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.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 89 by Revelations won]

I understand that in your case being an atheist that you do not accept anything without verifiable physical evidence.

Why don't you? Why is it that in the case of Noah, you believe he actually DID build a boat and somehow he and his family cared for the (unspecified number of) animals?

I want to issue you a challenge. Ten years ago, I built a boat, out of wood, larger than any other boat known. I then loaded it up with a pair of each animal species. I and seven family members cared for them.

Is my claim true? How do you find out whether or not it is true?

[Revelations won]

Fear rikuoamero,

The historical account given in the Bible is the sole record of the subject available that I am aware of.

Do you have any other concurrent record written by others who lived during the time of Noah that state otherwise? If so please list your source.

[benchwarmer]

Fear rikuoamero,

The historical account given in the Bible is the sole record of the subject available that I am aware of.

Do you have any other concurrent record written by others who lived during the time of Noah that state otherwise? If so please list your source.

You are just proving rikuoamero's point. You have a single, unverified tale which does not match up with scientific evidence. i.e. there is no physical evidence of a worldwide flood nor a genetic bottleneck that would have occurred if all species had to 'reboot' starting at the time of the supposed ark.

You are also asking if there are other written records during the time of a very probable fairy tale. It's like if I asked you for other concurrent records written at the time of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer's birth that state otherwise. Do you have any? No? Ok, I guess he's real then and lands on your roof every Christmas.

[Kenisaw]

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.

I don't know of anyone that believes the biblical account as being a historical event that suggests it was not miraculous. To debate a miracle on purely scientific grounds is like analyzing a painting by what it tastes like, entirely the wrong approach.

Whether supernatural events (miracles) are indeed part of the "real world" (ie the reality of our existence) is entirely a matter of opinion, and while the original poster has every right to dictate that all participants accept the presupposion of the truth of naturalism that doesn't make such a bias approach true. That said, whole miracles by definition rest outside of the realm of science, there may well be certain features of the story that might be considered by some as being supported by certain scientific observations (geology anthropology, zoology, oceanography etc..) depending on how such data is interpreted.

Completely and unilaterally untrue. I wish our theist friends at this site would cease trying to perpetuate the falsehood that a miracle in this universe cannot be analyzed scientifically.

Everything that happens in this universe that involves energy and matter is subject to the conservation laws. Every claimed miracle I've ever heard of involves physical interaction between a god and matter/energy. Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that means that miracles would leave evidence behind. Evidence is collectible and observable, and can be tested. Hence, miracles fall within thfrom realm of science.

Of course, it would make more sense to prove gods exist first, before crediting them with the ability to perform tasks like miracles, but that step gets skipped a lot around here...

[Kenisaw]

Fear rikuoamero,

The historical account given in the Bible is the sole record of the subject available that I am aware of.

Do you have any other concurrent record written by others who lived during the time of Noah that state otherwise? If so please list your source.

When, precisely, is the "time of Noah"? I don't recall your single source listening a particular date. Kind of hard to list concurrent records when your record gives no indication of a date. And do you mean concurrent rcords for when Noah was actually alive? Because that's not when Noah's story was written in Genesis. Genesis was written, at the earliest according to theists, around 1400 BC, and according to scholars around the 500s BC. Noah supposedly lived long before that. What "concurrent" date are we even talking about?

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

I don't know of anyone that believes the biblical account as being a historical event that suggests it was not miraculous. To debate a miracle on purely scientific grounds is like analyzing a painting by what it tastes like, entirely the wrong approach.

Whether supernatural events (miracles) are indeed part of the "real world" (ie the reality of our existence) is entirely a matter of opinion, and while the original poster has every right to dictate that all participants accept the presupposion of the truth of naturalism that doesn't make such a bias approach true. That said, whole miracles by definition rest outside of the realm of science, there may well be certain features of the story that might be considered by some as being supported by certain scientific observations (geology anthropology, zoology, oceanography etc..) depending on how such data is interpreted.

Completely and unilaterally untrue.

What is untrue?

I made several statements above including "I don't know of anyone that believes the biblical account as being a historical event that suggests it was not miraculous." How exactly do you know that this is "unilaterally untrue"?

[JehovahsWitness]

Since every action has an equal and opposite reaction, that means that miracles would leave evidence behind. Evidence is collectible and observable, and can be tested.

And what if the miracle was to manipulate the evidence left behind? What is to stop the miracle being to miraculously ensure that there was no collectable or observable or testable evidence after the event? For example: what if God were to make my cat recite the Pledge of Allegiance? After the event what collectable or observable or testable evidence would there be?

Miracles are not falsifiable, the supernatural falls outside the realms of science since their cause is super or outside of the natural world. *If* a miracle does leave physical evidence then naturally that evidence can be analysed but the cause of the miracle cannot. Not all miracles will leave testable, verifiable physical evidence.

... miracles would leave evidence behind.

Not necessarily (see above)

... Evidence is collectible and observable, and can be tested.

Yes, *if* there is evidence in the physical realm, sure. which is why I said ...

That said, [while on the] whole miracles by definition rest outside of the realm of science, there may well be certain features of the story that might be considered by some as being supported by certain scientific observations (geology anthropology, zoology, oceanography etc..) depending on how such data is interpreted.

Obviously if a miracle did occur but it left no physical evidence then no physical evidence could be collected or analysed.


JW

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 97 by JehovahsWitness]

And what if the miracle was to manipulate the evidence left behind? What is to stop the miracle being to miraculously ensure that there was no collectable or observable or testable evidence after the event?

In which case, you have a being who is necessarily not trustworthy.
In much the same way as John who tells me that Hank is a serial killer and wants me to believe that Hank is a serial killer...even though according to John, the reason there is no physical evidence to tie Hank to the killings is because Hank carefully goes through the crime scenes and removes or edits any evidence that could implicate him.

Why should I believe John then, JW? John wants me to put Hank in prison. To do that...Hank has to have a trial...but according to John, that won't work seeing as how apparently Hank has carefully removed all the evidence.
Why should I believe YOU, JW?

Why should anyone who takes a skeptical approach to everything else in life turn off their skepticism and requirement for evidence when it comes to claims of miracles, and just accept a miracle claim as long as the miracle claimer says "Oh, the miracle doer manipulated the evidence and/or removed it, along with doing the miracle itself!"

For example: what if God were to make my cat recite the Pledge of Allegiance? After the event what collectable or observable or testable evidence would there be?

Are you going to claim that your cat recited the Pledge? Do you demand or want other people to believe that your cat is (or at least once was) capable of speech and recitation of known phrases?
I'm remembering an episode of the 90's TV Show, Sabrina the Teenage Witch. Sabrina submits her cat, Salem, to a talent show and makes the claim that Salem is capable of arithmetic. Salem is indeed capable of doing this, given that he is a male witch trapped in cat form as a punishment for misdeeds. The talent show judge doesn't just accept Salem is capable of arithmetic simply because Sabrina says it. He watches as Sabrina asks Salem "What's five times nine?" and Salem puts his paws on four and five (45).

If there really is a God who really did make your cat recite the Pledge and for some reason this God expects other people to believe this...then this God is an idiot for not giving us the required level of evidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

For example: what if God were to make my cat recite the Pledge of Allegiance? After the event what collectable or observable or testable evidence would there be?

Are you going to claim that your cat recited the Pledge?

I don't know.

The point is, if it did indeed happen there would be no "collectable or observable or testable evidence" of the event. So it could not be falsified and the cause could not be analysed (since its cause would rest outside the physical universe).

JW

[rikuoamero]

For example: what if God were to make my cat recite the Pledge of Allegiance? After the event what collectable or observable or testable evidence would there be?

Are you going to claim that your cat recited the Pledge?

I don't know.

The point is, if it did indeed happen there would be no "collectable or observable or testable evidence" of the event. So it could not be falsified and the cause could not be analysed (since its cause would rest outside the physical universe).

JW

Since you're not asserting it, or asserting it without evidence...why should anyone bother with it other than as a vague idea/concept?
Hitchen's Razor. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I get that it can be explored as a concept...but if you're not going to make an actual claim...? I can just ignore it and dismiss it out of hand. Much the same if you are going to say it about a Bible miracle claim.