Literal belief in the flood story

[Rampant.A.I.]

Because it's 60 million years old.

[RobbyPants]

Exactly why did Everest need to be that high at that time.

What, did the flood push it up? You and your pseudoscience.

[pocaracas]

Exactly why did Everest need to be that high at that time.

What, did the flood push it up? You and your pseudoscience.

Of course! Less water on top of it, and it bounces up!
Don't you know the mantle is floating on liquid magma?
You silly atheists!

[Godscreated]

---

God did cause the rain to begin and the waters below to erupt, it wasn't magic though, it was the same power that He used to create. He chose to have those children to be in heaven rather than an eternal hell, I personally see this as a good thing. I can no more describe what God's power is than you can and like I said to begin with small minds that deny the God of creation haven't a clue.

---

So... the earth wasn't covered in water, then somehow enough water came through "heaven's windows" and "erupted from the earth" to cover it, and... it all went away? Where'd it go? It's either somewhere, or it's gone. Given what we learned about the water cycle as 13-year-olds, that water is either somewhere, or God must have magicked it away.

Which is it?

It's all still here, why would you think it went anywhere? Deeper oceans and inland seas could easily contain the water. No magic needed.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place, surely you mentioned it for a purpose.

I brought it up because I think it's apt. I was dropping it because I don't feel like debateing water salinity with you on a pseudoscientific level. There's a big difference between a freshwater river dumping water into the ocean and fresh water falling from the sky all over the earth, mixing with the oceans.

At best, you're making stuff up, and I don't feel like arguing hypothetical fish survival with someone who thinks that the flood was scientific.

A scientific flood, that's a new one. Remember you are purposing the flood was real and in doing so you can't just throw out part of the story to fit what you want. The waters of the deep burst forth, much more fresh water than even the Amazon could put into the ocean over many years and this occurred in only a few days.

You should read the scriptures closer, the raven went first and flew here and there till the earth dried up. This is an unspecified amount of time, but by a little math we can see it was around 4 months. Noah was on the ark 1 year and 10 days according to the time given in the scriptures. So from the 7th month till the 2 month of the following year the plants had time to grow and trees sprout leaves soon after they sprout through the earth, no magic just as things were set up.

Perhaps you should read it closer. You're making an assumption. There is no mention that Noah waited to send the dove. The wording implies they were sent at the same time, but for a different purpose.

Genesis 8:6-9

---

6 And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

---

The wording looks like he did those both at the end of the 40 days. I suppose it's possible he waited an indeterminate amount of time. I mean, it's not like the Bible is known for being worded very well, but given the very specific time line of four or five events just in that chapter alone, it seems odd that they would just leave that part out. Going based on the precedence of the rest of Genesis 8 (Event 1 happened after X days, event 2 happened after Y days, etc...), I think it's fair to assume they were simultaneous.

Even still, even if they were sent separately, the dove found no where to land at that point. Then, somehow, it found a tree with leaves seven days later.

Genesis 8:10-11

---

10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

---

So, there you have it: conditions went from the dove finding "no rest for the sole of her foot" to her finding an olive leave seven days later.

Your time line would not allow for the 1 year and 10 days Noah was on the ark, you'll have to reconsider your time line. Also the Bible is worded just fine, the Hebrew doesn't translate into the English as well as we would like. You have to go to the Hebrew at times, I'll make this point shortly.

Verse 7 above tells us that Noah sent the raven and it went out going and returning until the water was dried up from upon the earth.
The underlined are the literal translations from the Hebrew. The raven flew every day and returned each evening until the flood waters had dried from the earth (planet).

Verse 8 in the NAS translation which is considered the most literally accurate, starts the verse with the word "then" which would mean the dove was only released after the water had dried up from the planet. Verse 8 also says that the dove was sent out to find dry land, Noah already knew the flood waters had abated the planet. The land would have been to muddy to release the animals upon, Noah wasn't a stupid man. You see I have studied the scriptures for many many years and I pay attention to the wording quite closely. I do not think you can even come close to assuming a simultaneous release.

The dove was sent out 7 days after it's first flight and returned with a fig leaf, like I said before, when a tree sprouts it doesn't take long before it starts putting on leaves. If there was a tree already growing when the dove was released the first time, why would it have had find the tree at that time. I'm not arguing the 7 day period when the dove found the leaf, I'm establishing a time line from what is written for plants having enough time to start growing without God using His powers to reboot the earth.

The waters had receded before the dove was released, the ground had not dried up enough for the animals to move around but the plants had began to grow. From the time the dove brought back the leaf and Noah left the ark was nearly 2 months, you should study the scriptures instead of picking through the net for random facts, you might find more truth than you think.

Olive trees grow under water?

Why would I read a book of Hebrew mythology to find out facts? You should study observable reality instead of cherry picking "facts" to support your view of one particular culture's mythology. You might find more truth than you think.

I did not say olive trees start growing under water, I've plainly gave a time line to allow for the plants to get started as the water receded. You are leaving out months of time to defend your position which is not appropriate. You are the on who purposed the story to be true for the argument, now that you can't defend your position you are reverting to calling the story myth, which you can't prove either.

No magic or extra powers, the meat had began to rot and most was probably gone, but you do know animals eat rotted meat all the time, they still don't have refrigerators to this day.

Okay, lets go back to the time line...

40 days of rain + 150 days of floating around + 40 days of waiting on the mountain + 7 days of waiting for an olive leaf = 237 days. That's almost eight months.

Are you seriously telling me that modern animals eat carrion that is eight months old? It would have long-since rotted. You should think your apologetics out a little better before presenting them.

Now your jumping on the time line I established to defend your position and you still got it wrong, Noah and the animals were on the ark for 1 year and 10 days. What makes you believe all the animals died the first day or even the first week or first month and the fish were dying all along the way. Okay city boy animals will eat an animal well actually the bone marrow months after an animal dies, marrow actually provides a lot of nutrition. I've seen animals pick up dried up fish of the bank of lakes and at them, just because these things would make your delicate stomach turn over doesn't mean it will effect the animals. I'm the one think out these things, you on the other hand are countering with unworthy ideas.

With the amount of dead animals and fish lying around I doubt the predators would expend energy chasing prey and who knows the extinction of some animals may have been part of God's plan. You must be a city boy so I'll go into more detail here, there would have been plenty of extremely shallow seas and lakes where the carnivores could have fresh meat from the fish in them and plenty of rivers for them to take food from. No magic and no extra powers needed. Like I said the design of prey reproducing much faster than predators and plants out producing
herbivores by a great percentage everything would be in balance.

Even if the carrion still existed (magic!), then the two deer would be procreating and the two wolves would be procreating, and... your ratios are still off. Noah would have needed something like sixty deer, which he didn't have. That, or you'd have to assert that the deer are reproducing at a much faster rate than normal. Magic?

Rabbits, squirrels, mice, rats, snakes, lizards, raccoons, moles, beavers, do I need to continue. The fish in the rivers, lakes, ponds and shallow seas would sustain many animals. I stated this previously did you miss it.

What disease, man lived long lives what makes you believe animals would be any different during Noah's day. Like I said God created genetic diversity into the animals and man to survive such an event and continue on into the future. An Omniscient being is not going to miss the finer details.

I don't think you're grasping that when a species has little genetic divertisity, how susecptible to diesease it is. If every species was cut down to two or seven members, they would be horribly vulnerable. Here, educate yourself. Without genetic diversity, the species risks extinction.

Now, assuming you don't believe in evolution, here are commercial farmers talking about the same thing, because it's demonstrably true.

Now, it's possible all of those species survived this fragile time period. Especially if God protected them (with magic!).

No magic needed, and yes I do understand I raise and breed rottweilers, this breed was brought back from just 19 dogs and are going strong for over a hundred years. Yes they have some problems and like the corn you mentioned are being watched over by man. Now tell me how do you know how much genetic diversity was in these animals. I do not believe in evolution, I trust in the power of an omnipotent God.

How do you know that a flood of such enormity would not help in moving continents? We do not have any way to test that.

How do you know it would? Sounds like you're making things up.

There's far more to this than these pages allow, it has to do with the waters of the deep and the space they left, this comes from studying science you would ignore completely because it goes against your evolutionary beliefs. I have rejected evolution after studying it, I gave it a chance.

What makes you think the flood could not have left these fragile rock formations and what evidence do you have that those trees could not have survived the flood, like I said earlier the highest mountains were only 22.5 feet below the water not nearly deep enough to keep out sunlight. Then maybe God did use His powers on a few things, what a great way to disguise a world wide flood.

So wait... the flood's power created cannons and moved continents, and it... preserved fragile rock structures?

Huh.

Who says the flood had to be totally destructive every place on earth. How is it these fragile rock formations have survived the millions of years of earth quakes you believe in.

Yeah, God could have done whatever He wanted to, but He didn't. God chose this way and guess what, being God He didn't need your permission nor your fallible thoughts to carry out His plan. God being able to see into the future knew what was best for these children.

Well, that's my point. Have fun worshiping your willful child-murdering monster-god.

In the end if you find yourself in hell I bet you will s what God did as a good thing.

We are here to make our choice where we want to spend eternity, with God or separated from Him and through Christ God has given us each a way to choose.

Too bad he sets the bar at belief and then goes into hiding and removes all evidence that he exists!



TL;DR: You're using make-believe pseudoscience to prove that the flood was scientific (for reasons that are beyond me, given that you undoubtedly believe that God used magic to create Adam from dust) and you're creepily okay with God killing children.

Faith is where it starts and then belief, you need to study scripture if you're going to argue against it.

The flood has reasonable explanations when one use common sense, and actually thinks through the possibilities, but for those who ignore searching out the possibilities find only doubts.

GC

[Minimalist]

The flood has reasonable explanations when one use common sense,

Only a complete horse's ass would say something that dumb. Thanks for always being the Bad Example.

[Rampant.A.I.]

---

So... the earth wasn't covered in water, then somehow enough water came through "heaven's windows" and "erupted from the earth" to cover it, and... it all went away? Where'd it go? It's either somewhere, or it's gone. Given what we learned about the water cycle as 13-year-olds, that water is either somewhere, or God must have magicked it away.

Which is it?

It's all still here, why would you think it went anywhere? Deeper oceans and inland seas could easily contain the water. No magic needed.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place, surely you mentioned it for a purpose.

I brought it up because I think it's apt. I was dropping it because I don't feel like debateing water salinity with you on a pseudoscientific level. There's a big difference between a freshwater river dumping water into the ocean and fresh water falling from the sky all over the earth, mixing with the oceans.

At best, you're making stuff up, and I don't feel like arguing hypothetical fish survival with someone who thinks that the flood was scientific.

A scientific flood, that's a new one. Remember you are purposing the flood was real and in doing so you can't just throw out part of the story to fit what you want. The waters of the deep burst forth, much more fresh water than even the Amazon could put into the ocean over many years and this occurred in only a few days.

You should read the scriptures closer, the raven went first and flew here and there till the earth dried up. This is an unspecified amount of time, but by a little math we can see it was around 4 months. Noah was on the ark 1 year and 10 days according to the time given in the scriptures. So from the 7th month till the 2 month of the following year the plants had time to grow and trees sprout leaves soon after they sprout through the earth, no magic just as things were set up.

Perhaps you should read it closer. You're making an assumption. There is no mention that Noah waited to send the dove. The wording implies they were sent at the same time, but for a different purpose.

Genesis 8:6-9

The wording looks like he did those both at the end of the 40 days. I suppose it's possible he waited an indeterminate amount of time. I mean, it's not like the Bible is known for being worded very well, but given the very specific time line of four or five events just in that chapter alone, it seems odd that they would just leave that part out. Going based on the precedence of the rest of Genesis 8 (Event 1 happened after X days, event 2 happened after Y days, etc...), I think it's fair to assume they were simultaneous.

Even still, even if they were sent separately, the dove found no where to land at that point. Then, somehow, it found a tree with leaves seven days later.

Genesis 8:10-11

So, there you have it: conditions went from the dove finding "no rest for the sole of her foot" to her finding an olive leave seven days later.

Your time line would not allow for the 1 year and 10 days Noah was on the ark, you'll have to reconsider your time line. Also the Bible is worded just fine, the Hebrew doesn't translate into the English as well as we would like. You have to go to the Hebrew at times, I'll make this point shortly.

Verse 7 above tells us that Noah sent the raven and it went out going and returning until the water was dried up from upon the earth.
The underlined are the literal translations from the Hebrew. The raven flew every day and returned each evening until the flood waters had dried from the earth (planet).

Verse 8 in the NAS translation which is considered the most literally accurate, starts the verse with the word "then" which would mean the dove was only released after the water had dried up from the planet. Verse 8 also says that the dove was sent out to find dry land, Noah already knew the flood waters had abated the planet. The land would have been to muddy to release the animals upon, Noah wasn't a stupid man. You see I have studied the scriptures for many many years and I pay attention to the wording quite closely. I do not think you can even come close to assuming a simultaneous release.

The dove was sent out 7 days after it's first flight and returned with a fig leaf, like I said before, when a tree sprouts it doesn't take long before it starts putting on leaves. If there was a tree already growing when the dove was released the first time, why would it have had find the tree at that time. I'm not arguing the 7 day period when the dove found the leaf, I'm establishing a time line from what is written for plants having enough time to start growing without God using His powers to reboot the earth.

The waters had receded before the dove was released, the ground had not dried up enough for the animals to move around but the plants had began to grow. From the time the dove brought back the leaf and Noah left the ark was nearly 2 months, you should study the scriptures instead of picking through the net for random facts, you might find more truth than you think.

Olive trees grow under water?

Why would I read a book of Hebrew mythology to find out facts? You should study observable reality instead of cherry picking "facts" to support your view of one particular culture's mythology. You might find more truth than you think.

I did not say olive trees start growing under water, I've plainly gave a time line to allow for the plants to get started as the water receded. You are leaving out months of time to defend your position which is not appropriate. You are the on who purposed the story to be true for the argument, now that you can't defend your position you are reverting to calling the story myth, which you can't prove either.

No magic or extra powers, the meat had began to rot and most was probably gone, but you do know animals eat rotted meat all the time, they still don't have refrigerators to this day.

Okay, lets go back to the time line...

40 days of rain + 150 days of floating around + 40 days of waiting on the mountain + 7 days of waiting for an olive leaf = 237 days. That's almost eight months.

Are you seriously telling me that modern animals eat carrion that is eight months old? It would have long-since rotted. You should think your apologetics out a little better before presenting them.

Now your jumping on the time line I established to defend your position and you still got it wrong, Noah and the animals were on the ark for 1 year and 10 days. What makes you believe all the animals died the first day or even the first week or first month and the fish were dying all along the way. Okay city boy animals will eat an animal well actually the bone marrow months after an animal dies, marrow actually provides a lot of nutrition. I've seen animals pick up dried up fish of the bank of lakes and at them, just because these things would make your delicate stomach turn over doesn't mean it will effect the animals. I'm the one think out these things, you on the other hand are countering with unworthy ideas.

With the amount of dead animals and fish lying around I doubt the predators would expend energy chasing prey and who knows the extinction of some animals may have been part of God's plan. You must be a city boy so I'll go into more detail here, there would have been plenty of extremely shallow seas and lakes where the carnivores could have fresh meat from the fish in them and plenty of rivers for them to take food from. No magic and no extra powers needed. Like I said the design of prey reproducing much faster than predators and plants out producing
herbivores by a great percentage everything would be in balance.

Even if the carrion still existed (magic!), then the two deer would be procreating and the two wolves would be procreating, and... your ratios are still off. Noah would have needed something like sixty deer, which he didn't have. That, or you'd have to assert that the deer are reproducing at a much faster rate than normal. Magic?

Rabbits, squirrels, mice, rats, snakes, lizards, raccoons, moles, beavers, do I need to continue. The fish in the rivers, lakes, ponds and shallow seas would sustain many animals. I stated this previously did you miss it.

What disease, man lived long lives what makes you believe animals would be any different during Noah's day. Like I said God created genetic diversity into the animals and man to survive such an event and continue on into the future. An Omniscient being is not going to miss the finer details.

I don't think you're grasping that when a species has little genetic divertisity, how susecptible to diesease it is. If every species was cut down to two or seven members, they would be horribly vulnerable. Here, educate yourself. Without genetic diversity, the species risks extinction.

Now, assuming you don't believe in evolution, here are commercial farmers talking about the same thing, because it's demonstrably true.

Now, it's possible all of those species survived this fragile time period. Especially if God protected them (with magic!).

No magic needed, and yes I do understand I raise and breed rottweilers, this breed was brought back from just 19 dogs and are going strong for over a hundred years. Yes they have some problems and like the corn you mentioned are being watched over by man. Now tell me how do you know how much genetic diversity was in these animals. I do not believe in evolution, I trust in the power of an omnipotent God.

How do you know that a flood of such enormity would not help in moving continents? We do not have any way to test that.

How do you know it would? Sounds like you're making things up.

There's far more to this than these pages allow, it has to do with the waters of the deep and the space they left, this comes from studying science you would ignore completely because it goes against your evolutionary beliefs. I have rejected evolution after studying it, I gave it a chance.

What makes you think the flood could not have left these fragile rock formations and what evidence do you have that those trees could not have survived the flood, like I said earlier the highest mountains were only 22.5 feet below the water not nearly deep enough to keep out sunlight. Then maybe God did use His powers on a few things, what a great way to disguise a world wide flood.

So wait... the flood's power created cannons and moved continents, and it... preserved fragile rock structures?

Huh.

Who says the flood had to be totally destructive every place on earth. How is it these fragile rock formations have survived the millions of years of earth quakes you believe in.

Yeah, God could have done whatever He wanted to, but He didn't. God chose this way and guess what, being God He didn't need your permission nor your fallible thoughts to carry out His plan. God being able to see into the future knew what was best for these children.

Well, that's my point. Have fun worshiping your willful child-murdering monster-god.

In the end if you find yourself in hell I bet you will s what God did as a good thing.

We are here to make our choice where we want to spend eternity, with God or separated from Him and through Christ God has given us each a way to choose.

Too bad he sets the bar at belief and then goes into hiding and removes all evidence that he exists!



TL;DR: You're using make-believe pseudoscience to prove that the flood was scientific (for reasons that are beyond me, given that you undoubtedly believe that God used magic to create Adam from dust) and you're creepily okay with God killing children.

Faith is where it starts and then belief, you need to study scripture if you're going to argue against it.

The flood has reasonable explanations when one use common sense, and actually thinks through the possibilities, but for those who ignore searching out the possibilities find only doubts.

GC

---

Re: "All the flood water's still here":

Apr 19, 2014 - The current volume of the Earth's oceans combined is estimated at only 1.3 billion cubic kilometres.

To flood the entire planet would have required

4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water

So no. It's not "still here."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood

Re: The flood has reasonable explanations when one use common sense, and actually thinks through the possibilities, but for those who ignore searching out the possibilities find only doubts.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Can you scientifically demonstrate there was a flood, and that you understand why reversal of the burden of proof is not proof nor valid?

The burden of proof lies with the original claim. Shifting the burden of proof (a fallacy) is requiring the contrary view point to be proven in order to prove the original claim false. In our conversation, the original claim is that God killed innocent children. Any and everyone making the claim bears the burden of proof. Asking me to prove that He didn't (kill innocent children) is asking me to prove the contrary and would be shifting the burden of proof to me, and would thus be fallacious. I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary.

The quote above is that science can prove the original claim. I'm asking for clarification on that assertion. This is not shifting the burden of proof as it is evidence for the initial claim and thus bears the burden of proof.

My scientifically proving the flood would actually shift the burden of proof to me. The op claimed the flood for the sake of the discussion.

---

Is "Okay, maybe God drowned every baby on earth, and every other man, woman and child, but they were all really bad anyway, except the 900 year old drunk and company" really a compelling argument to you?

Shifting the burden of proof to me again? Is a man who is on record as getting drunk once a drunkard, is being drunk once exceedingly wicked? Outside of Christ there is no one who can fullfill the requirements of the law. This is recorded throughout all the men of great faith. All men sin, all the men of the bible, everyone who has ever lived, including me and including you. What happens next is of greater importance. Will you repent of your sin and place your faith and trust in Christ, or will you continue to live your life of unbelief and sin?

While possible in the strictest sense of the word, it's doubtful. With more and more generations, they would start to all blend together, making there be children continuously. Case in point: my dad is a child from the oldest of seven children. He has a cousin who is the youngest of the youngest of those seven children. That kid (my dad's generation) is only five years older than me. My cousin is actually older than him, despite being a generation behind. So, for several generations, there was at least one person below the age of accountability just in my family alone.

Your initial claim involves so called 'magic'. To initially claim 'magic' as a possibility then reject any concievable possibility is inconsistant.

The other problem with this is basically, God decides they're so bad that he needs to kill them all that he... waits for years until somehow all the generations are space out just so.

On one side of the coin if you read the judgments in the OT you'll notice that God often waits until the "fullness of sin" or for "sin to be complete." In other words He waits for the crimes to be great enough to warrant the punishment. On the other side of the coin it is written, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God is patient, not wanting any to perish. Noah was a preacher of righteousness for about 100 years as he called people to righteousness and told them how to escape the coming judgment. Mankind was forewarned then as they are now. No one listened then, who will listen today?

Oh, and there's no biblical support for it either. You're just making it up to try and make it so God didn't kill any children.

While I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary (burden of proof) and I wouldn't need Biblical support to show that you're using an either-or fallacy, only an example of a third option, I don't mind providing a defense. Actually there is Biblical support for there being no one younger than the age of accountability. The only families named in the account at the time of the flood were Noah and his wife, Noah's three sons and their wives. So there are four married couples, and (after Noah and his wife had the three sons) there was not one child among them their entire married lives (pre-flood about 100 years).

---

100% of the named families had zero children for at least 100 years. While this is not conclusive proof that no other families had children it is the Biblical support for my claim you have asked for.

...Can you scientifically demonstrate the global flood you and your religion claims happened, and how it's possible we see no evidence for, and it is impossible based on everything we know about physics and the geologic history the planet?

[SteelCurtain]

Fucking hide tags people. Jeebus Christoff.

[Chas]

Except everything you just said is counter to fact and evidence. So there's that.

Where's your proof, you always make comments with nothing to back them up.

GC

The scientific evidence from geology alone debunks the flood myth. Enough evidence has been presented in this thread - you simply don't understand it.

[RobbyPants]

It's all still here, why would you think it went anywhere? Deeper oceans and inland seas could easily contain the water. No magic needed.

Really? The rain water carved out oceans?

A scientific flood, that's a new one. Remember you are purposing the flood was real and in doing so you can't just throw out part of the story to fit what you want.

No, I'm not throwing it out. The context of this thread was all the magic God would have had to have done to have made the flood happen as told in Genesis and for us to have the world we have today.

I'm not throwing it out; I'm saying it's magic. What I'm throwing out is your pseudoscientific hand waves to avoid the term "magic", and honestly, I don't even know why you do. You believe God created Adam from clay, Eve from a rib, and in talking snakes.

---

Your time line would not allow for the 1 year and 10 days Noah was on the ark, you'll have to reconsider your time line. Also the Bible is worded just fine, the Hebrew doesn't translate into the English as well as we would like. You have to go to the Hebrew at times, I'll make this point shortly.

Verse 7 above tells us that Noah sent the raven and it went out going and returning until the water was dried up from upon the earth.
The underlined are the literal translations from the Hebrew. The raven flew every day and returned each evening until the flood waters had dried from the earth (planet).

Verse 8 in the NAS translation which is considered the most literally accurate, starts the verse with the word "then" which would mean the dove was only released after the water had dried up from the planet. Verse 8 also says that the dove was sent out to find dry land, Noah already knew the flood waters had abated the planet. The land would have been to muddy to release the animals upon, Noah wasn't a stupid man. You see I have studied the scriptures for many many years and I pay attention to the wording quite closely. I do not think you can even come close to assuming a simultaneous release.

The dove was sent out 7 days after it's first flight and returned with a fig leaf, like I said before, when a tree sprouts it doesn't take long before it starts putting on leaves. If there was a tree already growing when the dove was released the first time, why would it have had find the tree at that time. I'm not arguing the 7 day period when the dove found the leaf, I'm establishing a time line from what is written for plants having enough time to start growing without God using His powers to reboot the earth.

---

No. It's very clear. On day X, the dove finds no where to rest her foot. On day X + 7, she finds an olive leaf. Seriously. It doesn't matter if X is zero or a million. The difference between the time when she finds no land and the leaf is seven days.

It's a lot like that "how many were going to St. Ives" riddle. You're focusing on all the inconsequential details when the math is listed in two consecutive verses.

I did not say olive trees start growing under water, I've plainly gave a time line to allow for the plants to get started as the water receded. You are leaving out months of time to defend your position which is not appropriate. You are the on who purposed the story to be true for the argument, now that you can't defend your position you are reverting to calling the story myth, which you can't prove either.

No. I'm saying it involved magic. You're saying it doesn't and is totally scientific, and you're both failing to understand science and failing to grasp the time line listed explicitly in Genesis.

Now your jumping on the time line I established to defend your position and you still got it wrong, Noah and the animals were on the ark for 1 year and 10 days. What makes you believe all the animals died the first day or even the first week or first month and the fish were dying all along the way. Okay city boy animals will eat an animal well actually the bone marrow months after an animal dies, marrow actually provides a lot of nutrition. I've seen animals pick up dried up fish of the bank of lakes and at them, just because these things would make your delicate stomach turn over doesn't mean it will effect the animals. I'm the one think out these things, you on the other hand are countering with unworthy ideas.

The animals would have died within the first 40 days, because that's when it was raining and the water was rising. How would the water keep rising if it weren't raining?

So, they're eating marrow, now? First it was carrion, now it's marrow?

So, the flood moves continents, carves oceans, stirs up layers of sediment messing up the fossil record and... it leaves all the carrion on top for all the animals? I swear, this flood is everything you want it to be, when you want it to be.

Rabbits, squirrels, mice, rats, snakes, lizards, raccoons, moles, beavers, do I need to continue. The fish in the rivers, lakes, ponds and shallow seas would sustain many animals. I stated this previously did you miss it.

No, you're missing the ponit!

Okay. So 2 squirrels, 2 mice, 2 deer, 2 lizards, and 2 wolves. Now, the wolves eat the squirrels. Oh, fuck! They're extinct! Now the wolves eat the mice. Oh, fuck! They're extinct! Now they eat the lizards. Oh, fuck! They're extinct. Yay, the deer managed to procreate enough so there's more than 2! Shit, the wolves have been procreating, too...

Each and every species needs to be able to weather predators. God sent the animals in pairs and didn't account for this.

No magic needed, and yes I do understand I raise and breed rottweilers, this breed was brought back from just 19 dogs and are going strong for over a hundred years. Yes they have some problems and like the corn you mentioned are being watched over by man. Now tell me how do you know how much genetic diversity was in these animals. I do not believe in evolution, I trust in the power of an omnipotent God.

19 > 2.

Also, even ignoring disease, if any single animal dies before it procreates, the species goes extinct. Animals die in the wild from all sorts of causes. Either God loses a lot of species that he had Noah take time to save, or he protects them somehow.

Who says the flood had to be totally destructive every place on earth. How is it these fragile rock formations have survived the millions of years of earth quakes you believe in.

Oh, sure. It just carved the oceans and pushed the continents at a speed thousands of times faster than normal, and preserved the rock formations. You need to think about the ramifications of your pseudoscience more.

Are you saying that the earth quakes have hit those locations? Not every place gets hit with earth quakes in the same strength or frequency. You know what fault lines are, right?