Noah's Ark (2)

[Orogeny]

Was it raining sea water or fresh? It would have mattered because there simply isn't enough water on the planet.

Obviously it was raining fresh water, which is how the stratified water column was established-- the high volumes of fresh rainwater were unable to efficiently mix with the seawater.

So wait, where is this water going?

The water is running off into the oceanic basins. The 'fountains of the deep' would have evacuated the sub-crustal pockets of water that existed prior to the flood. This evacuation took about 40 days. Once the water was evacuated, the crust began to subside into the voids left behind. This is what created the oceanic basins we see today. This subsidence took about a year, and this production of accommodation is what caused the flood water to recede from the continents

2. My point is that there are places where the fish wouldn't have anywhere (mountains) to go or find food. Especially since they would have to go into the deadly salt water zone to get anywhere near the bottom.

The effective 'bottom' of the ocean in the fresh water stratum would be the high mountain tops of the Rockies, Alps, Andes, and Himalayas. Obviously not all fish would survive, just those in the areas of sufficiently tall mountains. This is enough to preserve the observed species diversity.

3. I was under the impression that you could tell if a region was previously underwater by looking at the types of rocks formed there. But I guess that would be for long time periods...

As far as I know, there is no evidence that the flood was a depositional environment. It is quite possible that the flood did not carry sediment.

4. That wouldn't work at all. To many plants don't have their seeds consumed. Besides, there are to many different types of seed and not enough animals, not to mention fertilization by animal waste (something not all plants employ) only has a limited success rate. And then you have to distribute the seeds (and the animals for that matter) evenly and across oceans.

Which plants are not consumed? How many animals would there need to be? I'm not suggesting fertilization by animal waste, I'm simply suggesting that animal corpses would be a viable transport vessel for the seeds. As far as distribution goes, it is possible the the flood was a fairly gentle event, wherein the animal bodies would not drift very far from their original habitats. This would also explain why the flood didn't carry a sediment load.

5. Right, but the dunes would be now on top of land that has no reason to be a desert, likely one where sand shouldn't be, and btw, I lived in a desert (well, Phoenix actually, so I was close and could even see much of it from my house) for 8 years.

Which areas 'have no reason' to be a desert? Where shouldn't there be sand? Perhaps the flood didn't pick up any sand at all, since it was a quiet-water event.

6. But they would be well saturated while they were underwater, and then the seawater would evaporate leaving salt deposits.

No. The seawater runs off into the subsiding ocean basins. Think of the flood as a bathtub, where you've pored a nice bubbly bath. When you pull the plug and the water level starts going down (this is equivalent to initiation of ocean basin subsidence), you are drawing that water from the base of the bathtub's water column. The last thing to leave the tub (and the only thing that coats the floor of the tub) are the bubbles, which are equivalent to the lens of fresh water on top of the saline water. There is no evaporation of saline waters, just relocation.

But arguing like this is irrelevant. 1 and 4 are the biggest issues

But as you can see, they're really not issues at all.

but aside from major practicallity issues (it would be much easier to lift the animals in the air and feed/maintain them in the air with divine power)

lol that's just silly.

there is no evidence of a global flood, no genetic bottle necking, nothing.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, my dear sir. Just ask AV.

 

[Orogeny]

Wow, this thread has grown fast. But anyway, lets cut to the chase Orogeny, practically is irrelevant when you have a divine God who can magically make the flood happen and solve resulting issues. The question is why do you believe this?

Just because God can do something doesn't mean God will do something. He may act as He sees fit.

The real question is: why do you believe that I believe this?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Just because God can do something doesn't mean God will do something. He may act as He sees fit.

The real question is: why do you believe that I believe this?

(I will respond to the above post in a minute)

Because you are arguing that a flood would be entirely possible... If you don't believe it then that's good, and something I'd failed to consider.

