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

[SkyWriting]

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

You may well be correct. And Jesus represents God the Father.

John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?

But that doesn't mean Jesus didn't physically happen.

 

[Hismessenger]

this was investigated by Christian geologists (many of them ministers of the Gospel), and they, as Christians, came to the conclusion that no such global flood had ever happened, based on incontrovertible evidence, which has been proven again and again since then.

Any CHRISTIAN Geologist who would deny the flood is not a christian at all. For to be a christian, you must believe the word of God. Isn't it funny that worldly geologist have proven the very thing which duordi had stated earlier.

If you really have read the scriptures you would know that the earth was covered with water at it's inception and then God called forth the dry land. It never says that he removed the water so where do you think the water went and why is it so hard to believe that God could release that water to cover the ground again.

It has been shown that there is a layer ocean sediment that goes completely around the world at a particular level under the earth's surface.

If you can't believe the word and can't believe what you can see with your natural eye, then what is it that you can believe?

hismessenger

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Any CHRISTIAN Geologist who would deny the flood is not a christian at all. For to be a christian, you must believe the word of God.

The term "Christian" simply implies a belief in Jesus (the Christ) as the son of God. Certain sects of Christianity may require that the Bible be read literally, but that doesn't mean that you can deny everyone else the right to call themselves Christian.

It has been shown that there is a layer ocean sediment that goes completely around the world at a particular level under the earth's surface.

Uh, no?

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

You are correct that YEC's should take up the call for adaptation and drop the "evolution" language. "Evolution" clings to the idea that life is naturally sourced and springs from matter as a matter of course. That's what Christians reject. Along with the entire lesson to be learned from natural selection. Just the opposite of what Jesus taught.

 

[SkyWriting]

Uh, no?

Only about 75% of the surface shows sedimentary layers.
Geological Sciences 100

 

[SkyWriting]

Lack of doors and windows in the design.
Genesis 8:6:And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

Yes, there was one closed window. I imagine it was waterproof when closed.

I would sleep a lot.
You are not Noah,are you?

Just a fellow human.

Animals usually fatten up before hibernation.
Wouldn't they ''fatten''up on land instead on eating the food on the ark?

Either way is fine.


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.

That doesn't really answer where the waters would subside to....

Genesis 8:6-12:6And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: 7And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
8Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
9But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
10And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
11And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
12And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.Genesis 8:11:And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. Where would the dove get an olive leaf if the waters covered the whole earth?

From the land
from which the waters abated,
now 29% exposed, and the rest
Ocean.

Glad to help. - Sky

 

[Assyrian]

Yes, there was one closed window. I imagine it was waterproof when closed.

Wouldn't oxygen be a bit of a problem?

 

[Hismessenger]

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

8 Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb?
9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
10 And brake up for it my decreed [place], and set bars and doors,
11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

The earth was covered with water first. And then God called forth the dry land. Why is it so hard to believe that God decided to release the waters on which he had set boundries in order to renew the creation using the best specimens to replenish the earth. Do you believe the word or some theory that can't be proven?

hismessenger

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Only about 75% of the surface shows sedimentary layers.
Geological Sciences 100

And this is relevant how? There is no continuous layer of ocean sediment that goes around the entire globe.

 

[SkyWriting]

Wouldn't oxygen be a bit of a problem?

That's a great question. How to build a boat full of living animals and people, waterproof, one closed door, one window, with adequate ventilation. This needs further research.

 

[SkyWriting]

And this is relevant how? There is no continuous layer of ocean sediment that goes around the entire globe.

So my fact is not relevant? I say it is. Perhaps you are conditioned to all responses being opposed to yours. I can see that.

 

[SkyWriting]

The earth was covered with water first. And then God called forth the dry land. Why is it so hard to believe that God decided to release the waters on which he had set boundries in order to renew the creation using the best specimens to replenish the earth. Do you believe the word or some theory that can't be proven?

hismessenger

I have come to the conclusion, after years of study, that The Word of God is absolutely true, correct and faultless. But I usually doubt the full understanding of men, and take every translation into the language of modern man, with a grain of salt.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.
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.

That sounds like the source of contemporary crude oil.

 

[Assyrian]

That's a great question. How to build a boat full of living animals and people, waterproof, one closed door, one window, with adequate ventilation. This needs further research.

It seems odd you want to seal up the only source of ventilation mentioned in the text, and then assume there was other ventilation open to the elements. Wasn't the rest of the structure covered inside and out in pitch?

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

What are the indicators of high heat and pressure in the lower layers and not the top. This picture shows virtually no difference in wear resistance between the top layer and those beneath it. In other words, I could recreate this picture on a smaller scale in hours with my garden hose.

And I've seen it happen in hours. My point is, I've been to Mt. St. Helens and the Grand canyon. The erosion patterns are pretty much the same. The time scale may have been as well.

 

[SkyWriting]

It seems odd you want to seal up the only source of ventilation mentioned in the text, and then assume there was other ventilation open to the elements. Wasn't the rest of the structure covered inside and out in pitch?

Why would I assume that? Hibernation drops respiration in squirrels from 187 to 4 breaths per minute.
So I'm not assuming normal ventilation needs.

 

[Assyrian]

I could recreate this picture on a smaller scale in hours with my garden hose.

So you have claimed before, but you didn't answer my point that mounds of mud don't scale up.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7610317-4/#post59177270
Have you tried standing on your mud mountains? Your mud heaps are held together by surface tension of the water around the mud grains, but they don't need to support that much weight, If you want a mount Everest carved out of mud, the mud would need to support the billions of tons of mountain above it. You may replicate vaguely similar shapes in you back garden but you can't scale up in mud, you need rock for that and rock takes time to erode.
​

 

[Assyrian]

Why would I assume that? Hibernation drops respiration in squirrels from 187 to 4 breaths per minute.
So I'm not assuming normal ventilation needs.

So why did Noah need to bring every sort of food that is eaten, and store it up. It shall serve as food for you and for them Gen 6:21? Of course the food takes up space too. You have an awful lot of food and animals crammed together for the best part of a year with no ventilation, even if they are hibernating. And of course CO2 levels would be poisonous long before O2 runs out. You might find all your animals losing consciousness all right, but it wouldn't be hibernation. It seems a lot of trouble just to claim animals will hibernate if you block up the windows.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So my fact is not relevant? I say it is. Perhaps you are conditioned to all responses being opposed to yours. I can see that.

No, I just don't see how the surface exposure of sedimentary rocks would be related to a continuous subsurface layer of sediment. I was trying to give you the opportunity to explain how it was relevant, but instead, you chose to attack me personally.

What are the indicators of high heat and pressure in the lower layers and not the top. This picture shows virtually no difference in wear resistance between the top layer and those beneath it. In other words, I could recreate this picture on a smaller scale in hours with my garden hose.

And I've seen it happen in hours. My point is, I've been to Mt. St. Helens and the Grand canyon. The erosion patterns are pretty much the same. The time scale may have been as well.

1. In that picture, all of the rocks were at roughly the same temperature and pressure when they were formed. The way we can tell the temperature and pressure of formation is using mineral assemblages. Certain minerals are known to form under certain conditions, so if we see those minerals in a rock, then it can be inferred that the rock was under those conditions.

2. The comparison between the canyon at Mt. St. Helens and the Grand Canyon is a false analogy. The "rock" eroded at Mt. St. Helens is in fact very soft ash that you could cut with a butter knife. I'd like to see you try that on the rocks in the Grand Canyon. And if you're talking about drainage patterns in general, of course they're similar - both are rivers. They work the same way. Are any of the canyons at Mt. St. Helens as deep as the Grand Canyon though? Didn't think so.

 

[philadiddle]

I'm just wondering how the flood rapidly carved this out:

Link