Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question about this so called World Wide Flood.
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 63 (3082)
01-29-2002 2:15 PM


It concerns life AFTER the alledged flood. 6 months of ocean water covering the entire earth would have killed all land vegetation and made it virtually impossible for anything to start growing right away. So what did the herbivores on the ark eat once they were off the ark? Also,what would the carnivores eat all this time aboard the ark...did Noah have a meat locker to keep the meat they would require from rotting? And what did they eat once they were off the ark? the herbivores certainly could not have enough offsprings quickly enough to establish a steady food supply for the many carnivores not to starve to death.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by TrueCreation, posted 01-29-2002 4:26 PM LudvanB has not replied
 Message 3 by John, posted 06-08-2002 8:01 PM LudvanB has not replied
 Message 4 by John, posted 06-08-2002 8:01 PM LudvanB has not replied
 Message 13 by Chara, posted 11-24-2002 9:37 PM LudvanB has not replied
 Message 50 by peanutbean6111, posted 05-11-2003 5:37 PM LudvanB has not replied
 Message 51 by peanutbean6111, posted 05-11-2003 5:39 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 63 (3089)
01-29-2002 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LudvanB
01-29-2002 2:15 PM


"It concerns life AFTER the alledged flood. 6 months of ocean water covering the entire earth would have killed all land vegetation and made it virtually impossible for anything to start growing right away. So what did the herbivores on the ark eat once they were off the ark? Also,what would the carnivores eat all this time aboard the ark...did Noah have a meat locker to keep the meat they would require from rotting? And what did they eat once they were off the ark? the herbivores certainly could not have enough offsprings quickly enough to establish a steady food supply for the many carnivores not to starve to death."
--For one, you still don't understand the Effects of the Flood, I would be happy to discuss this, but Flood questions are being delt with that I am participating with in 2 or 3 other forums, I would rather not get into another one, I am in about 9 or 11 keeping up with the posts.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LudvanB, posted 01-29-2002 2:15 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 63 (11190)
06-08-2002 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LudvanB
01-29-2002 2:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
It concerns life AFTER the alledged flood. 6 months of ocean water covering the entire earth would have killed all land vegetation and made it virtually impossible for anything to start growing right away.
Of course this very reasonable conclusion is contradicted by the Bible in its account of the flood. There was at least one fig tree growing even BEFORE the water completely subsided as Noah's little birdie went out and plucked a branch.
As for TrueCreation: I do wish you'd inform me of the Effects of the Flood, especially explaining how exactly plants could survive several months of submersion. Maybe I'm thinking wrong here but I have grass that won't survive three days under a sheet of plywood. Try sticking a fig tree in water for a few months, then get back to me. I doubt even mature seeds would remain viable.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LudvanB, posted 01-29-2002 2:15 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 06-08-2002 8:17 PM John has replied
 Message 14 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-24-2002 10:05 PM John has replied
 Message 23 by Peter, posted 11-25-2002 7:27 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 63 (11191)
06-08-2002 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LudvanB
01-29-2002 2:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
It concerns life AFTER the alledged flood. 6 months of ocean water covering the entire earth would have killed all land vegetation and made it virtually impossible for anything to start growing right away.
Of course this very reasonable conclusion is contradicted by the Bible in its account of the flood. There was at least one fig tree growing even BEFORE the water completely subsided as Noah's little birdie went out and plucked a branch.
As for TrueCreation: I do wish you'd inform me of the Effects of the Flood, especially explaining how exactly plants could survive several months of submersion. Maybe I'm thinking wrong here but I have grass that won't survive three days under a sheet of plywood. Try sticking a fig tree in water for a few months, then get back to me. I doubt even mature seeds would remain viable.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LudvanB, posted 01-29-2002 2:15 PM LudvanB has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 63 (11192)
06-08-2002 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John
06-08-2002 8:01 PM


"Of course this very reasonable conclusion is contradicted by the Bible in its account of the flood. There was at least one fig tree growing even BEFORE the water completely subsided as Noah's little birdie went out and plucked a branch. "
--Why wouldn't there be?
"As for TrueCreation: I do wish you'd inform me of the Effects of the Flood, especially explaining how exactly plants could survive several months of submersion. Maybe I'm thinking wrong here but I have grass that won't survive three days under a sheet of plywood. Try sticking a fig tree in water for a few months, then get back to me. I doubt even mature seeds would remain viable.
"
--Good question, and the Good answer is they didn't survive. Seeds however did. And I do believe that while you may have good debate on their seed's survivability for later growth, your comment is subjective. Do you have reason for them unable to survive 40 - 365 days afloat in water?
--Also percipient may want to divert this topic to the Flood Geology room. But possibly not since it is a more biological question, though I know that we will end up getting into the earth science type questions later.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John, posted 06-08-2002 8:01 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John, posted 06-08-2002 9:35 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 63 (11194)
06-08-2002 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by TrueCreation
06-08-2002 8:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Of course this very reasonable conclusion is contradicted by the Bible in its account of the flood. There was at least one fig tree growing even BEFORE the water completely subsided as Noah's little birdie went out and plucked a branch. "
--Why wouldn't there be?
Time. There isn't enough of it in the account.
The ark ran aground on top of a mountain. Gen. 8:4
A couple of weeks later the tops of mountains are seen. Gen 8:5
Five weeks or so after that Noah sends out some birds. Nothing this time. Gen. 8:6-7
A couple of weeks later, more birds. Bingo. This one has an olive branch. Gen 8:10-11
This leaves about seven weeks for the water to finish subsiding and for plants to sprout.
Let's assume that this said olive tree is growing on top of Mt Ararat as this is the first place we know is dry. Now, the mountain has been underwater for weeks on end. The ground will take some time to dry before you get a good shot at germination. Soil which is too wet will kill the seeds-- mildew, rot that sort of thing. This I know from experience. I've killed many such seeds.
So we need to subtract a week or two, though honestly with of flood of this magnitude I think this is not nearly enough time.
Now with five weeks to spare we set about the germination process. This in itself is tricky as olives don't germinate from seed very readily.
Growing an olive from fresh olives is usually a frustrating experience as very few germinate but a tree dropping thousands of olives over hundreds of years will often produce some seedlings.
http://www.oliveoilsource.com/propagating_olive_trees.htm
Assuming one is to germinate you need most of the remaining time alloted for germination, and this in a carefully controlled medium.
quote:
Seeds should be planted in large community pots in a well drained mixture of vermiculite, peat and loam, and allowed 25 to 35 days for germination.
http://www.bonsai-bci.com/species/bucida.html
So now we have one to two weeks for this thing to grow large enough to branch, so that the bird can pluck a branch and take it to Noah. And olives don't grow fast enough.
quote:
--Good question, and the Good answer is they didn't survive. Seeds however did. And I do believe that while you may have good debate on their seed's survivability for later growth, your comment is subjective. Do you have reason for them unable to survive 40 - 365 days afloat in water?
Actually, I do have reason to believe that seeds wouldn't survive 40 to 365 days afloat. For one, with few exceptions, living seeds don't float. And seeds as dense as an olive's certainly wouldn't. Dead seeds do tend to float. You can use this effect to weed out the dead ones before planting. (This suggests to me that the olives would be at the bottoms of the mountain not at the tops as per the assumptions I made earlier. But for the sake of argument...) Even so, the real issue is whether they would survive in water, floating or otherwise.
Put a seed in water and it will absorb water and pop. Or it will start to rot. I've done this. It is an easy phenomena to observe. Try it. I can't find any research on the topic however. Grains are especially vulnerable to this effect-- a fact that is more damning to creationism than the olive we are discussing. No grain, no staple food source for most of the plant-eaters on the ark; as stated in the original post by ludvanB (though grain was not mention by name).
take care
John
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 06-08-2002 8:17 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 06-09-2002 12:04 AM John has replied
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 06-09-2002 1:20 AM John has replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4831 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 8 of 63 (11198)
06-09-2002 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by John
06-08-2002 9:35 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

Put a seed in water and it will absorb water and pop. Or it will start to rot. I've done this. It is an easy phenomena to observe. Try it. I can't find any research on the topic however.

Correct me if I’m wrong, folks:
--Natural barges/rafts float and carry vegetation, viable branches, spores, seeds, etc., especially following deluges.
--I’ve seen tree branches spring to life after being cut off by the roots (several months). You may have to.
--Don’t olive trees have a tendency (more than other trees) to resist destruction by the elements? They live very long
--Recent islands (Galapagos) contains trees and creatures (turtles) that may perhaps have ‘rafted’ in as such.
quote:
Originally posted by John:

Grains are especially vulnerable to this effect-- a fact that is more damning to creationism than the olive we are discussing. No grain, no staple food source for most of the plant-eaters on the ark; as stated in the original post by ludvanB (though grain was not mention by name).

--Incidentally: Grains are especially vulnerable to this effect-- a fact that is more damning to evolutionism than the olive we are discussing. Which grains don’t require a ‘care-taker’ before they become extinct (let alone evolve).
--IOW, somebody stop me: it’s a young earth after all!
(Doubtless now you’ll vehemently give grains more credit for autonomous survival sans man and/or sans catastrophies).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John, posted 06-08-2002 9:35 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 06-09-2002 1:02 AM Philip has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 63 (11199)
06-09-2002 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Philip
06-09-2002 12:04 AM


quote:
Correct me if I’m wrong, folks:
--Natural barges/rafts float and carry vegetation, viable branches, spores, seeds, etc., especially following deluges.
Sure. This would get you around some of the difficulties I pointed out. It also lessens the extent of God's destruction, as anything that could swim would cling to these things-- turtles, birds, snakes, insects, etc.-- exactly as they do in you examples. It seems that you postulate yourself into a corner.
quote:
Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.
Note that last line: only Noah and those with him survived. Of course the whole "surviving olive branch seed" hypothesis is equally invalidating of this total destruction.
quote:
--I’ve seen tree branches spring to life after being cut off by the roots (several months). You may have to.
Actually, I haven't. I've tried; and failed over a hundred times with roses and a few other plants, though some people can manage such things. I question your comment that it is possible months after being cut though.
quote:
--Don’t olive trees have a tendency (more than other trees) to resist destruction by the elements? They live very long
They are long lived, but this has little to do with their survival under water for months on end.
quote:
--Incidentally: Grains are especially vulnerable to this effect-- a fact that is more damning to evolutionism than the olive we are discussing. Which grains don’t require a ‘care-taker’ before they become extinct (let alone evolve).
Don't confuse cultivated grains with grains in general. As hard as it may be to comprehend, there are wild varieties of wheat, rice, corn and pretty much anything else we cultivate. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.spelt.com/origins.html[/URL] for one example.
It seems that your argument runs something like this:
1)grains require human care to survive and reproduce
2)grains would have to survive unassisted for millions of years
3)because of point #1 this is impossible
4)therefore we shouldn't expect to see grains if ToE is correct
5)We see grains
6)Hence, ToE is destroyed.
This is just silly, given the fact that premise #1 is patently wrong.
Feel free to correct the argument.
quote:
--IOW, somebody stop me: it’s a young earth after all!
Don't give yourself so much credit. This was too easy. Grains are just grass that we happen to eat. Grass is quite capable of surviving without us. Go outside and dig around in your yard until you find the little seed pods. Looks a lot like wheat or corn, yes? though the kernels are very small.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Philip, posted 06-09-2002 12:04 AM Philip has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 63 (11200)
06-09-2002 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by John
06-08-2002 9:35 PM


"So now we have one to two weeks for this thing to grow large enough to branch, so that the bird can pluck a branch and take it to Noah. And olives don't grow fast enough."
--G-whiz, ll that analysis for nothing, it was an olive leaf, rather than a branch. Which was made clear as it also was newly sprouted. I would be careful of this type of misrepresentation. Many would accuse you of being deceitful or would stamp you as a liar.
"Actually, I do have reason to believe that seeds wouldn't survive 40 to 365 days afloat. For one, with few exceptions, living seeds don't float. And seeds as dense as an olive's certainly wouldn't. Dead seeds do tend to float. You can use this effect to weed out the dead ones before planting. (This suggests to me that the olives would be at the bottoms of the mountain not at the tops as per the assumptions I made earlier. But for the sake of argument...) Even so, the real issue is whether they would survive in water, floating or otherwise."
--A vast majority of seeds will survive in water, those which are unable, or no where on earth have been sustained with the proper conditions anywhere on earth, will die and go extinct. If you wish to play with probabilities, the numbers are going to be very high. So it isn't going to work well when the information may say that 'it is likely or, most of the time' seeds of different species are no longer able to germinate when deposited after this type of saturation.
"Put a seed in water and it will absorb water and pop. Or it will start to rot. I've done this. It is an easy phenomena to observe. Try it. I can't find any research on the topic however. Grains are especially vulnerable to this effect-- a fact that is more damning to creationism than the olive we are discussing."
--Thank you for that extra rhetoric on your dislike of creationism. By the way, this must mean it isn't very damning then.
--Also, your vagueness must imply that I can just shove any seed in the water and it will pop and/or rot. Maybe I should pick one which is known to survive for hundreds or thousands of years after it falls from the tree to the point of germination. Tell us when you do find this research.
"No grain, no staple food source for most of the plant-eaters on the ark; as stated in the original post by ludvanB (though grain was not mention by name)."
-- ? I think you need to reiterate that one, I don't understand what you are trying to get at.
------------------
[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 06-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John, posted 06-08-2002 9:35 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by John, posted 06-09-2002 12:02 PM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 43 by tamijudah, posted 03-08-2003 11:07 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 63 (11207)
06-09-2002 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
06-09-2002 1:20 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--G-whiz, ll that analysis for nothing, it was an olive leaf, rather than a branch. Which was made clear as it also was newly sprouted. I would be careful of this type of misrepresentation. Many would accuse you of being deceitful or would stamp you as a liar.
Get over yourself.
Ok... olive leaf. I looked it up even before you replied. My Vacation Bible School Training failed me. In other words, I have been saturated in Christianity since before I could walk and I couldn't count the times I've heard this referred to as an olive branch. Oh my god!!!! gee-whiz!!!! a quick search on Google returns quite a few references to an olive branch, including quotations from various Bibles.
http://www.clues.abdn.ac.uk:8080/besttest/alt/translat/trans26v.html
http://www.moshiach.com/action/morality/prayer.asp
If I were you, I'd be careful when I start pitching words like "liar" and "deceitful" Someone might think that you are trying to escalate this civilized discussion into a fist fight.
Now. Best I can tell is that "leaf" is the correct translation. Big deal. You still don't have time. Olive seeds do not germinate readily. Hundreds of years and thousands of seeds = a few sprouts. (Or did you not bother with that link?) Olives live a very long time so they aren't in a big hurry. And two weeks isn't long enough. Methinks you haven't tried to grow many trees from seed.
quote:
--A vast majority of seeds will survive in water
OK. Where is the research? I can't find any, which is why I explained my point in terms of my own experiences with plants and seeds.
quote:
those which are unable, or no where on earth have been sustained with the proper conditions anywhere on earth, will die and go extinct.
Sounds like evolution, but what is the point? Are you arguing that the plants which couldn't survive immersion didn't survive the flood? If so, it should not be so easy to kill seeds by drowning them. Extant seeds should pretty much all be water tolerant up to a couple of months or so, and they're not.
quote:
If you wish to play with probabilities, the numbers are going to be very high. So it isn't going to work well when the information may say that 'it is likely or, most of the time' seeds of different species are no longer able to germinate when deposited after this type of saturation.
What information? What numbers? Are you arguing that there will be so many seeds afloat that even with most of them dying due to saturation the few that survive would be sufficiently numerous for kick starting the ecosystem? Maybe, even probably, but not quickly enough to feed everything on the ark.
quote:
--Thank you for that extra rhetoric on your dislike of creationism. By the way, this must mean it isn't very damning then.
You're welcome. Happy to entertain and enlighten. Not damning? I could overlook the whole olive thing as symbolic actually. The real immediate problem is with the survival of staple foods, and with the observed diversity of plants today. After six thousand years we should still see a remarkable water resistance in virtually every plant's seed, and we don't. That is, there are a lot of plants alive today which should have been killed off by a global flood due to the effects of water on their seeds.
quote:
--Also, your vagueness must imply that I can just shove any seed in the water and it will pop and/or rot. Maybe I should pick one which is known to survive for hundreds or thousands of years after it falls from the tree to the point of germination.
Vague? You've got to be kidding me? I flat out told you to plop a seed in water for a month and see what happens. I don't care which seed you try, but I'd suggest you use an olive since that is the subject of the debate. Also, there is a BIG difference between a seed surviving dormant in its natural habitat and a seed surviving underwater.
quote:
Tell us when you do find this research.
I will.
quote:
"No grain, no staple food source for most of the plant-eaters on the ark; as stated in the original post by ludvanB (though grain was not mention by name)."
-- ? I think you need to reiterate that one, I don't understand what you are trying to get at.
If grain doesn't survive the flood, they ain't got nothing to eat once they leave the ark. Farming, planting crops from stores kept on the ark, would take several months and there are a lot of animals to feed in the meantime.
I anticipate one response: They eat food they brought with them on the ark. I have never had anyone explain to me how the ark could hold even half of the animals it would have to hold, much less hold food for all of them. This should probably be another topic though.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 06-09-2002 1:20 AM TrueCreation has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 843 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 12 of 63 (24124)
11-24-2002 8:32 PM


