Noah’s Flood

Answers to more stupid arguments against the Noachian Flood.
(At least it’s an attempt at science instead of the usual ad hominem)

>>Noah’s Flood, Problems of

1. Building the Ark
2. Gathering the Animals
3. Fitting the Animals Aboard
4. Caring for the Animals
5. The Flood Itself
6. Implications of a Flood
7. Producing the Geological Record
8. Species Survival and Post-Flood Ecology
9. Species Distribution and Diversity
10. Historical Aspects
11. Logical, Philosophical, and Theological Points
Creationist models are often criticized for being too vague to have any predictive value. A literal interpretation of the Flood story in Genesis, however, does imply certain physical consequences which can be tested against what we actually observe, and the implications of such an interpretation are investigated below. Some creationists provided even more detailed models, and these are also addressed (see especially sections 5 and 7).
References are listed at the end of each section.
Two kinds of flood model are not addressed here. First is the local flood. Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the “world” that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew. Creationists argue against the local flood model because it doesn’t fit their own literalist preconceptions, but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model.
Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It’s entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what’s the point?

Besides the fact, and it is a fact, no matter how much you overlay pagan superstitious dogma onto actual facts, nobody has conclusive evidence that a global flood never occurred on Earth.

In fact, xenologists (Martian “geologists”) are saying there was a global flood that covered the entire surface of Mars. Many supporting factoids they use point to the same thing on the third planet out from the sun.

Well well look at this. No wonder you believe everything got designed without a designer. They flooded your mind with dribs and drabs with the background of the repeated mantras until it stuck.

1. Building the Ark

2. Gathering the Animals
Now that’s an interesting one, and yes, would have required what we regard as a miracle. But keeping in mind the animals that warn of earthquakes. The elephants on the Asian coast refused their masters’ orders and marched away from danger all on their own.

3. Fitting the Animals Aboard
This has been answered many times. You really should research creationist sites so you can come up with better refutations. The first mistake is the presumption that young-earth creation posits separate creation for every “species” that any category any jungle zoologist can come up with. An extra tuft here, a longer tail there, all that.
But all the creation scientists I have ever read or even heard of has pointed to the word “kinds”.

Canine, feline, rodent, bovine, you don’t need all their species. And the original wolf-kind that bred into all the different dog-kinds today show how fast change could occur, and often big changes. Meaning that the missing “punctuation” in the “equilibrium” is even more damning for the pagan superstition of spontaneous everything.

When they talk about dinos they imagine the biggest brontosaurus trying to cram itself in.. Ha. The youngest hatchlings will do, thank you very much, and I’ve read that it’s only about 18 different “kinds” of dinos.

The arthropods is another subject. Easily dismissing vegetation mats with a wave of the hand does not make the solution disappear. No David Copperfield here. There was just recently a story of an insect found on the African side of the Atlantic that only lives on the American side, and they were blaming flotsam. (Where’s Hyderabahl anyway)

Torturing the phrase “his mate” to pretend that it also says “both at sexual maturity” is also a non-starter, worthy of non-thinking. No such declaration. Grasping at a hundred such straws that aren’t even straws is entertaining to watch but not an argument.

4. Caring for the Animals
Who needs to care for wild animals. Anyway, whatever phenomenon “zapped” them into getting onto the Ark in the first place would do for invoking good behavior. Noah, the horse whisperer, dog whisperer, cat whisperer….

Vegetation surely would have been stocked anyway. In earlier climes and higher air pressure there may easily have been less need. Many animals naturally hibernate as a behaviour adaptation. Plus the rain has a natural sedative effect. My wife plops fast asleep if it’s raining at bedtime..

5. The Flood Itself
Big topic. Addressed already elsewhere.
One item, not all creationists claim that all fossils were deposited during the Flood. Many do, but many don’t. I’m one that don’t. Lots of them for sure.

6. Implications of a Flood
–Ages of mountains. Some more eroded than other. Creationists envision much more upheaval in surface composition, accompanying the expulsion of “fountains of the deep” –implying volcanic eruptions and associated geyser activity for just one example only— which would many changes. Much of those changes were likely amid post-flood activity.
With waves of weather that would have to accompany any flood-volcanic phenomenon of global scale, would certainly simulate multiple years of weather. I was in Colombia as a missionary, and they have two winters and two summers every year. Spurts of growth separated by dormancy.
—Ice cores are the result of intermittent waves of precipitation in fact.

