And in the case of humans, Noah's small clan would have had to play host to plague, smallpox, tuberculosis, polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, diphtheria, scarlet fever, etc. And all types of genetic defects, too.
Though not all diseases that afflict humans are human specific. For example, armadillos can get leprosy.
1> The Genesis record did not cite the landing site high on Mt Ararat. It cited it in the mountains of Ararat, which includes the foothills which would be more suitable for exiting the hoofed animals etc from the ark.
The text says that "the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat", and that "in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen."
Which can only mean that the Ark grounded on the mountains of Ararat while they were still submerged. The draft of the Ark can't have been more than 30 cubits (that being its height) so it can't have grounded more than 30 cubits below the highest point of the mountains.
It certainly couldn't have run aground on the foothills while the tops of the mountains were still underwater.
Hi, I believe the best I can do is a speculative answer due to the fact that I haven't yet had a chance to dig up Mt Ararat yet for fossils.
Well, there are people and Bronze Age artifacts buried under the pyroclastic flows, is that any help to you?
But I don't quite see the relevance of the fossils on Mount Ararat, can you explain how this would help?
Maybe Noah released them in a logical order, allowing the predators to eat carcasses from the receding sea.
It's remarkable how little people know about the dietary needs of animals. (This is not particularly a crack at you, it seems to be generally true.) They seem to think that whatever is unfit for human consumption must be good enough for animals. Have you ever read any of Gerald Durrell's excellent books? Tradesmen kept turning up at his zoo with what they considered bountiful offers of spoiled meat and mildewed fruit, and got quite indignant when he pointed out that this would kill all his animals, they'd all die of dysentery. Very very few carnivorous species would be able to survive a diet of meat that had had over a year to go bad. So you might want to rethink that.
Amphibians would have battled to regain their dominance in the dry silted up deserts, those able to adapt to salt water (crocodiles) ...
Crocodiles may be amphibious, but they are not amphibians.
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.
Oh, it worked great at sin eradication. That's why nowadays no-one commits presnupation or hentery.
If we're not going to take it seriously, then we have a humor thread. Otherwise, isn't the whole point of this site to discuss these questions seriously? If you yourself don't think it should be taken seriously, then let's hear your frivolous take on the Word Of God.
Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
So you are admitting to widespread flooding? My goal has been achieved. Can you disprove it covered the Permian highlands? Up until now I have been regularly told that the flood has been disproven. Can you disprove it now that I've pinpointed a time when there was widepsread flooding?
Well, yes. The evidence for transgressions involves finding the high water mark (as in the construction of the Hallam curve) and so finding out how far the transgressions transgressed.
Now I have proved vast flooding in various places around the world at the P-T boundary, can anyone back up their statements and provide ANY evidence that the water did not cover the highest peaks then?
Well, yes. We know how far inland the water got, that's how transgressions are measured. I told you. If you're going to cite a paper by Anthony Hallam, of all people, then it behooves you not to completely ignore his methods.
Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I haven't seem anything vaguely convincing yet. I have been shown a graph which reflects a regression not a transgression at the PT boundary. My earlier posts already refuted that.
Well, no. The first-order curve at the PT boundary is particularly low. That still stands. What may have happened at the PT boundary is a second-order fluctuation. Certainly you have provided no evidence for a flood at the PT boundary that covered the whole of the land, and you can't, because geologists know that that didn't happen.
And if you're going to cite Anthony Hallam as an authority, then you should go the whole hog. According to Hallam, the landmasses were never completely inundated, and we can find the high stand. Instead, you're picking and choosing --- Hallam says that there was a transgression at the PT boundary, yay! His methods tell us exactly how far the transgression transgressed, let's ignore that 'cos it's no use to creationists. This is doublethink. Either Hallam's methods are right, or they are wrong. If they're right, then there was no time at which the whole Earth was flooded. If they're wrong, then we have no reason to believe that there was a transgression associated with the PT boundary.
Signs of widespread confirmed flooding in every continent at the same time is more than a "shred" of evidence.
Yes, but again you're trying to have your cake and eat it.
Based on sedimentary evidence, and on their methods of interpreting the data, geologists say that there were transgressions in the past. The same geologists, based on exactly the same evidence and using the same methods, say that there was no universal flood.
If their methods are no good, then we don't even have a reason to believe in the transgressions. But if their methods are good, then we should think that there was never a worldwide flood.
Let me present an analogy. Suppose you wanted to argue for the existence of purple unicorns. Now suppose I was to take my Bible oath that I'd seen a green unicorn. How could you take my testimony as evidence? You'd have to say at the same time that I was smart enough to know a unicorn when I see one, and also that I'm such an unreliable observer that I can't tell the difference between green and purple.
You're putting yourself in a similar situation. You are in effect saying that we should believe geologists when they say that there was a transgression (after all, they're the experts) but we should ignore them when they say it didn't flood the whole Earth (because they're idiots and atheists).
Well, I think you should choose what you're going to do with your cake. If geologists are idiots, then we have no evidence for a transgression. If they're smart, then we know that Noah's Flood didn't happen.