Noah's Flood And "mental Gymanstics" - Local Flooders Wanted!

[Zakuska]

Question 1: If the flood were "local" or regional, why did Noah need to bring non-food animals into the ark?

 

How many non-food animals in Noahs immediate vicinity would die if not provided a life raft?  Many animals had an "ark" built right into their environment and would not need Noah or his Ark to survive.  (eg.  Polar bears, penguins, seals, walrus, sea lion, otters, frogs, toads, alligators etc.) Beetle/Insect Larva floating in tree debris would live as well. Many birds float in water. 

 

Question 2: If the flood were "local" or regional, where did the ark end up after the flood, and how did it get there? 

 

People assume too much when it comes to the flood Story. Why assume a bath tub model?  Gen 7:19-20 perhaps?

 

Ask the same question of post Tsunami Japan.

 

Edited June 11, 2014 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

 

Question 1: If the flood were "local" or regional, why did Noah need to bring non-food animals into the ark?

 

How many non-food animals in Noahs immediate vicinity would die if not provided a life raft?  Many animals had an "ark" built right into their environment and would not need Noah or his Ark to survive.  (eg.  Polar bears, penguins, seals, walrus, sea lion, otters, frogs, toads, alligators etc.) Beetle/Insect Larva floating in tree debris would live as well. Many birds float in water. 

 

Question 2: If the flood were "local" or regional, where did the ark end up after the flood, and how did it get there? 

 

People assume too much when it comes to the flood Story. Why assume a bath tub model?  Gen 7:19-20 perhaps?

 

Ask the same question of post Tsunami Japan.

 

 

 

No one is doubting that local floods can be violent catastrophic affairs. The problems come in where a Global Flood is claimed.

[cinepro]

Answer 1: The non-food animals were needed to repopulate the area that was locally flooded.

 

Answer 2: The Caspian Sea is located in a closed hydrologic basin, meaning that there is no outlet to the ocean. Mt. Ararat is located within this basin. So all that is needed is enough water to make the Caspian Sea large enough that it reaches Mt. Ararat. This would take a lot of water, of course, but if the Don River and Amu River were temporarily re-routed (as has happened in geologic times) then these rivers could provide an extra source of water to make the flood large enough.

 

That's a fascinating theory.  I wonder what the logistics would be for a "local flood" in the Caspian Sea area, and to what degree it could be tested from the existing geologic evidence.  I wonder how the process of building an ark (would it have been built in the sea itself?),  gathering animals (which animals from the basin would need to be preserved), and then having all the people living in the basin drown from a flood incident (without them retreating to higher ground in the surrounding hills).  And then for the water to rise high enough that the ark would settle "in the mountains".  It's an interesting idea and something to think about.

 

Also, other than the local flood theory, can anyone cite an example of God caring about regional biodiversity and extinction events?  It seems odd to theorize God planning a flood to wipe out the wicked humans who live in a specific valley, but then asking Noah to prepare an ark so the local dung-beetle won't get wiped out. After all, Noah didn't have to save all the animals, so God was okay with 99.9999% of the populations getting exterminated.  It wasn't matter of compassion.  It was like there were these isolated species in this one spot and God really didn't want to have to re-evolve them again, or have a few breeding pairs migrate to the next valley over the course of the hundreds of years Noah was building the ark.

 

There is no end to the oddness of the local flood theories.

Edited June 11, 2014 by cinepro

[Zakuska]

If we assume the floodwather is all fresh and good enough for freshwater fish then he would have the larger problem of loading up the saltwater creatures to keep them alive.

 

"And Noah took two of every shark and every whale and every octopi and every squid and brought them into the ark."

 

I guess you could probably fit two blue whales in the ark if you squeezed them in tight but not much else would fit but they would die in there. I think your explanation just leads to bigger problems.

 

Why would he have to load up any salt water species at all?

 

How many salt water fish survive stints into fresh water just fine?  Case in point,  Divers in Illinois keep running into salt water sharks in fresh water lakes and rivers. (

Yes Doesnt look like a great white to me but its definatley a shark.)

 

Your insisting Noah had to put blue whales on the ark to some how score obsurdity points not withstanding.  (baby blue whales wouldn't be to hard)

Edited June 11, 2014 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

That's a fascinating theory.  I wonder what the logistics would be for a "local flood" in the Caspian Sea area, and to what degree it could be tested from the existing geologic evidence.  I wonder how the process of building an ark (would it have been built in the sea itself?),  gathering animals (which animals from the basin would need to be preserved), and then having all the people living in the basin drown from a flood incident (without them retreating to higher ground in the surrounding hills).  And then for the water to rise high enough that the ark would settle "in the mountains".  It's an interesting idea and something to think about.

 

1) Why assume a bathtub model?

2) Water quickly rushing into a basin is going to splash up somewhere.

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

[Zakuska]

No one is doubting that local floods can be violent catastrophic affairs. The problems come in where a Global Flood is claimed.

I'm open to both readings. And see draw backs and strengths to each theory.

[cinepro]

1) Why assume a bathtub model?

2) Water quickly rushing into a basin is going to splash up somewhere.

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

 

You'd have to have a "bathtub" for the ark to end up in a mountain.

[MormonFreeThinker]

You'd have to have a "bathtub" for the ark to end up in a mountain.

 

What scientific evidence would convince you that there was no Global Flood? or would make you change your mind? Or simply make you become open about the local flood theory?

Edited June 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[thesometimesaint]

Why would he have to load up any salt water species at all?

 

How many salt water fish survive stints into fresh water just fine?  Case in point,  Divers in Illinois keep running into salt water sharks in fresh water lakes and rivers. (

Yes Doesnt look like a great white to me but its definatley a shark.)

 

Your insisting Noah had to put blue whales on the ark to some how score obsurdity points not withstanding.  (baby blue whales wouldn't be to hard)

 

Baby Blue Whales require prolonged training by my their mothers just to survive.

[Zakuska]

You'd have to have a "bathtub" for the ark to end up in a mountain.

 

Not in the least.

 

Gen

 4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

 

Tsunamis can push a boat up the side of a mountian just as easily as setting them down on building tops.

 

Edited June 11, 2014 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

I'm open to both readings. And see draw backs and strengths to each theory.

 

Only one is a scientific theory and a Global Flood isn't it.

[Zakuska]

Only one is a scientific theory and a Global Flood isn't it.

Id agree that Global flood is definately the harder of the two to defend/beleive in.

[Zakuska]

Baby Blue Whales require prolonged training by my their mothers just to survive.

Your mama trains whales?  <tongue cheek>

Edited June 11, 2014 by Zakuska

[thesometimesaint]

Your mama trains whales?  <tongue cheek>

 

My little brother is 6'4", 350 LBS, and looks like Santa Claus.  Yes my mother trained us both.

Edited June 11, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[The Nehor]

Why would he have to load up any salt water species at all?

 

How many salt water fish survive stints into fresh water just fine?  Case in point,  Divers in Illinois keep running into salt water sharks in fresh water lakes and rivers. (

Yes Doesnt look like a great white to me but its definatley a shark.)

 

Your insisting Noah had to put blue whales on the ark to some how score obsurdity points not withstanding.  (baby blue whales wouldn't be to hard)

 

Because the flood lasted about a year. Yes, saltwater species can survive in freshwater for a time and vice-versa. There are even a few species that are close enough to the line to adapt over several generations if transplanted. Most though....die. Put most saltwater fish in freshwater and they are dead in hours. Sharks last longer due to their physiology but they will eventually die too.

 

It has to be one way or the other or somewhere in between. In the global flood was the water fresh or salted or somewhere in-between? No matter which way you go whole species will die out. There is no brackish middle ground that will save everything.

 

And no, you couldn't make a saltwater tank and put two baby blue whales in it. Do you know how hard it is to maintain a seawater environment so that life in it survives? Have you ever tried to run an aquarium like that? You lose fish all the time unless you are an expert or hire someone to help. That doesn't even consider trying to feed the poor things.

 

You are better off assuming the freshwater species were on the ark....of course then you have to explain how, after they were reintroduced into the wild, they migrated worldwide into disconnected river systems.

 

The problems with a global flood are so pervasive that if you want to believe it or need to believe it that you just have to accept a LOT of miracles on both the macro and micro level for the whole thing to work along the lines of God allowed the Siberian Tigers to breathe underwater for a year and they miraculously did not need food the whole time.

[thesometimesaint]

Because the flood lasted about a year. Yes, saltwater species can survive in freshwater for a time and vice-versa. There are even a few species that are close enough to the line to adapt over several generations if transplanted. Most though....die. Put most saltwater fish in freshwater and they are dead in hours. Sharks last longer due to their physiology but they will eventually die too.

 

It has to be one way or the other or somewhere in between. In the global flood was the water fresh or salted or somewhere in-between? No matter which way you go whole species will die out. There is no brackish middle ground that will save everything.

 

And no, you couldn't make a saltwater tank and put two baby blue whales in it. Do you know how hard it is to maintain a seawater environment so that life in it survives? Have you ever tried to run an aquarium like that? You lose fish all the time unless you are an expert or hire someone to help. That doesn't even consider trying to feed the poor things.

 

You are better off assuming the freshwater species were on the ark....of course then you have to explain how, after they were reintroduced into the wild, they migrated worldwide into disconnected river systems.

 

The problems with a global flood are so pervasive that if you want to believe it or need to believe it that you just have to accept a LOT of miracles on both the macro and micro level for the whole thing to work along the lines of God allowed the Siberian Tigers to breathe underwater for a year and they miraculously did not need food the whole time.

 

It rained salt water problem solved.

[The Nehor]

It rained salt water problem solved.

 

Then you are back to having to pack all the freshwater species on the ark. Easier.....but still pretty much impossible.

[Zakuska]

Because the flood lasted about a year. Yes, saltwater species can survive in freshwater for a time and vice-versa. There are even a few species that are close enough to the line to adapt over several generations if transplanted. Most though....die. Put most saltwater fish in freshwater and they are dead in hours. Sharks last longer due to their physiology but they will eventually die too.

 

It has to be one way or the other or somewhere in between. In the global flood was the water fresh or salted or somewhere in-between? No matter which way you go whole species will die out. There is no brackish middle ground that will save everything.

 

And no, you couldn't make a saltwater tank and put two baby blue whales in it. Do you know how hard it is to maintain a seawater environment so that life in it survives? Have you ever tried to run an aquarium like that? You lose fish all the time unless you are an expert or hire someone to help. That doesn't even consider trying to feed the poor things.

 

You are better off assuming the freshwater species were on the ark....of course then you have to explain how, after they were reintroduced into the wild, they migrated worldwide into disconnected river systems.

 

The problems with a global flood are so pervasive that if you want to believe it or need to believe it that you just have to accept a LOT of miracles on both the macro and micro level for the whole thing to work along the lines of God allowed the Siberian Tigers to breathe underwater for a year and they miraculously did not need food the whole time.

 

You asked..

 

1)  In the global flood was the water fresh or salted or somewhere in-between? 

 

You seem to ascribe to the bathtub theory. Water trapped behind Glacial Ice breaking loose will wash the surface of the land clean just fine and still "immerse" and render the land portion of the earth Baptized in the process.  No need to fill up a bathtub and dunk the earth in it.

 

So many critics fall into the same pit you find yourself in Nehor. No where in the story does it describe the earth as the planet Manaan during the flood.  It says the rains fell on the surface (Land) portion of the earth and got real deep and washed it clean.

 

Yes. I took care of a salt water tank for several years with my brother growing up and all the while he was on his mission.  I kept his fish alive for 2 years with very minimal training and as a 14 year old boy. I do also know however, how delicate some sea life can be. Some cant even handle micro fluctuations in the Ph of the water not to mention temperature. But we are arguing over a mote point anyways when it comes to aquatic life, because no where in the list of animals described are fish ever mentioned. We are talking about fresh water flowing off the continents in torrential volumes. Not sea water coming in like a Manaan model dictates. 

 

 

Who needs miracles?  In your mind are Wild Siberian Tigers too dumb to get themselves atop floating debris to survive?  Lots of dead carcasses  floating around  for food too.  Meat eaters are the easiest to take care of in either local or Global flood models.  Now if you had said Koalas you might have a point.  (PS. I lean local) 

Edited June 12, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

You asked..

 

1)  In the global flood was the water fresh or salted or somewhere in-between? 

 

You seem to ascribe to the bathtub theory. Water trapped behind Glacial Ice breaking loose will wash the surface of the land clean just fine and still "immerse" and render the land portion of the earth Baptized in the process.  No need to fill up a bathtub and dunk the earth in it.

 

So many critics fall into the same pit you find yourself in Nehor. No where in the story does it describe the earth as the planet Manaan during the flood.  It says the rains fell on the surface (Land) portion of the earth and got real deep and washed it clean.

 

Yes. I took care of a salt water tank for several years with my brother growing up and all the while he was on his mission.  I kept his fish alive for 2 years with very minimal training and as a 14 year old boy. I do also know however, how delicate some sea life can be. Some cant even handle micro fluctuations in the Ph of the water not to mention temperature. But we are arguing over a mote point anyways when it comes to aquatic life, because no where in the list of animals described are fish ever mentioned. We are talking about fresh water flowing off the continents in torrential volumes. Not sea water coming in like a Manaan model dictates. 

