Re: evolution-digest V1 #930

Gary Collins (
Mon, 1 Jun 1998 09:57:40 +0100 (BST)


Thanks for your answers, they were much appreciated. I have made a few
comments on them.

> At 08:19 AM 5/28/98 +0100, Gary Collins wrote:
> >Glenn,
> >
> >If I might interject a thought or two here?
> >I think Ron has come up with a very good question; one, I might add,
> >that I struggle with.
> >
> >If the flood were only local, then God could have re-populated the land from
> >those animals that survived it, i.e. that were in a different land, or eretz,
> >at the time of the flood.
> The usual answer to this is that they took animals which were important to
> man. They didn't take all animals even on the flooded land for precisely
> the reason that you suggest. One other possibility is that not every land
> holds every kind of animal. So there very well may have been animals which
> didn't exist elsewhere and required saving or re-evolving.

Good point - especially if your theory is correct. The Mediterranean Basin
is rather a large area!

> >
> >I believe that some have suggested, and I would concede, that it could
> >be that Noah was basically preserving domesticated livestock, but Genesis
> >does say every kind of living creature on the land, and also every bird.
> >Surely the birds could have survived by flying away to somewhere the flood
> >was not occurring?
> If the flood were in Mesopotamia (as is popularly contended) I would
> absolutely agree with you. That area is so small that birds could fly and
> animals could walk to the high ground. But not if the region were large
> enough as in the case with the Mediterranean. I calculated once that the
> rising water which is forcing the air out of the empty basin, would most
> likely cause severe rainfall all around the edges of the mediterranean for
> a couple of hundred miles. In other words, the flood wouldn't be localized
> just to the basin itself but would have extended partway through the
> Sahara. The birds would have to fly a long, long way.

I have read previous posts which concern your theory. I must say, I find it
extremely interesting. I have, of course, noted the objections with regard
to the timing of it, but I don't believe that per se they are fatal to the

One thing that has occurred to me as I have been thinking about it is this:
If there were really about 5 million years (I hope I remember this figure
correctly) between the Flood and Abraham, I find it rather strange that,
though the Flood account is itself recalled in great detail, presumably
passed down orally from one generation to another, yet in all that time, the
only other event which made it into the Bible is the Tower of Babel story,
and that, in comparison, only 'in passing.' Have you had any thoughts
yourself along these lines?

> Secondly, some birds don't fly.
> >
> >If you have good answers for this argument, I would love to hear them,
> >because, as I stated, I do struggle with this question.
> >
> Don't know if they are good, but they are my answers.

If your theory turns out to be correct, then I think they are very good answers,
and as I say, I appreciate them.