From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: Voyagers on the Ark of Noah
Date: 28 Jan 93 20:38:46 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.

 
> 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?


/(cotera)
/I'm not sure of the problem here.  My house is over 100 years old and it hasn't
/decayed.  

Did it ever occur to you that the wood in your house has been chemically
treated by processes known only in the latter half of the 20th century?
Obviously you have never built anything or worked on a house.  I have.




/(cotera)
/With regards to gathering the animals, as I recall the animals came
/to him.

Fine.  Explain the Australian kangaroo and New Zealand kiwi (for starters).




>   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.


/(cotera)
/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? 

Great. 

"I haven't got an answer, so I'll use my patented "Argument Escape Hatch":
It must have been a miracle.

Did it ever occur to you that while god was performing all these miracles,
he could have just solved the whole problem by not destroying everything
to begin with?  Or by temporarily teleporting the animals to heaven, and
then "beaming" them back down after the flood was over?  I mean, hell--
if every time god wanted to prevent some law of nature from acting the
way it normally does he steps in an performs a miracle, why not be just
be done with it and do a one-step miracle?   Besides, where does it say
that god specially protected the wood?  Until you can find that in scripture,
it's just your idea.

Did it also ever occur to you that by invoking god as your explanation,
you are assuming your conclusion?




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

/(cotera)
/Like I said before, they were brought to Noah.

Like we said before, how was it done?
 



> Life on the ark:
>   What did the carnivorous animals eat, especially those which require fresh
> 	meat?


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

Where does it say this in the Bible?



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

/(cotera)
/For example?

Pandas.  Which eat only bamboo.  Koalas.  Which eat only eucalyptus.
Certain kinds of North Carolina goshawks, that eat only one kind of 
freshwater snail.



>   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!)

(cotera)
/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.

Invoking god is assuming your conclusion.




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


/(cotera)
/Obviously it was ventilated enough.

"Obviously"?  

How do you consider this to be "obvious"?  Since you "know" that the literal
Ark story is true?  My boy, that is what you are trying to prove to us.

You _cannot_ use your conclusion as evidence that your conclusion is 
correct.



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

/(cotera)
/Some came from the "waters above."

An amount of water sufficient to cover the earth to the height of Mt. Ararat,
if stored in the form of clouds, would make the atmosphere so thick as
to be unbreathable.



>   Where did it go?
> 

/(cotera)
/It's still here.

Then why isn't Mt. Ararat under water?  If the same amount of water is still
here, then the same water level should be present.



 
> 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?

/(cotera)
/It seems to me that there is an Egyptian flood legend.  Anyway lack of evidence
/does not contradict Scripture.

I think it's pretty obvious that you don't know much about Fertile Crescent
and Middle east mythologies.  

The point stills stands:  any event that was devastating enough to destroy
all life on the planet would be chronicled somewhere besides the OT.  Unless,
of course, it was only a local flood, or unless it never really happened.
 


> 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?

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

Fine.  

Whose interpretation of the Bible?  Yours?  Gish's?  Mine?  How
do you expect to have a coherent idea of what happened when Xtians cannot
even agree on what the Bible means, ESPECIALLY when it discusses things
such as Genesis and the Flood?

Simply saying that the "Bible takes precedence" isn't good enough.  Try 
again.



>   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?  

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

Son, if there is anything around here that is bordering on being stupid, it
is your insistence on holding onto a flood myth that is falling apart at the
seams.




>   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?

/(cotera)
/Why would it mean that? 

Because if everyone died in the flood, who would be left to remember it and
write it down or tell about it?

You're not even _trying_ to think, are you, Ray?


/(cotera)
/And why would there be hundreds of flood stories if
/nothing of the sort happened?

Common mythology from the same roots.  There are several variations of
the old story about two orphans being raised by a wild animal (usually
a wolf).  This doesn't mean that it happened; but it does hint at the 
possibility that people traded stories over campfires long ago.





> 	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):


(cotera)
/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.

That is because when you take the bible as a whole, and you agree to accept
all verses, you wind up with a hopelessly contradictory document.  The only
way to create a coherent view with it is to de-emphasize (or ignore) certain
parts.




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

/(cotera)
/For the sake of allegory.  

Let me get this straight:  you god killed everyone in a flood so that 4000
years later Jesus could point to the event and use it as an allegory?


/(cotera)
/Now perhaps you can explain the pre-cambrian explosion.  I won't hold my
/breath, neither should anyone else.

I would rather accept a half-completed scientific explanation of the 
Pre-Cambrian explosion than a religious myth.  At least I can test the
scientific explanation and throw it away at a later date if it's faulty.
Can you say the same about your religious explanation?  I doubt it.

You haven't discharged your duty yet, Ray.  Until you answer the above
objections and the rest of the questions, you still have some work to do
before insisting on someone else to provide you with explanations.