Did Noah's flood cover the whole earth including all the mountains with water?

[SkyWriting]

It was localized,not worldwide.How could Noah get all the animals on the ark? especially that some animals are now extinct,yet they would not have been back there,he would have needed to take care of all the animals,as well as the food for all those animals.

Animals in the dark,
without food,
tend to hibernate.

Noah did not gather the selection of each kind of animal needed, God did.
God picked which animals were needed to continue the species He chose, He gathered them together, He got them on the Ark, He closed the door. He could have stuck around another few minutes or so and have had them all hibernate, as we still see the ability in many animals even today. Most of the readers of the scriptures throughout history understand animal behavior, and they likely know what happens to animals when put in pitch black darkness in warm and confined quarters. We, who only see animals in zoo's are less informed.

If it was worldwide,how could he get animals from Africa or Asia?

There was a (likely) a lot less water covering the earth before it was flooded. Land bridges are one answer, entirely different continental configurations is another answer.

If this meant that all the mountains on earth were covered, the waters would have to cover Mount Everest, which is nearly six miles high. Therefore, all the earth would be covered by water six miles deep. In that case, where could it have run off to when the flood subsided?

The earth surface, after it was flooded, now is covered 71 percent by water.
See Oceans.

Or Everest was six miles shorter before the waters of the deep burst out.
We don't have details on the date of the flood or the height of Everest at that unknown time.

If six miles of water covered the whole earth, then all nations must have been completely exterminated. However Babylonian, Egyptian and Chinese history runs right through this period without a break...<snip>

We don't have a specific date for the flood.

Excerpt from ''NOAH'S FLOOD WAS NOT WORLD WIDE''

We don't have a specific date for the flood. Interesting Israelite Watchman speculation though.

http://israelitewatchmen.com/Comparet/Noah-s Flood Was Not World Wide.pdf

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes Surely the layers were still soft (wet) when the various formations occurred. If you look at say the Grand Canyon with this viewpoint you can see that if in 1 year a body of water as big as the Pacific Ocean poured through the "canyon" first doing the layering and then the erosion followed by wall collapses etc., is a viable proposition. It may well have taken several more years after this with wind and rain erosion before the solid formations we see today "evolved".
On that other issue I believe there have been human and dinasour bones found together but the scientific boys would not want details of that sort to get air time

Any such finds are labeled "incongruencies" or just ignored.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Yes Surely the layers were still soft (wet) when the various formations occurred. If you look at say the Grand Canyon with this viewpoint you can see that if in 1 year a body of water as big as the Pacific Ocean poured through the "canyon" first doing the layering and then the erosion followed by wall collapses etc., is a viable proposition. It may well have taken several more years after this with wind and rain erosion before the solid formations we see today "evolved".
On that other issue I believe there have been human and dinasour bones found together but the scientific boys would not want details of that sort to get air time

Already made a similar post in the other thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t7614060-10/#post59265987), but I can answer here too (or instead) if you'd prefer.

For the layers, pick any of the geologic layers in the Grand Canyon and I'll explain why it couldn't have been formed in a flood.

And, as I stated in the other thread, it is not possible that a volume of sediment as large as that contained in the Colorado Plateau (the layers visible in the Grand Canyon can be traced over a very wide area) could have lithified (turned to rock) in just 4,000 years.

I'd be happy to see any evidence you have of mixed human and dinosaur bones.

 

[TasManOfGod]

Already made a similar post in the other thread (http://www.christianforums.com/t7614060-10/#post59265987), but I can answer here too (or instead) if you'd prefer.

For the layers, pick any of the geologic layers in the Grand Canyon and I'll explain why it couldn't have been formed in a flood.

And, as I stated in the other thread, it is not possible that a volume of sediment as large as that contained in the Colorado Plateau (the layers visible in the Grand Canyon can be traced over a very wide area) could have lithified (turned to rock) in just 4,000 years.

Why not. IS that your complete science based answer as to why the GC couldn't be formed in a flood. On what basis do you contend that 4500 years is not enough time for lithification when the same process can be repeated in a laboratory in just hours

I'd be happy to see any evidence you have of mixed human and dinosaur bones.

OK will go hunting now

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Why not. IS that your complete science based answer as to why the GC couldn't be formed in a flood. On what basis do you contend that 4500 years is not enough time for lithification when the same process can be repeated in a laboratory in just hours

The issue of lithification is only a small part. Far more important is the fact that none of the layers visible in the Grand Canyon could have formed in a flood. As I said, pick a layer and I'll explain it.

And any sediment "lithified" in a laboratory in a matter of hours would not have the strength of the vast majority of the rocks in the Grand Canyon. They would crumble with the application of only a small amount of force.

You also miss another key point: if the flood was global, then why don't we see the rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon across the entire planet? Those rocks are really only exposed over the area of the Colorado Plateau, which is large, but only covers Utah, parts of Colorado, parts of New Mexico, and half of Arizona. The YEC fixation on the Grand Canyon is understandable (it's a giant hole in the ground that's easily accessible and is on a much larger scale than anything most people are used to), but misplaced.

OK will go hunting now

Looking forward to it.

 

[TasManOfGod]

You also miss another key point: if the flood was global, then why don't we see the rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon across the entire planet? Those rocks are really only exposed over the area of the Colorado Plateau, which is large, but only covers Utah, parts of Colorado, parts of New Mexico, and half of Arizona. The YEC fixation on the Grand Canyon is understandable (it's a giant hole in the ground that's easily accessible and is on a much larger scale than anything most people are used to), but misplaced.

Well if you follow the scenario I have alluded to you would have gathered that there are parts of the world where stuff was washed to and parts that it was washed from in the procedure of the receeding Flood waters. As a general rule I suppose you could say that if its soft it was washed to and if it is hard it was washed from.

If it was worldwide,where would the waters subside to when the flood was over???

That is a question that really has not been answered properly even by the creation scientists IMO. I have a pet theory on this and it is to do with the "waters of the deep" Now if there was a vast amount of water released from voids in the earth -perhaps onlly just below the earths crust in conditions before the Flood then it is most likely that with all that water and plant and animal matter caught up in the flood waters the crust would have given way filling those voids with the rocks soil and all living things. Now the reduction of matter on the earths surface would be replaced with the water causing an overall rising of the preflood sea levels and creating new bodies of water.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well if you follow the scenario I have alluded to you would have gathered that there are parts of the world where stuff was washed to and parts that it was washed from in the procedure of the receeding Flood waters. As a general rule I suppose you could say that if its soft it was washed to and if it is hard it was washed from.

I don't follow.

And I'm still waiting for a layer that you'd like explained.

 

[SkyWriting]

I can honestly say that there is a difference in erosion rates based on rock type at close up views. The hillsides change slope at each layer with the weaker claystones exhibiting a milder slope.

I don't deny there are some changes. But from a distance, there are little to none, suggesting that the layers were laid down in fairly rapid succession.

And those who claim high pressure and heat? Whey are the lower layers not visibly harder due to higher pressures and higher heat?

 

[SkyWriting]

You don't seem to be getting to grips with the issue here... This isn't science not being able to explain how the man was healed, this is science showing he was perfectly able to see before.

Oh? And what scientist would be able to prove that? What test methods would document that the man had no eyes the day before?

And if God created a tree, what science method would show it didn't exist the day before?

Your argument fails.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, perhaps you did not read this part of the Bible then....

Psalms 127
1 Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.

How true it is... hello

I'm sure it's true. What do you imagine it means?

 

[SkyWriting]

The earth was different back then I assume than it is now,lands may have been closer together,and there may have been more animals that are extinct today but not in the days of Noah.
Lost Continents like Lemuria or Mu or Atlantis etc etc

There had been no previous rain. So it was different.

It seems Noah gathered the animals...
Genesis 7:2-3:2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 3Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

No. It says Noah will be taking them on the Ark.

Why would the animals hibernate when we read...
Genesis 6:21:And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

Animals usually fatten up before hibernation.

The animals had food,so why would they need to hibernate and who says it was ''pitch black''?

Lack of doors and windows in the design.

Are you going to say that the animals did not see rain?If the animals were in pitch black,was Noah also?Did Noah and his wife and sons and their wives,hibernate?

I would sleep a lot.

Where does it say wickedness was worldwide?

I didn't cover that.

If it was worldwide,where would the waters subside to when the flood was over???

If the land was mostly exposed before the flood, then the world would likely be mostly water after it. We call it "the ocean."
71% of the earth surface. 97% of the water.

 

[granpa]

the ark represents the new jerusalem.

the story of the flood is meant to tell us what will happen in the last days.

there will be plenty of room in the new jerusalem for 2 of every kind

 

[TasManOfGod]

I don't follow.

Perhaps you should study tsunamis and tell me if the end condition of the land happens after the water flows in or when the water flows out

And I'm still waiting for a layer that you'd like explained.

Sorry I dont play games like that. If you want to express your view on how canyons are formed why dont you start another thread
and then I will tell you if I agree or not

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't deny there are some changes. But from a distance, there are little to none, suggesting that the layers were laid down in fairly rapid succession.

And those who claim high pressure and heat? Whey are the lower layers not visibly harder due to higher pressures and higher heat?

From a distance you can see big differences. Notice the picture below. you see cliff, slope, then a bunch of smaller cliffs and slopes, then another cliff. That suggests fundamental differences in the strength and composition of the different layers.

Not all rocks have experienced high heat and pressure. The very deepest rocks in the Grand Canyon (i.e. the Vishnu Schist) have been subjected to high temperatures and pressures - enough to metamorphose them - but the rocks above them have not. Their solidity is more a product of composition (the hardest rocks are the limestones, which are a chemical sedimentary rocks and not formed of mineral grains, and certain sandstones, which have strong cement between the grains.

 

[mark kennedy]

Or do you think that it was a myth or just occured in some of the world and not all of it?

I think that it's not unreasonable to conclude that the flood was local. I don't think you will ever get that from the text but I don't think it's unreasonable to allow for hyperbole and such. I believe that the expansion of living species in all their vast array is very difficult to account for when you look at the time line you are left with. By my estimation Noah's Ark would have touched down about 4000 years ago, how many animals on board? How many lineages spring from that group? Oh yea and 'how' do you get that level of adaptive radiation ever, let alone in a so short a space of time.

The only difference between the Darwinian and a YEC is the time line. Other then that they have the exact same problem, how did evolution occur and did it happen quickly or over vast epochs? The problems of natural history remain the same, sometimes wonder where YEC get the idea that they are antievolution. Evolution is the only way a literal reading of the early chapters of Genesis makes any sense and then it would have to be highly accelerated.

I know my interest has long been on molecular mechanisms involved in adaptive evolution.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Perhaps you should study tsunamis and tell me if the end condition of the land happens after the water flows in or when the water flows out

You missed what I didn't understand; sorry I didn't make myself more clear. You said "if it was soft, it washed to, and if it was hard, it washed from." What do you mean by "soft" and "hard"? If you meant "soft" rocks (i.e. sedimentary rocks like sandstone, limestone, shale, etc) vs. "hard" rocks (i.e. crystalline rocks like granite, gneiss, diorite, etc), then you would be generally correct. Sedimentary rocks are typically thought to represent basins, while crystalline rocks represent uplifts and drainages. It's not quite that simple in practice, but it's good enough. It doesn't prove your point though.

Sorry I dont play games like that. If you want to express your view on how canyons are formed why dont you start another thread
and then I will tell you if I agree or not

This has nothing to do with canyons. You made the claim that all of the rock layers visible in the Grand Canyon were deposited during the flood. I'm disputing that claim, but I have neither the time nor the will to write out a post explaining why each specific rock unit could not have been deposited in a flood, so I was giving you the chance to pick a target for me. Give me the layer that you think demonstrates evidence for a flood most convincingly - who knows, you might even stump me. Sedimentary geology isn't my specialty.

 

[TasManOfGod]

You missed what I didn't understand; sorry I didn't make myself more clear. You said "if it was soft, it washed to, and if it was hard, it washed from." What do you mean by "soft" and "hard"? If you meant "soft" rocks (i.e. sedimentary rocks like sandstone, limestone, shale, etc) vs. "hard" rocks (i.e. crystalline rocks like granite, gneiss, diorite, etc), then you would be generally correct. Sedimentary rocks are typically thought to represent basins, while crystalline rocks represent uplifts and drainages. It's not quite that simple in practice, but it's good enough. It doesn't prove your point though.


This has nothing to do with canyons. You made the claim that all of the rock layers visible in the Grand Canyon were deposited during the flood. I'm disputing that claim, but I have neither the time nor the will to write out a post explaining why each specific rock unit could not have been deposited in a flood, so I was giving you the chance to pick a target for me. Give me the layer that you think demonstrates evidence for a flood most convincingly - who knows, you might even stump me. Sedimentary geology isn't my specialty.

1st para Yes thats what I meant

2nd para Ok but too busy at the moment

 

[Assyrian]

Oh? And what scientist would be able to prove that? What test methods would document that the man had no eyes the day before?

John 9:18 The Jews did not believe that he had been blind and had received his sight, until they called the parents of the man who had received his sight 19 and asked them, "Is this your son, who you say was born blind? How then does he now see?"

And if God created a tree, what science method would show it didn't exist the day before?

Photographs, CCTV, satellite imagery, leaf litter, seed and pollen in the soil around the tree. If the tree is large enough and seemingly old enough, carbon dating this material, genetic comparison with other seemingly younger trees of the same species in the area.

Your argument fails.

The problem creationists have is you only think of methods that wouldn't work, science works by looking for methods that can work.

 

[TasManOfGod]

This has nothing to do with canyons. You made the claim that all of the rock layers visible in the Grand Canyon were deposited during the flood. I'm disputing that claim, but I have neither the time nor the will to write out a post explaining why each specific rock unit could not have been deposited in a flood, so I was giving you the chance to pick a target for me. Give me the layer that you think demonstrates evidence for a flood most convincingly - who knows, you might even stump me. Sedimentary geology isn't my specialty.

OK I choose the Coconino sandstone layer- fire away

 

[RocksInMyHead]

OK I choose the Coconino sandstone layer- fire away

1. Animal tracks. If it was deposited underwater, then how are there animal tracks on many of the dune slipfaces? Keep in mind that there are a few layers above the Coconino, so if it was deposited in the flood, it wouldn't have been exposed to the air after the water receded.

2. Slipface angles. The slipface angles in the Coconino average ~30 degrees. Dunes formed underwater typically have slipface angles of less than 10 degrees.

3. Slump surfaces on dune slipfaces. These occur in dry sand; wet sand would be too cohesive to slump in this manner.

4. Raindrop imprints. See #1.

5. Presence of paleosols (ancient soil beds). See #1.