Major unanswered issues regarding the "literal flood"

[Zzyzx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Easyrider]

It's perfectly legitimate given the historical Biblical accounts and the utter lack of any scientific proof that God and the supernatural do not exist. You need to back up your claims to have any credibility.

You are right there is no scientific proof whether the god and the supernatural exists or not. It is you claiming they do. So where's the proof.

You only 'proof' is that there is no proof.

The atheists say God does not exist. Where's their proof? They have to reach their conclusion by FAITH. They would be better served, for all their self-serving rhetoric that God is a fairy tale, to claim to be agnostics.

[Undertow]

It's perfectly legitimate given the historical Biblical accounts and the utter lack of any scientific proof that God and the supernatural do not exist. You need to back up your claims to have any credibility.

You are right there is no scientific proof whether the god and the supernatural exists or not. It is you claiming they do. So where's the proof.

You only 'proof' is that there is no proof.

The atheists say God does not exist. Where's their proof? They have to reach their conclusion by FAITH. They would be better served, for all their self-serving rhetoric that God is a fairy tale, to claim to be agnostics.

Straw man. If I don't share your belief in god I'm an atheist. This does not necessitate a belief against the existance of your god, it necessitates lack of belief in your god. You misrepresent, as is seen all to often, all atheists as strong atheists. Atheism deals with belief or lack thereof and agnosticism deal with issues of knowing.

It's always incredibly interesting to see the psychology of people such as yourself worn on your sleeve to show how you really feel about faith.

[Goat]

It's perfectly legitimate given the historical Biblical accounts and the utter lack of any scientific proof that God and the supernatural do not exist. You need to back up your claims to have any credibility.

You are right there is no scientific proof whether the god and the supernatural exists or not. It is you claiming they do. So where's the proof.

You only 'proof' is that there is no proof.

The atheists say God does not exist. Where's their proof? They have to reach their conclusion by FAITH. They would be better served, for all their self-serving rhetoric that God is a fairy tale, to claim to be agnostics.

Straw man. If I don't share your belief in god I'm an atheist. This does not necessitate a belief against the existance of your god, it necessitates lack of belief in your god. You misrepresent, as is seen all to often, all atheists as strong atheists. Atheism deals with belief or lack thereof and agnosticism deal with issues of knowing.

It's always incredibly interesting to see the psychology of people such as yourself worn on your sleeve to show how you really feel about faith.

Nor, IMO, does a 'strong atheist' have to 'prove' there is no god. All a strong atheist has to do is show the lack of credible evidence for any definition of "GOD" that is currently in use.

[Dionysus]

It's perfectly legitimate given the historical Biblical accounts and the utter lack of any scientific proof that God and the supernatural do not exist. You need to back up your claims to have any credibility.

You are right there is no scientific proof whether the god and the supernatural exists or not. It is you claiming they do. So where's the proof.

You only 'proof' is that there is no proof.

The atheists say God does not exist. Where's their proof? They have to reach their conclusion by FAITH. They would be better served, for all their self-serving rhetoric that God is a fairy tale, to claim to be agnostics.

Wrong. You're challenging us to prove a negative. The individual who makes a positive claim is under intellectual obligation to justify his claim, not someone who disbelieves until it is proven.

[ST_JB]

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

Once more, Zzyxz appeals to rationalism as his authority.

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

# 3 busted.

This is one deserves a credit...

[r~]

Once more, Zzyxz appeals to rationalism as his authority.
It seems pretty clear from Genesis 6 that God gave Noah instructions on how to build the Ark. Considering he created the entire universe, I doubt he would have too much of a problem with an Ark.
# 3 busted.

This is one deserves a credit...

Wow.

Heaven forbid that God acts in a rational manner. Evidently He is not Great enough to do that.

ItS
Peace
r~

If only there a way to deduct credits.

[Easyrider]

It's perfectly legitimate given the historical Biblical accounts and the utter lack of any scientific proof that God and the supernatural do not exist. You need to back up your claims to have any credibility.

You are right there is no scientific proof whether the god and the supernatural exists or not. It is you claiming they do. So where's the proof.

You only 'proof' is that there is no proof.

The atheists say God does not exist. Where's their proof? They have to reach their conclusion by FAITH. They would be better served, for all their self-serving rhetoric that God is a fairy tale, to claim to be agnostics.

Wrong. You're challenging us to prove a negative. The individual who makes a positive claim is under intellectual obligation to justify his claim, not someone who disbelieves until it is proven.

No squirming away now, Dionysus. The atheists make a claim that there is no God. Where's the proof? Back up the claim. I'm not buying your "cannot prove a negative." That's just a convenient way of stating something and then not having to answer for it.

[Dionysus]

It's perfectly legitimate given the historical Biblical accounts and the utter lack of any scientific proof that God and the supernatural do not exist. You need to back up your claims to have any credibility.

You are right there is no scientific proof whether the god and the supernatural exists or not. It is you claiming they do. So where's the proof.

You only 'proof' is that there is no proof.

The atheists say God does not exist. Where's their proof? They have to reach their conclusion by FAITH. They would be better served, for all their self-serving rhetoric that God is a fairy tale, to claim to be agnostics.

Wrong. You're challenging us to prove a negative. The individual who makes a positive claim is under intellectual obligation to justify his claim, not someone who disbelieves until it is proven.

No squirming away now, Dionysus. The atheists make a claim that there is no God. Where's the proof? Back up the claim. I'm not buying your "cannot prove a negative." That's just a convenient way of stating something and then not having to answer for it.

Hey, Easyrider, guess what?

I'm purple.

[Cmass]

No squirming away now, Dionysus. The atheists make a claim that there is no God. Where's the proof? Back up the claim. I'm not buying your "cannot prove a negative." That's just a convenient way of stating something and then not having to answer for it.

I make the claim that I see no evidence of God. Therefore, I see no compelling reason to believe He exists. Therefore I am an Atheist. In what way do you want me to back up my claim?

Easyrider, while Dionysus may be purple, he cannot fly to the moon by flapping his arms really fast. Well, I can! But I can only do it under certain circumstances, otherwise it interferes with the positive energy fields required to make it work.

There are, of course, people who can back up my claim - but they will be born after I die. Sometime near the turn of the next century, these people will write about how cool it was that I could fly right up to the moon, take a big bite out of the cheese and fly back down. They will rely on other people's accounts of course because they will not have seen it themselves.
But, that is OK, your great great great great grandchildren will know for sure that it really did happened. How will they know? Because, so it was written! And nobody, not even the smartest people in the whole wide world will be able to prove I didn't fly up to the moon. And that should be all your descendants will need to know. No? Why not?

You can't disprove my claims of flying to the moon, therefore, they have as much validity as your claims that the bible is literal and the flood really happened. There is no way out of this one. Now just be a man and admit it.

Riggin friggin, blasphemer! Conjecturer! Red Herring-ist! Irreverent Poodle Dog tickler! In Jesus name we pray! Oh Lord please grant our wish that Cmass die today and take his seat in hell next to the other God haters!

[bernee51]

The atheists make a claim that there is no God.

It is unlike you to be intellectually dishonest EZRider.

You know full well that an atheist does not believe in god.

It is not a prerequisite of atheism that the statement 'there is no god' be held as fact in order to be an atheist.

That's just a convenient way of stating something and then not having to answer for it.

So speaks a master in the art of obscuration.