did Noahs Ark really happen?

[Rut]

It is true that many ancient stories of floods have come down to us, but when I read these stories I learn that the floods occurred either along rivers or along the coast of an ocean, and that those who survived the floods did so by retreating to higher ground. In some of the stories specific hills are named to which the survivors retreated. These stories do not substantiate the claim of young earth creationists that their particular interpretation of Gen. 6-8 is true; the use of these stories by young earth creationist to defend their particular interpretation of Gen. 6-8, however, shows how desperate they are for some sort of “evidence” that their particular interpretation of Gen. 6-8 is correct.

It is no accident that the vast majority of Old and New Testament scholars today believe that Gen. 6-8 is an epic tale and that over 99.9% of biologists teaching biology today in an accredited college or university teach that the earth is billions of years old.

This reminds me of the “evidence” that the Watchtower Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses) uses to “prove” that Jesus was nailed to a stake rather than a cross. The two pieces of evidence that they most commonly cite are the following:

• An illustration in a 17th century book of what they claim to be an illustration of Jesus having been nailed to a stake. However, when we look at the illustration in the book, we find that the author of the book does NOT say that the illustration is of Jesus. Indeed, the book includes another illustration of a man who has been nailed to a cross and the author of the book says that it is an illustration of the crucifixion of Jesus. In other words, the “evidence” is not real and the Watchtower Society knows for a fact that it is not real and is willfully and deliberately deceiving their readers.

• The Watchtower Societ, in their literature, quotes the following words from the first edition (1957) of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Christian Literature, “σταυρὸν….’upright, pointed stake’ or ‘pale.’” The Greek word σταυρὸν is the word translated ‘cross’ in our English Bibles, but what the Watchtower Society does not tell you is that if we open that lexicon to page 772 where the quote is taken from, the lexicon is citing the use of the word by Homer and other pre-Christian writers and on the very same page, for more than a very long column of highly-abbreviated small type, the lexicon cites numerous Christian writers using the word σταυρὸν, NOT in the sense of a stake, but of a “cross.” Therefore we know for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that the Watchtower Society had the truth right in front of them and that, rather than tell their readers the truth, they chose to willfully and deliberately deceive them.

In other threads I have posted examples of where young earth creationist organizations have employed the same dishonest tactics of the Watchtower Society. Indeed, they are willing to go to whatever dishonest means they believe are necessary to defend their particular interpretation of Gen. 1-11.

I`m sorry I`m really stupid about these groups as young earth creationists etc.I don`t know what means I have learned such words when I came to Christian Forum.I take a faith/believing in something when I read and thinks that is correct.Then the name of it I have no idea

I only wrote about ancinet stories because gluadys wrote to me and said that the Flood couldn`t be truth because the Egyptians and Chinmese haven`t wrote about it.So I tried to write that wasn`t correct

 

[gluadys]

I suppose you have read alot of books and make up your mind as me.When I have look in the internet I have seen many website against and for the Flood.

Well, it's not a popularity contest. You need to look at the quality of the evidence.

Do you mean with this question about Egyptian and Chinese that they say that the flood haven`t been?

When I search for it I find website that said that Egyptian knows about the Flood.They even celebrate the day - 17 Athyr - they say that the flood began that date. I give you a link for that http://www.nwcreation.net/articles/ancientsknew.html

No, I mean that the archeoloical evidence shows that these civilizations were never affected by a global flood.

For example , unless you significantly change the time period in which the flood is usually said to occur, Noah was contemporaneous with the last Pharoah of the 5th Egyptian dynasty.

Compared to the previous dynasties, the 5th Dynasty is fairly well known. All kings noted in the king-lists and by Manetho are attested by archaeological sources. This is largely due to the increased amount of documents from this period.​

http://www.ancient-egypt.org/index.html

The following dynasty is also well-attested archeologically and there is no interruption between the 5th and 6th dynasty.

But if the whole population of Egypt was wiped out by a global flood (since none were in the ark) how is it possible that there was no interruption in Egyptian history corresponding to the time of the flood? All the kings of the 5th and 6th dynasty, both prior to and after the time of the flood, build pyramids, temples and other monuments. But if the country was devastated and depopulated by the flood, where did the workmen come from to build these structures. If the only people in the world were 8 people located on/near Mount Ararat, who was building pyramids in Egypt at the same time?

For that matter, who was living in China at the same time, where written documents and inscriptions on archeological artifacts also continue right through any possible date for a biblical flood?

A global flood would have created a hiatus lasting a century or more in the history of any pre-flood civilization, especially at a great distance from Mesopotamia, before normal life could be resumed. There should be a lengthy period in which there was no agriculture, much less building of cities and temples and development of trade. Yet we see no such hiatus in the records of civilizations which existed at the time. Records of trade continue uninterrupted. Records of court cases, of donations to temples, of the reigns of kings, taxation records, all these things continue without interruption.

How can this be if all these people died in a global flood and their lands had to wait for descendants of Noah to migrate to and repopulate their territory?

btw, the only Egyptian reference I could find to 17 Athyr is that it was the commemoration of the death of Osiris.


Another paragraph from your link interested me.

The odds are astronomically long that these supposedly distinct civilizations would have the same legend of a global Flood with eight people surviving from the pre-Flood population that was led by a series of ten kings if it were not real history that happens to corroborate the Genesis account.​

This assumes that all the stories were created independently. The similarity of detail is much more easily explained by different peoples borrowing the story from an original single source. As the Biblical writer probably borrowed the basic outline of the flood story from predecessors such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Is there any indication that there has been no cross-cultural influence on the various flood stories? And what about the many flood stories that do not have these particular details? The Greek legend of the flood has only two survivors and AFAIK no reference to a line of ten pre-flood kings.

Oh, and whatever the Egyptian legend of the flood says, Egyptian history lists over 30 pre-flood kings, not just ten.

I can try to look up you other questions too if you really want that

Please do. Have fun.

 

[Servant222]

I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but Egyptian settlements in the vicinity of Alexandria would have been profoundly affected by a Mediterranean flood (see my posting #49 above). I know that archeologists have found ruins below present sea level in the Nile delta, but how far these extend down and out into the Mediterranean, I don't know. Same at Cesarea in Israel- near-shore submerged ruins are known to exist, but I don't know whether anyone has tried to determine how far down into the Mediterranean basin these ancient ruins go.

Of course, Greek mythology has stories related to Atlantis- which could also have been wiped out by the Mediterranean flood, although it is also possible that its demise was due to the eruption of Santorini, or a similar volcanic event.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Dendrochronological and climatological studies in the White Mountains of California at elevations between 10,000 and 11,000 feet have conclusively proven that the climate there has not changed substantially during the past 8,900 years and that the Pinus longaeva trees growing in that area have been growing there without interruption from a flood or other catastrophic event during that entire time. Current dendrochronological studies on wood that has already been gathered from the dead Pinus longaeva trees in the same area are expected to reveal the climate in this area going back at least 10,000 years which is very significant since the last ice age ended just 2,000 years before that.

In 1964 a Pinus longaeva named Prometheus was cut down due to a blunder and it was discovered that the tree was 4,950 years old when it was cut down. Therefore this tree began growing there in about 2,986 B.C. from a seed from a tree that was already growing there and old enough to produce viable seeds. According to Usher’s literal interpretation of Old Testament chronology, Noah and his family entered into the Ark 2,349 B.C. and in the same year it began to rain. If this is true (and of course it is not), Prometheus had already been growing for about 637 years (from a seed from a tree that was already growing there and old enough to produce viable seeds) when the flood occurred.

Therefore we know for an absolute and incontrovertible fact several things:

• The White Mountains of California are at least 8,900 years old.

• At the time the flood is said to have occurred, a tree had been growing in the White Mountains at an elevation above 10,000 feet for about 637 years.

• This tree was still intact in 1964 and for 4,950 years it had been growing without experiencing any substantial changes in the climate.

• This tree grew from a seed from another tree of the same kind that was already old enough to produce a viable seed.

• Other trees of the same kind had been growing in the same area for the past 8,900 years without experiencing any substantial changes in the climate.

• Not only is the earth at least 8,900 years old, but so is its topography in the White Mountains.

• The climate in the White Mountains has not changed substantially in the past 8,900 years.

These are facts that are just as certain as the fact that water is a made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. So, what do the young earth creationists do with these facts? For the very large part they simply ignore them. A few, however, have argued that on rare occasion a tree will produce two tree rings or none at all. And this is true, including the fact that these occasions are known to be rare and they do not significantly affect dendrochronological dates.

 

[Jadis40]

What about three common every day food items that originated in the Americas? If the flood was world wide, it doesn't explain the appearance of these crops clear across the Atlantic ocean. If these were plants that Noah supposedly knew about and brought seeds for, then we should have a continuous record of them in ancient history, but we don't.

I'm talking about tomatoes, potatoes and corn (meaning maize):

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato

The potato originated in southern Peru [1] and is important to the culture of the Andes, where farmers grow many different varieties that have a remarkable diversity of colors and shapes. Potatoes spread from the Americas to the rest of the world after European colonization in the late 1400s and early 1500s and have since become an important field crop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato

The tomato (Solanum lycopersicum, formerly Lycopersicon lycopersicum) is a plant in the Solanaceae or nightshade family, native to Central, South, and southern North America from Mexico to Peru.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize

Maize

(Zea mays L. ssp. mays) is a cereal grain that was domesticated in Mesoamerica and then spread throughout the American continents. It spread to the rest of the world after European contact with the Americas in the late 15th century and early 16th century.

So, while the King James Bible, which was published in 1611, says "corn" in Genesis 42:1-2, it's not referring to the maize that was native to the Americas.

What that verse is probably referring to is Emmer wheat, which was known to the Egyptians.

There's also the sunflower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunflower

Sunflowers are native to the Americas, and were domesticated around 1000 B.C. The Incas used the sunflower as an image of their sun god. Gold images of the flower, as well as seeds, were taken back to Europe early in the 16th century.

I did find this, which is interesting:

In Greek mythology, a girl named Clytie fell in love with the sun god Apollo, and would do nothing but watch his chariot move across the sky. After nine days, she was transformed into a sunflower. However, the word "sunflower" and its cognates existed long before Helianthus annuus was brought to Europe, and it is thought that the myth (which is mentioned in Ovid's poem Metamorphoses) actually refers to heliotrope or marigold.

So there are documented records of these plants being introduced to Europe centuries after the date of a supposed global flood, meaning that Noah more than likely didn't have them on the ark.

 

[Servant222]

And remember, the White Mountains are about 10,000 feet above sea level- so how long before the trees started to grow were the mountains and the North American continent formed?

 

[busterdog]

You mean like 'sunrise' and 'sunset' are best explained by geocentrism?

Oy gevalt! Meshugeh ahf toit!

If we take the surace text of Genesis as eyewitness testimony of the events, we still don't have a global flood, because the eyewitnesses can only describing what they saw.

"Erets" I guess is not always "whole earth", but the witness is to the destruction of all people and animals.

What they saw was their whole land covered in water, with every hill from horizon to horizon under water. These neolithic witnesses did not know the world was a globe, could not see how the flood effected other parts of the globe, and simply described what happened to their land.

We run into problems because we translate 'the land' as 'the earth' and interpret that from our very different perspective. But lets not take that misreading of their testimony as evidence of an event they did not describe.


Actually I find YECs very closed minded about the meaning of the text

I am sure we have our own brand of closed minded-ness, but the text is pretty clear. It is not completely impossible to make the argument that "all flesh" means "all flesh in this region." But, at the same time, its a pretty bold view of the text to argue that point with complete conviction and to the exclusion of any other possible reading. Why even have an ark for a regional flood? Why should this event parallel the second coming, when "Every eye shall see."

The long shot in this race is not the YEC surface text -- unless you want to argue based on a majority of geologists.

Any number of passages about nature of God's Word itself suggests that this is not a puzzle to be figured. Man needs a surface text because he is lost. The WOrd says as much and it only makes sense that God would provide a reliable surface text.

!!!

 

[busterdog]

Quite right. The point is that if e. is true (and it is) it doesn't matter how much evidence may be supportive of a global flood. If any evidence exists which falsifies a global flood, there was no global flood. End of story.

This comes down to two principles. First is that any scientific theory must be falsifiable. That is, there must be a way to test the theory that will say either "this theory has been proven false" or "this theory has not been proven false."

Why? The BIble says that with God all things are possible. Must that be falsifiable? I guess if you pick the right rules, you can leave on the conclusion that you prefer. Falsification is a handy rule of thumb. IT is a method of criticism. It is not a determinant for ultimate questions. The very idea of an ultimate question seems pretty foreign to the scientific method in any event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable Of course, we are talking about the intervention of God. How does that require scientific validation?

Note that neither choice is "this theory is true". No limited amount of evidence can prove a theory true, and we do not have and never will have in this world an unlimited amount of evidence. So, in principle, a theory can never be shown absolutely to be true. But it can be shown to be false.

I guess we agree in principle. But, we are also called to decide on matters and confess our God based on a very different way of doing things. I agree that the scientific method will always lead you to this issue. But, the very idea that salvation is a reality and that God intended to communicate an absolute basis for redemption suggests that we are mixing apples and oranges.

