Noah's Flood...

[Guest]

Water must come from somewhere and if it came from the heavens it would have come in the form of giant chunks of ice

why would it come as a chunk of ice? from what i have read, it fell like horrific rainstorm and since there is abundant ground water, it is not impossible to have the water cover the earth.

The inside of the planet is rock and molten iron, not water

if that were totally true, cities would not dig wells to get their added supply of water. no one really knows how much water is under the earth, remember God, at creation, separated the waters. since no one has really journeyed to the center of the earth, it is pretty hard to determine what is down there. after all it is a few thousands of miles thick.

Unless the entire field of geology is completely wrong, for which there is no evidence of that being the case, then the fromation of the rocks is well understood.

it is possible that is what it is. the waters abated gradually. it took 40 days to fill up but at least 110 to subside so i am not even sure there would be scars.

leave it for a time I get mud or mold

you also get weeds and plant life

If they were not on the ark how did they survive this worldwide flood

now don't confuse species with the original pair. it has been discovered that dogs have descended from just one pair. many species have come out of that one kind. now the word 'kind' is very important as it limits the amount of animals on the ark, not every species was on the ark thus there would be plentyof room.

As my initial question pointed out in order to survive a species needs to have genetic diversity or inbreeding will doom a species to extinction

you forget that GOd created it all and He cansuspend or delay the problems with inbreeding till the earth was filled again with enough variety. it is not till much later that inbreeding was declared wrong

the rules that govern the world at present were not totally in force because normally there would be no other way to repopulate the earth. You need to factor in that ancient man had intelligence and what we have figured out, they could have figured out also especially in the areas of breeding animals.

[Guest]

You haven't said anything new or original, I know because I live in the Bible Belt. I've heard all this ad nauseam.

you can't do much when you deal with the truth. i would give you more examples but as i have pointed out most unbelievers will not accept the evidence but would rather attribute it to the work of evolution.

read the book--"The Flood" by Dr. Akfred M. Rehwinkel he goes into more detail than i can on this forum.

[Leona Conner]

Let me understand this. You want us to read a book written about the Bible that was written by a Christian author. From this we are expected to get a different view from the ones you have been expounding. NOT!

I think you need to expand your reading material to include more liberal authors, so you can see something other than what you have been brain-washed to believe.

[Skeptic Zeke]

Let me understand this. You want us to read a book written about the Bible that was written by a Christian author. From this we are expected to get a different view from the ones you have been expounding. NOT!
I think you need to expand your reading material to include more liberal authors, so you can see something other than what you have been brain-washed to believe.

You could say the same about science books from non-believing authors, since they are also trying to prove a point.

[Leona Conner]

The difference is that if you take a subject; e.g. Noah's Flood. You can take five books by five different scientists and get five different opinions. You take five books by five Christian authors and you get one opinion in five different way, but still the same opinion.

What makes this forum good is that I like one author, Stan may prefer another and Rokcet Scientist likes some other one and then Frank may yet prefer another. We can all share our ideas like intelligent adults because we are open minded (for the most part) and don't expect the others to change. We live in different countries and/or states so we have the benefit of a wide range of influence. If we all thought the same thing, then what would be the purpose of discussion. B O R I N G!

[FreeThinker]

OK, archaeolgist, thanks again for answering my previous post. Once again I will answer you point by point.

1) The water that supposedly came from the heavens would have come in the form of chunks of ice because there is no liquid water in outer space. It is far too cold. It is so cold in outer space in fact that water ice is as hard as steel at those temperatures. So if the volume of water needed to cover the whole of the earth to a depth at least as high as the summit of Mt. Ararat came from the heavens it would have come from outer space and since water in outer space is solid it would have come in the form of chunks of ice.

2) It is true that there are small amounts (relatively speaking...as compared to the oceans) of water hidden in underground aquifers that people have for centuries tapped into with wells and such. These underground water sources are fed by rainwater percolating slowly from the surface and through the rocks at the very surface skin of the planet. The source of the water is NOT deep within the earth. This is why wells run dry when too much water is pulled from them. So this could not account for the water as described in the bibical account of Noah's flood.

3) Any event that covered the whole of the planet with a volume of water over five kilometers deep (Mt. Ararat is 5.165 km tall) would have left plenty of evidence across the whole of the earth, no matter how slowly it built up or receaded. There is no such eveidence. None.

4) Your point about weeds and plant life coming from watered dirt does absolutely nothing to answer the question about how the fauna of Australia and North and South America were included in the population of animals on the ark. How did these animals get on the ark? If they were not on the ark how did they survive this supposed global flood?

5) Contrary to what you say a single breeding pair is NOT sufficient to maintain a genetically viable population. This is well known and much research has been done on just this subject. Just look into any of the efforts to save endangered species or for that matter look into the research that has been done on inbreeding of our own species and you will see this is true. Too little genetic diversity dooms a species and a single breeding pair is too little.

6) Invoking a diety's supernatural powers is just rubbish. That is the ultimate dodge in a logical debate and it adds absolutely nothing.

I am still interested in an answer to where all that water went and how it would have affected the orbit and rotation of the planet. While I am waiting I will give you a couple of new questions to chew on as well. If the planet had been flooded as the Noah story read there should be a layer of sea shells and other marine debris from that time (several thousand years ago)covering the whole of the planet. There is no such layer. Why not? Also, ice cores taken from the Antartic ice sheet records events stretching back 2 million years and more. In them there is no evidence of a global flood as described by the bible. Why not?

