Weathering between layers of sedimentary rock

[food4thought]

It depends on what you mean by "described in Genesis."

There is no Earth science evidence--and very little scriptural support--for the Genesis Flood of the Creationists. there is no reason to suppose, either from science or the Bible, that the entire terrestrial globe was covered with water to the depths of the highest mountains in 2400 BC.

So what exactly does Genesis 6-8 mean? What was being discussed if not a literal flood?

 

[RickG]

So what exactly does Genesis 6-8 mean? What was being discussed if not a literal flood?

The flood story probably has its origins from abrupt sea level rise events associated with the end of the Wisconsin State of the Pleistocene Ice Age.

 

[Speedwell]

So what exactly does Genesis 6-8 mean? What was being discussed if not a literal flood?

Do you mean an actual flood? That is, that a flood actually happened? Or do you mean a literal flood? That is, that the text of the biblical story is literal and inerrant?

 

[food4thought]

What is the interpretation of the text theologically, exegetically, if it is not speaking of a literal flood. I really want to know what it means.

 

[Speedwell]

What is the interpretation of the text theologically, exegetically, if it is not speaking of a literal flood. I really want to know what it means.

The same thing as would mean if there had been an actual flood but not a literal flood. Even if there had been an actual flood and a literal flood, the "literal" interpretation forced onto it by YECs strains the literal words of scripture, with continental plates moving around at near-sonic velocities, the Fountains of the Deep erupting with sufficient force to blow chunks of the Earth into space to form the Asteroid belt and all the rest of it.

 

[food4thought]

The same thing as would mean if there had been an actual flood but not a literal flood.

This sentence has me a bit confused... what is the difference between an actual flood and a literal flood?
--------------Edit-----------------
OK... literal as in inerrant text. Well, was there an actual flood?

the Fountains of the Deep erupting with sufficient force to blow chunks of the Earth into space to form the Asteroid belt

That's hilarious! I've never heard that one.

All of that still doesn't answer my question. If there was no flood that topped the mountains and killed everyone but those in the ark, what exactly does the text mean? What is it trying to teach us?

 

[Speedwell]

This sentence has me a bit confused... what is the difference between an actual flood and a literal flood?
--------------Edit-----------------
OK... literal as in inerrant text. Well, was there an actual flood?

Sorry about that, I'm just being pedantic. To say that an event "literally" happened when you mean it "actually" happened is poor usage. "Literal" comes from the same stem as "literature" or "literary" and refers only to words, not events. I don't know whether there was an actual flood or not. There is conjecture that there was catastrophic flooding at the end of the last ice age (ca 10,000 BC) which gave rise to the various flood stories in ANE literature, including the Noah story.

All of that still doesn't answer my question. If there was no flood that topped the mountains and killed everyone but those in the ark, what exactly does the text mean? What is it trying to teach us?

It's a complex story with many layers of meaning, but the short answer is that only the righteous will be saved from ultimate destruction.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's because it's Magic Water(TM). It can make anything or leave no trace, or anything else.It's an irrefutable hypothesis, and then one of those comes up, discussions of evidence become irrelevant.The hypothesis itself is irrelevant too, because irrefutable hypotheses are by definition pseudoscience. http://www.rusticgirls.com/how-to/how-to-spot-pseudoscience.php
-Papias

Call it what names you wish.
Unlike your imagined situations
it is extremely well documented:

107 Bible verses about Water

 

[SkyWriting]

There is no Earth science evidence--and very little scriptural support--for the Genesis Flood of the Creationists. there is no reason to suppose, either from science or the Bible, that the entire terrestrial globe was covered with water to the depths of the highest mountains in 2400 BC.

Nor does scripture mention the size of mountains today, or the date of the flood.

 

[SkyWriting]

So is there any evidence for the flood described in Genesis?

Maybe:
New Evidence Suggests Biblical Great Flood of Noah's Time
Geologic Evidences for the Genesis Flood
Is there evidence that the flood was global?
The Draining Floodwaters: Geologic Evidence Reflects the Genesis Text

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hi guys (and ladies);

I am a Creationist, firmly, solidly. Yet I have a question regarding the idea that most, if not all, of the sedimentary rock layers (and their fossils) can be attributed to the flood of Noah. The question, as my thread title states, regards the problem of apparent weathering of the sediment between layers. How do we deal with this problem.

PS: if you're going to give me a link, be sure that the link takes me directly to an article that answers my question... thanks in advance.

Because there have been 6 creations and 5 destructions. Man was part of the sixth creation, as dinosaurs were part of the fifth.

This is why the apparent discrepancy between the first two chapter creation accounts. One has the animals created before man, the other after.

Dinosaurs were created before man, mammals during or directly after man.

This is why there are five distinct extinction events in the fossil record. The dinosaurs died out when the comet/meteor struck the earth and rendered it desolate and waste.

The earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste, and darkness became upon the surface of the deep. The dinosaurs went extinct when the waters from that cataclysm covered the earth. Noah's flood had nothing to do with them which is why man is never found with them.

Soon there will be a sixth destruction and a seventh and final creation in which all new forms of life will again arise (just as it did during each new creation after each destruction) - such as a lion-like creature that eats straw.

 

[pat34lee]

there is no reason to suppose, either from science or the Bible, that the entire terrestrial globe was covered with water to the depths of the highest mountains in 2400 BC.

Of course there is. From the bible:
"Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."
So, about 22 feet over the mountains.

From nature:
Seashells on mountaintops. Not just Everest, but every mountain.

Of course, when you speak of mountains then, there were none
like the tallest today. The pre-flood world was radically different.
Smaller, with one main landmass encircling he globe with no great
oceans, only large seas. Otherwise, the Pangea theory would have
all the continents on one side of the earth, making it too wobbly
to revolve well or remain in a stable orbit around the sun.

 

[pat34lee]

The earth "became - hayah" desolate and waste, and darkness became upon the surface of the deep. The dinosaurs went extinct when the waters from that cataclysm covered the earth. Noah's flood had nothing to do with them which is why man is never found with them.

There is a simple way to refute this. Any devastating event
that would make the earth desolate and waste, would also
destroy any delicate fossil like these: