Fun with the Flood math.

Arikay · Mar 5, 2003

Well, so far the flood has some major problems. There is the enormous nature of the flood, which probably would have destroyed the ark. Then there are the problems in the FAQ. And then there are problems with fish.

I would like to see a creationist answer the questions in the posted FAQ. Or explain how all the fish survived. Or how coral survived. Etc.

Arikay · Mar 5, 2003

Noahs Fish problem.

This is where the bible gets slightly cloudy It doesnt specify that noah took aboard fish, however he needed too, and it does say All animals. So we can assume he took aboard fish.
Especially since there are many fish that are sensitive to the salt content in the water, the flood would have lowered it and caused many fish to die. But since those fish are alive today, they must have been on board the ark. This posses an interesting problem for Noah. Not only did noah have to load all of those animals, he needed to find the correct salt and PH content water for these sensitive fish. He then needed to fill tanks for them and transfer the fish into those tanks. The bible lacks any description of how this activity was done.

Noah's Whale problem.

Im not quite sure, but I think some whales could have survived the Basics of the flood. However, if we look at the bible, god says he killed everything on earth (that wasnt on the ark). So we shall also assume this means all whales. Otherwise he really didnt kill everything.
Now, whales pose and interesting problem. Not only do they need water to swim in, but they need an air pocket to get oxygen from. This air pocket would need to be replenished with fresh oxygen, without filling up with water from the flood.
Just two blue whales alone would pose a big problem. If we go with an average size as 70 feet long, 16 feet wide and 16 feet tall. If you built a tank that the two whales could move in but was cramped. It would span the entire width of the ark at 81.25 feet. Around 145 feet long (only 5 feet longer than the two whales end to end). If the height of it was cramped and was only 25 feet high, only 9 feet of room to move, (this would limit the other two stories on noah ark (which was 48.75 feet tall) to 11.88 feet tall for each story). The tank would be 294,531.25 cubic feet of water or 2,203,246.75 Gallons of water. That would equal 9,363.8 Tons of water. For two animals. Not to mention the problem of getting the blue whales into the ark, as it was sealed before the flood waters came.

-Ari

Eddie · Mar 5, 2003

Or how Austrialian marsupials got there in the first place.

 

Today at 02:17 PM Arikay said this in Post #41

Well, so far the flood has some major problems. There is the enormous nature of the flood, which probably would have destroyed the ark. Then there are the problems in the FAQ. And then there are problems with fish.

I would like to see a creationist answer the questions in the posted FAQ. Or explain how all the fish survived. Or how coral survived. Etc.

Arikay · Mar 5, 2003

Yep. This brings about a couple other questions too.

Where did noah get the Eucalyptas for the Koalas?

How can creation explain the differences that australian animals have compared to other animals?
How did they survive the flood?

Today at 06:42 PM Eddie said this in Post #43 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=693564#post693564)

Or how Austrialian marsupials got there in the first place.

 

David Gould · Mar 5, 2003

Even if we assume that whales were left in the ocean, it is hard to see how they could have breathed with the amount of water pouring from the sky. It would surely have displaced any available air.

Now, I know whales can hold their breath for a fair while but days? Weeks?

Arikay · Mar 5, 2003

good point. So all the whales that are alive today must have been on the ark.

A random fact that I thought was interesting while doing research, Dolphins (and probably other whales) dont actually hold their breath. Their body stores the needed oxygen in their blood and muscles. Eliminating a big bubble that is constantly trying to drag them to the surface, and allowing them to get more use out of their breath, since most of the air isnt oxygen.

Today at 07:24 PM David Gould said this in Post #45 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=693661#post693661)

Even if we assume that whales were left in the ocean, it is hard to see how they could have breathed with the amount of water pouring from the sky. It would surely have displaced any available air.

Now, I know whales can hold their breath for a fair while but days? Weeks?

Pete Harcoff · Mar 5, 2003

Today at 10:03 PM Arikay said this in Post #44 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=693616#post693616)

Yep. This brings about a couple other questions too.

Where did noah get the Eucalyptas for the Koalas?

How can creation explain the differences that australian animals have compared to other animals?
How did they survive the flood?

"Goddidit"

Seriously, that's the only answer you'll ever get for the various gaping problems with the idea of a world wide flood. Within the realm of the physical conditions here on Earth, it ain't possible. But supernaturally... sure, why not? After all, you'd think flooding one dinky little planet would be no big deal for a being capable of bringing about the entire universe.

Arikay · Mar 5, 2003

Yep. The one problem with "Goddidit" is that if god is all super powerfull, why didnt he just blink everyone out of existance? Since he used a flood, he must some how be bound by some sort of basic laws. Which is definatly un god like.

Today at 08:14 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #47 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=693769#post693769)

"Goddidit"

Seriously, that's the only answer you'll ever get for the various gaping problems with the idea of a world wide flood. Within the realm of the physical conditions here on Earth, it ain't possible. But supernaturally... sure, why not? After all, you'd think flooding one dinky little planet would be no big deal for a being capable of bringing about the entire universe.

Pete Harcoff · Mar 5, 2003

Today at 11:22 PM Arikay said this in Post #48 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=693792#post693792)

Yep. The one problem with "Goddidit" is that if god is all super powerfull, why didnt he just blink everyone out of existance? Since he used a flood, he must some how be bound by some sort of basic laws. Which is definatly un god like.

Well, not really. The common explanations I hear for why God used a flood are two-fold.

One, He wanted to give people a chance to repent beforehand. So, by telling Noah to build a big boat and all that, people would have had a chance to see what Noah was doing, inquire about it, and then ask God for forgiveness.

Two, He wanted a lasting message that He would not tolerate wickedness in the world. However, this explanation is weak, given the considerable lack of evidence for the world-wide flood. Either God erased the evidence (thus, defeating the purpose) or the flood never happened.

The biggest problem with the flood, I think, is not why God chose to use a flood, but why He would need to do so in the first place. I mean, the idea that He would screw up in His creation so monumentally that He would need to wipe the slate clean and start over... That seems like a pretty big weakness for God to have. But only, of course, if you take the flood literally, rather than metaphorically.

Arikay · Mar 5, 2003

Yeah.

The problem with the first idea, is the same problem I have with a lot of arguments for the literal bible. The literal creationists add stuff to the bible to make themselves right. It would make sense if someone came around and asked, and then said "your stupid noah" and left. Hmm, maybe even left with a prostitute, to give god more reason to not save him. However, no one did.

Number two, Yeah your right, there should be massive amounts of real flood data if it was supposed to be a message. Also god shouldnt have promised not to do it again, as that eliminates any fear he will come down and kill everyone again.

Today at 08:36 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #49 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=693810#post693810)

Well, not really. The common explanations I hear for why God used a flood are two-fold.

One, He wanted to give people a chance to repent beforehand. So, by telling Noah to build a big boat and all that, people would have had a chance to see what Noah was doing, inquire about it, and then ask God for forgiveness.

Two, He wanted a lasting message that He would not tolerate wickedness in the world. However, this explanation is weak, given the considerable lack of evidence for the world-wide flood. Either God erased the evidence (thus, defeating the purpose) or the flood never happened.

The biggest problem with the flood, I think, is not why God chose to use a flood, but why He would need to do so in the first place. I mean, the idea that He would screw up in His creation so monumentally that He would need to wipe the slate clean and start over... That seems like a pretty big weakness for God to have. But only, of course, if you take the flood literally, rather than metaphorically.

PhantomLlama · Mar 6, 2003

God can kill everyone again if he wants to, he just can't use another flood. Besides, floods are so passe these days. For a proper apocalypse to get believers attention an self respecting deity uses meteor impacts or massive volcanic eruptions.

The problem with saying 'Goddidit' is the only argument left is that 'Goddidit' is a perfectly acceptable argument to those who are already convinced the flood myth is literal truth. But since we cannot boil it down any further than 'Goddidit' we will have to leave it at that and hope we have changed a few minds.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Mar 6, 2003

'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
  'To talk of many things:
Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing wax --
  Of cabbages -- and kings --
And why the sea is boiling hot --
  And whether pigs have wings.'

From the Walrus and the Carpenter by Lewis Carroll

I suppose one can come up with some ad hoc assumption to explain the survival of whales and fish but I always wondered how YECs thought the poor walrus and his mate dragged themselves to the ark and then down off Mt. Ararat after the flood. They clearly have the "breath of life" in their nostrils and should have died if not on the ark. 

Of course insects also present big problems.  Do you suppose Noah had some free flowing streams on board for all those species like mayflies. Many of the 1,500 or so members of the order only live in fresh water and fresh running water at that and they have from a few days to a few hours in the adult stage to find mates.  How about 17 year locusts(cicadas)? They spend years (not always 17) living in the ground then emerge and lay eggs near living trees. The larvea need the trees to live for how ever long they are in the ground. Do you suppose Noah had a small forest on board for them. I really don't think mayflies or cicada or a lot of other insects would have done too well outside the ark even if there was a lot of "floating vegetation" that somehow survived while the flood was rearranging the geology of the entire world.  If the story were true we probably wouldn't have any yellowjacket wasps to contend with either since they live in holes in the ground. I really doubt that any bees or wasps could have survived a year on floating vegetation as some YECs claim.  I could probably throw out the epinephrine syringe I have to carry around all the time.

Regards

Professor Frumious Bandersnatch

Cantuar · Mar 6, 2003

Yep. The one problem with "Goddidit" is that if god is all super powerfull, why didnt he just blink everyone out of existance?

The other problem is that if you fall back on "Goddidit" because there isn't a scientific explanation, you've given yourself some problems in terms of teaching this stuff as an alternative to real geology in science class.

ikester7579 · Mar 17, 2003

If God can do anything, then he can work outside of the laws of science to get the job done. This is why some things are still unexplainable by science and why believers say God did it. Funny how some people use God to fill in the gaps of evolution.

 

6th March 2003 at 07:31 AM PhantomLlama said this in Post #51

God can kill everyone again if he wants to, he just can't use another flood. Besides, floods are so passe these days. For a proper apocalypse to get believers attention an self respecting deity uses meteor impacts or massive volcanic eruptions.

The problem with saying 'Goddidit' is the only argument left is that 'Goddidit' is a perfectly acceptable argument to those who are already convinced the flood myth is literal truth. But since we cannot boil it down any further than 'Goddidit' we will have to leave it at that and hope we have changed a few minds.

Arikay · Mar 17, 2003

Yep.

The one problem is that if you are a literal creationist, you cant say "goddidit" because that wouldnt be taking the bible literally, but putting in your own beliefs in between the lines of the bible.

However, if you arent a literal creationist, then sure god could have done it, or something.

Today at 12:23 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #54

If God can do anything, then he can work outside of the laws of science to get the job done. This is why some things are still unexplainable by science and why believers say God did it. Funny how some people use God to fill in the gaps of evolution.

 

ikester7579 · Mar 17, 2003

5th March 2003 at 11:45 PM Arikay said this in Post #50

Yeah.

The problem with the first idea, is the same problem I have with a lot of arguments for the literal bible. The literal creationists add stuff to the bible to make themselves right.

I seem to remember some people using God's word to fill in gaps in evolution. This forum is where I learned about people who believe that God started evolution. Did not know there was such a belief. But that adding to evolution to make it right. It should be able to stand on it's own. At least that's what I keep hearing about creation. Or does that apply? 

ikester7579 · Mar 17, 2003

Today at 03:28 AM Arikay said this in Post #55

Yep.

The one problem is that if you are a literal creationist, you cant say "goddidit" because that wouldnt be taking the bible literally, but putting in your own beliefs in between the lines of the bible.

However, if you arent a literal creationist, then sure god could have done it, or something.

So what is it about god creating something you don't understand? God's word says that he "created" light(the sun), the earth, water, animals, man etc... So to be a believer, you would have believe in creation. Or are we supposed to skip the book of Genesis? Ever wonder where we get our genes? Just take off the "is" on Genesis. But then again, there might be some web site to refute this also.

Arikay · Mar 17, 2003

The Theory of evolution can stand very well on its own. General god is added in before evolution.

The basic theory of evolution is just about how animals adapted and changed overtime. There are other theories that deal with where life came from and how the universe started. Normally god is added in there.

There are many that dont believe the theory of Abiogenesis. Basically the theory that life came from non life. Many people dont believe that that can be true and they believe that god must have created the first life forms.

Others believe that god created everything before the big bang, and that he then set his huge works into motion somehow. Creating the big bang and starting a chain of events that would ultimatly lead to humans.

The problem is that many people mistake the theory of evolution as being a theory that encompased both abiogenesis and the big bang. When in reality they are all seperate theories.

Today at 12:32 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #56

I seem to remember some people using God's word to fill in gaps in evolution. This forum is where I learned about people who believe that God started evolution. Did not know there was such a belief. But that adding to evolution to make it right. It should be able to stand on it's own. At least that's what I keep hearing about creation. Or does that apply? 

Arikay · Mar 17, 2003

The battle between creationists and theistic evolutionists, isnt that god didnt create things like the sun, its how god created it.

Literal creationists believe god said it and it was made, exactly as the bible says. Theistic evolutionists believe that god created everything, just not exactly as the bible says. (a lot of it is described in the post I just made).

So there are plenty of people, generally known as theistic evolutionists. who believe that god used evolution as a tool to create man and animal. Creationists believe that everything happend just as the bible stated.

One of the big things is that there is quite a bit of physical evidence left in gods creation to show that it was created differently than the bible stated.

Today at 12:41 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #57

So what is it about god creating something you don't understand? God's word says that he "created" light(the sun), the earth, water, animals, man etc... So to be a believer, you would have believe in creation. Or are we supposed to skip the book of Genesis? Ever wonder where we get our genes? Just take off the "is" on Genesis. But then again, there might be some web site to refute this also.

Micaiah · Mar 17, 2003

Arikay, you have been listening to people too much and not enough to what the Scriptures teach. Unfortunately you beliefs reflect the natural outcome of your mode of interpretation.

The message of Scripture is about real people and events. Noah's flood was one such story.

Fun with the Flood math.

HI

HI

Active Member

HI

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.

HI

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

HI

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

HI

Prism Ranger

Contributor

Forever England

Well-Known Member

HI

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

HI

HI

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency