Creationists are told the flood is true and actually happened,

[catzrfluffy]

Here is nearly every flood story:
Flood Stories from Around the World

 

[laconicstudent]

Here is nearly every flood story:
Flood Stories from Around the World

Flood mythologies are not scientific proof, for 83rd time.


If we have a bunch of cultures that all have flood stories in their myth cycle, but there is no evidence it ever happened, scientists are going to believe the physical evidence over myths.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

With your attitude, you will probably never hear any detailed explanation from me.

Oh darn. I'm crushed.

 

[laconicstudent]

Oh darn. I'm crushed.

Its a nice excuse for never having to actually present a cogent argument though, isn't it?

 

[Wedjat]

Just like to point out. A lot of flood stories seem to point to sea shells in mountains as evidence of a flood. Today we know this is because of uplift and not a flood. It seems a lot of these people looked at what they saw as evidence and made a conclusion based on evidence. Not a bad process, but they did not know what we know today about how the earth works, and so ended up being wrong.

 

[Meshach]

Just like to point out. A lot of flood stories seem to point to sea shells in mountains as evidence of a flood. Today we know this is because of uplift and not a flood. It seems a lot of these people looked at what they saw as evidence and made a conclusion based on evidence. Not a bad process, but they did not know what we know today about how the earth works, and so ended up being wrong.

And you know what caused the upift?

 

[laconicstudent]

And you know what caused the upift?

Yes, plate tectonics.

 

[MoonLancer]

And you know what caused the upift?

yes.... it was the God. With his mighty fists he brought them from his chest to the sky with a dramatic act. the heavens shaked and the earth trembled, The ground lifted from under the sea and lo there where mountains.

something like that?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

And you know what caused the upift?

Plate tectonics.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The key is the timing on which abundant water suddenly appeared on the surface of the earth. It should appear before the mountain became high enough and before the ocean became deep enough. Either happened before the water accumulation would fail the Global Flood. From this point of view, the Global Flood can only happen once in the history of the earth.

Where did the water come from?
Why were the mountains forming?
What is your timescale for these events? What is your evidence that there was ever a Global Flood?

A critical question then is: Did enough surface water of the earth accumulated in a short period of time to flood the earth? The current mainstream geology model said no. But that is an educated guess and has many problems.

It's an educated guess supported by centuries of evidence, to the point that it's as well-established as the distance to the Moon. What problems do you think it has?

An alternative answer is yes. The situation would then be the one described in the Bible. Water came from both the air and the ground. I do not know much about the water in the air (origin of earth's atmosphere), but I know something about the water derived from the ground.

So, if one were trying to pursuing this issue (like me), the focus of problem should be on the origin and the release mechanism of water on the earth. And this problem is extremely close-related to the tectonic history of the earth. All people in the study of tectonics are still asking: where did the water come from?

Not really, since the current model gives a satisfactory answer.

Where does the water go (surface water is not just staying on the surface. A LOT of it is currently recycled back to the earth)

Can you demonstrate this? Underneath the crust is magma, and that fluid is very much denser than water. Water would float on magma, just like how air floats on water. You might get the odd bubble now and then, but they'd quickly rise back up. So, how exactly does water get "recycled back to the earth"?

 

[catzrfluffy]

The very same way plates gets under there, they sink and heat up, then become unstable and their water evapourates, where it rises up into the overlying region, which becomes saturated with water. It's called the Beijing anomaly.
"

Scientists probing the Earth's interior have found a large reservoir of water equal to the volume of the Arctic Ocean beneath eastern Asia. The left figure is a slice through the Earth, taken from the figure on the right, showing the attenuation anomalies within the mantle at a depth of roughly 620 miles. In both images, red shows unusually soft and weak rock believed to be saturated with water, and the blue shows unusually stiff rock (yellow and white show near-average values). Credit: Eric Chou"
Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience

 

[Baggins]

All people in the study of tectonics are still asking: where did the water come from?

No they aren't

 

[juvenissun]

Where did the water come from?
Why were the mountains forming?
What is your timescale for these events? What is your evidence that there was ever a Global Flood?


It's an educated guess supported by centuries of evidence, to the point that it's as well-established as the distance to the Moon. What problems do you think it has?


Not really, since the current model gives a satisfactory answer.


Can you demonstrate this? Underneath the crust is magma, and that fluid is very much denser than water. Water would float on magma, just like how air floats on water. You might get the odd bubble now and then, but they'd quickly rise back up. So, how exactly does water get "recycled back to the earth"?

It is hard to learn new theory. I learned that by trying to understand genetics (and physics ). The key is to be humble. Do not make silly comment. Always ask question instead.

Take one question at a time. So, I pick the one with the red text. This one also partially address the silly reply by Baggins.

Check the simple model called "subduction". It said that the heavier crust sinks into the mantle of the earth. It usually takes a few weight percent of water to go down with the rock mass (others get squeezed out). If we calculate the amount of water dragged down to the earth interior, then a question will surface: how could the ocean maintain its sea level through geological time? There is more water recycled back to the earth than the water replenished by all sources we know (include the volcanic water, in case this argument is raised by half-bottle geologist like Baggins). If nothing else happened, then the sealevel should have been lowered significantly since the Pangaea (the last supercontinent) broke up.

This thought does not contribute directly as an evidence of The Flood. But it is an important piece of detail in the model.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It is hard to learn new theory. I learned that by trying to understand genetics (and physics ). The key is to be humble. Do not make silly comment. Always ask question instead.

Take one question at a time. So, I pick the one with the red text. This one also partially address the silly reply by Baggins.

Calling people's responses 'silly' is hardly a good way to start answering questions. It makes you sound arrogant and patronising. If you want to be taken seriously, stick to the facts. If you want to be dismissed as internet troll looking for a fight, then carry on with that tone.

Check the simple model called "subduction". It said that the heavier crust sinks into the mantle of the earth. It usually takes a few weight percent of water to go down with the rock mass (others get squeezed out). If we calculate the amount of water dragged down to the earth interior, then a question will surface: how could the ocean maintain its sea level through geological time? There is more water recycled back to the earth than the water replenished by all sources we know (include the volcanic water, in case this argument is raised by half-bottle geologist like Baggins). If nothing else happened, then the sealevel should have been lowered significantly since the Pangaea (the last supercontinent) broke up.

While I don't doubt that subduction causes some water to go beneath the crust, can you demonstrate that a substantial quantity does? You said that more water is 'recycled to the earth' than is replenished, but can you justify that claim with data? How, exactly, did you come to this conclusion?

This thought does not contribute directly as an evidence of The Flood. But it is an important piece of detail in the model.

How?

And I'm still waiting to hear how the oceans themselves constitute evidence of a global flood.

 

[Mobiosity]

None of those conflict with observed reality. The flood story does. Evidence is needed, otherwise it should be considered bunk.

At what point does the observed reality conflict with the flood?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

At what point does the observed reality conflict with the flood?

Floods leave distinctive markers. A global flood would leave these markers all over the world in exactly the same geological place. Such markers are suspiciously absent in any ubiquitous area.
Moreover, the actual mechanics of a truly global flood preclude one from ever actually happening, let alone the entire animal kingdom surviving from such extreme bottlenecking.
For example, the human Y chromosome would not have the variation it has if they were all inhereted from Noah.

 

[Mobiosity]

Floods leave distinctive markers. A global flood would leave these markers all over the world in exactly the same geological place. Such markers are suspiciously absent in any ubiquitous area.
Moreover, the actual mechanics of a truly global flood preclude one from ever actually happening, let alone the entire animal kingdom surviving from such extreme bottlenecking.
For example, the human Y chromosome would not have the variation it has if they were all inhereted from Noah.

TYVM

 

[laconicstudent]

For example, the human Y chromosome would not have the variation it has if they were all inhereted from Noah.

I agree, but I think I should expand on that.

While there is variation in the human Y-chromosome, there is indication of a "Y-chromosomal Adam" just like there is a "Mitochondrial Eve", but Y-chromosomal DNA is too varied to have had a bottleneck event mere thousands of years ago.

We have a plethora of distinct haplogroups.

If there had been a flood, there wouldn't have been time for the Y-chromosome to diversify again in the few thousand years since then.

 

[Loudmouth]

And you know what caused the upift?

The same mechanism that is causing it right now. Mt. Everest is still growing taller at the rate of cm/year due to the movement of the Indian plate into the Asian plate.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is hard to learn new theory. I learned that by trying to understand genetics (and physics ). The key is to be humble. Do not make silly comment. Always ask question instead.

Take one question at a time. So, I pick the one with the red text. This one also partially address the silly reply by Baggins.

Check the simple model called "subduction". It said that the heavier crust sinks into the mantle of the earth. It usually takes a few weight percent of water to go down with the rock mass (others get squeezed out). If we calculate the amount of water dragged down to the earth interior, then a question will surface: how could the ocean maintain its sea level through geological time? There is more water recycled back to the earth than the water replenished by all sources we know (include the volcanic water, in case this argument is raised by half-bottle geologist like Baggins). If nothing else happened, then the sealevel should have been lowered significantly since the Pangaea (the last supercontinent) broke up.

This thought does not contribute directly as an evidence of The Flood. But it is an important piece of detail in the model.

Water is trapped as steam which is then released in it's vapor phase when volcanoes erupt. If you are going to use this as a source for the flood waters then this can only lead to the conclusion that it wasn't a flood. It was a pressure cooker. No life would survive.