Atheism

[Panthera tigris FC]

People actually saw Noahs flood. Nobody saw the 70myr mountain ranges being formed. Nobody measured the time from then to now. Really, the whole thing rests on unproven assumptions -that things have always worked the way they do now. I agree that flood models are not advanced as the evolutionary ones, but 100 years ago evolutionary theory was a totally different proposition to what it is now. I believe with time and money spent on them, catastrophic models can become far more convincing. Remember, Creationism, in it's modern form, is only 30 years old and has advanced so dramatically in that time, that it has evolutionary scientists looking nervously over their shoulders, trying (of all things) to prove their points in courts of Law!!

No offence Djevv, but this is one of the most ridiculous paragraphs I have read on this thread....and that is saying something.

People saw Noah's flood? In the same way that people saw the Cyclops on Cyclopes!

You say that you are trained in geology? Geology is one of the most prominent historic sciences...ie it is based on inference from the available evidence. That is because the events that occur on geological timescales are far too slow for human observation. Does this make them any less valid? No. Historic sciences make predictions that must be borne out through natural experiments for their theories to remain valid. Those in geology (and evolutionary biology) fall into this category. I will ask you again whether you have any shred of evidence to suggest that uniformitarianism is not correct. We observe how the natural world operates and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary we extrapolate that information backwards.....this has proven an effective method for establishing theories for describing the world and for predicting how these systems operate (a very important "and").

This idea that banging away at something that you want to be true, will all of the sudden make it so, is a breathtaking example of anti-science. "I believe with time and money spent on them, catastrophic models can become far more convincing"....where is the evidence that supports the catastrophic models in the first place?!?! You need time and money to generate this evidence?!?! Evolutionary theory was established based on observations of the natural world. The evolutionary relationship between all biological life is now established without any doubt (creationist objections aside).

Creationism in its modern form? You mean the revised form that accepts some theories of evolutionary biology? Why did it require an overhaul? If creationists have access to the unchanging word of an omnipotent god, why must they change their models? Creationist positions do change, else they appear more ridiculous and disconnected from reality than they already do. The findings and advances of science have forced them to change their models, in light of the mountains of contradictory evidence.

I take it your "that it has evolutionary scientists looking nervously over their shoulders, trying (of all things) to prove their points in courts of Law" is a reference to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in the United States where the Dover Area School District wanted to teach intelligent design as an alternative to accepted evolutionary theory in the science classroom. They were rightly sued by parents in the district and the teaching of ID in the science classroom was rightly banned by the court (it is religion, not science and has no place in a science classroom).

In the conclusion of his findings the presiding judge, John E. Jones III had this to say:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. [...]

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Thus, this wasn't a trial instigated by evolutionists 'looking over their shoulder' but by concerned parents who wanted to keep the teaching of science, as exactly that, science.

That the tenets of ID were so clearly shown to be unscientific and religion-based and the proponents of ID found to be in many cases intellectually dishonest in representing ID as science, says a lot about the validity of ID-creationism and it place outside of scientific research.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I disagree and so does he.

You can disagree (and so can he) all you like.

It doesn't change the fact that biology and fundamentalist Christianity contradict each other in a number of areas (including, but not limited to, evolution). To actually hold these contradictory beliefs simultaneously requires, by definition, a level of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Disco08]

People actually saw Noahs flood. Nobody saw the 70myr mountain ranges being formed. Nobody measured the time from then to now. Really, the whole thing rests on unproven assumptions -that things have always worked the way they do now. I agree that flood models are not advanced as the evolutionary ones, but 100 years ago evolutionary theory was a totally different proposition to what it is now. I believe with time and money spent on them, catastrophic models can become far more convincing. Remember, Creationism, in it's modern form, is only 30 years old and has advanced so dramatically in that time, that it has evolutionary scientists looking nervously over their shoulders, trying (of all things) to prove their points in courts of Law!!

If creationism is becoming so convincing in its arguments, tell me again why none of their theories are published for peer review but rather pushed through their, dare I say it, sleazy websites?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

If creationism is becoming so convincing in its arguments, tell me again why none of their theories are published for peer review but rather pushed through their, dare I say it, sleazy websites?

They don't have scientific theories Disco.

Plain and simple.

Their best effort was the concept of irreducible complexity postulated by Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. This attempted to point out that complex biological systems couldn't have evolved in the step-wise manner that evolutionary theory proposes (ie remove one part of the system and the whole thing stops working).

His examples (ie bacterial flagella, vertebrate clotting cascades etc.) have been shown to be baseless and much about how these systems evolved is described in the literature.

 

[jayfox]

The supernatural god for a supernatural phenomenon explanation doesn't really cut it. You may as well wheel that one out for every phenomenon!

We can. I have always said that God is a supernatural being and doesn't need to follow any Earthly laws to achieve His will. There are many stories of the Bible where He has broken the rules that bind men, but not God. The Bible professes that He is omnipotent and supernatural so why wouldn't it be a reasonable explanation for things that we find hard to understand to say that He is omnipotent and supernatural and not bound by our rules or understanding?

If the water in the ocean fell on the land....it would run back to the ocean, not flood the entire earth!

Fair enough, but I reckon that's a bit of a simple explanation. I think many areas would have been flooded by 40 days and nights of constant rain, don't you? I know if my suburb got rained on that much it would be flooded because we get 1 full days rain and the drainage systems struggle and remember there were no drainage systems back then. Also, many areas of the Earth are below sea level so they would all have been flooded I assume?

The 'hydroplate' explanation of the flood would have to get around a few problems:

* that the rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float, so that the water would have been forced to the surface long before the Genesis flood.
* that even two miles deep (far above the hypothesised depth), the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), resulting in a superheated reservoir of water and temperatures that would not have been survivable.
* that the waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures through which they were escaping, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.

1. Not being an expert in this area (or many others ;D) I am not sure of the answer to this. Unless it was trapped in caverns where the crust was not actually floating on it but rather sitting over it like a platform? Otherwise they could have already been covered by water, i.e. they were under the ocean.
2. Would not have been survivable for who? The people in it? They all died as was the purpose of the flood. Would it have been survivable for people contained in a massive boat designed to withstand such a flood?
3. I would imagine most of these fissures would have been under the sea and therefore harder to locate than if they were more accessable on land. I imagine that there are lots of archaeological and geological findings that we are yet to uncover.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

We can. I have always said that God is a supernatural being and doesn't need to follow any Earthly laws to achieve His will. There are many stories of the Bible where He has broken the rules that bind men, but not God. The Bible professes that He is omnipotent and supernatural so why wouldn't it be a reasonable explanation for things that we find hard to understand to say that He is omnipotent and supernatural and not bound by our rules or understanding?

So your omnipotent god regularly defied the laws governing our universe in ancient times, but these days, in an era of global mass media coverage he has decided to stick to the rules. Seems rather convenient, doesn't it?

Fair enough, but I reckon that's a bit of a simple explanation. I think many areas would have been flooded by 40 days and nights of constant rain, don't you? I know if my suburb got rained on that much it would be flooded because we get 1 full days rain and the drainage systems struggle and remember there were no drainage systems back then. Also, many areas of the Earth are below sea level so they would all have been flooded I assume?

So localised flooding = total global flood? And my explanation was simplistic?!

1. Not being an expert in this area (or many others ;D) I am not sure of the answer to this. Unless it was trapped in caverns where the crust was not actually floating on it but rather sitting over it like a platform? Otherwise they could have already been covered by water, i.e. they were under the ocean.
2. Would not have been survivable for who? The people in it? They all died as was the purpose of the flood. Would it have been survivable for people contained in a massive boat designed to withstand such a flood?
3. I would imagine most of these fissures would have been under the sea and therefore harder to locate than if they were more accessable on land. I imagine that there are lots of archaeological and geological findings that we are yet to uncover.

And what supported these caverns? Were they found throughout the planet? They would have to store the amounts of water required. Such caverns would leave geological evidence of their existence...where is it? What happened to all of the excess water (the amount required to cover the entire earth)?

The superheated water (in enormous quantities, mind you) would have killed everything (including the inhabitants of the ark).

So god has hidden the evidence of the hydroplate theory? Not if your cavern theory is correct. Again this explanation seems rather convenient, doesn't it?

 

[evo]

People actually saw Noahs flood. Nobody saw the 70myr mountain ranges being formed. Nobody measured the time from then to now. Really, the whole thing rests on unproven assumptions -that things have always worked the way they do now. I agree that flood models are not advanced as the evolutionary ones, but 100 years ago evolutionary theory was a totally different proposition to what it is now. I believe with time and money spent on them, catastrophic models can become far more convincing. Remember, Creationism, in it's modern form, is only 30 years old and has advanced so dramatically in that time, that it has evolutionary scientists looking nervously over their shoulders, trying (of all things) to prove their points in courts of Law!!

This is getting embarrassing Djevv.Are you trying to tell my all mythology has eyewitnesses--or is this only the Christian mythology?

This is an Amerindian creation myth i just wrote a paper on for one of my Uni subjects:

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/creation.htm

Presumably this occured too?

 

[jayfox]

You can disagree (and so can he) all you like.

It doesn't change the fact that biology and fundamentalist Christianity contradict each other in a number of areas (including, but not limited to, evolution). To actually hold these contradictory beliefs simultaneously requires, by definition, a level of cognitive dissonance.

Well you'd need to speak to him about that but I would think that he is fine to believe in things like natural selection without having to believe in the entire theory of evolution.

 

[Djevv]

Sorry, I don't see how proposing a model and refining it is anti-science. You (athiests) waffling on in you long and tedious posts about how it is wrong to look at science in any other ways that the currently held dogmas. I'm sorry if it irk's you that the geological facts (which I've already posted) actually point so strongly to Catastrophism that you have to resort to mockery, jargon and ad Hominem attacks to make your points. Although often I wonder if the length and jargon are actually an attempt to obsure a very simple point I am making. I'm sorry if Creationist websites upset you also. Perhaps it is the fact that people will actually listen to what they have to say that really upsets you.

I'll spell it out for you. Uniformatarianism is an ASSUMPTION. Nobody knows if it is correct. You assume it and do your science, build a model which hopefully does a good job of explaining all the known facts. You can make another assumption, that the Bible is an accurate record of history and see where that takes you. That is a legitimate way to do science. This is what Creationists do. Nobody is fudging facts to fit - that is real anti-science.

 

[Djevv]

This is getting embarrassing Djevv.Are you trying to tell my all mythology has eyewitnesses--or is this only the Christian mythology?

This is an Amerindian creation myth i just wrote a paper on for one of my Uni subjects:

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/creation.htm

Presumably this occured too?

In your worldview, you place the Bible on the same level of these myths, I don't. The Bible has consistently proven it's self to be a reliable witness to events in the ancient world, why would you assume the flood story is a myth? It is hardly written in a mythological style, providing numerous facts and figures. Have you ever read the story?

Don't forget that there are numerous flood myths from every culture around the world which you would expect if the story were true.

 

[jayfox]

So your omnipotent god regularly defied the laws governing our universe in ancient times, but these days, in an era of global mass media coverage he has decided to stick to the rules. Seems rather convenient, doesn't it?

There is actually a Bible verse that I quoted on the Christianity thread not that long ago that predicts/explains this. I will try to find it again but it basically says that in the past people needed miraculous signs etc. to believe whereas today we have Jesus' example and the Word of God to follow so such signs will not occur like they used to. So a lack of signs or miracles today is actually Biblical prophecy coming true.

So localised flooding = total global flood? And my explanation was simplistic?!

The 40 days and nights of torrential rain was not localised to one area but the entire Earth. Localised flooding in every neighbourhood on Earth would go a fair way towards global flooding, I'd have thought?

