Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

Zzyzx and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate on the Biblical flood.

The question for us to debate:
Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[Zzyzx]

.

With religious “explanations” at hand, there is no need to study nature and attempt to understand the Earth we inhabit or discuss what we learn.

If you are ready now to look at the geological evidence, I am more than willing to start discussing that again.

“Geological evidence”????

One cannot intelligently discuss the field of geology without understanding and studying the field and one cannot intelligently discuss science without understanding scientific discussion.

Discussing geology is NOT parroting Walter Brown’s creationist theories. Brown is NOT a geologist and his theories are pure speculative creationist theology – with no backing whatsoever in geology. His acknowledged agenda is to promote Young Earth Creationism – NOT to promote knowledge or science.

A person who understands geology understands that the “Hydroplate Theory” and the “Flood Model” are nothing more than speculation that appeals to those who do not understand geology and who desire to promote creationism. They are a textbook example of pseudo-science or “junk science” (that which cannot be supported).

Here is an example of non-science (unsupported conjecture) from your most recent post:

Again, since the climate was more uniform and there were no oceans, there was less of a need to travel remote distances to get representative animals.

Here is the response (call for supporting evidence):

Again, you said over and over that the climate was more uniform and that there were no oceans – and I asked over and over for EVIDENCE to back your claims. Absolutely ZERO evidence has been supplied to verify the claims. All that is offered is more conjecture saying the same things. Citing Walter Brown is not evidence because his theories are simply more conjecture with no supporting evidence.

Legitimate claims concerning past climates are based upon actual studies of such things as the plants that existed at the time, the pollen in rocks or sediments, the distribution of temperature specific marine organisms, or other means determining the actual conditions. Those provide evidence that can be verified or disputed by any interested party.


Here is an example of theological discussion from your most recent post:

However, my position is primarily from interpreting the Biblical passages of the use of the words "gather" and "bring".

This is a discussion of the supposed exact meaning of words contained in a story told by unknown people and written, translated, transcribed, revised and rewritten by countless people for thousands of years. Yet, theologians argue about the exact meaning of words supposedly used thousands of years ago by unidentified people.

I will make the comment that, in general, I do not like to use "God did it" with non-Christians. But, if we are to base our discussions on Biblical text, then it will be unavoidable.

If goddidit we are NOT talking about geology – but about theology.

Perhaps we should reach some understanding of the difference between evidence and conjecture. That seems to be a problem in theist / non-theist debate. Those who accept claims of “miracles” based on tales rather than evidence do not seem to understand that others actually make decisions based on EVIDENCE that can be verified.

In discussions based biology or geology, for instance, if one makes claims and those claims are challenged they EITHER supported with actual evidence OR is withdrawn or discredited.


1. A claim has been made that animals from the entire Earth somehow went to the vicinity of the ark. Please present verifiable evidence or acknowledge that the claim is opinion or conjecture. (Note: claiming divine intervention is conjecture because it cannot be verified).

2. A claim has been made that the term “kind” of animal referred to in Genesis means what taxonomists regard as “family” (or above). Please cite evidence to verify that is exactly what was intended by the term as written OR acknowledge that your interpretation is opinion or conjecture.

3. A claim has been made that the Earth’s climate 5000 years ago was substantially different from what it is now. Please present evidence that verifies the characteristics of the Earth’s climate at that time or acknowledge that the claim is opinion or conjecture.

4. A claim has been made that the Earth is not over 100,000 years old. Please support the claim with evidence that precludes the possibility of the Earth being older or acknowledge that the claim is opinion or conjecture.


Note: Evidence is NOT saying, “Well, you can’t prove the opposite is true so I must be right” or “prove me wrong” (argumentum ad ignorantiam).

Those who make the claim are expected to verify the claim if challenged.

Conjecture is defined as “inference from defective or presumptive evidence; or a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork”

Presume is defined as “to undertake without leave or clear justification; to expect or assume especially with confidence; to suppose to be true without proof; or to take for granted”

Assume is defined as “to take as granted or true”.
.

[otseng]

Discussing geology is NOT parroting Walter Brown’s creationist theories. Brown is NOT a geologist and his theories are pure speculative creationist theology – with no backing whatsoever in geology. His acknowledged agenda is to promote Young Earth Creationism – NOT to promote knowledge or science.

I would disagree that I'm simply "parroting" Walter Brown. I've given his hydroplate theory some thought and have adapted it to my own views. There are various aspects of it that I do not agree with and some that I've added. And several of my arguments are not found on his website.

I would also disagree that there is no backing whatsoever with it. If I was not able to give any geological evidence to support it, then that would be true. But, we had approached almost 100 posts prior to the hack where I presented empirical evidence.

One cannot intelligently discuss the field of geology without understanding and studying the field and one cannot intelligently discuss science without understanding scientific discussion.

I do not claim to have any advanced knowledge of geology. But, I am no novice either.

How I interpret your statement is "I cannot challenge the SGM because I have not sufficiently studied it. And anything that opposes the SGM is not science."

And all I'm saying is that we simply look at the geological evidence. Let's present our models and see which one explains things better. I'll present a model which includes a global flood. You present the model which does not include a global flood.

Again, you said over and over that the climate was more uniform and that there were no oceans – and I asked over and over for EVIDENCE to back your claims. Absolutely ZERO evidence has been supplied to verify the claims.

I had already given evidence in post 12 of a more uniform climate.

This is a discussion of the supposed exact meaning of words contained in a story told by unknown people and written, translated, transcribed, revised and rewritten by countless people for thousands of years. Yet, theologians argue about the exact meaning of words supposedly used thousands of years ago by unidentified people.

Our discussions lately have been theological. You have raised questions about specific statements in the Bible surrounding the flood - the behavior of doves, olive leaf, ark construction, gathering the animals to the ark, etc. Are these not all arguing about the exact meaning of the words in the Bible?

Though these issues are interesting, I think these are trivial issues of the flood story. I think the big questions are: where did the water come from, where did it go, wouldn't a global flood have left some imprint on the earth?

1. A claim has been made that animals from the entire Earth somehow went to the vicinity of the ark. Please present verifiable evidence or acknowledge that the claim is opinion or conjecture.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

2. A claim has been made that the term “kind” of animal referred to in Genesis means what taxonomists regard as “family” (or above). Please cite evidence to verify that is exactly what was intended by the term as written OR acknowledge that your interpretation is opinion or conjecture.

The basic claim is that common descent is not true. All life did not arise from a single cell lifeform. Life can evolve through microevolution, but macroevolution is not possible. The diversity of life resulted from a set of animals/plants that existed from the onset and microevolved to what we see today. This set of life is what survived the flood.

More details on debating this will require many posts.

3. A claim has been made that the Earth’s climate 5000 years ago was substantially different from what it is now. Please present evidence that verifies the characteristics of the Earth’s climate at that time or acknowledge that the claim is opinion or conjecture.

Again, I had presented evidence in post 12.

4. A claim has been made that the Earth is not over 100,000 years old. Please support the claim with evidence that precludes the possibility of the Earth being older or acknowledge that the claim is opinion or conjecture.

I addressed this in post 18.

[Zzyzx]

.
This is a textbook example of “ducking the question” – avoiding addressing the issue raised and attempting to draw attention to a different issue that can be answered.

A claim has been made that the term “kind” of animal referred to in Genesis means what taxonomists regard as “family” (or above). Please cite evidence to verify that is exactly what was intended by the term as written OR acknowledge that your interpretation is opinion or conjecture.

The basic claim is that common descent is not true.

The request for evidence has NOTHING to do with “common descent”. It asks for evidence to that your stated “interpretation” of the term “kind” is exactly what was intended by the term as written. It could just as well mean genus and species UNLESS there is a way to know what the storytellers and writers intended.

Can you address that issue? OR, do you prefer to acknowledge that your statement is opinion or conjecture?
.

[Zzyzx]

.
Your argument that the Earth’s climate was more moderate 5000 years ago based upon the references you cite is totally illogical. Those references discuss climate of 50,000,000 to 70,000,000 years ago.

How does climate of seventy million years ago prove anything about climate five thousand years ago?

Again, you said over and over that the climate was more uniform and that there were no oceans – and I asked over and over for EVIDENCE to back your claims. Absolutely ZERO evidence has been supplied to verify the claims.

I had already given evidence in post 12 of a more uniform climate.

The temperature was more uniform and more tropical? When?

It was more tropical prior to the flood.

Warm climate life found in the Arctic region:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1773.html

"About 49 million years ago, azolla grew all over the Arctic Basin,"

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1737.html

By examining fossil pollen, leaves, and wood, scientists have found that northern Alaska was a much warmer place at the time of the dinosaurs, possibly with average annual temperatures well above freezing, Fiorillo wrote.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 414B7FFE9F

Seventy-five million to 70 million years ago, a group of hardy dinosaurs thrived in the harsh climate of what is now northern Alaska

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ai_3911436

The 65-million-year-old bones of at least three dinosaur species and two prehistoric reptiles have been recovered from a site in the Alaskan tundra by a team of researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

The 70 million-year-old fossils of the carnivore would have rested for millenniums at the bottom of an Antarctic sea, while remains of the 100-foot-long (30 meter) herbivore were found on the top of a mountain.

They would have lived in a different Antarctica -- one that was warm and wet,

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... a----.html

The presence of several different types of animal - including the first high-latitude pterosaur - suggests that climate in Antarctica during the mid-Jurassic was warmer than today.

I AGREE that the climate of the Earth was much more tropical 70 Million years ago.

What has that to do with the climate of the Earth 5 Thousand years ago?

How can someone who argues that the Earth is not over 100,000 years old be citing conditions that existed on the Earth 70 million years ago???????

Note: Seventy Million is 700 times greater than a hundred thousand – and seventy million is 14,000 times greater than 5000.

Note: In simplified form, if the Earth is 100,000 years old it did not exist 70,000,000 years ago and that the climate was different 70 Million years ago does not prove anything about climate five thousand years ago.
.

[otseng]

A claim has been made that the term “kind” of animal referred to in Genesis means what taxonomists regard as “family” (or above). Please cite evidence to verify that is exactly what was intended by the term as written OR acknowledge that your interpretation is opinion or conjecture.

The basic claim is that common descent is not true.

The request for evidence has NOTHING to do with “common descent”. It asks for evidence to that your stated “interpretation” of the term “kind” is exactly what was intended by the term as written. It could just as well mean genus and species UNLESS there is a way to know what the storytellers and writers intended.

That's because it's futile to debate exactly what does "kind" correspond to with our taxonomy. And it would not also address the fundamental issues of the flood.

The basic assertion is that it was a set of animals that populated the entire world, regardless of what their taxonomic level would be. What affect would it have on the flood debate if they are classified as kinds, species, genus or family?

Your argument that the Earth’s climate was more moderate 5000 years ago based upon the references you cite is totally illogical. Those references discuss climate of 50,000,000 to 70,000,000 years ago.

Yes, those references say it was millions of years ago. But what else would it say, that it was only 10,000 years ago?

The point is that from the geologic record, the climate was warmer in the past. Those facts are undisputable. What is disputable though is the interpretation that they occurred millions of years ago.

[otseng]

One thing interesting is that the flood story is one of the most common, if not the most common, story among cultures.

"A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28mythology%29

"About 300 cultures around the world have stories of a massive flood."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm

"H.S. Bellamy in Moons, Myths and Men estimates that altogether there are over 500 Flood legends worldwide."
http://nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

"It seemed that every culture had its own version of a Great Flood; many of these tales contained similarities"
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/titania.htm

Talk origins also has a huge list of Flood stories from around the world.

Some possible explanations for this:

1. The myths all arose independently

One major problem with this is that there are similarities with many of the stories.



How could different cultures have all independently created a flood story with similarities of other flood stories?

2. A flood myth originated in one place and was spread to all the cultures.

Why would a flood myth have the power to be able to be propagated to so many cultures? If one culture did not experience a flood in its history, why would it care what had happened to another culture? And why a flood story? Why not an earthquake, tornado, hurricane, or other catasphrophe?

3. An actual global flood occurred.

Since there are similarities in the stories and that it is found in so many different cultures, I believe this would be the most likely possibility out of the 3.

[Zzyzx]

.

The request for evidence has NOTHING to do with “common descent”. It asks for evidence to that your stated “interpretation” of the term “kind” is exactly what was intended by the term as written. It could just as well mean genus and species UNLESS there is a way to know what the storytellers and writers intended.

That's because it's futile to debate exactly what does "kind" correspond to with our taxonomy. And it would not also address the fundamental issues of the flood.

The basic assertion is that it was a set of animals that populated the entire world, regardless of what their taxonomic level would be. What affect would it have on the flood debate if they are classified as kinds, species, genus or family?

The meaning of “kind” is VERY important to discussion of whether the flood was literal or not, as I am sure you are aware, because it relates to the number of animals that would have to be aboard the ark.

If “kind” is taken to mean taxonomic family (as creationists prefer), the only CAT that would have to be aboard is a house cat – and from that evolved lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, etc after the flood (even if the larger cats were mentioned previously in the bible).

