Hi everyone!
You may recall my post on the effects of Noah's flood on coral a few weeks back: http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html
In light of the large number of people who think that a global version of Noah's flood took place within the last 6000 years, I thought it would be a good idea to point out that I focused my research on a local flood.
The reason I did this was because there is no reason to do serious research on the effects of a global flood on coral. A global flood would very obviously kill 100% of the coral on earth. There is simply no mechanism left to allow for their survival. All stationary colonies would die due to ridiculously large increases in pressure, a temperature drop to between 0 and 5 degrees Celsius, and the absence of light. Gamete expulsion of any kind would fail due to the lack of habitat (the entire world, except for maybe the peak of the highest mountain would be unsuitable for coral. Keep in mind that gametes would not be able to travel the distance necessary to reach this lonely safe haven- if anyone wishes to debate this I would be happy to hear what you have to say). Polyp bailout would be useless for the same reason.
Here is a summary of the reasoning that goes along with a planetary flood (as opposed to a local one):
A local flood is a different story. However, a local flood probably (but with a lower degree of certainty) would have killed 100% of coral on earth. That is why I focused my research on the local flood scenario, and you can check it out here! http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html
--------------------------------------------------
Response to a common response to my argument:
You may recall my post on the effects of Noah's flood on coral a few weeks back: http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html
In light of the large number of people who think that a global version of Noah's flood took place within the last 6000 years, I thought it would be a good idea to point out that I focused my research on a local flood.
The reason I did this was because there is no reason to do serious research on the effects of a global flood on coral. A global flood would very obviously kill 100% of the coral on earth. There is simply no mechanism left to allow for their survival. All stationary colonies would die due to ridiculously large increases in pressure, a temperature drop to between 0 and 5 degrees Celsius, and the absence of light. Gamete expulsion of any kind would fail due to the lack of habitat (the entire world, except for maybe the peak of the highest mountain would be unsuitable for coral. Keep in mind that gametes would not be able to travel the distance necessary to reach this lonely safe haven- if anyone wishes to debate this I would be happy to hear what you have to say). Polyp bailout would be useless for the same reason.
Here is a summary of the reasoning that goes along with a planetary flood (as opposed to a local one):
- If a planetary flood took place, 100% of the coral on earth would die
- There are an abundance of coral on earth today
- 6000 years is not long enough for coral to evolve from species which survived the flood
- Therefore, a global flood did not take place within the last 6000 years
A local flood is a different story. However, a local flood probably (but with a lower degree of certainty) would have killed 100% of coral on earth. That is why I focused my research on the local flood scenario, and you can check it out here! http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2012/05/noahs-flood-and-coral.html
--------------------------------------------------
Response to a common response to my argument:
Keep in mind that to say something like "well God must have re-created coral after the flood!" would be to add information to Bible. The flow of Genesis is such that only the animals and people on the ark survive the flood. Aquatic organisms are never mentioned. Also, there is NO mention of God re-creating organisms after the flood.
If one were to allow for adding something like "oh, and even though the Bible doesn't say this, God also created organisms after the flood and that is why we see them today," you would also have to allow for additions to the the Bible in other places that suit another party's bias or fancy. For example, let's say I really want Jesus to happen to tap dance, do gymnastics, and be really good at juggling. The Bible doesn't mention him doing those things, nor does it mention him not doing those things. Anyway, if we allow for additions to the text in one place, you have to allow for additions on another place.
What this means is that instead of 'saving' the text by adding information, you actually destroy the reliability of the text. Also, I think Revelation says something bad happens to people who add stuff to the Bible.
-----------------------------------
Thank you for reading!
If one were to allow for adding something like "oh, and even though the Bible doesn't say this, God also created organisms after the flood and that is why we see them today," you would also have to allow for additions to the the Bible in other places that suit another party's bias or fancy. For example, let's say I really want Jesus to happen to tap dance, do gymnastics, and be really good at juggling. The Bible doesn't mention him doing those things, nor does it mention him not doing those things. Anyway, if we allow for additions to the text in one place, you have to allow for additions on another place.
What this means is that instead of 'saving' the text by adding information, you actually destroy the reliability of the text. Also, I think Revelation says something bad happens to people who add stuff to the Bible.
-----------------------------------
Thank you for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment