AIG: Plants Survived the Flood!

The recent postings at the website of the creation scientists at Answers in Genesis (AIG) have mostly been about things ol’ Hambo should have said during his weak performance debating with Bill Nye. We’ve been ignoring such material, but their latest is so funny it’s worth a few minutes of your time.

It’s titled How Did Plants Survive the Flood? The author is David Wright, but they don’t say who he is, and he’s not listed on their page of creation scientists. However, we found a 2007 article he wrote for AIG, where we’re told that he: “worked in the AiG Correspondence Department where he answered emails, letters, and phone calls on biblical authority, theology, and science. He is currently working on his aerospace engineering degree at a major secular university.”

We assume that if Wright had obtained such a degree, AIG would be eager to tell us about it. Anyway, his article is rather long, so we’ll just give some excerpts that we found particularly amusing. Here we go, with a bit of bold font added for emphasis:

Skeptics love to look for any sort of issue, contradiction, inconsistency, or disagreeable statement in Scripture that suits their agenda to undermine the Scriptures. But these so-called issues are often due to misunderstandings of what the Bible says, incorrect starting assumptions, or wishful thinking. Furthermore, Christian and non-Christian skeptics often do not accept plain, logical explanations.

He’s talking about you, dear reader. Are you squirming yet? If not, you soon will be. We’re told:

For instance, when God created vegetation, He created it perfect, so it would have been beautiful, vibrant with color, sturdy and strong, with the possibility of built-in survival mechanisms to withstand harsh conditions. These built-in survival mechanisms could have been present when they were created (or perhaps even introduced after the Fall, a topic beyond the scope of this article). But this simple explanation is usually not enough for skeptics, since they draw from false presuppositions.

That makes perfect sense! Plants could have been created from the very beginning with the ability to survive the Flood. Why are you so closed-minded? Let’s read on:

How could any plants or seeds survive in water for an entire year? What did the plant-eating animals eat after getting off the Ark? These questions are often asked both by skeptics of the Bible and Christians alike. Unfortunately, this sometimes causes believers to doubt God’s Word and accept man’s ideas. As we will see in this article, ways in which plants and seeds survived being water-logged are straightforward and numerous.

Be patient, dear reader. All your questions will be answered. Wright continues:

First, we know God’s Word is true and there was a global Flood. Knowing the Flood happened, and in light of the fact that we have plants today, the important question is: in what ways did the plants and seeds survive the Flood? The logical argument for the fact that plants survived the Flood is actually quite simple.

The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood.
We see plants today.
Therefore plants survived the Flood.

That was stunning! Absolutely stunning! Here’s more:

Someone’s poorly researched and unsubstantiated claims should not be cause for doubt, but this does not mean that when people ask these questions they should be dismissed immediately. The real issue is a matter of the heart, and so the proper answer needs to be given in a loving manner [scripture reference].

Wright knows that your “poorly researched and unsubstantiated claims” are worthless, but he’s going to give you The Truth in a loving manner. Moving along:

According to the Flood timeline, it is worth noting that the earth was not completely covered for the entire Flood year. The longest possible amount of time that seeds/plants would have been in or under water, without any contact with land, is 278 days (about nine months and one week).

Aha! It was only nine months that the plants were under water! Wright provides some scriptural authority for that, and he gives us a timeline in a table. We have no doubt that you’ll want to click over there so you can study that material in detail. Here’s another excerpt:

Another assumption skeptics make is that the species we have today are the same as at the time of the Flood. Though some species were probably around then, like the Wollemi Pine, it is safe to assume that most species around today are not exactly the same as what was around before the Flood 4,400 years ago. Why is this significant? One big reason is that plants today have undergone 4,400 years of speciation, mutations, and genetic deterioration. This must mean some of the genetic information has been lost. Although many would consider species today to be as delicate as species 4,400 years ago, the fact is that those same species could have been more genetically and physically robust, and thus better able to withstand extreme conditions than modern plants, including up to nine months immersed in or floating on open floodwaters!

That’s fantastic! Evolution is the answer! We’re skipping over a lot, until we come to a couple of strange references to Darwin. Wright believes Darwin supports his position. He says:

[E]ven though Darwin is often synonymous with molecules-to-man evolution, he was a very astute, observational scientist, even though he did not have a biology degree. Both he and George F. Howe (separately) performed experiments to determine whether seeds could survive being soaked in saltwater and how they could be transported over long distances by water. So even the studies of the father of seed-to-simian evolution have provided insight into how some plants and seeds could have survived during the Flood.


Darwin made an astute observation: “Again, I can show that the carcasses of birds, when floating on the sea, sometimes escape being immediately devoured: and many kinds of seeds in the crops of floating birds long retain their vitality. . . but some taken out of the crop of a pigeon, which had floated on artificial sea-water for 30 days, to my surprise nearly all germinated.”

Impressive, huh? Okay, here’s our last excerpt, from the end of the article:

There is no doubt that plants survived the Flood. The means by which they survived are numerous, but only a few examples are given here. So the skeptics’ claim that, “plants could not have survived the Flood,” is without warrant. Furthermore, by making this claim they inadvertently invalidate some of the studies of Darwin himself. However, the real question becomes: how can any skeptics’ claims (man’s ideas) survive the great flood of logic from God’s Word and common sense? They can’t!

How long, dear reader, will you keep your mind closed to what is so obvious? Repent now, before it’s too late!

Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

25 responses to “AIG: Plants Survived the Flood!

  1. The Bible states there was a worldwide Flood.
    We see plants today.
    Therefore plants survived the Flood.

    Well, David Wright did get one out of three right in his observations so he is batting .333. He should stick to playing third.

  2. Aaaargh!! I just realized that this AIG article is a repeat of something they had posted back in 2012, and I dealt with it back then. See AIG: How Plants Survived the Flood.

  3. Not to worry – it only helps to point out that they have nothing new to say.

  4. Thank goodness the Mets resigned him during that time frame so my bad joke still plays!

  5. Douglas E says: “they have nothing new to say.”

    New creation research — the same as old creation research.

  6. Let me get this straight…

    1) A critic points out a weakness in a biblical story, such as the impossibility of the world’s plant life surviving nine months or a year under salt water.

    2) The critic suggests that since this is impossible, the flood story cannot be entirely true.

    3) The Creationist responds that the bible is true, so plants did survive the flood.

    4) That’s it.

    Is there a nuance here that I’m missing?

    Also, I’m worried about my math. The number of days from 17 Feb of one year to 27 Feb of the next year is 10 days longer than the full year, or 375 days. Yet that span is shown on the charts in the article as 370 days. Is that biblical math?

  7. The plant sprouting from the seed was immediately eaten by one of the four dozen herbivores on the ark…

  8. Stephen Kennedy

    In all of their recent posting about the flood, AIG is totally silent on the status of the ark encounter. Up until about a month ago, every flood related story was accompanied by a paragraph about the ark that AIG is planning to build in Kentucky, but now nothing.

    In addition, it has been more than a week since AIG’s count of lifetime boarding passes available has changed. Construction, according to the bond offering documents is supposed to begin in March, which is only 8 days away, but AIG has said nothing about a ground breaking ceremony. AIG refuses to comment on the issue but to me it sure looks like the arc encounter project is dead, museum attendance is continuing to slide and the only thing AIG can do is to try to undo the damage that Hambo’s standing sustained in his debate with Bill Nye.

  9. The skeptic’s argument is a bit more subtle and nuanced than “plants could not have survived the global flood.” See if you can see the difference, Mr. Degree From A Secular University:

    There was no global flood.

  10. Plants could only “survive”, i.e. live through, the flood if they were alive in the first place. But the authors of Genesis did not believe that plants are alive. Our gracious Curmudgeon has already given ICR’s take on this (

  11. Curmudgeon, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I could not read the stuff you read and not headdesk myself into oblivion.

  12. Indeed Lurker111, I think we all owe the Crumudgeon a great deal of gratutude for reading and translating this (I leave to your imagination the word I would use to characterize it).

  13. As a follow-up to Stephen’s comment, has anyone heard any news about the fate of the Ark junk bond offering? One hopes that it’s dead, but Ham has a track record of extracting enough cash from the rubes to fund his “museum” projects.

  14. waldteufel asks: “has anyone heard any news about the fate of the Ark junk bond offering?”

    I’ve been looking. There hasn’t been anything in the news.

  15. Let us not forget the dove. When the waters receded Noah sent out a dove who returned with an olive branch. Branch, leaves and perhaps a few olives for Noah’s martini.

    So, where did a live, flourishing olive tree come from?

    Why am I arguing this???

  16. Stephen Kennedy

    It is not a big enough offering that it would be front page news in the financial news media. BusinessWeek probably only devoted a couple of stories to it because it is so bizzare, creationists selling junk bonds to fund a replica of noah’s ark in Kentucky.

    I think the most telling thing is AIG’s failure to announce impending ground breaking for this project and the fact that they have stopped talking about the ark encounter when they post something flood related.

    At the Williamstown website you can find a breakdown of the bonds that have been sold and those that remain unsold as of January,3. The approximately $30 million that had a minimum purchase of $5,000 are largely sold out but very few of the $50,000, $100,000 and $250,000 bonds have been sold reflecting the lack of interest in these bonds on the part of institutional investors. It looks like Hambo has wrung as much money as he can out of the rubes. His plea to institutional investors to reconsider was probably ignored.

    I would not be surprised if behind the scenes this issue has caused a lot more turmoil at AIG than Hambo’s less than stellar debate performance.

  17. Holding the Line in Florida

    Doc Bill, the vision of Noah waiting patiently for the dove to return with an olive for a “civilized” martini is simply too wonderful to simply disregard! I shan’t drink a good dirty martini (and they are rather frequent) again without thinking about this! Damn you!

  18. So god created plants perfect, with built in survival mechanisms, but forgot to build that into the people and animals? Silly god

  19. So, what is the “drop dead” date now, when Ham has to return all of the junk bond money he has collected back to the poor rubes who bought his junk bonds? Does he just get to keep that money indefinitely since he doesn’t have enough to start construction? One wonders why the local press is not really covering this story. In a just world, there would be a lot of egg on the faces of Williamstown officials who were pushing this effort to fleece Ham’s flock.

  20. David Wright: “First, we know God’s Word is true and there was a global Flood.”

    Ok — hold it right there, Wright. How do you know God’s word is true? And how do you know there was a global flood?

    You can believe God’s word is true and you can have faith that there was a flood, But you cannot know.

  21. “You can believe God’s word is true and you can have faith that there was a flood, But you cannot know.”

    There is no geological evidence of a world-wide flood a few thousand years ago. None. Nada. Faith has nothing to do with it. It didn’t happen. Period.

    All the creationists have is a text, author or authors unknown, written by ignorant men who lived in a pre-scientific time filled with superstition.

  22. Skeptics love to look for any sort of issue, contradiction, inconsistency …

    Actually, that’s a pretty good description of what scientists do to other scientists’ work.

  23. So let me get this straight. Creationism is now supported by… evolution? And the (co)discoverer of evolution also discovered evidence supporting it? That’s certainly a new one for me.

  24. Ok — hold it right there, Wright. How do you know God’s word is true? And how do you know there was a global flood?

    Awww, come on, RSG, didn’t you watch the Ham on Nye debate?

    Old Shambo told us how they know this stuff. He said, “You see, I’ve got this book…”

  25. waldteufel:
    According to the bond documents page 6:

    Unless the balance in the Project Fund on March 1, 2014 shall be at least $45,520,000, the then Outstanding Series 2013 Bonds shall be called for redemption on the earliest possible redemption date
    thereafter at par and without accrued interest.


    (…) In the case of an extraordinary mandatory redemption of Series 2013 Bonds as described above under “DESCRIPTION OF THE
    BONDS – Extraordinary Mandatory Redemption for Project Fund Insufficiency,” notice of redemption by the Trustee shall be mailed by first class mail on March 1, 2014(…)