- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
What geological record, specifically?
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
What fossil record is that. The one that is scant?
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
I was not aware they dug up the whole world. I though they said the fossil record was incomplete for that reason, among others.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
Seas, or sea of water? You know this? How?
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
If you assume the world in Noah's day was the same as today, and assume that your assumptions are correct, you have created your own story, and gone away from the Noah's account.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
Again making assumptions that the world of Noah's day was the same as today, twists the Noah's account, and so you are creating a story to fit your assumptions.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
Seeds remain in the earth for years until their death when the produce a plant. Noah did not leave the ark before vegetation started to spring... according to the Biblical account.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
Before they multiplied? Not according to Genesis. The Bible says, they multiplied, and there is no place that says Noah ran out of the food supply they brought on the ark.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
Would the same be true of the people? Proof please.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
Unnatural with the assumption that we are applying today's knowledge, circumstances, and make up to back then? That's to twist the account to suit our assumptions.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
Assumptions. Again, applying what we have today to back then.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
This is assuming to a very great degree that animals
didn't all adapted to be what they are today, from being quite different.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
Boats did. For centuries, and man used them to move and trade living animals.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
Possibly. What of it, though? Aside from that, there are assumptions made here as well.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
50,000 animals? Who took the photo of that? I'd be happy to see what film looked like 4,000 years ago.
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
Not sure what this has to do with the flood, and where it fits in, but I think we can both make assumption about the world before and after the flood. Only, they will just be assumptions.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
Ah. A mosquito. I wonder why the lions didn't eat everything on board.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
Just read Genesis, from Chapter 6, and try not to imagine that the world of Noah's day was what we see to today.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
If we read Genesis, we can see where it went.
- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).
Oh. Those hypotheses... but those are ideas NewGuyOnTheBlock . Sort of like the ones you have.
There is no need to question a reliable source, but I think if one thinks there is reason, or are reasons for doing so, then they rightly should do what you are doing.
It's commendable to examine the facts, and try to evaluate truth.
