The Age of the Earth, Evolution, and the Flood

One of the other major problems with a worldwide flood is, where did all the water go? The Holy Bible states quite clearly that during the flood, the water was above the tops of the highest mountains. Assuming it was a worldwide flood, where did all this water come from, and where did it go afterwards? Where did it drain away to? Water doesn't just disappear. It has to drain away somewhere. Also, if the animals in Noah's Ark were only one male and one female of each species, it would have resulted in serious genetic weakness after the Ark grounded. Why? Because after the first generation, brother and sister animals would then have to breed together. This creates weak stock, as recessive genes come to the fore. This fact is well-known to farmers, dog-breeders and such like. People may like to see my poll "Noah's Ark: truth, half-truth, or flat-out myth?" which I created about 2 yrs ago on this site. Anyway, I could be wrong, and I often am. I always say this, in case creationists think I am some know-all bigot. I respect creationist opinions. God bless you.

Predator If you are truly interested in the traditional problems with a literal interpretation of the flood story then I suggest that you read ‘Noah’s Ark: a feasibility study’ by John Woodmorappe, it discusses EVERTHING in relation to this subject, it is an extremely concise book.

Inbreeding - There have been many modern examples of large populations of introduced species flourishing from just a single pair. There have been many examples of species that have been reduced in numbers to near extinction but have subsequently flourished to rebuild to large populations. The effects of inbreeding also vary from species to species. In the creationist theory the effects of inbreeding so far back in history would have been negligible at worst. God created the world and everything in it perfect, thus the DNA of all organisms was flawless. Our DNA has deteriorated since then to the point that inbreeding now results in retardation of the offspring. If you know your Bible you will remember that it was only until the exodus from Egypt that inbreeding was outlawed. This is because inbreeding wasn’t a problem because human DNA was still in good condition so that inbreeding didn’t result in retarded children. It was only when human DNA deteriorated to a certain extant that God saw that inbreeding would cause problems so He outlawed it.

This all means that at the time of the dispersal from the Ark, the DNA from all the organisms was still in very good condition (this is why we have such variety of life because there was much information yet to be expressed from the animals DNA) so that any inbreeding did not have any effect at all. Even if there was a retardation resulting from inbreeding, the suffering animal would be eliminated by natural selection, thus its inferior genes would not be passed on to further generations.

In regard to your question as to where all the water of the flood came from and went; most of the water is still here, have a look at the size of the Pacific Ocean! It’s huge, not to mention deep! There are many chasms in the oceans that are much deeper than the highest mountain peaks! It is commonly accepted in the creationist theory that the earth was much flatter in the pre-flood days. Thus any inundation of the continents by the oceans would have easily covered the earth as it was. The reason the flood ended was because of mountain building events that were the result of catastrophic plate tectonics. So the continents ‘rising’ from a relative flat state drained most of the water into the lowered ocean basins.

Predator, The Bible says a lot of things but why do you blindly assume it all to be true? The bible is merely a collection of writings by various people over time, probably some with a bit of an axe to grind, and it's all furhter distorted by repeated transalations. There are many examples of contradictory ideas and opinions. It's just a book! Why can't people accept that?

Hotbot Your full of sh*t aren’t you! Don’t get the wrong impression with what I’m saying, I’m not being abusive or pernicious, it’s just that you make various authoritative comments on every thread, but when people who know better calls your bluff, you simply ‘cut-and-run’ because you know that you have no chance in a debate! And this is going to be another classic example.

The Bible has been shown many times to be a historically accurate document. And as for your claimed contradictions I’d bet that you couldn’t come up with any! But maybe you’ll read this and decide to do some research for once (instead of saying whatever dribble that comes off of the top of your head) and present some contradictions that are easily refuted. Then again it’s more likely that you’ll just ignore me.

But just in case you decide to prove me wrong on my assumption I’ll add one more comment; almost every Biblical scholar (whether they are religious or not) readily concludes that even the most ancient Biblical documents have been preserved with remarkable accuracy. The amount of care that was taken by Israelite scribes, for the Pentateuch in particular, was unsurpassed in the ancient world. So your infantile comments about the Bible are absurd, untrue and entirely unfounded.

Old wise man. Concerning biblical contradictions. Lets deal with the most well known one. In the old testament God is supposed to have said "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" Which means - seek revenge on your enemies. In the new testament written much later about Jesus the supposed son of god - He apparently preached "Love thine enemy" "Turn the other cheek" It's a pity god forgot to tell his son what line to take with us earthlings before he sent him down to us!

Quite obviously the writings of the old testament scribe had very different opinions from the later gospel writer who put these words into Jesus's mouth>