The Ark

[PostmodernProphet]

So after the ark settled in Turkey how did the kangaroo, platypus and salt water crocks get to Australia? How did the penguins get to Antarctica?

If there is no such thing as evolution how does a wolf become a dog?

There is not enough water on the earth to completely flood the world, even if you melt all the ice caps. There is nothing inaccurate about carbon dating except that it doesn't jib with fundamentalist doctrine, so it must be attacked.

The writings of a primitive ignorant people from over 2000 years ago, that was passed down orally for thousands of years before that is taken as truth, while the science of geology, geography and archeology are blown off as inaccurate by so called modern people just amazes me. The first clue is, the world is NOT flat. The moon orbits the earth. The earth orbits the sun. It's part of a solar system. The stars are so far away that the light we see from them took millions and billions of our years to reach us. Primitive societies, such as the writers of the bible didn't understand this. It seems even today certain people don't understand this.

My argument is not whether there is a creator or not. It's that there is physical fact that science can show and prove. And one of those facts is that dinosaurs were long dead before man ever came along. Noah's ark is a myth based on a single occurrence in a small area of the planet. Nothing more than that.

what puzzles me is, since you are apparently smart enough to realize that Noah didn't need to bring both wolves and dogs in the ark, you still think he had to bring dinosaurs......

now, recognizing that not only the Hebrews, but virtually every other civilization that has ever existed on earth has an oral history of a universal flood, is it within the realm of your perception that everyone who exists today stems from an ancestor that survived a flood?.....and that just maybe his name was Noah in Hebrew?......after all....if you and your family are the world's only survivors of a flood in the Middle East, does it really matter to you that the Himalyas stayed dry?......I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel the other night and this expert on genetics was saying everyone in the world is genetically derived from a single male on the continent of Africa within the last 50,000 years.....maybe his name was Noah, too........

perhaps the reason humanity migrated from Africa to Europe and Asia was the need for food after all the animals in the area died in a flood.....after all, how long could seven people survive on the offspring of the animals on the ark?......

[Gaffer]

what puzzles me is, since you are apparently smart enough to realize that Noah didn't need to bring both wolves and dogs in the ark, you still think he had to bring dinosaurs......

now, recognizing that not only the Hebrews, but virtually every other civilization that has ever existed on earth has an oral history of a universal flood, is it within the realm of your perception that everyone who exists today stems from an ancestor that survived a flood?.....and that just maybe his name was Noah in Hebrew?......after all....if you and your family are the world's only survivors of a flood in the Middle East, does it really matter to you that the Himalyas stayed dry?......I was watching a show on the Discovery Channel the other night and this expert on genetics was saying everyone in the world is genetically derived from a single male on the continent of Africa within the last 50,000 years.....maybe his name was Noah, too........

perhaps the reason humanity migrated from Africa to Europe and Asia was the need for food after all the animals in the area died in a flood.....after all, how long could seven people survive on the offspring of the animals on the ark?......

Your first sentences makes no sense to me. Where did I say he brought dinosaurs on the ark?

Many cultures have flood stories. Therefore there may be some basis for a flood somewhere. It could be tied into the Atlantis myths. Myths and stories spring up throughout history because of ignorant people trying to explain something beyond their understanding. Even today we try to explain things that we really don't comprehend. That's why the term theory is used until things are proven as fact.

[crin63]

So much evolution in such a short time?

Also I often hear the arguement that the atmosphere was different before the flood, and so people lived longer, why?

Its adaptation to environment. It doesn't take many generations for animals and people to adapt.

The atmosphere had a mist/cloud cover which kept out uv rays and held in oxygen. It was a much more oxygen rich environment.

[Gaffer]

Its adaptation to environment. It doesn't take many generations for animals and people to adapt.

The atmosphere had a mist/cloud cover which kept out uv rays and held in oxygen. It was a much more oxygen rich environment.

And this is proven how?

[Noir]

Its adaptation to environment. It doesn't take many generations for animals and people to adapt.

The atmosphere had a mist/cloud cover which kept out uv rays and held in oxygen. It was a much more oxygen rich environment.

Indeed they may well adapt to the enviroment, but the thing is they would have all been in the same environent, as they would have all got of the ark. Let's take dogs for example, how did a dog that got of the ark in the area around Egypt, get to Canada to become a snow wolf? And how did ants get all over the world in only 6000 years? (you could go throgb a list of endless animals that can I only travel by land and wonder how they got were they are, and adapted, in 6000) years.

As for this atmosphere thing, it all seems very odd, so the amosphere was really clogged with water vapour, and had been since the days of the garden of Eden, this protected folk from UV light. Then god made it all rain down, lessening the % of water in the atmosphere, and then instead of putting it back he just made it disapear? Am I right?

[PostmodernProphet]

Myths and stories spring up throughout history because of ignorant people trying to explain something beyond their understanding.

then it should be obvious that the flood was something experienced, that needed explaining....so much for rejecting the idea of the Flood.....

Let's take dogs for example, how did a dog that got of the ark in the area around Egypt, get to Canada to become a snow wolf?

