New Page 0

Evolutionary theories on gender and sexual reproduction

“One concept that is rarely mentioned in the evolutionary storytelling is the origin of sexual reproduction (sex).:o The idea of survival of the fittest seems to fail to explain the origin of sex, even if it may be able to explain why it would be maintained once it had developed. Asexual reproduction is a very effective method of reproduction compared to sex. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the origin of sex.

The Lottery Principle suggests that asexual reproduction is like buying many lottery tickets with the same number. Sex allows a mixing of genes; so it is like buying many tickets with many different number combinations.

The Tangled Bank Hypothesis suggests that sex originated to simply prepare the offspring for the variety of challenges they would face in the environment. The intense competition makes sex an advantage

The Red Queen Hypothesis suggests that sex gives the offspring an advantage in the constant competition to simply maintain its position in the “genetic arms race.” Organisms must be constantly undergoing genetic changes just to be able to continue to survive in their environment— they must constantly run just to stay in place. Sex would certainly be an advantage in such a scenario.

The DNA Repair Hypothesis suggests that an advantage is obtained if an organism has two copies of any given gene. The bad copy is less likely to cause problems if there is a chance that the other copy is good. The more genes you have, the less likely you are to suffer from genetic diseases. This would prevent bad genes from affecting a population rapidly and provide a mechanism for the preservation of favorable traits.

Each of these hypotheses, or some combination of them, provides a reasonable explanation for the benefit of sex once it is present, but none address its actual origin. Just because something has a benefit does not mean that it must happen. Neither do these hypotheses address the physical development of male and female sex organs and behaviors. The language used by evolutionists when discussing the particulars of the origin of sex is riddled with phrases like “perhaps some could,” “may have been,” “by chance,” and “over time.” All of these are devoid of any evidence. The highly complex nature of sexual reproduction and life on earth clearly points to God as the Intelligent Creator.” Evolution Exposed, Second Ed., Evolutionary theories on gender and sexual reproduction, Harrub and Thomson. www.trueorigin.org/sex01.asp

Response to comment [from a Christian]: "sexual reproduction"

Do scientists just accept that sexual reproduction must have evolved because it exists, even though they can't explain how it happened?

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "Your question shows how profoundly confused you are on the nature of scientific theories..."

Sexual reproduction has advantages, but how did the first two sexually reproducing organism obtain all of the abilities needed at the same time? Males and females would have had to evolve simultaneously while still reproducing to continue the survival of the species.

"Nope. This might help [url: talkorigins]."

How, exactly, did sexual reproduction originate?

Since multicellular animals evolved at multiple times, wouldn't sexual reproduction have to evolve independently several times? How likely is it that the same process (meiosis) would develop multiple times in the same way?

"Over 3.5 billion years, very likely."

Since there is no evidence of life before 3.5 billion years ago, how can we be sure it was there? Is this an example of faith?

"...[L]life began about 3.5B years ago, so it's had a very long time to evolve sexual reproduction several times over."

How did sexual reproduction originate?

"I can't think for you."

How did the first two sexually reproducing organisms obtain all of the abilities need at the same time?

"The theory doesn't require that they do."

Convenient.

Moving on...

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "It's the only way it could have evolved."

This is a religious view.

Did ye not read, that He who made them, from the beginning a male and a female made them (Mt 19:4).

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "...[T]hat includes single celled organisms...Typical SD...retorts with Biblical texts..."

Beware lest anyone ⁵cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to ⁱthe tradition of men, according to the ^jbasic principles of the world, and not according to Christ

⁵Lit. plunder you or take you captive.

ⁱGal. 1:14

^jGal. 4:3, 9, 10; Col. 2:20

The New King James Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1982, S. Col 2:8

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "Serpent carefully removed the context which showed Jesus speaking about men and women, not living things generally."

How do you spiritualize "things"?

God is the creator of all things (by God: Ge 1:1; 2:4,5; Pr 26:10 by Christ. Joh 1:3,10; Col 1:16 by the Holy Spirit. Job 26:13; Ps 104:30).

He formed the heavens and the earth and its inhabitants (Gen. 1:24-25; 2:19; Jer. 27:5) which had no previous existence (Ro 4:17; Heb 11:3).

Creation took place in six normal days (Ex 20:11; 31:17).

God created man in his own image (Ge 1:26,27; 1Co 11:7) and likeness (Ge 1:26; Jas 3:9) from the beginning (Ge 1:1; Mt 24:21, Mk 10:6).

God created them male and female (Ge 1:26-27; 5:2, Mt 19:4).

By faith we understand this (Heb 11:3) which leads to confidence (Ps 124:8; 146:5,6).

"It's the kind of ethical standard we've come to expect of serpent."

Poisoning the well.

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "Where in this passage is the age of the earth or the origin of living things?"

God created the world in six normal days (Ex 20:11; 31:17). If you study genealogies in the Bible, you come up with 6000 years: "One of the things that we have passed down to us was what was known as "Ussher's Dates," there was a man named Ussher, and he did some calculations based upon the genealogies of Genesis, and many of those genealogies early in Genesis tell us how old people were. He figured that all out and estimated therefore, that everything sort of began in 4,000 BC and it's 6,000 years old. The problem with that is: the genealogies are not necessarily comprehensive genealogies. In other words, it may say, "So and so was the son of so and so" and skip three generations, in other words, he is really a great-grandson. So we can't isolate the chronological history of the world down to the specifics of the genealogies, because there are definitely points at where the genealogies skip. But even with genealogical consideration we wouldn't be anywhere near beyond 10,000 years. Because, as I said, Ussher's date came down to 4,000 just using the genealogies, and if you expand them a little bit, it won't be much beyond that (John MacArthur)."

"It's plain to me that you lie about God's creation and the evidence left behind. Why do you hate creation?"

Same empirical data. Different interpretations.

See:

War of Worldviews

What is a Biblical Worldview?

Worldview Comparison

Naturalism

Materialism

Humanism

Multiculturalism

Modernity & Postmodernism: An excerpt from The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception by John MacArthur

I love God's creation (Ps 19:1). It shows his wisdom (Ps 104:24; 136:5) and goodness (Ps 33:5). It reveals to us that He alone is to be worshipped (Isa 45:16,18; Ac 17:24,27) which is probably why he created the sun on the 4th day (Ge 1:14-19), fyi. Creation glorifies God (Ps 145:10; 148:5). He should be praised for it (Ne 9:6; Ps 146:5,6).

Do you think you glorify God when you teach others the story of evolution--that man came from a monkey?

"[W]hy on earth assume your interpretation of [scripture] is right?"

Don't. Be a Berean (Ac 17:10-11) and find out for yourself. If you'd like to be right you'll agree with me.

[Paraphrased notes: How to Interpret the Bible by Darrell Ferguson] "Every verse of the Bible means exactly what the author intended it to mean. We take literally the stuff that was intended to be taken literally and we take figuratively the stuff that was intended to be taken figuratively. We take the Bible literally unless it gives us reason not to, for example, if it would not make sense. Give God the courtesy that you would give anyone in communication.

A chair, for example, can be an object that you sit on or it may be used as a verb--to chair a group. The meaning comes from the person speaking. A dictionary can give us a semantic range of ideas. It is easy to know what something means by its context.

The wicked of course pervert the word of God. A verse does not mean what you want it to mean, it means what it means. If I tell you to "Put something in the trunk." You know that I do not mean "Put something in the trunk (of an elephant)."

We gain the meaning of biblical passages by understanding what the word meant at that time. "Quantum" in the past referred to an amount--a quantum leap, for example. Today, it means more--the smallest quantity of radiant energy, for example.

