Evidence for God from Science

I wonder all the water required for the flood got there. There is not enough
water in all the world that would cover the entire earth, to the very tops of all the mountains and mountain ranges.

God said that noah was to gather 2 of each species, one male and one femaleinto his arc. There are more species that exist, than what could fit into noah's ark. Having only 2 of each animal would have resulted in numerous breeding between male and female offspring. Science comes into play here in that if you have too much interbreeding in any species, eventually the genetic make up of each new generation comes up, more and more abnormalities crop up, blindness, nervous disorders, organ disorders, etc, until it would be impossible for each animal species to survive.

What about Noah and his family being the only ones left alive after the flood. Noah, his 3 boys, noah's eife and the wives of his kids. There are not enough people to procreate and create all the nations of the earth. Besides, there would have been numerous instances of incest required to repopulate the earth. This also does not take into account the creation of the various races of people, Balck, white, red, brown and yellow. Negros,
orientals, indians, caucasians, etc...

What about the British Museums collection of the exact same story, written in cuneiform, which describes a man named noah, who was a sumerian,
and that an enormous flood came down the tigris and euphrates rivers,
and washed away a huge area. Noah, according to the story, was a trader
and in order to save all his wares and goods, was able to pile many items onto his boat. It is therefore assumed that the later jews saw this story and coopted it to include gods wrath at man, and the ensuing flood.

There is not scientific evidence in any geological tables to support the flood.
If the flood was caused by a water asteroid, it would have obliterated the earth; it would have destroyed the planet. An Extinction Level Event.

So, according to science:

there was no flood

8 people could not possibly repopulate the earth

2 of each species would not be able to repopulate the insect, avian and
mammalian kingdoms.

it would have required a fleet of arks to have 2 of each species of land animal, fish and whales and other sea dwelling animals being excluded of course.

All races of man have seperate and distinct genetic markers. If we were all descended from 8 people, our dna and genetic markers would be pretty much the same.

Please, someone, logically and scientifically, explain all of these items I have listed above. This thred in no way violates any of the requirements of the charter of this board, as far as I can tell.

thanks!

R. M. Dolchmann

With the flood regarding water and the arks capacity for all animals, perhaps an alternative interpretation is in order?

With your other point regarding 8 people not being enough to re-populate, I'm not sure about the validity of such a proclamation but surely the alternative you might have us believe would be even more pressing?

As for incest, not until "the time of Moses were laws established forbidding a man from marrying a sister or niece. The timing of this command makes perfect sense biologically, for genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations." (http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/psalm104.html)

Kurieuo

rm2013 wrote:God said that noah was to gather 2 of each species, one male and one femaleinto his arc.

That's not quite right:
"Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth." (Genesis 7:2-3 RSV)

rm2013 wrote:All races of man have seperate and distinct genetic markers. If we were all descended from 8 people, our dna and genetic markers would be pretty much the same.

And if we were all descended from one original unicellular bug, wouldn't our dna and genetic markers be pretty much the same?

There is much scientific evidence that supports a flood. The formation of oil deposits and fossils is supported by a flood model. The concentration of dinosaur fossils is certain areas is predicted by a flood model. Water could easily have covered the earth if there were no mountains. Beecause of the great upheaval that occurred at the time of the flood I feel the mountain ranges were formed at this time. (waters coming up from the deep) The different strata in rock is predicted by a flood model. If as you think, 8 people could not replenish the earth, how could it have happened with one living cell in a primordial pool. I am of course assuming that only one cell came to life from nothing in the very beginning.

Ray

Do be sure to read the link from to this site and see what is said by the flood.

This question, the way it is framed certainly seems to be set for bait, but that is OK. They are questions that should be answered.

Consider that Christians have a fairly broad spectrum and do not make the mistake of assuming that all Christians accept one particular explanation.

I happen to believe that Noah's flood was local and not global. From the perspective of those involved, it certainly "seemed" Global, in terms of all they knew and were familiar with. In terms of population, if you do the Math, it is not impossible for the populations involved would arise in the time given. Nevertheless I do still have some questions and am working a lot of it through from my initial training and unquestioning acceptance of Noah's Flood as it was presented to me growing up.

