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.

[Cephus]

Or maybe the Biblical flood story is a myth lifted from the Epic of Gilgamesh which predates it.

Of course it is, but getting the creationists and their ID brethren to admit it would require them to join reality like the rest of us. So long as they keep claiming that the flood was a real event, they're going to keep getting hit with all these questions that they can't answer. In the end, they just look like fools and they don't even know it.

[Fisherking]

So perhaps you would be so kind as to define the word "kind". Are you maintaining that Noah did not save two of all of the world's animals in his ark? If not, where did they come from?

So if we do not know where they come from that makes the flood story fictional?

Surely they did not all EVOLVE from some base species (or "kinds") that were saved?

Why not?

Was there not a great flood of water so great that it covered all of the mountains of the world?

Sure, does it specify the size of the mountains before and after the flood?

Doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter in the sense that all was covered. It would matter if someone was to come up with water volume figures (as I have seen many times) as evidence against a worldwide flood.

Even if we were to assume (based on absolutely nothing I might add)

An eye witness account isn't absolutely nothing( I might add).

that for some inexplicable reason all of the world's mountains were small by mountain standards.
Are you claiming that the Himalayas, the Andes, etc. were all thrust up many thousands of feet sometime after the Flood?

Yes, I think it possible that major mountain ranges were thrust up sometime after or during the flood. There are many observations would lead us to that conclusion. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=90
Are you claiming that the mountains that exist today have always existed in the state they are in now?

Wouldn't a massive increase in water that enveloped both oceans and freshwater lakes and rivers dramatically change the salinity levels in these bodies?

What were the salinity levels at that time?

Who cares?

If there were dramatic differences in salinity levels there would not be a "dramatic change" in the salinity levels.

Salt water fish require a particular level of salinity in the water to survive. Fresh water fish cannot live in salt water. A massive world wide flood would radically change the salt level in the oceans killing salt water fish. A massive world wide flood would cause oceans to merge with existing fresh water sources thus increasing their salinity level to poisonous levels for fresh water fish. All fish on earth would be dead

. The fish not capable of dealing with various changes (sediment levels, salt, chemical composition,ect) would have died. Evidentally some were capable of dealing with various conditions like many are today.

If all of the surviving animals on earth came from the ark at Mt. Ararat, would they not have to somehow get back to their natural environments around the world?

What were their natural environments? Did their natural environments even exist after the flood?

What are you talking about? You don't recognize that there is a difference between the natural environment that a penguin lives in versus a tiger? One lives in an arctic type of environment while the other lives in a tropical environment. Neither of these environments existed at Mt. Ararat.

Was there an arctic environment where the little penguins and polar bears lived before the flood? The fossil evidence suggests the climate was significantly different in past from what it is now. If there was a worldwide flood, I would suspect the animals getting off the ark didn't have a "natural environment" to return to and had to adjust and adapt to what was there -- or die.

[Fisherking]

Did God not include two of every [strike]species[/strike][kind] of animal in the ark?

"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"

Does the quote you supply indicate that animals came to the vicinity of the ark? Does that include animals of very limited mobility, those of microscopic size, those of very brief lifetimes....

I think the quote indicates that doesn't it?

It is not possible to calculate the salinity levels of a vague and/or imaginary event.

It is not possible to calculate the salinity levels of real and/or factional events in ancient times either.

Creationists and other proponents of the literal flood base their arguments upon scripture (Bronze Age storytellers tales) rather than upon actual study of the fields of biology, meteorology, climatology, archeology, etc.

Creationists and other proponents of the literal flood base their arguments upon scripture (Eye witness accounts of the flood) and evidence in the fields of biology, meteorology, climatology, archaelogy, ect.

Evidently religionists assume that study of a single book is adequate preparation to "understand" and debate complex matters that other mortals spend entire careers learning and researching.

There are those who study the bible and have spend their careers learning and researching relavant fields of science.

If all of the surviving animals on earth came from the ark at Mt. Ararat, would they not have to somehow get back to their natural environments around the world?

What were their natural environments? Did their natural environments even exist after the flood?

That is a question that MUST be answered by those who propose that the flood occurred.

So we must know why dinosaurs became extinct and if we do not that is proof that dinosaurs did not become extinct?

[Metatron]

So perhaps you would be so kind as to define the word "kind". Are you maintaining that Noah did not save two of all of the world's animals in his ark? If not, where did they come from?

So if we do not know where they come from that makes the flood story fictional?

Given that we are talking about over a million different species acclimated to a host of different ecological environments scattered through out seven continents, not knowing how all of these animals moved from their natural environments over oceans and hostile terrain to Mt. Ararat and then back to environments that they can live in makes the Flood story rather incredible.

I'm also still waiting for you to define "kind" and how it differs from species. Are you stating that many of the world's species were not present on the ark?

Oh, and while your at it, could you explain what happened to all of the world's PLANTS??? I don't recall anything from Genesis about Noah taking zillions of potted plants, seeds, or cuttings on board the ark. The world's plant life would all have been wiped out by such a massive flood. Where did the plants come from after the Flood?

Surely they did not all EVOLVE from some base species (or "kinds") that were saved?

Why not?

Interesting. I'd taken you for a creationist and thus against evolution.

However that may be, the Biblical Flood is alleged to have happened only about 4000 or so years ago. Evolution involves very small changes over very long periods of time. 4000 years is not enough time for more than fairly trivial changes to occur (with the exception of microbes and, perhaps, insects, etc. that produce a vastly greater number of generations than say mammals or birds) and is certainly nowhere near enough time for a relative handful of "kinds" to develop into a million plus species.

Was there not a great flood of water so great that it covered all of the mountains of the world?

Sure, does it specify the size of the mountains before and after the flood?

Doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter in the sense that all was covered. It would matter if someone was to come up with water volume figures (as I have seen many times) as evidence against a worldwide flood.

Not sure what your point is here. Even if all of the world's mountains were relative pygmies (which makes no sense geologically speaking), covering them all with water would still be an enormous quantity of water exerting enormous pressure which would leave obvious geological evidence for researchers.

Even if we were to assume (based on absolutely nothing I might add)

An eye witness account isn't absolutely nothing( I might add).

What eyewitness account would that be? Genesis was allegedly written by Moses (and even that is debatable) who lived many centuries after Noah. There is no evidence in the Bible that Noah or his sons left any kind of written account of the Flood. So we're talking stories told around campfires passed down through the centuries to the time that Genesis was written. Not exactly an eyewitness account.

that for some inexplicable reason all of the world's mountains were small by mountain standards.
Are you claiming that the Himalayas, the Andes, etc. were all thrust up many thousands of feet sometime after the Flood?

Yes, I think it possible that major mountain ranges were thrust up sometime after or during the flood. There are many observations would lead us to that conclusion. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4&start=90
Are you claiming that the mountains that exist today have always existed in the state they are in now?

Given that the Flood is only supposed to have happened 4000 or so years ago, the vast majority of mountains that would have existed then would be very similar to the way they are now. Erosion would have whittled some down a few feet and some mountains like the Andes would have been pushed up a few feet by the forces of subduction, but the only radical changes would have been new volcanoes created in the intervening time.

Obviously, over geologically significant time (millions of years), mountains have changed radically. The Appalachians were once as high (or higher) than the modern day Rockies but have been eroded over many millions of years. The Himalayas are the result of the tectonic plate that the Indian sub-continent rests on impacting Asia, causing mountain upthrust, again over millions of years. None of these things are possible over only thousands of years. Heck, the amount of energy released by such radical movement of so much of the Earths's mass over so little time would probably sterilize all life by heating up the atmosphere to unliveable levels.

Wouldn't a massive increase in water that enveloped both oceans and freshwater lakes and rivers dramatically change the salinity levels in these bodies?

What were the salinity levels at that time?

Who cares?

If there were dramatic differences in salinity levels there would not be a "dramatic change" in the salinity levels.

Ehh??? First of all, the salinity level of the ocean 4000 years ago is unlikely to have been measurably different from what it is now. Second, whatever the salinity level was, it was obviously compatable with life. Finally, the influx of such a titanic quantity cannot help but radically alter the salinity level thus killing off both ocean and freshwater life.

Salt water fish require a particular level of salinity in the water to survive. Fresh water fish cannot live in salt water. A massive world wide flood would radically change the salt level in the oceans killing salt water fish. A massive world wide flood would cause oceans to merge with existing fresh water sources thus increasing their salinity level to poisonous levels for fresh water fish. All fish on earth would be dead.

The fish not capable of dealing with various changes (sediment levels, salt, chemical composition,ect) would have died. Evidentally some were capable of dealing with various conditions like many are today.

What are these superfish that can shrug off massive environmental changes of this magnitude?

If all of the surviving animals on earth came from the ark at Mt. Ararat, would they not have to somehow get back to their natural environments around the world?

What were their natural environments? Did their natural environments even exist after the flood?

What are you talking about? You don't recognize that there is a difference between the natural environment that a penguin lives in versus a tiger? One lives in an arctic type of environment while the other lives in a tropical environment. Neither of these environments existed at Mt. Ararat.

Was there an arctic environment where the little penguins and polar bears lived before the flood?

Yes, the polar bears lived along the Arctic ice shelf and the penguins lived in Antarctica as they do to this day. I wasn't aware that polar bears and penguins living in their current environments 4000 year ago was controversial.

The fossil evidence suggests the climate was significantly different in past from what it is now.

This is certainly true, though I'm unaware of any evidence that the climate was massively different a mere 4000 years ago.

If there was a worldwide flood, I would suspect the animals getting off the ark didn't have a "natural environment" to return to and had to adjust and adapt to what was there -- or die.

Mostly die. Not that it really matters since many of these species would have died on the ark long before they could disembark. The rest would probably find being dumped on Mt. Ararat with no food (other than each other) and in a mountainous climate rather bad for their healths as well.

[Beto]

Did God not include two of every [strike]species[/strike][kind] of animal in the ark?

"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"

Does the quote you supply indicate that animals came to the vicinity of the ark? Does that include animals of very limited mobility, those of microscopic size, those of very brief lifetimes....

I think the quote indicates that doesn't it?

Are you implying there was knowledge of microscopic lifeforms at the time? And that Noah neatly accomodated them in petri dishes?

[Cephus]

Are you implying there was knowledge of microscopic lifeforms at the time? And that Noah neatly accomodated them in petri dishes?

My question is, what did Noah do with all the lifeforms that have a lifespan of less than a year? He could take 2 onboard, but they'd be dead (and therefore extinct) no matter what he did.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[McCulloch]

There's scientists in various scientific fields on both sides of the issue who investigate physical data.

This is too big of a whopper to deal with in this thread. Please answer here in Science and Religion.

[Revelations won]

Major unanswered issues that cast doubt upon the literal flood.

The scope of the OP is vast and massive to say the least. But as the saying goes "you can't eat an elephant in one bite".

Zzyzx requested that responses should be posted on only 1 question per post and be substantiated.


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?


Answer: Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brothers name was Joktan.

Chronicles 1:19 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brothers name was Joktan.

Note: (Peleg was born after the flood)

The above scriptures provide the clear answer to the above question. One must clearly understand that the earths surface prior to the flood was one large land mass and that the earth was not divided until long after the flood in the days of Peleg. IOW it is obvious that no special transportation was needed.

Another insight we should so note is that as a part and parcel of the Restoration of all things spoken by all the Holy Prophets since the world began is that the earth shall be restored to its prior condition prior to the flood as noted below.


D&C Section 133:24 And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided.

Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

[Revelations won]

Question 2. :

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.)

Answer: To my knowledge those details have not yet been revealed.

There is no evidence to prove that the animals aboard the ark were other than new born of each species.

During the times of the restoration of all things spoken of in Acts 3:21, then and only then will we know all the answers to this question.

[rikuoamero]

Question 2. :

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.)

Answer: To my knowledge those details have not yet been revealed.

There is no evidence to prove that the animals aboard the ark were other than new born of each species.

During the times of the restoration of all things spoken of in Acts 3:21, then and only then will we know all the answers to this question.

Dublin Zoo is the largest zoo in Ireland.
https://www.dublinzoo.ie/4/Animals-amp-Habitats.aspx
That link says there are about 400 animals.
The next link
https://www.dublinzoo.ie/139/Careers.aspx
says there are about 70 core staff, plus extra seasonal staff. So let's double that number just for the heck of it.

This means that in the real world, it takes roughly about 140 people, ALL of them trained to a modern degree level, to care for a "measly" 400 animals, in a land area of of 28 hectares.
So this is our base line, our barometer for what it takes.

Now, remind us please what the Noah Flood story tells us?

Thousands/millions of animals...on a wooden boat...with no possibility of receiving fresh supplies...being cared for by 8 people who would NOT have the same level of knowledge as our modern day zookeepers.
(If you want to argue the last one, and say that Noah and his family knew as much as, if not more, than modern zookeepers, this is flatly contradicted by the 'fact' that Noah built his boat using wood, and not more modern materials)