???....you are looking at it backwards.....the canine that got off the ark was the ancestor of both the dog in Egypt and the wolf in Canada.....it didn't first become a dog in Egypt and then become a wolf in Canada....

And how did ants get all over the world in only 6000 years? (you could go throgb a list of endless animals that can I only travel by land and wonder how they got were they are, and adapted, in 6000) years.

why 6000 years?....that isn't scriptural, it comes from the imagination of a mathmatician in the 1800s.....but in any event, it didn't take a thousand years to breed both St Bernards and Shitzus from the wild dogs of Egypt, so why are you complaining about 6000?......

[Noir]

???....you are looking at it backwards.....the canine that got off the ark was the ancestor of both the dog in Egypt and the wolf in Canada.....it didn't first become a dog in Egypt and then become a wolf in Canada....

Right I'll word what I said a different way.

There was an animal on the ark that would become a snow wolf that we now find in Canada.

How did this animal that got of the ark get to Canada?

Infact how did any animal that can only travel by land get to America, Canada and Mexico ect?

why 6000 years?....that isn't scriptural, it comes from the imagination of a mathmatician in the 1800s.....but in any event, it didn't take a thousand years to breed both St Bernards and Shitzus from the wild dogs of Egypt, so why are you complaining about 6000?......

I know not were 6000 years comes from, but it's the length of time that everyone seems to discus when talking about the flood.

My questions relate more the how the animals would have been able to pouplate the world, even parts that should be completly cut off from the livng animals by thousands of miles of ocean.

Also, why did plants get a free pass? Where they just invincible for the 40 days?

[Abbey Marie]

Noir, do you want me to fix the spelling of the title?

[PostmodernProphet]

Right I'll word what I said a different way.

There was an animal on the ark that would become a snow wolf that we now find in Canada.

How did this animal that got of the ark get to Canada?

Infact how did any animal that can only travel by land get to America, Canada and Mexico ect?

the same way that people got to Canada and the rest of North America.....general theory is land/ice bridge between Russia and North America....

is it your theory that the animals in North America evolved completely independently from those in Asia?.....if so, how do you account for the similarities?.....

I know not were 6000 years comes from, but it's the length of time that everyone seems to discus when talking about the flood.

no, its a number that unbelievers like to bandy about when they want to mock people who believe......it has no relationship to any teaching of Christianity, or any scriptural doctrine....it's just something atheists like to chuckle about.....

My questions relate more the how the animals would have been able to populate the world

I expect the same way they populated the world under the theory of evolution.....unless you are arguing that the canines that populate Asia are completely unrelated to the canines that populate North America....in which case I guess I have even more to chuckle about than the folks who chuckle about "6000 years"......

Also, why did plants get a free pass? Where they just invincible for the 40 days?

have you ever seen a seed sprout in the spring, after being buried under a pile of snow for six months?......

[Noir]

Righto, as I am on my phone I can't multi quote, so to try and save making many posts in a row I shall try and put them into one. And in advance I must say that at times my spelling is bad enough, but is made worse by the use of my phone, ergo sorry for the spelling mistakes that I am sure will follow in their droves.

@Abbey, please if you could, atleast it'll make sense then

@PMP
I believe that as life has evolved over millions of years, land that was once connected seperated, this lead to animals being cut of from the same type, and in their new evviroments they developed diffrently.

As fir crossing the ice bridge, did ants cross this ice bridge? What about wasps and every other land based animal in the Americas? They were all able to cross Russia and the giant ice bridge?

As for the 6000 year thing again, I have plenty of experience of christains using this date, so I don't know why they would be using it If it was detremental to their agruement, do there must be some logic to chosing 6000 years ago.

Personally I have never seen a seed spring to like after spending 6 months in the snow, however I do not doubt that it happens, and it is clear that that seed has adapted to survive in whatever condictions it lives, but this can not be said for all plants, just look at what happens to a sunflower seed after it is left in snow for 6 months, or a pineapple seed ect ect. Just becuase some plants can survive in extreme condictions, but not every land plant, infact I'm sure 99.99% of land plants would not be able to survive 40 days with no light, drowned in water, and crushed under the vast vast quantity of water, and yet Noah was not asked to take 2 types of every plant, they just, er, were fine for seemingly no reason.

Also I did not see a reply to my question as to why all the water that was kept in the atmosphere pre-flood, just disapeared.

[PostmodernProphet]

As for the 6000 year thing again, I have plenty of experience of christains using this date, so I don't know why they would be using it If it was detremental to their agruement, do there must be some logic to chosing 6000 years ago.
.

??.....quite frankly, I doubt you have much experience arguing with Christians who believe in a 6000 year old creation....unless you have argued a whole lot with one person who believes it......young-earth creationists are quite rare....perhaps 1-2% of Christians.....

Personally I have never seen a seed spring to like after spending 6 months in the snow,

gosh, I'm sure glad I don't live where you live....all grey and bleak and stoney.....you should move somewhere where plants come back after winter, it's a lot more fun......think of it this way....New Orleans was flooded....do you think every blade of grass in New Orleans is gone forever until someone comes along and replants grass?......

Also I did not see a reply to my question as to why all the water that was kept in the atmosphere pre-flood, just disapeared.

??...what water, atmosphere..../boggle, you lost me.....the assumption you make (which is unjustified in any interpretation of scripture) is that at the time of the flood there were people living everywhere in the world and you couldn't kill all of them unless you had water higher than the Himalyas.....if all the people in the world lived in your back yard you only need to flood your back yard to kill them, right?.....

[Noir]

@abbey


@PMP

Erm, I'm sorry but I have, I guess it's my fault for knowning too may folk who argue the earth is only 6000 years old, but my auntie is member of the west free presbytarians and they all think it was 6000 years ago.

As for the plants, it's not the lack of plants, but the lack of snow, we badly ever get any snow, the last time we had proper snow that lasted a few days was 1997 if I memo right, cue I had a go-kart for Christmas that year but couldn't go out on it cue of snow, but that's about the high of it.

You in no way addressed how the pants would have survived no light, being crushed for a month and a half.

You seem to now have droped the whole animals apearing in different contries after I gave a reasonable explination. And made no attempt to defend your own idea of animals making their way across thousands of miles of barron ice-land.

As for the water/atmosphere, it was argueed that there was a build up of water vapour in the atmosphere, that protected those living before the flood from UV light, and was the water that was used for the flood, but after the flood it, er, vanished?

[PostmodernProphet]

You in no way addressed how the pants would have survived no light, being crushed for a month and a half.

dude, I'll keep this simple for you.....plants die every year and they come back from seeds....even if the flood killed every plant in the world, there are enough seeds in the soil for them to start all over....

You seem to now have droped the whole animals apearing in different contries after I gave a reasonable explination. And made no attempt to defend your own idea of animals making their way across thousands of miles of barron ice-land.

lol, the point is, whether they were all created or whether they evolved, getting from one place to the other remains a problem for both....thus, it is irrelevant to the discussion.....

As for the water/atmosphere, it was argueed that there was a build up of water vapour in the atmosphere, that protected those living before the flood from UV light, and was the water that was used for the flood, but after the flood it, er, vanished?

/shrugs....since I don't agree with the theory, I don't see why I should bother to defend it....

and finally, I suspect a 6000 year old creation would be problematic, given the existence of cuniform tablets over 12,000 years old.....very few Christians are young earth creationists.....so using that to defend your argument has very limited effect......

personally, I'm a-creational (like in a-moral).....I figure if God is only going to devote two pages of the Bible to creation it wasn't that big of an issue to him.......thus it ought not be for me either.....so seven days or 7 million years it's all the same to me, 7 of one, 7/12ths of a dozen of the other.....

[-Cp]

@abbey


@PMP

Erm, I'm sorry but I have, I guess it's my fault for knowning too may folk who argue the earth is only 6000 years old, but my auntie is member of the west free presbytarians and they all think it was 6000 years ago.

As for the plants, it's not the lack of plants, but the lack of snow, we badly ever get any snow, the last time we had proper snow that lasted a few days was 1997 if I memo right, cue I had a go-kart for Christmas that year but couldn't go out on it cue of snow, but that's about the high of it.

You in no way addressed how the pants would have survived no light, being crushed for a month and a half.

You seem to now have droped the whole animals apearing in different contries after I gave a reasonable explination. And made no attempt to defend your own idea of animals making their way across thousands of miles of barron ice-land.

As for the water/atmosphere, it was argueed that there was a build up of water vapour in the atmosphere, that protected those living before the flood from UV light, and was the water that was used for the flood, but after the flood it, er, vanished?

There is a lot of evidence for a young Earth - including but not limited to:

1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this “the winding-up dilemma,” which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same “winding-up” dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called “density waves.”1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the “Whirlpool” galaxy, M51.2

2. Too few supernova remnants.
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical “Oort cloud” well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the “Kuiper Belt,” a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists’ problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.

5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

6. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
The total energy stored in the earth’s magnetic field (“dipole” and “non-dipole”) is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes. The main result is that the field’s total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.

7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.

8. Biological material decays too fast.
Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of “mitochondrial Eve” from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years. DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils. Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.

9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic “ages” to a few years.
Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. “Squashed” Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. “Orphan” Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.

10. Too much helium in minerals.
Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape. Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years. This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.

11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world’s best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon. These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began, during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

13. Agriculture is too recent.
The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.

14. History is too short.
According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.

[Missileman]

then it should be obvious that the flood was something experienced, that needed explaining....so much for rejecting the idea of the Flood.....

There is a huge difference between a flood and The Flood. Floods occur in just about every region on the planet. It's hardly evidence of a global flood. Most ancient cultures came up with myths to explain weather, fire, the origin of man, etc. The ancient Jews are no exception and their mythology is no more real or accurate than the ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Native American, etc.

Its adaptation to environment. It doesn't take many generations for animals and people to adapt.

The atmosphere had a mist/cloud cover which kept out uv rays and held in oxygen. It was a much more oxygen rich environment.

And for all your BS arguments you can't explain reasonably how in a few generations a handful of middle-eastern Jews migrated to the 4 corners of the globe, morphed into the various races, forgot their language, forgot their history, and forgot their GOD who had just wiped out every living thing on the planet.