Local Flood vs Global Flood

[Fortigurn]

This, from a skeptic's site:

What about the Flood? Do mainstream geologists just blow it off as religious dogma? Hardly. There is abundant evidence of a major flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley ca. 2800 BC (Asimov 1991:34).

"At Ur there is a ten-foot deposit of sand and silt. Immediately below the flood deposit, the strata contain a characteristic form of pottery that enables comparison with that found at other sites. The pottery is dated to around 3000 BC.

Above the flood deposit there is evidence of human activity being resumed along lines similar to that of the civilization that existed before." (Emphasis mine)(Officer and Page 1993:73)

[Gman]

Not at all. There was no 'Jewish race' until the tribe of Judah (and even then it wasn't a 'race', it was a tribe). The tribal name of Judah gave rise to the name 'Jew' which came to be used of all the Hebrews, but there wasn't even a single Hebrew alive until Abraham 'crossed over' the Euphrates.

I'm talking about where Cain found his wife.

Yes but in the genealogies of the NT (Luke 3:38 ), it states that Christ was the descendant of Adam. I believe these NT genealogies are displaying the royal Jewish bloodline of Christ not really a date or a calendar of the past... Also in Genesis 3:15 we see one of the first prophecies of Christ who will defeat the seed of the serpent..

Also, please give me the timeline for these people before Adam and Eve. Thanks..

But you haven't actually addressed the Genesis 5 genealogies. We can see that Ezra's has gaps by comparing it with 1 Chronicles 6, but where are the gaps to be found in the Genesis 5 genealogies?

Where in fact is the Biblical evidence for over 30,000 years of gaps in Genesis 5? Why do the genealogies, when added up, correctly identify a 2,900 BC flood which actually happened at that date?

The point I was trying to make is that the genealogies have gaps or are incomplete.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld014.html

Do you mean you don't think it took place, or that you don't believe in a local flood?

Oh, I think that the flood took place.. I believe it was a local flood... All I'm debating is the time and the place.. That's all.. Just speculation.

I agree. I don't think that the Genesis flood was intended to kill everyone on the planet.

You mean the intention of the flood was to wipe out the Nephilim only?

It's not actually the work of one man, I quoted two different sources, both secular. That there was a 2,900 BC mega-flood in Mesopotamia is not a matter of dispute.

The date most frequently given by 'mainline Christianity' for the Genesis flood is somewhere between 2,500 and 2,300 BC, which isn't that far off the 29,00 BC date, but certainly nowhere near 30,000 years ago.

Note that Eusebius' date is within 2,900BC, and not only that he cites the Babylonian flood story (preserving the Epic of Gilgamesh account), as evidence that the flood genuinely took place and was recorded in history.

If you are saying that this was a local flood to wipe out the Nephilim then you may have a point here..

The date is not based on those epics. The date is based on the geological evidence. The Epic of Gilgamesh did not originally contain a flood narrative. The flood narrative in the Epic of Gilgamesh was inserted into the Epic in the 7th century, and was an Assyrian copy of the earlier Akkadian Atrahasis Epic.

The Sumerian Enuma Elish (containing a flood narrative), and the Atrahasis Epic (also a flood story), both date no earlier than around 1,600 BC. They certainly record the 2,900 BC mega-flood.

In slide 7 of your powerpoint file it states, "In this slide, it is shown that certain Mesopotamian cultures also recorded the flood of 2,900 BC, which is evidence that it was a real historical event." So it does or gives credence to the 2,900 BC date..

Make sure you read the modern research, not merely the criticism of Woolley's findings.

Ok, I will check it out... I remember problems with it from secular sources..

[Gman]

This, from a skeptic's site:

What about the Flood? Do mainstream geologists just blow it off as religious dogma? Hardly. There is abundant evidence of a major flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley ca. 2800 BC (Asimov 1991:34).

"At Ur there is a ten-foot deposit of sand and silt. Immediately below the flood deposit, the strata contain a characteristic form of pottery that enables comparison with that found at other sites. The pottery is dated to around 3000 BC.

Above the flood deposit there is evidence of human activity being resumed along lines similar to that of the civilization that existed before." (Emphasis mine)(Officer and Page 1993:73)

Can you provide me the link to this?

[Fortigurn]

This, from a skeptic's site:

What about the Flood? Do mainstream geologists just blow it off as religious dogma? Hardly. There is abundant evidence of a major flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley ca. 2800 BC (Asimov 1991:34).

"At Ur there is a ten-foot deposit of sand and silt. Immediately below the flood deposit, the strata contain a characteristic form of pottery that enables comparison with that found at other sites. The pottery is dated to around 3000 BC.

Above the flood deposit there is evidence of human activity being resumed along lines similar to that of the civilization that existed before." (Emphasis mine)(Officer and Page 1993:73)

Can you provide me the link to this?

Here.

[sandy_mcd]

Can you provide me the link to this?

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/museumafterflood.htm
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/vist-icr.htm

[Fortigurn]

While I get a proper response together, you might like to read this (the flood mechanics, including the damming effect of the wind on the Mesopotamian flood basin, are discussed, as are the flood layers).

From this tidy site.

[archaeologist]

i am new here but i saw the original post and it made me a bit upset. i can't tackle all of what was written in it tonight, due to time restraints but there are a couple of thngs i would like to address,if you don't mind.

One of the deciding factors that changed it all for me was this article below by Ernest Martin that I wanted to share with everyone

i read this statement and then i read the article (but not the linked one) and am ,i guess, appalled that you would let such a poorly written, non-academic, poorly thought out piece of crap like that sway your judgement.

this statement is where i will start:

Now, we need to understand what Moses really meant by "covered."

i wonder if the author talked with Moses personally? i doubt the author had a conversation with moses to find out what he really meant. thenhe tkes 3-4 paragraphs to say that 'covered' doesn't mean 'submerged' or is used in that manner.

well i know for a fact that the word 'covered' is used synonomously with 'submerged'. we do it all the time. if water is all over the floor , we do not say the floor is submnerged, but that it is covered in water; thus the author's reasoning is just out to lunch on this matter.

everyone should know that whentranslating from ancient languages thatthe act of translating is very subjective and i noticed that this author provided nothing to support his views. it is a take my word for it article that should never have been published.

The answer to this so-called dilemma is so easy to understand. The reason that the ark landed in the mountain area of Ararat is because that is where it was built.

where are his ancient sources to backthis claim up? the Bible is quite clear in NOT telling us the location. there is no mention whatsoever of any clue where Noah resided when God spoke to him. thus it cannot be assumed it was in a pre-turkeish area.

here i a piece of ignorant thinking:

then where did the waters drain in order for the mountains and the dry land to appear?

according to modern day researchers, (the article on the lost area in the north sea, ryan & pittman, those who discovered buried land on India's coast, etc.) all the water did not disappear. we know that there are many homes built on ancient coastlines which remain buried today under a huge amount of water.

with these facts, we know that the pre-flood geography was not the same as the post-flood result. thus some of the water remained in various forms and evaporated slowly or re-took its place in the fountains of the deep. by the way, researchers have recently found, so they say, an underwater ocean the size of the arctic ocean. God found a place for all the water.

The origin of the waters in the Dead Sea, just to the east and south of Jerusalem (and many similar areas in other parts of the world), could be explained with this interpretation. But if, on the other hand, Noah's flood did in fact submerge even the highest of the mountains, then why was not the basin area containing the Dead Sea brim full with water in the time of Abraham and even today from those flood waters? The simple truth is, the Dead Sea basin is not full of water (nor other basins on the earth) because the earth, since the time of Adam, has never been submerged in water

this is just pure crap and illogical. not only does the author ignore science in his assumptions but he just ignores any evidence whatsoever. when the ark landed, there was still water in places he describes and the reason we do not find it today is simple.

first, it took time to re-populate the earth, so evaporation would have been at work; second, the world was changed, heat in some areas and lack of rain would have diminished any lake or left over water,; third, water would have frozen and glaciers formed, antartica, is one of those; it does not take a lot of intelligence to figure out the natural processes that took place which would have been active in the time of Noah and which took its toll on the left over water.

By Moses using the word kahsah in Genesis 7:19,20, he is simply showing that the mountains had been hidden from view for seven months. In no way did he mean they were submerged.

why not, being submerged IS being hidden from view. both meanings work together. if something is hidden from view then it could have several options and being submerged is one of them.

He simply meant that the "wind" that God produced on earth caused the fog and clouds to disperse and the tops of the mountains were now able to be seen.

how could this be known? there is no mention of a fog in the biblical record thus thereis no indication that a wind would cause a fog over the water. if this were so, then no boat would be able to travel the oceans as their is a wind on the water constantly. the last i heard in my science class was that fog was not created by wind.

i could go on but this author is a personwho does not know what he is talking about. he has nothing to back him up, no biblical indicators to say this is true, nothing. he is using poor logic to deceive people from the truth.

this article is just out and out trash and has no credibility and should be ignored. it doesn't present a good case and all of its 'evidence' is not supported by logic, science, let alone translation.

[archaeologist]

i will be making some more posts here as i have read through this thread and i want to address some of the issues raised.

one such issue is the local v. global debate. aside from the arguments mentioned, yes, if it was a local flood then God did not need for noah to build an ark nor bring the animals to him. He would have let noah and his family leave while blocking the doubters from following. the local idea is just stupid.

that aside, here is what the previous verses say, Gen. 6:1 -5:

"When men began to increasein number on the earth, and daughters were born to them...The nephilim were on the earth in those days...when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them, they were the HEROS of old, MEN OF RENOWN"

men of renown, heros do not stay in one small patch of ground stroking themselves but seek out adventure, conquests, deeds and so on. these people did not stay in one little area.

also the population would have been far too much for one area to support, ecologically and food wise. it doesn't make sense that they would hide in one small corner of the globe with all the room they had to use.

logically, people would have found their own areas to settle (whether by disagreement or exploration) and go from there. there is nothing to indicate they remained a small group who were afraid of their own shadows.

they did every imaginable sin, they were not afraid and they would do whatever they wanted to which meant moving to new areas for new sinful experiences.

they did not have limits placed upon them, even age, until just before the flood, andyou think they would spend 500 years, as an example, sitting around the campfire wishing they were someone else? come on use some common sense here.

[zoegirl]

Whatever you critiques, it was not poorly written, nor was it non-academic. Argue the points...plenty there to debate. In the second posting, there was a huge list of problems for global flood...tackle that

[Gman]

Welcome to the God and science forum..

where are his ancient sources to backthis claim up?

Are you familiar with the Mesopotamian flood stories?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahs_Ark

the Bible is quite clear in NOT telling us the location. there is no mention whatsoever of any clue where Noah resided when God spoke to him. thus it cannot be assumed it was in a pre-turkeish area.

How does Genesis 8:4 sound?

according to modern day researchers, (the article on the lost area in the north sea, ryan & pittman, those who discovered buried land on India's coast, etc.) all the water did not disappear. we know that there are many homes built on ancient coastlines which remain buried today under a huge amount of water.

with these facts, we know that the pre-flood geography was not the same as the post-flood result. thus some of the water remained in various forms and evaporated slowly or re-took its place in the fountains of the deep. by the way, researchers have recently found, so they say, an underwater ocean the size of the arctic ocean. God found a place for all the water.

All the water that covered the Himalayas too? This is what the global flood is implying...

how could this be known? there is no mention of a fog in the biblical record thus thereis no indication that a wind would cause a fog over the water. if this were so, then no boat would be able to travel the oceans as their is a wind on the water constantly. the last i heard in my science class was that fog was not created by wind.

No... The wind from God blew away the water or fog to reveal the land and mountains.. Genesis Chapter 8: 1-14.

[archaeologist]

Whatever you critiques, it was not poorly written, nor was it non-academic. Argue the points...plenty there to debate

it was poorly written , that is if you are talking about the same article as i am. it read like a high school student doing an essay for religion class.

there was a huge list of problems for global flood...tackle that

i was going to when i had the time, it is a long post.

How does Genesis 8:4 sound?

that was the ending point, not the starting location. again, those pictures of mt. ararat do not mean much for we need to know which range that name applies to. we do not have any of mose's original thoughts or diaries, etc., to pinpoint the exact location.

it is only assumed that the mountain (and surounding mtns.) in turkey is the place due to tradition, not proof. again we have seen too many people assume the verse meant ararat itself and climbed up to be disappointed.

All the water that covered the Himalayas too? This is what the global flood is implying...

read the book by Dr. Rehwinkel called, The Flood. he and others feel that the geography of the pre-flood world was not the same as it is now. i tend to agree given the evidence found over the years.

No... The wind from God blew away the water or fog to reveal the land and mountains.. Genesis Chapter 8: 1-14.

wind is not fog. two very different elements in the world and there is no mention of any fog thus that is an assumed participant and can be ignored and dismissed. we do noty know what the exact weather conditions were like nor can we be sure if the ark was tossed about. i doubt it as God was protecting it and it was built according to God's specifications thus we know it would survive what it had to endure.

Are you familiar with the Mesopotamian flood stories?

i am well aware of them and and have copies of them. there may be elements of the actual flood in those stories but given the nature of sinful man and his levelof deception, i would not be too confident to say they give an accurate depiction of the what noah related to his descendents.

we have one true account passed down by noah and his sons, that is a given, and as we read about how civilization went after the flood, it is easy to see how events got distorted from the reality. then when the disporia took place at babel, we can see how each civilization would take what they remembered and edited according to their new culture and beliefs.

we know they did not serve God but strayed from Him, so we know those subsequent societies would not keep the flood nor the creation accounts accurately.