And what supported these caverns? Were they found throughout the planet? They would have to store the amounts of water required. Such caverns would leave geological evidence of their existence...where is it? What happened to all of the excess water (the amount required to cover the entire earth)?

The superheated water (in enormous quantities, mind you) would have killed everything (including the inhabitants of the ark).

So god has hidden the evidence of the hydroplate theory? Not if your cavern theory is correct. Again this explanation seems rather convenient, doesn't it?

I don't have all of the answers on this but I am happy to have a look at it for you. One thing you can be sure of is that less scientific research has gone into this than the theory of evolution of late.

 

[jayfox]

This is getting embarrassing Djevv.Are you trying to tell my all mythology has eyewitnesses--or is this only the Christian mythology?

This is an Amerindian creation myth i just wrote a paper on for one of my Uni subjects:

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/creation.htm

Presumably this occured too?

Evo, I believe that you have previously stated that you do believe that Jesus existed. There is much archaeological evidence to support people and places contained within the Bible. To then compare what is contained in the Bible to other mythology (I assume you mean Greek mythology etc.) is ridiculous. You believe that Jesus really existed, do you believe that Zeus did? How many archaeological findings have supported the existence of Greek Gods? How many people believe in Greek Gods anymore? Billions of people around the world believe in the existence of the God of the Bible though. Pretty amazing to have that many people still believe in something after 6000-odd years don't you think?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Sorry, I don't see how proposing a model and refining it is anti-science. You (athiests) waffling on in you long and tedious posts about how it is wrong to look at science in any other ways that the currently held dogmas. I'm sorry if it irk's you that the geological facts (which I've already posted) actually point so strongly to Catastrophism that you have to resort to mockery, jargon and ad Hominem attacks to make your points. Although often I wonder if the length and jargon are actually an attempt to obsure a very simple point I am making. I'm sorry if Creationist websites upset you also. Perhaps it is the fact that people will actually listen to what they have to say that really upsets you.

Who is upset? Who has resorted to personal attacks? Please point it out. If you disagree with the points that I have made (which do not relate to you personally, but the arguments you have made) you are free to point out where I have gone wrong. If you think I am obscuring a point by the length of my response, point it out specifically, then we can judge whether I have strayed from staying on point. I make a concerted effort to address your points in my responses and to stick to the discussion. To say otherwise, without examples, is trying to deflect the arguments I have made, without addressing them yourself. If I use obscure jargon, my apologies, there is a lot of it in the field I work in. I try to avoid using jargon, but if some slips through, let me know and I will explain myself clearer.

This point that you make about not looking at other theories besides currently held dogmas being described as anti-science. What a ridiculous comment. Where have I, or anyone else stated such a thing in this thread? I said basing hypotheses on myths, instead of observations of the natural world is anti-science. You can postulate a god hypothesis, but it doesn't make falsifiable predictions and thus, it is not science. Your explanation, as Jayfox is fond of using, is that God doesn't obey the laws of this universe...that is not science. If you disagree with this assessment please point out the testable predictions of your hypothesis.

I'll spell it out for you. Uniformatarianism is an ASSUMPTION. Nobody knows if it is correct. You assume it and do your science, build a model which hopefully does a good job of explaining all the known facts. You can make another assumption, that the Bible is an accurate record of history and see where that takes you. That is a legitimate way to do science. This is what Creationists do. Nobody is fudging facts to fit - that is real anti-science.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary the assumption that physical forces have remained uniform has proved exceptionally successful in predicting how systems work in the natural world. That in itself is evidence of uniformitarianism. Of course there are assumptions that are made in science, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary and as long as the predictions made by scientific theories are fulfilled by experimentation then what is the problem? Your argument against uniformitarianism is seriously lacking in evidence (besides the fact that your unsubstantiated belief relies on it for any form of scientific validity).

Yes, you can assume that the Bible is an accurate record of history, again, what falsifiable hypotheses does this theory make? If it doesn't, then it isn't science...full stop. That isn't dogma, that is how science works. I would hope a teacher of science is aware of the method. I would also question how you study geology in a non-uniformitarian manner?

As for your "nobody is fudging facts"...I would say that Occam is rolling in his grave in response to some of the mental stretches required to make the facts fit the creationist picture (and this isn't always possible, hence the changing tactics of creationsts in these arguments).

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

There is actually a Bible verse that I quoted on the Christianity thread not that long ago that predicts/explains this. I will try to find it again but it basically says that in the past people needed miraculous signs etc. to believe whereas today we have Jesus' example and the Word of God to follow so such signs will not occur like they used to. So a lack of signs or miracles today is actually Biblical prophecy coming true.

Like I said...rather convenient.

The 40 days and nights of torrential rain was not localised to one area but the entire Earth. Localised flooding in every neighbourhood on Earth would go a fair way towards global flooding, I'd have thought?

Again you are going to have to call on a supernatural explanation for this one. Where does all of that rainwater come from?

I don't have all of the answers on this but I am happy to have a look at it for you. One thing you can be sure of is that less scientific research has gone into this than the theory of evolution of late.

Indeed, that is because creationism is not science, whereas an understanding of evolution is.

BTW there is quite a bit of geological and biological science that would argue against a global flood that killed all of the plants/animals besides those on an ark. Do you just disregard that? Or is it a conspiracy by the scientific community (as Ben Stein may have you believe :?

 

[Djevv]

Interesting quote here from the POV of people making a priori assumptions:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

 

[jayfox]

Like I said...rather convenient.

Saying something is convenient is not a retort though, it is almost an admission of it's possibility. Besides, the Bible can't win in your eyes, it has an explanation for why these miraculous things no longer occur and you write it off. If it had no explanation then you would criticise it for that. It can't win. Some people will just never believe and will not let themselves even acknowledge any part of the Bible.

Again you are going to have to call on a supernatural explanation for this one. Where does all of that rainwater come from?

As I said before, I don't have all of the answers. As a Christian you don;t need to as you know that there is a loving God with a greater purpose in control. I would imagine that the release of "the fountains of the great deep" would create a major change in world weather conditions, specifically a great release of water into the atmosphere.

Indeed, that is because creationism is not science, whereas an understanding of evolution is.

BTW there is quite a bit of geological and biological science that would argue against a global flood that killed all of the plants/animals besides those on an ark. Do you just disregard that? Or is it a conspiracy by the scientific community (as Ben Stein may have you believe :?

Many of the plants may have survived as the water that was released would not have been salt water. The salinity of the flood would clearly then not be the same salinity as the current sea levels are enabling these plants to survive.

 

[Djevv]

Who is upset? Who has resorted to personal attacks? Please point it out.

How often will you question my qualifications? How often my understanding of my area of expertise? Indeed, someone questioned my competence in my job? I'm not upset, gives me a good laugh, but I'm not sure what it adds to the discussion.

is point that you make about not looking at other theories besides currently held dogmas being described as anti-science. What a ridiculous comment. Where have I, or anyone else stated such a thing in this thread? I said basing hypotheses on myths, instead of observations of the natural world is anti-science. You can postulate a god hypothesis, but it doesn't make falsifiable predictions and thus, it is not science. Your explanation, as Jayfox is fond of using, is that God doesn't obey the laws of this universe...that is not science. If you disagree with this assessment please point out the testable predictions of your hypothesis.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary the assumption that physical forces have remained uniform has proved exceptionally successful in predicting how systems work in the natural world. That in itself is evidence of uniformitarianism. Of course there are assumptions that are made in science, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary and as long as the predictions made by scientific theories are fulfilled by experimentation then what is the problem? Your argument against uniformitarianism is seriously lacking in evidence (besides the fact that your unsubstantiated belief relies on it for any form of scientific validity).