Christian Faith does not require intellectual suicide. But it does require a willingness to work with and wrestle with issues. That's not a bad thing. Science itself requires that. Anything worthwhile requires that.

What about Noah and his family being the only ones left alive after the flood. Noah, his 3 boys, noah's eife and the wives of his kids. There are not enough people to procreate and create all the nations of the earth. Besides, there would have been numerous instances of incest required to repopulate the earth. This also does not take into account the creation of the various races of people, Balck, white, red, brown and yellow. Negros,
orientals, indians, caucasians, etc...

There probably were enough people to repopulate the earth in the timescale. But on the basis that the flood may have been only local then it wouldn't be a problem.

Researchers at MIT have posited the following:

More recent attention has
been given to our common paternal ancestor, `Y Chromosome
Adam,' who may have lived 35,000–89,000 years
ago. However, if we consider not just our all-female and
all-male lines, but our ancestors along all parental lines,
it turns out that everyone on earth may share a common
ancestor who is remarkably recent.

See:

http://tedlab.mit.edu/~dr/Papers/Rohde-MRCA-two.pdf

What about the British Museums collection of the exact same story, written in cuneiform, which describes a man named noah, who was a sumerian,
and that an enormous flood came down the tigris and euphrates rivers,
and washed away a huge area. Noah, according to the story, was a trader
and in order to save all his wares and goods, was able to pile many items onto his boat. It is therefore assumed that the later jews saw this story and coopted it to include gods wrath at man, and the ensuing flood.

This is likely a differing account of the same event from another perspective. The fact that many ancient narratives contain reference to a flood, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh, may just point to the fact that something like it really did happen.

it would have required a fleet of arks to have 2 of each species of land animal, fish and whales and other sea dwelling animals being excluded of course.

Not so. See the following:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html


Regards,

Blacknad.

gone

can someone please explain to me how this "flood" happened? rain or something like that... I am sorry and I do not want to offend any people who completely believe in the Bible but as far as I know, there is not enough water molecules to make that much water.

narek33 wrote:can someone please explain to me how this "flood" happened? rain or something like that... I am sorry and I do not want to offend any people who completely believe in the Bible but as far as I know, there is not enough water molecules to make that much water.

There are a number of different theories.

Regarding enough water to cover the mountains:

Most of the great mountain ranges we see today were probably build up after the flood by isostatic rebound, and by collision of the continental plates after rapid breakup and accelerated "drift." Before the flood the earth seems to have had just one continent. Division of the continents may have occurred rapidly "in the days of Peleg" (Gen. 10:25)---which was about 150 years after the flood. This can not be strongly supported from the Bible except for the fact that the root PLG (Peleg) is found in modern words such a "pelagic" and "archipelago." All that Genesis 10 actually says about Peleg is "in his days the earth was divided." This could mean a division and migration of peoples rather than referring to continental breakup. Rapid continental drift would have been so disastrous in terms of earthquakes, tidal waves, vulcanism and other upheavals that many scientifically-oriented Bible scholars believe the splitting of earth's original continent ("pangea") occurred during the year of the flood. Technical papers on the subject are available from the Ist, IInd and IIIrd International Conferences on Creationism, referenced at the end of this paper.

Concerning God causing water to rise out of the ground to swell the sea levels:

We will probably never see it or be able to use it. But billions of droplets of water buried hundreds of kilometres below us hold precious secrets of their own. Lou Bergeron reports

DEEP inside the Earth, the pressure is excruciating. Squeezed into strange shapes and forms, the rocks are so hot that they crawl like super-thick treacle. It is an inferno worthy of Dante, but it also contains something surprising. What's the last thing you would expect to find in this hellish environment? Water. Vast amounts of the stuff. In fact, more than 400 kilometres inside the Earth there may be enough water to replace the surface oceans more than ten times.
But this water is not a series of immense seas. Rather, it is scattered in droplets, some as small as a single molecule, with most trapped inside crystal lattices of rare minerals that only form under intense pressures. How much there is down there is still fiercely debated. But these inner "oceans" could help to explain long-standing puzzles about Earth's formation, the causes of deep earthquakes hundreds of kilometres inside the Earth, and why massive volcanic outbursts suddenly flood hundreds of thousands of square kilometres with lava. They may even give a glimpse of what the future holds for the Earth's climate-and if we might ever be drowned from below.

Concerning the amount of water held in the atmosphere due to precipitation:

The water for the Flood came mostly from the "fountains of the deep." Where is this water now? A globe of the earth will show that the earth's surface is 2/3rds water, with the average height of land less than 5000 feet. The ocean basins, on the other hand, are on the average 12,000 feet deep. If one were to bulldoze the present land surface into the oceans so that the earth was absolutely level everywhere, at least a mile of water would cover everything. A number of scientists believe there was much more water in the earth's upper atmosphere prior to the Flood, producing a uniform, sub-tropical climate everywhere with almost no seasonal changes, violent storms or even regular rain and snowfall. It is has been suggested that the surface barometric preessure before the Flood may have been twice as high as it is now. Thermodyamic models of the earth's atmosphere show clearly that the earth's atmosphere can not hold huge quantities of water. Prof. Larry Vardiman in a 1998 paper summarizing recent works says this: "Temperature profiles under a water vapor canopy were studied to determine their sensitivity to variations in factors other than water vapor content. The solar constant, albedo, solar zenith angle, cirrus cloud thickness, and cirrus cloud base height were each varied independently from about 50% to 200% of their normal values and the equilibrium vertical temperature profiles determined. A vapor canopy containing about 0.1 meters of precipitable water was assumed in all cases. Surface temperatures were affected most stronly by changes in the solar constant. A 50% reduction in the solar constant reduced the surface temperature under the canopy from 335K to 240K. Changes in albedo, solar zenith angle, and cirrus cloud thickness also produced strong effects on surface temperature. However, none of the effects were so dramatic that the concern over limitation on water content in the canopy by hot surface temperatures was eliminated. If all five parameters were to be introduced into the model simultaneously such that the surface temperature was minimized, it is estimated that the precipitable water content of the canopy could possibly be raised to as much as 2.0 meters." (Proc. Fourth International Conference on Creationism, 705 Washington Dr., Pittsburgh, PA 15229)

See - http://www.ldolphin.org/flood.shtml


For an exploration of space issues on the ark and other points see:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c013.html

Regards,

Blacknad.

Genesis 8:5-9 is an interesting passage:

Gen 8:5 And the water decreased steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the tops of the mountains became visible.
Gen 8:6 Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made;
Gen 8:7 and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth.
Gen 8:8 Then he sent out a dove from him, to see if the water was abated from the face of the land;
Gen 8:9 but the dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to him into the ark; for the water was on the surface of all the earth. Then he put out his hand and took her, and brought her into the ark to himself.

Verse 9 says water was on all the face of the earth, yet in verse 5 we are told that the tops of the mountains were visible. Therefore it seems better to say this means all the water was on all the face of the land.

erets can be translated as earth, land (as of a country or region), ground, surface of earth. Here it seems apparent "land" is the appropriate translation. Only the low laying lands around Noah at verse 9 were all covered with water.

Kurieuo

Why do people automatically assume that man's law (science) has to always agree with God's law? If God wants a flood he can create a flood. If he wants to fit the entire animal kingdom in a single ark he can do it, just as readily as he can feed thousands of people with enough food for a few.

By the way, these are called "m.i.r.a.c.l.e.s"

That being said, there is VAST scientific evidence to support the flood. Do your own research.

liger wrote:Why do people automatically assume that man's law (science) has to always agree with God's law? If God wants a flood he can create a flood. If he wants to fit the entire animal kingdom in a single ark he can do it, just as readily as he can feed thousands of people with enough food for a few.

By the way, these are called "m.i.r.a.c.l.e.s"

That being said, there is VAST scientific evidence to support the flood. Do your own research.

The issue isn't whether God "could" do it. The question is what did God do.

The problem with relying upon miracles as an explanation where the text itself does not offer that as an explanation is that you cease to draw out what the text says and instead read into it what you choose.

