Making Waves Over Noah’s Flood.

Newsday ^ | January 14, 2003 | By Robert Cooke

[doofuss]

The book of Genesis says of the Flood that"...all the high hills that were under the whole of heaven were covered..." Taken literally, this seems to indicate that there were 10,000 to 20,000 feet of water on the surface of the earth, equivalent to more than half a billion cubic miles of liquid! Since, according to Bibical accounts, it rained for forty days and forty nights, or for only 960 hours, the rain must have fallen at a rate of at least fifteen feet per hour, certainly enough to sink any aircraft carrier, much less an ark with thousands of animals on board.

[DannyTN]

"There is no fossil evidence for the Flood at all...there isn't sufficient room for a tenth of the animals "

I've already posted links to whole sites that recount the fossil evidence in favor of a flood and for the size of the ark.

Believe what you want.

[Junior]

I've already posted links to whole sites that recount the fossil evidence in favor of a flood and for the size of the ark.

Where? Honestly, you can't claim the geological record is the result of the Flood, as there are perfectly preserved footprints, rain spatters and animal burrows within the geological column. These would be impossible if the sediments were laid down during a Flood. As for the size of the Ark, you are going to have a hard time fitting 5 million to 50 million pairs of animals into such a space along with all the plants, food and whatnot necessary for a year's floating. Not to mention the time required by the eight-person crew to feed said critters and clean out their wastes.

[DannyTN]

I don't claim that the entire geological record is the result of the Flood. I do claim that the flood is the perfect environment for creating fossils and that many of the fossils may have come from that time.

Where do you get 5 million to 50 million pairs of animals? You don't need every kind of dog and wolf. You just need one pair. You still have 5000 years to develop additional diversity.

Here are two more sites that speak to this. Notice that they have plausible explanations for everything from the number of animals needed, to cleaning up wastes, etc.
Just because every aspect of how things were accomplished was not recorded doesn't mean it didn't happen.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html
http://www.fni.com/cim/briefing/ark.html

[DannyTN]

Where?

Here they are again.

http://www.parentcompany.com/great_dinosaur_mistake/tgdm10.htm

http://www.sixdaycreation.com/feb.html

[Consort]

Do you quote Carlin often? If you do, you are a rare conservative. George is a raving nutter, and a flamin' pinko to boot.

No. Yes. Yes, but he can be real funny.

Carlin say he now prays to Joe Pesci, the actor, instead of to Gog. He says his prayers are now answered at about the same rate that they always were.

[AndrewC]

Carlin say he now prays to Joe Pesci, the actor, instead of to Gog. He says his prayers are now answered at about the same rate that they always were.

That is no wonder. If you curse at someone for no reason, don't expect a civil answer at any time.

[Phil V.]

. . . the rain must have fallen at a rate of at least fifteen feet per hour . . .

I see your point. But how do you answer those on this thread who suggest that simultaneous with the flood the waters were augmented by the release of vast reservoirs of subterranean water upon which the rock mantle had been floating? Perhaps the earth primeval was a ball of ice upon which layers of mineral were slathered until the compressive weight melted the ice and ejected it to the surface? But then, had that been the case the boat load of critters would surely have been sunk in the turbulence of the aqueous volcanoes' eruptions . . .

[Phil V.]

You just need one pair. You still have 5000 years to develop additional diversity.

Have you just admitted that creation is a process as opposed to an event? For example, within MY OWN LIFETIME multiple square miles of land have been "created" in Hawaii.

[Phil V.]

Why is it important for you to post among your replies, lengthy discussions and the citings of sources? Few if any care enough to delve into this depth, and those that do, are better served with a link. Save some bandwidth.

I speculate that there are at least one or two members of this forum with enough ambition to examine a scholarly treatment of the issues being discussed on this thread. Perhaps not. As for your concern for the bandwidth required for my contribution . . . 63Kb. . . . I suggest you direct your concerns to the FReepers who clog the threads with graphics and other decorations substantially larger than 63kb.

. .. or perhaps my contribution is inconvenient to your Hyperorthodoxy?

[DannyTN]

"Have you just admitted that creation is a process as opposed to an event? For example, within MY OWN LIFETIME multiple square miles of land have been "created" in Hawaii. "

It's both. It was an event when God created the universe. Although what processes He used in that believed to be short time-frame, I do not know.

In the example of the dogs. We know when many breeds were bred by man. Same with Horses. Man didn't change a dog into an animal different from a dog or create a dog from any other animal. But through selective breeding he did develop diversity among breeds. We've observed natural processes emphasising traits during periods of environmental change sometimes within in a very short time-frame. Drug resistant bacteria is a good example.

Man himself is a good example. If you believe the Biblical account, Man started off as just two individuals. And then some 1000-2000 years ago at the flood was reduced again to just 8 individuals. But look at the various races and ethnic features available now. Nobody has grown a new arm or organ but there are minor physical differences.

Man has yet to create a dog from scratch. The day may be coming when our knowledge is such that we can. In fact, through microbiology we now have powers that many people never thought we would. We can bioengineer new traits into animals and plants. That's not a natural process.

And certainly your example of created new land in Hawaii is a good example. The earth was not designed as an entirely static model. It does see changes over time.

Since man has reached the point of creating "Designer Corn" and "Designer animals", it defies logic why some are so adamant that man could not himself have been created by a higher being.

That we were designed male & female, I think, also would seem to make evolution a less viable strategy. It seems to me that that self replicating animals would have an evolutionary advantage. Any positive mutation would be passed on to offspring. The male/female scheme makes each animal family more stable and evolution less likely.

This is a discussion of the implications of evolution vs creationism.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-223.htm

This is an interesting view on the effects of mutations and bio-engineered crops.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/meltdown.php

[The South Park Republican]

Do you quote Carlin often? If you do, you are a rare conservative. George is a raving nutter, and a flamin' pinko to boot.

Yeah...God forbid that a conservative have a sense of humor. We're all suposed to be prudish, judgemental fundementalists.

[DannyTN]

"Also, at 135 meters long (450 feet) the Ark is too large to be structurally sound. No wooden ships ever exceeded 90 meters (300 feet) as wood cannot handle the stresses associated with being waterborne."

How can you say that it's not structurally sound? You don't know the full design? For that matter I don't think they know what "gopher wood" was. (translations to "cypress wood" are suspect).

It may be true that man has not been able to build a wooden ship more than about 325 feet that was structurally sound, but this is a design from God. You would be better off saying "There is no God therefore the story of the ark isn't true", at least your prejudice would show. But to say "The ark couldn't be built, therefore there is no God", well that is saying you are smarter than God.

This wasn't a ship designed to be propelled by wind or paddle. This was an ark designed to be entrusted to the hand of God. That could have significant implications for the design relative to the designs of men.

Finally, when it comes to the plans of God, they don't have to be structurally sound. God operates in miracles. When Jesus fed 5000 with two fish and a loaf of bread, there is no scientific explanation for how it could be done. When the widow's who was down to her last meal fed Isaiah and her jar never ran out, science just falls short in explaining how God did it.

What were the odds David would defeat Goliath? The smart money is always on the heavily armed giant. It's ludicrous to believe that King Saul of Israel would stake the entire battle on an unarmed boy. That is unless you know that God said David would be king, and therefore David couldn't lose.

It's not wrong to look at it and say how could this be done? But are you really certain a mere 30 yards of extra boat somehow would be an impossible problem for God?

[DannyTN]

Why even build an ark?

If God could keep a potentially unsound ark together for a year, isn't there a million other ways he could have started over and rescued Noah and his family?

Yes there are.

It apparently took 120 years for Noah to finish the ark. For 120 years this massive boat took shape as a testimony to men of what their fate was going to be.

And for 120 years nobody listened. It's not like they can say they weren't warned. Sometimes I get the impression no one is listening now.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Why would God cause the death of so many innocent fetuses among those pregnant women He would have drowned?

[Mark17]

And for 120 years nobody listened. It's not like they can say they weren't warned. Sometimes I get the impression no one is listening now.

No, not many people are listening now either. These are just opinions, but it is estimated by many, that it never rained on the earth, but a mist rose to water the ground. I think the firmament had not been broken yet, so when Moses said it was going to rain, they thought he was nuts. Now, with no firmament, we get direct sunlight, which also had never happened before. Direct sunlight tends to limit the life of people, and kills them after 70 or so years. These are just some of the things I have read about.

[Mark17]

Why would God cause the death of so many innocent fetuses among those pregnant women He would have drowned?

I am not real sure, but there is the possiblity that the entire population of the world, except Noah's family, was infected with the taint of the Nephilim, who were the offspring of the "sons of God" (fallen angels) and human women. I don't know for sure if this is what happened, but if it is true, then the destuction of the Nephilim was a moral necessity on God's part. His ways are not our ways, and it is very hard for us to understand infinite principles with finite minds.

[DannyTN]

"Why would God cause the death of so many innocent fetuses among those pregnant women He would have drowned?"

Good question.

Isaiah 57:1 - The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.

Death isn't a bad thing for the innocent. You go to be with God in heaven. Had God let them live an earthly life, they would have grown up in a Godless land and likely would have perished.

In other places the Lord simply answers similar questions with a reminder of His soveriegnty.

To Moses he said Exodus 33:19 "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.

Paul wrote in Romans 9. 15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16 So it depends not upon man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." 18 So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" 20 But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me thus?" 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Isaiah 29:15 Woe to those who hide deep from the LORD their counsel, whose deeds are in the dark, and who say, "Who sees us? Who knows us?" 16 You turn things upside down! Shall the potter be regarded as the clay; that the thing made should say of its maker, "He did not make me"; or the thing formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"?

Isaiah 45:9 "Woe to him who strives with his Maker, an earthen vessel with the potter! Does the clay say to him who fashions it, 'What are you making'? or 'Your work has no handles'? 10 Woe to him who says to a father, 'What are you begetting?' or to a woman, 'With what are you in travail?'" 11 Thus says the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker: "Will you question me about my children, or command me concerning the work of my hands? 12 I made the earth, and created man upon it; it was my hands that stretched out the heavens, and I commanded all their host.

[Junior]

Why even build an ark?

Why, indeed? Drowning is an awful way to go. Simply zapping all the bad folks out of existence seems more humane and environmentally proper.

[DannyTN]

"Why, indeed? Drowning is an awful way to go. Simply zapping all the bad folks out of existence seems more humane and environmentally proper."

I think both physical death and sickness are to illustrate for us the effects of sin in the spiritual realm.

Yes it would seem that zapping them out of existence would be more humane. But letting them drown, letting us see death, is a warning. It gets our attention. As bad as it is to drown physically because of sin, it's far worse to drown spiritually and be separated from God forever.

It is far better to see a horrible physical death, and think about death and the afterlife, than it is to go happily through life without a care and then lose your soul because it's eaten up with sin.

Ecclesiastes 7:2 It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting; for this is the end of all men, and the living will lay it to heart.