Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[Queller]

That explains the traffic on the way home from work.

Traffic? Forget about it. Given that the land area of earth is 5,490,383,247,360,000 square feet, each square foot on the planet would be occupied by

3,828,417,073,613,089,045,166,119,337,705,351,452,750,065,823,776,541,241,409,708,307,215,462,587,433,913,876,745,404,364 people.

Hope you are wearing some good deodorant.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The subject is, can population recover to substantial levels in the time alluded to in bible history? Construct a reasonable model for yourself and see what happens.

Not with the result being the level of genetic diversity we see in humans.

 

[SteveB28]

It is quite possible that there was no rain before the flood.

No, it is not possible.

What did all the people and animals drink? Did they just lick the dew from the grass? Was there no sun in the sky? If there was a sun, there was evaporation. If there was evaporation, there was a water cycle.

Including precipitation!

A clue for you: this is where you need to inject some magic to get your story out of trouble.

The fact that Noah was shown a rainbow by God

This is not a "fact". It is an unevidenced assertion.

as a covenant with Him would not have been a big deal if it was not a new phenomenon.

It was not a new phenomenon. All that is required is water vapour and ultra-violet light.

I think it would be a stretch to say that there was a couple of thousand years for the earth, with rain and hundreds of years for Noah himself where if there was rain there were no rainbows.

A "stretch"? You don't see the irony in that, do you?

The earth was a much different place before the flood.

Evidence please. And while you're at it, evidence for the flood as well!

The atmosphere was different and so was the vegetation and climate.

Evidence please.

It's possible that the plants were watered by a heavy due and high humidity.

I presume you mean dew. Evidence please.

If what the bible says is true, and I believe it is, then it is entirely possible that the first rain that humans saw, brought the flood.

You stumble at the first phrase of that sentence.

 

[crjmurray]

If the first rain that the Earth ever saw was during the flood then there is clearly a conversation cut out of the bible.

Noah: Wait....water is gonna fall from the sky? WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And how long, exactly, would it take you to "purge" soil that has been inundated with salt water for a year? And please, no magic in your answer.

And what, exactly, would they have planted? I see all kinds of detail included in that mythical story, but not one word about seed collection, or the growing of seedlings prior to ' The Deluge'?

Actually the story is pretty scant on such details, so I add them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You do realize that this growth rate leads to a population today (in ~year 4500 post-Flood) of:

21,019,476,964,872,300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

right?

Since obviously we don't have that kind of population today, when did every couple stop having 10 kids and why?

(I'm ignoring the fact that your model does not in any way resemble actual population growth models)

My example (not model) was to show that populations can recover fairly quickly, contrary to the opinions of others early in this thread. Construct your own model using numbers that are reasonable, you'll see that I'm right.

 

[KWCrazy]

I see. So now your myth relies upon the claim that there was no rainfall prior to the claimed global flood?

1. It's not a myth. It's the word of God.
2. I never said there was no rain. The people were frightened by the deluge because they had never seen a storm of that intensity.Because, if

rainfall was present, so too would erosion and consequent run-off.

Not enough to cause a major issue, Also, we don't know the geometry of the earth or whether the continents broke apart afterward. These things have some bearing in how much evaporation and erosion there was.

Please explain how terrestrial life survived?

Most of it did not.

And while you're at it, please also explain how all of the marine animals survived without any salt water!?

What makes you think they needed salt water? How do you know whether salt water in any concentration even existed? How do you know the run off from the flood didn't cause much of the salinization, and the animals that survived adapted to it?

You see, it's a little like the moral that our father used to teach us - as soon as you commence making things up, you have to make even more up to explain your previous fabrications.

That's why your little theory of evolution keeps changing, and the age of the earth keeps getting older. There is much we do not know about the world before the flood, and pretending to have that knowledge is foolishness. You can't say for certain how much salinity was in the oceans, if any measurable content existed. You evolution proponents keep making assertion to claim to be facts and there isn't any basis for any of it. You don't know ANYTHING about the pre-flood world because likely much of it was changed.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Pristine? How in the world could the earth have been pristine with the corpses of hundreds of millions of humans and animals all over the place?

Those remains would have washed into the sea with the receding flood water, or quickly returned to the soil to become fertilizer.

 

[USincognito]

And how long, exactly, would it take you to "purge" soil that has been inundated with salt water for a year? And please, no magic in your answer.

Who said it was salt water? Salinity is developed by water evaporating and leaving sodium chloride and other chemicals behind,but prior to the flood there was no event which involved such a concentration of water or a run off of reivers to deposit salt into the ocean. In other words, without the erosion process how would the oceans build salinity in the first place and, conversely, how would an abundance of salt come about?

It's entirely possible that there was no salt until the continents ripped apart and the foundation of the deep broke open. This could well have instituted the very erosion process which increases salinity in the sea. No salt water pre-flood = no salt water contamination.

There's a bit of a conflict between the request in blue above and the ad hoc response in blue below.

 

[SteveB28]

Oh, this is becoming quite delicious!

1. It's not a myth. It's the word of God.

No, it is the word of some men who claim that it was God who inspired them to write it. Quite a big difference.

2. I never said there was no rain.

Yes, you did. You said that it is quite possible that there was no rain before the mythical flood. If that is not your explanation, then why float it (pun intended)?

Not enough to cause a major issue,

How can you possibly know that? Once again, you are further embroidering your story, in order to support earlier fabrications.

Also, we don't know the geometry of the earth or whether the continents broke apart afterward. These things have some bearing in how much evaporation and erosion there was.

Ah, but you claim that you do know what the planet was like before this flood. You speak of mists and dew and different vegetation and so on. So, do you know, or are you making it up?

Most of it did not.

Pardon me? Most of the life on earth didn't survive before the flood came!? That's certainly a novel claim!

What makes you think they needed salt water?

Because we know that most marine life will not survive outside of a saltwater environment.

How do you know whether salt water in any concentration even existed?

For one thing, because we have the fossilised evidence of marine creatures from that era!

How do you know the run off from the flood didn't cause much of the salinization, and the animals that survived adapted to it?

In 12 months!? Aquatic creatures adapted to a marine environment within a year? Really?

That's why your little theory of evolution keeps changing, and the age of the earth keeps getting older. There is much we do not know about the world before the flood, and pretending to have that knowledge is foolishness.

And yet, that's exactly what you have claimed to this point! You say that you know what that earlier world look like, how it was composed, how it functioned. Foolishness?

You can't say for certain how much salinity was in the oceans, if any measurable content existed. You evolution proponents keep making assertion to claim to be facts and there isn't any basis for any of it.

Apart from all that annoying evidence of course!

 

[JacksBratt]

Not with the result being the level of genetic diversity we see in humans.

Ya, for that you would need a single spontanious life form that needs to figure out how to find a food source, somewhere, figure out what part of itself will absorb the nutrients, what part will convert it to energy that it can use.

Then figure out how to self replicate, and then from this one solitary organism we can get all the genetic diversity of the earth.

But, you cannot get the biodiversity of just the human race from three related males and three unrelated females...... That's too much of a stretch..... somehow

 

[KWCrazy]

No, it is the word of some men who claim that it was God who inspired them to write it. Quite a big difference.

As an atheist, you have no qualifications to discuss a God you don't believe in or authority you don't understand. Your opinion on this is of no value.

You said that it is quite possible that there was no rain before the.... flood.

It's quite possible there were no storms. Rain is mentioned in Genesis 2. Nobody was afraid of rain, but when the deluge started the people panicked. Why? They had never seen a storm like it. They realized that Noah's admonitions were true.

How can you possibly know that?

I didn't say it for a fact, I said it's very likely and entirely possible. There aren't any weather records before the flood so all we have is the fact that nobody else believed such a thing to be possible. If they had believed, they would have tried to get a seat on the boat before the rain started.

Ah, but you claim that you do know what the planet was like before this flood.

Nope. I only reference what was recorded. There are no continents mentioned in the Bible so were they there or did they come later? What about the mountains? They still form today, were they there then? The point is, atheists talk about the salinity of the oceans and in a pure new world there would be no salinity because that build-up would not have happened; unless the seas were created salty, which changes the argument. You're presuming to know something that cannot be known, so your speculation has no authority. I never said the oceans weren't salty. I said they may not have been salty. Frankly, they may not have been oceans, either.

You speak of mists and dew and different vegetation and so on.

Wrong poster, but these things are mentioned in Genesis 2. There had to be a hydrologic cycle because people had food to eat. However, the first rainbow was post flood so something in the atmosphere had to be different.

Most of the life on earth didn't survive before the flood came!?

No, most of the life on earth didn't survive the flood. The flood was an earth changing event. Any commentary on pre-flood conditions can only be speculation.

Because we know that most marine life will not survive outside of a saltwater environment.

Thank you for invalidating the theory of evolution.
If marine life cannot adapt to different water conditions then it certainly can't evolve into anything else.

You're argument is meaningless, though. You continue to throw up natural obstacles to a supernatural event. If the Lord wants the planet to spin in the other direction for a while he can stop it and spin it the other way. All the physical laws in the world can't prevent the Lord from doing anything. He created those laws so that the world would function without constant attention.

For one thing, because we have the fossilised evidence of marine creatures from that era!

What era? The event that you claim didn't happen? What is the composition of the soft tissue inside the gills of these animals? Wait.... they're rocks. They were crushed into the silt by millions of tons of pressure. We can't tell anything about their soft tissues because there are none. You're making a claim that you can't back up. Again, if the Lord wishes a shark to swim up the Mississippi River to the Illinois Waterway, then make its way through Lake Michigan to swim with a person off the beach of Mackinac Island, then that's exactly what will happen.

In 12 months!? Aquatic creatures adapted to a marine environment within a year? Really?

I realize you're arguing beyond your level of qualification here, but try and keep up. God is a supernatural being, creator of the heavens and the earth, Lord over all. He could exterminate all live and create new with a command. He could put saltwater creatures to sleep for a year or he could let them scour the planet for remains before retreating to the seas. The oceans may have been salty, may not have been salty, or may not have been very large at all. We don't have a pre-flood globe and there aren't any records to go by. The Scriptures don't give us every detail. They don't need to. God said it, Jesus confirmed it, so it happened.

You say that you know what that earlier world look like, how it was composed, how it functioned.

And neither do you.
We know the flood was a world changing event.
We know what the world looks like now. We know that the continents may have been able to be pieced together at one time. We don't know if they ever were, whether there was salinity in the ocean, or what the climatology of the earth was pre-flood. We know that the flood was only one of 333 miracles listed in the Bible, all of which defy the laws of nature. That's what makes them miracles.

Many in this forum have experienced miracles as well.God, you see, is as real now as He was then. The difference is now people come to Him through faith. He doesn't set water soaked hills on fire to prove who He is any more. You atheists are seriously unequipped to discuss any of the Lord's miracles because you don't have any understanding of what they are. All you can do is say, "That's impossible." All miracles are impossible, and about 25% of Americans say they've experienced one.

 

[SteveB28]

As an atheist, you have no qualifications to discuss a God you don't believe in or authority you don't understand. Your opinion on this is of no value.

It's quite possible there were no storms. Rain is mentioned in Genesis 2. Nobody was afraid of rain, but when the deluge started the people panicked. Why? They had never seen a storm like it. They realized that Noah's admonitions were true.

I didn't say it for a fact, I said it's very likely and entirely possible. There aren't any weather records before the flood so all we have is the fact that nobody else believed such a thing to be possible. If they had believed, they would have tried to get a seat on the boat before the rain started.

Nope. I only reference what was recorded. There are no continents mentioned in the Bible so were they there or did they come later? What about the mountains? They still form today, were they there then? The point is, atheists talk about the salinity of the oceans and in a pure new world there would be no salinity because that build-up would not have happened; unless the seas were created salty, which changes the argument. You're presuming to know something that cannot be known, so your speculation has no authority. I never said the oceans weren't salty. I said they may not have been salty. Frankly, they may not have been oceans, either.

Wrong poster, but these things are mentioned in Genesis 2. There had to be a hydrologic cycle because people had food to eat. However, the first rainbow was post flood so something in the atmosphere had to be different.

No, most of the life on earth didn't survive the flood. The flood was an earth changing event. Any commentary on pre-flood conditions can only be speculation.

Thank you for invalidating the theory of evolution.
If marine life cannot adapt to different water conditions then it certainly can't evolve into anything else.

You're argument is meaningless, though. You continue to throw up natural obstacles to a supernatural event. If the Lord wants the planet to spin in the other direction for a while he can stop it and spin it the other way. All the physical laws in the world can't prevent the Lord from doing anything. He created those laws so that the world would function without constant attention.

What era? The event that you claim didn't happen? What is the composition of the soft tissue inside the gills of these animals? Wait.... they're rocks. They were crushed into the silt by millions of tons of pressure. We can't tell anything about their soft tissues because there are none. You're making a claim that you can't back up. Again, if the Lord wishes a shark to swim up the Mississippi River to the Illinois Waterway, then make its way through Lake Michigan to swim with a person off the beach of Mackinac Island, then that's exactly what will happen.

I realize you're arguing beyond your level of qualification here, but try and keep up. God is a supernatural being, creator of the heavens and the earth, Lord over all. He could exterminate all live and create new with a command. He could put saltwater creatures to sleep for a year or he could let them scour the planet for remains before retreating to the seas. The oceans may have been salty, may not have been salty, or may not have been very large at all. We don't have a pre-flood globe and there aren't any records to go by. The Scriptures don't give us every detail. They don't need to. God said it, Jesus confirmed it, so it happened.

And neither do you.
We know the flood was a world changing event.
We know what the world looks like now. We know that the continents may have been able to be pieced together at one time. We don't know if they ever were, whether there was salinity in the ocean, or what the climatology of the earth was pre-flood. We know that the flood was only one of 333 miracles listed in the Bible, all of which defy the laws of nature. That's what makes them miracles.

Many in this forum have experienced miracles as well.God, you see, is as real now as He was then. The difference is now people come to Him through faith. He doesn't set water soaked hills on fire to prove who He is any more. You atheists are seriously unequipped to discuss any of the Lord's miracles because you don't have any understanding of what they are. All you can do is say, "That's impossible." All miracles are impossible, and about 25% of Americans say they've experienced one.

Ah, I wondered how long it would be before the magic would be invoked!

I'm somewhat disappointed, in point of fact. I thought you might have continued a little longer with your intricate weaving. But the problem is, as previously stated, that eventually the fabrications, the assertions without evidence, begin to collapse under their own weight. And at that point, you have no other option than to call upon your deity to snap his celestial fingers and to create whatever imaginary scenario you have envisaged.

And there we have it.

 

[selfinflikted]

And there we have it.

Deliciously inevitable.

 

[KWCrazy]

Ah, I wondered how long it would be before the magic would be invoked!

No magic at all. The Great Flood is one of 333 miracles chronicled in the Bible. Want to reject them? Reject them. Want to close your eyes and pretend that we live in a world governed exclusively by natural law? Have at it. Your salvation or lack thereof is a personal decision which only you can make and for which only you will be held responsible. Don't confuse your rejection of the truth to be enlightenment, however. A single miracle completely destroys your naturalistic world view. The thing is, there are many on this sight who have witnessed things you cannot believe exist and have experienced things science would say are impossible. You're flat out wrong, but you have the right to be wrong.

What I find interesting is this. Why would a person waste their time attacking a God they don't believe exists, and attacking the faith of those who believe in that God? I think you're trying to convince yourself, because we aren't buying it.

 

[Queller]

Actually the story is pretty scant on such details, so I add them.

Yes you do. In violation of several verses that warn against adding to the Bible and the consequences for doing so.

 

[Queller]

My example (not model) was to show that populations can recover fairly quickly, contrary to the opinions of others early in this thread. Construct your own model using numbers that are reasonable, you'll see that I'm right.

Already done. Did you miss post #155?

And you are wrong by several orders of magnitude.

 

[Queller]

Those remains would have washed into the sea with the receding flood water, or quickly returned to the soil to become fertilizer.

Are you serious? Do you have any idea how long it takes a body to decompose?

And what would have kept all the soil from washing into the sea along with the bodies?

 

[SteveB28]

No magic at all.

.

If the Lord wants the planet to spin in the other direction for a while he can stop it and spin it the other way.

Magic.

Again, if the Lord wishes a shark to swim up the Mississippi River to the Illinois Waterway, then make its way through Lake Michigan to swim with a person off the beach of Mackinac Island, then that's exactly what will happen.

Magic.

He could exterminate all live and create new with a command.

Magic.

He could put saltwater creatures to sleep for a year or he could let them scour the planet for remains before retreating to the seas.

Magic.

We know that the flood was only one of 333 miracles listed in the Bible, all of which defy the laws of nature.

Magic. Your entire argument ultimately condenses into a reliance upon the magical. You simply run out of options for natural explanations to natural phenomena. You force yourself eventually to the magical , the supernatural and the superstitious. Sad really.

 

[SteveB28]

I found this to be particularly comical:

[Want to close your eyes and pretend that we live in a world governed exclusively by natural law? Have at it.

Could I perhaps point out to you that it is by the closing of one's eyes that one avoids the evidence of "natural law"!? With 'closed eyes' one is more able to envision the kinds of fantasies you paint above!