|
Post by Charity on Mar 6, 2004 12:23:01 GMT -5
Q: The Bible tells us that all the land animals that God sent to Noah stayed on the Ark for a whole year. How could they have survived ‘cooped up’ for that long? A: This is a good question. If Noah had all of these land animals on board, including dinosaurs, how could he feed and take care of them? In fact, many skeptics challenge Christians with this question to discredit the truth of this account. The Bible doesn’t reveal all the details about what happened on the Ark, but we do know that God was in total control of the situation. In fact, there’s a verse in Genesis that states, ‘And God remembered Noah.’ There’s no doubt that God supernaturally looked after the Ark and its precious cargo. Having observed the behavior of animals, we can offer some suggestions. Biologists know that most animals seem to have the ability to hibernate. It’s possible that for some animals God supernaturally intensified this ability during the time of the Flood so that the animals’ body functions were at a minimum and their food requirements would have been very small. They probably would have slept most of the time. And there may have been other techniques. Whatever the question, it’s vital to believe the book of Genesis! This week on www.AnswersInGenesis.org …<br>
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Mar 6, 2004 12:30:34 GMT -5
I would think that Noah-and God would pick only babies of all "kinds". We know they don't have to be one of each variation of a species, only one pair of dogs for instance would carry the genetic codes for dogs. So a boy dog and a girl dog (just the two) could be enough to repopulate the kind. I think most of the animals on the ark were babies. Why? For the following reason: 1. They sleep more or hibernate. 2. They eat less. 3. They are much smaller than when full grown. 4. Easier to manage. I think two of every kind of animal alive today as well as the extinct ones would have easily fit onto the Ark. Some have argued that dinos were to big to fit on the ark. So not true. Most dinos were smaller than a sheep full grown. Evos point out that there are 300 species of dogs, so how could all those dogs fit on the ark. (See above). I think the bible's account is much better than what the evos believes. They believe that we come from a rock. Now that takes some serious faith friends.
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Mar 6, 2004 12:35:56 GMT -5
Some dinos were big and most were small. The big ones were small at birth. Look at an elephant. A newborn is very small, yet grows to be enormous. I think the reason dinos went extinct is because God picked them to be. After the flood, the atmosphere and world would be a very different place. For some very interesting reading see Walt Brown's site and also Robert Gentry's site on radio palonium halos.
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Mar 6, 2004 12:46:05 GMT -5
A lot of kids I have taught at church show a surprising reation when I tell them that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark. I suppose the fact that public schools have tried to preach evolution for so long, the kids don't put dinos and Noah together. The posters at most churches do not have dinos in the picture. This is not good. Posters of the Garden of Eden also omit dinos yet show other animals. Ever wonder why?
Many theistic evolutionists (that's someone who tries to say the bible and evolution are both right-compromise), believe there was this "pre-adamic" world in which dinos and cavemen lived. THIS IS NOT BIBLICAL! Why does man think he has to blend God's Word with the ever changing THEORIES of men?
If you teach Sunday school, try asking the kids if they can guess how many dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and see what happens. It will surprise you how secularly indoctrinated even the littlest ones already are to evolution. The public schools begin in pre-K indoctrinating them. Evolution is a religion. It is a secular one who's purpose is to destroy the Faith we have in God.
