Jump to content
IGNORED

Questions about Noahs Flood (is it logical or just magic you have to believe)


Leyla

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  162
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   43
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/08/2019
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/24/1997

1) How can a planet be habitable after global flood on such a big scale?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              2)How did all sea life survive?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  3) After the flood was over, what were animals supposed to eat? Carnivores would kill off all the saved animals and plant eating animals would have nothing to eat.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               4) Even if we assume that the animals survived and had enough oxygen, food etc... how did they find their way back home, to the different regions in all the other continents?                                                                                  5)  If we world was flooded on this big scale, why cant we find any evidence?? Do you think our scientists are really so incompetent, that they cant find even one evidence for it?                                                                               [Edit: Thanks for all the answer and sorry for the late replies. I will try my best to respond as soon as possible]

Edited by Leyla
Corrected Typos, bad formatting and Edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  14
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,979
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   2,112
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  10/23/2018
  • Status:  Offline

5 hours ago, BeauJangles said:

But as a child camping out in the Sierra Mountains, where the largest and alleged oldest trees are, ( Sequoia Redwoods ) I stumbled on a few very tiny clam shell halves. I'm no scientific expert, but this must mean seawater must have reached these levels at one time.

I'll add more to what my brother has said, ...there was a hill just northeast of Bakersfield in the San Joaquin Valley of California called Sharks Tooth Mountain, as Boy Scouts we spent many a Saturday digging up sharks teeth and whale bones, always looking for the largest shark's tooth we could find.

Lord bless

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  17
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,263
  • Content Per Day:  1.74
  • Reputation:   1,673
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/27/2019
  • Status:  Offline

20 hours ago, Leyla said:

1) How can a planet be habitable after global flood on such a big scale?         2) How did all sea life survive?                          3) After the flood was over, what were animals supposed to eat? Carnivores would kill off all the saved animals and plant eating animals would have nothing to eat.                                4) Even if we assume that the animals survived and had enough oxygen, food etc... how did they find their way back home, to the different regions in all the other continents?                                    5)  If we world was flooded on this big scale, why cant we find any evidence?? Do you think our scientists are really so incompetent, that they cant find even one evidence for it?           

These are big questions, which have all been answered at sites like creation.com and answersingenesis.

After the flood the world was catastrophically changed, the tectonic plate movement would be causing massive earthquakes, the numerous volcanoes would be affecting the atmosphere and having a drastic affect on the weather.

While the sea would have been turbulent sea life survive  storms today and enough would have lived to repopulate the seas etc.

Noah didn't leave the ark untill he had evidence, from the dove, that there was plant life on the earth, carnivorers would be able to scavenge off the many dead creatures drowned in the flood.

oxygen is generated by plants and there would have been large blooms of plant algae in the seas.

The animals would move across the land searching for food and to avoid preditors, population preasure would drive them to move into unpopulated areas.

Evidence for the flood;- mile deep layers of sedimentary rock covering thousands of sq miles. Fosels in the rocks a the top of mountains, foded rock. Ever tried to bend a rock without cracking or distorting it with heat? How do you account for the folded sedimentry rocks that are not brocken/cracked or distorted/changed by heat?

 

Why can't secular scientist find evidence of a global flood? cos they don't want to find such evidence as it shows the bible is true and if the bibe is true, then they are accountable to God.

presuppositions and bias are powerful motivators.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.14
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

I believe it is much more likely that the flood account in Genesis refers to a large, devastating, regional flood, and not a global flood. The original Hebrew language does not clearly indicate the entire globe. A global flood that covered the tallest mountain peaks on the planet would constitute an irrecoverable ecological catastrophe, both for terrestrial and aquatic life.

19 hours ago, Jayne said:

The life that God killed was anything that lived totally on land and breathed through it's nose.  That's what Genesis said.

No, that isn't what Genesis says. It says everything "with the breath of life", and we cannot be certain what that means. "Breath of life" could very well mean "spark of life" and refer to everything living. Assuming that only animals with a nose died in the flood goes beyond what is stated in the Bible.