Felidae is the biological family of the cats; a member of this family is called a felid. They are the most strictly carnivorous mammals of the nine families in the order Carnivora. The first felids emerged during the Oligocene, about 30 million years ago. The most familiar feline is the Domestic Cat or House Cat, which first became associated with humans about 10,000 years ago. Its wild relative, the Desert Wildcat, still lives in the Near East and Africa, although habitat destruction has restricted its range.

Other well-known members of the feline family include big cats such as the Lion, the Tiger, the Leopard, the Jaguar, the Cougar, and the Cheetah, and other wild cats such as the lynxes and the Caracal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae

If creationists define “kind” as meaning taxonomic family that radically reduces the number of animals required to be aboard the ark (and the Noah family’s impossible task of collecting all the animals and to feeding them aboard the ark for a year). However, using that definition raises the inconvenient issue of how all the other members of each family could evolve in only 5000 years.

The tale of all the Earth’s millions of species of animals being aboard an ark is obviously preposterous, so the argument is made that the bible didn’t really mean species (lions, tigers, leopards, etc), it meant only ONE representative for all the cat family – with evolution post-flood producing all the others.

No evidence is provided to show that “kind” means family OR that rapid evolution has occurred. It is all conjecture, upon conjecture, upon conjecture.

Your argument that the Earth’s climate was more moderate 5000 years ago based upon the references you cite is totally illogical. Those references discuss climate of 50,000,000 to 70,000,000 years ago.

Yes, those references say it was millions of years ago. But what else would it say, that it was only 10,000 years ago?

The point is that from the geologic record, the climate was warmer in the past. Those facts are undisputable. What is disputable though is the interpretation that they occurred millions of years ago.

Yes, the Earth’s climate was warmer in the past.

WHEN it was warmer is critical. You have stated that it was warmer 5000 years ago. I asked for evidence. Your references applied to 70 MILLION years ago.

Do you not realize that what the climate was like 70 million years ago is no indication of what it was like 5000 years ago?

Do you realize that the temperatures last summer are not representative of what they were the winter before?
.

[Zzyzx]

.

One thing interesting is that the flood story is one of the most common, if not the most common, story among cultures.

"A large percentage of the world's cultures past and present have stories of a "great flood" that devastated earlier civilization."

Some possible explanations for this:

1. The myths all arose independently

2. A flood myth originated in one place and was spread to all the cultures.

3. An actual global flood occurred.

Since there are similarities in the stories and that it is found in so many different cultures, I believe this would be the most likely possibility out of the 3.

That is one opinion. Opinions are not evidence, they are opinions.

Yes, many cultures have legends of floods. Again, you are citing legends to “prove” legends.

Many cultures have legends of droughts too. Do their legends verify biblical legends of a specific drought?

Other cultures also have legends of gods. Do their legends of gods prove or disprove the Christian god?

Some of the cultures that you cite as “evidence” are older than 5000 years. Did they survive the flood? Or, are they “mistaken” about their history (so the bible can be correct)?

The cultures cited are populated by people whose physical characteristics differ greatly from each other. According to the flood legend only eight people survived the flood. How did the great diversity in humans evolve in the 5000 years since the flood?

Can you cite any evidence to suggest that human evolution occurs or occurred that rapidly?
.

[otseng]

The meaning of “kind” is VERY important to discussion of whether the flood was literal or not, as I am sure you are aware, because it relates to the number of animals that would have to be aboard the ark.

The issue of the number of animals on the ark is an issue worthy of discussion. But, it is not possible to exactly match the Biblical "kind" to today's taxonomy.

No evidence is provided to show that “kind” means family OR that rapid evolution has occurred.

We can see changes within a generation by the use of selective breeding.

If “kind” is taken to mean taxonomic family (as creationists prefer), the only CAT that would have to be aboard is a house cat – and from that evolved lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, etc after the flood (even if the larger cats were mentioned previously in the bible).

I do not pinpoint a "kind" as being categorically as a "family" or "genus". It could be anything depending on the animal.

But, let's investigate the number of animals on the ark.

First, 99% of all known animal species are smaller than bumble bees. So, most animals are small.

Also we can discount all marine life being on the ark. So, this leaves mammals, birds, and reptiles.

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.

So, the question is, what exactly is a "kind"? One idea brought forth is that it is close to the Syngameon - a group of discrete morphological units (semispecies) that are interfertile. This is above the species level, and in the genus/family level.

Let's suppose "kind" does refer to the family level, then there'd be about 2000 land animals. If the genus level, then there'd be around 16,000 land animals. So, if we define kind as either family or genus, then it would be somewhere between 2000 and 16,000 types of animals on the ark.

Further, there would be no need to bring a 60 feet tall Sauroposeidon into the ark. Like all animals, they could've been young (small) animals, rather than full grown animals.

Do you not realize that what the climate was like 70 million years ago is no indication of what it was like 5000 years ago?

All I'm saying is that in the past, the climate was warmer. But not only was the climate warmer, but something else must've been different to allow plants and animals to grow much larger in the past. The FM can account for this, but the SGM has no consistent answer to this.

Yes, many cultures have legends of floods. Again, you are citing legends to “prove” legends.

Simply claiming that they are all false does not explain why they are so widespread and that they bear similarities.

Many cultures have legends of droughts too. Do their legends verify biblical legends of a specific drought?

Worldwide droughts? And all bearing similarities? And found in practically every culture?

How did the great diversity in humans evolve in the 5000 years since the flood?

Great diversity? Beyond trivial differences in hair and skin, I don't see a "great diversity" in humans.

[Zzyzx]

.

The meaning of “kind” is VERY important to discussion of whether the flood was literal or not, as I am sure you are aware, because it relates to the number of animals that would have to be aboard the ark.

The issue of the number of animals on the ark is an issue worthy of discussion. But, it is not possible to exactly match the Biblical "kind" to today's taxonomy.

If “it is not possible to exactly match the Biblical ‘kind’ to today’s taxonomy”, how can literalists speculate on the number of animals aboard the ark?

Guessing that it is the lowest possible number is far from credible.

No evidence is provided to show that “kind” means family OR that rapid evolution has occurred.

We can see changes within a generation by the use of selective breeding.

Are you familiar with selective breeding? Are you aware that it involves crossing UNLIKE individuals?

Please explain:

1) Where did the unlike individuals came from since only ONE pair of most animals was supposedly aboard the ark?
2) Who was doing the selective breeding?
3) How can one pair of each animal be sufficient to provide all the genetic diversity that exists within the species?

While you are at it, would you please explain how the animals were transported from Turkey (Mt. Ararat) to Antarctica, Australia, Oceana, North and South America.

Could you also please explain why the marsupials that made there way (somehow) to Australia did not produce similar descendants in Turkey?

If “kind” is taken to mean taxonomic family (as creationists prefer), the only CAT that would have to be aboard is a house cat – and from that evolved lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, etc after the flood (even if the larger cats were mentioned previously in the bible).

I do not pinpoint a "kind" as being categorically as a "family" or "genus". It could be anything depending on the animal.

If it “could be anything”, then explanations MUST include the greatest possible number – species.

But, let's investigate the number of animals on the ark.

First, 99% of all known animal species are smaller than bumble bees. So, most animals are small.

The reference you cite actually contains a bit more significant information than you copied:

How many species are there?

This is not an easy question to answer. About 1.8 million have been given scientific names. Nearly 2/3 of these are insects. Estimates of the total number of living species generally range from 10 to 100 million. It is likely the actual number is on the order of 13 to 14 million, with most being insects and microscopic life forms in tropical regions. However, we may never know how many there are because many of them will become extinct before being counted and described.

The tremendous diversity in life today is not new to our planet. The noted paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould estimated that 99% of all plant and animal species that have existed have already become extinct with most leaving no fossils. It is also humbling to realize that humans and other large animals are freakishly rare life forms, since 99% of all known animal species are smaller than bumble bees.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/animal_1.htm

I will agree that most species are small. HOWEVER, did you notice that the total number of living species (that must have been aboard the ark) is estimated to be between ten and one hundred MILLION – thus the minimum number is then 10 MILLION.

THAT is the number of animals that Noah and family would have had to place aboard the ark if “kind” means species (UNLESS you can show reason to accept a different definition of the term – and verification thereof).

Species being small is a two-edged sword for the literalist interpretation. Many are microscopic. How did people with no knowledge of microscopes or microscopic organisms manage to collect, load, feed and care for the millions of species of tiny animals? How did they distinguish between males and females of animals too small to be seen without a microscope??????

Did you notice in the quote that approximately 1.2 million species of insects have been identified and named? That seems like quite a few for eight people to select a male and a female of each, put them aboard the ark, meet their habitat and food requirements, then return them to their proper habitats after a year.

Also we can discount all marine life being on the ark. So, this leaves mammals, birds, and reptiles.

