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.
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 you have good answers for this argument, I would love to hear them,
because, as I stated, I do struggle with this question.
/Gary
> At 04:46 PM 5/26/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
> >>>>Let the LAND produce animals after their kind." Entirely different
> >meaning. REad the sentence!<<<
> >
> >This makes me wonder why God had the animals enter the ark, both male and
> >female. HE could have let the 'land' take care of the animal population
> >problem.
>
> Because evolution takes a long time and it is more efficient to save the
> animals the LAND had already brought forth! What is so difficult about that?
> glenn
>
> Adam, Apes and Anthropology
> Foundation, Fall and Flood
> & lots of creation/evolution information
> http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm
>