shermana said:
I disagree, I think he'd be able to soundly school everyone on why the Literalist account makes complete scientific sense and why the current consensus against is built on sand.
The only way that can happen is that we all closed our eyes to the natural causes over the natural phenomenon, and believe in hocus-pocus - one moment there were nothing, then
there is something there.
The "scientific sense" required evidences that can be tested, repeatedly and independently. A literal account of the creation required humans to not exist 1st five days, then appeared out of nowhere, an adult male and alive, made out of earth, dust or clay. Great as a myth, but not in any way factual or testable.
And there is so many flaws with the Noah's Ark and Flood story, if you consider the account - LITERAL. The whole things are scientific impossible.
1) Where did the water come from? Where did the water go?
It stated that the Flood wiped out everything on the face of the earth, and the water covered the highest mountains. Everest may have been shorter than the current elevation of 8.8 km, but, 2300 years ago, Everest was still over 8.4 km at that time. So the water have to come from somewhere (and go somewhere when it was over). That amount of water (if we were to believe Genesis that it covered the highest mountains) just don't disappear.
And even if the water did rise as high as the Genesis indicated, it raised other questions/issues:
- Everyone and every living creature would have died at that attitude, and in the confined and enclosed space of the ark, through freezing to death or through asphyxia.
- The amount of pressures of the water would have destroyed all plant life, and nothing could have being planted, because what soil would be left in such global flood? And that raised another question about food (see point 3).
2) Could the size of the Ark possibly withstand the pressures from the water?
3) Food and water? What did the animals eat and drink, being stuck in the Ark for a whole year?
HECK! What did the animals eat after the Flood? Even if those animals survive in the Ark, there wouldn't be any food left on the "dry land".
The literal interpretations of the creation simply defy the law of nature. So, if Jesus (today) was to tell us the creation happened as recorded in Genesis, literally, despite no evidences to support his claim, then I'd find Jesus' credibility as the messiah to be even more non-existence than before.