If we really get TC back to this thread, let me note a couple of things that need to be addressed:
- All that water was seawater, or at least seawater with fresh water floating on top, undisturbed and unmixed by those big "flood surges" every few days.
- Soil irrigated for a few years with even mildly brackish water will not grow most crop plants - it accumulates too much salt.
- Coconuts, mangroves, and saltgrass will tolerate seawater, but are not mentioned in Genesis. Grapes won't tolerate seawater. How long after this flood was it that Noah got drunk?
- Think of our invertebrate friends in the sea: only a very few will survive, say, a 20% dilution of seawater with fresh. So while we're keeping the saltwater off our crops, let's keep the rainwater off our reefs.

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by John, posted 12-05-2002 10:01 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 63 (24126)
11-24-2002 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LudvanB
01-29-2002 2:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
It concerns life AFTER the alledged flood. 6 months of ocean water covering the entire earth would have killed all land vegetation and made it virtually impossible for anything to start growing right away.
This is likely a "stupid" question (after all us creationists don't have any brains and are ignorant - that much I've found out from reading through this forum) but is there a reason why we're assuming that it was ocean water? = very salty water? Just curious, as I have never studied this area.
[This message has been edited by Chara, 11-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LudvanB, posted 01-29-2002 2:15 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 11-24-2002 10:12 PM Chara has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 63 (24127)
11-24-2002 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John
06-08-2002 8:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
It concerns life AFTER the alledged flood. 6 months of ocean water covering the entire earth would have killed all land vegetation and made it virtually impossible for anything to start growing right away.
Of course this very reasonable conclusion is contradicted by the Bible in its account of the flood. There was at least one fig tree growing even BEFORE the water completely subsided as Noah's little birdie went out and plucked a branch.
As for TrueCreation: I do wish you'd inform me of the Effects of the Flood, especially explaining how exactly plants could survive several months of submersion. Maybe I'm thinking wrong here but I have grass that won't survive three days under a sheet of plywood. Try sticking a fig tree in water for a few months, then get back to me. I doubt even mature seeds would remain viable.

Assuming that the flood occured, and as the bible said it did, infers that God himself was in charge of all the events therein, and if all went as we are to understand from the story, I'm sure He made some 'provisions' for his favoured crew. If he made the universe he can surely make a fig tree, or keep a couple acres 'untouched'. who knows
that would be something to debate if and when the ark is found i guess
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John, posted 06-08-2002 8:01 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by John, posted 11-24-2002 11:02 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 843 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 15 of 63 (24128)
11-24-2002 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Chara
11-24-2002 9:37 PM


Over 95% of the water on earth now is in the oceans, with nearly all the rest in icecaps. So even if all the present water were mixed together, it would be nearly as salty as standard seawater. If Noah & Co. had enough fresh water around to make any difference, either 1) the seawater then would have been much saltier than now or 2) some mechanism would have to exist to zap-poof that water away at the end of the Flood. Either seems a pretty big strain.
"after all us creationists don't have any brains and are ignorant - that much I've found out from reading through this forum."
Please don't do that. You have a brain, or you probably wouldn't be here. If you are ignorant, that can be a temporary condition. :-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Chara, posted 11-24-2002 9:37 PM Chara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Chara, posted 11-24-2002 10:22 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 63 (24129)
11-24-2002 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coragyps
11-24-2002 10:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Coragyps:
Over 95% of the water on earth now is in the oceans, with nearly all the rest in icecaps. So even if all the present water were mixed together, it would be nearly as salty as standard seawater. If Noah & Co. had enough fresh water around to make any difference, either 1) the seawater then would have been much saltier than now or 2) some mechanism would have to exist to zap-poof that water away at the end of the Flood. Either seems a pretty big strain.
"after all us creationists don't have any brains and are ignorant - that much I've found out from reading through this forum."
Please don't do that. You have a brain, or you probably wouldn't be here. If you are ignorant, that can be a temporary condition. :-)

OK, that makes sense. Admittedly, I haven't done any study on this topic (so much to know, so little time :0 ) .... thank you for your explanation.
I do know that I have brain. I'm overreacting to a few recent posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coragyps, posted 11-24-2002 10:12 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Chara, posted 11-24-2002 10:28 PM Chara has not replied
 Message 19 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-25-2002 12:10 AM Chara has not replied
 Message 47 by cooperjr, posted 03-09-2003 1:35 PM Chara has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024