The Flood

[Josh1]

Hello, this is my first post on this forum so i'm just going to jump right in. LOL. In answers to your flood questions, I will answer them when I get time. With help from some websites. LOL. In reguards on how they did fed them, Dr. Kent Hovind explains:

It is reasonable to assume that the larger types of animals on the Ark were young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more. Also, after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring. No one knows for sure how many animals were on the ark. Limiting it down to two of each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we have today. There seem to be about 8000 basic kinds of animal in the world. Also, many animals become dormant, lethargic or even hibernate during stormy weather.

Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he was given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the animals throughout the ark and possibly even a food distribution system. In Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals were vegetarians so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion trying to eat the lamb. Some have suggested that there was a moon pool, a hole in the center of the floor, which would provide a place for fishing and, if necessary, a way to dispense animal waste from the ark. The minor problems that the Bible believers cannot always answer are nothing compared to the problems and questions that the evolutionists cannot answer. Although I do not know exactly how Noah took care of all the animals on the ark, I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of doubt the Bible until it is proven right. For someone to reject the Bible and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!

​

 

[Josh1]

Now on to the water question. Was there enough water to cover the earth? Dr. Kent Hovind explains again:

This question also assumes that the pre-flood world was like the world is today. The Bible states clearly that the water was 15 cubits over the tallest mountain. Sea-shell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world. The top of Mt. Everest is covered with petrified, closed clams. They had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position. This was definitely a worldwide flood. The Bible says in Psalm 104 that as the flood ended the mountains lifted up and the valleys sank down and the water hasted away. Today’s mountain ranges are well above sea level, but this was not the case before the flood. If the earth were smoothed out today, that is, the mountains pressed down and the ocean basins lifted up, there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the entire earth 8,000 feet deep (approximately 1.5 miles). All of the water ran off rapidly through the soft sediments into the ocean basins during the last few months of the flood. This would explain the rapid carving of features such as the Grand Canyon and the Bad Lands.

​

 

[Pete Harcoff]

In reguards on how they did fed them, Dr. Kent Hovind explains:

Just some friendly advice, I'd avoid bringing up Hovind on these forums... Many people have tried using his arguments here before, and they are routinely shredded.

If you really want to tackle the issue of the flood, you should check out those threads that Jet Black linked.

 

[Josh1]

"Biblical literalism is the enemy of real faith. The literal-minded flatten the landscape of the sacred texts. They remove the dimension of complexity and depth that really does change lives by opening eyes and melting hearts. " - Rev. William Tully Thxs for the sarcasm there Peter. All I have to do is read the quote at the bottom of your screen to know that you are lost in the Bible. As they say, "ignorance speaks out loud". If you don't take the Bible literal then it is just a book that can be interpreted one way or the other. Yeah, its easy to throw the literal meaning out of the Bible.Why do they do it?I will tell you why, because it gives people a lot more leeway on life. Okay, it's says not to commit fornication, but it really don't mean it. Please, look at Dr. Hovinds website. If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, he offers to debate anybody. I hadn't studied science long enough to debate anybody, so I probally wouldn't be up for the challenge. But I have studied prophecy quite a while and your interpreting method stems from the preterist viewpoint. Nothing is as it seems in the Bible. Well i'm sorry if I seemed too passionate, but I have just finished debating a bunch of preterist. Anyways, if you feel confident in your abilities(or jet black for that matter)give Dr.Hovind a call. I know you would be braver that some 146 U.C. Berkeley professors that has absolutely refused to debate him. IF YOU DARE, email him. Well, got to run. P.S. Loved that little fed them thing, didn't you?

 

[Gormless]

I am going to believe the Bible until it is proven wrong instead of doubt the Bible until it is proven right.

There is a flaw in your thinking here Josh. The bible has already been thoroughly falsified as far as the global flood story is concerned.

G.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Thxs for the sarcasm there Peter.

I was not being sarcastic in the slightest. Do a search for "Hovind" in these forums and you'll see what I mean.

Please, look at Dr. Hovinds website.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I've also watched all his videos and listened a number of debates between him and others.

If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, he offers to debate anybody.