Yes uniformatarianism is a resonable assumption, but it is an assumption nevertheless. I gave numerous evidences of catastrophism in previous pages. I also explained how creationism explained the whys and hows of fossil distribution.

What evidence have you got that the things written of in the Bible are myths?

Yes, you can assume that the Bible is an accurate record of history, again, what falsifiable hypotheses does this theory make? If it doesn't, then it isn't science...full stop. That isn't dogma, that is how science works. I would hope a teacher of science is aware of the method. I would also question how you study geology in a non-uniformitarian manner?

It makes a falsifiable hypothesis of a world-wide flood. Surely all scientific models make falsifiable hypothesis, certainly the hydoplate theory does

As for your "nobody is fudging facts"...I would say that Occam is rolling in his grave in response to some of the mental stretches required to make the facts fit the creationist picture (and this isn't always possible, hence the changing tactics of creationsts in these arguments).

Every theory has it's difficulties - more research is required. What changing tactics do you refer to?

 

[evo]

Don't forget that there are numerous flood myths from every culture around the world which you would expect if the story were true.

Yes,but they seemed to have been able to accept that it's mythological.It's only modern christians(it seems) who literally believe thing like this are true rather than allegorical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28mythology%29

Heres the Aboriginal one...

Australia
According to the Australian aborigines, in the Dreamtime a huge frog drank all the water in the world and a drought swept across the land. The only way to finish the drought was to make the frog laugh. Animals from all over Australia gathered together and one by one attempted to make the frog laugh. When finally eel succeeded, the frog opened his sleepy eyes, his big body quivered, his face relaxed, and, at last, he burst into a laugh that sounded like rolling thunder. The water poured from his mouth in a flood. It filled the deepest rivers and covered the land. Only the highest mountain peaks were visible, like islands in the sea. Many men and animals were drowned. The pelican who was blackfellow at that time painted himself with white clay and went from island to island in a great canoe, rescuing other blackfellows. Since that time pelicans have been black and white in remembrance of the Great Flood[12].



It's literally true i tells ya!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[evo]

Evo, I believe that you have previously stated that you do believe that Jesus existed. There is much archaeological evidence to support people and places contained within the Bible. To then compare what is contained in the Bible to other mythology (I assume you mean Greek mythology etc.) is ridiculous. You believe that Jesus really existed, do you believe that Zeus did? How many archaeological findings have supported the existence of Greek Gods? How many people believe in Greek Gods anymore? Billions of people around the world believe in the existence of the God of the Bible though. Pretty amazing to have that many people still believe in something after 6000-odd years don't you think?

Why does concedeing that Jesus(the man) existed in the 1st century have anything to do with wether Noahs Ark is a myth or literally true.

As for how many people believe this or that, Appeals to popularity fallacies don't sway me.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Saying something is convenient is not a retort though, it is almost an admission of it's possibility. Besides, the Bible can't win in your eyes, it has an explanation for why these miraculous things no longer occur and you write it off. If it had no explanation then you would criticise it for that. It can't win. Some people will just never believe and will not let themselves even acknowledge any part of the Bible.

Try thinking about the motives of the authors. Their claims can't be falsified because of the sorts of 'prophecies' built in to the text. You see that as the fulfilment of prophecy, I see it far more likely as the sort of thing that immunises the tenets of the religion from self-criticism.

As I said before, I don't have all of the answers. As a Christian you don;t need to as you know that there is a loving God with a greater purpose in control. I would imagine that the release of "the fountains of the great deep" would create a major change in world weather conditions, specifically a great release of water into the atmosphere.

If you are willing to suspend rational thought for the sake of your religious beliefs, that is your choice. You are actually instructed to do so by your holy books. What other choice did they have? It is the self-reinforcing nature of religion. No questions...faith is the absolute virtue.

Many of the plants may have survived as the water that was released would not have been salt water. The salinity of the flood would clearly then not be the same salinity as the current sea levels are enabling these plants to survive.

Most plants would not survive extended submersion in water, saline or not. Again, where did all of this water go?