7. Producing the Geological Record
—Evidence that supports the reigning superstitious origins myth is dutifully recorded into texts. Contrary evidence is not counted, collected, and recorded.. One simple experiment showed that fluctuations in solar activity had a direct effect on radioactive decay rates, for example.

–And the “accuracy” of the figures that make it into the texts of consensus was exposed in one book I read by a true believer in darwinian evolution. He pointed to flubs in the three carbon labs that dated the Shroud of Turin (the three labs that broke their contractual agreement by coordinating their answers).

Like at one lab, the director’s mother-in-law had a scarf that was dated forty years into the future.
Quick! How many times did Leakey send samples to the labs before he got the dates he wanted?

Most other in the list from geology offered as counter evidence are actually evidences for a Global Flod, many other items are merely equally consistent.

8. Species Survival and Post-Flood Ecology
—Ecologies change fast and slow, and in fact man is not the only one that can change it real fast, but it’s interesting that the organisms to which they’ve assigned the oldest dates are not much more than the 6000+ Biblical years, not to mention always less than the ~10,000 years estimated by some YECs.

9. Species Distribution and Diversity
—It’s not only Polynesians that can get from the Americas to the South Seas by raft. Some YEC biologists theorize much faster change-and-adaptation rates that RM+NS believers dare to speculate. (Random mutation plus natural selection).
–Land bridges during post-Flood ice ages, and other suggestions, do not lack for explanations.

–Marsupials are one interesting bunch. Based on the way not all, but almost all, marsupials have their counterparts that bear their young at more mature development, one YEC biologist suggested that these were adaptations of their counterparts to special conditions in Australia. It’s convincing to me. Fast adaptations, and cut-and-paste and trial-and-error computerized routines in the digital programming in DNA, it makes sense to me.

-Biologists have recently said the epigenetics and other related study fields have put the whole field of biology at a new starting point. Genetic transference is another underappreciated phenomenon.

–It’s amazing that darwinists are so mentally conditioned that they use evidence against their dogmas as if it supported them. Such is the talk about harmful allelles for which there are no adequate explanations at all, some of which are very much stable in the gene pools of this or that species. Sure they have “explanations”, but then try to apply the kinds of answers they give for one species, to another in which the opposite occurs.

Just like leading a horse to water and can’t make him drink, you can lead an atheist to evidence but you can’t make them open their eyes….

10. Historical Aspects

The assertion from dates given for pre-Flood Egypt has been answered, when I come across it and have enough time to come back here I’ll post it. But the Hyskos have questionable dates and match up with the Biblical history of the Hebrews.

And it is a preposterous assault on common sense to pretend the Flood stories vary too much. ROTFLMAO! 85 percent of the stories make it a global flood covering everything.

And remember your own High Priests of Darwinian Faith have said that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, especially when they have to own up about the fossils. The Mesopotamians and Egyptians do have flood stories, although almost all the details are lost. So what? The Gilgamesh story lines right up, so do many stories from around the world.

Amazing, since the languages were confounded at Babel too….

11. Logical, Philosophical, and Theological Points

This is the most laughable. If God is God, the real question is why would he take six days to create the world?

The just-so claims in your doctoral thesis about what the Bible says are a subject in itself, often correct often wrong. The Biblical account is what counts for me, and that includes pairs (or plus for clean animals) every kind bellying up into the Ark.

That means EVERY kind of land animal was on the ark, that’s what the Bible says. What it does not say is every 20th century species. That’s a straw man set up by evolutionists who don’t really care about what creationists actually say, and by the way, don’t care what the Bible says either, they “know” it’s myth. Ha.

See here how they nickel-and-dime that subject to death:
“…..How can a literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is self-contradictory? Genesis 6:20 and 7:14-15 say there were two of each kind of fowl and clean beasts, yet Genesis 7:2-3,5 says they came in sevens…..”

Since you’re getting so technical, note the differences, Genesis 6 says it’s two of every kind that will “come to thee”, and in Genesis 7 it’s “take unto thee” sevens of the “clean beasts”. Aw, shucks. Not even a contradiction though anyway. Take ’em by two of every sort, male and female, is not “only” two.

Now you’re already saying “picky picky” about my point. Before you say it out loud, though, take the beam out of thine own eye, because this is picky picky.

The sevens were pairs of male and female, and the twos was a reference to male-female pairs.

It is also now a very stupid argument to talk about “with no scientific training” in the same sentence with “creationists”, since there is fast expanding number of scientists with all the bonafides you want who are creationists, in all categories–YEC, OEC, and the rest.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: