Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Answering Some Problems On the Noahic Flood

August 4th, 2006 Visited 1625 times, 1 so far today

The Noahic Flood is one of the things that Christians believe could hold the key to people coming to Christ.  Why?  Because if we could find the Ark– the logic goes– then we could get people to believe the Bible back to the Flood, and from there the rest is easy.  The problem is that there are many people that believe that the Flood is a myth because they believe Evolution to be true.

I was forwarded a list of “reasons” that the flood cannot be true, and I’ve responded to them in this post– see what you think.

1.  There is not enough water to cover the entire earth including all of the mountains (e.g. Mt. Everest).  For the flood to be literally true, there would have to be mountains of ice much taller than Everest.

You assume that Mount Everest has always been there.  This would be a faulty assumption.  If you take the account on its face, it says that all of the land was covered, but this land probably looked much different.  The account mentions water bursting forth from under the ground as well as coming from the sky.  This could have resulted in tectonic shifts with plates running into each other causing the fossil records we see as well as mountains that were much higher than those that were pre-flood.

2.  Even if there were enough water to cover Everest, it would have to rain about 750 feet per day without runoff.  For this to be true, the temperature would have to be almost boiling in order to evaporate that much water.

Again, starting with a faulty premise– assuming that Everest or comparable mountains were around pre-flood.

3.  When the water receded, there would be no top soil.

I don’t see why this would be the case.  The wind came a dried the land as well as waters receding, but I’m guessing you’re still relying on your calculation about just how much water it would take to flood the Earth.

4.  The animals in Noah’s boat would have to included millions of species.  How could species that only live in restricted areas of the world make it to the Middle East and back again? The gila monster from Arizona and the kangaroo from Australia would have had to make the round trip by themselves or be picked up by Noah on the way.  Neither of these species can swim across the oceans, and Noah did not have the technology to visit every ecosystem on earth twice, once to pick up the species and the second to return them to their homes (which would have been totally destroyed by 750 feet of rain per day).

This assumes that 1) the configuration of the earth before the flood was the same as it is now, and 2) that the configuration of the earth is the same now as after the flood.  It also doesn’t take into account the genetic similarities between kinds– what the Bible said came on the Ark.  The Bible did not say take two of every species– two of every kind.  Natural Selection definitely plays a part in which animals make it in a given environment.  If God can cause all of the kinds of animals to make it to the Ark, He certainly can take care of getting them back in place.

5.  Most living beings need particular ecosystems in which they can survive.  The animals of the Amazon cannot survive without the plants of the Amazon.  Thus, Noah’s ship would need to provide hospitable ecosystems for each of the creatures, a polar environment for Arctic animals, a desert environment for desert creatures, a jungle environment for tropical creatures.  Again, Noah did not have the technology to do this.

Is this a statement of how it’s always been?  Do you know the genetic codes going back to Noah’s time period?  We do know that over time given animals and humans can adapt or become predisposed to certain climates and ecosystems.  Take the natives in Africa that do not have to drink water for days at a time.  Or the fact that children in the US are more prone to asthma.  Look at Darwin’s finches– they adapted to different food sources.  You’re assuming that what we see now is what was always there, and that does not have to be the case.

Thus, Noah’s story is, at best, figurative.  This part of the Bible cannot be supported by physical evidence.

Certainly it can– through documentary analysis.  For instance, do you know how many cultures have a Global flood in them?  True, they do not all match the Biblical account, but many cultures at many different ends of the globe have their own story in their history.  Kind of hard to explain where they all came up with a flood with a boat and animals on that boat, isn’t it?

Therefore, the Bible cannot be taken as literally true.  Each statement must stand or fall on the basis of the physical evidence that supports it or calls it into question.  One cannot logically extrapolate from stories that are not supported by physical evidence.  And all of the physical evidence supports a very different view of cosmogenesis.

You’ve hardly proved this statement.  What you have proven is that your believe that the Bible is not literally true is based on your own assumptions (or what you’ve been taught) about what things were like in the past.  The physical evidence is silent– it’s what your worldview does to interpret what is found.


One Coment

  • Mary says on: August 5, 2006 at 8:39 am




Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

%d bloggers like this: