Summations Only

When we were teenagers, my brother and I used to pull that one on our more-fundy cousins. Of course there had to be whales on the ark because of salinity issues, turbidity issues, etc. Hardly anything that normally lives in water could have survived the flood if it wasn't in the ark.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

That's what bothers me about the idea of dinosaurs on the ark. Why go to all the trouble of saving them if they're just going to become extinct right away anyway. It seems that the ark was as big a failure at animal preservation as it was at sin eradication.

You're setting the bar mighty low. I suppose if one human couple survived that would be a success too? I agree that God's solution to the sin problem was more of a problem than a solution.It's a nice story for kids but it doesn't bear much (any) scrutiny.

Nobody discounts the possibility before the evidence is in. The Troy legend was possible and turned out to be true. A lot of other legends are possible but have not been confirmed or have actually been refuted. While the spread of civilization may be depicted with some accuracy in the Bible, the spread of animal life ceretainly is not. For example, where is the evidence of marsupials wandering from Ararat to Australia?

The evidence is in: the Flood didn't happen. Other proven facts in the Bible have no bearing on the disproof of the Flood.

Just FYI, "living off the land" doesn't mean literally living off the land. Not many species can eat dirt. It means living off things that live on the land - and immediately after the flood there weren't any. If there were two cats and two mice, the mice would be extinct by suppertime.Edited by ringo, : Splling.

Why would there be 2 cats and 14 mice? It's either 2 and 2 or 14 and 14.It's true that there would be a disproportionate number of "clean" animals but clean species are a small minority. Going 2 by 2 would also mean a disproportionate ratio of predators to prey. Cows don't eat fish. On the contrary, there are no realistic scenarios. Have you really thought any of your "possibilities" through?

You have that backwards. You would have to show that it can.It's a simple enough experiment: Put a variety of plants into terrariums, cover them with water of varying salinity for varying lengths of time, then drain the terrariums and observe the results.Has that experiment been done by creationists? No? I wonder why.

Unless you're suggesting that God's idea of cleanliness suddenly changed after that flood, the Bible is pretty explicit: animals with cloven hooves that chew their cud are clean, all others are not. Because it takes a period of time for organisms to mature and reproduce it is a biological necessity that there be more prey organisms than predator organisms; there have to be some prey organisms left over to continue the species. To put it more bluntly, there have to be more prey organisms than the predators can eat.

Those assertions are backed up by every observation in biology. Animals can not simply pick and choose what they eat. The whole planet can't survive on dead fish.If you're claiming that what we have observed (so far) is wrong then do the experiments to show that it's wrong. Show us how cows can live on dead fish. Many seeds survived? I asked for plants, not seeds. Many plant-eating animals can't eat seeds. Do you understand the difference between digesting seeds and digesting green plants? I asked you for experiments and you say "could have been". Where are the experiments?

That would explain why the ark was so big - not near big enough to preserve every species but far bigger than was necessary to preserve Noah and his livestock. It was all a crapshhoot; most would die but a few would survive.I bet most creationists would be horrified by that scenario.Most of God's creation was just wasted. Why would He even bother to create so many species that He was just going to destroy? So Adam could have fun naming them? Maybe He was weeding out the mistakes? (Just like evolution does?)

Using nature against specific targets is a miracle. If a guy gets hit by lightning that's just nature; it can happen to anybody. But if he gets hit by lightning right after saying, "May God strike me dead..." that's a miracle.So, if the flood was a miracle it was a really bad idea because of all the collateral damage. Individual targeted lightning bolts would have been better.

When Richard Nixon was re-elected in 1972, defeating George McGovern, one observer quipped that America prefered a smart crook over an honest fool. So if somebody claims to be an honest fool instead of a smart crook, I tend to take him at his word - but it really is hard to tell whether you're a liar or a fool.You keep equivocating "widespread flooding" with "worldwide flood". Do you really not understand the difference?When you see leaves on your lawn and on everybody else's lawn, do you conclude that trees are widespread or that they all came from a worldwide tree?Edited by ringo, : Spolling.

You will save a lot of time and argument by saying "widespread" when you mean widespread."Worldwide", in the context of the Biblical flood, automatically implies that all of the land is covered by water. If you're saying, instead, that there was flooding here and flooding there all over the world at the same time, you'll get no argument. We have that today.But you're throwing the notion that the Biblical flood was real right out the window.

We're talking about the equivocation of "worldwide" and "widespread". If you mean one when you say the other you're either ignorant of the distinction or trying to deceive. If there's another option, feel free to enlighten all of us.Science is based on precision as well as "facts". If you want to talk science, learn to be precise with your words. Yes, the facts are overwhelming. Very few creationists even try to argue against them any more. It's just the liars preaching to the fools.