# The Flood and Noah's Ark



## Theoretical (Jan 23, 2007)

From a former atheist/agnostic friend - some interesting questions about the flood and Noah's ark that I have no clue how to answer in most cases.

Ark and Flood Issues

Of course, a lot of this has to do with the philosophy of science and how it interacts with Natural Revelation, as well as the command to build the ark. I'll be honest and say I don't know how to answer this very well if at all.

Needless to say, these are tough, tough issues to plow through for a believer, and I'm very unsure how best to address them.


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 23, 2007)

I didn't read through the whole article, but it seems to me that all those questions can easily be answered. What the author doesn't believe or realize is that God directed Noah throughout the whole process. With God's direction all the events in preparation for the flood and enduring the flood were easily overcome. Noah had 120 years in which to build the Ark and there was plenty of room to house every animal. God preserved the lives of all the animals, even the sea creatures. Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, "With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible".


----------



## BobVigneault (Jan 23, 2007)

Greg is right, the story of the Ark is not a demonstration of man's boat building prowess or taxonomy or logistics; it is the story of God's ability to save and preserve a remnant. It is one more time in history where God displays His great and terrible glory, his justice and mercy, his wrath and his love. The means by which he did it are unimportant except that if scripture says "This is how it was done" then that is how it was done. 

Can the scientist give us a better source of truth than God's Word, can the philosopher give us a better starting place than God's revelation? No, they have proven that they cannot. They will both continue to reach ever changing conclusions based on their defiant presupposition that "There is no God" and "we live in a strictly material universe."

As has been quoted countless times, Rom 1:18 "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools...."

So a man like Robert Moore may appear to be using reason and contemplation (for he is created in the image of God), yet his presuppositions are faulty and have skewed his premise so greatly that the rest of his argument is foolish.

The evidence is the same for the theist and the skeptic, it is only there starting point that is different. This is not a question of science vs bible, this is a question of what forms the basis for truth.

Anyway, that's my epistemological take on the topic.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 23, 2007)

BobVigneault said:


> Greg is right, the story of the Ark is not a demonstration of man's boat building prowess or taxonomy or logistics; it is the story of God's ability to save and preserve a remnant. It is one more time in history where God displays His great and terrible glory, his justice and mercy, his wrath and his love. The means by which he did it are unimportant except that if scripture says "This is how it was done" then that is how it was done.
> 
> Can the scientist give us a better source of truth than God's Word, can the philosopher give us a better starting place than God's revelation? No, they have proven that they cannot. They will both continue to reach ever changing conclusions based on their defiant presupposition that "There is no God" and "we live in a strictly material universe."
> 
> ...



Yeah, but what I want to know is: who cleaned up all that mess in the bottom of the boat?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 24, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Yeah, but what I want to know is: who cleaned up all that mess in the bottom of the boat?



Don't you know? They didn't have digestive systems before the flood. They simply absorbed all the necessary energy from the sun and water-filled atmosphere - that is why they lived so long.


----------



## PresReformed (Jan 24, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Yeah, but what I want to know is: who cleaned up all that mess in the bottom of the boat?



My guess would be Ham.


----------



## tellville (Jan 29, 2007)

I must admit, that article blew me away. Kind of faith crushing. However, it is written in 1983, so I figured there were probably responses to many of the arguments in it. There are. I found this article through AiG and it answered some of the more glaring problems found in your article:

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

The article recommends this book (Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study) which can be found here:http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Noahs-Ark-A-Feasibility-Study,4605,226.aspx

A Creationist guy just came to Edmonton last week and was selling this book, and I thought about buying it but passed. Maybe I should have!

The AiG site has other smaller articles dealing with various problems: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah.asp

Finally, obviously faith and belief in God HAS to come into play here. We are talking about a truly unique and extraordinary event, an event that by all intents and purposes pretty much has to be supernatural to have happened. 

Scientific epistemology and epistemology in general comes into play as well as Bob was alluding too. 

Anyway, that sucked up a bit of my day!


----------