 

 

How needs miracles?  In your mind are Wild Siberian Tigers too dumb to get themselves atop floating debris to survive?  Lots of dead carcasses  floating around  for food too.  Meat eaters are the easiest to take care of in either local or Global flood models.  Now if you had said Koala's you might have a point.  (PS. I lean local) 

 

Glacial floods would not baptize the whole earth unless you subscribe to the "mountains all came after the flood" model and even then there is just not enough water to cover the whole earth. Look at maps showing what the earth is expected to look like if all the glaciers melted. Still plenty of land. So the bathtub theory might as well be right. If we are conjuring up water from nowhere and then having it disappear the volume is pretty much irrelevant.

 

And while a tiger might get on floating debris I doubt it will be okay floating there for about a year (that's some resilient debris) and still be able to find food (carcasses aren't likely to be edible for very long in that environment) and unless you have prey animals on other debris floating by like clockwork you have a problem.

[Zakuska]

Glacial floods would not baptize the whole earth unless you subscribe to the "mountains all came after the flood" model and even then there is just not enough water to cover the whole earth. Look at maps showing what the earth is expected to look like if all the glaciers melted. Still plenty of land. So the bathtub theory might as well be right. If we are conjuring up water from nowhere and then having it disappear the volume is pretty much irrelevant.

 

And while a tiger might get on floating debris I doubt it will be okay floating there for about a year (that's some resilient debris) and still be able to find food (carcasses aren't likely to be edible for very long in that environment) and unless you have prey animals on other debris floating by like clockwork you have a problem.

You said...  "Glacial floods would  not baptize the whole earth"

 

Sure it would. The earth under ice solves everything. How far south did the 2 mile thick sheets of Ice stretch during the last Ice age and how much land peaked out of the ocean in front of the ice? Think of the earth as a rock in a snowball. Its essentially baptized. And besides it wouldn't take much water at all to cover ALL the remaining land as the ice melted and receeded.  And remember... ice floats so we are talking Natural Arks all around the world. (Or did the rains wash all those animals off the ice too?)

Edited June 12, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

You said...  "Glacial floods would  not baptize the whole earth"

 

Sure it would. The earth under ice solves everything. How far south did the 2 mile thick sheets of Ice stretch during the last Ice age and how much land peaked out of the ocean in front of the ice? Wouldn't take much  water at all to cover ALL the remaining land as the ice melted and receeded.  And remember... ice floats so we are talking Natural Arks all around the world. Or did the rains wash all those animals off the ice too?

 

And if the earth was perfectly flat that might guarantee covering the whole earth but it is not.

 

And if you are seriously advancing a "all the animals all survived on bits of floating ice for a full year" theory please tell me so I can laugh at you.....a lot.

[Zakuska]

And if the earth was perfectly flat that might guarantee covering the whole earth but it is not.

 

And if you are seriously advancing a "all the animals all survived on bits of floating ice for a full year" theory please tell me so I can laugh at you.....a lot.

You keep regergitating "full year" as if the earth was under water for a full year.  CFR for that.  According to the story.  

 

Gen 7 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

 

Gen 8

 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged;

 2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

 3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

 

150 days is about 4 months. Yes Noah and his family remained IN the ark for a full year+-,  but says nothing about what was going on outside as the waters drained. Bears cache meat and return many months later to finish them off. So don't even think about the "spoiled" argument. Like I said.. feeding meat eaters is the easiest problem to solve. Lots of dead carcasses to choose from.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

You keep regergitating "full year" as if the earth was under water for a full year.  CFR for that.  According to the story.  

 

Gen 7 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

 

Yes Noah and his family remained IN the ark for a year. But says nothing about what was going on outside.

Yes, change it to a half a year and everything you said is suddenly completely rational and lucid.

[Zakuska]

Yes, change it to a half a year and everything you said is suddenly completely rational and lucid.

 

No... change it to 4 months as the story actually says and it suddenly becomes more plausible.  However, I do understand why you feel the need for the story to remain in the realm of the obsurd. Really, I do.

"Dorothy loves her Strawmen afterall."

Edited June 12, 2014 by Zakuska

[The Nehor]

No... change it to 4 months as the story actually says and it suddenly becomes more plausible.  However, I do understand why you feel the need for the story to remain in the realm of the obsurd. Really, I do.

"Dorothy loves her Strawmen afterall."

Yes, quite obsurd.

I am not invested in any interpretation. And yes, floating on ice for 4 months and surviving is ABSURD.