One of these Flood Scenarios Won't Hold Water

Here's a little interaction I had with a fellow that I thought might interest someone. My responses in red:

What I struggle with is when the Bible has far fetched stories that can't be explained, and devine intervention is used as justification. An example...

Noah's Ark - Two of every species on a single boat plus their food. That would be impossible in even today's standards. What sounds more realistic is, there was a flood of some magnitude, Noah had a boat, collected up only the male and female of his own animals, saving them and his family. The tails of ordinary men have blown it out of proportion.

Like anything, we need to use our own judgement when reading these stories.

The Bible doesn't say two of every species, it says two of every "kind" of animal. So Noah took two dogs - those dogs fathered every other kind of dog we have today including wolves, dingos, hyenas, coyotes, and St. Bernards. You see? It wasn't necessary for Noah to take two of every species.

People also fail to realize how big the ark was. What could you fit into over one and a half million cubic feet of space? A heckuva lot, lemme tellya.

What about Kangaroo's did he get some of them too? Really do you think he went down to Australia and picked up a couple. C'mon, it's not possible.

It's funny, you talk about evolution and down play it then imply that the world was repopulated through evolution...you said "those dogs fathered every other kind of dog we have today including wolves, dingos, hyenas, coyotes, and St. Bernards"....that's what evolution is.

Wrong. That's NOT evolution. Evolution would say two dogs fathered all the dogs, and the cats, and the fish, and the birds, and the reptiles, and the insects, and the humans. Creationism says dogs come from dogs; evolution says ANYTHING can come from dogs given enough time.

You do know, don't you, that the world was not always as it is today? You see how all the continents seem to fit together like a jigsaw puzzle? Would you agree that there may have been one land mass in the past, and that all the animals in the world lived on it? Many scientists believe that. Would you agree that a thing as catastrophic as a worldwide flood may have caused that land mass to break apart into the continents?

Grab a dictionary John, actually...let me do it for you.

Evolution - change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

What you describe on the dog front is EXACTLY evolution! Deny it all you want it's evolution.

As for the land masses, Come on!!!!!! By the way, the name for the single land mass is Pangea. Last time I checked, 40 days and 40 nights of rain does not cause continents to break apart. They do however break apart when you have techtonic plates, moving in different directions, making up the Earth's crust. Don't be so ignorant.

I'm waiting to find out how Noah got the Kangaroo's on the ark. Please enlighten me. Oh, and Polar Bears too.

Pull your head out and look around.

Creationists believe in mutation, natural selection, adaptation, speciation, genetic drift...all of those things that are scientifically verifiable. But that is not what evolutionists mean by evolution.

First of all, evolutionists believe that all these processes came about accidentally and without design...these highly complex and organized processes just randomly fell into place. Creationists believe that is ridiculous. Complexity and organization of necessity indicate intelligence and design.

Evolutionists also believe these processes, in concert with random chance, formed all life over billions of years. Creationists believe God created all life forms similar to what they are today, but these processes have changed animals in a limited way over time and created new species. For example, I believe there are breeds of dogs today that did not exist in the past. I believe there are species of animals today that did not exist in the past. However, I believe the initial ancesters of dogs were dogs. I believe the initial ancestors of reptiles were reptiles. I believe the initial ancesters of humans were human. And every bit of reproduction we see today substantiates that position.

Evolutionists believe the initial ancestor of all life was some type of protein goo, and we gradually developed from that to our current form through the natural processes you mention. Nothing we see today substantiates that claim or ever could for that matter, given the lengths of time involved. There is absolutely no way to know evolution is true except by faith. You have to believe it. It is a religion.

The Bible does not say merely that it rained 40 days and nights. It says the earth burst in places and subterranean waters erupted. I get the idea you think the flood was some sort of spring shower or something. It was a cataclysm. The Bible says the tallest mountain was covered to a depth of something like 20 meters. Do you realize what that means if Mt. Everest was the tallest mountain at the time? It is unfathomable enough to know the mountains of Ararat were completely submerged.

Here's what the Bible says about how kangaroos and all other animals entered the ark in Genesis 7:

Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

9 there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.

11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;

14 they, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.

15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.

16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.

This scripture doesn't explain how, it skips straight to the what. Please explain how all the animals made it onto the Arc from across this vast world of ours. Did Noah collect them, or as I mentioned in my first post, are we going to use the devine intervention law to explain the impossible.

BTW how did all the animals make it back to where they came from after the Arc settled on Mt. Ararat? Since this was only a few thousand years ago and the continents would be as they are today then the journey for some would be extremely difficult...like the kangaroos.

The continents weren't as they are today. I believe there was one land mass. I believe the land mass did not break up immediately during or after the flood, but some years after it. There's a curious verse in the Bible about a man named Peleg in Genesis 10:

And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Now most believe that verse refers to the Tower of Babel, where God gave men multiple languages to break them up and spread them over the earth. However, I believe it could also refer to the literal dividing of the earth into continents. Peleg was born about 100 years after the flood, so whatever "the earth divided" means, it occurred before his birth, and his father Eber named him Peleg to commemorate the important event. So God first divided men into groups by language, then he divided them further by dividing the land. Of course, that's just my own personal opinion, but I think it's not unreasonable.

In this scenario, the animals simply left the ark, and then some years later the land broke apart, taking whatever animals were on each piece.

You believe there was one land mass less than 5,000-years ago? Really? Really really? I believe your opinion is unreasonable and just ignorant. With that logic, some land masses would drift approx 1km/year and we know that's not happenning. It's proven that the land masses sit on techtonic plates, moving all the time (that's where earthquakes come from). None of them move at the rate you imply, they move millimetres a year not kilometres.

You not unlike the people of the time when the good book was written, wrote what they believed. Back then they didn't have the technology to prove what we can today. So...they made it up. Just like you are now.

Well, I told you it was my personal opinion, not a fact. It's just a guess. I agree that the land masses move at that speed NOW, but I think there were some horrendous happenings after the flood that could've accelerated that speed dramatically. I think the flood was an event that literally rocked this world, and there were horrific earthquakes afterwards that caused incredible things to happen.

Good grief, haven't you ever seen documentaries on Mt. St. Helens? Have you seen the size of the valleys that were created in HOURS? If one puny little volcano can exert that much power and change the landscape that dramatically in hours, what do you suppose is the capability of an entire earth cracking and bursting? If the little water in the Spirit Lake next to Mt. St. Helens can shave a forested mountain clean and cut giant swaths through the country side in minutes, what do suppose a worldwide flood could do? Good grief, cracking the earth apart is small potatos to forces like that. It's not unreasonable in the least if we look at much smaller local cataclysms.

Tell me, do you really believe the earth has always operated as it has for billions of years, that nothing whatsoever could have occurred in the past to dramatically alter the earth? Because I KNOW most evolutionists believe something awful DID occur in the past to cause the extinction of the dinosaurs and bring on an ice age. Of course, they would never admit to a FLOOD, because that would mean the Bible is true, but they're more than happy to posit other cataclysmic scenarios.

The one thing we know about cataclysms by observing smaller versions like hurricanes, volcanoes, and tsunamis is that tremendous and incredible things happen FAST. Whole cities can be flattened in hours, an entire mountain can be deforested in minutes, huge valleys can be created in hours, not billions of years. My ideas fall right in line with scientific observation.

That's stupid. The land didn't break apart in the last 10,000-years as you state. Stop making crap up to suit your beliefs. Pull your head out of the pile of @!#$ it's buried in.

Alrighty...how is my theory any less valid than evolutionary theory? I'm using the same evidence. We all know the tremendous and incredible things that happen during local disasters, and how QUICKLY they happen. All I'm saying is that if there were a flood of that magnitude in recent history, the earth's single land mass breaking apart would not be a unreasonable consequence of that event given the incredible things we see happening from local disasters like volcanoes, hurricanes, and the like. How is that unreasonable?

John, it's completely unreasonable. Let's stick with facts, not random stuff you can make up.

It's a fact the land masses have been moving for millions of years. Google Continental Drift.

It's a fact the land masses we see now have been this way long before the time of Jesus and those who wrote the bible.

It's a fact the land masses separation is from the techtonic plates they sit on.

It's a fact that hurricanes and receeding floods don't separate the land masses in the manner you state. Floods may cover some of the land mass but they don't separate them.

It's a fact that if Noah had to collect 2 of every species he would have some serious traveling to do...it's impossible now with today's technology and even more so then. If for some reason he was able to do it, via devine intervention getting the animals back would be even more difficult since the Arc ended up on the top of a mountain. Of course devine intervention would need to step in again.

It's a fact that if the human race and every animal originated from a single male and female we would have some serious gene problems. We've seen pictures of families bred through incest and it's messed up.