When people use the "That's just your interpretation." excuse. The real question is "Which hermeneutic is correct? Judge--which teachers are credible and discern..." full text: How to Interpret the Bible by Darrell Ferguson. http://vananne.com/applesofgold/Hermeneutics%20How%20to%20Interpret%20the%20Bible.htm

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: "I noticed your sig not long ago. In it you claim I insist that I came from a monkey. Apparently, your religion teaches dishonesty as a useful tactic."

I do not wish to misrepresent you. If I am in error, I'm happy to change it. :idunno: You do not believe that we come from some type of hominid?

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "[A] monkey isn't a hominid."

I posted "typo"--keep up. Classification is a subjective issue. ["[H]ominins: ‘Body size in primates correlates with numerous ecological and life history variables, including population density, home range size, social organization, and age at first breeding, whereas body shape is closely linked to temperature regulation, water balance, and habitat … The data show a clear separation between H. sapiens (excluding secondarily dwarfed populations), H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, H heidelbergensis, and H. ergaster, on one hand, and A. africanus, P. boisei, P. robustus, Praeanthropus africanus and H. habilis, on the other … Praeanthropus africanus was, in overall size and limb proportions, more similar to living great apes than to modern humans.’" http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/human_fossils.asp

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini..."

Fair enough--let me just say "monkey". Did humans descend from a special monkey that descended from the trees to become smarter than other monkeys?

"[H]ominins: ‘Body size in primates correlates with numerous ecological and life history variables, including population density, home range size, social organization, and age at first breeding, whereas body shape is closely linked to temperature regulation, water balance, and habitat … The data show a clear separation between H. sapiens (excluding secondarily dwarfed populations), H. neanderthalensis, H. erectus, H heidelbergensis, and H. ergaster, on one hand, and A. africanus, P. boisei, P. robustus, Praeanthropus africanus and H. habilis, on the other … Praeanthropus africanus was, in overall size and limb proportions, more similar to living great apes than to modern humans [emphasis mine].’" http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/human_fossils.asp

"You have no idea what evolutionary theory actually states. Humans are apes, many apes are arboreal (climb trees) and some still are. Apes (both extant and extinct) Gorillas, orangutans, gibbons, humans etc. descended from the same line that gave rise to modern old and new world monkeys. The line that led to humans were a specific sub-group of apes. There were many species of upright walking apes long before any with an increased brain size appeared."

Do all evolutionists agree with this classification? Do orangutans, gorillas, and chimps belong in the family of Pongidae or Haominidae?

"Pongidae was rejected as a family some time ago..."

You said: " "Scientific theories are virtually never overturned..." Is this a change in the view? Do all evolutionists agree on how the phylogenetic tree should look? If the common ancestor for chimpanzees and humans did not look like a monkey, what did it look like?

"I said [theory]..."

Is evolution a theory or a fact?

"...[P]hylogenetic trees are not [t]heories..."

Are phylogenetic trees facts?

"...[T]hey do get modified as new data comes along..."

"Facts" change. Classification is subjective.

"The common ancestor probably looked a lot like a chimpanzee. Ardi..."

"...[D]espite claims of its evolutionary significance, one of the scientists who studied Ardi noted, “It’s not a chimp. It’s not a human.” That is, instead of looking like the hypothesized “missing link” (with both chimpanzee and human features), Ardi’s anatomy—as reconstructed by the scientists—shows it to have been distinct from other apes as well as from humans..." Full text: Can a fossil have evolutionary significance while deep-sixing the idea of a “missing link”? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/10/02/meet-ardi

If man came from a chimpanzee-like animal then are "primal" urges like violence and sexuality excused because they are part of our evolutionary history?

[Is evolution a theory or a fact?] "It is both. That evolution (change of organisms over time) has occurred is a fact..."

What evidence would you accept to accept young earth creation?

[If man came from a chimpanzee-like animal then are "primal" urges like violence and sexuality excused because they are part of our evolutionary history?] "Is peeing your pants and screaming all night "excused" because they're part of your [recent] history?"

That's an odd response.

Response to comment [from a Catholic]: [Evidence naturalistic scientists would accept that would cast doubt on evolution itself.] "You'd have to come up with convincing explanations for all the evidence showing that it's very old.

It seems that whenever evidence challenges current evolutionary theory, the theory just changes to accept the new data, but the presuppositions don't change.

Response to comment from an atheist]: [Presuppositions remain regardless of the evidence] "That's how science works."

That is how religion works. It takes more faith to believe in evolution that it does to believe the Bible.

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "...[H]umans are asked to rise beyond any history or sin nature they are born with..."

How are you doing with that?

"[I]nterestingly that appears to be one property that separates humans from our ancestors, the ability to control our impulses."

Do you believe we have primal "urges" or "impulses"?

Our ancestors were humans.

"God didn't make man a monkey. Man made a monkey of himself." -J. Vernon McGee

[God's law and sin "How are you doing with that?" :smokie:] "We all stumble..."

Will God accept you if you "stumble"? (Ro 3:12, Jas 2:10). You do not have a historical biblical view. How will escape God's judgment? If you do not believe Noah's flood, why would you believe that a judgment by fire is coming? 2 Pe 3:10.

"I follow Christ."

Following Christ is believing him (Ps 138:2). You do not believe his word (1 Jn 5:10, 1 Thes 2:13). "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?" Jn 3:12.

When do you start believing the Bible?

"Are you perfect SD?"

No. I am seen as righteous before God--not for anything I have done--but for what he has done. I trust in him (Ro 4:5,11,24. Isa 61:10. Ps 89:16. Php 3:9. Isa 45:24,25. Ro 4:6).

[Primal urges] "Ever been hungry SD?"

Like a monkey? No. Like a human? Yes.

[Our ancestors were humans] "Yes, but if you go far enough back . . they are not so human . . ."

If not human then what? If our ancestors did not look monkeys what did they look like?

"You can look at a monkey and see that there is more than a five percent difference in DNA." ~ Bob Enyart

[Dog example] "If Bob [Enyart] knew anything at all about DNA, he wouldn't say something this incredibly moronic."

I believe he knows that your pond scum to people story is impossible. "Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." full text: [URL="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god#fnList_1_20"] Is There Really a God?[/URL]

"The DNA sequence is not all that distinguishes different kinds of organisms—as geneticist Steve Jones was quoted in Creation as saying, ‘We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn’t make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down.’24 Evidence has certainly emerged that ‘DNA is not everything’; for example, mitochondria, ribosomes, the endoplasmic reticulum and the cytosol are passed unchanged from parent to offspring (save for possible mutations in mtDNA). In fact, gene expression is itself under the control of the cell.25 Some animals have undergone extremely dramatic genetic changes, and yet their phenotype has remained virtually identical.26 Such epigenetic marks ‘can dramatically affect the health and characteristics of an organism—some are even passed from parent to child—yet they do not alter the underlying DNA sequence.’27 This evidence lends great support to reproduction after kinds (Genesis 1:24–25; 1 Corinthians 15:39), as structures present within parents are preserved in their offspring...

This is an exciting time for creationists as estimates of human/chimp similarity continue to decrease when indels are considered. Although it is obvious that the two species are very much alike in the mere DNA sequences (many of the same structures are present in both, so this would be expected in a creation model), the previous estimate of ~98.6% sequence identity may have been dealt a significant blow. Upcoming research will likely shed new light on the many differences between humans and other animals, and continue to affirm the truth of Genesis..." full text: Human/chimp DNA similarity continues to decrease http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/similarity.asp Ro 1:22.

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: [When do you start believing the Bible?] "When do you? You only talk about AiG's view of the Bible..."

That was a question. I mean--what verse? I believed in evolution for 35 years myself. I no longer do.

"...[W]hen have you studied it for yourself?"

I've just finished a five-year Bible study with J. Vernon McGee on the "Bible bus". I plan another go around. :thumb: He called the Bible our A-B-C book for this life.

"You honestly think God looks like a human?"

No, he is a spirit (Jn 4:24).

"...heliocentrism either since it "contradicts" the Bible in numerous places."

An example please. :peach:

"Given J. Vernon's view of science, why are you trying to use the Bible to teach you science? (Like AiG claims)."

As Adrienne Rogers used to say: "The Bible is not a science book but it is scientifically accurate." I don't think the data matters much, frankly. The evolution/creation debate is really a battle of worldviews not science.

"[W]hy are you asserting that the image of God means "looking like a human"?"

Man is God's crowning jewel of Creation not a monkey (1Co 15:39). He is more valuable than animals (Mt 6:26; 10:31; 12:12); and wiser (Job 35:11). He is to have dominion over the animals (Ge 1:28; Ps 8:6-8). Man is a type of Christ (Ro 5:14).

"... flat earth/geocentric verses elsewhere..."

Example please.

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "Why should we believe in your literalist views if you pick and choose what verses [you] believe as literal?"

Do you disagree with this statement:

"...[H]aving begun with a true text, we need to interpret the text accurately. The science of hermeneutics is in view.

As a theological discipline hermeneutics is the science of the correct interpretation of the Bible. It is a special application of the general science of linguistics and meaning. It seeks to formulate those particular rules which pertain to the special factors connected with the Bible....Hermeneutics is a science in that it can determine certain principles for discovering the meaning of a document, and in that these principles are not a mere list of rules but bear organic connection to each other. It is also an art as we previously indicated because principles or rules can never be applied mechanically but involve the skill (technmae) of the interpreter. (Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 11)...

Hermeneutics proper is not exegesis, but exegesis is applied hermeneutics. (Ibid.)" full text: Preaching the Book God Wrote, Part 3. http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A228_Preaching-the-Book-God-Wrote-Part-3?q=preaching+the+book+god+wrote

Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "That's very interesting you cite Bernard Ramm as your reference for hermeneutics..."

John MacArthur quoted him.

"Ramm wrote another book called *The Christian View of Science and Scripture*This is a classic text for those interested in the interplay of Christianity and science. In the book he outlines a view of Genesis that is not historical, but instead a series of revelations. While he does not accept evolution, he definitely doesn't accept a strictly literal view of Genesis either..."

TOLers have been talking a lot about exegesis lately so I'd like to nail down definitions first.

"Ramm also believed in a local flood..."

Didn't happen. We can go through that scripture but I think we already have.

"Way to shoot yourself in the foot SD. :chuckle:"

I'm not going to endorse everything Ramm says (neither will I agree with MacArthur on everything for that matter). I'm working on a hermeneutic with you. Fair?

"I think you've already formed your opinion."

I have but so have you. It's not an intellectual issue. It's a heart issue. As Bob Dutko says: "Christianity can be defended using: scientific logic, evidence, intellectual reasoning and history."

See:

[URL="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/"] War of Worldviews [/URL]

[URL="http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/what-is-biblical-worldview"] What is a Biblical Worldview? [/URL]

"...[A] truly global flood didn't happen."

The flood was a catastrophic worldwide event:

Henry Morris writes: "Even conservative Christians, although professing belief in the divine inspiration of Scripture, have often ignored the significance of the Flood. They have been intimidated by the evolutionary geologists and paleontologists who, for over a hundred years, have insisted that all of earth history should be explained in terms of slow development over great ages by the operation of the same natural processes which now prevail, completely rejecting the concept of the universal Flood at the dawn of history. Many Christians have attempted to work out a compromise with evolutionary geology by explaining the Flood as a local flood, caused by a great overflow of the Euphrates or some other river in the Middle East. It must be settled here, therefore, first of all, that the Bible record does describe a universal, world-destroying Flood.

Genesis 7:17, 18

In the next several verses of Genesis 7 appear a considerable number of reasons to prove that the Bible is describing a worldwide Flood, not a local flood. Some of these are as follows:

(1) The wording of the entire record, both here and throughout Genesis 6–9, could not be improved on, if the intention of the writer was to describe a universal Flood; as a description of a river overflow, it is completely misleading and exaggerated, to say the least.

(2) Expressions involving universality of the Flood and its effects occur more than thirty times in Genesis 6–9.

(3) The Flood “was [or better, ‘was coming’] forty days upon the earth.” A continual downpour lasting for forty days, concurrently with a bursting of great clefts in the crust (verses 11–12) would be impossible under present uniformitarian conditions.

(4) The Flood which came on the earth was the mabbul, a word used solely in connection with the Noahic Flood. The ordinary Hebrew words for a local flood are not used here at all.

(5) The water rise was quickly sufficient to “bear up the ark,” indicating a depth of at least twenty feet in the earliest stages of the Flood, since the Ark was at least forty-four feet high and heavily loaded. As already noted, the Ark was far too large to accommodate a mere regional fauna and was more than adequate to house two of every species of land animal in the whole world, living or extinct.

(6) As the rains continued, the waters “prevailed,” a word which means, literally, “were overwhelmingly mighty,” and would be quite inappropriate in the setting of a local flood. Job 12:15 says that the waters “overturned the earth.”

(7) The construction, outfitting, and stocking of the Ark, so that it “went upon the face of the waters” had all been an absurd waste of time and money if the Flood were to be only a local flood. Migration would have been a far better solution to the problem, for Noah as well as the birds and beasts.

Genesis 7:19, 20

The record of the Flood gives every indication of being an eyewitness account, written originally by either Noah or his sons, probably the latter. As the account advances, it becomes more and more obvious that these witnesses intended to describe what they firmly believed to be a worldwide, uniquely destructive cataclysm. Some other reasons are as follows:

(8) The waters covered all the “high hills” and the “mountains” (“hills” and “mountains” are the same word in the original, the repetition being a case of Hebrew parallelism for the purpose of emphasis).

(9) The waters not only “were overwhelmingly mighty” (translated “prevailed” in verse 18) but “prevailed exceedingly” over the earth.

(10) All the mountains “under the whole heaven” were inundated under at least fifteen cubits of water (half the height of the Ark, probably representing its depth of submergence), telling us that the Ark could float freely over all the mountains. These would patently include at least the mountains of Ararat, the highest peak of which reaches 17,000 feet. A 17,000-foot Flood is not a local flood!

(11) The mountains were “covered.” The Hebrew word here, kasah, conveys a very positive emphasis; it could well be rendered “overwhelmed,” as it is translated in some instances. The waters not only inundated the mountains but eventually washed them away.

(12) A double superlative—“all the high mountains under all the heavens”—cannot possibly allow the use of the word “all” here in a “relative” sense, as sometimes maintained by proponents of the local flood theory.

Genesis 7:21–23

(13) “All flesh died that moved upon the earth.” In a local flood, most of the fauna can escape death by fleeing the rising waters or by swimming to dry ground if necessary (or by flying away, in the case of birds); but this would be impossible in a universal Flood.

(14) “Every man” died, in accordance with the very purpose of the Flood. In a local flood, most people escape. Furthermore, there is no longer any question that ancient man occupied the entire globe at a date (as calculated by anthropologists, at least) much earlier than the date of any supposed “local flood” corresponding to the event described in Genesis. A local flood would not have reached “every man.”

(15) Not only did everything with “the breath of life” die (this including animals, as well as man, further confirming that animals possess the ruach, or “spirit” of life), but so was “every living substance destroyed.” The word translated “living substance” is one word in Hebrew, yequm, and is simply translated “substance” in Deuteronomy 11:6. It clearly refers here to vegetation, as well as animals. In fact, God had told Noah: “I will destroy man with the earth” (Genesis 6:13).

(16) Only Noah and those with him in the Ark survived the Flood, so that all present men are descended from Noah’s three sons (see also Genesis 9:1, 19). Likewise, all the earth’s present dry-land animals came of those on the Ark (Genesis 8:17, 19; 9:10). The very purpose of God had been to destroy all other living men (Genesis 6:7) and land animals (Genesis 6:17, 7:22).

Genesis 7:24

For the third time the word “prevailed” is used (see comments on verses 18 and 20), this time indicating that the waters prevailed 150 days. It was not until after this period that the “fountains of the deep” and the “windows of heaven” were shut (8:2) and the waters began to retreat. The extreme duration of the Flood indicates still further Biblical reasons for regarding it as universal.

(17) No local flood continues to rise for 150 days.

(18) Even after the waters began to abate, and the Ark grounded on the highest of the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4), it was another 21/2 months before the tops of other mountains could be seen (8:5).

(19) Even after four months of receding flood waters, the dove sent out by Noah could find no dry land on which to light (8:9).

(20) It was over an entire year (7:11; 8:13) before enough land had been exposed to permit the occupants to leave the Ark.

In view of all the above considerations, it is almost inconceivable that men professing to believe the Bible could endorse the local flood theory. Nevertheless, many evangelicals have been so intimidated by the pretensions of modern scholarship that they would sooner give up “the praise of God” than “the praise of men” (John 12:43).

To the above twenty reasons may be appended the following additional Biblical reasons for believing in a worldwide flood:¹

(21) God’s promise never to send such a Flood again (Genesis 8:21; 9:11, 15) has been broken repeatedly if it were only a local or regional flood.

(22) The New Testament uses a unique term (kataklusmos, “cataclysm”) for the Flood (Matthew 24:39; Luke 17:27; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6) instead of the usual Greek word for “flood.”

(23) New cosmological conditions came into being after the Flood, including sharply denned seasons (Genesis 8:22), the rainbow along with rain (Genesis 2:5; 9:13–14), and enmity between man and beasts (Genesis 9:2).

(24) Man’s longevity began a long, slow decline immediately after the Flood (compare Genesis 5 and Genesis 11).

(25) Later Biblical writers accepted the universal Flood (note Job 12:15; 22:16; Psalm 29:10; 104:6–9; Isaiah 54:9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:5, 6; Hebrews 11:7).

(26) The Lord Jesus Christ accepted the historicity and universality of the Flood, even making it the climactic sign and type of the coming worldwide judgment when He returns (Matthew 24:37–39; Luke 17:26, 27).

As will be noted in the next section, there is also strong geological evidence for the universal Flood, rather than for uniformitarianism and evolution. Regardless of any real or imagined geological difficulties, however, the Word of God teaches unequivocally that the Flood was worldwide in its extent and cataclysmic in its effects. The only course legitimately open to Bible-believing Christians is to reinterpret the geological data to conform to this Biblical revelation."

¹ In Appendix 5, there are listed a total of one hundred Biblical and scientific reasons for believing that the Flood was worldwide.

Morris, Henry M.: The Genesis Record : A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. Grand Rapids, MI : Baker Books, 1976, S. 199

Response to comment [from other]: "[J]ust more support for the position that most of what we read in the Bible has little basis in fact. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in reminding me of this."

A boy was told by his mother "Go over there and sit down."
The boy said, "No."
The mother took him by his hand and sat him down.
The boy huffed and puffed, "I'm standing up on the inside."

What is a rebel? A man who says no. —Albert Camus, The Rebel
Merriam-Webster, Inc: The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Quotations. Springfield, Mass. : Merriam-Webster, 1992, S. 363

"Are you holding on to what God says no to? As long as you are playing God, it's not going to work (Stanley)."

See:

Rebellion topical index

Evolutionary theories on gender and sexual reproduction