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 world’s 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 children’s 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 Earth’s 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 Earth’s sedimentary rocks, ejected material to form comets, (and did not disturb the ark in its journey).

16. Unsupported Claim: “The Earth’s 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.

[JehovahsWitness]

.

Physical evidence can be analyzed, therefore miracles can be.

What about miracles that miraculously remove all, physical evidence of their happening?

Do such 'evidence removed miracles' occur?

If miracles were indeed possible, is there any reason such 'physical evidence removed miracles' could not be possible?

Of course.. anything is possible.

... and there in lies my point. To imply some ad hoc rule that limits miracles to that which leaves measurable traces in the natural world of it's happening after the fact of it, is illogical as it attempts to impose a natural law on that which by definition defys natural law.



JW

[marco]

To imply some ad hoc rule that limits miracles to that which leaves measurable traces in the natural world of it's happening after the fact of it, is illogical as it attempts to impose a natural law on that which by definition defys natural law.

It is indeed illogical to suggest that we can use logic to deal with miracles, since miracles defy logic. It is illogical to suppose 5000 can be fed with a few fishes. But it is miraculous.

There are no ad hoc rules needed, just the good old rules that govern our everyday behaviour, that enable us to use our instruments and even send earthlings to the moon.

In Peter Pan performances people are asked to clap if they believe in fairies. I think a similar system is used regarding miracles.

[JehovahsWitness]

To imply some ad hoc rule that limits miracles to that which leaves measurable traces in the natural world of it's happening after the fact of it, is illogical as it attempts to impose a natural law on that which by definition defys natural law.

It is indeed illogical to suggest that we can use logic to deal with miracles, since miracles defy logic. .

No, a miracle wouldn't by definition necessarily defy logic and that's not what I said, they defy natural law. Natural law imposes a set effect for its corresponding cause but such an imposition would not by definition be imposed on a miracle.

JW

[marco]

No, a miracle wouldn't by definition necessarily defy logic and that's not what I said, they defy natural law. Natural law imposes a set effect for its corresponding cause but such an imposition would not by definition be imposed on a miracle.

If we are ready to accept an extension to our natural world where people can do the impossible, then I believe we abandon logic in favour of faith. Having somebody walk up and talk to a dead person, initiating his recovery, defies sense. There is no logic involved in its acceptance.

[OnceConvinced]

.

Physical evidence can be analyzed, therefore miracles can be.

What about miracles that miraculously remove all, physical evidence of their happening?

Do such 'evidence removed miracles' occur?

If miracles were indeed possible, is there any reason such 'physical evidence removed miracles' could not be possible?

Of course.. anything is possible.

... and there in lies my point. To imply some ad hoc rule that limits miracles to that which leaves measurable traces in the natural world of it's happening after the fact of it, is illogical as it attempts to impose a natural law on that which by definition defys natural law.
JW

Moderator Comment

See underlined text. If you are going to quote a member, please quote them accurately. Do not paraphrase it to say a completely different thing. There were other crucial words you have conveniently missed out.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 111 by JehovahsWitness]

Is it acceptable in defense of the Bible to leave out key words (19 count) and completely change a quote from:

In fantasy and fiction anything is possible.

TO:

Of course.. anything is possible.

Notice that what I actually said was In fantasy and fiction anything is possible

I acknowledge that ‘anything is possible’ according to Bible tales if they are fantasy and fiction. Long-dead bodies can come back to life, virgins can give birth, donkeys and snakes can converse in human language, the Earth can stop rotating, and Noah can build an ark and take all the world's animals aboard In fantasy and fiction

After that little diversion and demonstration of debate tactics, would you care to make a stab at addressing the twenty-two points raised in the OP?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 111 by JehovahsWitness]

Here is an example of a hatchet job done on your statement:

From:

To imply some ad hoc rule that limits miracles to that which leaves measurable traces in the natural world of it's happening after the fact of it, is illogical as it attempts to impose a natural law on that which by definition defys natural law.

To: (just leaving out a few words)

. . . miracle is illogical as it defys natural law.

If that was done to your statement, would you consider it fair and honorable debate? Would you think highly of the integrity involved?

[JehovahsWitness]

No, a miracle wouldn't by definition necessarily defy logic and that's not what I said, they defy natural law. Natural law imposes a set effect for its corresponding cause but such an imposition would not by definition be imposed on a miracle.

If we are ready to accept an extension to our natural world where people can do the impossible, then I believe we abandon logic in favour of faith. .

Well you may believe that but that doesn't make it true. Logic is the underlying reasoning which guides a given action, it does not of itself render an action impossible. Extending or even removing the limit of what is possible does not impose an abandonment of logic.



JW

[marco]

Well you may believe that but that doesn't make it true.

My beliefs wear little wings of doubt. That's true. I would never claim infallibility for them.

Logic is the underlying reasoning which guides a given action, it does not of itself render an action impossible.

Mmmm - I wonder who thinks logic "renders an action possible or impossible". It guides our decisions certainly. When I employ logic in mathematics I can say whether something is true or false.

Extending or even removing the limit of what is possible does not impose an abandonment of logic.

In the strictest and most useless sense you are right. We can employ logic and reach conclusions, even though these conclusions are hopelessly silly. It depends on our starting axions. Start will silliness and we can still reach a valid - but untrue - conclusion.


To demonstrate logic and miracle:

This container holds exactly a gallon.

We have already put in a gallon.

Therefore the container will hold no more.

This conclusion is true. When we deal with miracles, we would still make the same conclusion, but faith would overrule logic. With miracles we can, illogically, conclude the container will support an endless amount.

You are wrong in saying logic is used with miracles. You are wrong in supposing we are using the logic of a system outside of our experience, since we haven't the foggiest idea what the rules of that system might be - so we can conclude ANYTHING. This is acting illogically but I concede that logic is not required where faith has the upper hand.

[JehovahsWitness]

You are wrong in saying logic is used with miracles.

Where did I say that "logic is used with miracles"? You claimed "miracles defy logic" and I responded not necessarily; arguably a miracle could be logical according to a given criteria, or might not be. But to claim that both logic and miracles cannot coexist is to disregard the meaning of the words.


JW