The Quanity of Water Required for the Flood Doesn't Exist on, or in the Earth.

[Aegist]

Did you miss the part of the Bible where it indicates the flood has to be global? Or the many "Answers" in genesis article which say it's definately talking about a global flood?

Look for yourself the bible clearly indicates a global flood if you can't accept a global flood then you can't accept the bible. In any case you can't believe a local flood and believe the bible is also infallible.

Actually, the 'translated' bible cleary indicates a global flood, not necessarily the original hebrew. you have to look at the meaning of the original

Answers in genesis is clealy a particular faction of christianity, and you can't expect them all to believe the same thing (I mean seriously, look at the bible, it is impossible to expect anyone to get the same meaning from the book twice independently!)

As for the meaning of the words, look at a Concordance and you will find the actual meaning of the word used from which 'Earth' is derived can mean anything from "Whole earth" to 'region', 'territory', 'country', 'land', 'area' etc. Just like the english word Earth can mean our planet and it can mean dirt, so too can the original hebrew word in the passages about the Flood of Noah be used to mean...well, just about anything.

 

[A4C]

The quantity of water there is today is enough. I am anticipating that science will confirm this when they reconstruct the earth model with all the things that got shifted put back in their original places like dirt and bits of the earth's crust that sank.
Because the Bible says there was a Flood and Jesus spoke of it -there was a Flood -otherwise Jesus was not who He said He was and there is no God and the Bible is not representative of God's Word

 

[KerrMetric]

The quantity of water there is today is enough. I am anticipating that science will confirm this when they reconstruct the earth model with all the things that got shifted put back in their original places like dirt and bits of the earth's crust that sank.
Because the Bible says there was a Flood and Jesus spoke of it -there was a Flood -otherwise Jesus was not who He said He was and there is no God and the Bible is not representative of God's Word

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[Aegist]

The quantity of water there is today is enough. I am anticipating that science will confirm this when they reconstruct the earth model with all the things that got shifted put back in their original places like dirt and bits of the earth's crust that sank.
Because the Bible says there was a Flood and Jesus spoke of it -there was a Flood -otherwise Jesus was not who He said He was and there is no God and the Bible is not representative of God's Word

LOL, There is no way there is enough water on earth. Consider the volume of water for every meter of circumference of the sphere called Earth. EVERY METER! Then look at everest and the KILO-meters worth of circumference that need to be filled in order to cover the mountain peaks.

 

[A4C]

LOL, There is no way there is enough water on earth. Consider the volume of water for every meter of circumference of the sphere called Earth. EVERY METER! Then look at everest and the KILO-meters worth of circumference that need to be filled in order to cover the mountain peaks.

So? and your point is?
Have you come to that conclusion on the basis of today's conditions or pre Flood conditions or mid Flood conditions?

 

[Aegist]

My point is that the volume of water in each additional meter of ocean risings would be too great to possibly be filled with water from Earth.

Consider also that for every additional meter of ocean rise, the diameter of the earth increases by 2 meters, and thus the circumference increases again, and hence a greater volume of water is required to add the next 1meter.

Then also add into consideration the fact that the first meter will rise around much of the land just above see level, then the next meter will have less land occupying its space, and thus you will need more water to rise that meter. After several hundred meters, there is considerably less land available at that height, and thus you need almost exactly as much water as you have volume to fill.



SO, if you consider the VOLUME of water required to cover the earth to the height of...pretty much any mountain peak, it is SOO Extensively HUGE that it's volume is greater than any subteraenena cavities in Earth, possibly greater than the volume of much of the earth itself.

 

[crimsondeath]

Have you come to that conclusion on the basis of today's conditions or pre Flood conditions or mid Flood conditions?

how much could have conditions changed?

 

[Vermithrax]

how much could have conditions changed?

Don't encourage him He'll just make up another asinine answer.

 

[trivista]

how much could have conditions changed?

Some believe that EVERYTHING changed, this include the speed of light, the various atomic forces, density, gravity, orbital mechanics, the rate that time 'flows', the hydrodynamics cycle, radioactive decay, and almost every constant you can find in any science book.

 

[A4C]

My point is that the volume of water in each additional meter of ocean risings would be too great to possibly be filled with water from Earth.

Consider also that for every additional meter of ocean rise, the diameter of the earth increases by 2 meters, and thus the circumference increases again, and hence a greater volume of water is required to add the next 1meter.

Then also add into consideration the fact that the first meter will rise around much of the land just above see level, then the next meter will have less land occupying its space, and thus you will need more water to rise that meter. After several hundred meters, there is considerably less land available at that height, and thus you need almost exactly as much water as you have volume to fill.
Oh by the way -the earths crust is no more than equivalent to the skin on an apple as far as relative volumes are concerned.



SO, if you consider the VOLUME of water required to cover the earth to the height of...pretty much any mountain peak, it is SOO Extensively HUGE that it's volume is greater than any subteraenena cavities in Earth, possibly greater than the volume of much of the earth itself.

So by your calculations if soil got washed off mountains thus causing a rise in sea level because of the redistribution of the soil as sediment than together with the centre of gravity shift because of the land mass shift and of the axis variation causing the poles to shift than this couldn't account for Mt Everest to be covered. I know I have been asked to present figures to prove my point but I haven't been able to put all the facts together yet. However as you seemed to have already done so perhaps you would like to share with us your figures and save ourselves a lot of doubleing up of research.