20 hours ago, Jayne said:

Sea life was untouched.

It is impossible that a global flood of the proposed magnitude would leave sea life untouched. The salinity levels of the ocean would have been severely altered.

20 hours ago, Jayne said:

Again, having taught science, plant seeds can lie dormant for years and then re-grow in a matter of days when conditions are good again.  I once took a horticulture class and my final exam was to get a gourd seed that had lain dormant in the gourd for over 12 years to grow.

That's a fun story, but doesn't fully match conditions of the flood. Try submitting the gourd to the violent conditions of an earth-covering flood, leaving it underwater for a year, and then try to grow something from the seeds. It is a much different scenario. Sure, some seeds would beat the odds and survive, but not enough to re-establish communities after the water receded enough.

20 hours ago, Jayne said:

There's actually quite a lot of evidence for the Great Flood and science knows about it.  Here's one piece - the fossil record.  All those layers and layers of rock found everywhere that have massive graveyards of animals that all died together.

Why are there so many fossils of marine organisms if they were untouched by the flood? Even if you admit that marine life would also have been devastated, that strata of marine organisms does not support a massive die-off in a 1-year period (read about ammonite fossils here) Additionally, the plant fossil record shows an extremely different view. How would they possibly sort themselves out with ferns and cycads at the bottom and angiosperms on top? Why are large modern animal fossils not seen mixed with large dinosaur fossils? The much more likely explanation is that fossils really do represent different times on the planet for different organisms.

20 hours ago, Jayne said:

The main thing is that God, in his sovereignty, can do anything.

I absolutely agree that God can do anything. However, I see no good explanation for why God would make a fossil record that would only LOOK like evolution occurred over hundreds of millions of years.

4 hours ago, Who me said:

Evidence for the flood;- mile deep layers of sedimentary rock covering thousands of sq miles. Fosels in the rocks a the top of mountains, foded rock. Ever tried to bend a rock without cracking or distorting it with heat? How do you account for the folded sedimentry rocks that are not brocken/cracked or distorted/changed by heat?

You can read much more about geological evidence - here.

 

4 hours ago, Who me said:

Why can't secular scientist find evidence of a global flood? cos they don't want to find such evidence as it shows the bible is true and if the bibe is true, then they are accountable to God.

I assume you mean atheistic scientists here. There are numerous Christians in both geology and paleontology, and very few find what they believe to be solid evidence for a global flood.

4 hours ago, Who me said:

presuppositions and bias are powerful motivators.

You packed an incredible amount of irony into this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  103
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  3,758
  • Content Per Day:  1.29
  • Reputation:   4,733
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  03/31/2016
  • Status:  Offline

45 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I believe it is much more likely that the flood account in Genesis refers to a large, devastating, regional flood, and not a global flood. The original Hebrew language does not clearly indicate the entire globe. A global flood that covered the tallest mountain peaks on the planet would constitute an irrecoverable ecological catastrophe, both for terrestrial and aquatic life.

Genesis 7:19-20 -  And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

If only local mountains were covered with water 15 cubits above their heights, the we need to banish Sir Isaac Newton from our science texts because gravity isn't what he said it was.

If the flood were only local, then birds could have flown away and Noah, instead of taking a year to build an ark, could have simply moved to a new location.

Tell me, if you wish, why is it so vitally important for us to believe that the flood was only local.  It must have some important reason because I hear this all the time that "Genesis doesn't say it was global" when it precisely does.

Quote

No, that isn't what Genesis says. It says everything "with the breath of life", and we cannot be certain what that means. "Breath of life" could very well mean "spark of life" and refer to everything living. Assuming that only animals with a nose died in the flood goes beyond what is stated in the Bible.

Genesis 7:21-23 - "And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth."

You are either going to believe what the Bible says or not believe it.

 

Quote

It is impossible that a global flood of the proposed magnitude would leave sea life untouched. The salinity levels of the ocean would have been severely altered.

When I said  untouched, I mean that they were not on the ark.  And yes, I mentioned salinity.  Maybe I am wrong about some sea creatures surviving. I do know that so many of them did die - they would have to.  But Genesis 7 states emphatically that birds, humans, and land animal who breathed through their nostrils were completely obliterated. 

 

Quote

I absolutely agree that God can do anything. However, I see no good explanation for why God would make a fossil record that would only LOOK like evolution occurred over hundreds of millions of years.

Where did God do that?  That's man's interpretation of the fossil record.

For the fossil record and all the strata to "LOOK like" evolution occurred over hundreds of millions of years - there would HAVE to be more transition fossils that anything else.  There are none.  Not one.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.14
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

32 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Genesis 7:19-20 -  And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.

This could reasonably apply to a smaller geographic area. There could also be intentional hyperbole present in the language.

33 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Tell me, if you wish, why is it so vitally important for us to believe that the flood was only local. 

To me, what God has revealed in both His Word and nature are both true. When the physical evidence is so completely contrary to a truly global flood, then the truth of the Bible must be something other than a global flood.

37 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Genesis 7:21-23 - "And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth."

Yes, the English used in many translations of the original text uses "nostrils". However, some translations refer to "everything that breathes". Regardless, the original text does not delineate exactly what does or does not have nostrils. Nostrils could indicate other breathing mechanisms aside from a human-like nose. This also suggests that hyperbole could be involved here. The impact on ecosystems, especially with the loss of plant life that would have occurred, would be irrecoverable. The plants that are the producers of virtually all terrestrial ecosystems would have been wiped out.

47 minutes ago, Jayne said:

You are either going to believe what the Bible says or not believe it.

It is not that simple. We are not the original recipients of the text - it was not in our language, and not in our comprehension of the world.

48 minutes ago, Jayne said:

When I said  untouched, I mean that they were not on the ark.  And yes, I mentioned salinity.  Maybe I am wrong about some sea creatures surviving. I do know that so many of them did die - they would have to.  But Genesis 7 states emphatically that birds, humans, and land animal who breathed through their nostrils were completely obliterated.

This brings up another major hurdle for the global flood view. The rapid diversification of species since the flood would have had to happen at unprecedented rates to give rise to the variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and insects that we see today. Those responsible for the Ark Encounter ran into this issue and essentially imagined prototype animals that they put into the ark display. These imaginary animals had to be the precursors for modern animals.

54 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Where did God do that?  That's man's interpretation of the fossil record.

For the fossil record and all the strata to "LOOK like" evolution occurred over hundreds of millions of years - there would HAVE to be more transition fossils that anything else.  There are none.  Not one.

Yes, and it's the best interpretation of the available evidence. As a former educator, I assume you understand what a PhD degree in geology or paleontology would entail. A vast majority of Christians that have earned advanced degrees in these fields interpret the fossil record just as a non-Christian would. Bold text does not make an assertion any more accurate. You can read more about a few transitional series here - http://www.transitionalfossils.com/.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  13
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,015
  • Content Per Day:  1.35
  • Reputation:   1,220
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  02/05/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On 4/28/2019 at 10:03 AM, Leyla said:

1) How can a planet be habitable after global flood on such a big scale?         2) How did all sea life survive?                          3) After the flood was over, what were animals supposed to eat? Carnivores would kill off all the saved animals and plant eating animals would have nothing to eat.                                4) Even if we assume that the animals survived and had enough oxygen, food etc... how did they find their way back home, to the different regions in all the other continents?                                    5)  If we world was flooded on this big scale, why cant we find any evidence?? Do you think our scientists are really so incompetent, that they cant find even one evidence for it?           

This may help:

http://drmsh.com/argue-biblical-text-local-regional-flood-instead-global-flood/

I offer this for this one reason: We have to be careful about taking literally what we read in the bible. And even moreso what our particular church has taught for generations. Sometimes we infer a lot of stuff that is not there.

 

And if we do get too literal, we run the risk of believing in logical fallacies easily destroyed by enemies of the gospel. It's what my tag line is all about.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...