[archaeologist]

okay, i will try to answer some of the points in the long post from gman. i do not pretend to have all the answers nor will i answer everything but i will answer what i can:

1. Building the Ark

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy

here you seem to lack faith in God and His ability. if you rcall, God gave noah the instruction to use gopher wood {cyprus,in another trans.} we are told in proverbs not to lean to our own understanding, thus if God said to use wood, then wood was sufficient for the job.

By saying wood is not good enough then you are also saying God doesn't know what He is talking about and that is just arrogant and wrong. we do not know how heavy the seas were that the ark had to endure. we can speculate but most likely we would be wrong plus you are removing God's protective hand from the equation, that is a mistake also.

we cannot compare ship construction between modern age and the ancient world because the wood simply because there are mitigating factors which come into play, like attitude, knowledge, willingness and methods plus most shipbilders do not follow the instructions of God when they build their ships.

2. Gathering the Animals from all over the world.

Even though God called all the animals to Noah, bringing all kinds of animals together in the vicinity of the ark presents significant problems.

Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.

why not? they obey their masters voice and God is their master so that is not in question. would they face extreme difficulties? i doubt it, as we know that the pre-flood geography was vastly different than our modern one. also, we cannot be sure how many species were in existence at the time. we know that all the 'kinds' were but not all the species that we have today.

How was the Ark loaded

this detail isn't mentioned in the Bible as it is not germane to the story, suffice it to say, that God has the knowledge to help noah and his family load the animals. this is basically a point that is a distraction from what God wants people to learn from the account.

this point #2 again removes God from the equation and leans heavily on ones own understanding.

3. Fitting the Animals Aboard

What is a kind

i think many animal experts should be able to tell you what this is and it is a boundary for reproduction purposes and basically demolishes any evolutionary thinking.

What kinds were aboard the ark?

all of them that needed to be there and God was specific about that.

Were dinosaurs and other extinct animals on the ark

yes there would be. the Bible does not say they were created long before man but on the same day thus i doubt if they were extinct at the time of the flood. all kinds had representatives which includes dinosaurs.

Were the animals aboard the ark mature

this is about the only time i think dr. dino a.k.a. kent ovind is right. i doubt that they were as after the flood they had a monumental task ahead of them thus mature pairs may not have fit into God's plan at the time. it would make more sense to have young ones but we do not know for sure.

could they all fit

do you really want to ask this question? since God gave the dimensions then YES they all fit.

In conclusion, an ark of the size specified in the Bible would not be large enough to carry a cargo of animals and food sufficient to repopulate the earth, especially if animals that are now extinct were required to be aboard

then you call God a liar and that isn't smart.

4. Caring for the Animals

Special diets

this is redundant as you ignore God's intelligence and foresight to have Noah prepare the right food for each animal. and again you lean to much to your own understanding and remove God from the equation.

5. The Flood Itself

Where did the Flood water come from

God tells us. He just doesn't tells us the amount except in general terms, it was enough to cover the then geography by 15 cubits. if you deny this then again you called God a liar. Titus tells us that God does not lie thus where it came from contained enough water to do what God wanted.

where did it go

citing recent discoveries, we do know that all the water did not disappear, it remained and changed the pre-flood geography to what we see today , basically. we also know of dreid up lake beds in the sahara and other desert regions which would account for some while glaciers, the poles and other spots would account for more.

Kent Hovind proposed that the Flood water came from a comet

kent hovind is basically a moron, enough said.

How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth's topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth.

the ark was in open water and we know that tsunamis are only dangerous when approaching land. plus the restructuring may not have touched off such waves as modern thought is based upon modern enviornment not on a world covered/submerged in water.

again you omit God from the equation, not smart.

6. Implications of a Flood

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see

with thousands of years of civilizations tramping, building, removing dirt and so on, we are lucky to find any evidence then factor in natural disasters such as earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, local floods, volcano eruptions and so on and what do you expect to find?

you need to consider what took place from then to now before thinking about evidence that should or should not be found.

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series

maybe there is but secular scientists have no motivation to prove the Bible true. i have heard conflicting research which disagrees with your point.

Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers

dating systems are subjective and too vulnerable to corruption, a non argument.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors

why would it? seepage does not leave a lot of evidence plus the oceans never dried up. they had water in them and had more when the flood ended. how would we be able to tell if there is or isn't proper evidence? are you sure researchers know what they are looking for? given their track record, they could be staring at it and then attribute the evidence to some other calamity. ryan and pittman do that intheir work, so do other scientists.

7. Producing the Geological Record

this one i will leave to others more familiar with geology than i.

8. Species Survival and Post-Flood Ecology

How did all the modern plant species survive?

well logicallyGod did not suspend the ground's ability to produce vegetation when it receives water and nutrients thus once the water returned it is highly possible, as evidenced by the returned olive branch, that the ground started producing plants as it had prior to the flood.

Noah could not have gathered seeds for all plants because not all plants produce seeds, and a variety of plant seeds can't survive a year before germinating

are you sure they were in existence at the time of the flood?

How did all the fish survive

are you sure they all did or were in existence at the time of the flood?

9. Species Distribution and Diversity

How did animals get to their present ranges

again that is a detail we are not privy too because it is not germane to the story. How God does anything is not up to our approval nor inspection to see if it is valid. God keeps a hand in His work, if that weren't true we would not have miracles today. How God did it i do not know nor do i care because that point is another distraction to remove ones' eye from God and what He can do.

Why are so many animals found only in limited ranges

these are questions you have to ask God because once He allowed man to eat meat, He had to make some changes which we are not aware of at this time.

Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?

these societies did not exist till after the disporia at babel. from what i am aware they do have flood myths but i would have to check my resources.

We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14.

who says that the secular works and secular dating methods are right or are infallible? if you take secular works over God's word then you have the wrong impression of God. again He does not give us a specific date because that is not what is important in this account. what is important is how God deals with sin and those who practice it.

get your priorities straight, here, you look too much to those who have no qualms about misrepresenting the pas t to fit their own ends, one needs to look to God first then evaluate the others not vice versa.

Why do other flood myths vary so greatly from the Genesis account?

flood myths vary because people stray from God and give evil a foothold to pervert the truth. all societies that do not follow God have no inclination to follow what is true, and can change their myths whenever they want to whatever they want according to their new cultural beliefs and superstitions.

Why should we expect Genesis to be accurate

it is God's word and God does not lie. if He did then how could we have hope of heaven when we die?

i have to go for now but will try to finish this in an hour...if i missed anything please go through your post and post an anotated version so it will be easier to reference. thank you.

[archaeologist]

sorry--to finish off the post:

Are flood models consistent with the Bible

this problem is caused by a lack of understanding, a desire to compromise with certain scientific studies or just a plain lack of knowledge.

Genesis 6-8 speaks only of rain, fountains, and a flood

all references to the flood in the Bible are not contained n those chapters but are found throughout the book.

How can a literal interpretation be appropriate if the text is self-contradictory

people accuse the Bible all the time of this sort of thing. usually it is done when a cursory or surface reading of its pages are done. with a little research one can find that the seemingly contradicitions are not that way.

Why stop with the Flood story? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth

reference to the four corners of the world is not limited to the Bible. it was once a way to describe a sailor's travels and in no way means a square. flat earth. one needs to look closer at how the writer is using those words, if one is refering to the sun going up and going down remarks in the Bible, we use that in our modern age as well to describe what we see. 'the sun rises in the east and sets in the west', 'has the sun come up yet?' and so on. this reference is not making an astronomical fact.

In fact, is there any reason at all why the Flood story should be taken literally? Jesus used parables; why wouldn't God do so, too?

1. it is true, 2. other biblical writers refer to the flood as fact, 3. a parable would not, in this case, present the seriousness of God and His attitude against sin. 4. then we would have to conclude that the geneology prior to the flood as a parable as well and that is not intimated in those verses. the fact that the Bible states that enoch walked with God and then was gone' shows that what is being written is actual fact and truth. 5. no mention in the Bible that is was a parable as it was done in the new testament, 6. the verses prior to the flood account record God's feelings about what He had done, to make the flood account a parable would mean we would have to discount God's attitude towards His creation, and towards sin.

then if you want an extra-biblical example. the memory of the flood was so fresh and horrific in the minds of the sumerians that they actually inserted the event in their king's list. that might be true for the assyrians as well, not sure.

if it was a parable then there would be no way the sumerians would place it in such a prominent list.

Does a global flood make the whole Bible less credible

not at all. what it does do is separate those who believe God from those who don't.

Finally, even if the flood model weren't riddled by all these problems, why should we accept it?

because it is in the Bible and God does not lie. to do what those 'christians' say in your quotes would be calling God a lair and His word non-credible which would have far reaching ramifications even touching on the credibility of salvation and Christ's work. if God lied about the flood how do we know He isn't lying about salvation?

sorry but the believer has little chose but to follow what God has written and accept it as fact. if one does not then they are advertising that they do not believe what they say they do. then how can they expect others to believe if they don't?

there is far more at stake than a simple story here and when one examines the accounts one must be aware of the bigger picture and the Bible is not open for correction by man, but the other way around.

[Gman]

wind is not fog.

I'm not sure were you are getting this... Again the wind blew away the fog, it did NOT produce it...

here you seem to lack faith in God and His ability. if you rcall, God gave noah the instruction to use gopher wood {cyprus,in another trans.} we are told in proverbs not to lean to our own understanding, thus if God said to use wood, then wood was sufficient for the job.

Correct for a local flood... You keep saying that I lack faith in God and HIS ability... Tell me then why are YEC'rs going through great lengths to prove that gopher wood or any other type wood is sufficient to hold the animals and stay afloat?

By saying wood is not good enough then you are also saying God doesn't know what He is talking about and that is just arrogant and wrong.

Perhaps it is arrogant and scientifically inaccurate to say that the wood was strong enough to hold of these animals too..

we do not know how heavy the seas were that the ark had to endure. we can speculate but most likely we would be wrong plus you are removing God's protective hand from the equation, that is a mistake also.

Who is removing God's protective hand? Where is this being implied?

this detail isn't mentioned in the Bible as it is not germane to the story, suffice it to say, that God has the knowledge to help noah and his family load the animals. this is basically a point that is a distraction from what God wants people to learn from the account.

this point #2 again removes God from the equation and leans heavily on ones own understanding.

Understanding of what? Where in scripture are you getting that the flood was global?

yes there would be. the Bible does not say they were created long before man but on the same day thus i doubt if they were extinct at the time of the flood. all kinds had representatives which includes dinosaurs.

Obviously you mean baby dinosaurs.. Not the full grown ones.. This contradicts Gen. 7:2... It speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity.

this is about the only time i think dr. dino a.k.a. kent ovind is right. i doubt that they were as after the flood they had a monumental task ahead of them thus mature pairs may not have fit into God's plan at the time. it would make more sense to have young ones but we do not know for sure.

How do you know? Where does the Bible say that there were babies? Did you or Kent Hovind speak with Moses personally? I thought you said we weren't suppose to read into the Bible but accept it on faith?

do you really want to ask this question? since God gave the dimensions then YES they all fit.

They do all fit? Huh? But you said earlier that we cannot be sure how many species were in existence at that time.. So how could we know that all the species could fit?

then you call God a liar and that isn't smart.

Who is calling God a liar?

this is redundant as you ignore God's intelligence and foresight to have Noah prepare the right food for each animal. and again you lean to much to your own understanding and remove God from the equation.

Oh really? But earlier you were saying that we have to take God's word on faith... Why are you now trying to explain that Noah had to prepare the right food for each animal? Where is the scripture to back your intelligence and foresight up??

God tells us. He just doesn't tells us the amount except in general terms, it was enough to cover the then geography by 15 cubits. if you deny this then again you called God a liar. Titus tells us that God does not lie thus where it came from contained enough water to do what God wanted.

Who's the liar? Also why does science contradict global flood geology? It is only enough to cover the geography of their local area..

citing recent discoveries, we do know that all the water did not disappear, it remained and changed the pre-flood geography to what we see today , basically. we also know of dreid up lake beds in the sahara and other desert regions which would account for some while glaciers, the poles and other spots would account for more.

No... Researches have found that if you take all the water in the world it still wouldn't be enough to cover the entire planet... And much of the geography we have today existed around the time of the flood..

the ark was in open water and we know that tsunamis are only dangerous when approaching land. plus the restructuring may not have touched off such waves as modern thought is based upon modern enviornment not on a world covered/submerged in water.

again you omit God from the equation, not smart.

And your theory is putting the Biblical flood account out of scientific reasonings which in turn is turning people away from the Bible which in turn is preventing people from becoming saved...

maybe there is but secular scientists have no motivation to prove the Bible true. i have heard conflicting research which disagrees with your point.

Name your sources...

dating systems are subjective and too vulnerable to corruption, a non argument.

Would you like to debate some scientists on this?

why would it? seepage does not leave a lot of evidence plus the oceans never dried up. they had water in them and had more when the flood ended. how would we be able to tell if there is or isn't proper evidence? are you sure researchers know what they are looking for? given their track record, they could be staring at it and then attribute the evidence to some other calamity. ryan and pittman do that intheir work, so do other scientists.