I remain as convinced as ever that the story of Noah's flood as related in the bible is false and no more than a myth. Until solid evidence to the contrary is found I see no reason to believe otherwise. To date no such evidence has been found. Care to go another round?

[Frank Harrist]

Freethinker, you're my hero! Great explanation. Very good questions.

[Guest]

The water that supposedly came from the heavens would have come in the form of chunks of ice because there is no liquid water in outer space

that is an assumption with no foundation (where the water came from) since we do not know how much water is under the earth, it would be presumptuous to think that it could not add to the total amount placed on the earth.

There is no such eveidence. None.

ryan and pittman's research has indicated that all the water did not leave. for whatever reason, God changed the geography of the world thus you may not find the scars you are looking for. the evidence is there, it is how it is applied that will answer your questions.

were included in the population of animals on the ark.

plants were not included on the ark, except maybe as food.

How did these animals get on the ark?

if you read the account, that was one of God's responsibilities. keep in mind the geography of the world was a lot different and the world was a lot different pre-flood.

Invoking a diety's supernatural powers is just rubbish

i will disagree with you. you can not remove supernatural contribution just because you want to. it is part of the story. this has been a problem for some time as non-believers want to remove God when that is an impossibility for without God's involvement, there is no story, no flood, no reason for it to take place. supernatural power is involved whether you like it or not.

Contrary to what you say a single breeding pair is NOT sufficient to maintain a genetically viable population

from the book--'The Flood' pgs. 28 & 29:

"tradition also has it that families of that age were very large. In Josephus we find such a tradition according to which Adam had 56 children...On the basis of what has been said, it would not be unreasonable to assume that an average family in that age might have consisted of at least 18 to 20 living and marriageable children...According to Genesis 5 there were 10 generations from Adam to Noah, Taking these figures as a basis for calculation, we obtain the folowing results:
1st gen...................2
2nd gen..................18
3rd gen...................162
4th gen...................1,458
5th gen...................13,122
6th gen...................118,098
7th gen...................1,062,882
8th gen...................9,565,938
9th gen...................86,093,442
10th gen.................774,840,979

so for humans and animals it is possible to have a viable population coming from one pair. Dr. Rehwinkel does the calculations again in two different ways coming up with a population that makes sense and viable.

If we all thought the same thing, then what would be the purpose of discussion. B O R I N G!

if you are here for entertainment value, then you add nothing constructive to the topic and are just another foolish woman.

[Guest]

Quote:
If we all thought the same thing, then what would be the purpose of discussion. B O R I N G!


if you are here for entertainment value, then you add nothing constructive to the topic and are just another foolish woman.

That was un-called for. Very "christian" of you to be so mean.

[Rokcet Scientist]

In soccer, when you bodily attack an opponent, you get the red card: you're sent off the pitch immediately, leaving your team with one less player for that match, and you'll get a suspension for several matches.
In forum discussions there's no such regard for niceties, Leona.

[Frank Harrist]

Actually, that was me. Sorry! Forgot to sign in again.

[Guest]

That was un-called for. Very "christian" of you to be so mean.

as a point of explanantion: i do not regard the word 'foolish' as unchristian nor mean but rather hitting the nail on the head. her comments were an insult to a very good discussion, i am not bored by freethinker's posts, comments or questions nor do i get the impression is he/she.

if the poster in question has heard it all before then she should withold her comments, avoid the discussion and start one that she finds interesting. the word 'foolish' perfectly describes her action and attitude. just because she has heard it all doesn't mean everyone else has and they should not be deprived of the opportunity to hear and explore it for themselves.

she is in the wrong, not the right.

[Frank Harrist]

That was un-called for. Very "christian" of you to be so mean.

as a point of explanantion: i do not regard the word 'foolish' as unchristian nor mean but rather hitting the nail on the head. her comments were an insult to a very good discussion, i am not bored by freethinker's posts, comments or questions nor do i get the impression is he/she.

if the poster in question has heard it all before then she should withold her comments, avoid the discussion and start one that she finds interesting. the word 'foolish' perfectly describes her action and attitude. just because she has heard it all doesn't mean everyone else has and they should not be deprived of the opportunity to hear and explore it for themselves.

she is in the wrong, not the right.

Oh! Well we should have known that. You have god on your side. Nobody but you is always right.

[Minimalist]

as a point of explanantion: i do not regard the word 'foolish' as unchristian

Except when it is directed at christians, no doubt.

[daybrown]

You can take a pair of primitive life forms and multiply them much as has been postulated. But to take a pair of complex animals, such as mammals, much less hominids, what you get is increasing numbers of inbred freaks. Which anyone who's lived in the hills can tell you about demented Redneck clans.

Know why Rednecks have such a low divorce rate? cause after the divorce, she's still his sister. The whole idea of Noah and his ark repopulating the earth is ludicrous to anyone who understands how genetic code works.

Several analyses suggest that the few tens of thousands of hominids that survived after the Mt Tuba eruption was barely enough diversity to be sustainable. This no doubt had a lot to do with why the recently discovered "Hobbit" people found in Indonesia were so limited in numbers. I note that when you look at the morphology, what you see is *not* derivative of Homo Sapiens, but a far earlier line. Homo Floriensis was actually a remnant of Homo Erectus!

Not that I expect anyone of faith to be convinced, but rather to suggest that here we have a hominid species, like the H. Neantherthalis, that managed to survive without being obviously subject to genocide, but more likely limited by genetic inbreeding problems. Like the HNS, I doubt that any of their females would have survived birthing an HSS hybrid, whereas the wider and more flexible pelvis of the HSS female would have permitted both mother and hybrid baby to survive, such as was found in Portugal.