MWF
The Bible no where suggests that God suspended meterology for the
duration of the 40 days of rain.
BAKER 12/3
The Bible does not state what the weather conditions were one way or the
other. It is my interpretation of the biblical evidence that the earth may
have been positioned at a different axis before the flood, and when, and if
a meteor struck the earth, it may have caused the earth to shift on its
axis. If this is so, and if the earth's axis was approximately 0 degrees
before its shift, then there might not have been any meterology to be
concerned with until the earth settled into its 23.5 degree axis.
MWF
Now, the highest mountain is Everest, and all geological evidence is that
Everest is far older than mere humans, having been caused by the uplift
generated by the collision of the Indian sub-continent with Asia. So it was
there during Noah's flood.
BAKER 12/3
Not necessarily true. According to Gen 10:25 the earth began to divide (into
its seven separate continents) well after the flood. Even though Mt. Everest
existed, the present height of Mt. Everest's would not have been a factor at
the time of flood.
MWF
{I'll mention, but otherwise ignore for the moment, the utter lack of
evidence that the Tibetan plateau has ever been under water.} If the waters
which rose over Mt.Everest were to be generated from only rain and within
the 40 day limit, it would have to rain at the rate of 5.5 inches per
_minute_. A storm which drops a mere 5 inches in an HOUR will generate
(whether a cyclone such as a Hurricane, or just a moving frontal system like
a Kansas thunderstorm) winds of 60-80 mph and more.
BAKER 12/3
Under the senario I have proposed none of the factors you mentioned would be
present. The main source of the water was not from the 40 day rain, but from
the water of the collapsing water canopy. Cf. Gen 1:6-8.
MWF
For rain to form, water must condense out of warm moist air. For this to
happen for any length of time, there must be something to absorb the latent
heat of vaporization which is released from the wate when it condenses. This
requires some cool dry air. If much rain is going to fall, the two air
masses must mix vigorously. That means a lot of air has to be in motion.
And that means winds must blow. And even if the rain was only 5% of the
total water in the flood that's still 16.5 inches of rain per hour, which is
3 times the rate of a STRONG storm, which means 3 times more air has to move
to keep the water condensing. And 3 X 60 = 180. A world covered with
Hurricane Camilles. Noah's sieve would have been Noah's toothpicks as soon
as the storms started.
BAKER 12/3
If the senario you have presented was in fact what happened, then you might
be right. However, that may not be what happened. The Ark may have just sat
in relatively calm waters. I have witnessed rain for days here in Oregon
without a lot of wind. Sometimes it just rains and rains, and at times the
rain feels warm.
Also, who cares if Noah was able to steer his Ark or not, or whether it had
bilge pumps? Maybe it was his intention to stay where he was. In the story,
Noah used a pitch to seal the cracks, which, if the story is true, must have
brought him through the ordeal.
MWF
If the waters were five miles deep, staying where he was was not an
option. In any event, perhaps somewhere in the world there is a harbor so
sheltered that a large ship will willingly stay in port during the storm,
but the best place for a large ship in a heavy storm is at sea. One of the
not so great joys of being in the Navy on the east coast and attached to a
ship is that every time a hurricane is heading close to your port, YOU get
to leave your family behind to face the storm, while the Navy puts its ships
to sea (with you in one of them) to keep them from getting pounded into
scrap against the piers.
BAKER
In addition, who says that he took full grown, highly unmanageable animals
aboard that would have required much personal attention, food, and water, etc?
MWF
It still wouldn't help. Too many animals with far too specialized
dietary needs.
BAKER 12/3
If full grown animals were taken I could accept your point. However, with
very young animals, maybe milk was all that was necessary for most of the
animals.
MWF
Where did he get fresh Eucalyptus for six months for the Koalas? Fresh fruit
for the the fruit bats? What about insects for the insectovores?
There could have been enough large mammals to keep a pair of vampire bats
alive (however they got across the Atlantic), but what did he feed all the
obligate carnivores for six months? And once released, since the
predator/prey ratio's were all fouled up, what kept the surviving carnivores
alive while the surviving herbovores were starving waiting for new vegetation?
BAKER 12/3
You are assuming that Koalas, fruit bats, and vampire bats were on the Ark.
Maybe these animals evolved after animals were dispersed into the land mass.
Why do you assume that Noah "crossed" the Atlantic? If the land masses were
still intact there would be an Atlantic. Some, or even most of the animals
may have been drugged, or hybernated on their own. Even animals that may
have been carnivores could have eaten whatever was available, such as milk,
if they were very young carnivors.
MWF
The problems go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on
and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Did Noah
take any insects? They were never mentioned. Very many plants cannot
reproduce without the pollination of very particualarly adopted species of
insects, which would not have survived a six month flood, even if the plants
seeds did.
BAKER 12/3
I don't know if Noah took any, or if he did whether he took all kinds of
insects. Maybe he took bees, but left the dragon flies, houseflies, and
cockroaches to fend for themselves. Since I am not convinced that the flood
was truly worldwide, maybe insects living where the flood waters did not
reach survived on their own, along with animals that might have lived there.
MWF
How did the Honeycreepers of Hawaii get to Hawaii and nowhere else?
Howcome mosquitos survived and got to all the continents, but didn't make it
to the oceanic islands? (unlike the honeycreeper which only made it
to one island chain)
BAKER 12/3
No idea.
MWF
HOW did those damned Koalas get back to Australia? What did they eat
on the way? What did they eat when they first got back? Trees take time to
grow. Why are there no genetic markers of passing through such an
ecological crises? We know that the Cheetah has been on the brink of
extinction, either several times or by being reduced at one point to a
single breeding pair because of the profound lack of genetic diversty within
the Cheetah population. All surviveing species should exhibit this same lack
of genetic diversity, yet most populations (no other wild population I'm
aware of) do NOT have this problem.
BAKER 12/3
As I suggested, Koalas and Cheetahs may not have existed, having not evolved
before the flood occurred. If Koalas were aboard the Ark, they must have
been placed on the Australian continent before the division of the land
masses by the Noahites and their descendants.
If one puts the kind of slant you guys put on the story, it surely makes no
sense, but who is say that your version is the only possible senario?
MWF
Because any other version is possible only by making up facts as you go
along. A LOT of facts. A pathetically huge, intellectually contemptable
number of facts.
BAKER 12/3
There is a lot about the flood, the Noahites, the Ark animals, and how they
survived we just don't know, because there isn't much in the bible to make
any concrete conclusions. However, there is a lot about the flood that you
are not mentioning.
MWF
The earth itself, in every molecule, in the record of every strata, in every
living species of plant and animal and insect, in the very form of
the ecosystems and the distribution of species, shrieks in denial of the
very possibility of the story. Anyone who can swallow the tale of Noahs ark
has sacrificed whatever intellectual integrity they ever had on the alter of
blind adherance to dogma. They have decided to "believe" no matter what the
evidence says to the contrary.
BAKER 12/3
Well Michael the senario you have painted isn't anymore believeable to me
then the I one I have painted for you. If one accepts all of the if's in
your set of facts, then yes, there is no way anyone could swallow the story
in the Bible. I am not so sure that your set of facts are all true. You seem
to be saying that you are ruling out other plausible senarios, but until you
have prove these senarios could not be factual, or have a basis in truth,
then I don't see how you can conclude that people with other senarios have
sacrificed their intellectual integrity if they believe the biblical story.
Ronal Baker <bakerr@cdsnet.net> Author of *Biblical Dinosaurs*
--------------------------------------------------------------
The world's first Rapid Evolutionist. Rapid evolution is true
and the Bible proves it!