The Animals and the Ark Story

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark....Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. (Genesis 6:19-22 )… Of clean beasts, and of beast that are not clean… There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and female, as God had commanded Noah." (Genesis 7:1-9 )

Did this really happen, or is the animals and ark story just mythical? If you believe that it really happened, can you answer the following questions?

1. How did the animals get to the Ark? Did Noah go get them, or did they come on their own? If they came on their own, how did the animals know where the ark was and when they had to be there?

2. How did the polar bears and penguins from the arctic regions, and the kangeroos from Australia make it to the ark?

3. How did Noah get the whales into the ark?

http://members.aol.com/jalw/arkanimals.jpg

[stevencarrwork]

Don't forget Noah was 600 years old? Another fairy tale for Christians to swallow.

[wienerdog]

The word used to describe the animals taken on board the ark is basar. The root meaning of this word is "flesh," and I would argue that, when it refers to animals, it refers to those animals whose "flesh" was used by human beings. That is, hunted, domesticated, or sacrificial animals.

[sandlewood]

Today @ 10:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59254#post59254)
wienerdog:

The word used to describe the animals taken on board the ark is basar. The root meaning of this word is "flesh," and I would argue that, when it refers to animals, it refers to those animals whose "flesh" was used by human beings. That is, hunted, domesticated, or sacrificial animals.

Yikes! People seem to interpret the Bible to mean anything necessary. Anyway, if the ark's roll call was limited to certain creatures, then you need to explain how all the other creatures stayed alive through the flood. If there is no evolution, then they could not have evolved after the flood. Perhaps God could have magically protected them or popped them into existence after the flood. But if he is going to invoke magic, then why have the flood at all? Why not just pop all the bad people out of existence?

[wienerdog]

I think the flood covered the known world of the time. I don't think this interpretation, or the definition of basar that I gave, are ad hoc or contrived at all.

[AtheistArchon]

- Ah, local flood. Much better than a global flood. :thumb: Only local animals were necessary. But then again, did a local flood really last a whole year? And how big an area are we talking about?

- One of my favorite trains of thought is the one that allows several "kinds" of animals onto the ark (1 pair of "dogs") which later evolved at turbo speed into the various subspecies we see today (wolves, dingoes, jackals, domestic canines, and so on). :smile:

- What is a "kind", anyway? An order? A family? A genus? A species?

[Berean]

To Joe Alward,

"And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark....Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. (Genesis 6:19-22 )… Of clean beasts, and of beast that are not clean… There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and female, as God had commanded Noah." (Genesis 7:1-9 )

Did this really happen, or is the animals and ark story just mythical? If you believe that it really happened, can you answer the following questions?

1. How did the animals get to the Ark? Did Noah go get them, or did they come on their own? If they came on their own, how did the animals know where the ark was and when they had to be there?

2. How did the polar bears and penguins from the arctic regions, and the kangaroos from Australia make it to the ark?

3. How did Noah get the whales into the ark?
I believe this really happened, so I’ll take a stab at answering your questions. :smile:

1. Genesis 6:9 says that the animals came to Noah, but that doesn’t mean that they got there on their own. Christians believe that God brought them to Noah. However,there would be a problem with that solution if the assumptions behind your second and third questions were correct.

2. This question is based on an assumed geography of the pre-flood world. The Bible indicates that there may have been only one landmass before the flood:

Genesis 1:9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
Since I wasn’t there, I have no problem taking the Bible’s word for this.

3. Whales were not on the ark. Jonathan Sarfati puts it much better than I ever could:

Genesis 6:19–20:
‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.’
Genesis 7:2–3:
‘Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.’
In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here probably refers to reptiles.2 Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.
I hope this answers your questions. I will be glad to further expound any of my explanations.

[Joseph Alward]

WIENERDOG
I think the flood covered the known world of the time.

JOE ALWARD
Can you provide evidence from the Bible to support that view?

[Alien]

Today @ 10:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59210#post59210)
Joseph Alward:
Did this really happen, or is the animals and ark story just mythical? If you believe that it really happened, can you answer the following questions?

Here's another objection (to the "traditional" global flood, not Wienerdog's local version).

After the animals are let out, they all have to eat to survive. Lets consider a large predator, like a lion, whose normal prey is large herbivores, like deer, antelope, etc. If he kills one of these before they have a chance to breed (nine months in the case of a domestic cow) then he has wiped out a whole species. If he doesn't hunt then he will die of starvation and there go the lions.

[AtheistArchon]

After the animals are let out, they all have to eat to survive. Lets consider a large predator, like a lion, whose normal prey is large herbivores, like deer, antelope, etc. If he kills one of these before they have a chance to breed (nine months in the case of a domestic cow) then he has wiped out a whole species. If he doesn't hunt then he will die of starvation and there go the lions.

- ALL animals were herbivores before, during, and immediately after the flood. When the world was populated again, god suddenly allowed carnivorus behavior.

- I really have heard that one before. :smile:

[Alien]

Noah did not need to take sea creatures3 because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.

If the flood waters covered the entire Earth, then the (fresh) rainwater would have mixed with the (salt) sea water. Many salt water species cannot live in fresh water and vice versa. These can't be the species that went extinct, because they exist today.

[wienerdog]

Today @ 08:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59366#post59366)
Joseph Alward:



JOE ALWARD
Can you provide evidence from the Bible to support that view?

I just PMed you about this, Dr. Alward.

[Alien]

Today @ 01:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59377#post59377)
AtheistArchon:
- ALL animals were herbivores before, during, and immediately after the flood. When the world was populated again, god suddenly allowed carnivorus behavior.

- I really have heard that one before. :smile:

Does it actually say that in the Bible somewhere?

Lions are not physically equipped to survive on a vegetarian diet.

Of course, if the answers to all these objections boil down to "magic", I guess anything is possible and it must be true. :(

[Woman]

I always considered the sport of baiting Biblical literalists with "two by two" on the ark questions to be unfair - rather like shooting fish in a barrel.

But now, there are some amazingly wild ideas circulating that are nothing if not creative. Some of them are so far-fetched and their proponents so adament that I think the time has come to load the paint-guns again!

One of my favorite apology lines is "Dinosaur kinds were taken aboard as babies." This apparantly explains why huge carnivores like T-Rex could be put into spaces smaller than a gymnasium and fed something like pureed alfalfa instead of wildabeasts for a year!

Oh, another one is that pehaps Noah and sons trained the really big animals to defacate overboard.

:rofl:

[Xmansmommy]

Hello JA,
While I will not attempt to try and answer question 1 or 2, I will try to address 3.


Ge:7:8: Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

Ge:7:14: 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.

Ge:7:21: And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

Whales did not enter into the ark, nor did any of the creatures in the waters. Only those whose nostrils breathe and who dwelt on dry land. Hope that helps. Questions 1 and 2 are not ones I have answers to however. Great questions!

In Him,
Linda

[Socrates]

Woman:One of my favorite apology lines is "Dinosaur kinds were taken aboard as babies." This apparantly explains why huge carnivores like T-Rex could be put into spaces smaller than a gymnasium and fed something like pureed alfalfa instead of wildabeasts for a year!Why not try interacting with what knowledgeable creationistsa actually say? E.g. their application of recent evidence that dinos went through growth spurts, so God could have picked the ones at just the right age to suddenly shoot up when they left the Ark -- see Dinosaur growth rates: Problem or solution for creationists? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_23september2002.asp). It's Woman who must assume that the dinosaurs were fully grown.

Also, carnivory for animals began at the Fall not the Flood, but there is no problem for Noah taking on board DRIED meat and other foodstuffs that could be reconstituted, or fodder turtles.
Oh, another one is that pehaps Noah and sons trained the really big animals to defacate overboard.Who said this? The informed ones point out that their cages could have had sloped or slatted floors, where the manure could fall away and perhaps been destroyed by vermicomposing. See How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp).

[Socrates]

<Yawn, stretch> once more, atheists raise the same tired, boring, wizened old canards that creationists have pummeled for years.

First, Alien falls crashing to Earth:After the animals are let out, they all have to eat to survive. Lets consider a large predator, like a lion, whose normal prey is large herbivores, like deer, antelope, etc. If he kills one of these before they have a chance to breed (nine months in the case of a domestic cow) then he has wiped out a whole species. If he doesn't hunt then he will die of starvation and there go the lions.Forgetting exhumed carrion, which carnivores would rather eat than expend energy hunting, or fish trapped in pools left behind by retreating floodwaters.If the flood waters covered the entire Earth, then the (fresh) rainwater would have mixed with the (salt) sea water. Not necessarily, because freshwater is less dense and is KNOWN to be able to float on saltwater for a long time.Many salt water species cannot live in fresh water and vice versa. These can't be the species that went extinct, because they exist today.This is just normal natural variation within the kind. And aquaria OFTEN put saltwater and freshwater fish in the same time -- but they ACCLIMATISE them gradually to increasing or decreasing salinity. See also How did fish, invertebrates and plants survive the Genesis Flood? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp)

Then Atheist Archon bites the dust:
- One of my favorite trains of thought is the one that allows several "kinds" of animals onto the ark (1 pair of "dogs") which later evolved at turbo speed into the various subspecies we see today (wolves, dingoes, jackals, domestic canines, and so on). More bait'n'switch. All this is due to splitting up of already existing genetic information. Similarly, two mulattos today can have offpring of a number of different degrees of skin pigmentation. Evolution from goo to you via the zoo requires NEW information.- What is a "kind", anyway? An order? A family? A genus? A species.Those are all man-made terms. Why should a "kind" have a correspondence to one of these in all cases. A good indication of how wide a kind is is given by hybridisation -- see Ligers and wholphins? What next? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp)

[Socrates]

Stevie wrote:Don't forget Noah was 600 years old? Another fairy tale for Christians to swallow.And what does Stevie know about the biochemistry of aging, to make such a dogmatic statement? Maybe he would like to try refuting the article Living for 900 years? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4082.asp).

[Socrates]

WienerDog:I think the flood covered the known world of the time. I don't think this interpretation, or the definition of basar that I gave, are ad hoc or contrived at all.Alas, WD follows the local flood compromise of Hugh Ross, who believes the Flood was in Meospotamia (see his atrocious book The Genesis Question.

BIG PROBLEM!! the geography of Mesopotamia is a half-bowl open to the south. So how does Ross think a wall of water 200–300 feet high could be held up for a year instead of flowing out to the Indian Ocean? Why didn't the Ark get carried this way and land on a beach of Arabia, instead of being carried in the opposite direction, and being levitated another 300 feet?

That's the problem with all compromises -- they create more problems than they solve.

[Woman]

Soc:


Why not try interacting with what knowledgeable creationistsa actually say? E.g. their application of recent evidence that dinos went through growth spurts, so God could have picked the ones at just the right age to suddenly shoot up when they left the Ark -- see Dinosaur growth rates: Problem or solution for creationists?. It's Woman who must assume that the dinosaurs were fully grown.

I will read the article.

Regarding "so God could have picked the ones at just the right age to suddenly shoot up when they left the Ark,"...yeah, but then God could have just avoided the whole silly thing too! Or "folded" all of his chosen into a tiny sleeping bean that Noah could plant after his ark settled. Or just made man more amiable to beging with so He wouldn't have the hassle of working up a good wrathful emotion to smite nearly everything. Or just have posted a sign in the Garden of Eden disallowing talking snakes or....

[Socrates]

Woman:Regarding "so God could have picked the ones at just the right age to suddenly shoot up when they left the Ark,"...yeah, but then God could have just avoided the whole silly thing too! Or "folded" all of his chosen into a tiny sleeping bean that Noah could plant after his ark settled. Or just made man more amiable to beging with so He wouldn't have the hassle of working up a good wrathful emotion to smite nearly everything. Or just have posted a sign in the Garden of Eden disallowing talking snakes or....Not a fair comparison. You raised an objection to the account itself as a factual report, by setting up a straw man. I showed that the new information on dino growth rates solves this problem. Then you change tack and try to second-guess God's decision about the Flood as a whole.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

Linda, I agree that whales would have been exempt, so we need not trouble ourselves wondering how the whales got on the ark.

Wienerdog, if the flood was local, then why would the dove returning with the leaf from the olive tree have indicated that the floodwaters had subsided?

"When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth." (Genesis 8:11)

Couldn't the leaf have come from a tree which was on the part of the earth which was not flooded? Isn't it true that the only way the olive leaf could have indicated to the author that the floodwaters had subsided is if the flood was global?

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 08:26 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60015#post60015)
Joseph Alward:

JOE ALWARD

Linda, I agree that whales would have been exempt, so we need not trouble ourselves wondering how the whales got on the ark.


Whales couldn't survive such a massive flood!

It's really amazing the amount of nonsesne creationists dream up to cling to he flood myth!

The truth is, the story of Noahs' flood is a myth. That was accepted over 200 years ago and the fairy tale is clung to only by dogmatic YECs on blind faith.

http://www.mbdojo.com/%7Eevolution/flood.html

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/new_no_flood_evidence.htm

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 05:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59917#post59917)
Socrates:

Woman:One of my favorite apology lines is &quot;Dinosaur kinds were taken aboard as babies.&quot; This apparantly explains why huge carnivores like T-Rex could be put into spaces smaller than a gymnasium and fed something like pureed alfalfa instead of wildabeasts for a year!Why not try interacting with what knowledgeable creationistsa actually say? E.g. their application of recent evidence that dinos went through growth spurts, so God could have picked the ones at just the right age to suddenly shoot up when they left the Ark -- see Dinosaur growth rates: Problem or solution for creationists? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_23september2002.asp).

Isn't it amazing how Sarfati believes the growth spurts claims even through HE WAS NOT THERE?


Also, carnivory for animals began at the Fall not the Flood, but there is no problem for Noah taking on board DRIED meat and other foodstuffs that could be reconstituted, or fodder turtles.

Except of course for those animals that require fresh meat and/or hunting their own!


Oh, another one is that pehaps Noah and sons trained the really big animals to defacate overboard.Who said this? The informed ones point out that their cages could have had sloped or slatted floors, where the manure could fall away and perhaps been destroyed by vermicomposing.

:rofl: :rofl:

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 05:10 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59917#post59917)
Socrates:

The informed ones point out that their cages could have had sloped or slatted floors, where the manure could fall away and perhaps been destroyed by vermicomposing. See How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/cen_v19n2_animals_ark.asp).

"The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep."

Yet another creationist blunder!
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie027.html

"The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food. "

Sure it did. Maybe they even had a refridgerator running on battery power. As long as you're inventing crackpot ideas, you may as well go the whole nine yards!

"This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on testable matters like Noah’s Ark."

No, it shows that Sarfati's blind faith will allow him to believe any crackpot idea to make the flood myth seem plausable.

Not only is the flood myth completely impossible but there is no evidence to suggest one every happened! There is also a large body of evidence refuteing it. It's for this reason that geologists, including Christians, reject the crackpot claims of AIG.


This is just normal natural variation within the kind. And aquaria OFTEN put saltwater and freshwater fish in the same time -- but they ACCLIMATISE them gradually to increasing or decreasing salinity. See also How did fish, invertebrates and plants survive the Genesis Flood?


The question of how fish, invertebrates and plants survived is not answerd there!

[Socrates]

Socrates:


The informed ones point out that their cages could have had sloped or slatted floors, where the manure could fall away and perhaps been destroyed by vermicomposing. See How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?.

And the refutation of this paragraph is, what?

gamble changes the subject, and quotes:


The largest animals were probably represented by ‘teenage’ or even younger specimens. The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat, according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11 % would have been much larger than a sheep.

gamble again parrots an article by some gutless anonymous atheist:Yet another creationist blunder!
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus...ies/lie027.htmlNot at all. The median makes far more sense than the mean, although I wouldn't expect a non-scientist like Isaak to know that. I.e. there were MANY more small animals on board, and only a few very large animals. And these COULD have been taken on board before their growth spurt.


The Ark would probably have carried compressed and dried foodstuffs, and probably a lot of concentrated food.

gamble rants :rant:Sure it did. Maybe they even had a refridgerator running on battery power. As long as you're inventing crackpot ideas, you may as well go the whole nine yards! What an idiotic comparison, even by gamble's pathetic standards. Advanced technology is not required for drying and compressing food.


This article has shown that the Bible can be trusted on testable matters like Noah’s Ark.

gamble spews :duh: No, it shows that Sarfati's blind faith will allow him to believe any crackpot idea to make the flood myth seem plausable.It seemed like a well argued faith to me, unlike gamble's blind faith in atheism.


This is just normal natural variation within the kind. And aquaria OFTEN put saltwater and freshwater fish in the same time -- but they ACCLIMATISE them gradually to increasing or decreasing salinity. See also How did fish, invertebrates and plants survive the Genesis Flood?

The question of how fish, invertebrates and plants survived is not answerd there!It is, but evidently even this elementary answer went above the head of the non-scientist gamble. :bonk:


Why not try interacting with what knowledgeable creationists actually say? E.g. their application of recent evidence that dinos went through growth spurts, so God could have picked the ones at just the right age to suddenly shoot up when they left the Ark -- see Dinosaur growth rates: Problem or solution for creationists?.

gamble of course couldn't refute the argument but spluttered:Isn't it amazing how Sarfati believes the growth spurts claims even through HE WAS NOT THERE?But since evolutionists believe these growth spurt claims, why not invoke them, esp. when they don't contradict Scripture in the slightest? So will any refutation from our village atheist gamble be forthcoming?


Also, carnivory for animals began at the Fall not the Flood, but there is no problem for Noah taking on board DRIED meat and other foodstuffs that could be reconstituted, or fodder turtles.

Except of course for those animals that require fresh meat and/or hunting their own!Tell us more. Fact is, even hunters will grab at the chance to feast on something already dead.


The informed ones point out that their cages could have had sloped or slatted floors, where the manure could fall away and perhaps been destroyed by vermicomposing.

gamble has no coherent response to this proposal based on APPLIED low-tech farming practices.

[tgamble]

Socrates continues to show his nasty and spiteful nature.


gamble again parrots an article by some gutless anonymous atheist:

gamble rants

What an idiotic comparison, even by gamble's pathetic standards

gamble spews

It is, but evidently even this elementary answer went above the head of the non-scientist gamble

gamble of course couldn't refute the argument but spluttered:

gamble has no coherent response


Let me know when you have actual evidence for your pathetic flood myth or scientific answers to even some of the many problems the myth brings up. So far, you've offered nothing except speculation and nonsense.

Just a few of the problems that Sarfati ignores with his wild speculations.

Fresh foods. Many animals require their food to be fresh. Many snakes, for example, will eat only live foods (or at least warm and moving). Parasitoid wasps only attack living prey. Most spiders locate their prey by the vibrations it produces. [Foelix, 1996] Most herbivorous insects require fresh food. Aphids, in fact, are physically incapable of sucking from wilted leaves. How did Noah keep all these food supplies fresh?

Food preservation/Pest control. Food spoilage is a major concern on long voyages; it was especially thus before the inventions of canning and refrigeration. The large quantities of food aboard would have invited infestations of any of hundreds of stored product pests (especially since all of those pests would have been aboard), and the humidity one would expect aboard the Ark would have provided an ideal environment for molds. How did Noah keep pests from consuming most of the food?

How did all the modern plant species survive?

Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months. This is especially true if they were soaked in salt water. Some mangroves, coconuts, and other coastal species have seed which could be expected to survive the Flood itself, but what of the rest?

Most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment. This is deep enough to prevent spouting.

Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood.

Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood.

Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating. [Garwood, 1989; Benzing, 1990; Densmore & Zasada, 1983] Also, how did he distribute them all over the world?

How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.

How did sensitive marine life such as coral survive? Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off from the sun. The silt covering the reef after the rains were over would kill all the coral. By the way, the rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around for millions of years to be deposited to their observed thickness.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#survival

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61731#post61731)
Socrates:

gamble has no coherent response to this proposal based on APPLIED low-tech farming practices.

Socrates doesn't know that any farming practice doesn't include waste disposal for thousands of animals on an enclosed structure for a year.
:argh: :bonk:

[WinAce]

The predators ate "carrion" that was lying underwater for a year...?

[JDTC]

Today @ 08:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=61953#post61953)
WinAce:

The predators ate &quot;carrion&quot; that was lying underwater for a year...?


OF course--You forget that God can do anything he likes. The animals underneath the waters did not decay--the flood also killed everything that would have consumed them or causd them to decay!

As for being waterlogged: Take a ream of paper and soak it in water for a while, a good long while. Let the water recede around it, and dry in the sun. Good as new! Leather (or SKIN) is just the same.

[Woman]

What's a fodder turtle?

[The Laughing Man]

So, gamble (and others), you are absolutely sure that 100% of a form of life (like coral) would die out under the extreme circumstances of the Flood.

Geez... Lysol spray can't even do that.

[Woman]

Lysol is little more than room deodorizer, which Noah would have been deeply grateful for.

[Sheepdog]

i thought lysol had a antibacterial spray out too? most companies in the cleaning agents biz do. :hrm:

[AtheistArchon]

- Thanks goodness for Lysol. Those of you with litterboxes understand. :smile:

[Socrates]

Socrates:
gamble has no coherent response to this proposal based on APPLIED low-tech farming practices.

gamble:Socrates doesn't know that any farming practice doesn't include waste disposal for thousands of animals on an enclosed structure for a year. Fact, they do so. In fact, very deep bedding can go for a year without needing changing. And gamble STILL hasn't explained why these low-tech devices would not work.

[Socrates]

tgamble rants from scientific ignorance :rant::Just a few of the problems that Sarfati ignores with his wild speculations.Nothing wild about them, because they are based on APPLIED low-tech animal care methods; unlike gamble's wild atheistic speculations.Fresh foods. Many animals require their food to be fresh. Many snakes, for example, will eat only live foods (or at least warm and moving). Solved by fodder mice.Parasitoid wasps only attack living prey. Most spiders locate their prey by the vibrations it produces. [Foelix, 1996] Most herbivorous insects require fresh food. Aphids, in fact, are physically incapable of sucking from wilted leaves. How did Noah keep all these food supplies fresh?As was said in the article, the animals on the Ark probably did not include insects.Food preservation/Pest control. Food spoilage is a major concern on long voyages; it was especially thus before the inventions of canning and refrigeration. The large quantities of food aboard would have invited infestations of any of hundreds of stored product pests (especially since all of those pests would have been aboard), and the humidity one would expect aboard the Ark would have provided an ideal environment for molds. How did Noah keep pests from consuming most of the food?By using DRIED foods in airtight containers, or salted food. If gamble were right, how did Magellan and Drake manage to survive their circumnavigation of the globe?How did all the modern plant species survive? Many plants (seeds and all) would be killed by being submerged for a few months. This is especially true if they were soaked in salt water. Not at all. Darwin himself proved the contrary.Some mangroves, coconuts, and other coastal species have seed which could be expected to survive the Flood itself, but what of the rest? Vegetative propagation, floating mats of tangled vegetation.Most seeds would have been buried under many feet (even miles) of sediment. This is deep enough to prevent spouting. So? Some seeds would not have been buried so deeply, and that's all that's required.Most plants require established soils to grow--soils which would have been stripped by the Flood. The flood would have DEPOSITED a lot of soil too.Some plants germinate only after being exposed to fire or after being ingested by animals; these conditions would be rare (to put it mildly) after the Flood. /[list]Who says?[list]Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating. [Garwood, 1989; Benzing, 1990; Densmore & Zasada, 1983] Also, how did he distribute them all over the world? Noah didn't have to take plants on the Ark as passengers -- one day these rabid atheists might surprise us all and read the Biblical account. :dufus:How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.Already answered <yawn, stretch>, e.g. by the fact that tolerance is variable, and that freshwater can float on top of saltwater.How did sensitive marine life such as coral survive? Since most coral are found in shallow water, the turbidity created by the runoff from the land would effectively cut them off from the sun. The silt covering the reef after the rains were over would kill all the coral. Silt can also easily be washed off.By the way, the rates at which coral deposits calcium are well known, and some highly mature reefs (such a the great barrier) have been around for millions of years to be deposited to their observed thickness.Actually no, and as an Australian I can tell you that the Great Barrier Reef corals are actually growing much faster, and could easily have grown since the Flood.

[Woman]

Soc,

What is your opinion of ICR's Museum of Creation?

[Socrates]

Woman:Lysol is little more than room deodorizer, which Noah would have been deeply grateful for.Lysol is a brand name of chemicals called cresols or methylphenols, and is a disinfectant. But it would not have been necessary, because the nose quickly adapts to the smell of urine, manure and vomit, as farmers have known for millennia. Also, they would be far less malodorous with the moisture absorbed by sawdust or wood shavings in the bedding.

