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?

[otseng]

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?

If life can microevolve, then it is not necessary to equate kind to species. So, it could be species and higher. However, as to exactly what level the original animals can be categorized cannot be ascertained. One limitation though is that it cannot involve major morphological changes. So, for example, a kind cannot be at the phylum level.

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

No, I'm not guessing the "lowest possible number", simply a range. If we take either family or genus, it would be a range from 2000 to 16,000.

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?

My point is not that selective breeding produced all the animals. My point is that it is an example of "rapid evolution".

Here are some more examples of rapid (micro) evolution:

"Evolution is not just about dinosaurs and apes, but it can occur much more rapidly than we previously thought. Rapid evolution is pervasive, and the list of examples is growing,"
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Ju ... n.hrs.html

"Species introductions into aquatic habitats can dramatically alter the selective environment of native species leading to a rapid evolutionary response."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... id=1805496

"As more pests are sprayed with pesticides, more evolve resistance: in 1983, over 400 insect species were resistant to one or more pesticide. The list grows longer every year. However, the rapid evolution of resistance to pesticides provides a marvellously clear example of evolution by natural selection."
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridl ... t_1_12.asp

A Galapagos finch that helped reveal the origins of species to Charles Darwin has now undergone a spurt of rapid climate-driven evolution, biologists report.

In fact, it happened in a single bird generation, Grant explains.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1688507.htm

"An experiment with lizards in the Caribbean has demonstrated that evolution moves in predictable ways and can occur so rapidly that changes emerge in as little as a decade."
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/lizard.html

And from Talk Origins, some more observed speciation events.

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.

I think what you are driving at is how can animals that cannot swim could have reached land areas that are surrounded by water?

So, if the animals originated in Turkey, how can land animals reach Antarctica, Americas, and Australia?

First the easy one, Antarctica. All native animals in Antarctica can swim or fly - whales, penguins, seals, sea birds, etc.

And about Antarctica, here is something interesting:

The Labyrinth is a network of ice-free bedrock channels and scoured terrain emerging from beneath the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. It is one of a series of large channel networks that cross the Transantarctic Mountains. Some of the chasms are up to 800 feet deep and thousands of feet wide. Scientists have long speculated that the volume of water required to create the channels was far more than that produced by melting glaciers.

Webb said it appeared the subglacial flooding was not continuous but episodic, and likely lasted days or months at a time.

In an article on the study that appeared last month in the journal "Geology" Webb and her colleagues estimated the flood raged with approximately 1,000 times the volume of water flowing over Niagara Falls.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... flood.html

As for Americas and Australia, the sea level was lower in the past, so land bridges existed where land animals could cross. Just in the past 100 years, the sea level has risen over 18 cm.

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

They were not adapted to the environment so they died off.

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

This is only assuming that kind means species. And I've already demonstrated that this does not have to be the case.

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.

Only you are stating that kind means species. I'm not making that assertion.

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?

They did not need to collect microscopic animals. They could've tagged along aboard the ark or in the plants and animals aboard the ark. Or could've likewise survived the floodwaters like the marine animals.

Did you notice in the quote that approximately 1.2 million species of insects have been identified and named?

I'd be curious how many family and genus would belong to insects.

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).

It would not have to apply to marine life today, but for marine life that existed during the flood. And the changes between the marine life then and now would be accounted for by microevolution.

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).

Well, you might not consider my argument credible, but I did present an argument as a response. I had presented currently existing fish that can survive in both fresh and saltwater. And argued that microevolution caused fish to adapt to different environments.

Here's a more detailed example.

The Rainbow trout are unusual in that there are two forms which sometimes share the same habitat. The anadromous form called "Steelhead" migrate to the ocean, though they must return to fresh water to reproduce.

The freshwater form is called "Rainbow Trout", based on the broad red band along their sides. Steelhead are exactly the same species as Rainbow Trout. However, the difference is anadromy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_trout

Steelhead and Rainbow trout are the same species. Yet one lives in both fresh and saltwater and the other only in freshwater. What can account for this? I would say the most logical explanation is microevolution. And since they are the same species, there could not be any major morphological differences between the two.

So, other fish likewise could've been able to survive in both salt and freshwater in the past, but later adapted to a specific environment through microevolution.

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).

Since the entire sedimentary layers was deposited during the flood, it would've been before the flood.

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

The question is what is the mechanism for the vast changes in climate, not if it had changed in the past. But, we can get more into this when we discuss geology later.

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.

I had interpreted your use of the word "legend" to mean a mythical story. If that is not how you intended for it to mean, then I interpreted incorrectly.

I'm not starting off with the assumption that the flood stories are either true or false. I'm starting off with these two facts: 1. the existence of global flood stories in a large number of cultures 2. the similarities in these flood stories.

From this, the question is how can this be explained? I had already proposed 3 possibilities. Do you see any other possibilities?

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????

From the population growth equation, it is possible.

You are also implying that there is a problem with genetics. Could you explain this more?

(Note: I'll be out of town this weekend, so I'll pick up this thread again next week.)

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

If life can microevolve, then it is not necessary to equate kind to species. So, it could be species and higher. However, as to exactly what level the original animals can be categorized cannot be ascertained. One limitation though is that it cannot involve major morphological changes. So, for example, a kind cannot be at the phylum level.

Since evolution is a very large part of your “explanations”, you must be a proponent of evolution. Please explain why “Microevolution” is possible and “Macroevolution” is impossible.

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

No, I'm not guessing the "lowest possible number", simply a range. If we take either family or genus, it would be a range from 2000 to 16,000.

I am guessing a higher number, 12 million. Your guess is no more valid than mine.

Please explain how the ark, crewed by four men and four women, was adequate to collect, place on the ark, feed and care for, twelve million animal pairs (since my guess is as good as yours) – for a year – while sailing a monster boat.

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?

My point is not that selective breeding produced all the animals. My point is that it is an example of "rapid evolution".

Can you demonstrate that “rapid evolution” ACTUALLY occurred in every “kind” of animal to produce the great variety of animals currently present on the Earth?

If you merely say, “It could have happened”, you are are NOT proving your assertions.

“It could have happened” is a LONG way from, “It did happen”.

I do NOT question that evolution can and does happen rapidly in some cases. However, I DO raise the issue that your “explanation” requires VERY rapid evolution of EVERY species of animal in 5000 years – simultaneously –

That cannot be documented. It is an assumption. The assumption is made for the sole purpose of attempting to “explain” how incredible stories “could be true”. No evidence is presented to show that those stories are true – only “explanations” to cover glaringly obvious defects in the story.

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.

I think what you are driving at is how can animals that cannot swim could have reached land areas that are surrounded by water?

So, if the animals originated in Turkey, how can land animals reach Antarctica, Americas, and Australia?

First the easy one, Antarctica. All native animals in Antarctica can swim or fly - whales, penguins, seals, sea birds, etc.

Are you proposing that a pair of each Antarctic animal swam or flew from Turkey to Antarctica?

Are you serious?
Why would animals do that?
Each individual of each resident species survived a swim or flight of a minimum 7500 miles????
Does that include the microscopic resident species in Antarctica?

Do you realize how preposterous that sounds?

And about Antarctica, here is something interesting:

We are not discussing geology at this time.

As for Americas and Australia, the sea level was lower in the past, so land bridges existed where land animals could cross. Just in the past 100 years, the sea level has risen over 18 cm.

I agree that sea levels have fluctuated and that “land bridges” have existed in the past.

Are you proposing that land bridges existed 5000 years ago?

Can you document that assumption – 5000 years ago, not tens of thousands or millions?

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

They were not adapted to the environment so they died off.

Can you cite evidence to support this assertion? This is typical of the creationists’ argument – just assume that “they died off” when convenient, without any evidence that 1) similar marsupials existed in Turkey, and 2) they became extinct.

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

This is only assuming that kind means species. And I've already demonstrated that this does not have to be the case.

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.

Only you are stating that kind means species. I'm not making that assertion.

I am saying that unless you can demonstrate what is meant by “kind”, your explanation MUST cover the worst case scenario. Otherwise you assume a low number and ignore the problems with higher numbers.

Ten million species to be collected (20,000,000 individuals) is obviously impossible. Even the collection of 20,000 animals from all over the Earth seems impossible for eight people without transportation.

Of course, one can propose that animals from all over the Earth made their way to the ark – some making a trip of 12,000 miles – just so they could be put aboard – and fed and cared for during a year afloat – by eight people – on an impossibly large ship.

Did that mass migration to the ark include all the microscopic species too? Did it include animals that have a lifespan measured in hours or days?

Are you beginning to see the improbability of what you are proposing? Even if you are not, I suspect that it is obvious to readers.

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?

They did not need to collect microscopic animals. They could've tagged along aboard the ark or in the plants and animals aboard the ark. Or could've likewise survived the floodwaters like the marine animals.

“They could have tagged along” is conjecture (and a rather silly one). You are proposing that every existing microscopic animal that exists on the Earth somehow “incidentally” got aboard the ark. Millions of species just “accidentally” “tagged along”.

You CANNOT claim that any organism survived the flood because Genesis clearly states that “god” said

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Did god make a mistake and leave a few? Was god not capable of keeping his word to destroy “every living substance”. That seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?

Did you notice in the quote that approximately 1.2 million species of insects have been identified and named?

I'd be curious how many family and genus would belong to insects.

It makes no difference how many of any taxonomic groups exist UNLESS you can demonstrate what is meant by “kind” in the genesis account. It is mere speculation to claim any particular taxonomic level without knowing the intent of the writers. You can guess family and I can guess species. There is nothing to say that your guess is superior to mine.

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).

It would not have to apply to marine life today, but for marine life that existed during the flood. And the changes between the marine life then and now would be accounted for by microevolution.

Please demonstrate what “marine life existed during the flood”.

Please demonstrate that evolution has produced all present species.

Please stop speculating about what “might have happened”. Unless you can demonstrate what DID happen, you are merely stating opinions based upon scripture rather than reality.

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).

Well, you might not consider my argument credible, but I did present an argument as a response. I had presented currently existing fish that can survive in both fresh and saltwater. And argued that microevolution caused fish to adapt to different environments.

I have agreed that there are some anadromous fish species.

For your speculations to work EVERY species must have either been anadromous or be descended from an anadromous ancestor – in 5000 years. If you can demonstrate that with something other than speculation and supposition, please do so. Your explanation must be sufficient to cover every known species.

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).

Since the entire sedimentary layers was deposited during the flood, it would've been before the flood.

You have NOT addressed my challenge to your assertion that the Earth’s climate was warmer 5000 years ago. You have provided evidence that the climate was warmer 75,000,000 years ago – which has nothing to do with 5000 years ago.


From post #60:

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.

From post #61

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

The question is what is the mechanism for the vast changes in climate, not if it had changed in the past. But, we can get more into this when we discuss geology later.

Is it not clear that I challenged your assertion that the Earth’s climate was warmer 5000 years ago? I asked for evidence that was true. Rather than providing that evidence, you provided evidence that pertains to 75,000,000 years ago. When called on that issue, you attempt to change the subject to mechanisms of climate change.

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.

I had interpreted your use of the word "legend" to mean a mythical story. If that is not how you intended for it to mean, then I interpreted incorrectly.

I'm not starting off with the assumption that the flood stories are either true or false. I'm starting off with these two facts: 1. the existence of global flood stories in a large number of cultures 2. the similarities in these flood stories.

From this, the question is how can this be explained? I had already proposed 3 possibilities. Do you see any other possibilities?

I challenge the assumption that similar stories in different cultures provide evidence of anything. For instance, the fact that most cultures have some belief in supernatural beings does NOT indicate that supernatural beings exist.

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????

From the population growth equation, it is possible.

I disagree with your calculations.

Three fundamental errors are:

Using four breeding pairs rather than three: Your bible indicates that Noah “begat” three sons (Gen 6:10). It does not support the idea that there were any more children. If you wish to propose that he and his wife produced more children post-diluvium, you have the burden of proof.

Using 9846 years as the time since the flood: There is no certainty about when the flood was to have occurred. You have specified a ridiculously long time span 5000 to 100,000 but have specified “leaning toward 5000”. Now when it is convenient to make numbers work out that figure is nearly doubled.

Use of exponential growth calculations: I am not an expert on population growth – and neither are you. Those who actually study past human populations are more qualified to decide what is reasonable and possible – anthropologists, not theologians. Simply making calculations without fully understanding the “big picture” is subject to a high probability of error.

You are also implying that there is a problem with genetics. Could you explain this more?

If the flood story is correct and only three breeding pairs of humans existed 5000 years ago, then EVERY human characteristic and condition MUST have been represented in those six people (or it must have “miraculously” evolved since). Every possible hair color and type, for instance, must have been represented. Every facial characteristic, every body style, every variation of every kind now present MUST have been present in those three pairs – or “miraculously evolved”.

Every genetic disorder must have been present (or “miraculously evolved”). Here is a list of those disorders:

Achondroplasia@
Achromatopsia@
Acid Maltase Deficiency@
Adrenoleukodystrophy@
Aicardi Syndrome@
Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency@
Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome@
Apert Syndrome@
Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia@
Ataxia Telangiectasia@
Barth Syndrome@
Blue Rubber Bleb Nevus Syndrome@
Canavan Disease@
Cri Du Chat Syndrome@
Cystic Fibrosis@
Dercum's Disease@
Ectodermal Dysplasia@
Fanconi Anemia@
Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva@
Fragile X Syndrome@
Galactosemia@
Gaucher Disease@
Hemochromatosis@
Hemophilia@
Huntington's Disease@
Hurler Syndrome@
Hypophosphatasia@
Klinefelter Syndrome@
Krabbes Disease@
Langer-Giedion Syndrome@
Leukodystrophy@
Long QT Syndrome@
Marfan Syndrome@
Moebius Syndrome@
Mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS)@
Nail Patella Syndrome@
Nephrogenic Diabetes Insipidus@
Neurofibromatosis@
Niemann-Pick Disease@
Osteogenesis Imperfecta@
Porphyria@
Prader-Willi Syndrome@
Progeria@
Proteus Syndrome@
Retinoblastoma@
Rett Syndrome@
Rubinstein-Taybi Syndrome@
Sanfilippo Syndrome@
Shwachman Syndrome@
Sickle Cell Disease@
Smith-Magenis Syndrome@
Stickler Syndrome@
Tay-Sachs@
Thrombocytopenia Absent Radius (TAR) Syndrome@
Treacher Collins Syndrome@
Trisomy@
Tuberous Sclerosis@
Turner's Syndrome@
Urea Cycle Disorder@
von Hippel-Lindau Disease@
Waardenburg Syndrome@
Williams Syndrome@
Wilson's Disease@

Since you are proposing that all humans and all human genetic disorders are descended from three breeding pairs five thousand years ago, the above genetic conditions MUST have been present (or miraculously evolved).

If you intend to use the “miraculous evolution” since the flood, please show evidence to explain how the great rate of change you propose occurred long enough to fit your “explanation” but is NOT present now. What changed?
.

[otseng]

I am saying that unless you can demonstrate what is meant by “kind”, your explanation MUST cover the worst case scenario. Otherwise you assume a low number and ignore the problems with higher numbers.

There is no need for me to support a straw man argument. I've given my arguments that kind is above the species level. If I was asserting that kind means species, then the burden would be on me to support that. But I have never asserted that. So, continually asking me to support this is futile.

Since evolution is a very large part of your “explanations”, you must be a proponent of evolution. Please explain why “Microevolution” is possible and “Macroevolution” is impossible.

I am a propopent of aspects of evolutionary theory which I find to be supportable. There is no need for someone to totally accept all aspects of evolutionary theory, or for someone to reject it all.

Macro versus micro. A huge debate. Are you sure this is the path you want for us to proceed down?

Each individual of each resident species survived a swim or flight of a minimum 7500 miles????

Who said an individual had to travel half way around the world? It would make more sense that it occurred over generations.

We are not discussing geology at this time.

I agree that sea levels have fluctuated and that “land bridges” have existed in the past.

Are you proposing that land bridges existed 5000 years ago?

Wouldn't this be geology also?

Can you cite evidence to support this assertion? This is typical of the creationists’ argument – just assume that “they died off” when convenient, without any evidence that 1) similar marsupials existed in Turkey, and 2) they became extinct.

Actually, I have to credit evolutionists with this.

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Did god make a mistake and leave a few? Was god not capable of keeping his word to destroy “every living substance”. That seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?

The verse doesn't simply say "destroy every living thing", but qualifies with "off the face of the earth."

"Face" in Hebrew is paniym (Strong's H6440). One definition of face is "face, surface (of ground)". So, it can also be translated as "and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the surface (of ground) of the earth".

Some other verses that use this same word are:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

So, there is no inconsistency with this passage.

Please demonstrate that evolution has produced all present species.

What are you asking for? A graph that shows how every species has evolved? Not even professional biologists are able to produce this.

Is it not clear that I challenged your assertion that the Earth’s climate was warmer 5000 years ago? I asked for evidence that was true. Rather than providing that evidence, you provided evidence that pertains to 75,000,000 years ago.

I provided the evidence. The question is the dating of the evidence. And that will require going into the Flood Model and challenging the SGM.

I challenge the assumption that similar stories in different cultures provide evidence of anything. For instance, the fact that most cultures have some belief in supernatural beings does NOT indicate that supernatural beings exist.

Again, what other possibilities are there in explaining the prevalence of the flood stories among so many cultures and with similarities? Or do you agree that the 3 that I proposed are the only possibilities?

Only one of the possibilities result in that the stories resulted from an actual event that occurred, the other two result in that the stories are myths. So, it is not an assumption that the stories provide evidence of an actual event, but it would be one of the conclusions of the possibilities.

Yes, many cultures share beliefs (belief in the supernatural, belief in right and wrong, belief in marriage, belief in an afterlife). But the flood story is different in that it is not just a belief in a flood. But there is a story behind it. And that there are specific things in the stories that are found: a global flood, divine destruction, caused by sin, ark, landing on a mountain, humanity and animals originated by survivors in ark, etc.

Here's something else that's interesting. The Chinese word for boat is "chuan".



It is composed of 3 radicals: boat, eight, and mouth.

The first boat, the ark, had eight people in it.

Using four breeding pairs rather than three: Your bible indicates that Noah “begat” three sons (Gen 6:10). It does not support the idea that there were any more children. If you wish to propose that he and his wife produced more children post-diluvium, you have the burden of proof.

