OK strange question, but in the bible it says there was a flood in noahs time, what I want to know was first was it the whole world that flooded? And did everyone die (not including all who were on the ark)?

Here is a site that covers Noah's ark Get Answers: Noah's Flood (http://www.answersingenesis.org/HOME/AREA/faq/flood.asp)

I found this an interesting read.
HowStuffWorks "Could Noah's ark really have happened?" (http://history.howstuffworks.com/asian-history/noahs-ark.htm/printable)

The story of Noah and his ark is a just a story, not fact.

In ancient times, different cultures had "great flood stories" incorporated into their mythology. It was a very popular subject in its time.

The story of Noah and his ark is a just a story, not fact.

In ancient times, different cultures had "great flood stories" incorporated into their mythology. It was a very popular subject in its time.

Did you ever think that these stories all resulted from a very real event?

You declared it to be "just a story". What facts do you base that belief on? Just declaring that it is not re4al because you do not believe it is not adequate. There is a great deal of evidence from one end of the world to another that the world was at one time covered by water, and even scientists have made efforts to explain this evidence.

YOU know, Tom, how to get a pair of *all the species in the world*, including dinosaurs(per your view of how long ago the earth was created)onto an ark!! It is obviously just a story.

Now, it could have been inspired by an event of a flood, as different cultures have the same myth, but so what? George Washington was America's first President, but he didn't chop down a cherry tree! See, mythology.

YOU know, Tom, how to get a pair of *all the species in the world*, including dinosaurs(per your view of how long ago the earth was created)onto an ark!!! It is obviously just a story.


Choux,

Check out those who have studied the issue. The amount of space in the ark would have been not just enough for the animals, but would be sufficient to hold the necessary food also.

You may believe it to be just a story, but the facts disagree with you.

I'm sorry if this caused a big fight, but all I really wanted to know was if noahs family was the only ones to survive than does that me we were decandents of noah? Or were there other people to survive?

im sorry if this caused a big fight, but all i really wanted to know was if noahs family was the only ones to survive than does that me we were decandents of noah? or were there other people to survive?

No one else survived who was not on the ark. The entire earth was flooded. Those who survived were:

Gen 7:7-8
7 So Noah, with his sons, his wife, and his sons' wives, went into the ark because of the waters of the flood.
NKJV

So, the answer to your question is yes, we are all descendents of those who were aboard the ark.

There has been major discoveries that there was major flooding what was the basic KNOWN world at that time, If someone actually wants to hear of the digs and evidence I can pull the book and find them.
But for the writers yes their entire world would have been flooded and the majority of all the people and animals of that area would have died.

Sure, it's possible that the earth was flooded but no evidence that the ark existed.Just like there is no evidence that snakes talk,voices telling people to sacrifice their children (other than the insane) and stone tablets falling from the sky.

Another thing, if only two of each animal were on the ark, that would mean that the future offspring of the animals would be inbred which would more than likely risk the chance of genetic mutations/mental retardation etc. and there is a possibility that one of the animals could have had reproductive issues which would be impossible to reproduce therefore once the pair dies, the animal is extinct.

Sure, it's possible that the earth was flooded but no evidence that the ark existed.Just like there is no evidence that snakes talk,voices telling people to sacrifice their children (other than the insane) and stone tablets falling from the sky.

Another thing, if only two of each animal were on the ark, that would mean that the future offspring of the animals would be inbred which would more than likely risk the chance of genetic mutations/mental retardation etc. and there is a possibility that one of the animals could have had reproductive issues which would be impossible to reproduce therefore once the pair dies, the animal is extinct.

There may be no specific evidence that the ark existed, but there is evidence of the flood. However, we do have recorded testimony of the history of the flood, which is all that we have for many important historic events which are unquestioned.

There were not just two of every species.

Gen 7:1-4
7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. 2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; 3 also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth.
NKJV

There were seven of many or most species. There would be a risk of genetic inbreeding issues, however the risk is mitigated by the fact that the animals that existed in those days would likely have had more genetic diversity in their makeup than animals do today which are bred for specific characteristics. The risk of genetic issues and lack of reproduction would be mitigated by the fact that God's hand was in the process. However, I do agree that the small numbers in the species would increase risk of extinction of a number of species within a relatively short timeframe after the flood, and this dopes appear to have occurred in a number of cases where species from antiquity no longer exist.

One last point. There are those who claim the flood was localized and explain away the scientific evidence of a global flood by saying that there were numerous massive floods in the same timeframe in various locations around the world. However, the written historic record that we have says that the entire earth was covered:

Gen 7:17-22
17 Now the flood was on the earth forty days. The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. 18 The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered. 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man.
NKJV

Note that this says that the mountains were covered. For those who say that the whole earth being covered was only from the perspective of those in that region, it is important to note that even if only the mountains in the middle east were covered with water, you would be hard placed to find many piece of ground anywhere in the world not covered. There the local flood argument appears to be, at best, a moot point.

Totally incorrect, Tom. A pair of *each species* of dinosaurs and the food and water to feed them wouldn't have fit on an ark! LOL!

And who was in charge of shoveling all the dinosaur poop off the ark every day?? And, finding the other species who were buried in it? :D

It is simply a story handed down to generations of illiterate Jewish people for their enjoyment.

Totally incorrect, Tom. A pair of *each species* of dinosaurs and the food and water to feed them wouldn't have fit on an ark!! LOL!!

And who was in charge of shoveling all the dinosaur poop off the ark every day??? And, finding the other species who were buried in it? :D

It is simply a story handed down to generations of illiterate Jewish people for their enjoyment.

Well Choux, I am left to believe your statement without validation; or to believe scientists and others who have analyzed the requirements and determined that there was plenty of room.

I'll stick with the evidence.

Well Choux, I am left to believe your statement without validation; or to believe scientists and others who have analyzed the requirements and determined that there was plenty of room.

I'll stick with the evidence.

Plenty of room for over 1.75 million known species of animals??

Could you direct me to some of this evidence (if available on the web)... I know of some of the claims of sedimentary rock found on Mt. Ararat and such but I'd really like to know what you've read to convince you to believe in such a fairytale...

Given this fact how would you explain the flood?:

The Egyptian pyramids existed 200 years before the flood but there is NO proof of these monuments having ever been underneath water and according to the Bible everything was, even Mt. Everest although it is at a staggering 29,000 ft above sea level.

Remember there's more (evidence) where this came from :).. Truth..

Plenty of room for over 1.75 million known species of animals???

Could you direct me to some of this evidence (if available on the web)...I know of some of the claims of sedimentary rock found on Mt. Ararat and such but I'd really like to know what you've read to convince you to believe in such a fairytale...

Given this fact how would you explain the flood?:

The Egyptian pyramids existed 200 years before the flood but there is NO proof of these monuments having ever been underneath water and according to the Bible everything was, even Mt. Everest although it is at a staggering 29,000 ft above sea level.

Remember there's more (evidence) where this came from :) ..Truth..

Nohelp4u put up one link to website regarding this topic already near the start of this thread.

As for the number of species, keep in mind that not all of these need to be on the ark, for instance:

- fish
- water mammals (i.e. whales)
- microscopic animals
- many species of insects

And so on.

I note that without examining the facts, you have already come to a conclusion (i.e. "fairytale"), therefore I have no reason to anticipate that you will be objectively examining the details.

Do you believe in Vampires, Unicorns, BigFoot, the Frog that turned into a Prince? My guess is No because like the biblical fairytales and some of it's characters there is No Evidence that prove these things to be Factual... only claims.

Let's just agree to disagree because this could go on forever but you really should stop spreading the delusion that there's factual evidence of biblial lies... Just because you repeat a lie over and over doesn't make it true!

Do you believe in Vampires, Unicorns, BigFoot, the Frog that turned into a Prince? My guess is No because like the biblical fairytales and some of it's characters there is No Evidence that prove these things to be Factual...only claims.

Let's just agree to disagree b/c this could go on forever but you really should stop spreading the delusion that there's factual evidence of biblial lies...Just b/c you repeat a lie over and over doesnt make it true!

Just like I said, I did not anticipate an objective examination of the evidence.

As a professional in a profession based upon science, I deal with examining the evidence and dealing with facts. Other may choose to reject the facts out of hand because they do not agree with what they want to believe. That is your choice.

Egyptians, Greek's Hindu, Chinese, Duids, Polynesians, Mexicans, American Indians, all have the tradition and story of the flood, all within their own religious or culture teachings.;

Geroge Smith of the British Museum found in 1872 tablets from the Library of Asur-banipal at Nineveh that relate to the flood, relating pre flood and after flood inscriptions

For Archaeological intererest
There were flood deposits found at Ur by the Uiversity Museum of Pennsylvania in 1929
Flood deposits at Kish found by the Oxford University Expedition also in 1929.
Flood deposits at Fara found in 1931

MEL Mallowan director of the British Museum Excavations at Nineveh lists evidence of a major flood in his Annals of Archaeology.

1. 8 ft layer of silt that cuts though the culture levels of all the Euphrates Valley
2. Sumerian King Lists from Lower Mesopotania retain the tration of a Deluge.
3. A Sumerian tablet of 2000 BC gives a full account of the Flood

Along with other types of evidence

The *burden of proof* rests upon those who make such an outreageous claim, like claiming that the Noah Ark story is to be taken literally!

Any illiterate can see that all the species in the world could not have fit onto an ark... especially all the meat eating dinosaurs let alone the vegetation eating dinosaurs... a tyranosaurus Rex would have consumed a lot of the smaller animals like cows, tigers and lions!

The burden of proof is on YOU.

Wouldn't the dinosaurs have been extinct at this time?

I believe they were Starfirefly, but apparently others don't.

For goodness sake people, stop fighting about something that cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Believe what you want and let others do the same, and just move on. I'm so sick of all this back and forth arguing that goes no where.

wouldnt the dinosaurs have been extinct at this time?

There have been dinosaurs found which were buried extremely rapidly by water and silt. In one local case reported on the news locally in the first week of June 1998, a mystery has been uncovered not far from here. The world famous Tyrell Museum, located near here will be investigating to try to sort out the mystery.

Evolutionists believe that this area of the prairies was a vast inland sea many many millions of years ago. But the mystery involves a duck-billed dinosaur that was found where the sea would have covered the land at that time (according to the theory).

The problem is that duck-billed dinosaurs are believed not to have been able to swim, and where this one was found causes all sorts of difficulties for theories other than young earth/creationism.

The evolutionists, who admit that this is an intriguing mystery, are guessing that the immature dinosaur was washed out to sea, but that leaves the problem of why it wouldn't just bloat and rot like any other animal. Yet this one died so rapidly as to leave an imprint of the skin that has very much impressed the palentologists exmining the remains. They describe the quality of the skin imprints as rare. For that to happen, the body would have had to have been buried extremely rapidly, such as would happen in a catastrophic flood (i.e. Genesis).

The palentologists say that if their guess that the animal was washed out to sea doesn't hold, they will have to try to come up with another explanation.

The evidence, such as this, suggests are that dinosaurs were still in existence.

Starfly,

Folks who believe the stories in the Bible(Creation and Noah's Ark, for example) are *literally true* also believe that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago... dinosaurs and all. :D

Pointing out how all the gigantic dinosaurs would have to have fit on the ark reveals that it is just an old Jewish story about a flood that may have happened... and a story was told in the tribe's oral history.

Questions for those who believe the literal Noah's ark story, including the bits about the entire earth as we know it in modern times being flooded, and the ark having carried samples of every species of animal from all continents across the entire earth:

1. Why is it that there are animals that are indiginous to lands far away from where the ark landed - such as kangaroos in Autralia, llamas in South America, and penguins in Antarctica - how did thet get to these places from the ark once the water's receded? Did Noah sail around the world and deliver them back to their native lands? The bible suggests not. And if they somehow migrated and swam back home on their own, why are there no old fossils of kangaroos or llamas anywhere but in their native lands? Wouldn't some of them have died along the way?

2. If the whole earth as we know it was flooded, so that the oceans covered everything, how did fresh water fish survive? I know that some species of fish can live in both fresh and salt water, but most cannot. Shouldn't the majority of fresh water fish have died off?

It has been pointed out that many cultures speak of great floods. After what occurred in the American midwest and in Myanmar last month it's easy to understand that a major flood would have a tremendous impact on a culture, and that to an ancient people it would seem like their entire world was under water. Obvoiusly there have been many major floods throughout history, and perhaps all major civilizations have experienced them. But to say that evidence of past floods have occurred is somehow proof that there was once a flood that covered the entire world as we know it today defies logic, especially considering that middle-eastern people living in "Noah's time" had no idea that places like Australia and South America even existed.

Tom,

The burden of proof is on you, the believer. Science has proven the Universe if OLDER THAN 6,000 YEARS!! All animals alive in the time of Noah's Ark could never fit on an ark, specially the dinosaurs, the carnivores like Tyrannosaurus Rex would eat the other animals. What about all the different kinds of insects... terrible to keep track of.

Your attempts at defending the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark myth and the Creation myth don't pass the hysterical laughter test.

Why do the non believers keep posting on the religion threads?

It's your choice not to believe, so don't believe somewhere else.

Why do the non believers keep posting on the religion threads?

It's your choice not to believe, so don't believe somewhere else.

Maybe Starfirefly should have posted this in the Christian section where he/she could get ALL Christian answers?

Sorry, I'm just so sick of non believers asking believers to prove their beliefs. Why should we? It's our belief, we don't have to prove anything.

Prove to me that God doesn't exist, no one can, and I can't prove that he does. So where does that get us? No where. :(

Sorry, I'm just so sick of non believers asking believers to prove their beliefs. Why should we? It's our belief, we don't have to prove anything.
(

I absolutely agree that one is free to hold whatever religious beliefs one likes - I have no problem with people saying they believe that the flood occurred exactly as described in the bible, or as they chose to interpret the bible,as a matter of faith. No argument from me. However, when posters try to put forth arguments based on physical or scientific evidence of a global flood then it deserves a response questioning their "science." Previous posters have tried to describe physical evidence, talking about how floods have been reported in virtually all cultures, how there may be a dinosaur fossil somewhere there is difficult to explain, or providing links to web sites that purport to provide "evidence" of a global flood- that's what I and others are responding to. If your position is "I believe because I have faith" - that's fine, and no one will argue. But if your position is "I believe because the physical evidence is there" you will get rebuttals.

How did he pick those species that exist in specific areas only (ex. Penguins, kangaroos, etc.)?

There are over 5 million individual insect species, Noah got all of them?

Tom,

The burden of proof is on you, the believer. Science has proven the the Universe if OLDER THAN 6,000 YEARS!!! All animals alive in the time of Noah's Ark could never fit on an ark, specially the dinosaurs, the carnivores like Tyrannosaurus Rex would eat the other animals. What about all the different kinds of insects...terrible to keep track of.

Your attempts at defending the literal interpretation of Noah's Ark myth and the Creation myth don't pass the hysterical laughter test.

Actually, science has not proven that. The conclusion that some scientists have reached is based upon mixing some evidence with a number of assumptions. Others used different assumptions and come up with a completely different answer.

You keep claiming that animals could not fit in the ark, based upon what?

BTW, Choux, I have a background in science.

OP, here's a great site I found that might help answer some questions you have. I haven't read everything on the site, but from what I did read, the person who started the site is unbiased and has tried his best to bring the story of Noah's ark to light. I hope it helps;

Noah's Ark on the Web - Everything about Noah's Ark (http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/noah-ark/)

If it doesn't help, Google Noah's ark, there are tons of other sites out there, from people who have studied this story for years and years, most of them are sites that are totally unbiased, some are sites started by people who just want to prove their side, so you have to pick.

Good luck.

Remember boys and girls, this is a religious thread, not a discussion thread, and a few posts went past the limit on even the discussion ones. No attacks, no attacking the faith of another on the boards that are not discussion, even there it has limits of personal attacks.

We are about one more post from another one being closed.

Remember original poster posted in a relgious thread, did not ask if it happened or not, merely to what extent and if all the animals. So the OP is posting from a religious view point that it did happen as part of the OP faith.

I'll open a new post in Member Religious Discussions for a debate on Noah's Ark !

How did he pick those species that exist in specific areas only (ex. penguins, kangaroos, etc.)?

There are over 5 million individual insect species, Noah got all of them?Why is no one answering my question? :(

Why is no one answering my question? :(

Addressed in part in post #15. I see folks asking details about how many different individual species were handled. First, the scope of that question too large to handle on any discussion group, and second, we do not have records that specific, so either way it would be speculation. We need to deal with what the record does show.

As for the number of species, keep in mind that not all of these need to be on the ark, for instance:

- fish
- water mammals (i.e. whales)
- microscopic animals
- many species of insects

Fish and water mammals I understand but why not microscopic animals and *all* species of land insect?

Fish and water mammals I understand but why not microscopic animals and *all* species of land insect?

This is what I was referring to when I said:

I see folks asking details about how many different individual species were handled. First, the scope of that question too large to handle on any discussion group, and second, we do not have records that specific, so either way it would be speculation. We need to deal with what the record does show.

We could spend lifetimes trying to speculate on a species by species basis, but this will not bring us any closer in dealing with the issue of the global nature of the flood.

The original question was with respect to the scope of the flood (whole world?) and whether everyone died and in this thread I believe that we are required to remain focused on that question.

The story always led me to believe that it was only the animals and Noah's family that survived.

I did love that story.