Noah's Flood:
According to the Genesis geneology, the Biblical Flood took place when Noah was 600 years old, which, assuming the earth to have been created in 4004 BC, would place the Flood at about 2400 BC (about the same time as the Pyramids were being built). Yet no historical records of that time period, from the Egyptians, Phoenecians, Greeks or anybody else, mentions any such event (they could, after all, hardly have missed it). Historical records from such ancient civilizations as the Chinese or the inhabitants of the Indus Valley show no period of time where these civilizations were suddenly wiped out by a global flood, to be slowly repopulated later. There is simply no evidence whatever, from archeology, geology or history, which indicate a worldwide flood that wiped out all but eight people
This is incorrect. There are at least 270 surviving flood legends throughout the world at present. This whole first paragraph is a false statement to begin with. That's right, just keeping repeating something and it will come true. I read a book called After The Flood by Bill Cooper in which he traced back the lineage of royal lines back to Noah and his sons. He claims it was so easy to do and the information was so readily available. As for the chinese, their culture does have records of a worldwide flood. I believe one of them is called The Hiking Classic. Even their old alphabet system is riddled with biblical references.
As for the time of the flood, I don't see a clash at all after the all the flood lasted a year, not one hundred years or so. So, yet again Flank has to walk the plank in making false statements. The legends are there, if you want to see them. You only need type in "flood legends" in a google search to confirm historical preservation of the flood account. Obviously over time some of the legends have been distorted(rather like chinese whispers) but the founding themes are still present, the entire world flooded and a group of people surviving on a boat.
For many reasons, the account of Noah given in the book of Genesis simply cannot be literally and historically true. One obvious problem results from the building of the boat itself. According to the Bible, the Ark had dimensions of 300 cubits by 50 cubits by 30 cubits tall (this converts to roughly 450 by 75 by 45 feet). This is over four times the size of any wooden ship built by any civilization that existed in the second millenium BC. Large wooden ships must withstand severe stresses on the open seas, and the technical methods to deal with these simply did not exist then. It was not until the year 1900, some 4,000 years after Noah and his Ark, that wooden ships were built that even remotely approached the Ark's purported size. These were nine-masted schooners 300 feet long (some 150 feet shorter than the Ark). They were so long that they visibly undulated with the waves, and required large diagonal steel braces to prevent them from breaking in half. Even with these reinforcements, the stresses caused gaps in the plankings, and they leaked continuously and had to be constantly bailed with a pump. They could only be used in coastal waters since they could not survive in the open sea. The unseaworthiness of such large wooden ships was the major reason why the world's navies turned to steel ships before the First World War. The Ark, remember, had to survive open seas during a catastrophic raging Flood.
First of all Noah's ark was not designed to sail, it was designed to just float, I mean,the whole world is flooded so where exactly is he going? Secondly a moonpool in the ark would relieve the stress if there was any(seeing that there wasn't a sail on it which would have caused the main problem). The moonpool would also act as a large piston bringing in fresh air everytime a wave hit. Thirdly, the assumption here is that ancient man was dumb and we are smart, but in actual fact the historical data indicates that ancient man was much smarter than we are today or at least they knew things that we have yet to discover. Also the other assumption here is raging seas. Just because the whole world is flooded, this doesn't automatically mean "raging seas" in every spot. If an earthquake happens over in India, we don't feel it over here in the UK. This is a strawman argument.
[/quote]Apparently, the creationists would have us believe that 600-year old Noah managed to construct a wooden ship 150 feet longer than the largest one ever built, and managed to solve, by himself, all of the design, construction and materials problems that the world's largest navies could not deal with 4,000 years later.[/quote]
Well since we are dealing with a vehicle which was just designed to float, not to sail, obviously he would not have the same problems as ship designers. Also why would he have material problems? The bible states that before the flood, the whole world was covered in vegetation, so materials wouldn't have been a problem. We don't have a world like that today,today most of the world is under water.
But there remain further problems. Whitcomb and Morris have assumed that aquatic animals, being aquatic, wouldn't be endangered by the Flood and wouldn't need space on the Ark. But if enough fresh water were to fall on the earth to cover it, the oceans would be diluted so much that no marine organism would be able to live in it, since marine organisms quickly swell up, burst and die when placed in fresh water. No problem, say the creationists; the "fountains of the deep" must have spewed out sufficient salt to keep the salinity high enough for marine organisms to survive.
There is an easier answer to this, there was no salt water before the flood and gradually after the flood, the waters have begun to get saltier. The assumption here is that salt water existed at the time of the flood. Current science shows us that the oceans are getting saltier which means if you simply go back in time at the observed increased salt rate, the oceans were less salty, going back 4400 years ago, the oceans would have had little if any salt in them at all. So all this business of having large storage tanks of fresh water on board is another strawman, there is clearly no need for this.
But we still have not solved the space problems aboard the Ark. Noah would still have to feed all of these different "kinds" for a period of over a year. Large herbivores, like elephants, eat about 350 pounds of vegetation a day. Large carnivores, like lions, eat about 75 pounds of meat a week. Not only must Noah make enough room on his boat to store all of this food, but he must have some way to keep it fresh and consumable for over a year--without refrigeration. The creationists have no explanation for how this was done
Firstly common sense would tell you to take young animals on board. Why on earth would you take adults who would take up more space and consume more food, I would take babies myself and I'm sure Noah would have figured out the same, its a no brainer. Secondly,this business about carnivores is another strawman. The bible clearly states that the animals were vegetarian before and during the flood. Its only after the flood when the climate had changed and vegetation not growing as readily as it did before would the lions and other animals become carnivorous.
Neither are they able to explain what the various animals ate after they got off the Ark. According to the creationists, there were two "cat-kinds" and two "antelope-kinds" that got off the Ark. Presumably, the cat-kinds were awful hungry after their trip. But if they had immediately bounded over and had the "antelope-kinds" for lunch, that would be the end of that "kind", and we would not have gazelles, antelopes and springboks today. Let's suppose the cat-kinds ate, not the two from the Ark, but the offspring of the two. That will keep our cat-kind pair fed and happy for about a week. What then? Unless we assume that the antelope-kinds were prolific enough to produce over one birth a week, we must assume that the cat-kinds would either have to eat the entire antelope kind, or starve their own kind out of existence. And the same goes for the snake-kind and the frog-kind, the ant-eater kind and the ant-kind, the owl-kind and the mouse-kind
This guy enjoys setting up his strawmen. Why were the animals hungry when they got off the ark? This is of course an assumption that the food in the ark had run out, hence the rest of his conclusions faulter on this foolish hypothosis. Also the conversion from being vegetarian to meat eating would have been a long one, it would have to span over many generations before completion, not this straight away business as he is implying.
Obviously the creationists do not know a thing about the ecological relationships between predators and prey. However, since they cannot admit that their entire Flood story is impossible because of all these insurmountable problems in gathering and caring for the animals, they must present some explanation. And they do, by once again appealing to their religious convictions:
He hasn't presented me with any problems so far, only assumptions, stupidity and a clear lack of knowledge on his part.
But the creationists are forced to invoke the Deity once again, when they attempt to explain where the water for the Flood came from. A flood sufficient to cover the entire earth would require about 4.4 billion cubic kilometers of water. The entire amount of water vapor present in the atmosphere would not even begin to produce this much water, and no known subterranean source is near big enough either. Once again, the creationists turn to the Bible for their "science": "If we accept the Biblical testimony concerning an antediluvian canopy of waters (Genesis 1:6-8, 7:11, 8:2, II Peter 3:5-7), we have an adequate source for the waters of the Flood." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 77) Genesis 1:6-8 reads: "And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
Thus, the creationists present, as their "scientific evidence" for the source of the Flood waters, the Biblical description of a pre-Flood "vapor canopy" which surrounded the earth. Morris says, "If there were, in the beginning, a vast thermal blanket of water vapor somewhere above the troposphere, then not only would the climate be affected, but there would also be an adequate source to explain the atmospheric waters necessary for the Flood." (Morris, Scientific Creationism, 1974, p. 124)
There is just one problem with the creationist's "vapor canopy" theory--there is not a shred of scientific evidence which indicates that such a canopy has ever existed (other than the description in Genesis), and there are good reasons to doubt that it could have. The creationists are unable to offer any explanation as to how such a canopy was able to maintain itself during the pre-Flood period, or how it was released to produce the Flood waters themselves. Since water vapor tends to move from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration, it would be impossible for a belt of atmospheric water vapor to exist unless it were prevented from diffusing away by a non-permeable barrier. Also, such a layer of water vapor would be destroyed by convection cells, produced by warmer air at the equator rising and being replaced by cooler polar air. Another problem would arise in connection with air pressure. Air pressure is caused by the weight of the atmospheric gases pressing down on the surface of the earth. Water vapor is very heavy, and a layer of vapor such as that postulated by the creationists would produce an atmospheric pressure at sea level of some 900 atmospheres, approximately equal to the pressure five and a half miles deep in the ocean. Noah and his Ark (and everything else on earth) would have been crushed by the staggering atmospheric pressures before they could have set sail.
Once again, more strawmen. Most of the water for the flood came from under the crust of the earth, not the sky. The bible clearly tells us that ALL THE FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP broke open. We are also told in scripture that this water continuously came up for around 5 months. So with the majority of the water coming up from under the earth, Noah wouldn't have all these so called problems with atmospheric pressures and excess heat build up and high temperatures. As for the canopy, the bible does say that there was a canopy of water(probably super cold ice)suspended above the earth before the flood. We believe that it fell down at the time of the flood hence where the 40 days supply of rain came from. As this canopy cannot be proven it remains in the realm of religion and we openly admit to it as being a belief.
Again, is this the best of another person's armour you could obtain? These arguments are so rubbish, in fact I don't even think evolutionists use these anymore as they have been buried so many times over. I'll be back for the remaining 2.
Jules can quite admirably handle you on his own, but I'd gladly take part. as for yet another silly belief of yours that he'll get buried, this can only be based of your deluded ideas that any of your arguments have any logical structure or strength, but you'd better get your stories straight first - you've run yourself around in so many circles and contradictions so far... 