Only live debates, because his debating tactics rely on personality, wit and the ability to fire out "facts" rapid fire, before anyone can scrutinize what he is saying. But he refuses to engage in written debates.

Anyways, if you feel confident in your abilities(or jet black for that matter)give Dr.Hovind a call. I know you would be braver that some 146 U.C. Berkeley professors that has absolutely refused to debate him. IF YOU DARE, email him. Well, got to run.

If Hovind would agree to a written debate, I would. But he refuses to do so. *shrug* His problem, not mine.

P.S. Loved that little fed them thing, didn't you?

Eh?

 

[Arikay]

As was mentioned, DrDino's stuff is probably one of the most torn apart works around. Even other creationist groups do it.

So lets take a look at what he says,

BTW, its generally good to completly cite your source with a link,
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=24

"It is reasonable to assume that the larger types of animals on the Ark were young animals because they would weigh less, eat less, and sleep more."

No, it is Not reasonable to assume this. Quite a few larger animals learn from their parent. No parents for them to learn from and you end up with animals that do not know how to live.


"after the flood they would live longer to produce more offspring."

Why? A complete assumption, not based on any facts. Does he expect us to but that?


"No one knows for sure how many animals were on the ark. Limiting it down to two of each kind does not mean there were two of each species or variety that we have today. There seem to be about 8000 basic kinds of animal in the world."

really, 8000, maybe he can name them all. Another assumption with no facts to back it up.


"Through the instructions that God gave or through the wisdom of Noah he was given the ability to provide a watering mechanism to disperse water to the animals throughout the ark and possibly even a food distribution system."

What instructions? Now it appears Hovind wants to add to the bible. Claiming god did stuff that we dont know he did. Is this the best thing to do, when you to the bible literally, Just start adding things you wish were there?


"In Genesis 1:29-30, the Bible teaches that before the flood all the animals were vegetarians so there was not a problem with, for example, the lion trying to eat the lamb."

Nope, sorry. The bible does not teach this. The bible says the animals eat herbs, many think this was only before the fall. However, it says Nothing about before or after the flood. Again, Hovind is Adding to the bible.


"For someone to reject the Bible and then accept the story that we all came from a rock is silly!"

I guess Hovind was too busy adding to the bible to bother to read Gen 2:7 where god creates man from "the dust of the ground." I always find it funny when hovind says we did not come from rocks.

[snip]

 

[Arikay]

On to our next little fun story by Hovind,

"Sea-shell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world."

But what Hovind doesn't tell you is that not every mountain has sea shells on it. That these sea shells all fit with in a specific ancient time, how nice of the flood to sort out the sea shells based on what looks ancient, I mean, its funny we dont see any shells of animals that we believe to be new, since a couple hundred million years ago.
What seems more likely was that the mountain used to be under a sea until it was slowly pushed up, thus the top of the mountain was originally the bottom of a sea.

Something interesting is that later hovind goes on to say that the earth was mainly flat. I find it interesting then, that we dont find sea shells from all different ages Everywhere.

"The top of Mt. Everest is covered with petrified, closed clams. They had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position. This was definitely a worldwide flood."

Wow, major assumptions again. So, there is a clam that was burried alive on a mountain that was thought to have been under a sea at one point and, It must have been the flood.


"The Bible says in Psalm 104 that as the flood ended the mountains lifted up and the valleys sank down and the water hasted away."

I see hovind doesn't read his bible much. This is an amazing non literal interpretation of what Psalms 104 says (interesting he doesn't give a verse).

For anyone who actually reads their bible, this is what it says,
*
"Psa 104:6* Thou coveredst it with the deep as [with] a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
**
Psa 104:7* At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
**
Psa 104:8* They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them."

This psalm says the flood waters went around and by (over hill and dale) the mountains, and through valleys to receed. This says nothing about uplifting of mountains or cutting of canyons. Does hovind really think he can lie about the bible like this?


"there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the entire earth 8,000 feet deep (approximately 1.5 miles). All of the water ran off rapidly through the soft sediments into the ocean basins during the last few months of the flood. This would explain the rapid carving of features such as the Grand Canyon and the Bad Lands."