We CANNOT “discount all marine” life UNLESS you can demonstrate that survival in hot water of unknown salinity is ASSURED for every species present on the Earth today (or at least a fair and large cross section).

This topic was addressed previously and you have NOT presented a credible argument that aquatic animals can survive a radical change in habitat (or that all present species evolved since the proposed flood from more adaptive ancestors – in 5000 years).

Simply stating that “we can discount all marine life” is NOT valid in debate. It is simply conjecture repeated.

Simply restating the issue that was NOT resolved as though it was resolved is NOT honorable debate.

Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.

So, the question is, what exactly is a "kind"? One idea brought forth is that it is close to the Syngameon - a group of discrete morphological units (semispecies) that are interfertile. This is above the species level, and in the genus/family level.

Let's suppose "kind" does refer to the family level, then there'd be about 2000 land animals. If the genus level, then there'd be around 16,000 land animals. So, if we define kind as either family or genus, then it would be somewhere between 2000 and 16,000 types of animals on the ark.

“One idea brought forth” is simply a GUESS. Why are you debating guesses?

“Let's suppose ‘kind’ does refer to the family level” is another GUESS. Why are you debating suppositions? Is your evidence that weak?

“Let’s suppose” “kind” refers to species – and the number that eight people collect, put aboard, feed and care for -- becomes a minimum of 10 MILLION.

Unless you have evidence that “kind” refers to family, your argument MUST cover species level. Otherwise it is pure speculation on your part.

Further, there would be no need to bring a 60 feet tall Sauroposeidon into the ark. Like all animals, they could've been young (small) animals, rather than full grown animals.

There is an even better reason – Sauroposeidon had been extinct for 65 million years according to the best scientific estimates based upon actual study of dinosaurs.

Is there any EVIDENCE that the animals aboard the ark were immature? Or is that more speculation – “could have been” sounds quite speculative. That is a LONG way from demonstrating that your theory is correct.

Do you not realize that what the climate was like 70 million years ago is no indication of what it was like 5000 years ago?

All I'm saying is that in the past, the climate was warmer. But not only was the climate warmer, but something else must've been different to allow plants and animals to grow much larger in the past. The FM can account for this, but the SGM has no consistent answer to this.

You stated that the Earth’s climate was much more uniform before the flood (5000 years ago). I ask for evidence to indicate that is a true statement.

Can you provide evidence that the Earth’s climate was more uniform 5000 years ago? If you cannot, the honorable thing to do is to acknowledge that you cannot.

The question was NOT if the Earth’s climate had EVER been warmer – it was very specific – the time before the flood (that includes the day before).

Standard Geology does not provide a “consistent” answer to what the Earth’s climate was like in the past for a VERY GOOD reason – the Earth’s climate is NOT consistent – it varies. There is good evidence to indicate that at times much of the Earth was quite tropical and at other times there were glacial periods that were quite cold.

Criticism of Geology might be more credible if undertaken by someone who understands the field – and does not make mistakes like the one above.

Yes, many cultures have legends of floods. Again, you are citing legends to “prove” legends.

Simply claiming that they are all false does not explain why they are so widespread and that they bear similarities.

NO claim has been made that “they are all false”. Careful reading of the quote above indicates agreement that legends exist in many cultures. It does not address the truth or basis of such legends.

HOWEVER, if you wish to use legends to support your argument, the burden is upon you to furnish evidence to indicate that the legends are true and that they imply a worldwide flood.

Simply saying that, “Other cultures have similar legends that I have not shown to be true, so therefore mine must be true” is NOT debate – it is preaching. It may work with the choir but it won’t work when debating someone who does not accept repeated assertions without verification as being valid.

Many cultures have legends of droughts too. Do their legends verify biblical legends of a specific drought?

Worldwide droughts? And all bearing similarities? And found in practically every culture?

Are you implying that the flood legends you cited are ALL similar and ALL claiming worldwide floods?

How did the great diversity in humans evolve in the 5000 years since the flood?

Great diversity? Beyond trivial differences in hair and skin, I don't see a "great diversity" in humans.

Three breeding couples from a single family (representing Noah’s sons and their wives) repopulated the Earth with offspring including EVERY possible human variation???? In 5000 years????

Is there some extra-biblical reason to accept this as being true? Is there any evidence, or is it speculation?

Does this square with what is known about genetics and evolution?

Is it theology masquerading as science?


Is it beginning to sound just a little unlikely that the tale is literally true? If it were true, there would be no need to “explain” so many things – to make so many guesses and assumptions – to dance around so many questions.
.