Talulah

I am submitting this for all who want to to take a stab at the logic, and/or scientific facts of this article.

Peter Kirby

Since the whole flood thing is supposed to be one big miracle, what difference does it make whether or not the survival of an olive tree would require an additional miracle? Even if true, the fact that a tree can survive submerged does not mean that the flood story happened as described, if only for the reason that an ancient could have made the same observation that the writer did. And if false (which is my suspicion, if only for the reasons that there would be salt water and that the tree may not have received enough light if deep underwater), the fact that the tree could not survive naturally underwater would just make it another 'miracle' in a long list of miracles that would have to be wrought for the global flood to have happened as described, not the least of which is the biological impossibility of getting the genetic variation in today's population from a pair (or just a few pairs) of each species of animal a few thousand years ago.

best,
Peter Kirby

B. H. Manners

All Wayne Jackson proves is that he knows a olive tree can live underwater.

Orestes

The real question is, would an olive tree still leaf in salt water, as opposed to fresh water? And under what amount of water is an olive tree still capable of surviving?

If this flood really did submerge all of the earth, then it's reasonable to conclude that this also includes the tallest point on earth, Mt. Everest. Mt. Everest is roughly 29,000 ft tall, so what is the difference between that and the tallest possible point in the area that Noah lived? Now, is it feasable for a tree to survive under that much water, or would the pressure kill it?

That article by Mr. Jackson is incredibly simple minded and doesnt take into account any of what is stated above. He makes the assumption that a young tree, surviving submerged under a mere few feet of fresh water (if that, he doesnt say how far under the tree was), would still survive submerged under hundreds (or even thousands) of feet of salt water.

SmashingIdols

Yes,

And boats can float, birds can fly in atmosphere, rain falls downward, and leaves are green.

It is not the plausible parts of the stories that make them scarcely believable; but rather the parts that not plausible. I find it laughable that those seeking to establish these stories as factual begin so by pointing out the parts of the story that are plausible.

The pointing out of these minor non-central but nevertheless real observations seems to imply the story is itself plausible – we are led to believe that the story will be presented as such; giving credibility to the work itself by showing how the events are entirely possible.

But soon enough, after minor questioning, we are stretching the believablity (and our patience) to its very limits.

Then – Viola! Deus ex machina becomes the norm for explaining every impossible event. Doesn’t make sense? Don’t worry - God has done a miracle! See how all things are possible if an omnipotent being defies all the laws of physics (not to mention common sense)?

And in the absence of this Divine Intervention, the story becomes as implausible as Zeus hurling thunderbolts from mount Olympus toward his brother Hades living under the ocean, while Apollo drives his chariot across the sky.

It is not the plausibility of thunderbolts, oceans, or sky that present the problem. It is the story that incorporates these factual things into gobblety-gook.

[ May 04, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

diana

Several years ago, this writer personally observed a young olive tree, fully leafed and completely immersed, thriving in a northern California mountain stream.

Perhaps I'm not a terribly thorough reader, but upon first reading, I thought he was presenting scientific support for this idea.

Not that it proves an olive tree can or cannot live underwater (I look askance at "thrive"), one way or another, but is a quote from one's own observation considered valid support? Is WJ a horticulturist? Does he even know an olive tree when he sees one?

But let's say for a moment that it was an olive tree and it was apparently alive underwater. If in a "mountain stream," it would be close enough to the surface to get light (or was WJ scuba diving into the very bowels of the earth via this mountain stream?). The water would be very fresh (as pointed out above)--not brackish or salty, as the water at ground level would have been perforce, were the flood true.

But as peterkirby said, what difference does it make whether it was possible or not? Why does WJ feel the need to "prove" this tiny thing? If the flood was a miracle, and cramming all those animals into the ark was a miracle, why not just say "With God all things are possible" here? Why feel the need to prove this stupid little thing is physically possible (which he didn't, anyway) without God?

Do they have a name for such dishonest support for one's position--where the person takes a few insignificant points and goes to great lengths to prove they're true while ignoring the plethora of impossibilities and valid arguments against? Straw man? Christians have a knack for doing this to incredible degrees.

d

Jayhawker Soule

Let's see ...

29,000 ft = approximate hieght of Mt. Everest
16,900 ft = approximate height of Mt. Ararat

How fortunate to find a leaf growing on a tree at an altitude of 16,900 feet after being submerged by over 2 miles of salt water. It's gotta be a miracle - particularly when you consider how little time Noah had to train the dove.

Grumpy

The YEC POV adds to the implausibility when they say that the geological strata observed today were laid down during the Flood. That would mean that the flood waters scoured the entire surface of the Earth, then re-deposited everything as sedimentary layers as the water receded (to where, again?). Leaving aside the fact that not all surface landforms are sedimentary, of course.

Anyway, all surface vegetation would be ripped up as part of this scouring action. I suppose it's possible that seeds of some trees might be re-deposited near the surface so that they could germinate after the Flood. But that would leave too little time for an entire tree to grow.

Or else it was a local flood. Or it was just a story. Or the olive tree was actually growing in Asgard.

Tristan Scott

The whole bird sequence as well as other parts of the Noah story were ripped off from the Gilgamesh, written 2000 years before Genesis. In the flood sequence from that myth a guy named Utamipishtim has been instructed by his god Ea to build a boat to save himself and his neighbors because of an impending flood. This excerpt takes place at a point where the waters are receding though there is no land yet in sight:

So on the seventh day I let loose a single dove,
Which flew around but could not land so returned to me.
So on the seventh day I let loose a single swallow,
Which flew around but could not land so returned to me.
So on the seventh day I let loose a single raven,
Which flew around and found a place to land so it returned not to me.

Asha'man

First, this “observation” of a tree living underwater is very suspect, I don’t believe it for a second. The tree may be able to retain its leaves, and keep them green, for a short while after being submerged, but the olive tree simply cannot be planted at the bottom of a pond and survive.

Second, if the tree could live underwater, and a bird brought back a leaf, what would that prove about the presence of dry land? Nothing! After all, what would it prove if the bird brought back some seaweed?