Fresh Problem with the Ark

It says that anything in the earth shall die, kjv genesis 6:17 granted all flesh would be destroyed, but it didn't say they would all die, unless they were in the earth, like what if they were in the waters, otters, seals, walrus, penquins, platapus, guess they would of been exempt, etc...P.S. What I'm trying to say, water creatures were not creatures in the earth, meaning some but not all would of been destroyed, ants would of been creatures in the earth, creeping creatures, a pig would of been a beast of the earth, ground wasps would of been creatures in the earth, bats, and birds would of been fowl of the earth, just see like how all the creatures were destroyed but not all perished, unless they were in the earth, and the creatures that survived on the ark all perished in the earth, the reason they gained passage on the ark, etc...[This message has been edited by whatever, 03-29-2004]

What- I don’t think you do, but keep trying. Care to show some evidence for the history of Everest? Are we talking 4000 years ago or 4 billion? Do you know how far back the history of the area goes for the people that live there (Tibetans and Nepalese)?Still haven't done that tally of all the days I see. You have a day of a month mentioned in one verse, that should be enough to tell you the start day and the end day on a calander. (don't forget to use a jewish one). So we have a whole zoo full of creatures that could survive the flood because they could swim, however badly, but the "birds of the air" are all killed or contained in the ark (in sevens?) ... and yet there are several types of seabirds that only come to land once a year to breed. All members of the Procellariiformes order for example -- albatrosses, shearwaters and petrels. Especially the 'Storm' Petrel -- thought by ancient mariners to bring storms (any idea why?). Only 190 days (150 plus the big 40) would be a cakewalk for such birds ... can you explain why anything from snake to muskrat to I don't know what next (and none of which can drink salt water for 190 days and live) can stay outside the ark and be spared but that these birds which are specifically adapted to live year-round on the ocean and easily survive such conditions can't and must be contained or perish? Let's see the dance of illogical thinking on this one ... oh the joys of cheap entertainment.Back to topic: Basalt is one of the tougher rocks on earth, so breaking this up would also reduce most everything else to the same powder form. Thus everything in the path of these jets would be so reduced and set into suspension in the waters, including many toxic substances, radioactive uranium and the like being particularly soluble ... Congratulations you have now poisoned the water supply, if you can call such a muddy mess water. Sorry, but you should check your facts. The flocculation particles (flocs) do not settle out without additional chemicals (coagulants) added to the system ... however you only have one {method \time period} of introducing chemicals, so you either get flocculating agents or coagulating agents but not both (flocculation doesn’t occur), and not one after the other. This is in spite of the currents you have previously induced to mix the particles, which would prevent settling anyway.What you have is a messy toxic mess. The more you stir it up, the worse it gets. Probably better than you given your understanding of everything else discussed. A total fantasy, here you have the water mixing up all the sediments with it above (and dissolving salts into it in the process) but not mixing with other water even though you cannot keep them separate in one container if you try. If the rain is from fountains of water shooting into the sky rather than from natural condensation process, then the water can contain any amount of dissolved minerals and salts. As already pointed out the size of the water tanks to provide fresh water to all the animals would be enormous (even without your skilled snakes and the like) AND it would have spoiled in the 150+ days after the rain.Believe what you want, but call it fantasy and be done with it. It seems to me that the hodge-podge manner of preserving some animals that don't need it while allowing others to fend for themselves when they in fact can't means that the perpetuator is either incompetent or incompetent.whatever to Asgara: and that is about where the agreement ends because the rates of movement are too slow to create the present world from a sphere with anything close to normal natural processes. And then there is the weathering of Everest and other mountains around the world that must now have occurred after the flood, but which also must have taken much longer than a YEC age can account for (or do you use an old earth model?).whatever to Coragyps: Then people are aquatic animals then for they swim better than rattlesnakes.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

