Arguments about the flood.

by Adolfius 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Adolfius

  I posted a thread yesterday about evolution and population since the flood, http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/134218/1.ashx and there were some arguments from the point of view of JW's that would be hard to counter....for me anyway. But it raised some other questions that I'd like some feedback on.

  Namely, is it just me who thinks it's just ridiculous that Noah could've collected all the animals from across the globe and got them on the Ark?

  According to the United Nations Global Biodiversity Assesment, there are an estimated 1.75 million species on the planet. Presumably there were even more in the time of Noah before many went extinct. And thats "species", not "sub-species". A sub species could interbreed and lead to more diversity (evolution) such as different types of dog, but a species can not breed with another species, such as cats with dogs. So that's 1.75 million individual species as separate entities.

  Now 70% of species on the planet live in; Australia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Equador, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mexico, Peru, Zaire (now the democa ratic republic of Congo), and 50% of all the species live in the tropical rainforests - source: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/58.html

  You'll see there is no mention of the Middle East, so it's fair to say that most of the animals Noah had to collect were not in his local area. In fact he would of had to travel to completely different continents (long before they had been discovered) in order to collect the vast majority of the animals.

  Not only that, but am I right in saying that he took 7 of each animal on board?

  Now let's discount all the marine life as I assume they would still be able to swim. This isn't scientific, but for the sake of argument, the planet is 70% water, so let's knock off 70% of the species Noah would have to collect. That leaves us with 525,000 individual species that he would still have to collect. Now multiply that by 7 as he took 7 of each species on board, and we have a total of 3,675,000 individual animals that needed to be boarded onto the Ark.

  According to the calculations of the size of the Ark given the dimensions in the bible, most people seem to equate the Ark to the size of a modern day cruise liner. I'm not an expert but I can't see more than 3 and a half million animals, some as big as elephants (because they were elephants) fitting onto a ship that size.

  This site; http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html argues the bible is true and the Ark and the flood story is obviously factual, but I can't see it.

  My main argument, apart from the numbers involved, is the fact of where these animals live on the planet and how he got them. It just embarrassing that I used to believe this. How did he get to Australia and back or South America? Even more amazing than the large animals is how the F@~# did he collect the tens of thousands of insects and micro organisms.

  How did he keep them all alive. To feed so many animals, more than half the volume of the Ark would need to be taken up with plant life, or am I wrong.

  Now it's been a long time since I left the org, so I am a bit rusty with the facts of what they teach, but have I got that about right? Any feed back would be great, as I'm after solid arguments that even the hardest hardliner JW would have to see reason on. I'd like to present something startingly obvious to my parents in an attempt to make them come to their senses and claim their lives back.

  Thanks

  Adolfius
• 

  Arthur

  Now let's discount all the marine life as I assume they would still be able to swim. This isn't scientific, but for the sake of argument, the planet is 70% water, so let's knock off 70% of the species Noah would have to collect.

  Well, actually this is something that has major significance. I would say that this has more significance than theoretical guesses as to how many animals could fit into the ark.

  The oceans and the life they support are extremely fragile. Let's first consider the ocean's salinization. A massive release of fresh water (as described in Genesis) would have caused a massive desalinizaiton of the oceans which would have killed off not only most of the fish, but also the microscopic life as well as plant life. A disruption of this magnitude would have disrupted the food chain and would have created a catastrophic imbalance in the oceans whereby it is hard to immagine any life surviving at all.

  Another point to remember is ocean pressure at the deepest parts of the ocean. There are untold numbers of species whose bodies are specifically adapted to those depths. These species could not survive in shallower waters, as the decreased pressures would cause their bodies to burst. According to the Watchtower Society, the oceans were much shallower back then. Logically, this means that ocean pressures would have been far less than what they are today. With these much shallower depths, much of the ocean life that exists today would have never been able to survive back then. Are we to believe that all of these species evolved in the last 4,000 years?

  Another thing to remember is ocean shorelines. Again, the Watchtower Society asserts that the oceans were much shallower back then. This means that shorelines would have been much farther out than they are now. Yet, there are cases of coral reefs which are just off of the coasts of Australia and other locations which are tens of thousands of years old. Had the shores been where they would have been pre-flood, those coral reefs would never even existed.

  AlanF wrote an excellent thesis on the subject of the flood; which is one of the best ones that I have ever read. It is quite long, but contains great detail and is very well researched. I can't find the link right now, but I am hoping that he might come on this thread and post a link to it. If not, I will try to find it tommorow.
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  It just embarrassing that I used to believe this.

  I know what you mean. At the very least, it serves as a reminder to us that even what we feel is proven is not necessarily so.

  One guy from YouTube whose name fails me at the moment (Kent Hovind?) claimed Noah took baby animals, since they're smaller. How the babies were expected to ever learn all the behaviors that only their parents could teach them was never explained. *roll eyes*

  Some fish require salt water, some require fresh water. Some hot water, some cold water. So lumping them all into one big, warm, semi-salty global pond just wouldn't work.

  Of course the Bible didn't say "species", but "kinds" of animals. The pro-flood group says you didn't need two German Shepherds, two beagles, etc. Just two "dogs". How a "kind" is defined is never explained. How the kinds became all the many species we have today in 4,000 years is never explained.

  The 2-versus-7 thing: The Bible says two of the unclean and seven of the clean. How clean/unclean were differentiated is never explained.

  And what did Noah do when he landed with his precious cargo of the only animals alive on the entire planet? Slaughtered a few, in thanks to god!

  Yeah, embarrassing.

  Dave
• 

  Adolfius

  Another thing to remember is ocean shorelines. Again, the Watchtower Society asserts that the oceans were much shallower back then. This means that shorelines would have been much farther out than they are now. Yet, there are cases of coral reefs which are just off of the coasts of Australia and other locations which are tens of thousands of years old. Had the shores been where they would have been pre-flood, those coral reefs would never even existed.

  Brilliant! Why can't the JW's see this. It isn't scientific or even clever....just bloody common sense. Ok, so we don't always spot the obvious, but as soon as it's pointed out, surely any rational person would at the very least have to stop and think about it for a moment.

  I find it so frustrating that the likes of my parents would simply dismiss this. They wouldn't have a counter argument for it, they'd just put the blinkers on and pretend they hadn't heard it.

  JW's remind me of small children who when they don't want to hear something will just put their hands over their ears and and start going "La La La La la" as loud as they can.

  Fools!
• 

  jeanV

  I'll comment when I have more time.

  In the meantime you may enjoy this link: http://www.dimaggio.org/Heretic/1st_corr.htm
• 

  Adolfius

  It makes me chuckle when I see the societies reply to such questions. They may as well have said,

  "you've obviously thought long and hard about this and done much research............please stop doing this immediately. Thinking will only serve to expose our ludicrous stories as made up during our prolongued periods of halicunations brought on as a result of overdosing on our prescribed medication. If you would kindly just go back to the mindless preaching work and telling others about our loving god who is about to kill 99% of the earths population, because he loves us."

  Thanks for that link jeanV, it was great.
• 

  tijkmo

  That leaves us with 525,000 individual species that he would still have to collect. Now multiply that by 7 as he took 7 of each species on board, and we have a total of 3,675,000 individual animals that needed to be boarded onto the Ark.

  noooo...he only took 2 of most and 7 just of clean animals

  so thats only 524,998 x 2 = 1,049.996 plus 7 cows and 7 sheep

  for goodness sake man..get a grip.
• 

  Adolfius

  aagghhh, well now it's so obvious. It really is true.

  Nice one
• 

  WTWizard

  I have an even more embarrassing argument against the Flood. The Witlesses claim that the weight of the water pushed up the mountains, creating a place for the water to go.

  Anyone that knows anything about specific gravity knows that water is lighter than the same volume of rock. This means that one cubic decimeter of water, which weighs one kilogram, would displace one cubic decimeter of rock, which usually weighs around 2 to 2.5 kilograms. You get a net loss of 1-1.5 kg per cubic decimeter (or 1 liter) of rock displaced by a liter of water. The rock would sink.

  You can do an experiment similar to this. If you pour into a bowl about 2" of water, and then pour about 1" of vegetable oil on top of this, you will see that the oil (lighter than water) will not push up the water, no matter how much oil you put on top. It will never push the water down because that would cause a net loss of energy in the system of the difference between the weight of the water and that of the oil. At equilibrium, the oil would be evenly distributed on top of the water, no matter how much you prod it to push up the water.

  Likewise, since water weighs less than an equal volume of rock, water cannot push up rock by sheer weight. What would happen is that the water would simply flatten the rock, given half a chance (if the water couldn't move the rock, then you would have no effect either way). And there is no way you are going to tell me that 6 miles of water is going to push down the rock when other parts of the crust have about 20 miles of rock. Actually, the crust is thinner at the deep portions of the ocean basins, and there is less weight per cubic mile of ocean trench (counting water and rock) than there is per cubic mile of mountainous terrain. The mountains should be pushing down the rock, not the water.

  This is another example of why the Watchtower Society doesn't want people to get an education. This is a ninth-grade physics puzzle, and anyone who figures it out is going to wonder if the Tower is wrong and lying about other things. (Incidently, what pushed up the mountains is continents crashing into each other, not the flood water).
• 

  Adolfius

  Incidently, what pushed up the mountains is continents crashing into each other, not the flood water

  I'm not having it....continental drift creating mountains??? Whose ever heard such a thing! :-)

  It's no wonder none of us were ever allowed to go to college. I'm even surprised we were ever allowed to watch any TV or read anything other than their propoganda.