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Dec 21, 2004 23:47:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Aug 5, 2005 12:10:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Aug 5, 2005 12:12:21 GMT -5
Noah’s Flood Questions and Answers General Flood topics The Genesis Flood: Its Legacy Continues (Special Webcast with Dr John Whitcomb) The Flood and the Final Judgment, Part 1 (Special Webcast with Dr John Whitcomb) The Flood and the Final Judgment, Part 2 (Special Webcast with Dr John Whitcomb) Genesis and catastrophe Noah revisited Noah — The Man Who Trusted God Noah’s Flood—why? The (second) greatest catastrophe of all time Does the Bible really claim that Noah’s Flood was global? Was the Flood global? Does Scripture require a global Flood? Noah’s Flood Covered the Whole Earth Church leader ‘aghast’ at belief in a worldwide Flood? Biblical evidence for the universality of the Genesis Flood (Technical, Origins 22(2):58–73, 1995) Is there geological evidence for a global flood? Q&A: Geology Q&A: Fossils How do creationists answer critics who claim that the biblical account of Noah’s Flood was not feasible, or that the Flood was merely localized, not worldwide? After devastation … the recovery Geology and the young earth Problems with a Global Flood? (Semi-Technical, by AiG scientist, published on the True Origins site) Can Flood Geology Explain Thick Chalk Layers? (Technical) Were the flood waters solely caused by rain, or something more? How could there be enough water to cover all the mountains? Was there a vapour canopy? What about catastrophic plate tectonics? Noah’s Flood — what about all that water? Drowned from below Hypercanes: rainfall generators during the flood? See also Q&A: Plate Tectonics Noah’s Ark: fitting and feeding the animals, waterproofing, oxygen supply, etc. See Q&A: Noah’s Ark How could freshwater fish and land plants have survived a global flood? How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood? (includes fresh and salt-water survival) (available in Spanish) How could fish survive the Genesis Flood? (ICR Impact article) What happened to land plants during the Flood? (ICR Impact article) Can an approximate date for Noah’s Flood be determined using the Bible? Creation Education: The Date of Noah’s Flood [Ed. note: Ussher calculated a slightly different date of 2348 BC] Was Noah’s Flood really just a local flood in the Black Sea area? Black Sea Flood by Dr Carl Wieland (Special Webcast) Proof of Noah’s Flood at the Black Sea? What has Robert Ballard really found? (critique of Ballard, Pitman and Ryan’s fallacious identification) Pre-Flood relics on the bottom of the Black Sea? ‘Black Sea Flood’ mistake? (response by Tas Walker) Paleosols: digging deeper buries ‘challenge’ to Flood geology How do creation and global flood legends from different cultures compare to the biblical account? Aboriginal Flood Legend Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories The BIAMI Legends The Cosmological beliefs of the American Indians (ICR Impact article) Flood! The Flood of Noah and the flood of Gilgamesh (ICR Impact article) Genesis according to the Miao people (ICR Impact article) Genesis and ancient Near Eastern stories of Creation and the Flood: an introduction (Semi-Technical, Christian Answers Network) Grand Canyon Legend Maori memories of the Creator Noah’s Flood and the epic of Gilgamesh A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis (Master’s thesis: Nozomi Osanai) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See also: Noah’s Ark Q&A Fossils Q&A Geology Q&A www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Aug 5, 2005 12:13:29 GMT -5
Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers Q&A Topics: Q&A Index pageAlien/UFOsAnthropology & Ape-menApologeticsArchaeologyArguments NOT to useAstronomy & AstrophysicsBibleBiographies - CreationistsCloningCommunism & NazismCountering the CriticsCreation CompromisesCreation: Why It MattersDarwin, CharlesDesign FeaturesDinosaursEducationEmbryonic RecapitulationEnvironmentalismFamily & MarriageFloodFossilsGeocentrismGenesisGeneticsGeologyGodHistoryHuman Life: AbortionIce AgeInformation TheoryJesus ChristLinguisticsMammothsMorality and EthicsMutationsNatural SelectionNoah’s ArkOrigin of LifePhilosophyPlate TectonicsProbabilitiesRacismRadiometric DatingReligion (humanism, etc.)ScienceScopes’ TrialSpeciationThermodynamics and Order‘Vestigial’ OrgansYoung Age Evidence The Bible reveals that God judged the Earth with a great Flood such that ‘all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man…. Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.’ Although biblical skeptics often dismiss this account as pure mythology, Christians should accept the word of God Who was there rather than the opinions of fallible men who were not. The articles and resources below will help you uphold the biblical account and answer questions about Noah and the Flood. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How do creationists answer critics who claim that the biblical account of Noah’s Flood was not feasible, or that the Flood was merely localized, not worldwide? Problems with a Global Flood [and Noah’s Ark]? (Semi-Technical, by AiG scientist and published on the True Origins site) Yes, Noah did build an Ark—response to the BBC article ‘Did Noah really build an Ark?’ How was there enough room for all the animals on Noah’s Ark? How did all the animals fit on Noah’s Ark? What did Noah’s Ark look like, inside and out? WorldwideFlood.Com (off-site) Is Noah’s Ark located somewhere on Mount Ararat? Is there any particular reason scientists seem to suspect this site? Amazing Ark Exposé (Semi-Technical) Ararat anomoly Ark Ahoy! Has Anyone Really Seen Noah’s Ark? (Christian Answers Network) Mount Ararat, Australia Why is it so important to show the Ark at a realistic size? What‘s wrong with ‘cute arks’? Modelling the Size of Noah’s Ark (See also Rod Walsh's site) Building a Scale Model of Noah’s Ark The ‘bathtub’ ark How innocent are ‘bathtub arks’? (response to critic of above article) How did diseases, many of which cannot live outside of a host, survive the Flood? Were many of the animals and perhaps even Noah’s family infected? Diseases on the Ark: Answering the Critics (Semi-Technical) Could such a huge vessel be stable? Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway Large ships of antiquity How could freshwater fish and land plants have survived a global flood? How did fish and plants survive the Flood? How could Kangaroos get to the Ark from Australia, and then migrate back again? How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places, such as Australia? (Extract from the Answers Book) The grey blanket How were Noah, his family, and the animals able to breathe on the Ark when they were above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? How did Noah and others get by without oxygen tanks? What is pitch? How did Noah make pitch to seal the ark? Was it truly waterproof? The Pitch for Noah’s Ark www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Aug 6, 2005 12:02:37 GMT -5
How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia? By Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland, Ed. Don Batten
First published in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book Chapter 17
How did the animals get from remote countries to the ark? After the flood, did kangaroos hop all the way to Australia? What did koalas eat on the way?
Let us begin by reaffirming that God's Word does indeed reveal, in the plainest possible terms, that the whole globe was inundated with a violent, watery cataclysm—Noah's flood. All land-dwelling, air-breathing creatures not on the ark perished and the world was repopulated by those surviving on the ark (see Was the Flood global?).
How did the animals get to the ark? Skeptics paint a picture of Noah going to countries remote from the Middle East to gather animals such as kangaroos and koalas from Australia, and kiwis from New Zealand. However, the Bible states that the animals came to Noah; he did not have to round them up (Genesis 6:20). God apparently caused the animals to come to Noah. The Bible does not state how this was done.
We also do not know what the geography of the world was like before the flood. If there was only one continent at that time (see later in this chapter), then questions of getting animals from remote regions to the ark are not relevant.
Animal distribution after the flood There are severe practical limitations on our attempts to understand the hows and whys of something that happened once, was not recorded in detail, and cannot be repeated.
Difficulties in our ability to explain every single situation in detail result from our limited understanding. We cannot go back in a time machine to check what has happened, and our mental reconstructions of what the world was like after the Flood will inevitably be deficient. Because of this, the patterns of post-Flood animal migration present some problems and research challenges for the biblical creation model. However, there are clues from various sources which suggest answers to the questions.
Clues from modern times When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, the island remnant remained lifeless for some years, but was eventually recolonized by a surprising variety of creatures, including not only insects and earthworms, but birds, lizards, snakes and even a few mammals. One would not have expected some of this surprising array of creatures to have crossed the ocean, but they obviously did. Even though these were mostly smaller than some of the creatures we will discuss here, it illustrates the limits of our imaginings on such things.
Land bridges Evolutionists acknowledge that men and animals could once freely cross the Bering Strait, which separates Asia and the Americas.1 Before the idea of continental drift became popular, evolutionists depended entirely upon a lowering of the sea level during an ice age (which locked up water in the ice) to create land bridges, enabling dry-land passage from Europe most of the way to Australia, for example.
The existence of some deep-water stretches along the route to Australia is still consistent with this explanation. Evolutionist geologists themselves believe there have been major tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea floors, in the time period with which they associate an ice age. For instance, parts of California are believed to have been raised many thousands of feet from what was the sea floor during this ice age period, which they call ‘Pleistocene’ (one of the most recent of the supposed geological periods). Creationist geologists generally regard Pleistocene sediments as post-Flood, the period in which these major migrations took place.
In the same way, other dry land areas, including parts of these land bridges, subsided to become submerged at around the same time.2
There is a widespread, but mistaken, belief that marsupials are found only in Australia, thus supporting the idea that they must have evolved there. However, living marsupials, opossums, are found also in North and South America, and fossil marsupials have been found on every continent. Likewise, monotremes were once thought to be unique to Australia, but the discovery in 1991 of a fossil platypus tooth in South America stunned the scientific community.3 Therefore, since evolutionists believe all organisms came from a common ancestor, migration between Australia and other areas must be conceded as possible by all scientists, whether evolutionist or creationist.
Creationists generally believe there was only one Ice Age after, and as a consequence of, the Flood (see What about the Ice Age?). The lowered sea level at this time made it possible for animals to migrate over land bridges for centuries. Some creationists propose a form of continental break-up after the Flood, in the days of Peleg. This again would mean several centuries for animals to disperse, in this instance without the necessity of land bridges. However, continental break-up in the time of Peleg is not widely accepted in creationist circles (see What about continental drift?).
Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia? How did animals make the long journey from the Ararat region? Even though there have been isolated reports of individual animals making startling journeys of hundreds of miles, such abilities are not even necessary. Early settlers released a very small number of rabbits in Australia. Wild rabbits are now found at the very opposite corner (in fact, every corner) of this vast continent. Does that mean that an individual rabbit had to be capable of crossing the whole of Australia? Of course not. Creation speakers are sometimes asked mockingly, ‘Did the kangaroo hop all the way to Australia?’ We see by the rabbit example that this is a somewhat foolish question.
Populations of animals may have had centuries to migrate, relatively slowly, over many generations. Incidentally, the opposite question (also common), as to whether the two kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the ark, is also easily answered. The continents we now have, with their load of Flood-deposited sedimentary rock, are not the same as whatever continent or continents there may have been in the pre-Flood world.
We also lack information as to how animals were distributed before the Flood. Kangaroos (as is true for any other creature) may not have been on any isolated landmass. Genesis 1:9 suggests that there may have been only one landmass. (‘Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear’). For all we know, kangaroos might have been feeding within a stone's throw of Noah while he was building the Ark.
It may be asked, if creatures were migrating to Australia over a long time (which journey would have included such places as Indonesia, presumably) why do we not find their fossils en route in such countries?
Fossilization is a rare event, requiring, as a rule, sudden burial (as in the Flood) to prevent decomposition. Lions lived in Israel until relatively recently. We don't find lion fossils in Israel, yet this doesn't prevent us believing the many historical reports of their presence. The millions of bison that once roamed the United States of America have left virtually no fossils. So why should it be a surprise that small populations, presumably under migration pressure from competitors and/or predators, and thus living in only one area for a few generations at most, should leave no fossils?
Unique organisms Another issue is why certain animals (and plants) are uniquely found in only one place. Why is species x found only in Madagascar and species y only in the Seychelles? Many times, questions on this are phrased to indicate that the questioner believes that this means that species y headed only in that one direction, and never migrated anywhere else. While that is possible, it is not necessarily the case at all. All that the present situation indicates is that these are now the only places where x or y still survive.
The ancestors of present-day kangaroos may have established daughter populations in different parts of the world, but most of these populations subsequently became extinct. Perhaps those marsupials only survived in Australia because they migrated there ahead of the placental mammals (we are not suggesting anything other than ‘random’ processes in choice of destination), and were subsequently isolated from the placentals and so protected from competition and predation.
Palm Valley in central Australia is host to a unique species of palm, Livingstonia mariae, found nowhere else in the world. Does this necessarily mean that the seeds for this species floated only to this one little spot? Not at all. Current models of post-Flood climate indicate that the world is much drier now than it was in the early post-Flood centuries. Evolutionists themselves agree that in recent times (by evolutionary standards), the Sahara was lush and green, and central Australia had a moist, tropical climate. For all we know, the Livingstonia mariae palm may have been widespread over much of Australia, perhaps even in other places that are now dry, such as parts of Africa.
The palm has survived in Palm Valley because there it happens to be protected from the drying out which affected the rest of its vast central Australian surroundings. Everywhere else, it died out.
Incidentally, this concept of changing vegetation with changing climate should be kept in mind when considering post-Flood animal migration—especially because of the objections (and caricatures) which may be presented. For instance, how could creatures that today need a rain forest environment trudge across thousands of kilometres of parched desert on the way to where they now live? The answer is that it wasn't desert then!
The koala and other specialized types Some problems are more difficult to solve. For instance, there are creatures that require special conditions or a very specialized diet, such as the giant panda of China or Australia's koala. We don't know, of course, that bamboo shoots or blue gum leaves4 were not then flourishing all along their eventual respective migratory paths. In fact, this may have influenced the direction they took.
But, in any case, there is another possibility. A need for unique or special conditions to survive may be a result of specialization, a downhill change in some populations. That is, it may result from a loss in genetic information, from thinning out of the gene pool or by degenerative mutation. A good example is the many modern breeds of dog, selected by man (although natural conditions can do likewise), which are much less hardy in the wild than their ‘mongrel’ ancestors. For example, the St Bernard carries a mutational defect, an overactive thyroid, which means it needs to live in a cold environment to avoid overheating.
This suggests that the ancestors of such creatures, when they came off the Ark, were not as specialized. Thus they were more hardy than their descendants, who carry only a portion of that original gene pool of information.5 In other words, the koala's ancestor may have been able to survive on a much greater range of vegetation. Such an explanation has been made possible only with modern biological insights. Perhaps as knowledge increases some of the remaining difficulties will become less so.
Such changes do not require a long time for animals under migratory pressure. The first small population that formed would tend to break up rapidly into daughter populations, going in different directions, each carrying only a portion of the gene pool of the original pair that came off the ark.
Sometimes all of a population will eventually become extinct; sometimes all but one specialized type. Where all the sub-types survive and proliferate, we find some of the tremendous diversity seen among some groups of creatures which are apparently derived from one created kind. This explains why some very obviously related species are found far apart from each other.
more next post
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Aug 6, 2005 12:03:09 GMT -5
The sloth, a very slow-moving creature, may seem to require much more time than Scripture allows to make the journey from Ararat to its present home. Perhaps its present condition is also explicable by a similar evolutionary process. However, to account for today's animal distribution, evolutionists themselves have had to propose that certain primates have traveled across hundreds of miles of open ocean on huge rafts of matted vegetation torn off in storms.6 Indeed, iguanas have recently been documented traveling hundreds of kilometres in this manner between islands in the Caribbean.7 The Bible suggests a pattern of post-Flood dispersal of animals and humans that accounts for fossil distribution of apes and humans, for example. In post-Flood deposits in Africa, ape fossils are found below human fossils. Evolutionists claim that this arose because humans evolved from the apes, but there is another explanation. Animals, including apes, would have begun spreading out over the earth straight after the flood, whereas the Bible indicates that people refused to do this (Genesis 9:1, 11:1-9). Human dispersal did not start until Babel, some hundreds of years after the Flood. Such a delay would have meant that some ape fossils would be found consistently below human fossils, since people would have arrived in Africa after the apes.8 We may never know the exact answer to every one of such questions, but certainly one can see that the problems are far less formidable than they may at first appear.9 Coupled with all the biblical, geological, and anthropological evidence for Noah's Flood, one is justified in regarding the Genesis account of the animals dispersing from a central point as perfectly reasonable.10 Not only that, but the biblical model provides an excellent framework for the scientific study of these questions. www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Aug 6, 2005 17:11:19 GMT -5
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Aug 6, 2005 17:17:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Dec 30, 2005 12:44:02 GMT -5
Noah probably brought baby animals/reptiles...on the ark because:
1. They were smaller
2. They weighed less
3. They ate less
4. They sleep a lot more
5. They're tougher
6. They will live longer after the flood to produce more offspring.
The Bible states that there were two of every "sort", brought onto the ark.
The Bible never uses the word "species", but uses the wor kind-sort, which means two of a sort that can bring forth offspring.
Sceptics cannot believe that Noah fit "millions" of animals on the ark, but he did not-he brought:
1. only land animals and not fish (Genesis 7:22)
2. Only those with nostrils, no bugs. (Genesis 7:22)
3. Babies (which is common sense)
4. And lastly, he brought two of every kind NOT VARIETY (Genesis 7:14)
There are over 270 flood legends that have been found from cultures all over the world.
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Dec 30, 2005 12:44:32 GMT -5
Read 2 Peter 3:3-8. It tells us that people who scoff at the Bible are "willingly ignorant" of teh Creation and the Flood. In order to understand science and the Bible, we must not be ignorant of those two great events in Earth's history.
1. Over 270 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have many similarities to the Genesis story.
2. Scoffers point out that 300-foot sailing ships leak, but Noah's Ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a barge shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity.
3. Even using the small 18-inch cubit, the ark was large enough to hold all the required animals, people, food with room to spare.
4. The lenght-to-width ratio of 6-1 is what shipbuilders use today. This is the best ratio for stability in stormy weather. (God thinks of everything).
5. The ark may have had a "moon-pool" in the center. The larger ships would have a hole in the center of the bottom of the boat with walls extending up to the ship. There are several reasons for this feature: a. It allowed water to go up into the hole as the ship crested waves. This would be needed to relieve strain on longer ships. b. The rising and lowering water were acted as a piston to pump fresh air in and out of the ship. This would prevent the buildup of dangerous gasses from all the animals on board. c. The hole was a great place to dump garbage into the ocean without going outside.
|
|
|
Post by Charity on Dec 30, 2005 12:45:21 GMT -5
6. The ark may have had large drogue stone (anchor stones) suspended over the sides to keep it more stable in rough weather. Many of these stones have been found in the region where the ark landed.
7. Noah lived 950 years! Many bible scholars believe the pre-flood people were much larger than modern man. If Noah was taller than modern man, his "cubit" would also be larger.
8. God told Noah to bring two of each kind (seven of some), not of each species or variety. Noah had only two of the dog kind which would include the wolves, coyotes, foxes, mutts, etc. The "kind" grouping is probably closer to our modern family division in taxonomy, and would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. Animals have diversified into many varieties in the last 4400 years since the Flood. This diversification is not anything similar to great claims that the evolutionists teach.
9. Noah did not have to get the animals. God brought them to him (Gen. 6:20, "shall come to thee").
10. Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals had to be included on the ark (Gen. 7:15, "in which is the breath of life," 7:22). Noah did not need to bring all the thousands of insects varieties.
11. Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather.
12. All animals (and people) were vegetarians before and during the Flood according to Gen. 1:20-30 with Gen. 9:3.
13. The pre-Flood people were probably much smarter and more advanced than people today. The longer lifespans, Adam's direct contact with God, and the fact that they could glean the wisdom of many generations that were still alive would greatly expand their knowledge base.
14. The Bible says that the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. This is half the height of the ark. The ark was safe from scraping bottom at all times.
15. The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8).
16. There is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.
17. Many claim to have seen the ark in recent times in the area in which the Bible says it landed. There are two primary schools of thought about the actual site of the ark (see my Creation Seminar Part 3 video for more on this). Much energy and time has been expended to prove both views. Some believe the ark is on Mt. Ararat, covered by snow (CBS showed a one-hour special in 1993 about this site). The other group believes the ark is seventeen miles south of Mt. Ararat in a valley called "the valley of eight" (8 souls on the ark). The Bible says the ark landed in the "mountains" of Ararat, not necessarily on the mountain itself.
18. The continents were not separated until 100-300 years after the Flood (Gen. 10:25). The people and animals had time to migrate anywhere on earth by then.
19. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest (from 26,000-29,000 feet) is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.
20. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.
21. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mount Everest.
22. Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood.
23. People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Pet. 3:3-8).
These are just a few points to ponder. There are varieties of ideas on this.
|
|