Second principle: you only need one definitive piece of falsifying evidence to outweigh any amount of supportive evidence. This is easily seen from the concept of studying the colour of crows. Most crows we see are black. You can study crows for years, examine thousands of crows and always find them to be black. Does this prove that all crows are black? It makes it very probable, but not absolutely certain. However finding just one white crow proves absolutely that not all crows are black.

It seems very optimistic to use this comparision to talk about an event that happen 6,000 years ago and left only eight witnesses.

So, yes, you can interpret a lot of evidence as supporting a global flood. But as soon as you find evidence that is quite incompatible with a global flood, you have falsified that hypothesis. And the evidence you interpreted as favoring a global flood must be re-interpreted to conform to the falsification of a global flood.

The only constant I see in science is change. There is no definitive evidence. I just can't imagine any evidence that would rule a flood.

Ah, but there is absolute rule-out evidence in science. In fact, no theory that does not include a test for possible falsification is deemed to be scientific.



No. They may require a massive, even continent-wide flood (though I am dubious even of that), but they do not require a global flood.

There is no rule out evidence. Thats my story and Im sticking to it.

They may not "require" a global flood, but its still a pretty good fit. In Prudhoe Bay and in SIberia they find massive forests of tropical trees that have beey tipped over in patters. You have enormous aggregations of different species found in whirls of detritis. Certainly there were some pretty darn big floods in many places!. One example is not right out of genesis, but it involves rivers of flash-frozen fish in Siberia. How does that happen without the type of upheaval revealed in Genesis?

Right. And when that aggregation includes evidence that falsifies the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be abandoned, unless it can be revised to fit the evidence.

Again, the methods are chosen to fit the worldview and rule out a global flood. But, the methods are limited.

Enormous catastrophism is not ruled out by standard geology. Evidence shows that at various times the earth has suffered massive vulcanism, extensive ice ages, huge meteor impacts, even wide-spread floods. What it does not show, and what is contradicted by much evidence, is a global flood.


In science, evidence is part of the physical world. No text is evidence. A text only records what the writer thought. Even if the text recounts what the writer witnessed, it is at best testimony of evidence, not evidence in itself.

I feel like I am inappropriately tempting you to even continue on that point.

Because it is not a matter of totting up which hypothesis has better evidence for it. It is a matter of determining which hypothesis is falsified by the evidence. Both hypotheses may have reams of evidence in their favour, including evidence which may be cited in favour of both. But if either or both is faced with evidence which is contradictory to the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be abandoned or revised to include the evidence. When the latter course is impossible, the hypothesis must be abandoned. That is the situation in regard to a global flood. No matter how much evidence is adduced in its favour, the falsifying evidence is just too strong to continue admitting it as a scientific possibility.



The surface text, and even the deep text, of Genesis is not scientific evidence. No text is evidence of anything other than the opinion of the author. And opinions are not evidence.

This must include the conviction that the present state of science is categorically supreme, which is a position that science has never been able to maintain, at least not in hindsight.

And remember, we are not talking about ANY evidence for a flood, we are talking about evidence which falsifies a GLOBAL flood.

 

[gluadys]

Why? The BIble says that with God all things are possible. Must that be falsifiable?

No, because that is not science. Any scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable. That would include the physical consequences of a miracle, but not a miracle itself.

So, we could presume that God could produce a global flood and that need not be falsifiable because we are assuming miraculous means. But if we also hold that the flood would have physical effects determined by natural laws, then we would expect both to see scientific evidence of those effects and not to see evidence incompatible with a global flood. When we see evidence incompatible with a global flood, then whether or not God could have produced one becomes irrelevant, since the evidence shows that no such flood occurred.

The only other out, as far as I can see, is that God arranged either for the flood to have no physical consequences, or for the physical consequences to be erased. But what would be the point of the flood, especially as an example and warning to future generations, if there were no consequences?

Makes a lot more sense to take the POV of those who experienced the flood, and assume it was the earth they knew rather than the globe we know that was flooded.

Falsification is a handy rule of thumb. IT is a method of criticism. It is not a determinant for ultimate questions. The very idea of an ultimate question seems pretty foreign to the scientific method in any event.

It is not intended to deal with ultimate questions. It is intended to discriminate between science and non-science. Science does not deal with ultimate questions, only material questions.

Of course, we are talking about the intervention of God. How does that require scientific validation?

No, we are talking about whether the flood story in Genesis could have literally (i.e. scientifically) have happened on a global scale. This involves physical reality. Could the ark as described survive in a global ocean? Could it have held all the animals in needed to hold, together with all the food supplies they would need?

And beyond the story itself, we have the assertions of flood "geology". Could/did the flood deposit most or even any part of the geological sediments? If so, which ones. Are the fossils remnants of the flood?

As things stand, the existence of a global flood is contradicted by facts of physics, geology, paleontology, genetics and archeology.

So you can have a miraculously produced flood if you want, but it has to miraculously avoid affecting the evidence turned up by these disciplines which contradict a flood. But if is is not going to physically affect this evidence, it is not likely to affect the physical world in any detectable way, so that would leave no positive evidence in support of a global flood either.

I guess we agree in principle. But, we are also called to decide on matters and confess our God based on a very different way of doing things. I agree that the scientific method will always lead you to this issue.

I disagree, as long as we are dealing with nature. Nature and the way it works are God's creation, and the orderliness and predictability of nature are guaranteed by God's purpose and promise. I cannot conceive of God taking apart creation to make a literal reading of the flood story viable.

But, the very idea that salvation is a reality and that God intended to communicate an absolute basis for redemption suggests that we are mixing apples and oranges.

Indeed. They are different topics entirely. The reality of salvation does not depend on the extent of the flood. Nor does the reality of Christ's sacrifice for us.

It seems very optimistic to use this comparision to talk about an event that happen 6,000 years ago and left only eight witnesses.

Well, were there only eight witnesses? How could there be when in Egypt, work was continuing on pyramids as if there had been no major devastation of the country by a year-long flood? The apparent continuance of ancient civilizations is one of the archeological contradictions to the global extent of the flood.

I think you missed the point of the principle. This is not a balancing of evidence and reaching a conclusion as to the preponderance of evidence. There are circumstances where that technique applies, for example, in choosing between competing hypotheses, but it is not here.

Falsification is a principle that tilts the balance. When evidence falsifies a hypothesis, no amount of supportive evidence can unfalsify it. There can no longer be a comparison between two competing hypotheses when one has been shown to be false.

]The only constant I see in science is change. There is no definitive evidence. I just can't imagine any evidence that would rule a flood.

Science changes because we are continually improving our understanding of how nature works. But how nature works doesn't change. All those millennia when humans assumed the sun circled the earth didn't mean the sun actually circled the earth until Copernicus decreed the earth should circle the sun instead. It was always the case that the earth circled the sun, not vice versa. So don't equate change in science with change in what science studies.

Also remember that although scientific theories change, evidence--since it is part of the physical world--does not. So no matter how science changes its theories, the evidence which falsifies a global flood is still there.

You don't have to imagine evidence that would rule out a flood. There is plenty of it that can be shown to you. Just look at a few of the preceding posts for starters. There is a lot more.

Remember that an argument from incredulity has no force. There are lots of things we would never imagine until it is shown to us.

There is no rule out evidence. Thats my story and Im sticking to it.

I believe psychiatrists refer to this as being "in denial". Stick to it all you want. It doesn't make it true.

They may not "require" a global flood, but its still a pretty good fit.

A "pretty good fit" may not be good enough, especially when there are other scenarios that are equally good. It doesn't fit at all if other scenarios are more probable. Science tends to favor an explanation which the evidence does require. Other explanations are simply ad hoc and not scientifically valid.

In Prudhoe Bay and in SIberia they find massive forests of tropical trees that have beey tipped over in patters. You have enormous aggregations of different species found in whirls of detritis. Certainly there were some pretty darn big floods in many places!. One example is not right out of genesis, but it involves rivers of flash-frozen fish in Siberia. How does that happen without the type of upheaval revealed in Genesis?

Do you have citations for any of these? The only thing a quick browse showed up on Prudhoe Bay was Walt Brown's terrible website with a reference to a report by a Baptist missionary to Alaska.

How do these things happen without the type of upheaval revealed in Genesis? First, Genesis doesn't really reveal any major upheaval. It simply says that water covered the earth/land. It doesn't speak of any geological upheaval or climatic change at all. That has all been added in by the speculations of creationists vainly trying to develop a scientific scenario of the flood. According to Genesis there was so little upheaval an olive tree survived a year-long inundation of water and still sprouted leaves. And, apparently, there was plenty of vegetation available to feed the animals leaving the ark.

But there can be major devastation without a global flood. Ever hear of the Tunguska event?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1628806.stm

There have been plenty of suggestions as to the cause in addition to the one suggested in the article, but even you would agree there was no global flood in 1908. Are the fossil forests of Prudhoe Bay and the Siberian coast any more extensive?

As for "flash-frozen" fish, I have seen so many creationist distortions of "flash-frozen" mammoth discoveries, I would really need to see a science report on the fish before coming to any conclusion.

Right. And when that aggregation includes evidence that falsifies the hypothesis, the hypothesis must be abandoned, unless it can be revised to fit the evidence.

Again, the methods are chosen to fit the worldview and rule out a global flood. But, the methods are limited.

The methods are integral to sound science. If the consequence is that a global flood is ruled out, then you have the choice of a less-than-global flood (which is consistent with the POV of the biblical writer) or choosing a fantasy outside the domain of science. Of course the methods are limited. They delimit the domain of science.

This must include the conviction that the present state of science is categorically supreme, which is a position that science has never been able to maintain, at least not in hindsight.

No, only that it is an improvement over the level of scientific knowledge of yesteryear. We expect that future generations will consider the present state of science to be relatively primitive.

 

[Assyrian]

"Erets" I guess is not always "whole earth", but the witness is to the destruction of all people and animals.

Erets usually means a land or a country rather than the whole planet and it also fits the previous usage of the word in the Cain story. Our witnesses can only witness the destruction of all the people and animals they witnessed. I am not questioning the completeness of the destruction in the area involved, it is the extent of that area and these witnesses tell us nothing about that.

I am sure we have our own brand of closed minded-ness, but the text is pretty clear. It is not completely impossible to make the argument that "all flesh" means "all flesh in this region." But, at the same time, its a pretty bold view of the text to argue that point with complete conviction and to the exclusion of any other possible reading.

The context is given again and again, 'the land was filled with violence', 'everything that is in the land will die'. YEC argue their global flood reading with complete conviction and to the exclusion of any other possible reading. I would simply say the text fits a local flood perfectly and as eyewitness account, which the bible sets a high value on, the writers were only able to describe what they saw in their own area.

From a cultural context at the time, the idea of a global anything would have been alien meaningless. Now it is possible that God meant more than what the story would have meant to the people of the time. For example I read Gen 1 as in 'the beginning God created the land and the sky', we read of him creating a bowl shaped firmament over the land. And it is true the sky over Mesopotamia is shaped like a vast bowl. The sky over any region of the earth is shaped like a bowl because we only see the section of the sphere from horizon to horizon. But while the text talks of God creating that section of land and sky, we know it tells us God created the whole earth and the atmosphere around it and the vast universe that spans out in every direction, full of swirling galaxies stars and the vast multitude of other worlds.

So yes the description of the flood could have been talking about a much wider flood than the writers meant, a global flood. But there is no reason in the text that we have to read it that way, and no evidence in science that such a food ever took place.

Why even have an ark for a regional flood?

Why not? Why did God command the Israelites to circumcise their baby boys? Does everything God commands have to make sense (Now TEs can happily come up with a list of good reasons for God commanding the boat, but that is not the point. God often commands things that seem very strange to us, but its strangeness is no reason to disbelieve it.)

Why should this event parallel the second coming, when "Every eye shall see."

For the same reason Jesus included the (local) destruction of Sodom.

The long shot in this race is not the YEC surface text -- unless you want to argue based on a majority of geologists.

Any number of passages about nature of God's Word itself suggests that this is not a puzzle to be figured. Man needs a surface text because he is lost. The WOrd says as much and it only makes sense that God would provide a reliable surface text.

And the surface text describes a regional flood.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

That is not to say that those who reject the Flood are not saved. They just don't believe the Scriptures.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I believe the Scriptures! There is, however, a vast difference between believing what the Old Testament actually teaches when read in the Hebrew language in the context of ancient Jewish literature and believing a misinformed and irresponsible interpretation of the Old Testament. And there is a vast difference between believing the New Testament writings and understanding their use of the story of Noah’s Ark as an illustration to aid in teaching New Testament truths and believing a misinformed and irresponsible interpretation of the New Testament.

Young earth creationist are very hard pressed to find today very many Old or New Testament scholars holding a full professorship in a University or Seminary internationally recognized for academic excellence in Biblical studies who believe that either the Old or the New Testament teaches that the story of Noah’s Ark is an accurate account of an historic event.

I do not believe that it makes any sense whatsoever to believe in an interpretation of the Bible that has been proven to be ridiculously wrong by the natural sciences, especially when the vast majority of Biblical scholars agree that the interpretation is wrong.

Young earth creationism is not a battle for the Bible or Biblical truths; it is a battle for an extremely naïve interpretation of the Bible that contradicts common sense:

A few facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Genesis 6–8:

• In order to have the huge variety of genetically distinct populations of animals that exist today, it would have been absolutely necessary for there to have been several hundred thousand pairs of animals aboard the Ark, plus tens of thousands of additional clean animals (Gen. 7:2).

