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.