OF course, the geological disaster that must have occured to create our mountains and all of our valleys would have Dwarfed the flood as far as destruction was concerned. Why did we not hear about this in the bible.

Of course, apparently Hovind has decided to ignore all the evidence in the grand canyon that says it was not quickly carved out by fast rushing water.



Is this the type of stuff you really want to trust? Between these two things, he had added to the bible, misread the bible, made huge assumptions and just expected you to swallow them, and Ignored Mountains of Evidence. And this wasn't even one of his worse works.

The funniest one I think is where he claims that most if not all BarCodes have 666 in them. A quick search on google can find you the answer that they dont. Do you believe all Barcodes have 666 in them?

[snip]

 

[n2wolves]

http://www.christiannewstoday.com/NoahAndTheArkFS.html
http://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/The Strongest Evidence of a Catastrophic Flood 9-17-00.htm


these links might add something to the conversation. God Bless

 

[troodon]

Sea-shell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world. The top of Mt. Everest is covered with petrified, closed clams.

What a wonderful, wonderful half truth. The fossils on Everest are found in the limestone that composes the top of it. Limestone does not form out of the type of sediment a global flood would be carrying around; it isn't possible for a flood to quickly bury the clams in limestone.

Source
Source

 

[troodon]

http://www.christiannewstoday.com/NoahAndTheArkFS.html

So a house which predates creation by 1,500 years managed to survive the global flood which deposited thousands of tons of sediment and carved the 270 mile long Grand Canyon?

http://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/The%20Strongest%20Evidence%20of%20a%20Catastrophic%20Flood%209-17-00.htm

From the link:

'This is amazing. It’s going to rewrite the history of ancient civilizations because it shows unequivocally that the Black Sea flood took place and that the ancient shores of the Black Sea were occupied by humans,” said marine geologist William B. F. Ryan of Columbia University. “This is a stunning confirmation of our thesis" '

Cool, support for a global flood. Yipee!

"If they were so wrong on this gigantic flood in the region of the Black Sea, is it not possible that they are wrong as well concerning a universal Flood?"

No because the data falsifies a global flood whereas it didn't falsify a local flood.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

http://www.christiannewstoday.com/NoahAndTheArkFS.html
http://www.rlhymersjr.com/Online_Sermons/The%20Strongest%20Evidence%20of%20a%20Catastrophic%20Flood%209-17-00.htm


these links might add something to the conversation. God Bless

Some people think that the Black Sea flood may have been the large local flood that led to the legend of Noah but others think it was too early. It was about 7500 years ago (1500 before many YEC think the world was created) and it seem more likely to some that the flood was Noah was a large local flood about 5000 years ago. What is clear is that the flood of Noah was a local flood since there is a long long list of falsifications of the flood of Noah as a worldwide flood that submerged all the land on earth at the same time.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Vance]

Anyways, if you feel confident in your abilities(or jet black for that matter)give Dr.Hovind a call. I know you would be braver that some 146 U.C. Berkeley professors that has absolutely refused to debate him. IF YOU DARE, email him.

OK, if the wacko on the street corner challenged every person he met today to debate him on the subject of Creationism, would their inevitable denial or non-response be a lack of bravery?

Actually, this is a very apt analogy.

Another point is that Hovind and other Creationists usually just want to debate the issues of evolution, with the scientists providing the evidences for and the Creationist providing the evidence against. The Creationists, however, will usually refuse to defend their own Creationist models and concepts.

 

[Josh1]

Pete Said:Only live debates, because his debating tactics rely on personality, wit and the ability to fire out "facts" rapid fire, before anyone can scrutinize what he is saying. But he refuses to engage in written debates.

Now Pete, live debates is where you have to know your stuff. Could that be the reason? Also, Dr.Hovind has never took classes in debating, so the both of you should be on even ground. As far as written debates, anybody can sit their three days and think up some kind of answer. Live debates makes you stick to the "facts" more. Written debates are for those that have time. They may take weeks or months. In a live debate you can be in and out. That is the main reason Dr.Hovind don't engage in written debates. BTW, what are your views on creation? Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe that there is a God? I would also like your comments Arikay, if you don't mind. I am not here to argue,fuss, or fight. I am just here for a friendly discussion. As the Bible says, "Iron Sharpeneth Iron". Prov. 27:17 God Bless.

