AIG: The Flood Was a Great Success

Are you one of those hell-bound evolutionists who dismisses the biblical account of the Flood because it was not only horrendously brutal, but also because it failed to accomplish its purpose of purging sinful behavior from the world? If so, we have an educational treat for you today.

The article we found is What Happened to the Animals After Noah’s Ark? It appears at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG) — the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the Australian entrepreneur who has become the ayatollah of Appalachia.

Don’t be misled by the article’s title. It’s not about how the animals left the Ark and swiftly scattered all over the Earth without leaving evidence — living or fossilized — of their journeys. Perhaps at some later time they’ll explain how the kangaroos got to Australia and the three-toed sloths traveled to South America. Today’s article touches on a number of subjects, like the “kinds” of animals that were on the Ark, and the fact that there were extinctions afterwards, but those are side issues. The main focus is the purpose of the Flood.

It was written by Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, a recent addition to ol’ Hambo’s roster of distinguished creation scientists. Here’s Jeanson’s write-up at AIG. They say he has “a PhD in Cell and Developmental Biology from Harvard University,” and was “formerly with the Institute for Creation Research.” Harvard must be proud of him. His write-up in the Encyclopedia of American Loons says he has “a Medical PhD from Harvard.”

After a discussion of animal “kinds,” including what’s found in the fossil record, and assuming that they all existed in Noah’s time, Jeanson says, with bold font added by us:

Among mammal families, we found that the families alive today represent only approximately 30% of the mammal families that ever existed. Which means that around 70% of mammal families are now extinct. In other words, 70% of the kinds of mammals that Noah brought on board the Ark died. This is not extinction by virtue of burial in the Flood. Rather, it’s extinction after the Flood.

Gasp! What happened to them? And why did it happen? Let’s read on:

This fact may seem counterintuitive. If the purpose of the Ark was survival, why let over two-thirds of the kinds die off after the voyage was complete? To a skeptic, this fact might intimate failure on the part of God. However, following this logic through to its conclusion, the skeptic would then also need to conclude that not only the Ark but also the Flood was a failure as well. After all, salvation via the Ark wasn’t the only purpose God achieved in the Flood narrative; He was equally determined to judge sinful humanity who refused to repent and exercise faith.

Yes, it would seem that the whole thing was a colossal failure. Not only that, but get this:

Yet in just a few generations following the Deluge, the descendants of faithful, righteous Noah descended into gross wickedness again. Mankind rebelled in trying to build a tower to the heavens (Genesis 11:1–9). In response, God judged mankind again, not by sending a global Flood (since He promised to never do so again) but by confusing the languages of mankind. Since mankind fell so quickly into sin again, did God fail to judge sin adequately in the Flood? Was His initial judgment inadequate or poorly designed?

Egad — it looks like one divine failure after another. But Jeanson has the answer:

The Tower of Babel incident was not a compensation for — or correction of — prior failures. Rather, in the Flood, all of rebellious mankind died. In other words, the Flood was a very successful event.

Uh … yes, the Flood was “successful” in killing almost everyone, but the survivors still botched things up. So what was it all about? Jeanson continues:

What purpose then did the post-Flood return to depravity serve? If nothing else, the speed with which mankind turned his back on his Creator revealed in bold colors the fundamental depravity of the human heart — and hence his need for a Savior.

Ah — good point! Here’s more:

Furthermore, it appears that God intended to give humanity an unforgettable reminder of this fact in the long history that followed Babel. God didn’t send the Savior immediately following the Tower of Babel incident. Instead, He waited approximately 2,000 years before sending His Son. In other words, God has given mankind two ways in which to discover his sinfulness. First, by telling man explicitly in the Scriptures of his fallen state (e.g., Romans 3:23), mankind learns of his precarious eternal condition and pending doom. Second, by letting humanity flounder for thousands of years, God showed mankind just how wicked his heart really was.

Good plan! It makes perfect sense. One last excerpt:

Hence, the timing of post-Flood events in the human realm fulfilled a gospel purpose — revealing man’s profound inability to save himself and his desperate need of a Savior, which foreshadowed Christ’s condescension and salvific atonement — hardly a failure on God’s part. In fact, the skeptic should be thankful for this reminder of mercy in the Cross rather than be upset that somehow God had failed to achieve His purposes.

There’s more, about how the post-Flood animal extinctions were also according to plan. Go ahead and read it all. Then, be grateful to ol’ Hambo for gathering such a great collection of creation scientists together. You can’t find this material anywhere else.

Copyright © 2016. 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

21 responses to “AIG: The Flood Was a Great Success

  1. michaelfugate

    The “savior” appears to have failed too. What will God try next?

  2. According to this logic, humans also ate all of the non-flying dinosaurs, all of the archosaurs, all of other earlier groups of animals of all sorts. They tracked down that tiktaalik and ate him (wonder what that tasted like?)

    I wonder how they eliminated the vast numbers of now-extinct marine species?

    This guy has a PhD from Harvard?

  3. docbill1351

    But then God gave us the chicken and now we know what everything tasted like.

  4. Jill Smith

    Three-toed, dear Curmudgeon, not three-towed. Unless you are referring to how they got there.

  5. How does he know? Was he there?
    He seems not to follow the principle that there is no science about the remote past.
    He wants to rely on his own fallible human reasoning, rather than on Sola Scriptura.

  6. I had a very bad moment when it briefly appeared that Answers in Genesis were sponsoring Manchester United FC: Manchester United confident AIG sponsorship deal will survive Wall Street uncertainty

  7. Thank you, Jill Smith. Three-toed it is.

  8. Eric Lipps

    Except it isn’t, in the version of this article I’m looking at.

  9. Eric Lipps

    Yet in just a few generations following the Deluge, the descendants of faithful, righteous Noah descended into gross wickedness again. Mankind rebelled in trying to build a tower to the heavens (Genesis 11:1–9). In response, God judged mankind again, not by sending a global Flood (since He promised to never do so again) but by confusing the languages of mankind.

    According to archaeologists, the “real” Tower of Babel, if it existed, was probably about six stories tall. Why, then, did God not “confuse the languages of mankind” again when skyscrapers began to be built? After all, unlike the flood, God never promised not to do that again.

  10. “Perhaps at some later time they’ll explain how …. the three-toed sloths traveled to South America.”
    Cracked provided the answer.

    http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_2138_everyday-things-that-will-horrify-you-when-sped-up/

    Nr. 1.

    “First, by telling man explicitly in the Scriptures of his fallen state (e.g., Romans 3:23),”
    I’m so confused. That was written 2000 years after as well. Plus after the savior died (only another JC can properly be called Savior – he died a few weeks ago, but not at a cross; ask FC Barcelona). That first way still doesn’t look very effective to me.
    Oooohh! Aha Erlebnis!

    “by letting humanity flounder for thousands of years”
    Yes, of course. Like the Japanese parents who left their [edited out] boy in the woods for a couple of minutes – which became many hours.
    Excellent pedagogue, that god of Jeanson. Except that it doesn’t work. Pedagogy says so (but hey, that’s wicked Darwinian science) but worse, it looks like Jeanson’s god has been letting humanity flounder for a few centuries again. What would he have in store now? Global warming? First drown everyone but one family, then boil them in the atmosphere? Oops – the question of a thankless skeptic, no doubt. Never ask for purpose at beforehand, only afterwards.
    I have a lot to learn. Lots.

    Mega, please don’t tell Ol’ Hambo about FC Twente. You might give him an idea that would place me in an awful dilemma.

  11. Why hasn’t Hambo endorsed the II Percenters???? If he could get them on his side he’d have his own little private militia……..think of the possibilities.
    He could track down actual scientists , stroll around universities armed to the teeth to intimidate those eviilushunists…PLUS, he could have his very owwn big jacked up truck….

  12. III Percenters aren’t good at math , so didn’t want to confuse any of them with too many digits.

  13. So right after He creates man He declares it “good,” then a short while later He feels He has made a mistake and kills almost everyone off because they are “bad,” including many innocent animals, but after does that He repents and promises to never to do it again. Wow, the dude may be all-powerful and all-knowing but he also seems to be all-confused.

  14. Charles Deetz ;)

    So the basic point of his essay is that despite all god’s efforts, humans continue to be depraved sinful people. But it wasn’t bad design, it was just a chance for god to prove again how powerful he is. Honestly, god, you get one mulligan, after that it’s cheating.

  15. It’s interesting that he states
    ” …In other words, 70% of the kinds of mammals that Noah brought on board the Ark died.”
    Ham et al like to say that the ark was plenty big enough because only 2 of each kind (what ever the f… a kind is) was taken on the ark. I’ve always thought they were discussing extant kinds. If Noah had to take 2 of every kind, including extinct kinds, how many kinds are there or is that factored in?

    Reading that it seems stupid to even raise the question. The validity of the ark story would need to become orders of magnitude more sensible for it even to be able to get raised to the ludicrous stage. Still, I find it somewhat intriguing to ask…

  16. Eddie Janssen

    It looks as if Jeanson is (has?) a severe case of Stockholm syndrome.

  17. Hence, the timing of post-Flood events in the human realm fulfilled a gospel purpose — revealing man’s profound inability to save himself and his desperate need of a Savior, which foreshadowed Christ’s condescension and salvific atonement — hardly a failure on God’s part.

    foreshadowed Christ’s condescension????? since when did Christ have an attitude of patronizing superiority or disdain?????????

    Must get a new copy of the Bible…. mine’s obviously defective!

  18. Dave Luckett

    “Condescension” has changed its meaning in common use over the last couple of hundred years. It used to mean primarily, “the act of descending from ones rightful rank or status to deal with meaningfully with an inferior”, and so was considered a good thing. Specifically, in Christian doctrine, the condescension of God was his taking on flesh and dwelling among us. That is still current usage within that narrow context.

    That meaning, of course, reflects the values of a society that was avowedly NOT egalitarian. As egalitarian values took hold, the principal one being that everyone should be treated according to their merits and needs, not their status or rank, so “condescension” came to imply arrogance and assumption of privilege, which meaning now predominates.

  19. How many mammals have really gone extinct because of human hunting or environmental damage? Not many I suspect (there was a river dolphin quite recently).

  20. “Thus excessive—if not sinfully motivated—post-Flood hunting may have played a part in the extinction of 70% of mammal kinds.” 1.
    1. “Other processes surely played a part as well. For example, creationists postulate an Ice Age in the few centuries following the Flood; this dramatic change in climate may have also influenced the survival and extinction of various kinds.”

    Oops I forgot about that ice age. It’s lucky the YECs invented that ice age less than 5,000 years ago. It’s come in very useful in making their c**p look marginally plausible.

  21. Steller’s sea cow