Noah and his wife lived for quite awhile after the flood. But, even if we discount Noah having any more children, using 3 pairs would not significantly change the values.

Using 9846 years as the time since the flood: There is no certainty about when the flood was to have occurred. You have specified a ridiculously long time span 5000 to 100,000 but have specified “leaning toward 5000”. Now when it is convenient to make numbers work out that figure is nearly doubled.

Whether it is 10,000 years ago or 5,000 years ago is trivial in the grand scheme of things. The main point is that millions of years have not elapsed. Basically we are talking about two different time scales here. The SGM works with millions/billions of years. The FM is dealing with thousands of years. This is the fundamental difference.

Use of exponential growth calculations: I am not an expert on population growth – and neither are you.

Again, it doesn't matter who is an expert on what. If there is an error in my calculation, then you are free to point that out. My not being an expert on population growth would not constitute a "fundamental error".

If the flood story is correct and only three breeding pairs of humans existed 5000 years ago, then EVERY human characteristic and condition MUST have been represented in those six people (or it must have “miraculously” evolved since). Every possible hair color and type, for instance, must have been represented. Every facial characteristic, every body style, every variation of every kind now present MUST have been present in those three pairs – or “miraculously evolved”.

That could've been the case. Suppose that everyone happened to die in a nuclear holocaust, except for me and my wife since we happen to have the anti-radiation gene. And suppose that we repopulated the entire world. 100 generations from now, would everyone look just like us? I doubt it. So, we had the genetic information to produce a variety of people.

Every genetic disorder must have been present (or “miraculously evolved”). Here is a list of those disorders:

Genetic disorders is a good example of microevolution. Random genetic variations generally result in something detrimental. The survivors of the ark did not have these genetic disorders, but these were introduced into humanity through genetic changes over the generations.

[Zzyzx]

.

I am saying that unless you can demonstrate what is meant by “kind”, your explanation MUST cover the worst case scenario. Otherwise you assume a low number and ignore the problems with higher numbers.

There is no need for me to support a straw man argument. I've given my arguments that kind is above the species level. If I was asserting that kind means species, then the burden would be on me to support that. But I have never asserted that. So, continually asking me to support this is futile.

As I think you are aware, my position is that you CANNOT assume what is meant by “kind”. Your argument would benefit if it was high on the taxonomic scale. However, there is no evidence that is true. Therefore, any claim that the number of animals on the ark was LIMITED and was supplemented by evolution after the flood CANNOT be substantiated. It is a GUESS.

Each individual of each resident species survived a swim or flight of a minimum 7500 miles????

Who said an individual had to travel half way around the world? It would make more sense that it occurred over generations.

So, now we have generation after generation of kangaroos hopping in from Australia, ostriches flying in (before they lost the ability since the flood to evolution), penguins swimming in from Antarctica and polar bears walking in from the Arctic.

They all went into environments to which they were not adabpted -- for generations -- just to get aboard an ark. Sure they did.

Can you cite evidence to support this assertion? This is typical of the creationists’ argument – just assume that “they died off” when convenient, without any evidence that 1) similar marsupials existed in Turkey, and 2) they became extinct.

Actually, I have to credit evolutionists with this.

“Crediting” evolution is a LONG way from demonstrating that it occurred as you assume (with no verification). Again you are guessing and stating it as though it actually occurred.

Cite evidence of the occurrence of similar marsupials in Turkey -- and evidence that they died out. You have made the claim, now support it.

Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

Did god make a mistake and leave a few? Was god not capable of keeping his word to destroy “every living substance”. That seems pretty clear, doesn’t it?

The verse doesn't simply say "destroy every living thing", but qualifies with "off the face of the earth."

"Face" in Hebrew is paniym (Strong's H6440). One definition of face is "face, surface (of ground)". So, it can also be translated as "and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the surface (of ground) of the earth".

Some other verses that use this same word are:

Gen 1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Gen 6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

So, there is no inconsistency with this passage.

So, god didn’t really mean that he was going to kill everything on the Earth – that was just a trick phrase that was intended to convey whatever religionists interpret it to mean.

What did god “really” mean? Was he saying that he was going to kill “most” living things? Was he excluding things so biblical literalists could defend the flood?

How do you know all these things? Do you know them for sure or are you making them up?

Please demonstrate that evolution has produced all present species.

What are you asking for? A graph that shows how every species has evolved? Not even professional biologists are able to produce this.

It would be appropriate to consult the findings of professional biologists regarding the process of evolution BEFORE concluding what evolution has or has not occurred in the past. Those people actually study such matters and do not simply make unsupported assertions.

Theology is NOT adequate training to understand genetics, geology, hydrology, paleo-climatology, archeology, etc (people actually study such things – rather than just making guesses that sound good or making up stories to back up preconceived notions).

Legitimate discussion of evolution at a specific time and place is accompanied by studies of the area and the organisims in question. When you propose great changes in animals in 5000 years, that conflicts strongly with the information provided by those who actually study the subject. To have any credibility, you are expected to provide verification for your claims. Is that an unfamiliar concept?

I challenge the assumption that similar stories in different cultures provide evidence of anything. For instance, the fact that most cultures have some belief in supernatural beings does NOT indicate that supernatural beings exist.

Again, what other possibilities are there in explaining the prevalence of the flood stories among so many cultures and with similarities? Or do you agree that the 3 that I proposed are the only possibilities?

It is not my burden to provide alternative explanations. My position is that the presence of legends does not prove the occurrence of a worldwide flood. I am not interested in the study of legends – and do not accept them as proof of anything.

Only one of the possibilities result in that the stories resulted from an actual event that occurred, the other two result in that the stories are myths. So, it is not an assumption that the stories provide evidence of an actual event, but it would be one of the conclusions of the possibilities.

The discussion of “it is possible that such and such occurred” has no place in a reasoned debate. It is possible that many things happened. It is possible that they did not. That proves nothing at all.

Yes, many cultures share beliefs (belief in the supernatural, belief in right and wrong, belief in marriage, belief in an afterlife). But the flood story is different in that it is not just a belief in a flood. But there is a story behind it. And that there are specific things in the stories that are found: a global flood, divine destruction, caused by sin, ark, landing on a mountain, humanity and animals originated by survivors in ark, etc.

If every culture on the “face” of the Earth (whatever that means in Christian terms), had a flood legend with similar elements that would NOT be proof that a flood occurred.

Here's something else that's interesting. The Chinese word for boat is "chuan".

It is composed of 3 radicals: boat, eight, and mouth.

The first boat, the ark, had eight people in it.

This is a great demonstration of the level of argument being presented.

Using four breeding pairs rather than three: Your bible indicates that Noah “begat” three sons (Gen 6:10). It does not support the idea that there were any more children. If you wish to propose that he and his wife produced more children post-diluvium, you have the burden of proof.

Noah and his wife lived for quite awhile after the flood. But, even if we discount Noah having any more children, using 3 pairs would not significantly change the values.

A geometric increase starting with three pairs rather than four would not significantly change values??????? Are you SURE?

Using 9846 years as the time since the flood: There is no certainty about when the flood was to have occurred. You have specified a ridiculously long time span 5000 to 100,000 but have specified “leaning toward 5000”. Now when it is convenient to make numbers work out that figure is nearly doubled.

Whether it is 10,000 years ago or 5,000 years ago is trivial in the grand scheme of things. The main point is that millions of years have not elapsed. Basically we are talking about two different time scales here. The SGM works with millions/billions of years. The FM is dealing with thousands of years. This is the fundamental difference.

The difference between 5000 years and 10,000 years is of GREAT significance. Are you unfamiliar with geometric increase?

"Millions of years have not elapsed" -- Evidence please. That is another unsupported assertion.

Use of exponential growth calculations: I am not an expert on population growth – and neither are you.

Again, it doesn't matter who is an expert on what. If there is an error in my calculation, then you are free to point that out. My not being an expert on population growth would not constitute a "fundamental error".

I question the use of geometric growth calculations. It appears from the above that you are not at all familiar with such calculations. One who does not understand that doubling the time operation in a geometric increase will affect results significantly, does not understand the calculations.

I admit that I am not skilled in such matters, but I know better than to make such fundamental mistakes and attempt to pass my work off as being accurate.

If the flood story is correct and only three breeding pairs of humans existed 5000 years ago, then EVERY human characteristic and condition MUST have been represented in those six people (or it must have “miraculously” evolved since). Every possible hair color and type, for instance, must have been represented. Every facial characteristic, every body style, every variation of every kind now present MUST have been present in those three pairs – or “miraculously evolved”.

That could've been the case. Suppose that everyone happened to die in a nuclear holocaust, except for me and my wife since we happen to have the anti-radiation gene. And suppose that we repopulated the entire world. 100 generations from now, would everyone look just like us? I doubt it. So, we had the genetic information to produce a variety of people.

“That could have been the case” – again. SHOW that it IS the case – not that it is remotely possible.

Would you claim that you and your wife (or you and your wife, two brothers and their wives) have sufficient genetic information to produce ALL the variety found in humans? Can you substantiate that claim? Have you consulted legitimate genetic research to verify the claim? You should have that information available when your claim is challenged.

Every genetic disorder must have been present (or “miraculously evolved”). Here is a list of those disorders:

Genetic disorders is a good example of microevolution. Random genetic variations generally result in something detrimental. The survivors of the ark did not have these genetic disorders, but these were introduced into humanity through genetic changes over the generations.

“Survivors of the ark did not have these genetic disorders”. HOW can you know that? You can’t – you are making that up and offering it as fact.
.

[otseng]

Each individual of each resident species survived a swim or flight of a minimum 7500 miles????

Who said an individual had to travel half way around the world? It would make more sense that it occurred over generations.

So, now we have generation after generation of kangaroos hopping in from Australia, ostriches flying in (before they lost the ability since the flood to evolution), penguins swimming in from Antarctica and polar bears walking in from the Arctic.

I see what you are referring to now.

Yes, it would take less than one generation for the animals to get to the ark prior to the flood. What I was referring to was after the flood. There is no need for the animals to disperse across the world in one generation.

Again, there was no separate continents prior to the flood. There was no vast climate differences. A regional representation is all that would've been necessary to have a global representation. So, there was less need to travel large distances to get to the ark.

Cite evidence of the occurrence of similar marsupials in Turkey -- and evidence that they died out. You have made the claim, now support it.

If they died out, there would be no evidence.

So, god didn’t really mean that he was going to kill everything on the Earth – that was just a trick phrase that was intended to convey whatever religionists interpret it to mean.

It is only your interpretation that he was going to kill everything.

When you propose great changes in animals in 5000 years, that conflicts strongly with the information provided by those who actually study the subject. To have any credibility, you are expected to provide verification for your claims.

I have already provided evidence of rapid microevolution.

It is not my burden to provide alternative explanations. My position is that the presence of legends does not prove the occurrence of a worldwide flood. I am not interested in the study of legends – and do not accept them as proof of anything.

If there was a worldwide flood, one would expect that there would be some record in various cultures. And what we see is at least 300 cultures having a flood story. If a global flood did occur within human history and no records were found in cultures, then a global flood would be suspect.

The evidence of the flood stories cannot simply be discounted because you do not believe them to be true. Just the fact that the global flood stories exist around the world (regardless of if they are true or not) demand an explanation.

The discussion of “it is possible that such and such occurred” has no place in a reasoned debate. It is possible that many things happened. It is possible that they did not. That proves nothing at all.

What I'm asking for is the cause of the stories. There has to be an explanation for this. What would the explanation be then?

This is a great demonstration of the level of argument being presented.

Exactly how does this counter the argument?

A geometric increase starting with three pairs rather than four would not significantly change values??????? Are you SURE?

Yes, I'm sure. I get 10012 for t when N(0) is 6. What do you get?

"Millions of years have not elapsed" -- Evidence please. That is another unsupported assertion.

Does this mean you're ready for us to go into geology?

The difference between 5000 years and 10,000 years is of GREAT significance. Are you unfamiliar with geometric increase?

Geometric increase? What would be the relevance?

I question the use of geometric growth calculations. It appears from the above that you are not at all familiar with such calculations. One who does not understand that doubling the time operation in a geometric increase will affect results significantly, does not understand the calculations.

I admit that I am not skilled in such matters, but I know better than to make such fundamental mistakes and attempt to pass my work off as being accurate.

Well, if you are not skilled in such matters, then how are you able to judge if the population growth equation cannot be applied to estimate population growth?

Would you claim that you and your wife (or you and your wife, two brothers and their wives) have sufficient genetic information to produce ALL the variety found in humans?

I'm not claiming that me and my wife would have the variety found in current humans, but in subsequent humans that descend from us.

“Survivors of the ark did not have these genetic disorders”. HOW can you know that?

For one thing, by how long they lived. Also, how could they have had all the genetic disorders that you had mentioned? Genetic disorders obviously had to have been introduced over time into humans.

[Zzyzx]

.
I regard the whole idea of animals making their way to the ark and then making their way back to their native habitats as preposterous. Many life forms have very limited or no mobility, many are microscopic, many cannot survive outside specific habitat conditions, many have very short lifecycles. Yet, the tale requires them to somehow make their way to the ark, be aboard for a year, and then make their way home.

Why would animals from all over the world converge upon the ark? Was it a “miracle”?

Again, there was no separate continents prior to the flood. There was no vast climate differences. A regional representation is all that would've been necessary to have a global representation. So, there was less need to travel large distances to get to the ark.

Again, the above is all conjecture, conjecture, conjecture.

Cite evidence of the occurrence of similar marsupials in Turkey -- and evidence that they died out. You have made the claim, now support it.

If they died out, there would be no evidence.

That is a strange statement. Do you not recognize that we know about many extinct life forms from the study of fossils and other evidence?

So, god didn’t really mean that he was going to kill everything on the Earth – that was just a trick phrase that was intended to convey whatever religionists interpret it to mean.

It is only your interpretation that he was going to kill everything.

“God’s” statement is clear. One can “interpret” it to mean what it does not say by citing translation errors or whatever. However, that statement is taken verbatim from the relevant verses you supplied in post #2.

“Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.”

Sure, god didn’t really mean what he was saying. He meant what religionists say he meant.

When you propose great changes in animals in 5000 years, that conflicts strongly with the information provided by those who actually study the subject. To have any credibility, you are expected to provide verification for your claims.

I have already provided evidence of rapid microevolution.

I have agreed that evolution can be rapid. NOW show that such rapid evolution actually occurred after the flood – then stopped happening rapidly now (unless you can show that it continues to be rapid).

It is illegitimate to propose that evolution was very rapid for a few thousand years then stopped being rapid – without clearly demonstrating 1) that rapid evolution actually occurred, 2) that evolution slowed and 3) the causative mechanisms involved.

It is not my burden to provide alternative explanations. My position is that the presence of legends does not prove the occurrence of a worldwide flood. I am not interested in the study of legends – and do not accept them as proof of anything.

If there was a worldwide flood, one would expect that there would be some record in various cultures. And what we see is at least 300 cultures having a flood story. If a global flood did occur within human history and no records were found in cultures, then a global flood would be suspect.

The evidence of the flood stories cannot simply be discounted because you do not believe them to be true. Just the fact that the global flood stories exist around the world (regardless of if they are true or not) demand an explanation.

I am waiting for evidence of a global flood. WHAT evidence. Do you not comprehend that legends to NOT constitute proof? If the flood was literal, there would be sound evidence that could be sited that did not require “interpretation” by creationists to somehow imply a flood.

The discussion of “it is possible that such and such occurred” has no place in a reasoned debate. It is possible that many things happened. It is possible that they did not. That proves nothing at all.

What I'm asking for is the cause of the stories. There has to be an explanation for this. What would the explanation be then?

Again, I do not wish to speculate about the “meaning” of various cultures having similar legends of floods, droughts, gods or other factors. Because I refuse to speculate does NOT mean that someone’s “explanation” is correct. You are free to speculate – provided that you identify your speculations as speculations. I am not bound to accept your speculations.

This is a great demonstration of the level of argument being presented.

Exactly how does this counter the argument?

What argument? That a Chinese word somehow proves that a flood occurred?

THAT is exactly my point. Citing the derivation of a Chinese word and “interpreting” it to have biblical significance is typical of the level of “interpretations” that are being made to make the bible flood tale seem literal.

A geometric increase starting with three pairs rather than four would not significantly change values??????? Are you SURE?

Yes, I'm sure. I get 10012 for t when N(0) is 6. What do you get?

I am humble enough to realize that in some fields my knowledge is not adequate to attempt calculations. When I do undertake calculations in fields I understand, there is some likiehood that they have credibility. Others evidently feel as though they understand all fields of knowledge, perhaps better than those who devote careers and lifetimes to their study.

"Millions of years have not elapsed" -- Evidence please. That is another unsupported assertion.

Does this mean you're ready for us to go into geology?

I respectfully decline to discuss geology and suggest that it would be far more appropriate for you to discuss the subject with someone whose understanding of the field is of the same level as your own, AND someone who is willing to accept supernatural explanations in lieu of scientific explanations – in order to “justify” scriptures.

I am satisfied with the presentation I made for Standard Geology and feel no need to discuss the matter further.

The difference between 5000 years and 10,000 years is of GREAT significance. Are you unfamiliar with geometric increase?

Geometric increase? What would be the relevance?

Are you saying that you are unfamiliar with what is meant by geometric increase or how it applies to population growth calculations?

The additional five thousand years equates to about 250 generations. Whatever increase is used is calculated a bit like compound interest 250 times. Is that not “relevant”?

The second five thousand years produces many, many times the increase of the first five thousand. Are you aware of the “penny a day doubled for a month” illustration?

I question the use of geometric growth calculations. It appears from the above that you are not at all familiar with such calculations. One who does not understand that doubling the time operation in a geometric increase will affect results significantly, does not understand the calculations.

I admit that I am not skilled in such matters, but I know better than to make such fundamental mistakes and attempt to pass my work off as being accurate.

Well, if you are not skilled in such matters, then how are you able to judge if the population growth equation cannot be applied to estimate population growth?

I know enough about the matter to realize that there is probability of error. I am not required to accept your calculations. Some people evidently do not acknowledge any possibility that their calculations in areas in which they are not skilled could be wrong or could fail to consider significant variables.

Would you claim that you and your wife (or you and your wife, two brothers and their wives) have sufficient genetic information to produce ALL the variety found in humans?

I'm not claiming that me and my wife would have the variety found in current humans, but in subsequent humans that descend from us.

Do you propose that your descendents would have as wide a range of physical and personal genetic characteristics (including genetic disorders) as present humans within 250 generations? If so, upon what do you base the claim?

[“Survivors of the ark did not have these genetic disorders”. HOW can you know that?

For one thing, by how long they lived. Also, how could they have had all the genetic disorders that you had mentioned? Genetic disorders obviously had to have been introduced over time into humans.

What you are saying is that you DO NOT know – you are guessing again and acting as though your guesses are factual – without bothering to check for accuracy.

Assumptions are NOT the same as evidence.
.

[Zzyzx]

.
Osteng,

When you recommended yourself as a strong theist debater, I expected that you would present sound arguments based in reason and evidence – rather than unsubstantiated conjecture and supposition. I am disappointed with the lack of quality – and total lack of evidence. After well over 100 posts in this thread (including those lost in the hack) you have not offered evidence to indicate that a worldwide flood actually occurred.

All you have offered is, “It could have been possible if we make certain assumptions”. The assumptions you have made have not been supported by evidence or reason to indicate that they are accurate or appropriate. Challenges to your assumptions have not been answered with sound reasoning or with evidence – nothing more than more assumptions and assertions. Quoting Walter Brown is simply quoting more unsupported assumptions and assertions.

Repeating, “It could have been possible if we make these assumptions”, is NOT any indication that it DID happen – and is a very weak form of “argument” that should not ever occur in a legitimate debate.

The silliest assertion, in my opinion, is that all the world’s animals gathered at the ark to be loaded, were aboard for a year (millions of them) fed and cared for by eight people, then they swam and flew back to their native environment (as far as 12,000 miles).

I do not find it credible to envision a pair of penguins swimming 7500 miles from Antarctica into an environment that is inhospitable to them, reporting to the ark and being fed fresh fish for a year, then swimming back to Antarctic from Turkey (without either of them dying or becoming disabled – because if they did their species would go extinct).

All that may be reasonable – in theology – but not in the real world we inhabit. Of course, a pair of polar bears swam in from the Arctic, kangaroos hopped in from Australia, ostriches flew in – (wait, they can’t fly – well maybe they could 5000 years ago and have “microevolved” since – or they could have hitchhiked a ride on the back of a whale who was going that way anyway). Now it has been suggested (again with no evidence) that all the above creatures brought along the complete complement of all microscopic life forms from their environment. Of, course, after the cruise they hopped, swam, flew or crawled back home, carrying the right microorganisms.

Kangaroos hopping on water? Why not if one believes they and all the other animals traveled up to 12,000 miles each way just to make the flood tale literal. Of course, the Earth “might have been smaller then”, so the trip would have been easier. The “Flood Model” probably “explains” a smaller earth 5000 years ago.

Pardon my sarcasm – I have run out of patience dealing with silly “explanations” that might convince a naïve child in bible school. A whole series of “miracles” (departures from the real world of nature – what really happens on the Earth) are required to “explain” the flood.

When the flood tale is examined in the light of reality, using reason, experience and some understanding of nature, it should be glaringly obvious that the tale is incredible (too extraordinary and improbable to be believed) and that the ONLY support for the tale is the bible – plus conjecture. The story reflects the limited knowledge Bronze Age storytellers and writers possessed about the Earth and its inhabitants. The only reason to attempt to defend the tale is to maintain the illusion of biblical literacy. Doing so requires great stretches of the imagination.

I feel as though I have accomplished my objective with this debate – to demonstrate that the biblical flood legend cannot be shown to be literal using evidence and reason. Responses are so foolish that I do not consider this a serious debate. It is no longer interesting or challenging, so I see no reason to continue.
.

[otseng]

.
Why would animals from all over the world converge upon the ark? Was it a “miracle”?

We have already covered this.

That is a strange statement. Do you not recognize that we know about many extinct life forms from the study of fossils and other evidence?

In the FM, the vast majority of the sedimentary layers were formed during the flood. Life that went extinct after of course would not then be found in sedimantary layers.

Do you not comprehend that legends to NOT constitute proof?

I'm not saying that they are proof. But, they are evidence.

I'm also taking it that you have no other explanations to the ones that I have proposed.

I am waiting for evidence of a global flood. WHAT evidence.

Is this the green light to go into the geological evidence?

That a Chinese word somehow proves that a flood occurred?

No, it doesn't prove anything. But, it is simply another piece of evidence.

I respectfully decline to discuss geology and suggest that it would be far more appropriate for you to discuss the subject with someone whose understanding of the field is of the same level as your own, AND someone who is willing to accept supernatural explanations in lieu of scientific explanations – in order to “justify” scriptures.

I am satisfied with the presentation I made for Standard Geology and feel no need to discuss the matter further.

We're in our 7th page of this debate and you still don't want to talk about geology?

Are you saying that you are unfamiliar with what is meant by geometric increase or how it applies to population growth calculations?

No, I'm saying that there is basically little difference whether the flood occurred 5000 years ago or 10,000 years ago. As you might recall, the only thing I've stated in regards to the timing of the flood is "Between 100,000 to 5,000 years ago with leanings towards the latter date."

I am not required to accept your calculations.

No, you are not required to accept it. But to argue against it, you have to demonstrate where my calculations are in error.

When you recommended yourself as a strong theist debater, I expected that you would present sound arguments based in reason and evidence – rather than unsubstantiated conjecture and supposition. I am disappointed with the lack of quality – and total lack of evidence. After well over 100 posts in this thread (including those lost in the hack) you have not offered evidence to indicate that a worldwide flood actually occurred.

The lack of presented evidence is only because I have so far limited myself to non-geological evidence.

It is no longer interesting or challenging, so I see no reason to continue.

Well, sorry to hear that you see it as no longer interesting or challenging. I was sincerely hoping that we would be able to get into the meat of the debate, which would be the geological evidence.

[Zzyzx]

.
I am willing to discuss geology with someone who understands at least the basics of the field.

I am not willing to “debate” Walter Brown’s “Flood Model” and “Hydroplate Theory” presented as science. They are NOT science by any stretch of imagination. They are pure creationism and pure speculation presented by a person who lacks training and insight in geology – and who has an announced agenda of promoting creationism. Those who promote Brown’s theories as “science” demean the thousands of people who actually study geology, hydrology, astronomy, archeology, etc.

I am willing to discuss the topic of the biblical flood with someone who understands that “evidence” means more than conjecture and assertion, who understands the difference between evidence and conjecture, and who realizes that stating that something “could have happened” is NOT saying what did happen. I expect a person in honorable debate to answer challenges with sound reasoning and evidence OR acknowledge that they cannot (not invent “it could have happened” in lieu of stating and verifying what DID happen).

The “arguments” presented in favor of the literal flood have been surprisingly weak. I am confident that is not unnoticed by readers. I do not think the obvious needs further reinforcement – and am, therefore, satisfied with the arguments I have made for realism vs. supernaturalism.

I am not willing to debate the “goddidit” religionist “explanation” for nature-defying proposals (such as all the world’s animals reporting to the ark from wherever they live – including those that have very limited mobility or which are microscopic). If “goddidit” is the answer, the discussion is pure theology – not science and not real world.

Discussing or teaching introductory level geology is not my idea of a serious debate of complex topics. Discussion of creationist theories masquerading as science and totally lacking substantiation by actual studies is not of interest. That is pure theology which is not a valid part of rational discussion of the real world. If one wishes to have an irrational discussion of an unreal world, I recommend that they talk to someone who shares their belief systems.

Yes, we have gone over the animals reporting to the ark. It makes less sense every time the idea is mentioned. The supposed collection of animals an obviously large flaw in the story that can only be covered by a “goddidit” – another “miracle” – since the Noah family obviously could not have collected worldwide and since animals in the real world don’t actually behave as described in the “explanation”. Once “goddidit” is injected into a discussion, there can no longer be a claim of basis in reason or science.

We also went over the obvious improbability of all fish surviving the flood “because they live in water” – ignoring the well known fact that unmet habitat requirements of fish leads to fish death (as anyone who has raised tropical fish can attest). The monumental flaw in that “logic” has been “explained” with claims that fish before the flood “may have been more adaptable” (meaning no evidence presented) and that rapid evolution “could have” occurred since the flood (again, no evidence). Thus the “explanation” is pure conjecture that cannot be supported in any specifics. Of course, “goddidit”.

Other “goddidit” items are:

1. The appearance and disappearance of vast amounts of water and impossible rainfall rates (30 feet per hour) are required unless it can be demonstrated that large amounts of water were not needed to flood the entire Earth “to the tops of mountains” as claimed in Genesis). Arguments that “the mountains were lower” and that subterranean water “gushed out” to flood the Earth and produce all the imaginary “flood effects” have NOT been substantiated with any credible evidence – only conjecture (unsubstantiated statements).

2. The building of an improbably large wooden boat by four men and wives with no demonstrable previous experience, no iron tools, no transportation, no way to cut and assemble millions of pounds of wood, etc, etc, etc. The defense was to cite other craft of legendary great size (with no firm data of existence or size) to suggest that “it might have been possible”). Reality says that such a building project is likely to be an exaggeration – a legend – rather than truth.

3. The improbability of Noah and family gathering every life form worldwide, keeping them alive on a one year cruse, and returning them to their proper habitat – including millions of different insects, microscopic life forms, aggressive carnivores, etc. “Goddidit” (he had them swim, fly, walk, crawl, tunnel in from all over the Earth – even the microscopic ones – then make their way back home).

4. The improbability of providing a survivable habitat for every pair of animals aboard a legendary ark 450 feet long, with one 17” window and no climate control systems – for a year – not to mention feeding thousands or millions of animals and cleaning up their waste products. Anyone who has kept livestock or even pets realizes the immensity of the feeding and clean-up tasks – for eight people – who are sailing and bailing an impossibly large boat, etc, etc, etc. Perhaps they had a little celestial help? Perhaps animals did not exhale carbon dioxide in those days?

5. The improbability of repopulating the Earth with ONE pair of each animal and with only three breeding pairs of humans – in a few thousand years. Citing calculations to attempt to demonstrate “it could have happened” is NOT the same as showing that it did happen. It is mere conjecture – and a large flaw in the story.

6. The improbability of plants surviving being flooded for a year while the Earth supposedly underwent intense changes in oceans, continental positions, rapid sedimentation, rapid erosion. All that was supposedly happening during that flood year – and all the existing plants or their reproductive capability survived under thousands of feet of water (even though “god said” very clearly that he would destroy every living thing he had created).

Yes, “explanations” have been offered for each some of the above. Explanations are NOT evidence – they are OPINIONS. The related assumptions have been questioned (without credible supporting evidence being provided). A great number of “explanations” or “miracles” being required is some indication that the story is false.

Nothing that has been said leads me to accept the flood tale as being literal. I am more convinced than ever that it is a fable – since a debater who should be credible cannot make a strong case for literal interpretation and cannot answer reasonable questions with sound reasoning and evidence.

The flood story appears to be an incredible tale told by Bronze Age storytellers who had very limited knowledge of the Earth’s size, shape, configuration, processes, variability and its inhabitants. They also evidently had an agenda of making their favored gods seem very powerful and dangerous (and genocidal). Denying modern knowledge in an attempt to justify such a tale as being literal makes absolutely no sense to me.

Religion would have far greater credibility to those who expect stories to reflect the real world if the most incredible tales were acknowledged to be fables. If there is any value in the message of Christianity it should NOT depend upon “miracle stories”.

[otseng]

.
I am willing to discuss geology with someone who understands at least the basics of the field.

I do not think that is the issue. The issue is not whether I understand the basics of the SGM, but whether I accept it.

But regardless of whether I understand it or not, it would be immaterial to whether the debate should proceed or not. This site has numerous people attacking Christianity. But they are not barred from participating because they do not have theological training. If they state something that is in error, then people are free to show how they are wrong with supporting evidence. But to simply counter that they do not have training in theology is not an adequate response. And the same goes with any topic on this forum. Few of us are have degrees in theology, archeology, philosophy, cosmology, physics, history, psychology, etc. But, that doesn't mean we are barred from debating these areas. So, your insistence that I cannot attack the SGM is unwarranted.

I still maintain that if we're going to debate if the flood was global, the primary method to investigate this would be through geology. If we are to treat the topic scientifically, the primary area of science that it would relate to is geology. And after that would be biology, ship-building, etc. So your continual insistence that the evidence is lacking is not because I'm not willing to present them, but because you do not want to discuss geology.