[Woman]

Woman:
Lysol is little more than room deodorizer, which Noah would have been deeply grateful for.

Soc:
Lysol is a brand name of chemicals called cresols or methylphenols, and is a disinfectant. But it would not have been necessary, because the nose quickly adapts to the smell of urine, manure and vomit, as farmers have known for millennia. Also, they would be far less malodorous with the moisture absorbed by sawdust or wood shavings in the bedding.

As someone who grew up in the "country" where the scent of alfalfa and cow manure is often recalled fondly I can attest to the truth of the aroma issue.

[Socrates]

:brow: I wonder how farming communities managed to survive for millennia without Lysol. Perhaps they weren't quite as delicate as some people today. :lol:

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62675#post62675)
Socrates:

tgamble rants from scientific ignorance :rant::[list]

More insults and still no evidence for your childish fairy tales and wild speculations!

[tgamble]

Nothing wild about them, because they are based on APPLIED low-tech animal care methods; unlike gamble's wild atheistic speculations.

One might wonder just what the hell you're reffering to when you say "wild atheist speculations" LOL!


Solved by fodder mice.

That's not an answer, it's an unsupported assertation. Those of us who aren't antiscience bigots require more.


As was said in the article, the animals on the Ark probably did not include insects.

Then they would have all been killed. Did they evolve from dogs perhaps? ROTFL!

As I pointed out in another thread.

Assumeing this would even be possible, it directly contradicts the myth itself!

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."

"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

It should be obvious that this would include insects!

" Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

So did god make insects or not? LOL!

"Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

So not only are Sarfati's speculations utterly ridiculous, they directly contradict the flood myth itself!

And before Socrates can spew out his usual accusations of getting the above from "gutter atheist websites", I'll point out that I got it directly from the bible, namely biblegateway.com



So? Some seeds would not have been buried so deeply, and that's all that's required.

hehe, a few sees may have survived (not likely) and in a few thousand years manged to evolve into all plants we see today including the oens that don't have seeds. what a joke! And all that with no new information and just variation! Is there no limit to the crackpot claims of creationists?


Noah didn't have to take plants on the Ark as passengers -- one day these rabid atheists might surprise us all and read the Biblical account.

One of these days, you might surprise everyone and stop being such an insulting jerk.

Anyway, I have read the flood myth many times. I note that it mentions nothing about how Noah managed to care for all the animals. But obviously, that doesn't stop you from acceptin wild, silly and unspported speculations! It doesn't change the fact that plants would not be able to survive.


How did all the fish survive? Some require cool clear water, some need brackish water, some need ocean water, some need water even saltier. A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.

Already answered

Nope, you offered nothing of any scientific value, no evidence, no references. Nothing. For creationists, that's ok. For people who actually care about science, it isn't.

[tgamble]

http://teach.lanecc.edu/bakerg/Bot202.htm

Liverworts, Hornworts & Mosses,Ferns & their Allies

where did these come from? Did they evolve from the seedbearing plants in just a few thousand years? would this be variation of the "plant kind"?

Are we really supposed to believe that everything from grass, to roses, to ferns, to venus fly traps is mere "Variation with no new information"?

:rofl: :rofl: :bonk: :bonk:

http://www.world-builders.org/planets01/laga/lagapages/LLANDPLANTS.HTM

http://www.msu.edu/course/lbs/144/s00/objectives/Mar_14/Mar_14.htm:

[Socrates]

I wrote:


As was said in the article, the animals on the Ark probably did not include insects.

then gamble, obviously wilfully oblivious to the arguments that have already occurred on this thread, splutters:Then they would have all been killed. Did they evolve from dogs perhaps? ROTFL! How boring -- I've already explained that they could have survived on floating mats of tangled vegetation and pumice.

gamble:Assumeing this would even be possible, it directly contradicts the myth itself!

"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."

"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

It should be obvious that this would include insects!

" Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

So did god make insects or not? LOL!

"Every living thing that moved on the earth perished-birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

So not only are Sarfati's speculations utterly ridiculous, they directly contradict the flood myth itself!
Of course the atheistic non-scientist gamble failed to read his ample justifications, preferring to read the Bible in McKinsey style like a newspaper and not going to the original language as Dr Sarfati did. How pathetic (and typical) of gamble to cite an AiG article and ignore what it plainly said!:


How many types of animals did Noah need to take?
The relevant passages are Genesis 6:19–20 and Genesis 7:2–3.Genesis 6:19–20:
‘And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.’

Genesis 7:2–3:
‘Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.’In the original Hebrew, the word for ‘beast’ and ‘cattle’ in these passages is the same: behemah, and it refers to land vertebrate animals in general. The word for ‘creeping things’ is remes, which has a number of different meanings in Scripture, but here it probably refers to reptiles. Noah did not need to take sea creatures because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood. However, turbulent water would cause massive carnage, as seen in the fossil record, and many oceanic species probably did become extinct because of the Flood.

However, if God in His wisdom had decided not to preserve some ocean creatures, this was none of Noah’s business. Noah did not need to take plants either—many could have survived as seeds, and others could have survived on floating mats of vegetation. Many insects and other invertebrates were small enough to have survived on these mats as well. The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.

Clean animals: Bible commentators are evenly divided about whether the Hebrew means ‘seven’ or ‘seven pairs’ of each type of clean animal. Woodmorappe takes the latter just to concede as much to the biblioskeptics as possible. But the vast majority of animals are not clean, and were represented by only two specimens each. The term ‘clean animal’ was not defined until the Mosaic Law. But since Moses was also the compiler of Genesis, if we follow the principle that ‘Scripture interprets Scripture’, the Mosaic Law definitions can be applied to the Noahic situation. There are actually very few ‘clean’ land animals listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD

1. How did the animals get to the Ark? Did Noah go get them, or did they come on their own? If they came on their own, how did the animals know where the ark was and when they had to be there?

[tgamble]

How boring -- I've already explained that they could have survived on floating mats of tangled vegetation and pumice.

And I already pointed out that even if such an absurd claim were possible, it directly contradicts the myth itself. You, of course, ignore this and parrot Sarfati again.


Of course the atheistic non-scientist gamble

Never one to pass up an oportunity for insults are ya!


failed to read his ample justifications, preferring to read the Bible in McKinsey style like a newspaper and not going to the original language as Dr Sarfati did.

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! I had this wacky idea the translations like KJV were accurate and not so useless that one had to learn a new language just to read the damn thing!


How pathetic (and typical) of gamble to cite an AiG article and ignore what it plainly said!:

I didn't ignore it, I pointed out that it contradicts the bible.


Noah did not need to take sea creatures because they would not necessarily be threatened with extinction by a flood.

Aside from the sheer stupidity of this claim, it directly contradicts the Bible that only Noah and those on the ark remained.

Clearly, in Sarfati's desperate attempt to prove biblical myths possible, he doesn't mind ignoring the Bible. What a moron!

[tgamble]

Today @ 07:55 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=63781#post63781)
Socrates:
The Flood wiped out all land animals which breathed through nostrils except those on the Ark (Genesis 7:22). Insects do not breathe through nostrils but through tiny tubes in their exterior skeleton.


Sarfati apparently is so used to quoting out of context, he can't even get it right with the Bible!

Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

[Socrates]

Joe Alward:1. How did the animals get to the Ark? Did Noah go get them, or did they come on their own? If they came on their own, how did the animals know where the ark was and when they had to be there?The Bible indicates that God brought them (Genesis 6:20).

[The Laughing Man]

It's interesting how my post from a couple days ago has been almost completely ignored. (The few comments that were made about it did nothing but ignore the main issue I brought up.) I'd really like a serious response from gamble and anyone else who dismisses the Flood. Here's my post again:

Posted On: 04-10-2003 at 09:24 PM

"So, gamble (and others), you are absolutely sure that 100% of a form of life (like coral) would die out under the extreme circumstances of the Flood.

"Geez... Lysol spray can't even do that."

[Joseph Alward]

JOE ALWARD
How did the animals get to the Ark?

SOCRATES
The Bible indicates that God brought them (Genesis 6:20).

JOE ALWARD
If God would use his supernatural powers to bring the animals to the ark, why didn't he simplify the whole process and just kill everything on earth while supernaturally preserving all of the animals and Noah and his family?

Which makes more sense to you, that God really did kill everything on earth except the saved animals and Noah and his family, or that this story is mythical? If the former, why?

[tgamble]

Today @ 01:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=64562#post64562)
Jinx72:

It's interesting how my post from a couple days ago has been almost completely ignored. (The few comments that were made about it did nothing but ignore the main issue I brought up.) I'd really like a serious response from gamble and anyone else who dismisses the Flood. Here's my post again:

Posted On: 04-10-2003 at 09:24 PM

&quot;So, gamble (and others), you are absolutely sure that 100% of a form of life (like coral) would die out under the extreme circumstances of the Flood.

What? You don't believe what the Bible says?

Since the whole world was supposedly flooded, everything would be effected. Other problems with the flood myth are raised because of the facts over coral.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

And have you ever tried soaking coral in Lysol for a year? wouldn't do it much good I bet.

Do you have an explanation as to

how Noah took care of the animals

fitted them on board

how marine life and insects etc. could survive when the Bible says they didn't but they supposedly weren't on the ark (which would raise all kinds of other problems).

how a few seeds that managed to survive the flood could evolve into all the varieties we see in the plant kingdom. Not to mention the fungi in a just a vew thousand years witout adding any "new information" etc. etc. etc.

I'm looking for a serious answer, not a joke answer like the junk Socrates parroted from his master, the great one Jonathan "don't concuse me with any facts!" Sarfati......

[The Laughing Man]

So does that mean, "Yes, I'm absolutely sure 100% would have died out," or, "No, it's very likely that some would have been able to survive"?

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 01:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=62675#post62675)
Socrates:

[...] how did Magellan [...] manage to survive their circumnavigation of the globe?Minor, unrelated point Soc ... although he technically circumnavigated the globe, passing the point where he originated, he didn't survive the voyage. He was killed April 27, 1521, while defending the withdrawal of his landing party, in a battle supporting Humabon, ruler of Cebu, against rival chieftain Lapulapu.

... but of course that had nothing whatsoever to do with food, or lack of it. :xmm:

[Socrates]

JOE ALWARD
How did the animals get to the Ark?

SOCRATES
The Bible indicates that God brought them (Genesis 6:20).

JOE ALWARDIf God would use his supernatural powers to bring the animals to the ark,Which could have involved a supernaturally given migration instinct. why didn't he simplify the whole process and just kill everything on earth while supernaturally preserving all of the animals and Noah and his family?Because God can judge as He pleases, and He is not restricted to ways that biblioskeptics think are best. And there is the typology of judging the Earth by water in the past, and judging it by fire in the future.

When you have an actual argument beyond "I can't imagine why God did things this way", please wake us up and inform us.Which makes more sense to you, that God really did kill everything on earth except the saved animals and Noah and his family, or that this story is mythical? If the former, why?Because Jesus affirmed it; there are plenty of examples of thick correlated strata around the world which point to a catastrophe of global extent, and ephemeral markings showing a small time gap between deposition; flood legends around the world.

[tgamble]

Still waiting to hear solutions to all those problems I pointed out.

Still waiting to hear any evidence that a global flood ever happened, even if it were possible!

Flood geology bears all the signs of an idea that has not been properly thought through: its implications have never been carefully considered by its creationist exponents. For instance, conglomerate is a type of rock that looks kind of like a natural concrete. It has a matrix of sandstone or other fine-grained rock, but embedded in this are many rounded pebbles of various sizes, and even boulders... The Institute for Creation Research implies that Noah's Flood was responsible for all the great concentrations of conglomerates throughout the world. But they nowhere face up to the great problems that this idea creates. One major difficulty is that many large deposits of conglomerate lie on top of great thicknesses - often several miles - of fine-grained sedimentary rock. The great conglomerate sea cliffs near Marseilles, for instance, are hundreds of feet high and contain boulders more than a foot in diameter. What purely natural processes would enable the Flood to deposit a thickness of several miles of fine-grained sediments first, and then place the boulder-laden conglomerates on top? Have Flood geologists not heard the expression, to sink like a stone?

Another problem for them is the clean, sharp lines often found at the boundaries between geologic layers. (The layers which face upward often have fossil limpets or barnacles attached to them. This shows that those layers had time to harden into rock and attract rock-clinging shellfish before the next stratum was laid down, which is hardly likely to happen in a flood that laid down a mile-thick layer of unconsolidated sediments in less than a year.) These sharp boundary lines are particularly troublesome in the case of conglomerate rock atop underlying sandstone.

Clearly, the lower layer must already have hardened into rock before the conglomerate was dumped on top, as otherwise the stones would have sunk into it. If one flood deposited both layers in quick succession, how could the underlying sandstone have hardened so fast?

Above all, there is the fact that the boulders inside conglomerate often contain fossils. How did they get there if, as Flood geologists assert, fossils are the remains of creatures that died in the Flood? And these boulders in conglomerate are nearly always rounded, as if they had been rolled around on a river or sea bed for long periods before being dumped in their last resting place. Of course, one can always argue that God specially created these rounded, fossil-laden boulders, and then miraculously caused the Flood to place them on top of the fine-grained deposits... [Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution]


Oyster-like creatures are found from bottom to top of the geologic record- strange for slow moving bottom-dwellers. In chalk deposits a definite succession of different species of the same type of creature are found, separate and unmixed, at different levels... If they all once lived together, why do whales, seals, placoderms and oricthyosaurs not appear with modern fishes in fossilized marine Devonian environments?...

Why, if the flood took place rapidly, are sandstone nearly always void of fossils? Uniformitarians reasonably explain that, over a period, shells are oxidized and abraded out of existence by the sand - but is a year long flood enough time for that to happen? [Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution]


Flood geologists have proposed that hydraulic sorting explains the succession of fossils found in the geologic record. But such a proposal is clearly a non-starter. There are fossil ammonites, whose beautiful spiral shells contain buoyancy chambers, and are therefore very light - yet they're never found in the upper levels. And ammonoid species ranging in size from a fraction of an inch to several feet across are all found together in the same deposit... The proposal that differential mobility explains the order found in the fossil record loses all credibility too. Why is there not a single human fossil below the topmost layer? Were there no inhabitants of the coastal plains who were overwhelmed in their sleep? No cripples or sick folk unable to flee to higher ground? And why are the pterodactyl fossils all in the middle layers? You would think that at least one or two of them would have flapped their way to the hilltops...

Another proposal is that the Flood scooped up hundred-mile tracts of marine and land surfaces complete with their inhabitants, and then neatly arranged them into one-mile deep stacks - and in the right sequence, and without intermingling... Even if the Flood could have achieved such results in one place, it could not possibly have done so all over the world. The average thickness of fossil-bearing rock throughout the world is about a mile. Yet the precious layer of soil in and on which all life must live (except for swimming fishes and floating plants) is never more than a few feet thick. Did the Flood pick up that thin layer and with it produce sedimentary rock one mile thick?

Because, if so, God must have miraculously multiplied that layer of soil, like the loaves and fishes of Galilee! [Alan Hayward, Creation and Evolution]-

A flood strong enough to move all the sediments of the earth would tend to mix the different types of animals and plants into one big mishmash... The fossils are in the right order for evolution but not for hydraulic selection. The light animals refuse to stay in the shallow rocks, and the dense animals refuse to stay in the deep rocks, where they belong according to creationism. For instance, trilobites, light, fragile creatures resembling pill bugs, tend to be found only in the deepest rocks... The rocks show that each distinct species usually has its own horizon absolutely distinct from the horizons of other species of the same size, shape, and weight. [Christopher Gregory Weber, Common Creationist Attacks on Geology, Creation/Evolution, Issue 2, Fall 1980]

Flowering plants don't occur in the fossil record until early in the Cretaceous era. A forest of magnolias (a primitive tree) heading for the hills, only to be overwhelmed with the early mammals by the Flood, is unconvincing. [Robert J. Schadewald, Six Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't answer, Creation/Evolution, Issue 9, Summer 1982]

Flood geology doesn't explain why characteristic pollens and spores are found alongside animal fossils of each age (stratum), or why large, slow-moving mammals are invariably found in strata above flying pterodactyls and early birds like archaeopteryx. Flood geology also fails to explain the fossil pattern for trees. [Ken Nahigian]


Why are whales and dolphins only found at high levels, while marine reptiles of similar size are found only much lower?... Why were not most of the birds exhausted far sooner, since perching places would have been hard to find in the raging Deluge?... Sardines and swordfish (teleostean fish), appeared in late Triassic times (200 million years ago) and show up in the fossil record more frequently with the passage of time. This contradicts predictions of Flood geology: these deep sea fish ought to be found in the lowest strata. Besides, these fish had no special hydraulic features and they were not especially fast swimmers. Yet all these lucky teleostean fish managed to resist the flood waters for a long time, while large numbers of speedy fish are buried beneath them. [Kitcher]

One of my favorites.

Remember that Flood geologists emphasize the violence of the Flood and its global scale. Dead plants and animals would have been very thoroughly mixed and transported large distances. How, then, could the sequence in which they settled out possibly be related to the original elevations of their habitats, or their running abilities? And why would man be a special case? His running and climbing ability is inferior to that of many animals. In any case, all the animals, including man, would have been killed long before the Flood finally ended, so that their ability to temporarily escape death (not burial) would have been irrelevant in the long run. [Willard Young, Fallacies of Creationism]

Creationist Flood geologists are well aware of the second law of thermodynamics as it relates to the origin of life, but typically oblivious to it regarding the unlikely odds of so many fossils being segregated so perfectly in the geologic record... Like it or not, the association of certain types of fossils with certain strata, and the existence of trace fossils - like neatly laid eggs, tidy nests, rodent burrows and the footprints of air-breathing animals found deep within the strata - can only be explained by different types of animals and plants living at completely different times in the past. [Neil Slater]

Under the Flood geology hypothesis, one would expect that lowland-loving plants, such as cattails, willow trees and lily pads (which live on or near the surface of water) would have been buried long before those plants which favor higher and cooler areas, such as pine trees and other conifers. This, however, is not what we find in the fossil record. Instead, the evolutionarily primitive conifers appear much lower in the column than do modern angiosperms such as willow trees and oak trees. What a miraculous Flood to have sorted such an incalculably large number of plant remains (and also their fine pollen grains) in such a precise manner! What are the odds that one, big, violent Flood could have accomplished such a miracle?

How did the oak and willow trees manage to get to the top of the sediment layer along with all those mobile mammals? Did the trees run for the high ground too? What about the many nesting sites that have been found for terrestrial dinosaurs? Are we to assume that these animals, panicked by the rising flood waters and the torrential rain and fleeing for the high ground, suddenly decided to stop and dig huge numbers of nests in the Flood sediments and lay eggs, which apparently had time to hatch before the Flood engulfed them?

Apparently, Flood geologists would have us believe that the therapsid reptiles (who they assert were all contemporary and lived side by side) just happened to drown and become sorted by the Flood into a sequence which looks just like evolutionary descent; the forms with well-developed reptilian jaw joints and incipient mammalian joints just happened to be buried first, followed by those like Probainognathus with double jaw joints, while forms like the Morganucodonts, with functional mammalian joints and receding reptilian joints, just happened to climb a little higher or sink a little slower than the others (but not so high or so slow as the true mammals with no reptilian characteristics). Sea turtles violate every presumed sorting mechanism that Flood geologists have proposed; they live in the open deep sea, but are found high in the sediment layer-- above such terrestrial animals as amphibians and dinosaurs; they are big and heavy and sink rapidly upon death, but are found in the upper layers, above such lighter organisms as jellyfish and seaweeds; they are clumsy and slow on land, but apparently managed to run to the higher elevations before the Flood engulfed them (since they are found in the same sediment layers as such speedy animals as saber -toothed tigers and horses). Again, what are the odds that one big violent Flood could have sorted all the dead sea turtles in such an evolutionary fashion? [Lenny Flank, Can Noah's Flood Account For the Geologic and Fossil record? at www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/worldwideflood.htm]

In 1938 Harold Clark (a disciple of the Flood geologist, George Macready Price) was invited by a student to visit the oil fields of Oklahoma and northern Texas, where Mr. Clark saw with his own eyes why geologists believed as they did. Observations of deep drilling and conversations with practical geologists gave Clark a real shock that permanently erased any confidence he had left in Price's vision of a topsy-turvy fossil record. Clark wrote to Price: "The rocks do lie in a much more definite sequence than we have ever allowed. The statements made in your book, The New Geology, do not harmonize with the conditions in the field. All over the Midwest the rocks lie in great sheets extending over hundreds of miles, in regular order. Thousands of well cores prove this. In East Texas alone are 25,000 deep wells. Probably well over 100,000 wells in the Midwest give data that has been studied and correlated. The science has become a very exact one. Millions of dollars are spent in drilling, with the paleontological findings of the company geologists taken as the basis for the work. The sequence of the microscopic fossils in the strata is remarkably uniform. The same sequence is found in America, Europe, and anywhere that detailed studies have been made. This oil geology has opened up the depths of the earth in a way that we never dreamed of twenty years ago." [Donald R. Prothero, Snake Handlers and Flood Geologists: A Review Essay of The Creationists by Ronald L. Numbers, The Skeptic, Vol. 2, no.2, 19']

Creationists can't explain or solve these problems because the flood never happened. They continue to believe anyway due to a blind, irrational faith. It's really quite sad.

[The Laughing Man]

Alright. So Gamble rather loquaciously refuses to answer my post and attempts to draw attention away from himself. Not surprising, really. Whichever way he would answer, he's caught. If he answers in the affirmative (as illustrated in my last post), he's promoting an absurd, unrealistic idea. If he answers in the negative, he's proving that this argument skeptics use is pure horse manure. I'm sure he and other skeptics want to answer in the negative (as it is the only realistic view), but their devotion to the argument - their dogma, I dare say - is far stronger than their ability to think rationally.

Of course, refusing to answer at all makes them look far worse than if they were to actually choose an answer.

[tgamble]

Alright. So Gamble rather loquaciously refuses to answer my post and attempts to draw attention away from himself.

I did answer your post.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=64618#post64618


Whichever way he would answer, he's caught. If he answers in the affirmative (as illustrated in my last post), he's promoting an absurd, unrealistic idea.

Hey, you are the one who believes that absurd unrealistic idea.


If he answers in the negative, he's proving that this argument skeptics use is pure horse manure.

How'd you leap that to that conclusion?

[The Laughing Man]

Today @ 08:24 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66010#post66010)
tgamble:

I did answer your post.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=64618#post64618

If that was your idea of an answer, well, I guess I'm not surprised. You neither confirmed nor denied what I said about being absolutely sure that 100% of coral (or seeds or anything else that wasn't on the ark) would've died out. Instead, you glossed over it with some meaningless comment about what I believe about the Bible. You then used typical skeptic smoke-and-mirrors tactics to draw attention away from yourself and avoid actually providing a real answer.


Hey, you are the one who believes that absurd unrealistic idea.

Oh, fer crying out loud. I guess you have nothing to offer beyond puerile prattle that amounts to "I know you are, but what am I?" and, "I'm rubber and you're glue..." Again, not surprising. You're not the first skeptic I've dealt with who has done so, and I doubt you will be the last.


How'd you leap that to that conclusion?

Pretty easily. If you were to think rationally and admit that life can and does survive even under extreme conditions (e.g. the "Lysol/99.9% Factor"), then that proves the whole coral/seed argument is bunk.

[tgamble]

Today @ 05:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66252#post66252)
Jinx72:
If that was your idea of an answer, well, I guess I'm not surprised. You neither confirmed nor denied what I said about being absolutely sure that 100% of coral (or seeds or anything else that wasn't on the ark) would've died out. Instead, you glossed over it with some meaningless comment about what I believe about the Bible.

It's the Bible that says all life was wiped. Aside from the bible, the flood myth wouldn't be an issue!


Pretty easily. If you were to think rationally and admit that life can and does survive even under extreme conditions (e.g. the "Lysol/99.9% Factor"), then that proves the whole coral/seed argument is bunk.

Just because it can survive under some extreme conditions (ie. after the dinosaurs were wiped out) doesn't mean it can survive in any form of extreme conditions. You can't escape the fact that not much would survive in a global flood. If a few seeds did survive, you're stuck with trying to explain how a few seeds managed to evolve into all plant life (including the nonseed producing variety) not to mention fungi and Algae which would also have been wiped out. Of course, you can't do this.

If you bothered to follow the link and look at the information on coral, you'd see that the issue (at least in that case) isn't just about survival.

[tgamble]

bump

Still wating to hear some solutions to all those problems with the flood myth!