Ah, OK... I dont know my bible well enough to know the world was a
supercontinent at the time of the flood. By bad assumption.
I see...
I am now meant to believe that the horse, for example, could have a small gene pool when it first evolved from whatever it evolved from and over a long period of time the horse gene pool would grow large enough for there to be no problems.
Yes that is what happens.
While the gene pool is small, there are 'a lot' of non-viable freaks and stillbirths,
which is acceptable in animals, and the species will survive and improve with
the death of every non-breeding mutant, but us humans get upset by it. Which is why
incest is illegal in so many countries, that gene-pool is a lot too small.
There is not a single proof for an ark.
So what, there was only one Ark, we just havent found it yet.
Just as there was only one asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, and look how long it took to find
its crater, ie the gulf of mexico.
There is not a single proof for a worldwide flood. When it would have been worldwide, where is the water gone?
Firstly, theres no proof to be found on the DRY part of the world, and we havent checked the wet part.
Secondly, the bible (probably) says 'worldwide' flood, which is different to
'planetwide' flood. Check a dictionary for World and you'll find something
like "A part of the earth and its inhabitants as known at a given period in history".
So World meant "everything we know of", thats different to planetwide.
Who is the say that the flood needed more water? Land can sink, and anyone on it
would be shouting "FLOOD!!", not "SUBSIDENCE!!".
AND, who is to say that the 'land' that the Ark landed on wasnt newly created
by God so his refugees could have a clean start, or even just old sea-bed that
had risen from the depths.
The ark must have been so big that the whole wood of the whole world wouldn't have been enough to build it.
It has been pointed out to me that the world was a single continent/supercontinent then. OK.
Seeing as the bible wont be using the word supercontinent, two possibilities spring to mind.
1> The landmass that everyone lived on wasnt the only one, just the only one anyone knew of.
So it didnt likely have as many animal species as we know of now. So a smaller Ark is managable.
2> If the world consisted of only one landmass, there would not have needed to be
so many species to fill all the ecological niches, so smaller Ark once again.
Once it landed, each species had very small gene pools, and lots of land to fill,
so as they multiplied, the species would have diversified greatly due to evolution and mutation.
Thereby giving rise to the many species we know now.
Side question Delerna, if you believe in God and all his wonders, do you need
to believe the he kept small gene pools clean? After all, if 'He' is running
the show, then Genetics is just science's, possibly faulty interpretation
of what 'He' is doing. Faulty because "For no man can know the mind of god..."
