Does Anyone Take the Story of Noah's Ark Literally?

[First Baseman]

A few more questions for the Zoo Boat believers:

1 - What did all of these animals eat for the year that they were on the ark? What did they eat once they got off the ark?... seeing as all of the vegetation would have died under the water.

2 - Where did all of the water come from to flood the entire earth, and after the flood, where did it all go?

3 - Why didn't all but brackish fish die? The fresh water would have become brackish from the oceans, and the oceans would have become brackish from being diluted by fresh water.

God is omnipotent. All of these questions are easily handled by One who is all-powerful.

 

[First Baseman]

Am I really to believe that Mt. Everest wasn't there 4,000 years ago? Seriously?

Sorry, I'm not that stupid or gullible.

The Bible does not say that Mt. Everest did not exist before the flood. And yes, the global flood changed the topography of the Earth.

 

[El Conquistador]

A few more questions for the Zoo Boat believers:

1 - What did all of these animals eat for the year that they were on the ark? What did they eat once they got off the ark?... seeing as all of the vegetation would have died under the water.

2 - Where did all of the water come from to flood the entire earth, and after the flood, where did it all go?

3 - Why didn't all but brackish fish die? The fresh water would have become brackish from the oceans, and the oceans would have become brackish from being diluted by fresh water.

Those brackish fish sure did get a free pass, though, didn't they?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Did you use the search option? You didn't try very hard.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?f_sear...y&f_context_any=any&f_context_without=any&op=

It's kinda like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, or NARTH. Yes, they have articles stating people can change their sexuality, that sexual orientation is a choice, and that most homosexuals are homosexual due to Freudian concepts and various things missing in their childhood or trauma that happened during childhood. But when you take in everything, and not just them, you find they are of a slim minority and there are entire volumes worth of research that could easily fill a small library that proves them wrong. It's the same way with the idea of a global flood. It just didn't happen, and there is no evidence to support that it did. There are floods here are there, probably even some catastrophic flooding in the Middle East, but nothing to suggest a global flood ever happened. It's also raises a very major question, which is where did all the water suddenly come from and go to? Water just does not appear and disappear, and enough water to flood the entire world to the point of covering all mountains, we would see it around somewhere.

 

[McBell]

Gotta love the safety net "GodDidIt" answer.

 

[First Baseman]

Problem is when some people prefer ratification over truth.

Incorrect. One's world view defines how people view the evidence and arrive at their conclusions.

 

[First Baseman]

Gotta love the safety net "GodDidIt" answer.

Is that your rebuttal to it? It is kind of weak.

 

[First Baseman]

It's kinda like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, or NARTH. Yes, they have articles stating people can change their sexuality, that sexual orientation is a choice, and that most homosexuals are homosexual due to Freudian concepts and various things missing in their childhood or trauma that happened during childhood. But when you take in everything, and not just them, you find they are of a slim minority and there are entire volumes worth of research that could easily fill a small library that proves them wrong. It's the same way with the idea of a global flood. It just didn't happen, and there is no evidence to support that it did. There are floods here are there, probably even some catastrophic flooding in the Middle East, but nothing to suggest a global flood ever happened. It's also raises a very major question, which is where did all the water suddenly come from and go to? Water just does not appear and disappear, and enough water to flood the entire world to the point of covering all mountains, we would see it around somewhere.

God is omnipotent. And see post # 47

 

[McBell]

Incorrect. One's world view defines how people view the evidence and arrive at their conclusions.

Yes.
And that is ratification, not a search for truth.
Nice try though.

 

[Altfish]

Actually I was informing you by implying that you need to read up on Creationist arguments and evidence. You assume too much.

Now a Creationist would never do that, would they?
Do you not think I've already read, researched and dismissed as total b@llox all those arguments that you presented in your link.

 

[McBell]

Is that your rebuttal to it? It is kind of weak.

there is no need to rebuttal any form of the "GodDidIt" answer.
That you think the "GodDidIt" answer is anything other than the weakest of answers is not only sad, but rather pathetic.

 

[First Baseman]

Now a Creationist would never do that, would they?
Do you not think I've already read, researched and dismissed as total b@llox all those arguments that you presented in your link.

As have I read, researched and dismissed all rebuttals to those arguments presented in my link. Oops.

 

[First Baseman]

there is no need to rebuttal any form of the "GodDidIt" answer.
That you think the "GodDidIt" answer is anything other than the weakest of answers is not only sad, but rather pathetic.

You think that because you don't think God exists. Argument from Assumption. Invalid.

 

[InChrist]

Although, I didn't think much about the flood as a child, I do believe the literal biblical account now.

I think that there are various possibilities concerning kangaroos and platypuses. I believe before the flood the land was one continent which then broke up and spread apart (rapid continental drift)- either during the Flood-or as some believe during the days of Peleg, perhaps 100-600 years later. So it would not have been difficult for kangaroos or platypuses to get onto the ark or to Australia afterwards. Other possibilities are land bridges, floating masses of vegetation, or humans transporting them.

 

[Altfish]

ICR is filled with science. Just because you choose to interpret the evidence differently doesn't mean they're wrong. That is an incorrect assumption.

Not that I can see. Science is peer reviewed papers, hypothesis, facts, theories based on evidence. Not evidence imagined to suit scriptures.
Show me the peer reviewed papers that ICR science is based on and I will reconsider.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Actually I was informing you by implying that you need to read up on Creationist arguments and evidence. You assume too much.

I've read ICR and many similar websites on the subject. I can assure you they don't have answers for my questions. But if you think there are maybe you can answer the questions instead of copy-pasting a bunch of unrelated subjects?

Not only would a global flood have destroyed world ecology but it would have made the world uninhabitable for hundreds of years, if not permanently through changes in the wobble and rotation of the Earth. Things like poisoning the soil, ripping off the top layer, destroying the oceanic ecosystem by scattering plankton outside the currents, poisoning freshwater bodies with saltwater and throwing off the PH, killing any coral beds and all deep ocean life through excess PSI, cold and lightlessness.

If the flood were an actual physical event it would have done a lot more than anything any evidence indicates.

 

[McBell]

You think that because you don't think God exists. Argument from Assumption. Invalid.

ROTFLMAO

Yeah, because "GodDidIt" isn't an assumption at all.....

ROTFLMAO

 

[First Baseman]

Not that I can see. Science is peer reviewed papers, hypothesis, facts, theories based on evidence. Not evidence imagined to suit scriptures.
Show me the peer reviewed papers that ICR science is based on and I will reconsider.

Peer review papers are biased against creation. That's why you don't see them. And that is a poor excuse for not considering the evidence presented by ICR.

 

[First Baseman]

I've read ICR and many similar websites on the subject. I can assure you they don't have answers for my questions. But if you think there are maybe you can answer the questions instead of copy-pasting a bunch of unrelated subjects?

Well, your quoted post is assumption, it isn't fact. I don't see any questions in it:

Not only would a global flood have destroyed world ecology but it would have made the world uninhabitable for hundreds of years, if not permanently through changes in the wobble and rotation of the Earth. Things like poisoning the soil, ripping off the top layer, destroying the oceanic ecosystem by scattering plankton outside the currents, poisoning freshwater bodies with saltwater and throwing off the PH, killing any coral beds and all deep ocean life through excess PSI, cold and lightlessness.

If the flood were an actual physical event it would have done a lot more than anything any evidence indicates.

 

[McBell]

***waits for EXPELLED to be used***