Where are the human bones and remains from the flood?

[kraM]

Just a question that has been bugging me recently.

Thanks.

 

[FreezBee]

See, as the water rose, humans began climbing up the mountains, and as food resources became scarce, they started eating each other, splitting the bones to eat the marrow. Therefore there are no bones left.


Hope this helps
- FreezBee

 

[GenemZ]

Just a question that has been bugging me recently.

Thanks.

Mankind was in its infancy at that time.

There was no major population numbers on earth at that time. It would be very easy to scatter these bodies over a large area and would go unnoticed. They would not look different than bones of man of other eras.

Man at that time was living most likely in an area not much bigger than the tiny state of Rhode Island. For they all had to be close enough in order to get to hear God's warning. The preaching of Noah as a warning from God.

2 Peter 2:5 niv
"If he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others. "

Grace and peace, GeneZ
​

 

[gluadys]

Man at that time was living most likely in an area not much bigger than the tiny state of Rhode Island. For they all had to be close enough in order to get to hear God's warning. The preaching of Noah as a warning from God.

That does not accord with the evidence that H. sapiens originated in Africa while apparently Noah, et al lived in Mesopotamia. That is a much bigger area than Rhode Island.

 

[Poke]

It took 40 days for the water to reach its peak. There was lots of time for people to escape to higher ground, where they stood less chance of being buried. And, people would have done a a better job of that than any other animal.

Human fossils are rare, but they do exist.

 

[Mallon]

It took 40 days for the water to reach its peak. There was lots of time for people to escape to higher ground, where they stood less chance of being buried. And, people would have done a a better job of that than any other animal.

Better than mountain goats, birds, bats, and pterosaurs?

 

[Poke]

Better than mountain goats, birds, bats, and pterosaurs?

Yes.

 

[steen]

Fascinating claim, that humans were better at getting to high peaks than birds were.

 

[theFijian]

I didnt think it would have mattered that humans could supposedly climb to higher ground. Anybody kicking about would still have been swept away by the waters, and would have been buried by all that silt and sediment being carried about by such a violent surge of water from the 'fountains of the deep' and from the skies. Where are the fossils?

 

[Poke]

I didnt think it would have mattered that humans could supposedly climb to higher ground. Anybody kicking about would still have been swept away by the waters, and would have been buried by all that silt and sediment being carried about by such a violent surge of water from the 'fountains of the deep' and from the skies. Where are the fossils?

There are human fossils. Why do you imply that there aren't?

 

[Poke]

Fascinating claim, that humans were better at getting to high peaks than birds were.

You probably have a different idea of what "high peaks" are than I do. In any case, birds are so dumb that their flight advantage is somewhat mitigated. Most would have died early of exhaustion, rather than as the last animals sitting on top of high ground.

 

[food4thought]

At least some good suggestions found here:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1103

Hope this helps.

 

[Mallon]

In any case, birds are so dumb that their flight advantage is somewhat mitigated.

Why? Not all birds are "dumb". It takes little more than instinct to move to higher ground when your home is flooded. Animals of all levels of intelligence do this.

Most would have died early of exhaustion, rather than as the last animals sitting on top of high ground.

Birds are capable of flying much farther than the average human can climb, run, or walk. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the cross-continental trips made each year by, say, Canadian geese. Or perhaps you aren't aware that bar-headed geese are capable of flying above the peak of Mount Everest. Anyways, birds are much more capable of getting to higher ground than humans. It doesn't take a genius to know this is true.

 

[jon914]

There are human fossils. Why do you imply that there aren't?

You will not hear of the human remane, because it does not fit what you are taught in school. In Texas they found both human and Dinasours in the same pit, but beacuse dinasours were gone 70 thousand years before man they discount there finding.

To the person who said that there were not many people, I beg to differ. Men and women living900 years made a lot of babies

And to the mountain climers, don't be so childish. I am pretty confident that they did not have a clue of what God was doing.


John914

 

[steen]

You probably have a different idea of what "high peaks" are than I do. In any case, birds are so dumb that their flight advantage is somewhat mitigated. Most would have died early of exhaustion, rather than as the last animals sitting on top of high ground.

Ah, so you admit that all your claims are pure speculation and "I want it to be this way so therefore I claim it to be" postulations?

 

[steen]

You will not hear of the human remane, because it does not fit what you are taught in school. In Texas they found both human and Dinasours in the same pit,

I would love to see the actual evidence for this.

but beacuse dinasours were gone 70 thousand years before man

That would be 60 MILLION rears, actually. You might want to read up on this a bit before making more claims.

they discount there finding.

Actually, anybody able to scientifically show human and dinosaur bones would be able to write their own ticket to any university job, not to mention just about an automatic Nobel Price. So your claim sounds a bit silly. What is the foundation for your claim here?

And to the mountain climers, don't be so childish. I am pretty confident that they did not have a clue of what God was doing.

In what context does this make sense? I don't see it having anything to do with the discussion at hand. Could you clarify, please?

 

[GenemZ]

That does not accord with the evidence that H. sapiens originated in Africa while apparently Noah, et al lived in Mesopotamia. That is a much bigger area than Rhode Island.

We do not know where Noah lived. We only know where his Ark landed.

It does not matter how big the land mass was that where man lived was situated. I described how much land mass mankind probably took up. Remember, they could not be too far as to never have hear Noah's warning. God does not judge without warning.....

And? Look at Rhode Island? Take away the border lines? The land mass is much greater. Rhode Island the last time I checked is not an island, per se. It is surrounded by Connecticut and Massachsettes. I was speaking of simply in the same manner as to the size of the area man lived in.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

We do not know where Noah lived. We only know where his Ark landed.

We know the bible nevers refers to Israel's ancestors living anywhere else than Mesopotamia until Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees.

And? Look at Rhode Island? Take away the border lines?

Take away the borderlines and you are not talking Rhode Island anymore. Yes, I know it is a state, not an island.

 

[GenemZ]

We know the bible nevers refers to Israel's ancestors living anywhere else than Mesopotamia until Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees.

I do not know how you can say what you just did. We are not speaking of Israel's descendants only.

I think you are missing something very important here.

Noah? He was a Gentile. One who was one of the father's of the entire human race. I do not believe Noah had any more children after the flood. Its his sons from whom the entire human race comes from, not just Israel.

Genesis 9:18-19 niv
"The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth. "
​

We are speaking of the entire world population, not simply Israel's. So? Where was your point?

Take away the borderlines and you are not talking Rhode Island anymore. Yes, I know it is a state, not an island.

So? Your point was?

You were trying to claim how widespead man had populated the earth because of the land mass you claim they lived on. If they all stuck close together? It makes no difference how big the land mass was.

Rhode Island was only given for a size comparison, and even that may have been too big. For all men had to hear the preaching of Noah as to be warned before judgement. God does not judge without first warning.

Grace and patience, GeneZ

 

[gluadys]

I do not know how you can say what you just did. We are not speaking of Israel's descendants only.

I think you are missing something very important here.

Noah? He was a Gentile. One who was one of the father's of the entire human race. I do not believe Noah had any more children after the flood. Its his sons from whom the entire human race comes from, not just Israel.


We are speaking of the entire world population, not simply Israel's. So? Where was your point?

But among the people descended from Noah was Israel, just as Abraham fathered many people, but the only ones the Bible follows are the Israelites, not the Edomites or the Ishmaelites.

And until Abraham was called to Canaan, the ancestors of Israel (including Noah) appear to have lived in Mesopotamia.

You were trying to claim how widespead man had populated the earth because of the land mass you claim they lived on. If they all stuck close together? It makes no difference how big the land mass was.

No, I am making the point that if Noah did live in Mesopotamia, people had spread at least that far from East Africa where the human species originated. They were already spread from Ethiopia to Persia eastward, and that is a much larger area than Rhode Island.