• It would have been genetically impossible for a few thousand “kinds’ of animals to evolve into the hundreds of thousands of genetically distinct populations we have today in a matter of thousands of years.

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would have been capable of displacing would have weighed very much less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark would have been too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would have weighed nearly as much as the animals (and in very many cases, much more than the animals) and would have required a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY LARGE fish) would necessarily have been taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive down to this day.

• The water in these tanks would necessarily have been continuously aerated by mechanical means that would have required the strenuous effort of tens of thousands of workers.

• The tanks of water would have been thousands of times too large and too heavy to be kept aboard even the largest ship we have today.

• The weight of the flood waters on the earth would have crushed to death any of the lower-altitude land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would have been no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained aboard the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not have all been released at once or in the same place because they would have eaten each other.

• It would have been a physical impossible for many of the kinds of animals to come to Noah (Gen. 6:20). The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not have been returned to their original habitats because all of the habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would have taken 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons over these many years.

• Until all the necessary habitats could have been reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would necessarily have been kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there had been, where did it go after the flood?

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

It can easily be seen that the story of Noah’s Ark can NOT be a literal account of an historic event. Indescribably huge miracles would have been necessary, and a literal interpretation of Genesis does not allow for these miracles because the whole point of the narrative is that through the NATURAL MEANS of an ark built by Noah and his family, mankind and all the kinds of animals were saved from the water. The story of Noah’s Ark is a God-inspired epic tale written, not as a history lesson, but as a spiritual lesson.

The references to Noah and the Ark in the New Testament do NOT support the notion that Genesis 6-8 was interpreted literally by Jesus or any New Testament author. These references simply indicate that Jesus and the New Testament authors used this story to teach spiritual truths.

The vast majority of both Old Testament and New Testament scholars today agree that Gen. 6-8 is an epic tale and over 99.9% of biologist who are currently teaching biology in an accredited college or university agree with the biological principles that eliminate any possibility of Genesis 6-8 being an accurate account of an historic event.

I believe the Bible, but I do not believe the interpretation of it by those who interpret Genesis 6-8 to be an accurate account of an historic event. In order for any interpretation of the Bible to be the correct interpretation, it MUST be in harmony with all the facts, and the teaching that Genesis 6-8 is an accurate account of an historic event is out of harmony with a vast multitude of facts.

 

[random_guy]

A few facts regarding Noah’s Ark that must be considered in evaluating the literalness of the account in Genesis 6–8:

• In order to have the huge variety of genetically distinct populations of animals that exist today, it would have been absolutely necessary for there to have been several hundred thousand pairs of animals aboard the Ark, plus tens of thousands of additional clean animals (Gen. 7:2).

• It would have been genetically impossible for a few thousand “kinds’ of animals to evolve into the hundreds of thousands of genetically distinct populations we have today in a matter of thousands of years.

• The ark as literally described in Genesis was much too small because the amount of water that it would have been capable of displacing would have weighed very much less that the animals on board making it impossible for the ark to float.

• The floor space on the ark would have been too small to hold any more than a tiny fraction of the cages that would be necessary to keep the animals in place (and from eating each other).

• The amount of food required for the animals would have weighed nearly as much as the animals (and in very many cases, much more than the animals) and would have required a vast amount of storage space.

• Many of the animals aboard the ark would have required specific FRESH fruits, vegetables, leaves, grass, bark, roots, etc.

• Most of the genetically discrete populations of fish (including many VERY LARGE fish) would necessarily have been taken aboard the ark and kept in tanks of water that met their very specific water chemistry needs in order to survive down to this day.

• The water in these tanks would necessarily have been continuously aerated by mechanical means that would have required the strenuous effort of tens of thousands of workers.

• The tanks of water would have been thousands of times too large and too heavy to be kept aboard even the largest ship we have today.

• The weight of the flood waters on the earth would have crushed to death any of the lower-altitude land plants that did not drown in the water.

• After 150 days when the water abated, there would have been no vegetation on the earth for the herbivores to eat, and no meat for the carnivores to eat, therefore a vast amount of food would necessarily have been kept on the ark to sustain the animals AFTER the flood.

• Many of the herbivores would have had very specific dietary needs, including fresh fruits and berries that are produced only on MATURE plants. Therefore these mature plants would necessarily have been kept and maintained aboard the ark and subsequently planted in the ground after the flood.

• The Animals could not have all been released at once or in the same place because they would have eaten each other.

• It would have been a physical impossible for many of the kinds of animals to come to Noah (Gen. 6:20). The polar bears and penguins, not to mention all of the unique kinds of animals in Australia, would have posed a few special difficulties.

• After the flood, the animals could not have been returned to their original habitats because all of the habitats would have been destroyed by the flood.

• Many of the necessary habitats would have taken 50 years or more to be reestablished and their reestablishment would have required the effort of many thousands of persons over these many years.

• Until all the necessary habitats could have been reestablished, the animals requiring these habitats would necessarily have been kept and cared for by Noah and his family.

• There was not enough water to cover the entire earth, and even if there had been, where did it go after the flood?

• If the reported sightings of the Ark are correct, the Ark came to rest on a VERY high mountain on VERY rugged terrain from which the vast majority of the animals would not have been able descend.

I can answer these problems with one word, "Goddidit". Kidding aside, here's another neat fact:

The animals on the Ark had to be the most sickly lot since they also had to carry all the parasites, all the bacteria, and all the viruses found today. Which one of Noah's family carried pinworm? Sleeping sickness? Malaria? Tapeworm? Etc...

 

[Rut]

I see same question come up again and again so maybe this link can answer some of the questions

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

 

[gluadys]

I see same question come up again and again so maybe this link can answer some of the questions

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/animals.asp

It is not that easy. Most of us have already read AiG's "answers" and found them unsatisfactory. They leave many questions unanswered and do not take all factors into account.

Consider just these three points: (quotations from AiG article in link above)

Noah did not need to take sea creatures because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood.

On the contrary most species of fish would be wiped out by the flood because the mixing of fresh and salt water would change the salinitiy of the water. Most species of fish cannot survive changes in salinity. So how did the many species of fish survive if they were not taken into the ark? This would also require large aquariums in the ark, several of them, to meet the needs of different salt and freshwater species.

However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.

It is not extinct animals that cast doubt on the Flood, but existing animals that should not have survived flood conditions.

Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation.

Yes, Noah would need to take plants---to feed the animals. And he would also need to take many more than one pair or even seven pairs of animals--to feed the carnivorous animals.

Floating vegetation mats are not a sufficient explanation for the plant fossil record either.

The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food.

But, it has already been pointed out that a number of animals require fresh food. Dried, compressed or concentrated food will not do. Koalas feed only on eucalyptus leaves, and furthermore need different types of eucalyptus at different times of the year. Dried figs would not provide for the reproductive needs of fig wasps, and they would need to reproduce sometime during the year to survive. Nor can we leave them to survive on vegetation mats. They need a living fig tree with fruits to lay their eggs in. And the trees need the wasps to pollinate them. Neither can survive without the other.

 

[Breetai]

It is not that easy. Most of us have already read AiG's "answers" and found them unsatisfactory.

Come on now, be honest. You didn't really read much of AiG's "answers" at all. Each on of the points that you brought up are answered.

 

[Melethiel]

Come on now, be honest. You didn't really read much of AiG's "answers" at all. Each on of the points that you brought up are answered.

I've addressed many of AiG's answers in another post (on another issue). Nobody responded...

 

[Mallon]

Come on now, be honest. You didn't really read much of AiG's "answers" at all. Each on of the points that you brought up are answered.

With science or ad hoc? Perhaps you could address gluadys' points via reference to the webpage you cited. How does the AiG address the deposition of Jurassic termite in the middle of the Flood, for example?

 

[busterdog]

Failure of science to rule out the flood.

Science had no idea about this, yet was willing to dismiss the flood account. One basis was that there was enough water to make it happen. Oops. Pardon me. There is more water than we thought, and who knows how much more! (But the flood was impossible and we really have exhausted all the possibilities of evidence for a flood and yes we know all we need to know about it, not.)

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070228_beijing_anomoly.html

Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.
The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet’s deep mantle.

 

[shernren]

So how does a strong wind drive water into the mantle, again?

 

[Mallon]

Failure of science to rule out the flood.

Science had no idea about this, yet was willing to dismiss the flood account. One basis was that there was enough water to make it happen. Oops. Pardon me. There is more water than we thought, and who knows how much more! (But the flood was impossible and we really have exhausted all the possibilities of evidence for a flood and yes we know all we need to know about it, not.)

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070228_beijing_anomoly.html

Interesting. Do you know where this was published?
Too bad it still doesn't explain the fossil record, molecular clocks or biogeography. :-/