Claim Geologists have discovered that fossil remains are distributed in layers in which the oldest fossils are generally located in the lowest layers and the youngest ones in the uppermost layers. Geologists attribute these findings to a multimillion-year process involving sequential deposition of layers of sediment containing the remains of organisms. Such a scenario would be impossible if the universe was created only 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Nevertheless, "scientific" quick creationism theory explains these discoveries in terms of a world-wide flood described in Genesis. According to this scenario, torrential rains caused the flooding of the entire Earth surface for 371 days. Prior to this event, God commanded Noah to build a boat large enough to accommodate his family, thousands of species of animals, and about 1 million species of insect, along with the food required to sustain them. The boat had to be sturdy enough to withstand 40 days and nights of rain. Only those living things that found refuge in Noah's Ark survived the flood. When the rains ended and the waters subsided, animals not aboard the ark were buried in sequence. “Scientific” quick creationists claim that animals that lived in the sea would be buried first. Next to be buried would be the slow-moving amphibians and reptiles, then faster animals, and finally humans. This order corresponds to the order found in the vertical geologic columns unearthed by geologists. Scientific Response Two major questions must be answered “yes” for the worldwide flood claim to be true: Was it technically possible for an ark to be built in ancient times that would hold and sustain at least two of all species? Was there a worldwide flood in the first place? An answer to the first question begins with the calculation of the size of the ark as described in Genesis. Translating the cubit dimensions of the Bible into feet results in an ark that is 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. According to ship architects, this exceeds by 150 feet the maximum length of a seaworthy wooden ship. If the length exceeds 300 feet, unavoidable warping and stresses will cause the hull to leak so much that the vessel will sink. Even if a seaworthy 450 foot long, wooden ship could be built, the technical problems involved in getting more than a million species of animals and plants aboard, then housed and fed for 371 days would be insurmountable. This task and that of caring for the animals would have to be accomplished by just eight people: Noah and his wife, their three sons and the sons’ wives. To further complicate matters, their collective gene pool would have to account for all of the racial diversity and physical distinctions now found in the human race. Space would also be a serious problem. Items on board would include: a 371-day supply of stored food, cages for animals, freshwater and saltwater tanks (the rapid change in salinity during a flood would kill nearly all fish not aboard the ark), waste products, plants in soil, as well as living space for the humans. Some plants could be taken aboard as seeds, but many plants do not reproduce by seed, so they would have to be taken as adult plants. Someone would have to be able to gather these plants and animals from all over the world. Parasites and infectious microorganisms that cannot survive outside of their host animals or humans would have to travel “aboard” these hosts without destroying them. Noah and his family would have had to be infected with the likes of syphilis, smallpox, and leprosy for over a year. The answer to the second question is even more critical. Technical questions about arks becomes moot in the absence of a worldwide flood. Flood stories are common to many cultures, and some predate the one given in Genesis. These include hero equivalents of Noah (Zinsuddu in a Sumerian flood story, ca. 3,000 BCE, Utnapishtim in a subsequent Babylonian text, the Gilgamesh Epic, Xisusthus in a succeeding Babylonian version, etc.), a god secretly warning the hero of an impending flood that would destroy humankind, an ark landing on a mountain, and even the sending of birds until one finds dry land and does not return. The similarity of the Genesis version to previous tales does not necessarily mean that the Genesis version should be discounted as folklore rather than fact. The real test of a worldwide flood scenario is to deduce the kinds of physical evidence such a scenario predicts, and see whether those predictions are borne out. Genuine floods leave physical evidence in the form of sedimentary deposits in a narrow band at the same level. This leads to the prediction that a worldwide flood would leave a worldwide band of sediment at the same level in geographic columns of sediment in all the areas that had been dry before the flood. The absence of such a band of sediment means that the prediction of this hypothesis is not matched by experimental evidence. Another problem with the worldwide flood scenario is the location of the quantity of water required to flood Earth to the degree that 17,000 foot high mountains could be submerged completely. By far, the largest potential source of terrestrial water is the ice in the North and South polar regions. Even if this entire supply of ice melted, the level of the oceans would rise no more than 30 feet. Thus the Earth contained insufficient water to produce the required depth of water for the flood. Have major floods occurred in the past? Strong evidence suggests that they have. However, they were local, not worldwide. They may have seemed worldwide to people whose world was limited by geographical constraints. When these stories of past local floods were shared by travelers, they could have assumed that the floods occurred at the same time, and blended them into a worldwide phenomenon.
There are many views regarding the creation and flood account of Genesis. Not all Jews or "christians" hold such a literal view as the one you, or whoever wrote this, are questioning and attempting to "disprove". I do not deny that the earth may be millions or even billions of years old. It does not conflict with my beliefs at all. "In the beginning" could have been trillions of years ago, for all we know. The days of creation could be very spaced out in time, as "In the beginning" could be millions of years ago(and most likely was). Also, the bible sometimes uses the word "day" to mean longer periods of time than just 24 hours(the figurative expression "the DAY of the Lord" speaks of a longer period than 24 hours, for example). The creation account in Genesis may just be figurative to begin with. Not all hold "the young earth" theory. Not all are "fundamentalists". Not everything has to be read so literal in the bible. The accounts in the bible may be there to teach truths underneath the accounts. There exists a Creator etc. None of us(including modern-day scientists) were there "in the beginning", or at the "flood" account involving "Noah", so nothing about history can be scientifically proven. The "Scientific Method" does not measure history - history can not be "demonstrated" in an experiment to prove a hypothesis and then call it "science". It really doesn't matter how or when the earth was created to believe that there was a Creator. It really doesn't matter if the flood of Noah was actually "worldwide" as we know of and not as humans knew of back then. It doesn't matter about the species of animals etc. or the size of the boat - who cares? Not everyone takes these accounts as literal accounts like "fundamentalists" may do. If one doesn't gain anything positive from a specific religious book then don't read it - but one doesn't have to go about "disproving" what others may believe. Why so much fear of the bible? As I said, we are not all literalists or "fundamentalists". Some of us focus on what is truly important in the bible - like God loves all of us and it is good to love others. It is funny how scientific "fact" changes over time though. And theories are theories. Theories are not "fact" and when people claim anything that they can not demonstrate(even if they can - interpretation is still a variable) using the "Scientific Method" - "Theory" is what they possess. Whatever happened, and how things happened in history way back then, can not be proven "scientifically" because it can not be demonstrated experimentally. Because one can not travel back in time in history - they are just as much "believing" in "theory" as a "bible believer". Science changes over time. Scientific "Fact" 50 years ago(even more recent), is no longer Scientific "Fact" today. Much of what is "fact" today in science shall not be "fact" in the future. How many planets exist within our solar system? The number which used to be scientific "Fact" is error now that Pluto is no longer a planet. What's next, water on the moon? Oh yeah, we are now being told that there is water on the moon when in the past they told us as scientific "fact" that there wasn't water on the moon - but make sure you eat all of your veggies. Science books of the past that stated things as "fact" are now considered in error. Theory is theory. Some have faith in theories and attempt to call them "fact". Some have faith in a Creator. Either way, what can not be demonstrated using the "Scientific Method" is, and always will be, "theory" - even with man's so-called "scientific" methods of dating etc. For all we know, the earth could be billions and billions of years old - even longer than our "modern-day scientific methods of dating" which may be considered outdated and error in the future of our ever-changing science. The more one studies the material world - the more one will realize how little we really know, and also - how complex but well-designed things are. Studying biology has shown me that how the human body works, in its complexity and genius way, points to an intelligent designer(I know, I know - some people do not like that) behind the systems of the body - but some will never believe in a God who designed and created us(however we came to be) but would rather believe in their "scientific" fact(changes a lot over time) which is really just "theory". Why are some people so scared that a God or creator may exist? Fear of death and the "hell" of the fundamentalist? Could be for some. Maybe our creator is better than most of us really know and maybe the future that our creator shall provide for His creatures(us) shall abundantly make up for all the heartbreak in the world - and just maybe no one will complain about "what we had to go through" to arrive in the great future. And just maybe we will realize that all things worked for good - and if asked the question, "Would we have changed anything about our past, would we?" Just maybe the answer will be "Not at all, things worked out for better than if things happened differently." And maybe in the future we shall always be learning and growing for eternity because our creator is not finite like we are. Just maybe.
I realize there are different types of creationism and I clearly stated that I was addressing "scientific quick creationism", which is the prevalent theory today.
Hey Paintballer. I just wanted others, that may not know, that not all who benefit from the bible hold that one "quick" theory. I really like "Quik" chocolate milk though(and strawberry Quik is a real special treat).
Oh, well that's a valid rationale indeed. I wasn't targeting towards those who read the Bible, but towards those who try to claim that creationism is actually a respected theory. I just assumed anyone interested in arguing creationism would know the differences between it's varying claims.
Lions: An adult female lion needs about 5 kg (11 lbs) of meat per day, a male about 7 kg (15 lbs). *371 days = 9646 lbs of meat, for the journey...just for two lions. That would have to be fresh meat, as well. Either, the 2 lions are making some species extinct, on the journey, or they're are extra animals, for a food sources (maybe the alternate 7 of each animal version). All the carnivores would also need to be provided food, for years, after the trip, while the other species' populations grew enough to start being hunted, without going extinct. Elephants: An adult elephant in the wild will eat in the region of 100 to 200 Kg (220 to 440 lb.) of vegetation per day depending on the habitat and the size of the elephant. I'll use the mid range of 330 lbs *2*371 days = 244860 lbs of vegetation, for the trip...just for 2 elephants. All herbivores would also need to be provided food, for months to years (those who get most of their vegetation from trees), while their habitat regrew. Peace
