Noah

[Esquilax]

Actually, Noah didn’t travel anywhere. The animals came to him. (Remember the supernatural thing I was talking about? Genesis 6:20) Noah spends about 100 years before the flood came in building the ark and during this duration the animals came to him. I say 100 years because when Noah was first mentioned in Genesis 5:32, he was 500 years old and when he got into the ark he was 600 years old. Also some people even secular geologists believe that at the time the continents were together. To be honest, I am not too sure what to think about that. Plus God did not command that Noah to bring every known animal. The ark only carried air-breathing, land-dwelling, crawlers, and winged animals. Only the “couples” of each species, at the time the tremendous variation of species did not exist during the time of Noah.

Couple of clarifications: though at one time the continents were a single landmass- or at least, that's the accepted scientific theory- the timescale for that is well out of proportion with the biblical timeline. We're talking a supercontinent that began to break apart 200 million years ago, long before humans even existed, and definitely before the biblical young earth claims posit.

Being that this is the case, how do you account for all the land animals from other continents travelling to the ark? How the hell does an echidna swim all that way? And by what homing instinct was this exodus accomplished?

And how did we get the current state of biological life on earth, if there were far less creatures on the planet at the time of the ark? And you do understand that two of each animal is not a viable breeding population, right? Especially not in an ecosystem that has carnivores that demand prey.

It is suggested that Noah brought juveniles and wouldn’t have brought adults inside the ark. This means that there was more space in the ark, enough food and a lot less waste.

Doesn't say anything about climate requirements, though: a polar bear is suited to a much colder climate than the ark would allow.

Sorry but the link says it doesn’t exist? The flood came from two places, from the sky and underground. Which suggested that huge volcanic eruption, earthquakes, and a “fountain” of water were released.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are...waters.asp he probably explains it better than I do.

Oh no, please, please don't use Answers in Genesis for things. Except ridicule, maybe. Their head dude is a bullying lunatic, and their statement of faith states outright that they won't even consider any evidence that conflicts with their biblical worldview. They have an all consuming bias, and thus anything they say will just be an amazingly painful-looking mental contortion.

Besides, the question was about where this massive volume of water went, not where it came from.

I have a question that I may elaborate more on later but first I will like to know your opinion on. Most secular scholars agree that many books of the OT were written after the fact, yeah? Since, Daniel and Ezekiel and other prophetic books were too “accurately demonstrated” that it must have been written afterwards. Here is my question, the authors who wrote the prophetic book, why state accurate descriptions of war and then we find in Ezekiel that he fails to “prophesy correctly” what had happen to Tyre? If the books were written after the events, then why make a mistake? They obviously knew what happen in the events but failed to do with this one? (I don’t know if this makes a whole lot of sense)

Could be a case of bad information, or a glitch in the compilation of the book, or it was just a case of a prophesy written before the fact, that was wrong. Either way, you end up with a book of fraudulent prophecy.