QUOTE(Fred Williams @ Apr 20 2008, 10:37 AM)
Most of your objections have been refuted by Woodmorappe in “Noah’s Ark, A Feasibility Study”. I highly recommend this book. I will take a moment to address some of your claims here.
At this time I have no access to Woodmorappe's book as the local libraries do not carry it and my credit card was stolen and I am awaiting the issuance of a new one. I found a few snippets of the book on the internet but nothing more. Once I again have a credit card I will purchase and read the book
QUOTE(Fred Williams @ Apr 20 2008, 10:37 AM)
I believe you are misunderstanding the text. It does not say six hundred years after he was born, it says the six hundredth year of his life. This is likely a Hebrew language construct. Even in the English it isn’t far fetched to say that Kennedy was assassinated in the 46th year of his life in the 11th month I’m also not sure why you call this “important”.
In no way was I infiring that it was 600 years after Noah was born. I was using the biblical text to show that the month/day indications in the bible as they refer to the account of the flood were not litereral as in 2/17 meaning February 17 but were relative to the month and day Noah was born. Ex: Noah born June 1 would make 2/17 July 17.
QUOTE(Fred Williams @ Apr 20 2008, 10:37 AM)
What kind of instructive lesson would that have been? There is a great deal of symbolic lessons in Noah’s flood such as purification by water (ie water baptism). I’ll leave it up to those interested to do further research on this.
With everyone but Noah and his family eliminated by the flood, one must ask if Noah or his children baptized anyone? If the answer is no, then how was baptism re-introduced into the population so that they would know about the symbolic lesson of the flood. As for what lesson would be learned by God just eliminating the animals and people without the use of a flood, I guess it would be don't piss off God.
QUOTE(Fred Williams @ Apr 20 2008, 10:37 AM)
That’s not possible. The Hebrews meticulously guarded the accuracy of the Bible, and it would have had greater accuracy than our current checksum/CRC methods. See my page on this at
http://www.bibleevidences.com/transmission.htm.
Intestingly, in doing some research on the Torah and the Torah Scrolls. I found that early on in the creation of Torah Scrolls, some scribes were writing portions of the scroll from memory instead of the slower copying directly from the source. When some of the scrolls were found to contain errors they quickly moved to stop that practice and mandate copying from the source as the only way to produce a Torah Scroll. If the practice had been done during the earliest times it would have been possible for the exchange of letters to have gone unnoticed. One letter in all the bible might have been missed. Yes I know it is conjecture but as I stated above, there is no record of Gopher wood in the ancient world anywhere but the bible, however Kopher/Kophar wood is wood covered with pitch and that is exactly what is called for in the construction of the ark.
QUOTE(Fred Williams @ Apr 20 2008, 10:37 AM)
That’s an extremely poor estimate. Creation scientist believe a very conservatively estimate of the number of kinds required to populate the earth would be 16,000. The 95,000 square feet of cargo space on Noah’s ark (equivalent to 522 railroad cars) could easily hold 16,000 animal “kinds”, it would only need 15 railroad cars to accommodate them! (See book mentioned in opening sentence).
To be honest I had not thought of diversity but in searching for information on Woodmorappe's book I found several snippets. One in particular seems appropriate here. On page 188 of his book he says "Furthermore, a single pair of founders most definitely have the same genetic diversity as fifty founders, and without any miraculous or unusual procedures." That would seem to indicate that you would need far less than the 16,000 generally accepted by creation scientists . As for space, 16,000 animals in 95,000 sq feet is less than 6 sq feet per animal, however, the food and water required to feed that number of animals would require a hefty ammount of space and would further reduce the avilable space per animal. The loadout for food and water I estimated as 6 months for 1000 animals would be 8 years for 16000 animals. Would the food have remained edible after that much time before the flood even began. God gave Noah 7 days to gather the animals before the flood began and with 16,000 animals, they would have had to gather, get aboard the ark and put in place, each pair in just over 1 minutes time
QUOTE(Fred Williams @ Apr 20 2008, 10:37 AM)
As has been mentioned before on this forum, this is based on the assumption that the Pyramids were built before the flood. We know how reliable secular chronology is – not very as they carry the same baggage of assumptions that all dating methods carry. Finding C14 in coal, natural gas, diamonds, not only brings the evolutionist’s overall geologic timeline into question, it also disrupts their estimates of C14/C12 ratios in the past. It also makes one ask why we find so much X12/C14 buried all over the earth.
Yes perhaps there are errors in the timeline however there are structures older even then the pyramids. For example the temples of malta were built hundreds of years before the pyramids and even if the 3600 bc estimate is off by a few hundred years they still would have been built before the flood and should show signs of the flood but don't. As for timelines, the estimates I have seen for the time of the flood range from 2200 bc - 2900 bc depending on which creation source you use. Since there is no universally accepted date for the flood, the structures such as the pyramids could have been built before the flood and not after.
QUOTE(Fred Williams @ Apr 20 2008, 10:37 AM)
It’s remarkable you would ask this given this is not only easily explained by human ecological zones, but it is a far worse problems for evolutionists to explain the lack of stone-age graves given that they had MILLIONs of years to accumulate.
How do ecological zones explain the absence of mass graveyards of humans all dating to the time of the flood? I'm also not sure what the stone-age has to do with this discussion.
QUOTE(Fred Williams @ Apr 20 2008, 10:37 AM)
This has two flaws: 2) assumes same disparity of salt in water today as before the flood, 2) shows ignorance of the fact we have examples of fish that were able to adapt to either water type.
You assume the disparity of salt in water today was different before the flood, but I have seen nothing in the bible (perhaps I have missed it) that indicates that the salinty of the oceans had changed because of the flood. As I stated most if not all fresh water fish. There was no indication that it had to be all fresh water fish so no ignorance on my part. Perhaps a lack of full understanding on your part of what I had written.
QUOTE(Fred Williams @ Apr 20 2008, 10:37 AM)
This shows an ignorance of creation science and the very plausible theories of pre-flood and post-flood conditions, various plate-tectonic theories, etc. In fact, one of the leading plate tectonic experts in the world is a creationist who was even featured in the very liberal Time Magazine (Dr. John Baumgardner). The global flood would have no doubt caused a great upheaval and would have easily produced an ice age.
Unless creation science shows radically different effects and climatological conditions at high altitudes then there is again no ignoarance on my part. I have indicated those conditions and their effects on Noah, his family and the animals. Perhaps there would have been a great upheval, however, the bible states that the waters covered all the high mountains and it couldn't do that unless the mountains existed pre-flood. I am aware of the 6 inch increase per year of the heigh of mt ararat, however if you take that backwards to the date I used as the estimated date of the flood, Mt Ararat would still have been over 14000 feet high (as opposed to the over 17000 feet of today) and the high altitude conditions would still have prevailed. Also if there were an ice age, which we know does not come and go in a mere hundred years or so, there would have been writings about it by the decendants of Noah and his family and there are none that I know of.
CODE
Are you not aware of how rapidly volcano-ravaged areas can quickly rebound? It is true however that survival would not have been easy. For example, we figure the unicorn was the first animal off the ark, and the lion was the second.
An interesting point about the unicorn. Now expand that to the 16,000 animals you say were on the ark. 16,000 animals released, the non-carnivores first and then the carnivores. With hundreds or thousands of carnivores then hundreds to thousands of non-carnivores would have died quickly from the meat eaters claws and teeth while hundreds more would have been trampled to death in the mad rush to get away from the carnivores. That alone would have put the 16000 animal requirement for diversity in jeopardy.
Volcano-ravaged areas rebound quickly because there are windblown seeds that arrive. However, with all plantlife destroyed by the flood and most surviving seeds buried under left behind silt, recovery would be much slower.
CODE
This again relies on a biased chronology, but even if we accept yours, 300 years is plenty of time to do all this. It’s 12 generations after all! (evolutionists often use 20 years as the average generation time, I used 25 to be conservative)
The question was not if they could do it in less than 300 years but would they (Noah's decendants) in a 300 year period, abandon belief in God, and not only accept the old ways in Egypt of multiple gods but have the exact same gods as there were before the flood? Also if all other humans had died who would have told the decendants of Noah about the beliefs and practices in Egypt pre-flood?
CODE
You claim this yet you provide no evidence why the EofG is more plausible? This is no different than claiming aliens formed wheat circles. To be frank, your conclusion is the result of poor scholarship based on a myriad of inaccurate assumptions such as 1) how the Bible text was maintained, 1) condition of earth pre and post-flood, from size of mountains to salt content, 2) secular chronologies with their bias against the Bible, 3) failing to account for average human generation times, 4) size of ark, 5) dimension of ark, 6) ship-worthiness of other boats, etc.
The biblical account was written about 1425 BC and the EOG about 3025 BC, Since the EOG could not have been written before the event it is the oldest account of the flood. Now perhaps the biblical account was not a plagarization of the EOG, however, the EOG, written closer to the actual event would have been the more accurate. It is well known that accounts handed down from father to son over hundreds of years suffer from loss of some information and subtle alterations of others. You can see this in action by getting 10 people. Take person 1 into a separate room and show him/her a written phrase. Then have person 2 go into the room and have person 1 repeat verbally the phrase. Person 1 leaves the room and person 3 enters and person 2 repeats the phrase. This is continued until person 10 has heard the phrase from person 9 then have person 10 write down what he/she heard and compare that with the original and note the difference in the two. Now expand that a few hundred years with the information not passed on till later in each persons life.
1 - I never questioned how the bible text was maintained just whether a single letter could have been unwittingly altered (Humans are fallible after all and can make mistakes)
1 - I never compared conditions of the earth pre and post flood but pondered the conditions at the location of the ark landing site (based on a landing at the summit of mt Ararat) after the flood waters had receded and normal climatological conditions resumed. I never made any assumption of salt content difference of the oceans pre and post flood. The mixing of salt and fresh water would have been disasterous to many fresh water fish. The assumption of salt content difference was made by you.
2 - Secular chronologies biased against the bible? I would accept that if you can provide evidence that they were in fact created for the sole purpose of refuting the bible instead of being created based on the most current information available at the time.
3 - Again the human repopulation was not an attempt to say that they couldn't have repopulated at the rate believed but was more on would they have abandoned their faith.
4 - The size of the ark I stated was the creationist accepted size so I don't see the problem you have there.
5 - Again the size and dimensions are those generally accepted by creation scientists
6 - Ship worthiness of other boats/ships has to my mind never been discussed, and as trade ships and fishing ships existed for other nations at the supposed time of the flood, it is not implausible to believe that there may have been some at sea when the flood occurred.
Sorry but my conclusions are not the result of poor scholarship based on a myriad of inaccurate assuptions, but the application of logic and common sense to the biblical account. On the other hand several of your refutations were based on the lack of full understanding of what I was trying to say and I apologize for not writing more clearly.
QUOTE(Fred Williams @ Apr 20 2008, 10:37 AM)
I will close with one important fact that alone makes a very, very powerful case that the account in the Bible is the most plausible that all other flood legends originate come from. Highly regarded South Korean ship architects modeled the ark using the dimensions given in the Bible and they were unable to capsize it, even using conditions several times greater than the great tsusami a few years back. On the other hand, the dimensions given in the Epic of Gilgamesh was of a cube-shaped boat! Do you think anyone could survive in a cube-shaped boat for a year? It would spin endlessly. I’m sure Noah and his sons liked Six Flags as much as the next guy, but don’t you this would be a tad overkill? Don’t you think a Ferris Wheel on a stable boat would have more sufficed to meet the amusement needs of Noah and his family? You guys claim to love science. Noah’s ark as described in the Bible is scientifically the most accurate. Why would you claim the original account comes from the Epic of Gilgamesh since it clearly describes a scientifically unsound boat? IF you truly love science then on this fact alone you should reject your own conclusion.
Well you have minced your EOG and bible epics here. In the EOG the flood doesn't last a year but only 14 days so your comment about surviving on a cube shaped boat for a year is void. Also I would like to see something that shows a cube shaped boat would spin endlessly as you claim. I ask because I personally saw a square house floating on flood waters a couple years ago and though the current was swift the house did not spin. I use science as you do when the need arises but have never claimed to love science as you state. The fact that the EOG is the oldest account still makes it the original despite your belief otherwise. The biblical account is most likely a verbally handed down accounting of the event with changes cropping in as is natural for verbally passed tales.
Edit: Forum program does not allow more than 10 quote boxes per post. It is not an option we can change so we also have to abide by this. To make the quote boxes work I changed 3 boxes to code boxes.
ikester7579