Re: More Ark questions....
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
I'll take a wild stab at a couple of these...
1.) There is no way to speculate the elevation at which the dove found the olive branch...Were the waters still receding? Your question seems to imply that we would have to prove that olive trees grow at the top of mountains. I would say this is not necessarily true.
That is what it implies to me. The dove was sent out a couple times and did not find a sign of land, meaning everything, including Ararat, was covered (BTW, that's probably more water than what's presently on the Earth as we know it to fill up to 12,000 ft higher than today...where'd it all go?) And if the first sign of land was an olive tree, I'd think we'd need to find the existence of some of those at very high elevations, if the Ark landed at the top of Ararat, as described.
2.) Do you mean to say...'assuming it CAN'T live in a salty marsh...'? Maybe its possible that the tree was floating in a salty marsh (dormant) re-implanted itself on land as the water receded. My understanding is that olive trees are among the heartiest that exist. How mature did it have to be - does the Bible say the twig had 'leaves'? May it have just been a young twig with the beginnings of a blossom?
Don't know of any freshwater plants that can live in salty waters. But I'm no olive tree biologist, either. I know if I pour ocean water on my houseplants, they won't like it.
3.) I have no idea. We'll have to ask God.
Maybe they swam....it would've taken quite a while for all the water to recede from 12,000 feet up....
4.) My understanding of predominant Creationist thought is that the water of the pre-flood era was likely much less saline than the oceans of today. The oceans have salt because of runoff, no? Why would a lake (that assumably is not fed by runoff) be salty? Ironically, measurements of the increasing salinity of the oceans date them to around 4500 years...
My understanding is that the oceans have been fairly constant in salinity for eons, per contiguous fossil records etc. I'd have to research 'why the ocean is salty' to be sure, but I can tell you that runoff is not believable for me, as most freshwater lakes arise from stream runoff etc. Freshwater bodies are inland; saltwater are (I think) from former ocean areas that have been cut off due to geologic movements and still may be fed by streams, but dont' have any way to lose the salt. The Salton Sea in SE California is one example.
5.) I'm guessing because it wasn't warm enough...Honestly, I have no clue. Weren't much of the US & Canada covered by ice as recently as a few thousand years ago? I shouldn't even speculate here.
Woulda been some damn cold water....
6.) Again, the water likely had much less salt in it. And 2.) Aren't there many fish that can live in both or that can adapt to a range of salinity?
There are species that can adapt to both environments; there are a lot of others that cannot. Plants, fish, and mammals.
7.) I can't speak to your specific facts. However, a few questions & comments come to mind when arguing for a 'local' as opposed to a global flood...
Why did Noah have to build an ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountain in that 100 years it took him to build the are, right?
Well, if the flood covered the mountain, no, he'd need the ark. I think some of the key point is that we're talking about thousands of square miles, so even in a major regional disaster, the only way you'd save yourself is thru some kind of boat.
Why did God send every kind of animal to the ark so they would escape extinction? There would have been other animals to reproduce that kind if particular ones had died.
Well, that's where I depart from the literal interpretation of Genesis. Even a major regional disaster, affecting most of the population at the time would seem like the 'whole world', especially if it was a populated and fertile area.
Why would birds have been sent on board? These could simply have winged across to a neaby mountain range.
Sure, they could have. Most probably did, but that would not make for a convincing story on how he found land. Local bird populations during a freshwater-to seawater flood would have been decimated, though. Ecosystem changes would have been dramatic. Wouldn't we have seen a 'spread' of animal fossils about the globe since the flood, originating at Ararat, too? Why are there so many species local to the Americas that are not indigenous to Turkey? What about penguins? Did Noah take off in the Ark to go deposit them down at the end of the pole there? Were penguins mentioned as animals on the Ark? Are there any penguins in Europe leftover prior to 'migrating' to Antarctica? Polar bears?
The Bible said the water rose to 8 meters above the mountains. Tough to keep the flood 'local' in this scenario...
People not living in the 'locality' would have escaped God's judgement on sin. This contradicts the plain text.
Again, that's why I see this as more anecdotal than literal. There was a flood; people viewed it as God's punishment against them. And there is indeed archeological evidence around the Black Sea area, where much of the early civizations began, to substantiate the story in the Bible. That is truly fascinating to me; but only to the point that it is described through the eyes of a person 6000+ years ago, who did not know the Earth was round. If you 'knew' the Earth was flat, and there was a flood all around you as far as you could see, you'd naturally assume the whole world was flooded; and per your civilization and homeland, you'd be right.
God would have repeatedly broken his promise never to send such a flood again, because there have been many 'local' floods since then.
There have been all kinds of natural disasters since then.
One more thing perplexes me: rainbows. Did God change the way light refracts after the flood to allow them to occur? Did the laws of nature affecting how light is diffracted through water vapor prevent this from occuring beforehand, or is this just another nice explanation for a wonderful phenomenon that people saw and had no other explanation for? If God did change light refraction, why haven't we seen any other major physical laws as we know them change since? And what of the Aurora Borealis? No mention of that in the Bible? I'd think it would astound any Biblical author if they ever saw it; that is why I look at the Bible and the stories from it as 'regional', not 'worldwide' in their scope. Just my opinions/questions/observations. Take them w/ a grain of salt if you want, but I'm probably not going to change them anytime soon....