Noahs flood was regional

[jckstraw72]

i do think the strongest point against the local flood is the whole God promising not to do it again thing.

also, flood myths are virtually universal, with many of the same elements in them throughout the world.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What is the most common traditionalist argument in favor of the biodiversity we have in conjunction with the Noah's ark story? I think we all know full well that there are scads of tens of thousands of insects, dogs, cats, snakes and reptiles, horses, cows, pigs, birds, and every other beast on the Earth far too vast to fit on a boat. What is the usual angle from which we approach this story? I know I've hard the "local flood" actually being used to explain it!

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Sorry but a earth wide flood would leave evidence God did not change physical laws after the fall as the YEC said in the other thread.

So proof please

Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Flood%20geology.pdf

It also makes no sense with what we know about human history/prehistory, and early migrations (and also what we know about the natural world).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations#mediaviewer/File:Spreading_homo_sapiens_la.svg

Humans have been living in various parts of the world for a long time. If there really was a Global Flood, and only Noah's family survived it. Not just the people that lived in Noah's area would be killed, but the Natives in the "New World" to, even the Aboriginals in Australia, and everywhere else. There were even ancient civilizations existing during the supposed flood date range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization), But we find no evidence of all these people/cultures/civilizations that are not Noah's family, being wiped out. Instead they kept on living


There are also man made structures that predate the flood date(s) YECers give, you would think in a flood that covered the whole world, all of these structures pre-flood, would have been wiped out (they were not built anti-Global Flood proof), but we don't find that.

 

[jckstraw72]

i've always wondered ... since we haven't experienced a global flood, with the deeps opening up and all that fun stuff -- how do we know what evidence of it should look like?

 

[AmericanChristian91]

i've always wondered ... since we haven't experienced a global flood, with the deeps opening up and all that fun stuff -- how do we know what evidence of it should look like?

You are assuming the deeps exist. They don't. It is apart of the ancient cosmology discussed in Genesis.

They believed that the flat Earth was sitting on water.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm

 

[jckstraw72]

well, i've never been convinced by these drawings of what the Hebrews supposedly believed.

 

[GregConstantine]

"i've always wondered ... since we haven't experienced a global flood, with the deeps opening up and all that fun stuff -- how do we know what evidence of it should look like?"

Take a geology class

 

[jckstraw72]

"i've always wondered ... since we haven't experienced a global flood, with the deeps opening up and all that fun stuff -- how do we know what evidence of it should look like?"

Take a geology class

the geology professors have also never experienced a miraculous universal flood.

your refusal to be helpful is quite charming, though. maybe just leave it to our visiting friends here who are capable of dialoguing constructively.

P.S. you have absolutely no idea what classes i have and haven't taken :0 and even though you've never been to Seminary, i take the time to explain the theological points i try to make. i don't just tell you to go to Seminary. that would be childish.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sorry but a earth wide flood would leave evidence God did not change physical laws after the fall as the YEC said in the other thread.

So proof please

I can't. there is no proof of the Resurrection and that happened after the Fall. all we see with that is an Empty Tomb if we merely look at it scientifically. and while the Fall was a cosmic change, so was the Flood. there is more to it than sea levels rising.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

I can't. there is no proof of the Resurrection

I have seen this before, people comparing lack of evidence for global flood, with the resurrection of Jesus and how we can not prove it through science.

Yes like a Global Flood, Jesus's death can not be proven by science, and they both do not leave scientific evidence to support it.

However.

Jesus's death also has less of an impact on the physical world (clearly his death had a strong impact, but not in the same sense of a global flood). His death does not claim to.....

Also cover the entire earth in water to the highest mountains.

Wipe out all human life/civilizations, on all continents on the earth except 1 family.

Wipe out all land based animal life except some in a boat (a number which is to small to explain the millions and millions of species we have to day).

If all 3 of those things happened, the earth and the state of humanity (likely would die out) and civilization (all wiped out), extinction of so many animal species (including the surviving animals who would have it tough, specially the meat eaters in a post flooded world), the destruction of so much trees/plant life, would make the world look far different then what it is today.

The point im trying to say is that a Global Flood would leave massive amounts evidence that affected the natural/physical world (and humanity/history), unlike the death of Jesus.

 

[jckstraw72]

The point im trying to say is that a Global Flood would leave massive amounts evidence that affected the natural/physical world (and humanity/history), unlike the death of Jesus.

it seems to me we could be looking at the evidence but just not understanding it correctly. but i haven't thought nearly as much about the Flood.

but like, if I see a full glass sitting in a sink under a slowly dripping faucet, i could see that as evidence that the glass has been there quite a while and has been slowly filled, one drop at a time. but i don't know whether or not someone came along and filled it quickly from a Brita.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Jesus's death also has less of an impact on the physical world

since we cannot look at His death apart from His Resurrection, you could not be more wrong.

