Fig Trees

From what ive heard (can't comment on the accuracy of it), a lot of the water came from under the earth's surface (the fountains of the deep broke open), so maybe less water would have been added to earths mass than might be thought.
Ive also heard that Noah didnt have to take every single SPECIES onto the ark, but just the general kinds (due to natural selection, they would specify, or there would be variations, as time went on)

Why all the emotional reaction from some, (as evident with all the bolds and ALL CAPS)? Theses are just questions to explore in-depth. No need to get all excited.

Then again, questioning and scrutinizing religious claims, does hit an emotional and defensive nerve with some.

Well, that does allow for and require some very high speed evolution!

I wonder what you might mean by "general kinds"? The bible is pretty specific about including even the domestic animals, that are little if any removed from their wild ancestors in some cases.

You'd still have to travel to all the continents to get representatives or families or organisms that dont exist in the middle east. Then there are creatures such as the tuatara whose only relatives died out in the Cretaceous, and they live in new zealand. Think that one thru.

Now as for this water. IF it had been mostly underground, or all underground...you still have the problem of the earth's mass changing drastically after all the water left. maybe about a billion cubic miles of it.

It would take at my rough calculation four times the water presently on earth to cover all the earth to the stated depth.

IF you could somehow get water enough out from underground to cover even mt everest, imagine the collapse of the now unsupported earths crust.. miles of cavity under it.. that would take place as you pulled all the water out from under and piled it on top.

seriously, think some of this stuff thru.

All this to punish some people who were misbehaving?

Well, wouldnt there STILL be nutrients, whatever?

No.

There wouldn't "STILL" be nutrients. Everything would be washed out. Also, Ph levels would all be out of whack with the settling sediment.

I certainly dont know enough to argue about, its only i was saying some stuff i'd heard or read..not saying its correct. It would take an incridble amount of in-depth study and research for me to really be able to look into it all.
As for punishing people..God can sometimes use what's kind of naturally happening - but best not get into that...that'd probably take about another 5 million posts to explore in itself LOL

No.

There wouldn't "STILL" be nutrients. Everything would be washed out. Also, Ph levels would all be out of whack with the settling sediment.

People's minds work different ways dont they? See, I heard that story when i was a little kid and I started thinking thru the logistics of it. Im better equipped now than i was as a 8 yr old or something... but I just cant imagine myself simply accepting a story of such significance without giving a thought to whether it could be true.

You dont have to do an incredible amount of reserach. That is just kind of an excuse, isnt it? Its too hard.....

Try just this one. A catastrople on that scale would leave plenty of sign that it had happened. There is none, zip, zero, nada. How does that seem to you?


ps as to punish with natural disasters, that was an explanation for the tsunami wasnt it? people had fallen away form allah...or mayge that is why the tornado got my neighbor but not me. That kind of superstition belongs in the stone age.

OK, I can understand about PH levels, but even if nutrients were washed out, surely as the water subsided, the nutrients would just settle back into the soil? Apologies for my dim-wittedness, but just thinking.

Different plants require specific nutrients and specific pH levels in the soil in order to survive. They don't survive in just any old sediment that happens to comes along.

Three huge problems for plant life survival in such a deluge are -

- nutrition

- pH levels

- photosynthesis