 

[Arikay]

speaking of people refusing to debate, Hovind refusses participate in written debates, and requires that all debates be verbal debates.

Why? Well, because he is a profesional speaker. He knows all the tricks to make himself sound knowledgable without needing to show any evidence. He basically spits out thousand of claims, which are all false, but it takes a shorter amount of time to spit them out than to debunk each and every one of them.

So he makes it seem like he knows what he is talking about, and it seems like he stumpted the stupid scientist, when in fact, he is just a better speaker. Wowing people into buying his books and DVDs.

In a written debate though, you could teach an elementary student to completly splat him. He knows this, thus he will never agree to a written debate.

Of course, one thing to point out, is that, just like what was mentioned above, debates dont show which side is right, they show which side is a better debator.

 

[Josh1]

Vance said:OK, if the wacko on the street corner challenged every person he met today to debate him on the subject of Creationism, would their inevitable denial or non-response be a lack of bravery?

Wacko on the street corner? I believe his track record in debates speaks for himself. Have you ever asked him to debate his christian concepts? I didn't think so. I personally believe a person should do both. I know that evolution has a lot of holes. I'm not the only one either. I'm sure many people would agree with me in this very thread. My main point is,that they should teach them side by side in school and let the children choose. Evolution is just a religion. We believe in the beginning "God", and they believe in the beginning "dust". Well , got to go. God Bless.

 

[Arikay]

LoL, Live debates dont make you know your facts. They allow you to spout information that might be false, but since in a Live debate, no one can go and check the data, people are wowed by this false information. Of course, Dr Dino's stuff is the PRATT list, and most have memorized it from answering it so much.

-Yes, I accept Evolution.
-I am a weak atheist (agnostic atheist), however, that has no bearing on my acceptance of evolution. Unlike what DrDino says, Evolution is Agnostic, just like science.


Now I would like to hear your response to what I posted,
Especially about DrDino adding to the bible, and misreading Psalms, is that a good thing to do?

What about 666, do you believe its in every bar code, like DrDino says?

Pete Said:Only live debates, because his debating tactics rely on personality, wit and the ability to fire out "facts" rapid fire, before anyone can scrutinize what he is saying. But he refuses to engage in written debates.

Now Pete, live debates is where you have to know your stuff. Could that be the reason? Also, Dr.Hovind has never took classes in debating, so the both of you should be on even ground. As far as written debates, anybody can sit their three days and think up some kind of answer. Live debates makes you stick to the "facts" more. Written debates are for those that have time. They may take weeks or months. In a live debate you can be in and out. That is the main reason Dr.Hovind don't engage in written debates. BTW, what are your views on creation? Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe that there is a God? I would also like your comments Arikay, if you don't mind. I am not here to argue,fuss, or fight. I am just here for a friendly discussion. As the Bible says, "Iron Sharpeneth Iron". Prov. 27:17 God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

Again, Dr.Hovind has not took any debate or speech classes. It takes time to engage in written debates, and not all of us have that. BTW, you never mentioned your personal views. The questions that I asked earlier. God Bless.

 

[Arikay]

Welcome to the Lies your Dino told you.

-Evolution is Not a religion.
-Evolutionists can believe, in the begining "god"
-Evolution has Nothing to do with the begining of the universe, the Big Bang, Abiogenesis (life from none life).
-If you are a literalist, you should believe in the begining "dust" since man was created from dust.

If you trully want to learn, stick around and ask questions, and you will.

Vance said:OK, if the wacko on the street corner challenged every person he met today to debate him on the subject of Creationism, would their inevitable denial or non-response be a lack of bravery?

Wacko on the street corner? I believe his track record in debates speaks for himself. Have you ever asked him to debate his christian concepts? I didn't think so. I personally believe a person should do both. I know that evolution has a lot of holes. I'm not the only one either. I'm sure many people would agree with me in this very thread. My main point is,that they should teach them side by side in school and let the children choose. Evolution is just a religion. We believe in the beginning "God", and they believe in the beginning "dust". Well , got to go. God Bless.

 

[Josh1]

ok, my bad I typed that and there they were.