Universality of the Flood

Posted: April 28th, 2009 under Answers in Genesis, Creation Blog.
Tags: , ,

Young earth author John Whitcomb speaks about the universality of the flood to prove that it was global in nature.  However, most of the evidence he uses also supports the old earth local flood scenario, and in some cases, it is a much better explanation.  Click here for the review of this Answers Magazine article from Answers in Genesis.

3 Comments

  • Comment by chrisfromneenah — December 31, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

    1

    You are misinformed. I am not a scientist but I can see the holes in your logic right away. See you explained a worldwide flood in your own logic but are misguided. Yes, the water did evaporate and when it did, it formed more clouds and then it rained some more. Also, because it was global, it perpetuated it globally. Hey that makes sense. Now, eventually, once some of the waters and lava – oh that fact is missing here – receded it did leave room for the land to come forward. See the water was pushed out of the caverns and spaces of the earth and once the pressure dissipated, they returned to these underground caverns along with the lava which hardened and formed land, too. This then gave time for the clouds to slowly stop raining and bring into balance the whole atmosphere. Now that is just what I know. I am sure there is even more. But I don’t need to. It is obvious that the creationists aren’t misguided they are not given a chance here to debate with you on your subjects. So please don’t go saying your right until you bring your information to the creation scientists. If they are stumped by your answer, then I can start believing you may have a point.


  • Comment by utahraptor — January 1, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

    2

    Chrisfromneenah commented ” It is obvious that the creationists aren’t misguided they are not given a chance here to debate with you on your subjects. So please don’t go saying your right until you bring your information to the creation scientists.”
    The information has been brought to their attention, through this article. And, they are free to post comments here if they want to dispute the claims of the article.
    Concerning the theory that you could use pressure to force the water out of caverns…you are also collapsing the caverns. Thus, there would be no more caverns for the water to return to.


  • Comment by Lance — January 11, 2010 @ 1:17 pm

    3

    Interesting article, but there were several weak points in the argumentation presented. Perhaps the most glaring, in my estimation, is the assertion that the Flood story was told through the eyes of Noah. While this conveniently dispenses with the need to affirm the depth of the flood (i.e., Noah was just eyeballing it and estimating the depth based on his limited perception), I find no evidence in the text that the details were dependent upon Noah’s observation of them.

    Since Moses is presumably the narrator of the stories contained in the Pentateuch, and not Noah, I think you are inadvertently opening a can of worms by resorting to an argument that the main character gave fallible testimony. Using the same methodology, liberal scholars have attacked many other narratives in the Bible in an effort to “demythologize” those accounts and impose naturalistic, materialistic explanations in line with their unbelief.

    Consider, for example, the recent claims of one scholar that the Israelites all partook of a hallucinogenic plant while they were in the wilderness. This theory has been advanced to explain the supernatural events that occurred while Moses was on the mountain. That may seem like a fantastic claim to most Christians, but I would submit that it is little different from the assertion that Noah was mistaken about the depth of the flood waters.

    After all, a million or so Jews tripping on some naturally occurring drug provides a similarly convenient way to get around what the inspired narrative actually says!


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.