Most Christians are under the assumption that it took Noah 120 years to build the ark, because God said “My spirit will not remain in humankind indefinitely, since they are mortal. They will remain for 120 more years” (Genesis 6:3). Since this verse appears prior to God’s command to Noah to build the ark, it is reasoned that it must have taken Noah 120 years to finish the project. A careful reading of the text, however, will demonstrate that the ark was built in 80 years or less.
Genesis 5:32 says Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth after he was 500 years old. If it took Noah 120 years to build the ark, the flood would have come when Noah was 620 years old. And yet Genesis 8:13 says Noah was 601 when the flood waters dried up. Given that the flood lasted about a year, Noah would have been 600 when he “set sail.” (see also Genesis 9:28) At best, that leaves 100 years to build the ark.
We can be more specific, however. According to Genesis 11:10, Shem was 100 years old when he fathered Arphaxad two years after the flood. That means Shem was 98 when the flood ended, and thus 97 when the flood began. If Noah was 600 when the flood began, then Noah must have fathered Shem when he was 503. We know from Genesis 6:18 that God did not instruct Noah to build the ark until after his sons were born, and after they had wives of their own. If we assume Noah fathered his three sons in three consecutive years, his last son would be born when Noah was 505 years old. And if we assume that his youngest son married at the age of 15, Noah would be no younger than 520 years old when God instructed him to build the ark. If he was 600 when the flood came, then the building of the ark could not have taken more than 80 years.
What, then, is the meaning of Genesis 6:3? I think we are right to understand it to refer to the amount of time before which God would destroy the Earth. What we are wrong to assume, however, is that God instructed Noah to build the ark immediately after making this decision. There is nothing in the text to warrant this conclusion, as there are no temporal indicators suggesting that God revealed Himself to Noah immediately afterward. We are told of God’s decision to destroy the Earth in 120 years in a separate narrative describing men’s wickedness. That narrative ends at 6:8, and a new narrative about Noah begins at 6:9. It is here that we read of God’s interaction with Noah, and His instructions to him to build the ark. Given what we know from other passages about the length of time it took Noah to build the ark, there must be at least a 40 year gap between Genesis 6:3 and 6:13-21.
Thinking to Believe 
January 14, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Right on bro. I have been telling people this for years, generally with poor results. It’s amazing how people believe something simply because it’s “always been taught that way”.
LikeLike
January 14, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Always important to get the math right on your fairy tales.
LikeLike
January 14, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Darren,
Good to know I’m not the only one who has seen this.
Jonathan,
What makes you think it is a fairy tale?
Jason
LikeLike
January 21, 2009 at 8:51 am
Even though I personally have never seen this (only because as a child I was told otherwise, I find this a very valid point. It may not be a salvatin issue, but error is error.
Early civilization once believed the earth was flat. Columbus, or possibly the Vikings, found that in reality the earth was round.
Jason, keep up the good work!!
Your fan from Kentucky,
Barry
LikeLike
January 22, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I think it’s easy to see how the mistake can be made, but you are right, it is a mistake nonetheless (even if a minor one).
Actually, early civilization did not think the earth was flat. This is another common myth. See http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2587 for the history of this myth.
LikeLike
January 22, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Thanks for the info. I learned one more thing today. lol
Barry
LikeLike
January 22, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Speaking again of mistakes, It amazes me how people refuse to change from what they were taught regardless if you show them truth according to the Bible.
Most apostolics in my area state the reason they don’t want to change is fear that their children might be confused. But what if you were taught that a cat was a dog, or red was black. Should one continue believing such nonsense to keep down confusion. I am thankful the Apostle Paul allowed himself to see and understand the sufficiency of Christ!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
January 29, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Barry,
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard, and I have heard some pretty dumb things. 🙂 The only thing they are “protecting” their children from is the truth, and that is not protection at all.
Jason
LikeLike
May 11, 2009 at 3:45 am
What I also find funny is that the water to flood the whole earth has been found. A mineralin the upper mantle holds enough water to fill 30 oceans. Just google “ldolphin deep waters”. And it will be the first selection. So uch for those who scoff at the Bible and try to push local floods.
LikeLike
May 11, 2009 at 11:53 am
ikester,
I actually hold to a local flood because I think the Bible teaches/requires it. If the flood was global, it would contradict Psalm 104:9.
See Rich Deem’s article on this: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html.
Jason
LikeLike
July 16, 2009 at 2:49 am
The earth was actually flooded twice. Once during creation when the spirit of God havered over the waters, then later in creation, the waters had to go underground so that the dry land could appear.
http://www.yecheadquarters.org/noah_flood.html
LikeLike
July 16, 2009 at 2:37 pm
ikester,
As I noted in my previous comment, I think the Biblical data requiers that we understand Noah’s flood as a local flood, so I would say the (entire) earth has only been flooded once.
Jason
LikeLike
July 26, 2009 at 12:11 am
Biblical, or temporal? Show the verse that says only one part of the earth got flooded? I guess you did not visit the link or you would have found another link that shows that enough water has been found in a mineral inthe upper mantle that would fill 30 oceans. So there is nough water, so temporal evidence supports a world wide flood. And I have seen no verse that says the water was a local flood.
LikeLike
July 26, 2009 at 10:13 pm
ikester,
I did not say I reject a global flood on the basis that there would not be enough water. I reject a global flood because I think that is the best exegesis of Scripture. Psalm 104 is a creation psalm, and there we read that after God separated the land from the water, that He set up boundaries that the water would never cross. I don’t know how much clearer “never again will they cover the earth” could be.
Jason
LikeLike
August 14, 2009 at 5:01 am
I think, Psalm 104,9 implies to the promise of God: “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake…” (Genesis 8,21) after the flood. I think, it would be nice to know and understand the original text. I compared two translations, and there were some little differences. I don’t think that it would be reasonable to belive on the basis of one (ambiguous) single row of a psalm that some definite parts of the Genesis were not true. I think to the following parts for example: “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.” If it was only a local flood, how would you explain that Noah’s ark could rest upon the mountain of Ararat? How could a local flood had a duration of more than one year?
The first rainbow gives evidence that something more happened at this time than a local flood: “I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.” Until that, the atmospheric environment was not suitable for the formation of a rainbow. With the flood, a lot of things has changed.
I wouldn’t say that at the creation the Earth was flooded, since at the beginning the dry land did not exist at all. God created the dry land later: “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear…” (Genesis 1,9).
LikeLike
August 14, 2009 at 9:46 am
Laura,
It would be a miracle of God, just like the waters parting and forming a wall in the Red Sea was a miracle of God. Ps 104 is quite clear in its meaning. And given the fact that the Hebrew word translated “earth” just means “land,” (and is used to refer to localized rather than global lands), there is nothing in Genesis that demands a global flood.
The rainbow was merely God’s sign that He would no longer kill all humanity (minus Noah and his family, of course) with a flood.
Jason
LikeLike
November 23, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Great stuff, I’m busy getting my sermon together and am over the moon to have found this page. Thanks and God bless
LikeLike
February 23, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Just wanted to say that I appreciated your comments about how long it took Noah to build the Ark. Good stuff. However, about the flood I am not sure how you could get that from Gen. 6. The entire point of it was to wipe out all of humanity. You would have to say that people only lived in the Mesopotamian valley. The referene to Psalm 104 is silly. The waters not being allowed to return is in regards to the boundary he set up for them. It says, “Psalms 104:9 You have set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.” It says, “that” twice, so they return not again. This says nothing about what would happen if the boundary were to be removed. In other words, he set a boundary up so that they could not come back to where they came from, and return to where they were. This is no promise that it would never happen again, it just shows the purpose of the boundary being there in the first place. Almost every ancient civilization has a history of a global flood. In addition 2 Peter 2:5 when speaking of the flood says, “And spared not the ancient world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;” This talks of the world not just the fertile cresent or Mesopotamia. And just so you know that greek word “world” in this verse is used 187 times in the NT and each time excecpt for once it is translated as world. For example: John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.” So unless you are going to say that Jesus only died for a geographical location, then I am not sure how you would get around this. The exception is in 1 Peter 3:3 where it is translated adorning in a moral sense.
True the Hebrew word in Ps. 104 could say land, however that would mess up all the parallel verses for it, which is always the problem when you start trying reinterperate the scriptures.
LikeLike
February 28, 2011 at 4:43 pm
Hi Brian,
Yes, I would have to say people only lived in the broader Mesopotamian valley, but I’m not sure why that would be a liability of my view. Surely they weren’t living in North America.
As for Psalm 104, you seem to be emphasizing verse 9a, but not 9b. Verse 9 reads: “You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.” I agree that this states the reason for God setting up the boundaries, but it also says they were so set up so that the water will [b]never again[/b] cover the earth. If the flood was geographically global, then this verse would be shown to be false because the waters did come to cover the whole earth again.
Yes, many civilizations have flood stories, but that only argues for the fact that the flood happened, and all men living today are descendents of Noah–not an argument for whether the flood waters covered the entire globe. In other words, it is an argument that the flood was universal in extent, not necessarily that it was universal in geography.
As for 2 Peter, I don’t find that argument persuasive. Peter said God did not spare “the ancient world.” What is it that God did not spare? People. Peter is using the word “world” to refer to the people in the world. It’s not a geographical referent at all. This is clear from what he goes on to say as well: “but saved Noah the eighth person….” Even when he says “world of the unglody” he is just referring to their habitation.
Jason
LikeLike
March 1, 2011 at 12:04 pm
I appreciate your comments about arguments, they are well thought out and I always like it when Christians are thinking, we need more of this today. I would dissagree with you however about only the people perishing in the flood however. It was the entire earth, when you read that part in Genesis chapter 6 it says, Genesis 6:7 “And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” it also says a bit later in Genesis 6:13″… I will destroy them with the earth.” so it was everything inculding the “earth also” and not just the people.
In addition you make an interesting statement when you say that they certainly could not be living in North America. Why? Where does it state that they were only living in the “Mesopotamian Valley?” In fact the idea that the earth was exactly the same before as after is an assumption inserted into your theology. The world may have been very different, we have no idea because the Bible doesn’t say so.
As far as the various cultures I conceded my point, but the Peter passage in stating the the “ancient world” was destroyed is consistant with the natural reading of Gen. 6 as quoted above. I see no reason in the text to change the definition of “world” to something other than, “world” unless there are assumptions being inserted.
As far as the Ps. 104 thing, I see in this that the first five verses are regarding creation and 6-9 referring to the flood (which is my point of view and could be seen as forced addmittedly) however I see it this way because it fits perfectly with the covenant that God made with Noah in Genesis 9:11 where he says, “Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.” I see this as a parallel with Psalm Psalms 104:9 where it says, “Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.”
So, I am enjoying this because it is causing me to grow, I hope that anybody reading this outside of the two of us sees that we are not upset at each other, but that we just hold differnt opinions and we can support them from Scripture (which is a great thing for believers to be able to do).
LikeLike
March 3, 2011 at 2:39 pm
In addition, in Genesis 7:19 it says,”And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.” Under the whole heaven,all the HIGH hills! Also it says in Genesis 7:23 “And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” My question is, why would the birds die if it was just local? A local flood wouldn’t effect them at all, they would just fly away. Also, How did they end up so high on the mountains of Ararat (which would be the opposite direction of the flow of the rivers) if it was just local? By the way, what are the fountains of the deep?
LikeLike
March 9, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Brian,
Yes, I am enjoying the exchange as well. While it takes work to respond to challenges, it does cause intellectual growth, and that is always welcomed.
Actually, I never said “only people” perished in the flood. I said Peter’s reference to “the ancient world” refers to the people.
You say Genesis 6:13 says the entire earth was destroyed, but that’s not true. It says God would destroy all flesh “with the earth.” In other words, he would use the earth to destroy all flesh (the instrument of destruction, rather than the object of destruction). Even if I agreed that “earth” is the object of destruction, you cannot just assume that the proper interpretation of “erets” is the globe. The word simply means “land.” It could refer to a specific part of the globe, the known populated world, or the entire globe. Just claiming that it refers to the entire globe in Genesis 6 does not make it so. We even see this variety of usage within Genesis 6. Look at Gen 6:12: “God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.” Here, the first use of “earth” is equivalent to “flesh,” referring to the populace of humans (same is true in 6:11). The second use could refer either to the known-world, or the entire globe.
As for people living in North America, I will admit that my statement was a bit too strong since we don’t have any solid proof of the extent of human existence. But if we take the Biblical account seriously, there is no reason to think that humans had spread to other continents this early in the period of human existence. Considering the fact that all the place names up through Genesis 11 refer to localized places in the Mesopotamian plain, it is most reasonable to conclude that the flood only affected that localized area.
Tbc…
LikeLike
March 9, 2011 at 2:43 pm
Continued…
I’m not sure you are getting my point about 2 Peter 2. Peter writes, “and [God] did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah….” Noah is brought up as an exception to the wiping out of the ancient world. This tells me that Peter has humans in mind when he refers to “the ancient world,” not geography. Furthermore, the phrase “but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others” is parenthetical to “and did not spare the ancient world…when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly.” When you read Peter’s statement without the parenthetical material (as I have just written it for you), it is even clearer that “the ancient world” refers to the people. How is it that God did not spare the ancient world? By bringing a flood “[b]on the ungodly[/b].” If there was any passage that might be helpful in making your point it would be 2 Peter 3:5-7, which seems more amenable to your interpretation that world = geography.
As for Psa 104, I am glad that you admit your understanding of verses 1-5 as referring to creation and verses 6-10 as referring to the flood could be seen as “forced.” Indeed, I think it is. There is nothing in the psalm to suggest that the topic has changed from creation to the flood. Suggesting otherwise is a bit ad hoc. As for Gen 9:11, God’s promise was not that the earth would never be flooded again, but rather that God would not kill all flesh via a flood again. In contrast, Ps 104 portrays God’s intention that the waters that once covered the entire globe as pictured in Genesis 1 would never do so again once God separated the land from the water.
As for the birds, I don’t think they could just fly away. It’s not as if the Mesopotamian Valley is a tiny speck of land. Furthermore, I don’t think the flood was some light rainfall. It would have been difficult for them to fly in the torrent of rain, and they would have had too far to fly.
I understand the fountains of the deep to refer to some sort of underground geysers of some sort. I’m not sure if that is the proper word, but I think you know what I am referring to.
Why did they end up so high on Ararat? Actually, I don’t think the ark was high on Ararat. Indeed, it would have required a miracle for Noah and his family to get down from the mountain if that had been the case. Surely the ark rested toward the base. But that’s not to say I don’t think the waters covered the mountain during the flood. I think they did. I think I know how you will respond to this, so I’ll save further comments until then.
Jason
LikeLike
March 9, 2011 at 2:43 pm
I wanted to offer you some additional Biblical arguments for a local flood (but universal in judgment):
1. The method by which the flood ended also tells us that the flood was local. According to Genesis, the water receded and was dried by the wind. But if the flood was global, where would the water recede to? Those of your persuasion appeal to Psa 104. In addition to the fact that there is no internal justification for seeing a switch from creation to flood in verse 6, the explanation given in Genesis would be different from the explanation provided in Ps 104. According to Genesis it was not a change in topography (raising the mountains, lowering the valleys) that caused the waters to recede, but a wind. But wind by itself cannot cause waters to recede. The waters need a place to go. The wind can only help them get there faster.
2. If we understand “erets” to refer to the entire globe, interpreting these passages becomes difficult:
“After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth.” (Genesis 8:6-7)
“By the first day of the first month of Noah’s six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth.” (Genesis 8:13a)
“By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.” (Genesis 8:14)
If “erets” means “globe,” then we would have to conclude that the entire globe was dry after the flood. Clearly Moses is referring to a sub-set of the globe.
Jason
LikeLike
March 16, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Well, I would have to assume that you would say that the Mesapotamian valley was flooded for over a year with only 40 days of rain. That seems a bit strange for a local flood.
The verses you quoted about the waters being dried up only reffered to the land, not the seas. So i see no difficulty in that.
As far as the wind thing is concerned, it also says that the waters returned to where they came from (the fountains of the deep) so the wind was not the only thing that did it. But the ice caps also amount to some of the water as well. So, these seem to be more you than biblical arguments.
Also, the birds comment was really not just a passing comment. You are suggesting that the birds could not escape rising waters and rain because it was to hard. Could any of the animals escape? I see no reason why the bigger animals could not just outrun the water like they do now.
I do find it fascinating however, how you continually change the word found in the scriptures from earth or world into flesh. You say that the promise in 9:11 was not for the earth, but for the flesh on the earth, however it says, Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.” So it was the earth that was not to be destroyed any more with a flood, the next time it will be with fire, which brings me to my next point that you reminded me of. 2 Peter 3 does indeed talk about the Earth being destroyed in the flood and then he compares it to what it will be like later at the end of the world.
If Genesis 6:13 is interperated as you say it ought to be instead of how it reads which says, “And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.” Then that would be a very strange reading. You would have to say that God will destroy them with them rather than what it says. Furthermore, this seems like a very strange way for God to save Noah if it was not neccessary for him to build a boat. I mean, he had 80 years as you have pointed out, why didn’t he just leave and go somewhere else? But build a boat that would hold all the animals and so forth. that is very extreme if it was just local.
As far as your answer for the boat being on Ararat, I find it to be insufficient. The bible says, Genesis 7:18-20 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits above did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” All the high hells under the whole of heaven were covered to a depth of 22 feet (about). Unless you are going to say that the, “whole heavens” does not really mean the whole of the heavens, but really just means the mesopotamian valley.
True the word Erets is translated as land and could mean this, however the natural reading of the flood account in Genesis does not allow for this, that comes from your interpretation. As far as I can see, the only point you can make is the Psalm 104 point about my interpretaion being a bit forced, but to interpret it your way would contradict the clear readings of parrallel passages.
Think about it, why would men who had been around for 1000’s of years only stay in the Mesopotamian valley? Within the 1000 years after the flood they were all over the place. Your assumptions are illogical (as spok would say).
LikeLike
March 17, 2011 at 9:39 am
I think realistically, (and to show he is not a respector of persons) if god of the bible warned Noah so many years in advance of diasaster…. he should also be as kind to those living in this day and time and give warnings well in advance of natural disasters, so that there is no confusion to “fairy tales” as mentioned earlier in the above text. And in actuality, maybe he does… perhaps just not in the way we expected? john Steven Grissom- fort worth TEXAS USA. stevegtexas@aol.com
LikeLike
March 17, 2011 at 9:42 am
Most recently would be the horrible diasaster in the japan earthquake, or pearl harbor? Could it somehow been predicted? Why doesnt god of the bible now warn us like he did for Noah? Answers anyone? i ask respectfully, John Steven Grissom- stevegtexas@aol.com
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:44 am
Steven
I would tell you that there is a warning that the earth, (not a local disaster is coming, but a great catastrophy is coming) and he has been warning us of it for 1000’s of years in the book of Revelation, the question now is the same as then, do you believe the message? The lord will come back and judge the earth, just like in Noahs day, however, just like in Noah’s day people mock and scoff at the message, while only a few people actually believe it.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 9:05 am
In addition I would also say just in passing, that Japan did have warning, they knew about it a year in advance and had worked to reduce the damage of it. In other words they had prepared as best they could, and just a single earthquake caused all the destruction. My heart and prayers go out to the people, it is truly sad, but they actually were prepared for it.
LikeLike
May 16, 2012 at 12:27 am
Interesting reading, thanks for the interesting reading.
Most of the posts above me is to boring to read.
LikeLike
May 16, 2012 at 3:08 pm
I had always heard that the Grand Canyon was evidence of a global flood… and that fossil records, even in the USA point to a global flood, also.
LikeLike
July 8, 2012 at 9:15 pm
“Here are two swords.” The Word showing that those closest to Jesus got it wrong. Those next closest could have gotten it wrong as well. What was Paul’s infirmity that he prayed to get rid of? If Paul’s faith was so strong and tested (like David’s with a lion and bear), then why did he keep putting off judgement and appeal to cesar? Jesus fullfilled patterns. What patterns were fullfilled with speaking in tongues? Cloven, fire, and rushing water (loud and unclear sound) are patterns of confusion not God’s Holy spirit. Paul was bitten by a viper (nehushtan pattern?). Matt 25…kingdom likened (compared to=NOT IS) to 10 virgins…a little later in Matt25… the kingdom IS like a man on a journey. Why did priests wear bells? If they didn’t get the para(prayer)bells just right they were killed. Are you sure that you have gotten the parables correct? Charity above all sounds like pure Catholic money making. The 120 days are ~end of four months (Tamuz 29/Av1).
peter
LikeLike
July 22, 2012 at 1:15 am
IF FLOOD IN NOAH’S TIME IS NOT GLOBAL, THEN WHY WOULD GOD LEFT 1/3 OF THE LAND AND THE VAST CONTINENTS WERE SURROUNDED BY 3/4 OF SEA WATER?
LikeLike
February 3, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Fossil record is the proof that there was a global flood and not local.You can find fossils on every content in the world and sea shells on the mountian tops.Animals were created after the dry land in Genesis not before.Fossils of multipal species found in the same location all across the world.Not much evidence was left of former civilizations other than the fossil record.Formation of continents could very easily have been a result of the global flood.What dry land looked like before the flood is not recorded in the Bible nor after.Was there a global flood like the Bible says? The evidence speaks for it’s self.
LikeLike
December 7, 2013 at 10:45 pm
Gosh…..I hate to present fact as the reason for why you can find fossils for almost every species on Earth on all the continents…..but, about 300 million years ago all the land on the planet was connected and formed a giant super-continent called Pangaea. About 200 million years ago, Pangaea began to slowly break apart. In fact, it’s still breaking apart. India was actually it’s own continent for quite a long time, and out of all the continents that broke apart, India by far moved the fastest in a north by northwest direction, which is why, unlike the rest, it slammed into China. And, as almost anyone will tell you today, we now know that’s how the Himalaya Mountains were formed. The fastest mountain chain to ever develop. In terms of the rate of speed typical tectonic plates move, the “Indian Plate” was Flyin! The Himalayas, the same thing that happens to the hood of a car when it hits a brick wall head on.
Anyway, not intentionally crashing your party. I stay informed on all sides, but I couldn’t let a proven fact Fossil Dispersion Model as it pertains to Pangaea be used as “proof” of a worldwide flood when it just…….well…..isn’t.
LikeLike
December 7, 2013 at 10:58 pm
Oh, re-reading my post, I didn’t tie the relavancy of mentioning the Himalaya Mountains. As we know, tectonic plates under the continents don’t just stop dead at the water line. They continue under the ocean for varying distances. When the Himalayas were formed, it was the two furthest “tips” of the Indian Plate and the Eurasian plates, which were both underwater, were what was thrust upward in the collision. So, knowing that, it isn’t hard to see how fossils of sea shells or other aquatic life would be found at the very top of a mountain range like the Himalayas, or any other mountain range that was created in a similar fashion, ie, The Andes and The Alps….. We could get into how Mountains created via Plate Subduction would also have fossils, but I think you get the idea.
LikeLike