Faith is a wonderful, necessary and appropriate response to many issues in Scripture.

The problem is that, as you point out rightly, Science is often wrong and it is subject to mistakes in interpretation. What is usually ignored by those who use this argument is that men also make mistakes in interpretting Scripture.

What are we to conclude? Because science is often wrong does that mean God has not revealed truth in nature? On the other hand, because theology is often wrong does that mean God has not revealed truth in Scripture?

To be consistent you really should answer both questions the same way.

The bottom line is that Nature and Scripture are in theory in perfect agreement as they should be if you accept God as the creator of one and the inspirer of the other.

You have to work not only with the errors of science. You have to be willing to face and work with the errors in interpretation and theology and work to bring the two into harmony.

It's not either/or. It's both.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

liger wrote:Why do people automatically assume that man's law (science) has to always agree with God's law? If God wants a flood he can create a flood. If he wants to fit the entire animal kingdom in a single ark he can do it, just as readily as he can feed thousands of people with enough food for a few.

By the way, these are called "m.i.r.a.c.l.e.s"

That being said, there is VAST scientific evidence to support the flood. Do your own research.

The issue isn't whether God "could" do it. The question is what did God do.

The problem with relying upon miracles as an explanation where the text itself does not offer that as an explanation is that you cease to draw out what the text says and instead read into it what you choose.

Faith is a wonderful, necessary and appropriate response to many issues in Scripture.

The problem is that, as you point out rightly, Science is often wrong and it is subject to mistakes in interpretation. What is usually ignored by those who use this argument is that men also make mistakes in interpretting Scripture.

What are we to conclude? Because science is often wrong does that mean God has not revealed truth in nature? On the other hand, because theology is often wrong does that mean God has not revealed truth in Scripture?

To be consistent you really should answer both questions the same way.

The bottom line is that Nature and Scripture are in theory in perfect agreement as they should be if you accept God as the creator of one and the inspirer of the other.

You have to work not only with the errors of science. You have to be willing to face and work with the errors in interpretation and theology and work to bring the two into harmony.

It's not either/or. It's both.

I don't believe there are errors in the bible, which your posts seem to be suggesting. Correct me if I'm wrong.

liger wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

liger wrote:Why do people automatically assume that man's law (science) has to always agree with God's law? If God wants a flood he can create a flood. If he wants to fit the entire animal kingdom in a single ark he can do it, just as readily as he can feed thousands of people with enough food for a few.

By the way, these are called "m.i.r.a.c.l.e.s"

That being said, there is VAST scientific evidence to support the flood. Do your own research.

The issue isn't whether God "could" do it. The question is what did God do.

The problem with relying upon miracles as an explanation where the text itself does not offer that as an explanation is that you cease to draw out what the text says and instead read into it what you choose.

Faith is a wonderful, necessary and appropriate response to many issues in Scripture.

The problem is that, as you point out rightly, Science is often wrong and it is subject to mistakes in interpretation. What is usually ignored by those who use this argument is that men also make mistakes in interpretting Scripture.

What are we to conclude? Because science is often wrong does that mean God has not revealed truth in nature? On the other hand, because theology is often wrong does that mean God has not revealed truth in Scripture?

To be consistent you really should answer both questions the same way.

The bottom line is that Nature and Scripture are in theory in perfect agreement as they should be if you accept God as the creator of one and the inspirer of the other.

You have to work not only with the errors of science. You have to be willing to face and work with the errors in interpretation and theology and work to bring the two into harmony.

It's not either/or. It's both.

I don't believe there are errors in the bible, which your posts seem to be suggesting. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

I don't believe there are errors in the Bible either.

Please point out where I claim there are. You appear to be having difficulty differentiating between the Bible and theology. Theology is man's interpretation of that Bible and I certainly believe there are errors in that realm quite regularly. In fact, I humbly admit that I make mistakes in that regard.

This is a common misconception that I used to hold when I was a YEC'r. You seem to believe that only YEC is based on a literal hermeneutic. OEC proponents believe in the literal interpretation of scripture as well.

Maybe you could try interacting with what I'm saying (the message) instead of attacking the messenger.

It's ever so much more productive and respectful.