Summations Only

Hi Maryanne, welcome to EvC. That's not what this sounds like to me:

quote:

---

Gen 6:
5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have createdand with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the groundfor I regret that I have made them.

---

quote:

---

Gen 6:
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. 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.

---

Whadaya think? But where does the literal-ness start and stop? If you can turn the flood into a non-global one, then why not just read the whole thing as not literally happening, like, as if it was a parable or something?

I think that if someone thinks that animals are too complicated to have evolved, and thus godly magic was necessary, then all that stuff with the flood and animals on the ark is too complicated too and also needed to have godly magic. So, there's no reason to look for "logical" explanations.

No, I'm saying the exact opposite: There's no reason to speculate how Noah could have done it when God was involved and he could have just employed his superpowers.How familiar are you with the story? Do you know how Noah got the animals onto the ark?

quote:

---

Gen 6:20 (NIV)
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.

---

The animals came to Noah all by themselves, there's no reason to think that God was not involved in "pushing" them there.And when we get to "releasing" the animals:

quote:

---

Gen 8:20 (NIV)
All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birdseverything that moves on landcame out of the ark, one kind after another.

---

Again, the animals just walked off the ark on their own one after another. Noah didn't have to "do" anything. And there's no reason to think that God was not involved in controlling them at this point either. Why not invoke magic? Especially when the stories imply it?

Like the psychologist said to he man wearing nothing but saran wrap:"I can clearly see you're nuts."

But you could: that's why you question just how did Noah go about releasing all those animals without encountering all the problems we'd expect to happen. What we have enough information to say about, is that the entire event never actually happened.

You're just making up nonsense. "Oh, the carnivores could've just ate stranded fish". That's so simplistic its silly."Canivores" are not a homogeneous group that can all live on the same diet. There's different categories within that group, piscivores are just one of them. Bears can't eat just fish, and I don't even think a coyote or a shrew or a weasel or a skunk would touch the stuff. Herding animals and migratory animals could survive the initial exiting, but there's no way to sustain a big enough populations for the species to survive as a whole.Hell, even just regular animals need more than two individuals to build and sustain a worldwide population. That is utterly ridiculous and you should stop saying that immediately. Even if radiometric dating was totally wrong, placing Noah's Flood at the P-T boundary would be completely laughable. Only the most naive and uneducated approach could lead you there. The ony reason you pick it is because its a well know global catastrophe. You're really grasping at straws to connect it to the Flood. We know that the entire planet has never been covered in water since humans have existed. There would be evidence of a recent genetic bottleneck in every species alive today. The evidence would be so overwhelming that it would be impossible to deny.The fact that you really have to dig to find anything that can even remotely be tied to the story proves that the events in the story never happened.And that doesn't even get into the fact that the story, itself, was just a rip-off of the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I can't find enough meaningful conjecture to even begin to try to communicate with you about the topics you speak of.

What do you mean? I don't know what you mean by releasing them "off a boat" nor "into the wilds". That could be describing all kinds of situations.If you talking about something like the situation in Noah's Flood, I've already explained some of the problems and you have yet to address those. Herding animals and migratory animals could survive the initial exiting, but there's no way to sustain a big enough populations for the species to survive as a whole.

What? Fuck you, man. Don't be a dick.

On the basis that they live in huge groups and need those huge groups in order for the species to survive.Do you know anything at all about animals? Only a child could be offering the questioning you do. I just can't take you seriously. I mean, look at this: WTF? When seeds are in water, they grow. Unless its salt water, then it can kill them if it's salty enough. Different seeds are going to have different salinity tolerances.Here, here's a little science project for you that you can do at home:Science Project: How Does Salt Affect Seed Germination? - OwlcationIts even geared down to your education level.ABE:I mean, seriously, if you actually cared to learn about this stuff, you could. Why do they creationist always take the route of prove me wrong or I'm right? This stuff you're questioning about could easily be learned if you actually tried to learn it.But no, my book says this and it can't be wrong. Oh? It is wrong? No, prove me wrong or I'm right Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

And you accuse us of not reading the Bible!You might want to look at Leviticus 11.

Well, "some" did survive

Hey! That's not what I said. Have you really resorted to quote-mining!?In Message 166, I wrote:

quote:

---

We know that the entire planet has never been covered in water since humans have existed.

---

So, did you change what I wrote on purpose or are you really that obtuse?.The whole bit about a human settlement under some basalt is a ridiculous fantasy. If The Flood occured, there'd have been dead bodies everywhere. If it happened at the P-T boudary (regardless of any dating method or timeframe), there would be human remains in those layers. There would also be all of the modern animals found in those layers. But there ain't. There's only primitive creatures found during that time.And everyone knows that most of the surface of the planet was covered in water during the time of Pangea. And you're whole transgression argument is dumb. The fact that they're talking about a transgression means that they're talking about where the water meets the land. That means there has to be land that is not covered in water. That means its not a universal flood.If The Flood really happened as described in the Bible, then the evidence would be so overwhelming it would be undeniable.The only reason that you grasp at such straws and make up so much stuff, is because you cannot accept that the Bible got some stuff wrong, isn't it?

No, really, did you change my quote on purpose or was it really an accident?

No, it doesn't. Look at the word: trans-... -gress. A "gress" is a step. progress is a step forward, digress is a step backwards. Transgress is a step across. As a geological phenomenon it is when waterline/sediments move across the surface. Here's an image: See how the shoreline moves across to the right?Also, you could've just looked at wiki:

quote:

---

A marine transgression is a geologic event during which sea level rises relative to the land and the shoreline moves toward higher ground, resulting in flooding.

---

Sure, there's flooding, but the water event is relative to the land.That means that if there was a transgression at the P-T boundary, then there also had to be land there that was not flooded. Ergo, your "mountains that weren't underwater" must surely have existed. So, it wasn't a global flood. QED.Otherwise it wouldn't have been a transgression.