Who knows what happened to all the plants when God flooded the earth?

Evil plants?

Where does it say that in the bible?

Like everything else they were on the ark…???

I think that by now it is pretty clear that the ‘flood’ is a bit of a ‘smoke & mirrors’ story- but thankfully (I hope) everyone can believe whatever they wish…

um it doesnt. i just kinda mixed in evolution with biblical history. but its true the breathing glands on seaweed are a lot like the breathing systems for land plants, but ones for air and ones for water. Now the real reason u don’t read about any plants is beacuse when people were writing the bible, they prayed to god and god helped edit the bible. you see the bible is gods work written by human hands. he kept all the important stuff and eliminated all the stuff that he thought wasn’t really important. so he must have kept the stuff about noahs family and the animals and left out all the plant stuff.

evolution saved the plants. only the strongest and the ones who could manage to stay alive did, while the weak ones died off. -survival of the fittest.

Sorry but… WTF !!

They became the seaweeds.

Scientists that are studying the plausibility of the flood scenario are in agreement that the Biblical flood was a localized event that probably took place in an area where civilization was just starting to flourish.

breathing glands on seaweed? Please, direct me to a place that shows me where seaweed has breathing glands. And I still dont have an answer except one you made up’?

I am curious how the biblical folk explain it. I am aware that it is not possible for a boat to have carried all those animals (minus the plants).

First off I would like to say that I believe in Intelligent Design and not necessarily an unseen omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent ‘man in the sky’. With that having been said, following the evidence found by these scientists, a localized flood would have affected a specific locale leaving a vast area untouched and able to reseed (if it was even necessary). In the Biblical flood, “all flesh” was destroyed; plants are not flesh. Gen 6:13

its called photorespiration. every plant can do it.

And plants did what, float?

And photorespiration does not explain how the plants did not drown, nor does it explain how the plants managed to survive in a high salt environment (given that they were underwater, and seawater was obviously mixed in here).

this is a good question! i googled it and thought this site had a good answer. [link removed]

After 40 days of raining the water stayed 150 days before it receded. (Gen 7:24) That is not enough time to kill most types of vegetation and since the flood was evidently localized any die-off would be negligible. The rainy season in Zambezi lasts from 4-6 months (160-180 days) and the vegetation survives quite well from year to year. Typically when an area floods from rain it isn’t salty, it remains fresh water; this happens in the Nile River Delta, Amazon River and use to happen more than it does in the Mississippi River. The floodwaters from Lake Pontchartrain are brackish and it didn’t hurt the vegetation in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.

Did I detect a bit of sarcasm!?

My bad! 4-6 months is 120-180 days

Either the flood was localized, or the flood drowned everyone and all animals in the world (as per the bible). Salty water happens when the entire world is flooded… Then the seas kinda merge into each other. Given that everyone but Noah and his family on the ark drowned, I dont quite see how this was a localized flood. And if it was a localized flood then I dont see how everyone drowned (they spontaneously died knowing that a localized flood killed people?).

Most the plants died off.. Thats why God introduced meat into the human diet. noah was in the ark for about a year and it took about 150 years for teh waters to abate. But a couple pf months later a dove returned with an olive leaf. But Noah stayed inside for a couple more months. by then, i know plants would have sprouted. read Gen6-8 for details.

And Noah and the animals were eating what during this time?

This is the size of the ark……….. Gen6:15 Make it four hundred fifty feet long, seventy-five feet wide, and forty-five feet high. 16Build a roof [d] on the boat and leave a space of about eighteen inches between the roof and the sides. (contemporary english version)

This seems big enough to hold the animals to me. Thats like the size of a ship.

And yes, I do beleive that it was a worldwide event. it explains the very things that scientist say was caused by ice age.

The Bible doesnt say. But I’m sure He wouldve brought corn, grain and other stuff to feed himself and the animals.

Also in Gen 6:21 God instructed Noah to 21 “Take every kind of food that you will need. Store it away. It will be food for you and for them.”

ah my link was removed. did you get to see it before it was gone?

@TY There is no scientific evidence that there was a global flood. Bill Ryan (oceanographer) and Walter Pittman (Plate tectonics) believe they have evidence that the flood happened when a natural dam broke and flooded the Black sea area about 5600 BC. And that it was such a devastating event that it was recorded and retold through successive generations. This story is found recorded in the Sumerian Cuneiform tablets and later in Genesis. Almost every ancient civilization has a flood myth and most include drowning of individuals and animals.

Bill Ryan was on a previous team that showed the Mediterranean basin was a desert about 5 million years ago until rising ocean levels caused water to breech the Straits of Gibraltar, flooding an area approximately 970,000 square miles and creating what we call the Mediterranean Sea.  
I don’t know why you have such a hard time accepting the fact that massive flooding happened periodically in the Earth’s history.  The 2004 tsunami from the Sumatran earthquake killed about 225,000 people in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Somalia and Thailand.  Other countries that were effected but not to the same extent as these are:  Bangladesh, Kenya, Seychelles, So. Africa, Tanzania, Yemen, Australia, Madascar, Mauritius, Oman, Reunion and Singapore.  This was a major flooding event by anyone's standards.
Today we understand the science behind major flooding events; 5,000 years ago they did not.   I suggest you read “The Power of Myth” by Joseph Campbell; it will give you a pretty good idea of the primitive mindset people had then.

Most of the plants would of adapted to the envioment and don’t call it evolution because its clearly not evolution.

You realize that ant eaters, eat ants, and lions eat meat, etc… So Noah went around collecting live rats and stuff for the snakes to eat? And by the way, did he like go to china to collect the panda bears, and africa to collect lions, and what not? and all those insects, how’d he collect those? Like logistically speaking, this has to be a nightmare…

It was never posted. You have to be here a certain length of time before you can post a link.

You’re giving me scientific evidence. I dont believe there was a global flood with all the animals in there. I want to understand how people with average intelligence have convinced themselves there was a flood. Bornagain, and the size of a ship holds two of EVERY SINGLE SPECIES OF ANIMAL. Are you serious? What did Noah do, collect every single species of bacteria, insect, amphibian, bird (how’d he even catch the birds?), reptile, etc out there? So he travelled to the North Pole, and to Africa, Asia, Australia, the Americas, and Europe, and there were no planes back then so this would have taken a few life times, and there are several million species of living things to try to get on a tiny little boat!

“You’re giving me scientific evidence. I dont believe there was a global flood with all the animals in there. I want to understand how people with average intelligence have convinced themselves there was a flood.” rapid fossilation and the thing is that nearly every culture in the world has a flood story.

@TY How is a Noah’s flood belief any more incredible than the spontaneous generation theory that science has concocted? Science postulates that life began as a primordial soup and somehow…magically turned into life. Francesco Redi disproved spontaneous generation in the mid 1600’s, yet science still sings its accolades

And people thought the world was flat. A shared delusion doesnt make things real. Elone, are you equating evolution to magic?

I am saying that the postulate science has put foreward to explain how life ‘initially’ started here on Earth equates to a disproven concept called ‘spontaneous generation’. Both Redi and Pasteur scientifically proved that there is no spontaneous generation, that life comes from life. Science postulates that life came from non-life and without supporting evidence it equates to a belief in magic.

@ty…. U obviously dont beleive that there is a God. I dont understand how anybody can beleive this when there are so many evidences around us. U r a living testimony to God’s power. I want to challenge u to have an open mind for a little bit. Concider teh possibilities that Noah probably brought in some of the larger animals as babies. and also that some of the animals could have gone into hybernation and aestivation. I dont know how u still dont get that a vessel with such large dimensions couldnt fit these animals. Furthermore, Noah had more than enough time to get sufficient food to last himslef and teh animals. There are over 250 different cultures including the mayans & Aborigines with a similar account of teh Biblical flood. if u tell me that this is a coincidence, then ur bias has clearly closed ur mind to exploring a new way of thinking. The last 3,000 feet of Mount Everest are made of sedimentary rock and crushed shells. Fossilized clams and other fossilized sea life have been found at the top of Mount Everest. There are tonnes of evidences that support a worldwide flood.

There went Panda bears back then.

Oh. So these animals appeared from thin air then? Ok.

Actually i do believe in a God. Doesnt mean I have to be delusional and believe in santa claus, the tooth fairy, and every myth ever written. Also, uhm you dont understand millions of species do you? I think you’re the one not understanding the amount of species existing on this planet. Or that a person couldnt have travelled every continent to collect every species of animal in a lifetime. Of course santa claus does drop presents off at every household in a night, so I suppose if you believe in magic, you can believe everything is possible.

No, it equates to a theory. Not one i’m entirely convinced of. And the difference between that and creationism is that no matter what evidence there is to the contrary, creationists will never change their minds. Scientists do not hold onto hypotheses in the same way.

You know what, this isnt even worth arguing with you. Seriously, you have no clue what you’re talking about. Adaptation and survival off the fittest is the core concept of evolution. First go learn a little bit of science, then come back.

Have you thought about how animals mate with different species and so on and so forth which creates other species? When Noah went into the ark there could have been lets just say a hand full of animals. through the years until now they could have mated with others. Which creates more species. Atleast that’s always what I thought.

I don’t believe in evolution. I do believe in God. I don’t see how God could be compared to Santa or the tooth fairy. That’s very mocking. If that makes sense. i don’t really see anyone putting down your beliefs or question. But to say something like that is a bit offensive to us who believe in God and who believe that He created the Heavens and the Earth. He created man. He created his word, which tells us about the flood of the earth because there was sin.

good question on what happened to the plants. noah sent two birds out to find land. The dove brought back what an olive branch? So they had to be somewhere. To prove plants, i wish my link would have worked. it was a good link. very explanatory.

No the Panda was breed from bear and is a bear its simply called varration. All dogs you see today were all just breed from one , the Wolf(I think).

Your mixing up terms. Adaption is a loss of Dna in the Geneome, This is how REAl Natural selection works. It selects naturally from what it allready has in the geneome. Say a pack of wolfs migrate to a hot climate if they have Genetic info for thinner fur then 0.001% of the specis shall adapt. The others will migrate or die.

“Scientists do not hold onto hypotheses in the same way” Everyone is ristricted by a worldview.

How does it equate to a theory? A theory is a true statement that can be proven. At best it is a postulate with no way of being proven because it violates known Science. It is just accepted as fact by Atheists the same way some Creationists accept their views, without question.

Im willing to discuss evidence to the contrary and I will use Science to back my assertions and I expect you to provide the same courtesy

Why am I continuing to engage in this inane discussion. The giant panda is the species, A. melanoleuca, the polar bear is U. maritimus, those are different species. If you’re proposing that they evolved from a common ancestor, then you’re admitting to evolution (so you kinda gotta pick). On the other hand, all dogs belong to the species C. l. familiaris. Like seriously, do they do any science at your school? You seem to lack a basic understanding of science. Which makes any discussion with you incredibly frustrating and even more pointless…

Have I ever thought about how animals mate with different species which creates different species? No. I really havent. Because by definition a species can only breed with itself to create fertile offspring. (try the first sentence of wikipedia’s definition of a species, seriously, this is something we learned in the 5th grade). And interspecies breeding would create infertile offspring (not that interspecies breeding is all that common anyways, only humans seem to like to make up different species by insemination). Does going to church mean that people automatically lose the ability to pay attention in biology? Or do catholic/religious schools not teach basic biology? Which is it?

You know what, it is not my job to teach you basic biology. Seriously, your biology teacher needs to never go near a student again. Adaptation is a loss of DNA? Did you seriously say loss? Can you please find a credible source that provides that definition. As for REAL natural selection (I suppose there’s a fake natural selection out there?), lets try and get a little more clear here. Why would a pack of wolves migrate to a hot climate? Seems rather counterproductive. Lets say the earth gets hotter. Makes more sense. You’re right, only the ones who can adapt (by shedding, or the ones who have thinner fur) would survive to reproduce. That is indeed natural selection. One of the processes through which evolution occurs. So what’s your point?

That’s your definition of a theory. And why on earth should I defend a theory I dont fully believe explains the beginning of life? Because I dont have an alternate theory I must believe in mythology?

And logicalreasoning, that is true. Objective reality is something we all like to think we have, and really everything we know is colored by bias. Nonetheless. The religious have often fought science because it disproved what beliefs they clutched onto unthinkingly (Galileo comes to mind). When comparing the two, science has not been as determined to clutch onto things in the same way.

Ty, Ty, Ty……. Glad u beleive in God. The way I see it is, if God has the power to casue i flood to cover the earth. He also has the power to gather the animals. in one place. Furthermore, I know this is debateable but when i studied Gen 10 i beleive that the land was one mass before teh flood. Even scientist agree that the land mass was once joined. I think their calculations are just wrong about how long ago this happened. I dont think every single species of animals were collected eg. not every species of turtle. God created his animals so marvelously that they are able to adapt to their environment hence why there are different species of turtles.

Ty, Ty, Ty……. Glad u beleive in God. The way I see it is, if God has the power to casue i flood to cover the earth. He also has the power to gather the animals. in one place. Furthermore, I know this is debateable but when i studied Gen 10 i beleive that the land was one mass before teh flood. Even scientist agree that the land mass was once joined. I think their calculations are just wrong about how long ago this happened. I dont think every single species of animals were collected eg. not every species of turtle. God created his animals so marvelously that they are able to adapt to their environment hence why there are different species of turtles.

“If you’re proposing that they evolved from a common ancestor, then you’re admitting to evolution (so you kinda gotta pick).” Its simply called varration.Your insane again you know the Panda is at a “Evolution dead end” It really did not evolve id addapted addaption is not evolution. Addaption requires a loss of DNA.

“So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always completely accurate—errors (mutations) occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing offspring will be passed on through the generations. This ‘differential reproduction’ is called natural selection. In summary, evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection—the neo-Darwinian theory.”

“In contrast, creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11–12, 21, 24–25). Each of these kinds was created with a vast amount of information. There was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.

All (sexually reproducing) organisms contain their genetic information in paired form. Each offspring inherits half its genetic information from its mother, and half from its father. So there are two genes at a given position (locus, plural loci) coding for a particular characteristic. An organism can be heterozygous at a given locus, meaning it carries different forms (alleles) of this gene. For example, one allele can code for blue eyes, while the other one can code for brown eyes; or one can code for the A blood type and the other for the B type. Sometimes two alleles have a combined effect, while at other times only one allele (called dominant) has any effect on the organism, while the other does not (recessive). With humans, both the mother’s and father’s halves have 100,000 genes, the information equivalent to a thousand 500-page books (3 billion base pairs, as Teaching about Evolution correctly states on page 42). The ardent neo-Darwinist Francisco Ayala points out that humans today have an ‘average heterozygosity of 6.7 percent.’1 This means that for every thousand gene pairs coding for any trait, 67 of the pairs have different alleles, meaning 6,700 heterozygous loci overall. Thus, any single human could produce a vast number of different possible sperm or egg cells 26700 or 102017. The number of atoms in the whole known universe is ‘only’ 1080, extremely tiny by comparison. So there is no problem for creationists explaining that the original created kinds could each give rise to many different varieties. In fact, the original created kinds would have had much more heterozygosity than their modern, more specialized descendants. No wonder Ayala pointed out that most of the variation in populations arises from reshuffling of previously existing genes, not from mutations. Many varieties can arise simply by two previously hidden recessive alleles coming together” Quoted from 1.F.J. Ayala, The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American 239(3):48–61, September 1978, quoted on page 55. Return to text. 2.Other alleged imperfections are actually examples of excellent design which was falsely interpreted through ignorance, as an imperfection. A good example is the common claim that the eye is wired backwards, when this is an essential design feature. See An Eye for Creation: An Interview with Eye-Disease Researcher Dr George Marshall, University of Glasgow, Scotland, Creation 18(4):19–21, 1996; also P.W.V. Gurney, Our ‘Inverted’ Retina—Is It Really ‘Bad Design’? Journal of Creation 13(1):37–44, 1999. Return to text. 3.Creation 20(4):31, September–November 1998. Return to text. 4.For information on how creationists can explain the origin of the different human blood groups from a single pair of human ancestors, see J.D. Sarfati, Blood Types and Their Origin, Journal of Creation 11(2):31–32, 1997. Return to text. 5.The chance of survival = 2s/(1-e-2sN), where s = selection coefficient and N is the population size. This asymptotically converges down to 2s where sN is large. This means that for a mutation with a selective advantage of 0.1%, considered typical in nature, there is a 99.8% chance that it will be lost. So it is much harder for large populations to substitute beneficial mutations. But smaller populations have their own disadvantages, e.g. they are less likely to produce any good mutations, and are vulnerable to the deleterious effects of inbreeding and genetic drift. See L.M. Spetner, Not By Chance (Brooklyn, NY: The Judaica Press, 1996, 1997), chapters 3 and 4. Return to text. 6.C. Wieland, Superbugs Not Super after All, Creation Ex Nihilo, 20(1):10–13, June–August 1992. Return to text. 7.C. Wieland, Speciation Conference Brings Good News for Creationists, Journal of Creation 11(2):136–136, 1997. Return to text. 8.J.D. Sarfati, How Did all the Animals Fit on Noah’s Ark? Creation 19(2):16–19, March–May 1997; J. Woodmorappe, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study (Santee, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996). Return to text. 9.C. Wieland, Darwin’s Finches: Evidence Supporting Rapid Post-Flood Adaptation, Creation 14(3):22–23, June–August 1992; see also C. Wieland, Review of J. Weiner’s Book: The Beak of the Finch: Evolution in Real Time, Journal of Creation 9(1):21–24, 1995. The book is full of misleading and patronizing attacks on creationists, and is a major propaganda tool used by Teaching about Evolution. Return to text. 10.Creationists, starting from the Bible, point out that the Hebrew words for the animals taken on the ark do not include invertebrates, and believe that invertebrates probably do not have life in the nephesh sense. From these premises, it follows that they must have survived off the ark somehow. For some plausible solutions to this and other problems people have raised about the ark, see reference 8. Return to text. 11.J. Weiner, The Beak of the Finch: Evolution in Real Time (London: Random House), page 136. [See review.] Return to text. 12.As for questions like ‘How Did Koalas Get to Australia?’ there are several possibilities. Land vertebrates could have migrated widely when land bridges were exposed when the sea level was lower during the post-flood Ice Age. Another important factor is introduction by humans. That’s how the rabbit reached Australia, and some of Australia’s animals could have arrived with the Aborigines. See The Creation Answers Book by Don Batten (ed.), David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland (Creation Book Publishers, 2006),

Ok does that explain how your presumption postion effects how you define things.

Ohk, I want you to show me a credible source that says adaptation requires a loss of DNA. Just one. Surely if that is the definition, it cannot be that difficult to find.

^Sigh Facepalm you’ll never learn.

Galileo was also a creationist. Does that make your claim anymore right than it was, the answer is simply no.

Coming from someone who doesn’t read entire arguments, rather, picks out the pieces he can fight off, the answer is actually yes. Galileo was the one that shifted everyone to stop believing that th earth was geocentric, instead, heliocentric. Her claim was, if you read what she said, that there is a shared delusion by the populace; that doesn’t mean that it is true in anyway at all. The gap between modern science, and the time with which scripture was formed is naturally insanely immense for the bible to say they have any science in there at all, they don’t. Scripture doesn’t teach science, it never has and it never will.

“Coming from someone who doesn’t read entire arguments, rather, picks out the pieces he can fight off, the answer is actually yes. Galileo was the one that shifted everyone to stop believing that th earth was geocentric, instead, heliocentric. Her claim was, if you read what she said, that there is a shared delusion by the populace; that doesn’t mean that it is true in anyway at all. The gap between modern science, and the time with which scripture was formed is naturally insanely immense for the bible to say they have any science in there at all, they don’t. Scripture doesn’t teach science, it never has and it never will.” Her? WTFrik

“the answer is actually yes. Galileo was the one that shifted everyone to stop believing that th earth was geocentric, instead, heliocentric” Taking about picking off arguements.

“Galileo was the one that shifted everyone to stop believing that th earth was geocentric, instead, heliocentric” Yes why would you explain something everyone knows?

“Scripture doesn’t teach science, it never has and it never will.” The creation of all living things sounds like a science to me. Have you even read it? Or did you just cherry pick your favourite parts?

“Elone, are you equating evolution to magic?” Goo to you sounds alot like magic.lol.

In case you are somehow blind, she is a girl. Why should I explain something everyone knows, because you don’t know it, obviously. Oh and creation isn’t science, sucks but you won’t be able to change my mind. Do you even realize the immense gap between scripture and modern science? No. You don’t.

I don’t think you ever will, varration isn’t even a word, so cheers to you for making stuff up, and not only that, we’re not asking you to give us a different arrangement of symbols for the same meaning. What she is asking you is to prove that adaption requires loss of DNA, which you haven’t – surprise surprise.

“In case you are somehow blind, she is a girl” I don’t click on random people’s profiles all the time. How could I have known she was a girl other than clicking on her profile or scrolling over there face in this page.

“because you don’t know it, obviously” Umm, I think I know who Galileo is because I’am the one who pointed out that he was a creationist.

“Oh and creation isn’t science, sucks but you won’t be able to change my mind. Do you even realize the immense gap between scripture and modern science?” Evolution is not science either, you can call it pseudoscience but don’t call it science.

“Oh and creation isn’t science” I was saying the creation of all living things would be science not creation science itself(If the bible was true, which I do believe). No wonder you can’t take the Bible seriously, you can’t even understand the context of my paragrapy, let alone read a book.

Variation* I’m sorry for my spelling my mistake you ad hominem but I frankly don’t care because it does not take the meaning away.

“What she is asking you is to prove that adaption requires loss of DNA,” Ok say a wolf has been “created” that wolf might migrate to a colder climate. As you know Wolfs go in packs So imagine they are in a colder climate they recently moved from a warmer climate and are now freezing to death becasue they have fur for a warmer climate. The female Wolf’s give birth 99.9% of them would die. The remaining % of the wolf cubs(or whatever) will adapt from a loss of DNA and the DNA for the Warmer climate is eliminated. They will loss that DNA for ever now. When the wolf has only one option and all its other infomation is destroyed, I like to call this a specialized species when the species can not adapt anymore(Example= The Panda. Happy reading.