If all 3 of those things happened, the earth and the state of humanity (likely would die out) and civilization (all wiped out), extinction of so many animal species (including the surviving animals who would have it tough, specially the meat eaters in a post flooded world), the destruction of so much trees/plant life, would make the world look far different then what it is today.

the issue of meat eaters and human civilization would only be an issue if God were absent. to imply that God could not keep the carnivores from eating the herbivores or aide man in the repopulation of the world is a pretty weak God.

and you would only know how the earth would be radically different if you knew the change from the Flood and all the implications that come with that. so the only way you really know that is if you know the pre Flood and post Flood cosmos. seeing how none of us do, the only thing we can really do is trust the only One who was there: God.

The point im trying to say is that a Global Flood would leave massive amounts evidence that affected the natural/physical world (and humanity/history), unlike the death of Jesus.

it probably did, but it is possible that in our post Fall and post Flood condition, we just cannot see the evidence there because we gear ourselves to only look at this through naturalistic means if we take it literally. then we stand back and it seems absurd.

if every human lost their eyesight and could not see, and we had generations that never saw anything, I would imagine that people living in such a state would look at us as backwards for calling grass green, and for saying that such a thing as color exists. it's not because light does not exist that is the issue, it's that the blind folk are merely using blind person standards to describe the world.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Could somebody respond to post 22? That was question from that sincere and thoughtful lad?

 

[jckstraw72]

What is the most common traditionalist argument in favor of the biodiversity we have in conjunction with the Noah's ark story? I think we all know full well that there are scads of tens of thousands of insects, dogs, cats, snakes and reptiles, horses, cows, pigs, birds, and every other beast on the Earth far too vast to fit on a boat. What is the usual angle from which we approach this story? I know I've hard the "local flood" actually being used to explain it!

well, it says that Noah took two of every kind. the question is what is a kind? did he have to take 2 dachsands and 2 pinchers? or just 2 dogs?

 

[SeventhValley]

well, it says that Noah took two of every kind. the question is what is a kind? did he have to take 2 dachsands and 2 pinchers? or just 2 dogs?

I have a humorus video about pure breed dogs. It has a quote that says "a pure breed dog is as inbred as a Austrian duke" lol

 

[SeventhValley]

Water Erosion ? Agronomy Guide ? Penn State Extension

"
The USDA-NRCS uses the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to calculate soil loss by erosion as a function of five factors:
A = R × K × LS × C × P
Where:

• A = annual soil loss (tons/a/yr)
• R = erosivity of rainfall (function of total rainfall and rainfall intensity)
• K = erodibility of the soil (function of soil texture, soil organic matter, and soil structure)
• LS = slope length/steepness
• C = cropping and management factors (e.g., crops grown, canopy cover, residue cover, surface roughness)
• P = erosion control practices (contour tillage and planting, strip-cropping, terracing, subsurface drainage)

The impact of raindrops on the soil surface is the beginning, and most important part, of the erosion process. The extent of erosion caused by rainfall (erosivity) depends on the size and velocity of raindrops and the amount of precipitation. Gentle, drizzly rain is not very erosive, whereas fierce thunderstorms and hurricanes are very erosive. High-intensity storms produce larger drops that fall faster than those of low-intensity storms and therefore have greater potential to destroy aggregates and dislodge particles from the soil matrix. Although the same total amount of rain may fall, a short, high-intensity rainfall event causes much more erosion than a long, low-intensity storm. Total average precipitation does not vary much across Pennsylvania, but the intensity of rainfall does. Thunderstorms and hurricanes with accompanying high-intensity rainfall tend to hit the southeastern part of the Commonwealth more frequently, leading to higher erosion threat in the southern than northern parts of Pennsylvania. Most erosive precipitation events usually occur in the late summer and early fall. Soils that are bare during this period are under extreme risk of soil erosion. Bare soil (especially if planted to wide-spaced crops such as corn) is also extremely vulnerable to erosion before canopy closure in the spring.
Soils differ in their susceptibility to erosion (erodibility) depending on natural and human factors. Erodibility is influenced by many factors, some of which vary during the year and/or vary with soil management:

• Erodibility of a soil increases with a decrease in aggregate stability. Clay and organic matter help improve aggregate stability and reduce erodibility.
• Living or dead roots also increase aggregate stability and decrease erodibility.
• Erodibility decreases with an increase of large sand grains and rock fragments because these large particles are not easily moved with water."

 

[jckstraw72]

Penn State? only losers go there.

 

[SeventhValley]

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]

 

[SeventhValley]

Penn State? only losers go there.

Lol

 

[jckstraw72]

Lol

just ask ArmyMatt!