Maybe that's why Ryan and Pittman believed Noah's Flood was a local flood in the Black Sea area then...

this one i will leave to others more familiar with geology than i.

Thats a wise choice because the Geological Record goes against the global flood evidence..

are you sure they were in existence at the time of the flood?

Are you sure they weren't?

are you sure they all did or were in existence at the time of the flood?

You were saying that dinosaurs existed at the time of the flood.. How are the fish fossils different?

again that is a detail we are not privy too because it is not germane to the story. How God does anything is not up to our approval nor inspection to see if it is valid. God keeps a hand in His work, if that weren't true we would not have miracles today. How God did it i do not know nor do i care because that point is another distraction to remove ones' eye from God and what He can do.

Then why did you say earlier that Noah had to feed the animals? Why couldn't God just do it? Where is your faith?

get your priorities straight, here, you look too much to those who have no qualms about misrepresenting the pas t to fit their own ends, one needs to look to God first then evaluate the others not vice versa.

And just ignore the scientific evidence? Is that what you want believers to do, go on blind faith?

flood myths vary because people stray from God and give evil a foothold to pervert the truth. all societies that do not follow God have no inclination to follow what is true, and can change their myths whenever they want to whatever they want according to their new cultural beliefs and superstitions.

And yet if you study the epic of Gilgamesh it practically mimics the Biblical account..

it is God's word and God does not lie. if He did then how could we have hope of heaven when we die?

God's word does not lie, but people mis-translate it all the time and then make the Bible sound ridiculous.. Is this what you are trying to do?

You should really study Rich Deem's flood article: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

[archaeologist]

I'm not sure were you are getting this... Again the wind blew away the fog, it did NOT produce it...

where did this fog come from. as far as we know, there was no fog.

Correct for a local flood... You keep saying that I lack faith in God and HIS ability... Tell me then why are YEC'rs going through great lengths to prove that gopher wood or any other type wood is sufficient to hold the animals and stay afloat?

no, correct for a global flood. i don't know why they do it, i find that if God gave the instructions and said which materials to use then both are sufficient for the task. if we disagree then we say God doesn't know what He is doing and then demote Him from being God.

man is not the final authority on what was sufficient.

Perhaps it is arrogant and scientifically inaccurate to say that the wood was strong enough to hold of these animals too..

not at all, if i am supporting the Bible then it is not arrogance but simple belief and humbleness as i recognize that God knows better and can do more than people give HIm credit.

science is not the final authority either. in fact it is arrogant to think that science can determine what God can or can't do.

Understanding of what? Where in scripture are you getting that the flood was global?

it is right in the flood story itself and throughout the Bible. the term used in the new international versions says-- '...the face of the earth...' that is not an indicator of a local flood. the whole Bible refers to a global deluge and if you look at research then you will see evidence has been found worldwide throughout the decades. Hapgood, Rehwenkel, Ryan & Pittman, the article on the north sea, The discoveries on the Indian coast, the discoveries in argentina and other north american sites as well.

Obviously you mean baby dinosaurs.. Not the full grown ones.. This contradicts Gen. 7:2... It speaks of "the male and his mate," indicating that the animals were at sexual maturity

no it doesn't, even if it was a baby it would travel with its mate or future mate. there is no contradiction. by the way that is not an indicator solely for sexual maturity.

How do you know? Where does the Bible say that there were babies? Did you or Kent Hovind speak with Moses personally? I thought you said we weren't suppose to read into the Bible but accept it on faith

if you read what i wrote, you would notice i said---'i think'; 'i doubt'; 'it would make more sense'... and so on. i gave no absolutes as we do not know the age of the animals as it is not germane to the story and the lesson being given.

They do all fit? Huh? But you said earlier that we cannot be sure how many species were in existence at that time.. So how could we know that all the species could fit?

we don't, God does so it stands to reason that if He wanted all the kinds He created tobe represented, that the ark would be big enough for them all. God would not be God if He made such a stupid mistake, which is what you are implying by saying the ark wasn't big enough.

Who is calling God a liar?

all those who say that the account isn't true.

Oh really? But earlier you were saying that we have to take God's word on faith... Why are you now trying to explain that Noah had to prepare the right food for each animal? Where is the scripture to back your intelligence and foresight up??

do you think God would just sit back and order noah to do this if noah had no knowledge of what to do? or if he didn't do you not think that God would instruct noah and his sons on what to do?

we are not privy to all the details because the Bible would be so thick no one would be able to carry it or be interested in reading it. use some common sense here.

Who's the liar

all those who disagree with the account and say it was something different than recorded.

Also why does science contradict global flood geology

1. science hasn't found all the evidence, they certainly won't dig up toronto or new york to look for any so they cannot claim their is no evidence.
2. science is not looking in the right places
3. science is structured to follow secularist thinking, there is no motivation to prove the Bible true.
4. science is fallible, it has no final authority to say what did or did not happen in the past.
5. evidence has been found but attributed to other theories. i.e. the ice age.
6.science is wrong.
7. and so on

Researches have found that if you take all the water in the world it still wouldn't be enough to cover the entire planet

so science has found all the water in the world..hmmm that is arrogant especially since they just discovered an arctic ocean size deposit under the earth. we do not know how much water is underground so that is a very presumptuous conclusion.

And much of the geography we have today existed around the time of the flood..

we do not know that. we do know that the geography was different as sattelite photos keep finding new river beds, dried up lake beds and so on. did you know that the sahara once housed a great big lake?

And your theory is putting the Biblical flood account out of scientific reasonings which in turn is turning people away from the Bible which in turn is preventing people from becoming saved

i might need you to elaborate on this one a bit. not sure what you are getting at. scientific reasoning is fallible and needs to return to its rightful place under the Bible. it was given no authority to determine what was correct or incorrect within those pages. science is not God nor is it God's word and by placing science over the Bible you just made it higher than God as you are saying God is wrong and by saying that you are saying God is not God WHICH IS SIN.

anyone who does this is wrong and needs to REPENT and place God back where He belongs, Lord over all.

Would you like to debate some scientists on this

doesn't matter to me, they have nothing to offer that would change my mind.

Maybe that's why Ryan and Pittman believed Noah's Flood was a local flood in the Black Sea area then...

you forget that the evil one deceives many, many, many, many, many people why do you think they attribute it wrongly? when people talk about an ice age, or a few of them, they fail to realize that there was only one possibility for such to take place, that was when God initially created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void.

if you look closely at the research and then closely at the act of creation you will see that secularists may have found evidence for the act of creation and not an ice age. do a comparison sometime.

secularist have no desire to prove the Bible so why should they give credit where credit is due?

Thats a wise choice because the Geological Record goes against the global flood evidence..

only in the interpretation of the evidence. but i am not a geologist nor have studied it much so i cannot speak on the topic at this time.

Then why did you say earlier that Noah had to feed the animals? Why couldn't God just do it? Where is your faith

why doesn't God just speak the word and have all the world accept is son as savior and gain salvation? He chose to use humans, so those that believe in Him would be strong, vibrant believers who know and can have confidence in God. it does no good for God's purpose to have worshippers who sit around while God is the slave doing all the work.

And just ignore the scientific evidence? Is that what you want believers to do, go on blind faith?

scientific evidence from non-believers who are under the control of the evil one.. i will take faith every time. here is a story for you:

a roman soldier had a servant who was sick, and one day he came to Jesus to ask that He heal the lad. Jesus agreed to go to the soldiers home but the soldier said, no, i know who you are and what you can do. i know all you habe to do is speak the words and my servant will be healed. Jesus replied, Greater faith i have not seen in all of israel. go your servant is helaed...' {slight paraphrase}

what do you think is the better way to go? listen to secularists who do not know God or believe God?

And yet if you study the epic of Gilgamesh it practically mimics the Biblical account

no it doesn't. i have a copy and there are many, many differences plus the reason was also different. there is no mimicking, it is a perversion of the truth.

remember the oldest copy discovered does not mean it is the original or the true version.

God's word does not lie, but people mis-translate it all the time and then make the Bible sound ridiculous.. Is this what you are trying to do?

ha ha ha. that is funny. i don't make the Bible sound ridiculous, it is those who do not believe it or want to make it more attractive to the non-believer that do that.

i am here to call people back to God, back to the truth, back to real faith. besides, the Bible is God's word and if it sounds silly to those who believe then they have the problem not the Bible.

anyone who puts science above God and His word, need to repent and search for Him again because the non-believer is not the one with the authority or the power to determine what is right or wrong about the Bible. anyone who listens to non-believers and follow their thinking is not following God thus they need to make a change not the Bible.

You should really study Rich Deem's flood article

don't need to for if he is a non-christian then he is wrong. God is the one you need to look to not the reasonings of those who do not believe..


there is one thing you need to remember, it is a new testament verse which sums it all up:

with God all things are possible --- so if the world disagrees that is because they do not believe and we are not to follow such people.