I have some questions about the "Local Flood" of Noah

Thanks to both of you… and yes, I did anticipate that response (which I understand both of you are giving as illustration rather than personally advancing).

If we assume Noah was a black man, then the adaptation to white skin on the part of people like myself in response to the lack of light in Europe happened very rapidly. If we assume he was white or brown, the adaptation of the Aboriginal people to unrelenting harsh sun, likewise.

Such explanations would seem to either require evolution at a rate that would astonish most evolutionists, or else specific miracles to adapt populations of humans.

Please tell me we’re not heading into ‘Curse of Ham’ country with those considerations…


They don’t seem to be etymologically related.

Polymorphism of pigmentation genes allows increases and decreases to occur surprisingly rapidly in humans and many other mammals. For a good review, try:


Rapid adaptations are a fact. Yes, the aborigines are descendants of Noah. As are all people alive on earth today.

1 Like

I have a question for @deuteroKJ (or @AllenWitmerMiller or anyone else with knowledge of the Hebrew) that’s sort of relevant here: some years ago I read somewhere that the Hebrew word for “covered” in Genesis 7:19-20 doesn’t necessarily mean that the mountains were underwater (in fact I recall reading in the same place the claim that there is a different and clearer Hebrew word for “underwater” that could have been used in this context, but wasn’t), but could instead mean that the mountains were concealed from view (i.e. by the heavy rainfall). The 15 cubit measurement then just gives the overall depth of the floodwaters. Is there any validity to that translation?

I’d also like to point out to readers of this thread that the text of Genesis nowhere says that the ark came to rest at the top of a mountain. It seems to me it could have come to rest in the foothills and still be considered “in the mountains of Ararat”.

1 Like

Isn’t there too much Y chromosome variation for that to be true?

1 Like

The Hebrew verb can mean “cover” or “conceal.” The form used here (Pual stem) almost always means “cover” (actually passive “be covered”). Here, I don’t see any reason to not think of the mountains (whichever ones are in view) as totally submerged (“covered”). The motion is of water rising, not falling.

I want to know how Noah measured 15 cubits :slight_smile:

1 Like

The Creation.com article is fine* but non-responsive on this point. In Australia we see faster and faster cane toads being bred at the edge of their range.

But consider the generation length of these small organisms relative to humans…

Too few generations of humans in 4000 years for the magnitude of changes we see.

*with the exception that larger guppies is probably a nutritional rather than genetic change. Mean body mass of Japanese people has risen significantly in the past 60 years but that’s not evolutionary change.

But slow adaptations are not?


That part is easy, the real tricky part is knowing that the place where you measure 15 cubits happens to be the top of the highest mountain.

1 Like

good point. There’s real debate on what the “high mountains” are. Are we to measure this based on known mountains today? Are they only the mountains within Noah’s local purview? Would the “cosmic mountains” (i.e., the ones that supposedly held up the firmament) be included as “mountains”? (John Walton’s take here is quite interesting, arguing that the cosmic mountains would not be in view, so the more normal size hills would be in view)

In my tentative view (#5 on my previous list), the whole story is filled with intentional hyperbole. Therefore, I don’t get too bothered by some of this language when it comes to historical precision. I recognize I could be wrong, but there’s so much support for theological polemics in Gen 1-11 that it’s hard to not think along the same lines here.


Actually people groups can be indirect artifacts. Primitive tribes of today can be a sort of living archaeology even when studied anthropologically. This should be of great interest to you and your field of study. You should look deeper into these things. In the below You Tube you can almost infer that Dr. Corduan is making my point starting at 16:25 [correction: 31:35]

The strong probability is that more developed cultures tended to take over areas originally populated by less developed ones. And since it follows that less developed cultures more closely resemble original human cultures, if those modern-day primitive groups are found to be anthropologically monotheistic in religion, it also follows that monotheism would have been original on the planet in an archaeological sense as well.

On what textual basis do you conclude the story is hyperbolic, instead of literally intended as history?

1 Like


Read the context. The account talks about the mountains being completely covered, and then gradually the tops start to become visible. So the exact height on the mountain that the Ark finally rested is irrelevant. Either way, the account leaves no room for a local flood. I can think of no way that the account could have been any clearer on this.

Oddly enough, your article doesn’t really discuss Y chromosome variation, and the Nature Reviews article you cite doesn’t either. Your tendency to give links instead of arguments is a problem, especially when the linked articles don’t actually answer the question.

You appear not to understand the Out of Africa theory, which posits a bottleneck in the population that left Africa (not the Middle East), but not within Africa, whose people you ignore. You also appear not to understand that coalescence doesn’t require a bottleneck. And the Y-chromosome mutation rates in the figure you show seem to be off by an order of magnitude or more, but even if correct they wouldn’t fit your claims.

Try again, this time with an actual response.


Dr Carter’s (not my) article does address your claim that there is allegedly too much Y chromosome variation for the Biblical account. It is patently false:

We already saw that Y chromosomes have little variation among them. We now add the fact that this little bit of variation is almost always geographically specific. That is, after the nations were separated according to Y chromosome, mutations occurred in the various lines. Since the lines were sent to specific geographical areas, the mutations are geographically specific. The current distribution of Y chromosome lines is a tremendous confirmation of the biblical model.

If you feel Dr Carter is in error, I suggest you write to him directly with your evidence via the contact form at creation.com. Perhaps your comments can be included in a future feedback article.

I happen to agree with you that the account doesn’t make sense as a local flood, though I can certainly think of ways the account could have been much more clear on this.

It could have said, for example:
“And the flood waters were not local or geographically limited, but covered the entire globe of the Earth over and above the top of the highest mountains found on every continent, leaving not even a single speck of dry land anywhere on the surface of the Earth. Every hill, every dam, every harbor, every island, every city or town or village, every mountain, every continent, every tiny speck of sand or piece of rock without any exception, was fully and completely submerged everywhere in the world. Every and all of Earth’s surface waters, including every lake, every ocean, and every river melded together into one giant body of water.”

Now that would have been even clearer than what it already says.

1 Like

Yes, but that was not written in the style of an ancient hebrew historical account, was it? It would have been anachronistic for it to be so. Unlike your paragraph which uses scientific words like “globe” (the Bible doesn’t teach us the shape of the earth or really address the question), the biblical account is designed to be understandable across cultures and times, without requiring a certain amount of scientific background knowledge. Again, the Bible is foremost a history book, and is not written to teach scientific concepts. (However, we can certainly deduce certain scientific truths from what Scripture says.)

Of all the details and implications of the story of Noah’s Ark, God’s dominion of animals is the one thing that makes God look silly???

No. Silly is the lengths some will go to force a literal interpretation onto an allegorical tale.