Something I found on another site that makes strong points of fact:

Please consider this:

It is obvious that the story of Noah’s ark is a wonderful story – but just a story. It is a story of man's sinful nature and of both God's impatience with man and of God's love for man as indicated by his regret and promise not to repeat the event.

If there had been a Noah’s ark where all animals were reduced to just two individuals – one male and one female – then the genetic variability, within a species (kind), of all animals existing today would be essentially ZERO. All animals, all over the world today, would suffer the problem of a lack of genetic variability that the Cheetah does today. The genes of Cheetahs are so similar, one to another, that when skin grafts between non-related Cheetahs are made there is no rejection of the donor skin.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variability>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah>

Yet, this is not what is found. Only a few species (kinds) have the problem of low genetic variability. Cheetahs experienced a near extinction about 10,000 years ago (down to perhaps less than ten individuals). Today they have almost no genetic variability within the species because of that near extinction.

Yet, the millions of animals around the world don't suffer from this problem. That is because they were never reduced to just two individuals. They were never on an ark. There never was a general flood that caused all life, except for two of a kind of every animal, to perish. The very genes inside you and I proclaim that fact.

Just a few corrections in italics, so we stick to the facts:

It's a fact that scientists who are often wrong believe the land masses have been moving for millions of years.

It's a fact that scientists who are often wrong believe the land masses we see now have been this way long before the time of Jesus and those who wrote the bible.

It's a fact the land masses separation is from the tectonic plates they sit on.

It's a fact that hurricanes and receding floods of the magnitude we see today don't separate the land masses in the manner you state. However, the Biblical flood covered all of the land mass, and a possible meteor strike, the bursting of subterranean wells, tremendous water pressure and erosion, and possible cataclysmic earthquakes may have separated them.

It's a fact that if Noah had to collect 2 of every kind of animal he would have some serious work to do...it's impossible now even with today's technology, but then, if the earth was one land mass, it would be possible. If for some reason he was able to do it, via devine intervention, and the land mass was cracked, but not yet broken apart, getting the animals back would be a snap even though the Arc ended up on the top of a mountain.

It's a fact that if the human race and every animal originated from a single male and female, you believe we would have some serious gene problems. We've seen pictures of families today bred through incest and it's messed up. However that was not the case in the beginning before sin degraded our biological condition and God instituted laws prohibiting incest.

Something I found on another site that makes strong points of belief:

Please consider this:

It is obvious that the story of Noah’s ark is a wonderful story – and a true story. It is a story of man's sinful nature and of both God's sorrow because of man and of God's love for man as indicated by his salvation of Noah and his family and promise not to destroy the earth with a flood ever again.

If there had been a Noah’s ark where all animals were reduced to just two individuals – one male and one female – then this particular author believes the genetic variability, within a species (kind), of all animals existing today would be essentially ZERO. This particular author believes all animals, all over the world today, would suffer the problem of a lack of genetic variability that the Cheetah does today. The genes of Cheetahs are so similar, one to another, that when skin grafts between non-related Cheetahs are made there is no rejection of the donor skin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variability: This link in no way rules out genetic variation given the conditions of Noah’s ark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah

Yet, this is not what is found, which is in agreement with what we know of genetic variation. Only a few species (kinds) have the problem of low genetic variability. Scientists who are often wrong believe cheetahs experienced a near extinction about 10,000 years ago (down to perhaps less than ten individuals) and that today, they have almost no genetic variability within the species because of that near extinction.

Yet, the millions of animals around the world don't suffer from this problem, which is what we would expect, if Noah’s ark were true. But according to this particular author, that is because they were never reduced to just two individuals, they were never on an ark, there never was a general flood that caused all life, except for two of a kind of every animal, to perish. However, the very genes inside you and I proclaim otherwise.

Whatever John...you keep making things up to suit you...

Didn't make up a thing, just pointed out all those things that you take as fact (with the exception of the tectonic plate thing) are really beliefs. For example, there is absolutely no way to prove the land masses have been moving for millions of years or even thousands of years for that matter. You just BELIEVE that, and I believe otherwise. You believe scientists who have been proven wrong thousands of times; I believe the Bible which hasn't been proven wrong about a statement of historical fact EVER. I think my belief has a much firmer foundation than yours. Simple as that.

