There are people who promote compromise views against creation and in favor of an old earth. However, the מַבּוּל (mabbul, the Hebrew word that is used only for the Genesis Flood) was very destructive and caused what is seen in geology today. Secularists and churchian compromisers adhere to uniformitarianism (slow and gradual processes), so they cannot have the global deluge in their paradigms.
 |
| Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Cimerondagert (CC by-SA 4.0) |
First, a simple but profound problem for local flood proponents: animals. Aside from the obvious considerations about such a flood (such as Noah could have simply moved, no need to build a huge Ark in the first place, water seeks its own level, etc.), God brought animals to be transported on the Ark. Eight people and a passel of critters were confined for over a year.
Promoters of compromise views such as old earth creationism, progressive creationism (i.e., the viewpoint of Hugh Ross), as well as theistic evolutionists (a.k.a. “evolutionary creationists”) all have one thing in common: their adherence to secular views of history and geology forces them to discount the possibility that Noah’s Flood was a global event. They all postulate that Noah’s Flood was a local/regional event that could somehow be harmonized with secular gradualistic views of geology, even if they have wildly differing ideas on how exactly that harmonization is supposedly achieved.
. . .
In a local or even a regional flood, with 120 years’ advance notice, both Noah and all the animals could have simply walked to safety. This has of course been pointed out many times by biblical creationists, and as a result the various compromise camps have had to come up with explanations for why God would have chosen to instruct the building of an Ark with animals on it.
To read the full article, see "Animals on the Ark — A troubling conundrum for compromise views", and I hope all y'all will come back for the next section.
A big question for many people is how dinosaurs (who lived at the same time as humans) were on the Ark. It is a simple fact that people operate from their presuppositions, not only for interpreting evidence, but for making models. Of course, we must be careful to get accurate details and not work from assumptions and what we think we remember. Both secular scientists and creation scientists use speculations, but creationists tend to avoid the principle of Making Things Up™ that is common in the evolutionary science industry.
What follows is a discussion on the feasibility of dinosaurs on the Ark. Reasoning from science as well as Scripture, pieces of the puzzle are assembled. Also, some of the care and feeding aspects could be applied to other animals on the Ark.
People often wonder how all of the animals could have fit on the ark. Often, “bathtub arks” are loaded down with various species of animals, rather than the biblical kind, which is approximately at the family level of biological classification. Noah didn’t need to bring lions, leopards, and tigers onto the ark, just a single pair from the cat kind. We see so many illustrations of large creatures packed tightly into a little boat. But this image is inaccurate too. Noah’s ark was so much larger than it is usually depicted, and many of the animals were probably smaller than are shown in popular pictures.
. . .
Due to evolutionary indoctrination, many people can’t picture man living alongside dinosaurs, or if they do, they think of the Jurassic Park/World movies and view all dinosaurs as wanting to trample or eat people. Even if they overcome or set aside this stumbling block, we still get questions of how dinosaurs could even fit on the ark, particularly when considering the massive dinosaurs, especially the sauropods.
To read the article in its entirety, visit "Dinosaurs on the Ark: How It Was Possible".