From: cotera@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:40:45 GMT

Well, I can't answer all your questions (or even most of them), but you can't
say I've ignored the issue.
 
> The ark:
>   How did the ark even get _built_ before its frame decays?  Tim LaHaye and
> 	Henry Morris assure us that Noah and his three sons could have
> 	easily constructed the ark in only 81 years.  Builders of wooden
> 	ships whose work took only four or five years often faced the
> 	problem of earlier phases of their work rotting away.  And does the
> 	81 year figure include harvesting and shaping lumber, building
> 	workshops, scaffolds, cages, etc., and gathering animals and
> 	provisions?

I'm not sure of the problem here.  My house is over 100 years old and it hasn't
decayed.  With regards to gathering the animals, as I recall the animals came
to him.

>   How was the ark made seaworthy?  The longest wooden ships in modern seas
> 	are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps
> 	and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped.

You're not going to like this answer.  What was the point of having Noah build
the ark? Wasn't it to preserve man and the animals? So wouldn't it make sense
if God made sure the ark was sea-worthy? 

>   How were animals collected from all over the world?
>

Like I said before, they were brought to Noah.
 
> Life on the ark:
>   What did the carnivorous animals eat, especially those which require fresh
> 	meat?

Man was not able to eat meat until after the flood.  Perhaps this was true of
all carnivores and omnivores.

>   How did creatures needing special environments survive on the ark?

For example?

>   How do you explain how all host-specific parasites/diseases made do with
> 	only one pair of hosts (and if they did OK, how the hosts survived!)

Remember, some animals came in groups of seven.  Furthermore, wouldn't there
only be two of each host specific parasite.  Also, why would God allow them to
die on the ark.

>   How well ventilated was the ark?  The body heat from millions of closely
> 	packed animals must have been very intense.

Obviously it was ventilated enough.

> 
> The flood:
>   Where did the water come from?  (It would take 4.4 billion cubic
> 	kilometers to cover Mt. Everest.)

Some came from the "waters above."

>   Where did it go?
> 

It's still here.

> Geological effects of the flood:

Stuff deleted because I'm not someone who tries to explain geology in terms of
the flood.
 
> Historical effects of the flood:
>   Why is there no mention of the flood in the records of Egyptian or Chinese
> 	civilizations which existed at the time?

It seems to me that there is an Egyptian flood legend.  Anyway lack of evidence
does not contradict Scripture.
 
> Is the flood model consistent with the Bible?
>   The model seems to say that large numbers of kinds of land animals
> 	became extinct because of the flood, while Genesis repeatedly says
> 	that Noah was ordered to take a representative sample of all kinds of
> 	land animals on the Ark to save them from extinction, and that Noah
> 	did as ordered.  Which is right?

The Bible takes precedence over any theory (Creationist or otherwise).

>   How could Noah have gathered male and female of each kind when some
> 	species are asexual, others are parthenogenic and have only females,
> 	and others (such as earthworms) are hermaphrodites?  

This is a rather stupid question, don't you think?

>   Other civilizations have flood legends, too.  This is often given as
> 	evidence for the flood, but doesn't it mean that more people than
> 	Noah's family survived?

Why would it mean that? And why would there be hundreds of flood stories if
nothing of the sort happened?

>   What was used to waterproof the ark?  We are told that God instructed Noah
> 	to coat the ark with pitch inside and out with the naturally-
> 	occurring hydrocarbon pitch, which causes a bit of a problem since,
> 	according to Whitcomb and Morris, all oil, tar and coal deposits
> 	were formed when organic matter was buried DURING the flood.

Obviously Whitcomb and Morris are wrong.  I have no problem with that.

>   Does the flood story make the whole Bible less credible?

The flood story or Whitcomb and Morris's theory?

> 	Davis Young is a working geologist who also is an Evangelical
> 	Christian. He has personal doubts about some aspects of evolution,
> 	but he makes a devastating case against "Flood Geology." He writes
> 	(_Christianity and the Age of the Earth_, p. 163):

I've read an interesting book by him called "Creation and the Flood" (I think). 
While I agree with some of what he says (he makes a devastating case against
theistic evolution), I find he is guilty of the same things he condemns
Whitcomb and Morris for, i.e. ignoring certain passages of the Bible to suit
his personal view.

>   If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly?

For the sake of allegory.  Jesus spoke of "the last days" as like the days
before the flood.  Thus, since Jesus affirms the occurance of the flood, all
Christians must believe it actually happens.  Otherwise Jesus is either
ignorant or a liar.  

>   And the whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world.  Did it work?
> 

Yes, but that doesn't mean wicked people weren't born later.

Now perhaps you can explain the pre-cambrian explosion.  I won't hold my
breath, neither should anyone else.
--Ray Cote