I don't get how you can state continental drift and tectonic plates as a belief. It's been a proven fact for a very very long time. It's very easy to prove. Go to the Sanandreas Fault and measure how much each each plate moves in a given time period and multiply it out...simple math...that is fact and it's proof. The person who has no proof of their theory is you. You have no proof whatsoever of your theory of the land masses splitting through meteor's and floods.

Evidence within the gene pool is also proof that we didn't originate from two people nor the animals from two animals. That is proof. There is scientific evidence around the impacts of incest, do some research.

You deny the facts because it doesn't fit with your beliefs. Scientists have been proven correct thousands of times as well but you've decided they're wrong in this instance without any evidence to support your view.

I believe there was a Noah, a flood that killed many people, a boat, and he saved his family and the animals he could, smartley choosing a male and female so that when the water subsided he could start over again. The magnitude of the boxing day tsunami a few years back is probably the magnitude we're talking about.

I believe the sensationalism to make a good story blew things out of proportion as it was passed by mouth for many years before it was ever documented. Ever done that test in school? You make a circle, start the story, then by the time it gets back around to the originator the story is changed. It happens everytime. Imagine how the story changed, passed by word of mouth over the hundreds of years before anyone bothered to write it down.

I believe that if the human race doesn't make good decisions we could ultimately do some very serious damage that could mean the end to many of us. I believe this is the message God was trying to give. I beleive this message was his warning to us.

I believe it's because of people like you, people shy away from religions. I believe if there were a God here today, he would be dissappointed in your narrow view and slap you upside the head and say smartin up stop being so ignorant.

I believe I made my point.

I did not say continental drift and tectonic plates were beliefs. In fact, I specifically made the exception for tectonic plates, and I made no correction to that statement in your original post. What I said was a belief was the idea that they've been drifting for millions of years. Tell me, during an earthquake, do the faults move fast or slow? I’ll answer for you: they can move many feet in minutes. Your belief is good only if the plates and faults moved at the same consistent rate over the entire history of the earth. We know for a fact that they don’t. Earthquakes and volcanoes can shove things around in a hurry. Now all I’m asking you to consider is this: if we know that in a local disaster such as a volcano or earthquake, new faults, mountains, and valleys can be created within a day, what sort of changes and how fast do you think they could happen in a GLOBAL cataclysm where most likely the entire earth was shaken from its axis? IF a cataclysm like that occurred, then my beliefs are not unreasonable given what we know of the power of local disasters, wouldn't you agree?

I agree with you that today, incest can often produce some pretty horrific results. However, would you agree that it does not ALWAYS produce bad offspring, and that sometimes the baby is as normal as any other child? There are plenty of examples of this. Now here is all I ask you to consider: though incest now commonly (not always) produces bad offspring, it may not have been so in the past. IF the creation story is true, and God created perfect genetic material, then merging two nearly perfect sets of genetic material through incest may not have produced bad offspring nearly so often. In fact, bad offspring may have been rare at that time.

I deny certain beliefs and agree with other beliefs. I've decided the scientists could be wrong in their assessments of the earth’s age and genetics, because I and any honest scientist knows that the scientific community is unbelievably ignorant about those things. They have not even one tenth of one percent of the knowledge necessary to fully understand the earth and genetics. I believe the God Who has complete and full knowledge of these things and never makes mistakes, not puny, ignorant men who constantly err.

You’re free to believe whatever you want, but that’s not what the Bible says. It’s simply something you made up in your own mind that you feel comfortable believing. To tell you the truth, I have more respect for an atheist, who simply doesn't believe it happened at all, rather than someone who manufactures his own little version that he's comfortable with.

I believe the sensationalism to make a good story blew things out of proportion as it was passed by mouth for many years before it was ever documented. Ever done that test in school? You make a circle, start the story, then by the time it gets back around to the originator the story is changed. It happens every time. Imagine how the story changed, passed by word of mouth over the hundreds of years before anyone bothered to write it down.

The Bible is amazingly accurate if what you say actually happened. If it had really happened that way, you think they’d find at least one example of a city, event, person, etc. mentioned in the Bible that was patently false. But no, all archaeology does is discover artifacts that confirm the absolute accuracy of the Bible.

Well, again, you’re free to believe that, but that’s not what the Bible says. I suppose whatever makes you feel comfortable…

It was Christ Who said that His path was straight and narrow and few there be that follow it, so I thank you for the compliment. I am indeed following a narrow path, just as He commanded. However, He also said that the path to destruction is wide and many follow it. I believe I’ll stay on Christ’s narrow path and let you follow yours.

I believe Christ made my point.