 

[Aegist]

Answers in genesis even goes so far as to imply that the Earth was flat (smooth, lacked mountains and valleys) when the flood occured. Sure this would exaplin how there was enough water to cover all of Earth, but it doesn't justify why that water stayed in a flood like condition for 1 year. Surely the water burst out from subteranean chambers (so they reckon) and then would recede into those chambers, or at least the valleys and mountains left behind by the geological upheaval.

More interestingly you have the idea that Noah in a boat made of wood could possibly survive in waters rising at a rate of several feet every few minutes. Violent much? I do white water kayaking, and I'll tell you what: Water is deadly. no wooden boat could handle that sort of event.

Thirdly, skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood. htm really covers this problem pointing out sooo many things which simply can't be justified away.

I like the "population growth" problem...the rate of population growth of humans since the flood just doesn't match up with the numbers of people on earth historically.

 

[Aegist]

So by your calculations if soil got washed off mountains thus causing a rise in sea level because of the redistribution of the soil as sediment than together with the centre of gravity shift because of the land mass shift and of the axis variation causing the poles to shift than this couldn't account for Mt Everest to be covered. I know I have been asked to present figures to prove my point but I haven't been able to put all the facts together yet. However as you seemed to have already done so perhaps you would like to share with us your figures and save ourselves a lot of doubleing up of research.

I haven't bothered with the calculations yet. I just know that 9,000 meters of altitude (+) adds 18,000meters worth of diameter to earth. just look outside. Look at the VOLUME of AIR...water has to fill all of that, and that is just what you can see. The waters would ahve to rise up to an altitude similar to what planes fly around at. Visualise that volume, then fill it with water, then try to superimpose that over all of the earth.

i dont know what you are talking about with regards to shifting sediments and shift in gravitational center, all i am talking abotu is volume of water required, and volume of water available.

 

[A4C]

all i am talking abotu is volume of water required, and volume of water available.

So am I -I am just adding the factors relative to a calculation concerning it.

 

[fasteddy]

If it was only a local flood why did God need the ark?
(God didn't, it was a mans idea)

and if it was a local flood God didn't try to kill all of the animals and everyone on earth? (God didn't, it was a mans idea)

and if it was a local flood where did the oil and coal come from?

local flood, no Grand canyon.
local flood, no mountains.

and if it was a world wide flood where did the water go?

Perhaps God does not exist (God doesn't, God was a mans idea)

It must be hell being a creationist.

 

[lemmings]

So am I -I am just adding the factors relative to a calculation concerning it.

Your factors are irrelevent. Your theory about the Flood is that the land is a cork sitting on over 5 miles of water, then it sank, and started to rise again; this defies common sense and the laws of physics.

The orentation of the hundred-billion-tons of biomass on the Earth today is irrelevent considering about four-quintillion-tons of water is missing from the Earth.

 

[Aegist]

If it was only a local flood why did God need the ark?
(God didn't, it was a mans idea)

and if it was a local flood God didn't try to kill all of the animals and everyone on earth? (God didn't, it was a mans idea)

and if it was a local flood where did the oil and coal come from?

local flood, no Grand canyon.
local flood, no mountains.

and if it was a world wide flood where did the water go?

Perhaps God does not exist (God doesn't, God was a mans idea)

It must be hell being a creationist.

Well obviously Y.E. Creationists don't believe in a Local flood. I was presenting an alternative explanation for the Flood in terms of Christianity that actually[/]i (almost) makes sense, and is most certainly not Creationist compatible.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

This one's easy:

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
by Robert Moore

From the intro:

To many, it will seem bizarre that, in this age of scientific advancement and sophisticated biblical criticism, it would be necessary to provide a point-by-point scientific refutation of the story of Noah's ark. Knowledgeable people are well aware that Genesis 1 through 11 is not scientific or historical but largely mythical, metaphorical, poetic, theological, and moral. All people are not knowledgeable, however. Recent Gallup surveys reveal that 50 percent of adult Americans believe that Adam and Eve existed, 44 percent believe the earth was created directly by God only ten thousand years ago, and 40 percent believe that the Bible is inerrant. No doubt an equally high percentage believe in Noah's ark.



This state of affairs has prompted some to advocate more public exposure to the higher criticism. But fundamentalists are generally opposed to the conclusions of the higher critics, and many other people don't seem interested in studying the Bible that closely. This means that another approach is often needed�one that deals directly with the "scientific creationist" arguments concerning the ark and the flood. Only after the creationist arguments have been scientifically answered will many people consider seriously the conclusions of modern biblical scholars.

 

[Jig]

It was a localised flood. humans Had not spread very far. God flooded the Known world. To almost all anicent cultures KNOWN world is the only one that matters.

If it was merely a local flood, then why didn't God command Noah to just move, instead of building an ark? Alot of time and energy would have been saved.

A local flood idea also destorys the reasoning behind harboring animals aboard the ark. Surely these animals could be found outside of this localized area.

The Flood was an act caused by God. It was a divine judgement. One could logically conclude that supernatural happenings would have occurred. This could include a temporary increase in water volume.

 

[Aegist]

Good points Jig. Obviously the Bible must describe a global flood in order for it to make sense.

Further investigation shows that a global flood is simply impossible.

Therefore the bible is non-sense.

 

[A4C]

Good points Jig. Obviously the Bible must describe a global flood in order for it to make sense.

Further investigation shows that a global flood is simply impossible.

Therefore the bible is non-sense.

Do you have reference to these "investigations" that a global flood is impossible? (They are probably correct by the way )
However- Do you also have findings on whether a global flood was possible?