Creationists are probably more defensive about the Flood than any
other part of their mythology. One indication of that is the fact
that the seminal work of modern creationism (oxymoron) was called The
Genesis Flood. The Flood story apparently required lots of
explanation and justification if anyone were to take creationism
seriously. An instantaneous supernatural creation by an omnipotent God
is somehow easier to swallow than the cobbled-up mish-mash of legends
that became the biblical Flood story. Consider a few minor
difficulties and childish questions:

Were pairs of every species living on Earth taken aboard the Ark? All
living and extinct species? All 50 billion or so species that have
ever lived on Earth? Or only land animals and birds that couldn't
survive by swimming for several months? We're still talking many
millions of species. And while we're at it, why does my Bible state
clearly and unambiguously that two of each kind of animal were taken
aboard, then immediately afterwards it seems to correct itself by
informing us that seven of each "clean" animal were boarded, and then
immediately after THAT it insists that two of every kind were loaded?
How did Noah know which species were clean several thousand years
before God imparted those laws to Moses? And if Noah knew about
"clean" animals, why wasn't that knowledge passed down through the
generations? Is it possible that the whole business about "clean"
animals necessary for sacrifices was tacked on later by a bungling
editor who forgot to check the context for obvious contradictions?

OK, how about "kinds": two of the dog "kind," two of the antelope
"kind," two of the elephant "kind," two of the diplodocus "kind,"ad
finitum? That certainly cuts down on the crowd, but then we need a
definition of what a "kind" is. Creationists can't seem to manage a
consistent definition of "kind," even among themselves. Some, after
thinking about it long and hard, arrive at a definition of "kind" that
is indistinguishable from "species." But that doesn't solve the
problem of way too many animals on the boat. Others want to define
"kind" as inclusively as possible to solve the space problem. But then
incredibly supercharged evolution is required after the Flood to
expand each "kind" into the thousands (in some cases) of species
belonging to that "kind." Whatever the solution, 99+% of all species
of animals became extinct, either between the time of creation and the
Flood, or during the Flood, or immediately thereafter.

One must then wonder about an incredibly inept or wasteful creation in
which virtually all animal species were doomed to extinction within a
couple thousand years. Having dared to broach the subject of a God
who seems less than omniscient (didn't He know all this was going to
happen ahead of time?), consider also limited omnipotence. Why would
God need a lengthy Flood to destroy miscreant humans? Why destroy
billions upon billions of other living things? Why not simply snap
His fingers and make all the bad people disappear? (Note to
creationists who are seriously bent out of shape by these
"sacrilegious" questions: this is not an attack upon the
qualifications or abilities of the Almighty, but upon YOUR risible
notion of Him and what He has done.)

Did ALL those people deserve brutal and terrifying deaths? The
children? The two-year-old little girls? The newborn infants? The
unborn fetuses? Why don't creationists get all exercised about the
murder of those unborn? And of course there's Noah and his kin, who,
of all the human race, deserved to survive. That would be the same
Noah whose first crop after the Flood was wine grapes. In celebration
of all the blessings bestowed upon him, he got drunk as a skunk and
lay around naked. Then when his thoughtful son Ham tried to help him
out by getting help to cover his bare butt, Noah cursed him and his
descendants forever (and God, apparently, backed up that curse [and
biblical literalists have used that as a justification for slavery and
segregation of blacks {whom they imagine to be "Hamites"}, among other
atrocities]). Was that mean drunk the best of the human race that God
could come up with?

It appears thay you are incapable of a single original thought and we
will have to agree to disagree. You think I am a sinning heretic
realist and I think you are a fool.




On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:03:35 -0500, "RogerN"
wrote:


Dave wrote in message ...
Well it is just this simple pinhead

Basic grade one physics is this simple. You cannot create matter from
nothing.

If there is a God, perhaps God wrote the laws of physics and isn't bound by
them. I just don't understand why a Biblical miracle would need to be able
to be explained without the Biblical God. Perhaps there isn't near enough
water to flood the Earth by any natural means, but if there is a God, why
would he be restricted to natural means? Actualy, there are many times both
in the Bible and experienced by people where supply didn't run out after it
should have. This has happened in the Bible with grain, oil, bread, food.
This has happened to people with automotive fuels, food, heating oil, money,
etc. So if God has creative power with all of these things, what would be
so difficult about creating water?