The solution to pollution is dilution, so whatever toxic gases would of dissolved into the atmosphere, the sediments were likely like grains of sand, ash, the waters of the flood it wasn't like a moving stream of water, it was more like a large settling basin, even ash would of settled out, though I've heard the Hunza people drink muddy water flows from the Hunza glacier, and were quite healthy, it was called Hunza water, like why is this water muddy, full of minerals, perhaps its the very waters of the flood frozen in time, to what the waters over the continents were at the time of the flood, they have the longest lifespan on the planet, yet they drink muddied mineral water, etc...P.S. At least were in agreement over the oceans the salinity, the pre-existent flood oceans salinity would of mixed with the rain water preserving the salt water ocean fisheries, the solution to pollution is dilution, etc...The Hunza people are drinking the very mineral waters of the biblical flood, you have fossils that were found quick frozen in the flesh in the glaciers of the mountains of South America, so while all the different kinds of flesh was destroyed, however it says all died that moved upon the earth, that makes it open that not all died that moved upon the waters, etc...

I didn't say toxic gases, I said compound soluble in water. Keep grabbing those straws, they may keep you afloat for a while longer, but they are not building you a raft of argumentI do a google on {oldest person} and I do not see Hunza people listed ... nor is their long life attributed to consuming mud.Water from under a glacier is ice melt mixed with spring water and does not dissolve basalt, even after it has been ground to silt by the glacier ... and how that relates to flood water is a mystery to me ... do we now have the glaciers existing before the flood or do they come after? How do you reconcile the age of glaciers with the supposed flood event?Bodies found quick-frozen are not fossils, whether in S. America or Siberia (mammoths for instance) or Europe (the "ice man") and are only examples of animals, beings that froze rather than succumbed to flood drowning.At least we are in agreement that the flocculation mechanism was totally flawed in concept and that the flood would have totally mixed the salt water with the fresh water and all the stirred up sediments and jet-eroded minerals into a soupy toxic mess.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

Doesn't the Bible say that God put a rainbow in the sky after Noah came out of the ark? And don't rainbows typically only form where there is rain or water vapor in the air? If so, that seems to indicate that it was raining when Noah came out of the ark, and so why wouldn't it have been raining the whole time he was on the ark? The initial deluge may have lasted for 40 days but certainly you can't expect that suddenly it then completely stopped raining and not a single drop fell for the rest of the voyage. Unless, of course you believe in a God and that he miraculously stopped all rain on the earth during that time. If the flood story is true, then scientifcally speaking, you would expect a lot of the flood waters to evaporate into the atmosphere and return to earth as rain during this period. Disbelieve the flood story all you want, but your arguement that there would have been a lack of fresh water just doesn't seem to hold any water.

You need both rain and sunlight to get rainbows. I'd imagine that the clouds pretty much covered the 40 days.

---

The Laminator

​

at the end of the 40 days the rains ceased.a the rain you could get while the sun was out for the rainbow would hardly be sufficient for all the water needs of all the inhabitants.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

You need both rain and sunlight to get rainbows. I'd imagine that the clouds pretty much covered the 40 days.

---

Yes, you do need both sunlight and rain to get a rainbow. And yes, clouds must have pretty much covered the earth for 40 days. But that wasn't my point. My point was that after the 40 days it must have still been raining or else the lack of rain in and of itself would have been a miracle. If it rained AFTER the 40 days, then there was a supply of fresh water for Noah and the occupants of the ark. The rainbow described in the Bible didn't happen until after Noah came out of the ark.

You frequently see the literalist/YEC claim that it never rained at all before the Big Wet. And in any case, you must stack "miracles" up to the ceiling to explain the Flood anyway, so what's one more?

---

El sueo de la razn produce monstruos. - Francisco Goya

quote:

---

at the end of the 40 days the rains ceased.

---

Yes, they ceased. But after that it has rained. That certainly doesn't mean it never rained anymore after that or it would be a total lie. I think what the Bible is saying is that it rained continous for 40 days, and then the continous rain stopped and perhaps the sun came out. But obviously rain showers still occured after that. So if after the 40 days, there was a daily rain shower, followed by seveal hours of sunshine, then there was ample opportunity to collect fresh rain water for drinking.

quote:

---

a the rain you could get while the sun was out for the rainbow would hardly be sufficient for all the water needs of all the inhabitants.

---

I guess I must have been misunderstood. First, the rainbow happened AFTER Noah came out of the ark. I thought you were referring to the fresh water supply while they were ON the ark. But in either case, the significance of my mentioning the rainbow was only to show that the Bible seems to indicate that it was raining at that time. So there was rain after the initial 40 days. It probably rained a lot on that day of the rainbow. It may have rained for hours and then a few minutes of a rainbow. The rain happening while the rainbow is in the sky has no significance. The only thing of significance, with relation to your argument, is whether or not there was significant enough rainfall after the 40 days to sustain a fresh water supply for the inhabitants. I say there had to be unless God somehow created another miracle and ended all rainfall of any sort at that time.

quote:

---

You frequently see the literalist/YEC claim that it never rained at all before the Big Wet.

---

Yes, they do say that frequently, but what does that have to do with anything? We are discussing water supply and rain after the event, not before it.

quote:

---

And in any case, you must stack "miracles" up to the ceiling to explain the Flood anyway, so what's one more?

---

I wasn't trying to prove or disprove any of the other points of the flood. Only the point that there wasn't a supply of fresh water. Obviously if God created a miracle in making the flood, He could have created as many more during the flood as he wanted to. But both scientists and creationists try to explain everything in scientific terms, of which this argument that there wasn't enough fresh water was an attempt to disprove the flood story by means of lack of a scientific explanation. I was merely pointing out that there was no miracle needed to explain fresh water.

from the KJV on-line I see nothing about intermittent rain during the 150 days after the rain was restrained (and not partially restrained).It rained. the rain stopped. the water abated. dry land appeared.no water supply.even if it was it would need to be a lot to supply the needs of the ark inhabitants ... what is the water bill at the San Deigo Zoo?you can get a rainbow from rain in the atmosphere that doesn't make it to the ground.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

The only thing of significance, with relation to your argument, is whether or not there was significant enough rainfall after the 40 days to sustain a fresh water supply for the inhabitants. I say there had to be unless God somehow created another miracle and ended all rainfall of any sort at that time.

---

And I think this is the point. We are talking about at least 10,000 animals, realistically 10 times that. That's a lot of water. It strains my credulity that it rained enough after the initial 40 days to water that many animals. And then you also need water to get rid of the massive amounts of animal waste. We are probably talking 2 feet of rain per day (.6 meters for our non-americans) just to supply drinking water collected from catch basins on top of the ark.PS. didn't read the rest of the thread, so I am sorry if I repeated anything.

quote:

---

And I think this is the point. We are talking about at least 10,000 animals, realistically 10 times that. That's a lot of water. It strains my credulity that it rained enough after the initial 40 days to water that many animals.

---

Most animals in the wild are very well adapted to drinking water that is of a lesser standard than what humans need to remain healthy. In some parts of the world, the rains only come once a year and yet the animals survive just fine drinking water that has been stagnant for a long time. Thus most of the animals would not have a problem drinking water that was collected and stored for a long period of time. Humans likely would have a problem with that water, but there would likely have been ample rain to supply their needs and a few animals that may have had similar needs for fresh water.

quote:

---

And then you also need water to get rid of the massive amounts of animal waste.

---

What is wrong with ocean water for doing that? Why the need for fresh water to wash away the waste?

quote:

---

I see nothing about intermittent rain during the 150 days after the rain was restrained (and not partially restrained).

​

It rained. the rain stopped. the water abated. dry land appeared.

​

no water supply.

---

Well, we will just have to disagree then on this point. Where I am located, it rained just the other day. I have seen many days of rain in my life, as have everyone I've ever spoken to. In other words, it has rained many times since the flood. When the Bible says the rains stopped, they did just that. They stopped. It does not say they stopped permanently, or how long they stopped. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that it abssolutely didn't rain anymore during the remainder of their time on the ark. Because the waters started to abate, there had to be less rain than previous, but there almost certainly was still rain.