Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Did you shake the fish tank around for a month or so while adding significant amounts of sedimentary material? How do you think the plant would have done in that sort of situation?
Indeed.
We're not talking about water rising several inches per day. We're talking about water rising at the rate of 725 feet per day, for 40 days straight.
We're not talking about water rising several inches per day. We're talking about water rising at the rate of 725 feet per day, for 40 days straight.
and pulling about a billion cubic miles of water from underground, causing a collapse of the earths crust...even a relatively minor earthquake will turn solid ground into something like a liquid.
There are many avenues of discussion for the flood....all of them bringing up huge problems for the flood as described in Genesis. In order for this discussion not to wander all over the place, I'd like to stay focused on plant survival in the biblical flood scenario.
Well, I don't just believe stuff without giving it a thought..and that's one of the reasons I like to come here and learn what I can from others. I'm not saying one way or the other whether Noahs Flood actually did happen on a worlwide scale or not..just trying to find out if it was feasible. From stuff I've read from Creationists, they seem to come up with convincing arguments....but I also have to listen to the convincing arguments from the otgher side. A lot of people say thatbthere IS evidence for a worldwide flood.
All I was saying wasd that I'd have to do an awful lot of research on geology, biology, oh, I dunno, all kinds of things, to REALLY say one way or the other.
As for God and punishments, I don't think that God quite works that way..oh these people are terrible, I'm just gonna punch them in the nose, as it were. And that is really a different topic, and cannot be covered here
They say that their is evidence, but do they say what that evidence actually is ?
__________________ We have to escape, because it's coming, sir.
The darkness, the never ending darkness.
The terribly terrible cold.
We have to run and run and run. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
And for this particular discussion, only use evidence as it relates to plant survival in such a flood.
I wonder what sort of wave conditions could be expected. With no land to obstruct anything, waves could travel all around the earth and with a wind build to as high as gravity permits. Hundred foot rollers....but i guess that would be harder on a wooden boat than on plants.
No reason there could not be mats of floating vegetation. Logs that would sprout branches when they got some ground under them. The Pacific Islands all had plants that found their way there. A lot of seeds could survive floating about.
The stuff about water coming form underground would i think so completely grind the earths surface that nothing that wasnt floating would be left intact. You'd have a more or less pulverized rock surface when the water went down. Should make a good enough seed bed.
BTW, I screwed up on the thread title. I should have titled it - "Olive Trees". Sorry for the mix up.
It would not surprise me if Olive trees could survive. There are some small groves in the middle east where calvary troups drove in stakes to tie their horses for a night and they grew. I have seen hte same with Eucaliptus(sp). I once had a rther extensive garden, several plots 10or 15' by 20' or so. When watering them accidentally dragging a hose over them and hurting young plants could happen. So I took some old dry branches (as in cut 6 months before) cut then to about 2 feet long and then sharpened one end and drove them in at the corners of plots. Several sprouted. Olive is reputed to be even more hardy (one reason ancient cultures valued it).
But yuor original point still holds relative to other crops and especially feed. A smaller problem if a regional flood, which is what I believe was at least the root of the story, but a problem even there.
It would be pretty tuff to imagion a tree surviving being under over a mile of salt water for 6 months or more. The soil even after the flood receded would likely have quite a bit of salt and would hinder the grow of new plants.
My wife actually kills unwanted plants by using salt water on them. Quite effective. Not to mention that with all the fresh/salt water mixing together would play havoc on the marine life as well.
__________________ "What does God need with a starship?" - James T. Kirk
Well bear, i think among the objections that is a pretty thin one.
I am more curious about what happens to the earth's now unsupported crust has miles of water taken out from under it and piled on top. Just the size of the waves generated by the collapsing as it took place....
Remember how the WTC collapse ground everything into such small pieces?
Lets try a few miles thick rock collapsing for a mile or more.
Some time ago I figured the amount of water needed to cover the earth to the top of Mt. Everest. Using that amount I also figured how deep into the earth it would have to have sunk in order to leave the surface as it is. Here is my conclusion:
"In other words, if all this water seeped into the Earth and now sat just below the crust it would extend to a depth of 66.8 miles below earth's surface."
And, of course, that's all water--no solid. So if all that water came from the same place it would have left an incredibly porous and unimaginably fragile support for everything above the Earth's surface.
Last edited by Washington; 14th May 2009 at 12:47 AM.
Linear Mode
