baseless conclusion.

Unless he can produce the proof in question, we'll need to scratch this one too. That's 0-3 for Zzyzx so far.

[bernee51]

Zzyzx's Reach: 22. If "miracles" are invoked to "explain" how the flood was literally true, this is no longer a debate and is no longer scientific it is pure theology and guesswork opposing the real world and science. "Goddidit" and "miracles" void any claim that reasoning, knowledge, experience, observation, measurement, validation have formed the basis of ideas, theories, or arguments presented.

A very self-serving prognostication.

Once again, Zzyzx makes an unwarranted conclusion that science cannot back up. In order for Zzyzx to make this claim stand up he needs to provide the scientific studies that prove that God and the supernatural do not exist. Otherwise it's a baseless conclusion.

Unless he can produce the proof in question, we'll need to scratch this one too. That's 0-3 for Zzyzx so far.

EZRider...the presumed existence of and the supernatural is a special plead.

It is also circular...you believe these things happened, they could only happen if godddit. Ergo god exists.

This however is totally consistent with the manner in which you deal with any issue in which you do not believe or runs counter to your god belief.

The first word that comes to mind is dishonesty. But that is your problem not mine.