Does The Flood Add up?

Just a thought. When the bible talks of the world, it is generally referring to the then known world. In that time, most people would have lived near water, not inland. If the waters rose enough to flood the shores and many miles beyond, but not all of the dry land, would records made by those living near the water not show a "global flood"?This would enable all of the species in one area to fit on the arc and all of the others to live, uneffected by the flood, in their respective habitats.Being a creationist and a thinking human, I think it is reasonable to say that the mentality of the people in that time would differ greatly from ours. What may seem like the end of the world to them would only be a temperal, local issue for us.Edited by tdcanam, : spelling

You're telling me that God made Noah spend a 100 years! building an ark when he could've just taken a trip out of town and avoided the flood?

No what we are telling you is that we know for a fact there was no world wide flood in the past 600,000 years at least.We also know that it is 100% impossible to reproduce species from a breeding population of 2.There is also the problem of all the water and it's effect on the temperature of the earth...And there are a ton of other problems.The flood is a myth and believing in it is ridiculous

This is the basic idea promoted by the rather wierd hybrid Old Earth Literalists spear headed by Hugh Ross (Home - Reasons to Believe)They are much more accepting of the scientific status quo yet go through a number of mental gymnastics to try to still show the Bible is literal such as local floods, progressive creation, etc.The basic position for the flood is that it was regional and did in fact wipe out the whole world from humanity's "perspective". Why they work so hard to try to hang onto the flood yet totally abandon the geneologies and other aspects of the text seems strange to me. They take a rather weird kind of hybrid position that, while better, IMO is still as unscientific as YECism.Realizing that the Bible is not inerrant is at least a much more consistent position on the EvC spectrum.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Thanks for that but I was addressing tdcanam who seems to hold that the flood DID occur but locally, therefore I was wondering why God would have Noah spend a hundred years working on the ark when he could've migrated REALLY far away from the flood area in a hundred years...As it was, my question had nothing to do whatsoever with those who doubt the occurence of the flood, but thanks anyways...

God told Noah to build an ark. Noah didn't ask "Why?" - why should you?The point of the story is that Noah did what he was told and God took care of him. It doesn't matter one blessed bit if the whole earth was flooded or if the crick just rose three feet.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Because the Bible makes it apparent that the flood was globalIF the flood was local:1. Why was the ark so big? Only certain animals (those indigenous to Mesipotamia) would have boarded the ark (and then only if they were not indigenous to any unaffected areas) - the rest not being affected by the ark.2. Why would God have made the animals board the ark at all instead of migrating them away from the flooded areas?3. Why would Noah not have migrated to an unaffected location?4. Certainly birds could have flown to an unaffected area...5. It's unlikely that humanity would not have migrated at least somewhat in all the generations since Adam, and yet all humanity was destroyed...making it unlikely that the flood was localized to a specific valley or small geographic area...6. In order for the water to rise fifteen cubits above the mountains, an extremely large area would have been inundated since water is self-leveling..moreover, Genesis 7:19 specifically states that "all (kol) the high mountains under (kol) all the heavens were covered - no ambiguity...7. Why would Noah have spent an entire year and ten days on the ark if dry ground was available not far away?8. How would God's promise to never again destroy the earth with a flood if the earth merely refered to a localized area?

Exaggeration? Misplaced decimal point? There are a lot of explanations more plausible than that an impossibly large boat actually existed.
(Why don't creationists just build a replica if they think it's possible?) He didn't. He told Noah to do it. As I said before, it's a question of Noah trusting God. Read my lips: God told him what to do. He did it. No doubt they did. Two of each would certainly not have been a viable breeding population. Figure of speech, irrelevant to the point of the story: Noah trusted God and was saved. Others didn't trust God and perished. Exactly. There isn't enough water in the world, so we know it couldn't - and didn't - happen. Also no basis in reality. Ever hear of property lines? National boundaries? He would have had to stay on his own land. God's specific promise was to Noah, to never destroy his part of the world again (with a flood). Anything outside Noah's purview is irrelevant to the point of the story.------------- And the most cursory glance at the world around us makes it apparent that it wasn't.This is a science forum. We don't twist the facts to fit your interpretation of the Bible here. Any interpretation of the Bible in this forum has to fit the facts.Edited by Ringo, : Ms. Spelling

