After the Flood!

[Jase]

seeds.

While i'm no botanist, I doubt most seeds can be underwater for a year, only to spring into a fully formed plant the next day. And it is pretty likely that seeds would have sunk deep into the mud with all that water, too deep for the plant to then grow from. Not to mention that their would be no sunlight that deep.

The ice age.

Which one, there have been several? And what caused the ice age? And how did Noah and all the other animals survive the ice age? Rather odd that dinosaurs died in the Ice Age, but a mere human lived perfectly content during it.

Don't need millions -- just one pair of each kind. God selected the animals, not Noah, so we know it was done right.

Aside from the fact that you don't even have a solid definition of what a "kind" is, there are probably over a million of them anyway.

No, the God is real, alive, loving, and active in His creation argument.

Because drowning your entire creation, including children is such a loving act?

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...
Which one, there have been several? And what caused the ice age? And how did Noah and all the other animals survive the ice age? Rather odd that dinosaurs died in the Ice Age, but a mere human lived perfectly content during it. ...snip...

That and given how devastating it would be to wipe out (only some species), there's no mention of it in the Bible (That Or I Missed it).

 

[laptoppop]

Well, they are problem for creationists, since plate tectonics is an extremely slow process. Continents move about 5 cms per year. Under the creationist model, they would have had to move thousands of miles in less than a year.

Ummmmm, no.
Catastrophic plate tectonics:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_platetectonicsl/

Computer modeling:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_jb_largescaletectonics/

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I'd also like to know how much water is required if the mountains are only 1/2 mile high (+20 Feet coverage)

Scientist's use such technical terms like enormous, incredible, when describing the volume of water contained in the earth's oceans.

Almost three-quarters of the earth's surface is covered by the seas to an average depth of 10,560 feet. The remaining one-quarter of land above sea level rises to an average height of 454 feet. Roughly speaking there is 70 times more water than land. Nuff water fer ya?

 

[laptoppop]

Aside from the fact that you don't even have a solid definition of what a "kind" is, there are probably over a million of them anyway.

You know, you always get yourself in trouble when assuming what someone else does or does not know. Yes, the field of baraminology is in a early growth state, but it is progressing nicely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology

The current status of baraminology:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_3/baraminology.htm

Because drowning your entire creation, including children is such a loving act?

I tend to believe that the best biblical explanation is gene pool corruption -- i.e. Gen. 6:1-4, where demons had intercourse with women. It makes sense that this was a direct attempt to make an unredeemable race of beings, and to corrupt the ancestry of the Messiah. So drowning them kept the last few with redeemable genes alive and avoided contamination. The same thing in a smaller scale happened later, when Israel was taking the land, and was told to kill every man, woman, and child.

You don't have to believe that. You can take the flood as punishment for horrible evils. It just makes a lot of sense to me. BTW, this is not a new explanation by any means.

 

[pgp_protector]

Scientist's use such technical terms like enormous, incredible, when describing the volume of water contained in the earth's oceans.

Almost three-quarters of the earth's surface is covered by the seas to an average depth of 10,560 feet. The remaining one-quarter of land above sea level rises to an average height of 454 feet. Roughly speaking there is 70 times more water than land. Nuff water fer ya?

So no mountains higher than 454 feet ,and or the ocean became much deeper then right ?

 

[laptoppop]

So no mountains higher than 454 feet ,and or the ocean became much deeper then right ?

Leaving off subterranean water -- if the oceans were *shallower* then more water would be flowing over the land.

 

[Jase]

I tend to believe that the best biblical explanation is gene pool corruption -- i.e. Gen. 6:1-4, where demons had intercourse with women. It makes sense that this was a direct attempt to make an unredeemable race of beings, and to corrupt the ancestry of the Messiah. So drowning them kept the last few with redeemable genes alive and avoided contamination. The same thing in a smaller scale happened later, when Israel was taking the land, and was told to kill every man, woman, and child.

You don't have to believe that. You can take the flood as punishment for horrible evils. It just makes a lot of sense to me. BTW, this is not a new explanation by any means.

So waving his finger, and making all the "corrupted" people disappear was too difficult, he had to resort to massive, illogical miracles to flood the Earth and have his entire creation inhale water to end the corruption? Seems awfully inefficient for an omnipotent being.

 

[laptoppop]

So waving his finger, and making all the "corrupted" people disappear was too difficult, he had to resort to massive, illogical miracles to flood the Earth and have his entire creation inhale water to end the corruption? Seems awfully inefficient for an omnipotent being.

Just a suggestion -- it is not real wise to try to judge God.

 

[Assyrian]

Of course, the Scriptures specifically do not limit it to just the regional mountains. *all* *the entire heavens* (NIV):

Gen 7:19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.
Gen 7:20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.

It helps if we understand what phrases like 'under the entire heavens' meant back then.
Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you. The thing is, this did not refer to Incas Koreans and Maori, trembling at the news of the Israelites. The people 'under the whole heaven' who were terrified were Philistines, Edomites, Moabites and Canaanite. Exodus 15:14 The peoples have heard; they tremble; pangs have seized the inhabitants of Philistia. 15 Now are the chiefs of Edom dismayed; trembling seizes the leaders of Moab; all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted away. 16 Terror and dread fall upon them; because of the greatness of your arm, they are still as a stone, till your people, O LORD, pass by, till the people pass by whom you have purchased.

In Isaiah 13:5 & 17 we read about the Medes coming 'from the end of the heavens'. Isaiah 13:5 They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land. They came from Persia.

'Under the whole heavens' simply means from horizon to horizon. It did not mean everywhere on the globe inside the earth's spherical atmosphere.

 

[Jadis40]

Some great points have already been made, with hibernation, food storage on the ark, and God being in charge.

Did you forget that the bird brought back an olive branch before the ark ever landed. Vegetation was growing and no need for irrigation. Another thing, I bet God put pregnant animals on the ark to speed the recovery, and some, like the Dinosours and dragons did not survive long after the flood. The other thing is, for the sake of space and handling God most likely put very young animals on the ark (if the meat eater came on as young and the prey as older and giving birth?), those who could be fed the milk of other animals like the cow or goat for instants. The prey could have a couple litters before the lion began eating them (and some like the bears are not strictly meat eaters and there would be fish to supliment)

When all other factors run out there is the will of God which created and sustains all things.

Except for these points
1. The dinosaurs died out/were killed off about 65 million years ago.
2. Dragons are just a fantasy creature, they never existed. (One point allowed for the Komodo dragon, but that's stretching things.)
3. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever from the fields of history, archeology, linguistics and genetics that a "global" flood ever took place within the past 6,000 years.
4. The fields of paleontology, geology, biology, and the study of plate tectonics and sedimentation have pretty much proven that a global flood never happened, and that any such flood was confined to some place in the middle east, and therefore was local. The olive leaf should be proof enough. A dove isn't going to be able to fly around the entire world, which is what is a global flood mandates, at least in my mind.
5. If the Tower of Babel were factual, all languages should be traceable back to one starting point. That's not the case, and there are at least 11 language families, not to mention the language isolates such as Basque and Sumerian that cannot be traced back to any language family. Hebrew and English aren't in the same language group - English is Indo-European, and Hebrew is Afro-Asiatic.
6. The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the writing down of the Biblical story of the flood by several centuries.
7. Calling on miracles is reading into the Biblical text something that isn't even there. (Hibernation, etc)
8. The design of certain animals should be proof enough that if a creature is predatory, it has always been predatory.
9. There are native plant species that cannot be found anywhere else on earth, Noah didn't have seeds for these. As I've pointed out, 3 common foods are native to the Americas: potatoes, tomatoes and corn (maize).

 

[philadiddle]

I've noticed that the claim has been made that vegetation was recovered quickly after the flood. I've also heard that there was an ice age after the flood. The 2 ideas seem to contradict each other. Maybe someone could explain how enough vegetation can grow during an ice age to feed the animals from the arc.

 

[laptoppop]

I've noticed that the claim has been made that vegetation was recovered quickly after the flood. I've also heard that there was an ice age after the flood. The 2 ideas seem to contradict each other. Maybe someone could explain how enough vegetation can grow during an ice age to feed the animals from the arc.

An ice age does not cover the entire globe with ice.

 

[laptoppop]

Except for these points
1. The dinosaurs died out/were killed off about 65 million years ago.

Obviously the timeline is disputed.

2. Dragons are just a fantasy creature, they never existed. (One point allowed for the Komodo dragon, but that's stretching things.)

Fair enough. However, the widespread nature of the various legends is fascinating. One could see it as evidence that some sort of large lizard like critter may have existed contemporaneously with man.

3. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever from the fields of history, archeology, linguistics and genetics that a "global" flood ever took place within the past 6,000 years.

ummmm, no. 2 quick points -- 1)there are over 400 flood legends around the world, and 2) it is fascinating that while supposedly man has been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, there's no archaeological evidence past a few thousand years.

4. The fields of paleontology, geology, biology, and the study of plate tectonics and sedimentation have pretty much proven that a global flood never happened, and that any such flood was confined to some place in the middle east, and therefore was local.

ummmmm, no. Proven? Do you know the difference between a repeatable process and historic probabilities? There is a large body of evidence. This evidence can be interpreted in two major ways -- uniformitarian and catastrophic. There are PhDs in the various fields mentioned who support a young earth. They aren't stupid, or uninformed -- they truly believe it explains the actual evidence better.

The olive leaf should be proof enough. A dove isn't going to be able to fly around the entire world, which is what is a global flood mandates, at least in my mind.

Huh? How in the world do you arrive at that? The dove found the growth locally.

5. If the Tower of Babel were factual, all languages should be traceable back to one starting point. That's not the case, and there are at least 11 language families, not to mention the language isolates such as Basque and Sumerian that cannot be traced back to any language family. Hebrew and English aren't in the same language group - English is Indo-European, and Hebrew is Afro-Asiatic.

The Tower of Babel does NOT require the languages be at all traceable. As a matter of fact, one would expect that there would be a multiple of base languages -- because God changed the languages, it was not normal linguistic development.

6. The Epic of Gilgamesh predates the writing down of the Biblical story of the flood by several centuries.

Perhaps. So? order does not mean causation.

7. Calling on miracles is reading into the Biblical text something that isn't even there. (Hibernation, etc)

Fair enough. It is an attempt to understand the details of the flood, which is born out by lots of other evidence.

8. The design of certain animals should be proof enough that if a creature is predatory, it has always been predatory.

So?

9. There are native plant species that cannot be found anywhere else on earth, Noah didn't have seeds for these. As I've pointed out, 3 common foods are native to the Americas: potatoes, tomatoes and corn (maize).

So? The Bible doesn't say that Noah carried seeds at all. With the violence of the flood, floating debris, etc., its no problem for various seeds to be in different places.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I've noticed that the claim has been made that vegetation was recovered quickly after the flood. I've also heard that there was an ice age after the flood. The 2 ideas seem to contradict each other. Maybe someone could explain how enough vegetation can grow during an ice age to feed the animals from the arc.

The ice age of 10,000 years ago was a remnant of a previous global flood. GenOne reveals the renewing of the surface of the earth. After the flood of Noah God renewed it again, recreating and distributing the life species that we see today. Note that this scripture has no definite historical context but seems to fit into a progression of events. You have to read the whole chapter to really get it:

Psalms 104

:29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.

:30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.

 

[Jadis40]

Obviously the timeline is disputed.

Nah, in my mind the issue is closed. The earth is much older than 6,000 or even 10,000 years. It's closer to 4.6 billion years. If radiometric dating is so wrong, then why don't we find any dinosaur remains with carbon left, IF the earth were only 6,000 years old? The closest thing we have is the soft tissue, but there are a lot of scientific reasons why this is the case. Just another example of much ado about nothing, in my mind. A 6,000 year old earth is based on a flawed chronology put forth by Archbishop Ussher. There wasn't anything during his day to indicate otherwise until the advent of geology in the 19th century when Christians, upon examining fossils, figured out the earth is much older than the Bible geneologies seemed to indicate.

Fair enough. However, the widespread nature of the various legends is fascinating. One could see it as evidence that some sort of large lizard like critter may have existed contemporaneously with man.

That well may be true, but I don't think it was a dinosaur. That's based purely on a very questionable interpretation of a couple of verses in Job.

ummmm, no. 2 quick points -- 1)there are over 400 flood legends around the world, and 2) it is fascinating that while supposedly man has been around for a couple of hundred thousand years, there's no archaeological evidence past a few thousand years.

There are, fair enough, but the thing is, YECs reject the proof in these other areas by saying the dating is wrong. Yet I believe they're being hypocrites because they use the very same methods to try to prove Biblical dates. Do I think groups like homo habilis and homo erectus were humans, just as we are? Yes, with variations in skeletal features. That alone pushes back humankind past the 6,000 and 10,000 year marks. I took a class in physical anthropology in college, but I rejected it at that time because of my religious biases. I don't any more, because I actually took the time to do research, and found my interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 had been flawed.

ummmmm, no. Proven? Do you know the difference between a repeatable process and historic probabilities? There is a large body of evidence. This evidence can be interpreted in two major ways -- uniformitarian and catastrophic. There are PhDs in the various fields mentioned who support a young earth. They aren't stupid, or uninformed -- they truly believe it explains the actual evidence better.

I understand what you're saying. The reason I don't agree with their point of view is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 Somehow, in my mind, I think that makes them somehow more "Christian" than those of us who think that a literal interpretation of Genesis along with a "global" flood. I have seen that on numerous creation websites, AiG included. Their mindset is clearly stated: "If it doesn't agree with the Bible, it's wrong." Harry Morris has come out and said as much. Is it any wonder then, that this is such an oft-heard complaint from TEs? I think it's better said, it comes down to a matter of interpretation. I, for one, think that science has revealed a great deal about this planet and universe, and how ancient it actually is. God gave mankind an intellect and a curious nature. I don't think God meant the Bible to be the end all-be all authority that some have made it out to be, especially when it comes to science, and espeically not to be used to establish a 6,000 year old earth. I definitely agree and believe that the Bible does point to the fact that there is a creator. I also believe that the Bible points toward the reality that at some point sin entered the world. I've said that many times. Where I part company is that I don't believe that it was because a literal woman named "Eve" ate a literal piece of fruit off a literal tree and gave it to a literal "Adam".

Huh? How in the world do you arrive at that? The dove found the growth locally.

You just proved my point. A global flood would have pretty much wiped out ANY vegetation, especially considering how long we're supposed to believe the ground was covered.

We have 40 days and nights of rain, then 150 days of the earth being covered. The waters began to recede approximately 12 months after the start. Granted, we are talking about a lot of water, but that doesn't mandate it being global, but it could definitely be a massive localized flood. Look at New Orleans, and how long it took for the water to recede there. I don't see "world" as meaning "planet", because "world" or "land" in other verses in the Bible clearly references a local region. Caesar taxed the world, but it wasn't referring to people dwelling in the Americas or down in Australia. An olive tree isn't going to be able to germinate or produce leaves within a week when it's been drowning in water for a year, give or take a few weeks. If you take a plant and put it underwater that long, you're going to end up with a dead plant or tree, in this instance.

The Tower of Babel does NOT require the languages be at all traceable. As a matter of fact, one would expect that there would be a multiple of base languages -- because God changed the languages, it was not normal linguistic development.

Again, I don't take Genesis 11 literally. I think it was just Moses' attempt at explaining why there are different languages. I agree with the point that we're talking about an ANE culture, they had to come up with an explanation that people at that time could understand. I don't see that there needs to be any supernatural reasons behind it. Languages evolve without any external help. English is a case in point.

Perhaps. So? order does not mean causation.

Yet we're supposed to believe the idea that before the fall and the flood animals were purely vegetarian? I don't accept that idea, because there is nothing at all in biological studies to support it.

So? The Bible doesn't say that Noah carried seeds at all. With the violence of the flood, floating debris, etc., its no problem for various seeds to be in different places.

I'm talking about specific plants that grow in specific regions of the world, that can't be found anywhere else on earth, like the giant sequoias in California. According to some YECs, we're supposed to believe that somehow in a chaotic world-wide flood these unique species ended up in specific spots, but not other places, in a purely predetermined manner. The same thing holds true for animals.

These are all reasons I don't think that the flood was global, but instead points towards a massive Middle Eastern flood.

 

[laptoppop]

Nah, in my mind the issue is closed. The earth is much older than 6,000 or even 10,000 years. It's closer to 4.6 billion years. If radiometric dating is so wrong, then why don't we find any dinosaur remains with carbon left, IF the earth were only 6,000 years old? The closest thing we have is the soft tissue, but there are a lot of scientific reasons why this is the case. Just another example of much ado about nothing, in my mind. A 6,000 year old earth is based on a flawed chronology put forth by Archbishop Ussher. There wasn't anything during his day to indicate otherwise until the advent of geology in the 19th century when Christians, upon examining fossils, figured out the earth is much older than the Bible geneologies seemed to indicate.

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/rate-all.pdf

That well may be true, but I don't think it was a dinosaur. That's based purely on a very questionable interpretation of a couple of verses in Job.

I didn't even mention Job. I was talking about the universality of dragon legends.

There are, fair enough, but the thing is, YECs reject the proof in these other areas by saying the dating is wrong. Yet I believe they're being hypocrites because they use the very same methods to try to prove Biblical dates. Do I think groups like homo habilis and homo erectus were humans, just as we are? Yes, with variations in skeletal features. That alone pushes back humankind past the 6,000 and 10,000 year marks. I took a class in physical anthropology in college, but I rejected it at that time because of my religious biases. I don't any more, because I actually took the time to do research, and found my interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 had been flawed.

Yet there's no archeaological evidence of homo habilis or homo erectus having any type of organized civilization.

I understand what you're saying. The reason I don't agree with their point of view is a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 Somehow, in my mind, I think that makes them somehow more "Christian" than those of us who think that a literal interpretation of Genesis along with a "global" flood. I have seen that on numerous creation websites, AiG included. Their mindset is clearly stated: "If it doesn't agree with the Bible, it's wrong." Harry Morris has come out and said as much. Is it any wonder then, that this is such an oft-heard complaint from TEs? I think it's better said, it comes down to a matter of interpretation. I, for one, think that science has revealed a great deal about this planet and universe, and how ancient it actually is. God gave mankind an intellect and a curious nature. I don't think God meant the Bible to be the end all-be all authority that some have made it out to be, especially when it comes to science, and espeically not to be used to establish a 6,000 year old earth. I definitely agree and believe that the Bible does point to the fact that there is a creator. I also believe that the Bible points toward the reality that at some point sin entered the world. I've said that many times. Where I part company is that I don't believe that it was because a literal woman named "Eve" ate a literal piece of fruit off a literal tree and gave it to a literal "Adam".

I understand -- and our similarities are by far the important part -- we'll be able to laugh at me during eternity. Of course, I do not believe the Bible is a science textbook -- but I do believe that it is accurate when it refers to scientific matters.

You just proved my point. A global flood would have pretty much wiped out ANY vegetation, especially considering how long we're supposed to believe the ground was covered.

I'm tired, so maybe I'm not getting it - but I don't see why that would have a dove have to fly around the world. Yes, the vegetation would be messed up - but it would be recoverable.

We have 40 days and nights of rain, then 150 days of the earth being covered. The waters began to recede approximately 12 months after the start. Granted, we are talking about a lot of water, but that doesn't mandate it being global, but it could definitely be a massive localized flood. Look at New Orleans, and how long it took for the water to recede there. I don't see "world" as meaning "planet", because "world" or "land" in other verses in the Bible clearly references a local region. Caesar taxed the world, but it wasn't referring to people dwelling in the Americas or down in Australia.

The Bible is written as if it were global. One can say that it was only global on the basis of a primitive worldview - but you run into a major problem regarding the authority and trustworthiness of the Scriptures.

Again, I don't take Genesis 11 literally. I think it was just Moses' attempt at explaining why there are different languages. I agree with the point that we're talking about an ANE culture, they had to come up with an explanation that people at that time could understand. I don't see that there needs to be any supernatural reasons behind it. Languages evolve without any external help. English is a case in point.

I understand that - but I'm pointing out that the linguistic evidence is more consistent with a literal reading than a figurative one. I see no reason to NOT take it literally. It is told as history, and it IS history.

Yet we're supposed to believe the idea that before the fall and the flood animals were purely vegetarian? I don't accept that idea, because there is nothing at all in biological studies to support it.

There are a ton of years between the fall and the flood. AFAIK, nobody takes the position that the animals were vegetarian after the fall.

I'm talking about specific plants that grow in specific regions of the world, that can't be found anywhere else on earth, like the giant sequoias in California. According to some YECs, we're supposed to believe that somehow in a chaotic world-wide flood these unique species ended up in specific spots, but not other places, in a purely predetermined manner. The same thing holds true for animals.

Actually, we all believe in natural selection. So what we are left with are the plants that best fit a given area from the original variety - which would be varied across the globe to start with.

These are all reasons I don't think that the flood was global, but instead points towards a massive Middle Eastern flood.

Understood - but I think the evidence is better interpreted as the results of a global flood. I can understand your reasoning - I just am not convinced by it.

 

[Floodnut]

Look, when you come here you can always count on the ridiculous assertions that the Flood was not Global, when in fact it is clear from Genesis that it was GLOBAL. They love to compete in literary gymnastics and twist the Scripture to deny the Flood. They can't help themselves, and when they ask an ostensibly sincere question, as often as not it is to stand as support for rejecting the simple sense of Scripture. Then they say that the simple sense is not the simple sense, and that their convoluted twisting is the simple sense. ALL THE HIGH HILLS UNDER THE HEAVENS, and few that is ONLY EIGHT SOULS WERE SAVED AND EVERYBODY ELSE DIED. So then the supposed natural "evidences" and supposed insurmountable problems with the simple sense force the rejection of the simple sense and the Scripture is made subject to the ABSOLUTE Conclusions of their alleged science.

 

[philadiddle]

An ice age does not cover the entire globe with ice.

Where did it cover and how long did it last?

there are over 400 flood legends around the world

It's interesting you would use flood legends in response to a comment about the absence of scientific evidence for a global flood.

 

[laptoppop]

Where did it cover and how long did it last?

Not sure offhand - if you really want to know, just check out the normal YEC sites (ICR.org, http://www.creationresearch.org/index.html, etc.)

It's interesting you would use flood legends in response to a comment about the absence of scientific evidence for a global flood.

Actually I was specifically responding to the statement that there was no "history, archeology, linguistics and genetics" evidence by mentioning the flood legends and the way that we don't have societies as old as man supposedly is -- the historical and archeological evidence favors a short period of civilization.

Most of the flood evidence is geological - but it is also supported by the other evidence.