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.

[Goose]

I make no claim on how credible the hippo account is because, like you, the only information that I have on the incident is the story you reference above.

You make no claim on the hippo account but you then go on to make a claim that anything close to the Genesis account is... what was the word you used...oh, yes... "goofy."

I could speculate on reasons why hippos might make such a crossing such as a disaster like a forest fire, earthquake, etc.on the mainland that panicked the animals into the ocean crossing but, as I said, this would simply be speculation on my part.

Would that speculation be credible to you?

What is not speculation is that this story does nothing to bolster the goofy argument that all of the MILLIONS of species that supposedly lived on the ark during the flood (itself a laughable idea) spread from Mt. Ararat in Asia Minor to all of the continents of the planet, in many cases traversing thousands of miles of ocean and/or radical changes in environments (tropical, desert, tundra, etc.) for no obvious reason.

Who said it was supposed to bolster the agument. I'm merely pointing out an obvious double standard. BTW, if you decline to offer an opinion on the hippo account I don't see why you should offer an opinion on the Genesis account.

Another observation that I'll make here is that this story is yet more evidence for evolution and against YEC "theory". The aforementioned hippos are pygmy hippos considerably smaller than the standard version on the mainland which also shows adaptions consistent with living a hilly, landbased existence instead of the standard hippos usual water based lifestyle. The article suggest that standard hippos made the crossing around 250,000 years ago and by roughly 11,000 years ago (the date when the fossils were laid down) they had evolved into smaller hippos with downward directed nostrils better adapted to land based living rather than the upper directed snout of water based hippos.

Yes, it's good evidence of adaption.

[Metatron]

I make no claim on how credible the hippo account is because, like you, the only information that I have on the incident is the story you reference above.

You make no claim on the hippo account but you then go on to make a claim that anything close to the Genesis account is... what was the word you used...oh, yes... "goofy."

Yes, goofy sums it up nicely. One has to ignore physics, biology, geology, and common sense to believe in the Genesis flood account.

I could speculate on reasons why hippos might make such a crossing such as a disaster like a forest fire, earthquake, etc.on the mainland that panicked the animals into the ocean crossing but, as I said, this would simply be speculation on my part.

Would that speculation be credible to you?

I wouldn't have offered it as speculation if I had not thought it possible. I personally do not find the idea that an animal that spends it's entire life in water having the ability to traverse a potential 18 mile ocean gap all that incredible. However, I again reiterate that it is pure speculation. I have not studied hippos nor do I know the conditions on the coast of Syria 250,000 years ago to ascertain whether there is some sort of catalyst (natural disaster or whatever) that might have spurred hippos to make such a crossing. I can only go by the article wherein scientists speculated that this is what might have happened. They themselves did not state this as a definite conclusion and undoubtedly more study needs to be done on the subject.

What is not speculation is that this story does nothing to bolster the goofy argument that all of the MILLIONS of species that supposedly lived on the ark during the flood (itself a laughable idea) spread from Mt. Ararat in Asia Minor to all of the continents of the planet, in many cases traversing thousands of miles of ocean and/or radical changes in environments (tropical, desert, tundra, etc.) for no obvious reason.

Who said it was supposed to bolster the agument. I'm merely pointing out an obvious double standard. BTW, if you decline to offer an opinion on the hippo account I don't see why you should offer an opinion on the Genesis account.

I fail to see this "double standard". There is no comparison between the possibility of a hippo swimming an ocean gap and a penguin traveling 7000+ miles of ocean and deliberately choosing to live in one of the most inhospitable places on earth.

Another observation that I'll make here is that this story is yet more evidence for evolution and against YEC "theory". The aforementioned hippos are pygmy hippos considerably smaller than the standard version on the mainland which also shows adaptions consistent with living a hilly, landbased existence instead of the standard hippos usual water based lifestyle. The article suggest that standard hippos made the crossing around 250,000 years ago and by roughly 11,000 years ago (the date when the fossils were laid down) they had evolved into smaller hippos with downward directed nostrils better adapted to land based living rather than the upper directed snout of water based hippos.

Yes, it's good evidence of adaption.

What do you mean by the word "adaption"? When I think of adapting to a new environment, I think of perhaps acquiring some new skills or possessions that will help me in dealing with my new situation. I don't assume that I will "adapt" by shrinking to half my former size or having my nostrils adjust to a new position on my face. Those are the sort of changes that happen over thousands of years of evolution not through "adaption".

[Openmind]

I once calculated the mass of salt that must have been deep in the earth, in order to have produced a salt concentration of present day molarity (assuming that the Earth was flooded to the depth given in a creationist pamphlet I read), and the mass was terrific - a significant fraction of the mass of the Earth itself! Knowing that the solid iron core and liquid outer core constitute much of the Earth's mass, I'm afraid it was quite impossible, unless God somehow removed a heck of a lot of salt sometime during the past 6000 years.

