OFFLINE

OFFLINE

Ok so whats the point of thistopic? I read a comment today in a chessgames.com forum by anevolutionist asking a very legitimate questions "Noah's ark wound up at Mt. Ararat. How did the sloth make it to Peru?How did the frogs of North and South America cross the ocean withoutgetting pickled by seawater? Why did the kangaroos go hopping toAustralia without bothering to stop anywhere in between?"I think this is a very logical question that poses serious problemsfor the prevailing creationist veiw that the continents were prettymuch as we see them today post flood.

I'm a biblicalcreationists/literalist (It's Gods word how else could you take it?)I hold a very minority opinion on when the earth broke up intocontinents as we see them today. I think the complex interlockingpattern of the continents across the Atlantic is so obvious a childcan recognize they fit together and if you remain skeptical andsuppose it just an unrelated happen stance, then throw in the midatlantic ridge in the mix which of course matches the coasts oneither side. Little room for doubt but some still question theobvious, there is more evidence but I won't elaborate here. The bestknown Young Earth Creationist, Answers in Genesis and also KentHovind contend that when Noah landed in the mountains (plural) ofArarat not on Mt. Ararat, that the earth looked pretty much the sameas it does today with all the land masses seperated much as they aretoday.

Let me give an alternativethat imho makes much more sense and is closer to what the bibleliterally says, Genesis10:25 and again in1st Chronicles 1:19"Andunto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was]Peleg;for in his days was the earth divided" This seems to mean that literally the earth was seperating from theday Peleg was born until the day he died 239 years later. Ken Ham ofAnswers in Genesis, AiG from now on says no not the land wasseperated but the people after the destruction of the tower of Babel.Ken being a Young Earth Creationist takes the six days in Genesisliterally and makes a very convincing argument using the Hebrew wordfor day Yomto do it, citing consistent usage from scripture and plain languageto do it. He's right there is no reason from the Bible to take it anyother way than how its written. So then why when we come to the wordfor earth or land does he not continue taking it litterally? TheBible uses the word eretz 949 times in the old testement, 179 timesin the Pentetuch (first five books of the Old Testement) of which 99occur in Genesis alone and every single time eretz is translated asearth, never once people. The word eretz means earth or land period,the predominant Jewish newspaper is HaEretz Israelor simply the land of Israel.

So thenwhy do the dates coinside so closely with the Tower of Babel, thinkabout it the scattering of the people by changing their languagewould not have been as effective if they could physically unitethemselves again. How long would they have remained so distinct inlanguage if they could congregate in a single location again? I thinkGod spread the people out and then locked them on land masses thatkept them largely apart. Put kids in time out in the same room andthey will soon be interacting, you have to keep them seperated. Nowthen this also solves a couple of other mysteries not the least ofwhich is how did the Kangaroo get to an Island continent so very faraway? The Sloths to South America and so on. Next is the fact thatgeology mostly is very well explained by the great deluge and yettheir is some evidence of catastrophy post flood that is hard tounderstand under the prevailing creationist models.

Thats mytake more to follow.