Categories of Evidence Opposing Noah’s Flood - The Discussion

I would like to list some arbitrary categories of evidence against a literal interpretation of Noah’s Flood for the purpose of determining if such a list is complete. Therefore I would like to ask the members of this board if there are any categories that have been inadvertently left out, if any categories are inappropriate or should be combined under others, if any categories require better explanation, or if any categories are explained improperly.This thread is not to argue over the validity of evidence within each category, which can be done within other threads. I would like to debate the appropriateness and completeness of this list and its contents. However, the list may prove useful in generating more threads should any choose to discuss the merits of any given category despite the fact that most (but not all) have been argued ad infinitum in this forum.In creating this list, I have liberally borrowed from the following sources:Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Shaw Communications
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htmThanks to iceage for providing a core for the geoscience part, to RAZD for inspiration and some particulars, and to all those here who have argued against the myth of Noah’s Flood as fact.I plan on updating the list as more and better content is suggested and to update the entire post periodically.Another potential enhancement would be to link each category of evidence to a currently open thread here.To all who see the absurdity of taking the Noah’s Ark parable literally, please feel free to add categories or suggest improved explanations. That is the purpose of this thread.The List
100 Categories of Evidence Opposing Noah’s Flood

Thanks for replying.The fact that many, if not most, the details in the Noah flood myth was lifted from the Gilgamesh flood myth is a potential category of evidence I had not thought of. I believe this could be included in the first update once I figure out the right wording.

In regard to points 98 and 99: The problem with invoking 'miracles' to explain some natural phenomena is that it automatically opens up the consideration they may be used to explain all natural phenomena.After all, a powerful enough deity that is determined to 'trick' scientists into believing in the basic principles of natural science could easily create and place the fossils, the unconformities, the tree rings, the ice layers, the coral layers, the rock layers, and so on with the intent to deceive.It is the study of recent history, namely the last 500 years, that leads one into a position that invoking a deity to explain all natural phenomena is a recipe for failure of state to provide for the common good and ultimately its own survival.It is the study of religion that leads one into a position that invoking a deity to explain all natural phenomena within the narrow parameters of self-proclaimed infallibility of the 'saved' in interpreting ancient documents is a recipe for requiring the deity to be a liar.But I digress, ultimately this is a science thread, so miracles, including last-Thursdayism, where all is Matrix-like illusion, are not allowed as valid criticisms of scientific consensus or indeed, of this given reality.If you disagree with a given point I have made for reasons of scientific evidence, please feel free to start a new thread concerning that exact point. I am fully prepared to back every assertion I have made based upon this reality and the evidence but if you know something I don't, I would sure like to see it.If you disagree with a given point I have made for reasons of religious or political dogma, please feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate venue.If you disagree with a given point I have made for reasons of philosophy concerning any assumptions involved in one's perception of reality, once again please feel free to start a new thread in the appropriate venue.This thread is for a general discussion of the categories and is only meant as a starting point for further discussion. Further detailed examination concerning any debatable aspects of particular points belong in other threads sorted by forum according to the basis for the critique.So please go ahead and suggest a PNT for any point you disagree with based upon any reason and I will likely participate, God willing. Edited by anglagard, : change wording to make it clearEdited by anglagard, : Replace the inaccurate term 'hear' with 'see' as this is forum is primarily visual and not so much audio in conveying information.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza