by Moxy 23 Replies latest jw friends
it seems to me like the water at the bottom of the floodwaters wouldnt be salty so much as really, really dirty. if nothing could survive except life that was already adapted for deep sea, ie the land was nearly devoid of life when the waters drained, then how do creationists/JWs explain the marvelous recovery the eco-system seems to have made?
im not asking you to defend the explanation, i just want to hear it.
mox
Moxy wrote:
"then how do creationists/JWs explain the
marvelous recovery the eco-system seems to
have made?"
I am of the opinion that the Genesis flood
account is not literal.
But if you want to know what the creationists
say, try a creationist website like...
* http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/444.asp
snippet:
=======================
How did fish and plants survive the Genesis Flood?
Survival of land plants? Many terrestrial seeds can survive
long periods of soaking in various concentrations of salt
water (Howe, 1968, CRSQ:105–112). Others could
have survived in floating masses. Many could have
survived as accidental and planned food stores on the
ark.
Ironically, Charles Darwin himself performed experiments
floating snails on, and submerging seeds in, salt water,
convincing him that they could have survived long sea
voyages on driftwood and the like.
=================================
End snippet
More Q&A on flood:
* http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp
Not sure how to create hyperlinks,
so hope this works.
Quester
I don't know of any studies showing specifically that bristlecone pines can't survive a year under thousands of feet of water, but I do know that evergreen trees don't survive well with their roots in soggy ground. Bristlecones like dry conditions -- that's why they do alright in the harsh, dry conditions 3-4,000 meters up in California's White Mountains.
Their location at such a high elevation is another killer for Flood claims. If someone claims that the White Mountains were there before Noah's Flood, then they have to explain where enough water came from to flood the earth deep enough to cover these mountains, which are up to 4,500 meters high. Same goes for the Andes, Himalayas and other high mountain ranges. The problem is that the oceans contain only enough water to flood the earth to about 2,500 meters, even if the globe were as smooth as a billiard ball. And even if one says, "God created the water", then you have to claim equally, "God made the water disappear". Since even the most rabid of JWs and Fundies don't claim that, but say that God used already-existing water, they have an insurmountable problem.
Alternatively, on occasion the WTS has claimed that all of today's high mountains were formed after the Flood. But that doesn't work either. The White Mountains are essentially thick piles of granite, and granite is notoriously resistant to erosion. It is simply not possible for the White Mountains to have eroded out of the granite substrate in 4,500 years. And even if there were massive amounts of post-Flood erosion going on, it would necessarily prevent the growth of any vegetation at all on the rapidly-eroding mountains, much less allow 4,700 or 9,000 years of growth of the bristlecone pines that has been documented.
As ususal, no matter which way you look at such evidence, believers in a global Flood are screwed.
AlanF
Disclaimer: I am not defending the flood - but this is what I thought I was taught about the high mountains.
I was taught that they did not exist before the flood - only low mountains (or high hills). The tremendous force of the flood waters coming from the heavens (swaddling band around the earth above the earth) hit the earth.
How did the same waters leave the earth? They didn't. God made the earth dirt, stone, etc., move up/down so that deep oceans were formed and high mountains. Craters, fissers, etc., were formed by the basically ripping of the earth - as can be seen by the drop offs in the deep oceans. Basically, the earth shifted so that oceans were made. By the scrunching of the earth surface for the oceans - that dirt/rock etc formed into the high mountains (scrunching upwards.)
Thus, there was a place for the water to go - from above the high mountains to down in the Deep Blue Sea (and oceans.)
Ok, now! Would someone like to come in and explain if this is rational or not? And don't laugh - there's a lot of jw's who believe that. And remember - I am not defending - but the WTBTS insinuates that science is a lot of bunk when it doesn't follow the Bible - so why would we look any further? We have the Awake! to inform us, don't we?
waiting
ps: Perhaps the WTBTS used another word besides "scrunching" - I'm working from memory here.
