Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood

Pete Harcoff · #21 1st April 2003, 01:32 AM

Yesterday at 09:47 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #15

So? Did it stop in Australia and drop off the Marsupials? I guess that stop got left out of Genesis. Actually there were three arks. The one with the Marsupials and monotremes went to Australia and the one with all the Dinosaurs sank.

So that's what happened to all the dinosaurs.

But yeah, this idea of an Ark playing tour bus around the world isn't even remotely supported by scripture for two reasons:

1) The Flood was supposed to be global. So where could the Ark have landed during this time?

2) There is no mention of the Ark landing anywhere but in the mountains of Ararat.

Arikay · #22 1st April 2003, 01:36 AM

Yep, there are plenty of problems.

But im not willing to concede that god protected the ark, without the bible saying he did.

After all, the bible includes the fact that god closed the ark door, yet it doesnt say that he protected the ark and helped feed and care for the animals.

So either god didnt help protect the Ark. Or the bible didnt get its priorities straight when it decided that the fact god closed the door was important enough to mention, but not that god protected the ark.

Today at 09:28 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #20

I'm willing to concede to creationists that God could have protected the Ark during the Flood (since a lot them argue that God would've had to help out with caretaking responsiblities for those animals while on the Ark).

There's plenty of other problems with flood geology, as well as the post-flood world.

Cantuar · #23 1st April 2003, 01:50 AM

But im not willing to concede that god protected the ark, without the bible saying he did.

But why not? Once you say that there's no self-consistent explanation based on known natural processes and God had to perform miracles, you've ruled this stuff out as science.

Pete Harcoff · #24 1st April 2003, 01:56 AM

Today at 12:36 AM Arikay said this in Post #22

Yep, there are plenty of problems.

But im not willing to concede that god protected the ark, without the bible saying he did.

I think the simple fact that the flood (if it is purported to have some of the geological changes YEC's want) would have been fairly disastrous and the fact that Noah survived it, would show that God would have had to intervene somehow.

However, on issues of the physical geology of the Earth resulting from the flood, or issues in the post-flood world (like biogeography), I'd frown on randomly invoking God to explain discrepancies.

Arikay · #25 1st April 2003, 02:01 AM

Ah, ic.

The fact though that you need to invoke the power of god (even though the bible doesnt mention it) just to get Noah to live through the flood, says a lot about the basis of the Flood theories.

Today at 09:56 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #24

I think the simple fact that the flood (if it is purported to have some of the geological changes YEC's want) would have been fairly disastrous and the fact that Noah survived it, would show that God would have had to intervene somehow.

However, on issues of the physical geology of the Earth resulting from the flood, or issues in the post-flood world (like biogeography), I'd frown on randomly invoking God to explain discrepancies.

Jon · #26 1st April 2003, 12:17 PM

31st March 2003 at 07:27 PM Arikay said this in Post #19

Ok, lets play this out.

Land was flat.
Flood comes.
Rather small flood, (that is incapable of killing all the animals as god said it would)

Wrong, it was a big flood.

If the earth was flat there would be enough water to cover the earth with 1.5 miles of water

At some point the mountains grew.

During the flood.

-If the Mountains grew before the flood, Noah and the Ark would have been destroyed by the earth quakes and ground turning into molten rock (hot liquid rock)
-If the mountains grew during the flood then the ark would have been floating in boiling water, then it would have been beached and then if it wasnt already destroyed, it would have burned up in the Molten rock.

I'm sure there would be some parts in the world that wasn't being disrupted(like in the middle of the ocean).

-If the mountains grew after the flood, Noah and the ark would have been destroyed by the earth quakes and the ground turning into molten rock.

So, No, the Animals werent on the ark. They were Dead.

Does this help show why this wouldnt work?
Or are you going to ignore another explination of why you shouldnt listen to Hovinds work?

If you don't lke what Dr. Dino says then get it from:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

You should read this anyways so that you can answer your own questions.

(that is if you really want to know the answer

)

Pete Harcoff · #27 1st April 2003, 12:21 PM

1st April 2003 at 11:17 AM Jon said this in Post #26

If the earth was flat there would be enough water to cover the earth with 1.5 miles of water

The Earth wasn't flat, though. It says in Genesis there were mountains:

Gen 7:20: Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Chevy · #28 1st April 2003, 12:32 PM

dr dino is a known liar and con-man who makes a living off of young, uninformed people. there is no evidence backing up any of his claims. the flood is just a myth, it didn't really happen, there is no evidece of a world-wide flood whatsoever.

Frumious Bandersnatch · #29 1st April 2003, 05:31 PM

If you don't lke what Dr. Dino says then get it from:

target=_blank>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp

You should read this anyways so that you can answer your own questions. <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border=0>

Do you think that we have not read them before? Some of them are really hilarious. "Noah the man who trusted God" makes one think of Noah loading the ark using a big dinosaur crane like the one Fred Flintstone ran.  I will post some analysis on the amusing logical adn scientific errors on some of the other pages when I get time. 

Meanwhile, the only pages that I found that address biogeography are Sarfati's totally bogus ark defense page on TrueOrigins and the Christian Answers Net

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c006.html

I addressed Sarfati's claims about migration and "people took them" in my second post.  The Christian Answers page is also totally useless. They do not really address the number of unique species and even families in Australia. They don't address how it is that only marsupials got to Australia with hardly any placental mammals for company(bats and two species of rat). In particular they do not address how marusupial mammals that would find travel very difficult, such as marsupial moles made it to Australia, where they just happen to have a well established fossil record, while countless species of placental mammals that travel easily and even migrate long distances did not, even though all these species were supposedly together in the Middle East after comming off the ark.

Biogeography is a falsification of the flood that YEC simply can't deal with.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Frumious Bandersnatch · #30 3rd April 2003, 06:55 PM

Bump