Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ky. Creationists build Noahs Ark (complete with dinosaurs)

What of the plants? How did they survive months of inundation? And if they all died, but regenerated from seeds after the water receded, how did Noah's boatload of animals get by in the time it would take for that to happen? What, for example, of those animals which depend on tree fruits and tree nuts, products of trees at least several years old?

How did bees survive, in the absence of flowering plants?

And how does this story account for those living plants which have been alive since before the date ascribed to this Great Flood? Or those clonal colonies which have been alive since before the Flood without setting seeds?

You cannot reason a person out of something they were never reasoned into.

To all here truly interested, there is a whole new, burgeoning science growing since the late sixties. It’s consists of an apologetic of a young earth, refuting many of the claims of traditional science. These young-earth scientists (many) are all reputable PhD’s from top universities from around the western world.

For some specific answers regarding the flood, Noah, and the ark’s inhabitants, a now recognized definitive and very interesting work on the subject is THE GENESIS FLOOD by Henry Morris PhD (a hydraulic engineer) and John Whitcolm PhD (theologian). This was published back in 1959 and is now considered the cornerstone of this movement.

It’s long, technical, and presents answers, to be sure, speculative, but based on science and probabilities. I highly recommend it.

Edit to add: God in the scriptures gives us but a very broad overview — what is necessary for us to know — but with many unanswered questions that inquiring minds would like to know the answers to. Or at least to entertain them.

First Henry Morris only had a Masters degree, he was not a PHD. In 1963 he formed the Creation Research Society. Here's their statement of beliefs:

All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.


In other words, they admit to starting with the conclusion, then trying to justify it.

How many peer review journal articles supporting his statement of beliefs was he able to publish in reputable journals?

No AS, he has a PhD, From the Univ of Minn I believe, in hydraulic engineering. Whitcomb used his effort in co-authoring the book to complete his ThD theses (correction from above).

You must aim before you fire. 😉

Edit: and no, if you would read the book, you would see it is not a circular-reasoning effort such as the one you just completed by declaring it so because you do not want to entertain its reasoning and facts.

AS, you might note the book was published in 1959, four years before the formation of the society, as the book research prompted the founding of it along with many communications from other PhD scientists from the UK, Australia, the US, etc.

Chronology: book — affirmed beliefs — society founded with membership requirements of other PhD and MS scientists/researchers.
Nothing strange there.

Reasonable questions I would think.

If all the earth was covered in water from the flood, where did it recede to? It had to go somewhere. Is there a giant drain plug at the bottom of the ocean that the Big Guy pulled?

Let me pull one example that I scanned here that shows poor understanding and presuppositions upon which you declare God an unjust tyrant. I refer to your referring to Eve as a 14 yo girl and the “illegal” Apple as a “marshmallow” which upon her (and Adam) eating of it caused the Fall of mankind and the incomprehensible unjustness of it all.

First of all any, reference to Eve must depend upon Biblical exposition; that is, Adam and her were created on the 6th day. As the only two people in the then-world and with immediate responsibilities, we can safely presume God created them as adults, perfect adults. For instance, as a 25 yo adult she might have been only five minutes old.

Secondly, the Fall was cataclysmically catastrophic spiritually, physically, and to the environment. Some animals became meat-eaters and the ground now grew thistles and thorns. Adam and Eve, who were created to live forever, might have had “IQ’s” of five hundred and they knew God and walked with Him. In all of this, as perfect, brilliant (?), free moral agents, they were given one one law, one caveat, one restriction. And they failed.

Thus your unjustness of a righteous and perfect God, the creator of everything, fades into reasonable even with limited human understanding.

Apologies if I misread your comment.

They are very reasonable answers and are addressed in the book mentioned above. These things will not be argued to conclusion on the internet. If someone is truly interested, he/she can make a study of it or at least read the book.

If Eve was created from Adam's rib, that would mean that they were related and Cain and Abel were products of incest.

Antelope Sniper is far from ignorant.

He is “ unseeing” as far as a Spiritual Dimension, but so are those who argue for an inerrant bible which can serve as a textbook.

“ Willfully ignorant” best describes those who cling to a conception of God promoted by politicians of a bygone era.

The one unchanging constant in the Bible is NOT God.......... but Human Nature.

One should study the Bible to learn more about Oneself.....not God.......if bible study floats your boat.

Well said.

This can open a can of worms...........serpents you might say.

What would you the "caveat" was? I'm curious what you think.
I believe that whatever it is, you are condemned by it unless you change your thinking.

Not really I think. The “caveat” or condition to eating of the fruit was on the very day you eat of it you shall die (spiritually) and begin dying physically.

The spiritual death could be forgiven by faith, confession and repentance like now. The coming physical death was irreversibly determined like now unless the Second Coming precludes it.

not only that, which means we're all cloned from clones. but also the fact that neither adam nor eve had belly buttons. the rest of us do.

The concept of prohibited incest, does not come about until long after the flood. The logical reason for this is that Adam and Eve were perfect, having perfect genetic makeup, and therefore procreating would not be subject to the genetic defects that came later. As time progressed, those defects accumulated, so procreation of close relatives eventually became a biological problem.

I think it's safe to assume that Noah had knowledge of proper boat construction. And I think it's also safe to assume that God would allow Noah to build a boat that would not be a torturous ride in rough water. For those reasons, I believe the Ark would have resembled a boat more than a box. The box/boat in that drawing would have been a sorry place to spend any time on rough seas - which I would think are pretty likely in such a massive environmental change. As for the shape of the replica in Kentucky.....I'd say it's also a little off.

What about the moral implications about incest?

What moral implications? Where would that have come from?