|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Animals of the Flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cloud_strife Inactive Member |
because God held their heads under water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
What about the whales, walrus, seals, dolphin, sea turtles, don't they all breathe air, how come they survived, when all the creatures that moved on the land but couldn't keep their head above water died, etc...
P.S. Doesn't a seal have nostrils, your all interpreting the verses out of context, its talking only about the creatures that moved upon the earth, Not sure about the birds, probably unable to fly in the deluge, not sure how long they could of lasted if they were not able to feed, until they perished, I don't doubt some people actually survived many days clinging to floating debris, until they too perished from lack of nutrition, however, a creature that moved upon the trees would of had leaves, to eat, the kangaroo was a browser with claws to cling with, trees to browse on, etc... What did man have to feed on, while he's clinging in the branches of them trees, the tree creatures would of been too quick for him to catch and eat, and all the time its raining, how does a man sleep while clinging to a tree, how long could you cling to a tree, and survive a flood, they just started slipping under the waters, drowning, until all the creatures on the ark perished on the earth, where only their counterparts on the ark survived, etc... P.S. How come no hoofed creatures in Australia, where is your kangaroo fossils in Africa, Turkey, to prove me wrong, that they were residents on the ark, etc...The reason you have no native hoofed cattle like creatures evolving in Australia, is because all the creatures that moved upon the earth in Australia perished, in the biblical deluge, and the cattle like creatures multiplying from Noah's Ark, deer, elk, moose, oxen, had no land bridge path into Australia, etc... [This message has been edited by whatever, 04-01-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cloud_strife Inactive Member |
Ummm, no, it's not. It differentiates between creatures that move on the ground, and those that breathe. Anything that breathes, died!! 21And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.22All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit[1] of life, all that was on the dry land, died. And just to add something, a tree is upon the earth, so anything on trees, is really upon the face of the earth, would die as well.
This isn't out of context. Why would it say everything that moved upon the earth, and then go on to say, anything that breathed, if it were meaning the same thing. As to your birds, does it ever occur to you that maybe, if trees were floating around, with animals on them, they wouldn't next on those trees? What would a man eat?? Man doesn't have to eat meat, he can survive quite well on vegetation. How does a man sleep while clinging to a tree....hmm...how does anything sleep with flash floods going everywhere, and it's raining 30 feet per hour....??? How does anything survive by clinging on to trees...? with said floods? Your entire argument is not only speculation, it's ridiculous!! Anything that breathed air, died, period. Your argument is flawed, in that kangaroos breathe air. Birds aren't beasts of the ground. They fly, yet (if you didn't know) they breathe air, and they died. Everything that breathed died. Enough said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Cynic1 Member (Idle past 6075 days) Posts: 78 Joined: |
quote: Because the common ancestor of the hoofed creature never migrated to or was introduced to Australia? Because conditions in Australia weren't conducive to the evolution of the hoof?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member (Idle past 380 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
Please explain to me how what the dove brought back was proof of dry land then ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
It does say creatures that moved on the dry land, on the surface of the earth, that breathed perished, don't buy creatures couldn't of breathed in the rain, they do it all the time in the now, God changed the topography with his thundering command, the bounds God created prevents the waters from turning back and covering the earth, because the mountains rose, and the oceans settled, as the waters flowed by the mountains to the place God prepared for them, etc...
If your saying the ark contained kangaroo's, platapus, then where are their fossils in Turkey, where are the cattle like creatures in Australia, etc... is there any native hoofed like creatures native to Australia, supporting these types of creatures didn't perished in the flood, etc... P.S. Given the mountains were not that high before the flood, and the highest was only covered only by 15 cubits of water, but agree the waters in the oceans themselves contain more than enough waters to account for a biblical deluge, if the mountains lowered and the oceans raised, the earth would be covered by over 1/2 mile of water, with the erupting water (fountains of the deep erupting 47,000 miles mid-ocean ridges), it would of also pressed back the oceans, hundreds of miles, along the ridges, causing less rain to of been needed to flood the earth, to cover the highest mountain, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
If your saying the ark contained kangaroo's, platapus, then where are their fossils in Turkey, where are the cattle like creatures in Australia, etc... . They are not there because the worldwide flood is a myth. Genesis clearly says that all air breathing, land dwelling animals outside the ark died. Why don't you tell us how playtypus, echinda, marsupial moles, Antechinus(marsupial mice), planigales, bilbies, kangaroos, Wallabies, koalas, wombats, numbats, sugar gliders, dunnarts, ninauis, tasmanian tigers, tasmanian devils, phascogales, bandicoots, quols, potoroos, bettongs and the Austalian flightless birds and the Kiwi in New Zealand all survived this flood that covered the high hills and mountains and killed everything with the breath of life in its nostrils? You can't and you can't explain how they could have gotten back to their homes from the Middle East after the flood.http://EvC Forum: Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood. -->EvC Forum: Biogeography falsifies the worldwide flood. The flood of Noah was not worldwid. Deal with it. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Randy, Your not reading verse kjv genesis 7:20-22 in context, all in whose nostrils was the breath of life , of all that was in the dry land, died.Its talking about the waters rising fifteen cubits above the highest hill, then it talks about all flesh that moved upon the earth, that was in the dry land, died, etc...
P.S. Seals have nostrils, yet its obvious they didn't perish, the reason you have no fossils of kangaroos in Turkey, is because when the waters rose, they didn't move upon the dry land, but not a paleontologists, don't really know all the creatures that perished in Australia, just find it interesting none exists today that no cattle like creatures native to Australia, etc... What I'm saying if the flood wasn't worldwide, how come no hoofed creatures exists in Australia, could it be all your creatures had claws, allowing them to climb trees, to move upon the trees, that floated upon the waters, I can understand your all going to say no hoof like creatures ever existed for millions of years in Australia, never did, perhaps so, perhaps no? I say it was a world wide flood, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
DC85, Don't know perhaps someone that grows olives could answer this one, all that matters is not all life perished in the earth, because this olive tree floated, it wasn't on the surface of the earth so survived and started growing on the mountains of Ararat, etc...
P.S. Just a guess, that it has some olives growing on the vine, like it was rooted or some such thing, but thats just a guess, etc...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2303 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined: |
This has been discussed here before
http://EvC Forum: Question about this so called World Wide Flood. in particular http://EvC Forum: Question about this so called World Wide Flood. Asgara "Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6247 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
quote:Are you telling me that the Australian marsupial mole an animal that lives by burrowing in dry sand survived because it didn't move in dry land? Are you telling us that none of those other marsupials or flightless birds moved on dry land? Do you have any idea how absurd this is? Apparently not. Just when I think that young earth creationism couldn't possible get more ridiculous someone like you comes along. The obvious reason that seals and walrus and sea lions survived even though they breathe through nostrils is that there never was a worldwide flood. The Hebrews had no idea that such creatures as seals or kangaroos or koalas or tasmanian devils or kiwis ever existed so they took no account of them in their myth. When they said that every creeping thing and every living thing and everything that breathes through nostrils died they meant every one that they knew of. Their mythology took no account of animals that they had no way to know the existence of. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Quetzal -- expected this from whatever, as this has been his position on another ark thread (Fresh Problem with the Ark). We now have a veritable zoo of critters and animals walking the earth that survived outside the ark ... as I said with him before it will end up reducing the ark down to a cow barge, like on Denesha's link.
On that other thread I asked him about the
several types of seabirds that only come to land once a year to breed. All members of the Procellariiformes order for example -- albatrosses, shearwaters and petrels. Especially the 'Storm' Petrel -- thought by ancient mariners to bring storms (any idea why?). Only 190 days (150 plus the big 40) would be a cakewalk for such birds ... can you explain why anything from snake to muskrat to I don't know what next (and none of which can drink salt water for 190 days and live) can stay outside the ark and be spared but that these birds which are specifically adapted to live year-round on the ocean and easily survive such conditions can't and must be contained or perish? Let's see the dance of illogical thinking on this one ... oh the joys of cheap entertainment.
As yet I have no answer on the birds but now have more for the I don't know what next to fill out. Then there is the question of flightless birds and how they fit in the picture (they are not "fowl of the air" ... ) do they get to join the swim survival team? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Randy writes: Ahhhh, but Randy you forget God Knew of them. Always an out and always the God card to play in a pinch. Arguing with a YEC/literalist is like a day at Universal studios, It is entertaining until you see the same stupid roller coaster for the 3rd time and know every turn comes back to the same place.
They're mythology took no account of animals that they had no way to know the existance of.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
It appears when checking the hebrew that the use of "only" could mean nevertheless, meaning its not all consuming, that if a mole could climb aboard debris, or if some albatross, ostrich, kiwi, whatever, could swim, feed, they then didn't perish on the surface, and helped to repopulate the surface of the earth, it was a world flood, no hoofed creatures in Australia, etc...
P.S. Sometimes you have to go to the Hebrew to clarify wording, etc... kjv Gen 7:23 And (853) every3605 living substance3351 was destroyed4229 which834 was upon5921 the face6440 of the ground,127 both man,4480, 120 and5704 cattle,929 and5704 the creeping things,7431 and5704 the fowl5775 of the heaven;8064 and they were destroyed4229 from4480 the earth:776 and Noah5146 only389 remained7604 alive, and they that834 were with854 him in the ark.8392 H389'ak ak Akin to H403; a particle of affirmation, surely; hence (by limitation) only: - also, in any wise, at least, but, certainly, even, howbeit, nevertheless, notwithstanding, only, save, surely of a surety, truly, verily, + wherefore, yet (but). |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Have you guys ever heard of the new theory stating that the myth of the great flood may have come from the flood about 6 thousand years ago that created the dead sea? They have found a city in the bottom of the dead sea. Apparently, the barrier between the Mediterranean and the lowlands of the region of today's dead sea collapsed. This resulted in a great amount of water pouring in from the Mediterranean created what is known today as the dead sea. This theory would explain a lot to why the dead sea's salt level is so freaking high.
But anyway, I just thought the findings of a city down there to be really interesting.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024