What I found out may be entirely irrelevant for any number of possible reasons (I can predict Creationists would argue any number of things to refute this), and I assure people it was not a serious attempt to disprove the flood myth, but rather a bit of practice and fun before a Chemistry exam!

[Fisherking]

Yes, goofy sums it up nicely. One has to ignore physics, biology, geology, and common sense to believe in the Genesis flood account.

Are you a leading expert in physics, biology, geology, or the Genesis flood account? If not, are you qualified to call the Genesis flood account "goofy"? Do you have any independent impartial non-evolutionary scientists with knowledge in the relevant fields of science and biblical exegesis who would support your claim that the Genesis flood account is goofy?

...Those are the sort of changes that happen over thousands of years of evolution...

Do you have any independent, impartial, verifiable evidence to support this claim?

[Openmind]

Are you a leading expert in physics, biology, geology, or the Genesis flood account? If not, are you qualified to call the Genesis flood account "goofy"? Do you have any independent impartial non-evolutionary scientists with knowledge in the relevant fields of science and biblical exegesis who would support your claim that the Genesis flood account is goofy?

Must one have a Bachelor of Fairy Studies, in order to know fairies do not exist?

[Metatron]

Yes, goofy sums it up nicely. One has to ignore physics, biology, geology, and common sense to believe in the Genesis flood account.

Are you a leading expert in physics, biology, geology, or the Genesis flood account? If not, are you qualified to call the Genesis flood account "goofy"? Do you have any independent impartial non-evolutionary scientists with knowledge in the relevant fields of science and biblical exegesis who would support your claim that the Genesis flood account is goofy?

...Those are the sort of changes that happen over thousands of years of evolution...

Do you have any independent, impartial, verifiable evidence to support this claim?

I do not have to be an expert in physics, biology, etc. to understand that one can't fit over a million species in a single wooden boat, much less keep them all alive for the entire alleged time of the flood. Nor do I have to be an expert to recognize that there is no geological evidence for the trillions of tons of water that magically appeared in the hydrosphere of earth and then magically disappeared. Nor the fact that the massive changes in salinity in the water would have killed off all ocean and freshwater life. Nor that there is no reasonable explanation how a million plus species migrated from Mt. Ararat to all seven continents across oceans and the extreme variety of environmental conditions between Asia Minor and their "homes".

All that is required is common sense.

[Beto]

All that is required is common sense.

I'm beginning to wonder where's the common sense in arguing with literalists. It's not a point of view that can be reasoned with (they probably agree Yahweh's design is "above" human reason and logic), and we're not trying to convince ourselves... so what's the point?

[Fisherking]

Yes, goofy sums it up nicely. One has to ignore physics, biology, geology, and common sense to believe in the Genesis flood account.

Are you a leading expert in physics, biology, geology, or the Genesis flood account? If not, are you qualified to call the Genesis flood account "goofy"? Do you have any independent impartial non-evolutionary scientists with knowledge in the relevant fields of science and biblical exegesis who would support your claim that the Genesis flood account is goofy?

...Those are the sort of changes that happen over thousands of years of evolution...

Do you have any independent, impartial, verifiable evidence to support this claim?

I do not have to be an expert in physics, biology, etc. to understand that one can't fit over a million species in a single wooden boat, much less keep them all alive for the entire alleged time of the flood. Nor do I have to be an expert to recognize that there is no geological evidence for the trillions of tons of water that magically appeared in the hydrosphere of earth and then magically disappeared. Nor the fact that the massive changes in salinity in the water would have killed off all ocean and freshwater life. Nor that there is no reasonable explanation how a million plus species migrated from Mt. Ararat to all seven continents across oceans and the extreme variety of environmental conditions between Asia Minor and their "homes".

All that is required is common sense.

That's quite the flood story, the one I usually refer to is found in the book of Genesis.

[Fisherking]

Are you a leading expert in physics, biology, geology, or the Genesis flood account? If not, are you qualified to call the Genesis flood account "goofy"? Do you have any independent impartial non-evolutionary scientists with knowledge in the relevant fields of science and biblical exegesis who would support your claim that the Genesis flood account is goofy?

Must one have a Bachelor of Fairy Studies, in order to know fairies do not exist?

I don't think so. Just a little tongue-and-cheek to illustrate the standard many non-creationists are using to discretit creationist arguments.

[Openmind]

I don't think so. Just a little tongue-and-cheek to illustrate the standard many non-creationists are using to discretit creationist arguments.

Plus a healthy dosage of science, and rationality, surely?