Scientific Evidence does not support a Great Flood

It is certainly refreshing to debate someone as knowledgeable as you on this subject even though it seems like we have been debating so much on several different topics. Thank you for being so friendly and open minded. Contention 1: The Animals Bringing two (or seven) of each kind [1] of animal into the vicinity of the ark presents serious challenges. A. Traveling If animals traveled from other parts of the world from where they live today, they would have faced extreme difficulties. There are several problems with the animals as far as traveling is concerned. The first is the problem of getting to the ark, and the second is returning to their natural environment after the flood (Isaak, Problems with a Global Flood: Second Edition 1998). First, certain kinds of animals such as sloths and penguins cannot travel over land very well. Consequently, they will be easy prey for predators – especially post flood because of the lack of food for predators. Secondly, certain kinds of species require special diets. Therefore, they would have had to bring it along. The problem comes post-flood: It would be very difficult for them (and their special food) to survive. The humidity requirement for certain species is a requirement. For example, some cave-dwelling arthropods cannot survive in less than 100% relative humidity. Thus, the humidity alone could have killed them. Animals that live on islands would have been easy prey for other animals. When mainland species are introduced to islands, they drive out many indigenous species – often times to the point of extinction. . Next, it would have been nearly impossible for animals to get to their present ranges. The penguins would have had to travel a long way to get from Turkey to the Arctic and the Koalas would have had to swim across miles of ocean to get to Australia. How could they have survived if the environment that they require does not exist between the points of Mt. Ararat in Turkey and their range? Finally, Animals are often found on limited ranges. For example, marsupials are limited to Australia and lemurs to Madagascar and certain plants are also found on only certain ranges. How was it possible for that to occur? So in conclusion, the geographical distribution of species provides strong evidence that the Flood is impossible. B. Caring for the Animals Caring for the different types of animals amongst Noah’s ark would have been extremely difficult for Noah and his family to do. Special Diets Many animals, especially insects, require special diets. Koalas, for example, require eucalyptus leaves, and silkworms eat nothing but mulberry leaves. For thousands of plant species (perhaps even most plants), there is at least one animal that eats only that one kind of plant. How did Noah gather all those plants aboard, and where did he put them? Fresh Food Many animals only eat their food fresh. (Foelix 1996) Consequently, it would require that Noah would keep fresh food upon the ark. As a result, it means that more than 7 pairs of certain prey animals may have had to come aboard. D. Species Survival and Post-Flood Ecology Genesis 7:23 says, “He [God] blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground. ” If the Flood was as described, then this was certainly an understatement! Plants Plants would have had a difficult time surviving because many plants and seeds would be killed simply from being submerged for a few months. It would have been even harder to survive had this been in salt water. This is because submergence impedes exchanges of O2 and CO2 between leaves and the environment (Colmer, Winke and Pedersen 2011). Also, some plants geminate only after being exposed to fire or ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare after the Flood. Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds and a variety of plants cannot survive a year before geminating (Benzing 1990). Moreover, it begs the question how he distributed them all over the world! Genetic Erosion Genetic erosion is the overall loss of genetic diversity in a species (Fairbanks 2012). Had a large population suddenly become extinct or die out; we should expect to see it. 150,000 years ago, humans and hominids alike almost became extinct. Isolated populations with fewer than 20 members are usually doomed even when extraordinary measures are taken to protect them (Simberloff 1988). Contention 2: The Flood Itself I will briefly quote and summarize the case that Ron-Paul gave in your previous debate (found here . http://debate.org......;). I feel that this is a solid argument and I am just going to bring this up: There is simply not enough water to cover the entire world. To quote your opponent: The total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers Volume of a sphere = 4/3 r3 where r=radius Radius of Earth = 6,378.15 Kilometers Height of Mt. Everest = 8.85 Kilometers The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of Mt. Everest is approximately the difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt. Everest and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth. Volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level= 4/3 (6,378.15 KM)3 = 1,086,825,918,019 KM3 Volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest= 4/3 (6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)3 = 1,091,388,460,971 KM3 The Difference = 4,530,488,766 KM3 Notice that this is more than 3 TIMES the amount of water presently on Earth. Conclusion The story of Noah’s Flood simply does not hold any water: Noah’s boat doesn’t float (pun intended). The animals alone would have trouble traveling and many animals would go extinct after the flood – the prey dies and so does the predator. Genetic erosion would have certainly have killed off many of the species. Finally, the story of Noah’s Flood does not hold water because water on the earth is insufficient to have produced a global flood on the magnitude that the Bible states it to have been. Thank you for reading these arguments. Remember, do not refute these statements - rather, I want you to bring up arguments in favour of a Global Flood. Bibliography Avasthi, Amitabh. After Near Extinction, Humans Split Into Isolated Bands. April 24, 2008. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com....... Benzing, D. H. Vascular Epiphytes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Campbell, Andrew. Continential Drift and Climate. n. d. . http://www3.geosc.psu.edu....... Colmer, Timothy D. , Anders Winke, and Ole Pedersen. "A perspective on underwater photosynthesis in submerged terrestrial wetland plants. " US National Library of Medicine . November 30, 2011. . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov....... Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Amherst: Prometheus , 2012. Foelix, Rainer F. The Biology of Spiders, 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Gishlick, Alan D. , Al Janulaw, and Eric Meikle. Monoculture and the Irish Potato Famine: cases of missing genetic variation. August 22, 2008. . http://evolution.berkeley.edu....... Isaak, Mark. Problems with a Global Flood: Second Edition. November 16, 1998. . http://www.talkorigins.org....... Simberloff, Daniel. "The contribution of population and community biology to conservation science. " Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1988: 473-511. Younce, Dr. Max D. Only One Continent Until After The Flood. June 15, 2012. . http://www.jesus-is-savior.com....... [1] Biblical language uses “kind” rather than species. Interestingly, Creationists can’t agree amongst themselves as to what constitutes a “kind. ” There have been different definitions ranging from each individual species to entire kingdoms! (Isaak, Claim CH512: Noah's ark could have carried pairs of all kinds of animals for a year. 2003)