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So who's conjecturing here and who's presenting the evidence as laid in the Bible?Let's see how many times you just choose to ignore the biblical claims or just wave them away as irrelevant... Your first claim of just so...Actually, modern shipbuilders acknowledge the the Arks dimensions and ratios would have made it MORE seaworthy than modern sealiners...remember the Ark didn't need to move, merely float...Wikkipedia reports the following:Noah's Ark was big but not an impossible size for wood. Steel is a superior material for shipbuilding, so a wooden hull will never reach the lengths of steel hulls. Larger hulls are more difficult to build since stresses are related to scale (See the square/cube law)Besides length, a ship hull is dependent on other factors for its structural safety. Increased hull depth improves bending strength, the shape of the hull can lower the wave loads. For calculations based on standard ship rules see Wave Bending Moment.The following Flash presentation compares Noah's Ark to a collection of famous ships. Use the Forward button (bottom right) to compare each ship. The ships are in approximate chronological order.In 1993, research was carried out by naval architects and structural engineers at the world class KRISO ship research facility in Korea, testing the proportions described in Genesis - 300 x 50 x 30 cubits. They concluded that the proportions were near optimal and that the scale was feasible in waves up to 30m. Korean ResearchSo the Koreans have already done the work you want creationists to do....with what results? Near Optimal porportions and a scale feasible in waves up to 30m....So what do you know that these experts don't? You talk about trusting God and yet you reject the plain language of the Bible... Yet the bible mentions taking birds on the ark..but why take some on the ark if there were others safe and dry in other areas of the world? some verses from Genesis:6:6 - the Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth- men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air- for I am grieved that I have made them.6:13 - So God said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.6:17 - 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.7:4 - 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..7:21 - Every living thing that moved on the earth perished - birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 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..etc...that's a lot of figures of speech! Noah must've been really dense for God to tell him the same thing so many times!! Or else God really meant what he told Noah...Could it be? Again, how can you trust the moral of the story if almost the entire story is not to actually be believed? again, a just so claim...you keep going against the clear, precise language...instead creating your own reality...which is fine, if that's what you want to do but don't use the Bible as your source... Are you serious?! So God has Noah spend a hundred years creating the ark because that's easier than asking permission to travel through foreign land? WOW!! This may very well be a science forum; however before you attempt to prove or disprove the Flood (the biblical theory) you must understand the Flood account as related biblically...You are projecting your own flood theory which is unsupported by the text you claim to use...

As I said, this is a science forum. The Bible claims carry no more weight than the Grimm Brothers' claims. They are not evidence. Then let's see creationists build a replica that floats. That's how science works, by testing theories, not by making empty claims backed up by more empty claims. Well, no they haven't - not even close. Where's the working prototype? Where's the year-long (maiden) test voyage with two of every kind of animal and a crew of eight? Where's the soft-landing on a mountain-top? Where's the animals redistributing themselves to the four corners of the earth and building viable populations? I know that in the thousands of years at their disposal, creationists have never built a working protoype of the ark. The plain language of the Bible is not all literal history. Trusting God includes trusting Him not to lie to us in His creation. If we look at the world around us, we can use our God-given brains to figure out which parts of the Bible are literally true and which are not. Because God told him to. Repetition is common enough in literature, isn't it? I remember an English teacher telling us to say everything three times: once to introduce the subject, once to talk about the subject and once to remind your readers what you just told them.It's for the reader's benefit, not necessarily Noah's. Well, no, it couldn't - for reasons I've already touched on: the boat wouldn't float, the animals wouldn't fit, there isn't that much water in the world.... When the literal interpretation is ludicrous, we have to search for a better one. What does the literal truth of the story have to do with the moral? Lots of fictional stories have a moral that you can trust. Ever read The Grapes of Wrath?Jesus told lots of parables that were not literally true. Do you not trust their morals? Fiction can have clear, precise language. I'm going with real reality - reality that can be measured and tested. Who said I was using the Bible as my source? In this science forum, the Bible is not a valid source on its own. It has to be tested against the real world. Don't get out much, eh? Once you get your ark prototype built, try floating it down the Mississippi without permission. See how far you get. That isn't true at all. Science doesn't have to "understand" a myth before it can look at the real world - it just looks at the real world. If the myths don't add up, they don't add up. I don't have any "theory" about the flood. The story is clearly fiction, the descriptions undoubtedly based on local floods. I have tossed out a few ideas of how the story might have developed - that's all.Once again, this is a science forum and you'll have to do a lot better at providing "evidence" that the flood really happened. If you want to discuss local versus worldwide floods, etc. from a strictly Biblical standpoint, you'll have to go to the Bible Study or Faith and Belief Forum.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I couldnt go online for a while so sorry if Im bringing up some old stuff. The bible didnt give any reason to make us think that the reference to Peleg was mentioned because it explains why he was named so. He can be a very important calendar patriarch. He didnt change anything, at least nothing contradicts that explanation I just did on message 116. If there is please tell me, because I would like to be corrected. And if you go to the link and read further, he explains some more about this and why he thinks there is such and such gap between Eber and Peleg and other calendar patriarchs. Hey thanks.
And yes, if you only read one part of something you will not get the meaning. He'll explain later, chapter 2 didnt really go into much detail about anything. That's why I (a biblical creationist) am trying to study evolution also so I know both sides of the coin.
(If you can give me some good book titles on evlolution, it will interest me. And has evolution theories changes alot since 1992? Because I have a pretty old Brittanica Encypda from 1992, where I study evolution) The whole Bible is God's word. Not Daniel's book. And like I said, we shouldn't look at the Bible too literally. He meant the hidden things in the [whole] Bible. If you read the Bible somewhat, you will see: The entire earth was covered, the whole human pop. was destroyed(besides Noah and his family of coarse). Besides, if he just took a trip out of town, he would have been disobeying God and he himself would have been killed. So if evolution were true and the Bible wrong, the world would be overpopulated by now since it took billions of years to evolve us and all the modern animals. Or we would not exsist since, like you said, it would be impossible to reproduce species from a breeding pop of 2. Wasn't there just one cell that survived after the big bang? Seems as if it populated the whole earth.
And possibly you're right for some animals, and they died out, as for many animals today become extinct. Possibly they even died aboard. The Bible didnt say if they all came out alive. But we may see evidence in them. That as you know would be impossible to do without God's help. Remember, God was involved in all this. It was not all Noah.This would also cost alot of money. The ark would have been part of the wonders of the world if it ever was discovered.
According to my calculations:
About 33,750 sq feet for the ark's floor.
About 101,250 sq feet for all levels combined.
About 112 1/2 football fields for just 1 level.
About 337 1/2 football fields for all three levels!Thats huge and would cost lots of money to make. This is also enough to hold all the animals.
And even though it was in 4990 B.C. it took him a long time to build this ark. And would be impossible without God's help. (For ex: God gave Samson "impossible" strength. But it was not all Samson's strength.) I think you're too busy attacking him you're not making any sense. Please re-read and think. It's true that Christ said (i forgot where in the bible), everything He speaks is a parable. (the whole Bible is spiritually speaking a parable) But the historical facts are true (which includes Noah's flood). Perhaps finding aquatic animals on the top of mountains? Scientist did!Edited by Crue Knight, : Adding.Edited by Crue Knight, : Correction,.

---

Read "Time Has an End" by, H. Camping for great evdence that the Bible is true and the word of God. You can read it online at Time Has An End

That was the best point in your post, in my opinion. It really bafles me that anybody would even waste any time/effort trying to make up a literal interpretation of anything in genesis, when all they have to do is to realise that the genesis is nothing more then a collection of fables (there are even talking snakes!!) used as leverage to teach kidds about morals.

Do teachers still tell you to show your work? I'm having difficulty seeing how you get from 33,750 sq feet for each level to 112 1/2 football fields for each level. According to my calculations, it would be less than one football field.Not a very auspicious start at making the ark "add up". You can argue that with mjfloresta. He said, in Message 129:

quote:

---

So the Koreans have already done the work you want creationists to do....with what results? Near Optimal porportions and a scale feasible in waves up to 30m....

---

I'd suggest: take a dollar from every creationist video sold and just build a wooden structure that size. Load up the animals and have eight people tend them for a year. I'd be pretty impressed if even that wasn't a total disaster. This is a science forum. That kind of statement carries no weight here. Do you not see the contradiction there? We can observe the mountains rising today. That explains the fossils on mountaintops far better than an impossible flood.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

Perhaps finding aquatic animals on the top of mountains? Scientist did!

---

Please pick up a basic text on the geosciences, review the chapter on plate tectonics and review the chapter on the age of the Earth. Of course there are fossils on mountaintops, the mountaintops used to be seabeds. Right now I'm 2500 feet up standing on limestone all around that is full of 250my fossils, it's called the Permian Basin.Please consider both sides of the story before making an arbitrarily final decision, and please remember that Christianity and science are not opposites.

quote:

---

And like I said, we shouldn't look at the Bible too literally.

---

That's a belief most Christians share. Keep that idea in mind and you will learn more about both science and Christianity than anyone who claims they are mutually exclusive.

Geology is not a strong suit of mine so I'm not going into details. You did indicate you were interested in understanding the opposing arguments. Scientist did discover marine fossil high in mountains. It gets more complicted and interesting than that. But have you checked out the scientist's explanation for those finds? The mountains were at one point sea bed that was then pushed up by the movements of the earths plates.Geology is only one of the sciences that deals with issues raised by the flood stories but it is an important consideration.After a brief google I came up with this site but there are a lot more and some may be better suited to your interests.
http://www.mountainnature.com/geology/platetectonics.htmlfen