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

[SkyWriting]

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.

You purposely trying to be difficult and contrary. If you know about construction (dog houses, tree forts.....Leggo's) then you know eves are notoriously difficult to seal. Standard construction methods would leave open eves around the entire perimeter of the roof allowing free ventilation with little to no light.

As long as you have no protest about Hibernation, then food is always eaten beforehand in nature. So the animals only eat before they hibernate. If humans are awake, they'd need enough food for one year. Nobody had reliable refrigeration back then, so they all knew how to store food.

As to the number of animals, God could "hand pick" the ones with undamaged DNA. I know many people reject the "Perfect DNA" concept because of evolutionary brainwashing by people with severely damaged DNA themselves, but such well designed and engineered biological systems could quickly adapt (even "speciate" P.T.L.) to a variety of environmental conditions so only the right number of species need be on the Ark. No crowding needed. (Don't take that last link literally

 

[SkyWriting]

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

I don't know who it is that may be claiming that every rock formation happened before, during, or after the flood. In my imagination, the world shows signs of all three.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

That was an attack? Saying you are seeing opposition that's not there is hardly an attack. By that standard I just attacked you again. Opps, there i did it again.

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.

That was my point. I'd like to see any claimed different layers, with "harder" rock at the bottom more resistant to erosion. I'mmmmmm not seein it.

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.

I'm claiming that the grand canyon could also have been carved in the same amount of time given enough water. Niagara falls has moved (in the recent past) at a rate that would equal the depth of the Grand Canyon in 2000 years.
Increase the flow, get more work done.

 

[boldlion]

The flood was not a myth. It really did cover the entire planet. Put your faith in God, rather than mutating science !

 

[SkyWriting]

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.
​

Rock takes water to erode. I live on Lake Michigan. Our rock breakwaters and concrete erodes from the WIND BLOWING on the water. They need repairs in a few hundred years or so. Ill check if you need more specifics.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

That was an attack? Saying you are seeing opposition that's not there is hardly an attack. By that standard I just attacked you again. Opps, there i did it again.

I wasn't seeing it as opposition. If I was, I would have responded to the point. I was just curious about how it related to the discussion. And I still am, by the way.

That was my point. I'd like to see any claimed different layers, with "harder" rock at the bottom more resistant to erosion. I'mmmmmm not seein it.

Bam, Vishnu Schist (it's what makes up the Inner Gorge):

You can't see it in the picture you were talking about. Also, going back to what you said about resistance to erosion in the previous photo, I find it hard to believe that you don't see a difference between the sheer cliff and the slope.

I'm claiming that the grand canyon could also have been carved in the same amount of time given enough water. Niagara falls has moved (in the recent past) at a rate that would equal the depth of the Grand Canyon in 2000 years.
Increase the flow, get more work done.

However, it's a lot easier to erode back a cliff than it is to cut a canyon. The more pertinent statistic would be the rate of change of the elevation of the riverbed.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't know who it is that may be claiming that every rock formation happened before, during, or after the flood. In my imagination, the world shows signs of all three.

That photo shows Horseshoe Bend, which is just upstream from Grand Canyon on the Colorado River. If the flood carved Grand Canyon, there's no reason why it wouldn't also have carved Horseshoe Bend.

 

[philadiddle]

I don't know who it is that may be claiming that every rock formation happened before, during, or after the flood. In my imagination, the world shows signs of all three.

That horseshoe canyon was formed by the Colorado river, which is allegedly the river that rapidly cut out the grand canyon. How did the receding flood waters make that? If they didn't, how long would it have taken?

 

[Assyrian]

You purposely trying to be difficult and contrary. If you know about construction (dog houses, tree forts.....Leggo's) then you know eves are notoriously difficult to seal. Standard construction methods would leave open eves around the entire perimeter of the roof allowing free ventilation with little to no light.

Try a solid roof and painting it with pitch the same way the rest of the ark was sealed. Not sure why anyone would want to seal the eves when you have a cubit an a half window running all the way round the base of the roof. It is your water proof, air tight seals on the windows that are the addition to the text. Why seal the windows up watertight and leave the eaves open?

As long as you have no protest about Hibernation,

No I find that claim pretty bizarre too, that animals sleep in the dark when there is no food. What about all the nocturnal predators, who are going to be surrounded by prey the whole journey? What about all the animals that use body heat to find their prey?

then food is always eaten beforehand in nature. So the animals only eat before they hibernate. If humans are awake, they'd need enough food for one year.

Why do you think the instruction Gen 6:21 take with you every sort of food that is eaten, is given right after the instructions to bring every sort of animal? Noah brought all the food for the animals too.

Nobody had reliable refrigeration back then, so they all knew how to store food.

As to the number of animals, God could "hand pick" the ones with undamaged DNA.

It is bad enough Creationists using hyper rapid evolution to try to limit the number of animals on the ark so there is physically room for all the species, at least they are trying to reconsile the number of animal species on earth with the size of the ark given in scripture and their interpretation of a global flood. But you are trying to limit the number of animals even further so they don't suffocate when you try to justify your groundless hibernation speculation and the airtight windows you make up to explain them going to sleep. Whatever the number of animals, the structure of the ark provided adequate ventilation with the roof set a cubit above the sides of the ark.

I know many people reject the "Perfect DNA" concept because of evolutionary brainwashing by people with severely damaged DNA themselves, but such well designed and engineered biological systems could quickly adapt (even "speciate" P.T.L.) to a variety of environmental conditions so only the right number of species need be on the Ark. No crowding needed. (Don't take that last link literally

We share the same broken vitamin C synthesis gene as the other great apes, so it is hardly 'brainwashing' to accept the obvious. On the other hand the bible says nothing about kinds being created with "Perfect DNA" or the hyper rapid evolution creationist make up to explain their interpretation of the flood. But Young Earth Creationist needs a global flood to try to explain fossils and the vast layers of geological strata, and so they come up with all these groundless claims about hyper rapid evolution, perfect DNA and read them into the biblical account. I am not sure why Old Earth Creationists should buy into it, traditionally OECs have been very open to a local flood. The Hebrew makes just as much sense as a local flood, erets mean a land region or country more often than it does the earth and the ark is much more practical if it was only trying to hold the species from that region.

 

[Assyrian]

Lots of floods happen.

 

[Hismessenger]

What I hear in these posts are a lot of disregard for the God of creation. If you say that you believe that with God all things are possible, how do you present some of the bogus questions that have been raised.

First off God called the animals to Adam to see what he would name them. Then we have here in the Ark, animals of all kinds called by who, God. So if the God of creation is controlling these animals, why would they attack one another. Then to look at it from the creation standpoint, The animals were not foes to each other until after the flood.

And then if the God of creation set forth the plan of the Ark from the beginning, what would make you think that he had not made a way for all aboard the ark to survive. Did he not feed 5000 with some fish and bread?

But all this is only looking at the story from the eyes of the flesh. Have you ever considered the spiritual side of what is presented? I doubt it for this would not be a debate if you had. I am the Alpha and the Omega, knowing the end from the beginning.

hismessenger

 

[TasManOfGod]

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.

From a Flood perspective there is a very easy solution. It is the receeding waters that cause the formations. With huge amounts of water causing massive currents the layers are put down. When the level drops below the top layer erosion begins to occurr as the water gourges the surface producing a wide but (relatively shallow) trench. The diminishing water flow undermines the edges until the layer can no longer support the overhang. The face then gives away producing the sheer cliff face as well as the pile of rubble at its base. Now the water subsides a little lower so the process starts again this time producing the same a little closer to the middle of the flow. The process continues to repeat on multple of layers finally after more wind and rain erosion producing the effect we see today.

 

[boldlion]

When we interpret the flood account, we must consider the miraculous as well. Not everything can be explained by human logic !

 

[TasManOfGod]

OK back from my busy

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.

There are sedimentarty layers above and below the Coconino said by geologists to be put down by flood but they say the Coco was a windswept desert. This has even put off YEC's but has now been proven to be a fallicy because the tracks are shown to be amphibian.

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

I dont know where you get your info from but I have read that underwater face angles of 25 deg. are normal (as measured) whereas sand dunes are 30 +deg

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

Not too sure what you on about there . Could you supply a reference

4. Raindrop imprints. See #1

.Are they really raindrop imprints or only a quess. Do you really expect us to beleive that rain drop imprints would actaully stand millions of years of weathering

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

Are they only termed ancient because they have "ancient" fossils in them, and are they only ancient fossils because they have been found in "ancient soil beds"

 

[TasManOfGod]

When we interpret the flood account, we must consider the miraculous as well. Not everything can be explained by human logic !

Sceptics dont believe in miracles. Only fools do not believe evidence

 

[TasManOfGod]

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

Link

I would like to know if the layers showed signs that the flow in one of the "forks" was opposite to what it is now. This would proove a receeding water scenario .

 

[TasManOfGod]

That photo shows Horseshoe Bend, which is just upstream from Grand Canyon on the Colorado River. If the flood carved Grand Canyon, there's no reason why it wouldn't also have carved Horseshoe Bend.

agree

 

[SkyWriting]

I wasn't seeing it as opposition. If I was, I would have responded to the point. I was just curious about how it related to the discussion. And I still am, by the way.

Sorry. I thought you said I was attacking you.

I was trying to give you the opportunity to explain how it was relevant, but instead, you chose to attack me personally.

Bam, Vishnu Schist (it's what makes up the Inner Gorge):
You can't see it in the picture you were talking about. Also, going back to what you said about resistance to erosion in the previous photo, I find it hard to believe that you don't see a difference between the sheer cliff and the slope. However, it's a lot easier to erode back a cliff than it is to cut a canyon. The more pertinent statistic would be the rate of change of the elevation of the riverbed.

A great example of what you are thinking. Thanks.
Easier to erode back a cliff? Ok. 10 times? 20 times? 100 times? 20,0000 years then. 200 times easier? 40,0000 years then.
Rate of change of a riverbed is proportional and changes according to the amount of water flowing through it. Granted, Niagra has 100 times the volume. But I'm thinking over 1000 times that anyway.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

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

No.

Black Sea deluge theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SkyWriting]

Sceptics dont believe in miracles. Only fools do not believe evidence.

There is no truth in either of those statements.
Skeptics believe exactly what they want to believe. You might be thinking of computers.

And evidence is CONSIDERED and accepted or rejected as relevant to the case or not. Usually by a group and usually by majority rule. All done by human beings. All with preconceptions and bias. Don't kid yourself.