Also a quick note. It wouldn't be silly. An ark full of animals that were (two by two) magically transported to the middle east, after which an ark which staffed by one family housed and maintained two of all land (possibly sea) and air based animals for 40 days. After which there was no evidence in the writing of any of the civilizations that existed before and after the flood, the story was only recorded by one tribe in the illiterate back allies of the middle east. Then, with no genetic bottleneck, all the animals were returned and were bred incestuously without any genetic bottleneck.

..... It would have been easier to magic the animals ahead in time, or better, kill all the humans but Noah and co. magically. Saves the whole ordeal. But that wouldn't have made a good story 3,000 years ago would it?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Obviously it was raining fresh water, which is how the stratified water column was established-- the high volumes of fresh rainwater were unable to efficiently mix with the seawater.

The water is running off into the oceanic basins. The 'fountains of the deep' would have evacuated the sub-crustal pockets of water that existed prior to the flood. This evacuation took about 40 days. Once the water was evacuated, the crust began to subside into the voids left behind. This is what created the oceanic basins we see today. This subsidence took about a year, and this production of accommodation is what caused the flood water to recede from the continents

The effective 'bottom' of the ocean in the fresh water stratum would be the high mountain tops of the Rockies, Alps, Andes, and Himalayas. Obviously not all fish would survive, just those in the areas of sufficiently tall mountains. This is enough to preserve the observed species diversity.

As far as I know, there is no evidence that the flood was a depositional environment. It is quite possible that the flood did not carry sediment.

Which plants are not consumed? How many animals would there need to be? I'm not suggesting fertilization by animal waste, I'm simply suggesting that animal corpses would be a viable transport vessel for the seeds. As far as distribution goes, it is possible the the flood was a fairly gentle event, wherein the animal bodies would not drift very far from their original habitats. This would also explain why the flood didn't carry a sediment load.

Which areas 'have no reason' to be a desert? Where shouldn't there be sand? Perhaps the flood didn't pick up any sand at all, since it was a quiet-water event.

No. The seawater runs off into the subsiding ocean basins. Think of the flood as a bathtub, where you've pored a nice bubbly bath. When you pull the plug and the water level starts going down (this is equivalent to initiation of ocean basin subsidence), you are drawing that water from the base of the bathtub's water column. The last thing to leave the tub (and the only thing that coats the floor of the tub) are the bubbles, which are equivalent to the lens of fresh water on top of the saline water. There is no evaporation of saline waters, just relocation.

But as you can see, they're really not issues at all.

lol that's just silly.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, my dear sir. Just ask AV.

Sporophyte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And wait, where did the water go?

I wouldn't be asking AVET about anything sane. And why that's true Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence. Far from it. Let me ask a more common version. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

 

[Orogeny]

(I will respond to the above post in a minute)

Take your time.

Because you are arguing that a flood would be entirely possible... If you don't believe it then that's good, and something I'd failed to consider.

Have you read this entire thread (not the 1,000 post first part, just the last couple pages)?

Also a quick note. It wouldn't be silly. An ark full of animals that were (two by two) magically transported to the middle east, after which an ark which staffed by one family housed and maintained two of all land (possibly sea) and air based animals for 40 days. After which there was no evidence in the writing of any of the civilizations that existed before and after the flood, the story was only recorded by one tribe in the illiterate back allies of the middle east. Then, with no genetic bottleneck, all the animals were returned and were bred incestuously without any genetic bottleneck.

..... It would have been easier to magic the animals ahead in time, or better, kill all the humans but Noah and co. magically. Saves the whole ordeal. But that wouldn't have made a good story 3,000 years ago would it?

Ease has nothing to do with it. If God is all-powerful, then all things are infinitely easy to Him. He may do as He sees fit, how He sees fit.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Take your time.


Have you read this entire thread (not the 1,000 post first part, just the last couple pages)?


Ease has nothing to do with it. If God is all-powerful, then all things are infinitely easy to Him. He may do as He sees fit, how He sees fit.

1. Thank you.
2. Nope. I'll look back, however, you don't believe this then?
3. I was just saying that this is the least convenient way that it could have been done, but it was done in a manner that would have appealed to the imaginations of people at the time. The scenario didn't happen as evidenced by genetics, the fossil record, and the various civilizations at the time.

 

[Orogeny]

Sporophyte - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't understand how this buoys your argument. I understand the plant life cycle, I just don't understand why you think this precludes the ingestion of seeds by herbivorous animals.

And wait, where did the water go?

Into the ocean basins, which have increased in volume by passively subsiding into the voids left underneath the ocean crust upon evacuation of the subsurface water pockets that existed preflood.

I wouldn't be asking AVET about anything sane.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.

I never said it was.

Let me ask a more common version. Do you believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

I have yet to see any evidence that would indicate the existence of 'His Noodlyness'.

Meanwhile, it seems that you haven't attempted to refute many of the points in my post, so I'll assume that you have conceded them.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I don't understand how this buoys your argument. I understand the plant life cycle, I just don't understand why you think this precludes the ingestion of seeds by herbivorous animals.


Into the ocean basins, which have increased in volume by passively subsiding into the voids left underneath the ocean crust upon evacuation of the subsurface water pockets that existed preflood.





I never said it was.


I have yet to see any evidence that would indicate the existence of 'His Noodlyness'.

Meanwhile, it seems that you haven't attempted to refute many of the points in my post, so I'll assume that you have conceded them.

I did say that those were made off the top of my head, and so I limited it to the ones I thought were more damning, 1 and 4. The rest yes, I have dropped, although I barely picked them up. The link is a large group of plants that don't have animals ingest their seeds, and thus wouldn't have survived.

Wait, do we have any evidence these pocket's exist? Or are you conjecturing them?

More over, are we talking about if this event did happen or could happen? If you start with the premise that God exists and is infinitely powerful, you could get anywhere you want with special pleading.

If did: Why do you believe this? (no evidence)
If could: It's useless speculating about what a limitless God who may or may not exist can do.

Did you respond to #3 in my last post?

 

[chris4243]

There were no fish on the Ark according to the text.

So how come the fish didn't die?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how come the fish didn't die?

Who says the fish didn't die?

I'm sure the fish that swam over the landmass when the waters were covering them, died when the waters abated.

It's basic physics.

 

[Orogeny]

I did say that those were made off the top of my head, and so I limited it to the ones I thought were more damning, 1 and 4. The rest yes, I have dropped, although I barely picked them up. The link is a large group of plants that don't have animals ingest their seeds, and thus wouldn't have survived.

Is there a reason that animals wouldn't eat a plant with immature sporangia, where the spores were released upon decomposition of the animal's carcass?

Wait, do we have any evidence these pocket's exist? Or are you conjecturing them?

We absolutely do. They're called 'seaward dipping reflectors', or SDR for short. SDR are sub-seafloor features visible on deep seismic lines. These reflectors are the result of stacked, large-scale basaltic lava flows generated at mid-ocean ridges. The flows, as we know from Steno's law of original horizontality, must have been extruded into horizontal sheet flows. They aren't, at present, horizontal. They dip towards the sea (duh). This is because they've been rotated, via subsidence of the sea floor (during the waning stages of the flood) down and into the void left by the evacuated flood water.

An example of SDR here, with reflectors traced in yellow and aqua:

More over, are we talking about if this event did happen or could happen? If you start with the premise that God exists and is infinitely powerful, you could get anywhere you want with special pleading.

But I don't need special pleading, I've got simple geological concepts to back me up, as demonstrated.

If did: Why do you believe this? (no evidence)

I'd say SDR's are a pretty good indicator.

If could: It's useless speculating about what a limitless God who may or may not exist can do.

Not if natural processes were used.

Did you respond to #3 in my last post?

Sorry, I didn't think it would be necessary.

3. I was just saying that this is the least convenient way that it could have been done, but it was done in a manner that would have appealed to the imaginations of people at the time. The scenario didn't happen as evidenced by genetics, the fossil record, and the various civilizations at the time.

What do genetics and the fossil record have to do with anything? Which civilizations were present both before and after the flood? Could you present some evidence of these civilizations?

 

[Orogeny]

So how come the fish didn't die?

I have already explained all of this. Please refer to my previous posts for explanations.

 

[chris4243]

I have already explained all of this. Please refer to my previous posts for explanations.

I wanted to see what SkyWriting thought of it.

As for you, how do you explain the biogeography of freshwater fishes if the entire world was underwater?

 

[Orogeny]

I wanted to see what SkyWriting thought of it.

As for you, how do you explain the biogeography of freshwater fishes if the entire world was underwater?

I'm not sure I understand the question, as I am not an ichthyobiogeographer. Perhaps you could augment it with why you think the biogeography of freshwater fishes would be negatively affected by the flood.

 

[chris4243]

Simply put, different fishes are in different geological regions. Evolution explains this because they evolved in isolation from the occasional migrant, so that different areas have different yet related species. Eg how Australia has a lot of marsupials, some of them unique to Australia, except the similar thing for freshwater creatures instead.

Yet if there was a flood, these places would all be connected by fresh water, so you'd expect to see freshwater creatures all over the place rather than in groups.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Is there a reason that animals wouldn't eat a plant with immature sporangia, where the spores were released upon decomposition of the animal's carcass?


We absolutely do. They're called 'seaward dipping reflectors', or SDR for short. SDR are sub-seafloor features visible on deep seismic lines. These reflectors are the result of stacked, large-scale basaltic lava flows generated at mid-ocean ridges. The flows, as we know from Steno's law of original horizontality, must have been extruded into horizontal sheet flows. They aren't, at present, horizontal. They dip towards the sea (duh). This is because they've been rotated, via subsidence of the sea floor (during the waning stages of the flood) down and into the void left by the evacuated flood water.

An example of SDR here, with reflectors traced in yellow and aqua:

But I don't need special pleading, I've got simple geological concepts to back me up, as demonstrated.


I'd say SDR's are a pretty good indicator.


Not if natural processes were used.


Sorry, I didn't think it would be necessary.


What do genetics and the fossil record have to do with anything? Which civilizations were present both before and after the flood? Could you present some evidence of these civilizations?

1. Are they part of any animal diets?
2. But can't we tell if they are filled with water? (are they?)
3. Wait, this would all happen on it's own? Without a reason to believe it did happen, there is no reason to insert a God or a flood.
4. a. So they contain enough water to flood the earth to the highest mountain top? b. of the possibility, or of the actual event?
5. No, not really. It's irrelevant whether natural processes could have caused the flood, because if we are talking can, either way God could make it happen. The question is did.
6. Here is one I found, I'm really don't have the time to find more, but if you're really not convinced, I can keep looking. A mass human extinction even would have disrupted both progress and cultures around the world. (Africans, and Native Americans wouldn't be there is the first point) The idea that one culture has a story like this, a culture that is neither the oldest nor remotely the most literate. I find that implausible.

Sumer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edited to fix grammar

 

[Insane_Duck]

I'm not sure I understand the question, as I am not an ichthyobiogeographer. Perhaps you could augment it with why you think the biogeography of freshwater fishes would be negatively affected by the flood.

I (not qualified) think however that the bodies of fresh and salt water would mix? And as I stated earlier, what would keep the salt water fish from rising into the fresh water layer? My understanding is that fish have swim bladders that keep them at the right depth.

 

[Orogeny]

Simply put, different fishes are in different geological regions. Evolution explains this because they evolved in isolation from the occasional migrant, so that different areas have different yet related species. Eg how Australia has a lot of marsupials, some of them unique to Australia, except the similar thing for freshwater creatures instead.

I don't dispute this in any way. Understand that I've in no way stated an opposition to evolution.

Yet if there was a flood, these places would all be connected by fresh water, so you'd expect to see freshwater creatures all over the place rather than in groups.

If there was a flood, there would be a stratified water column, as I've explained. You are correct in that this would result in a layer of interconnected fresh water. This interconnection would only persist as long as the flood water covered the continents entirely. As Insane_Duck (ID? lol) has pointed out, many fish do not swim terribly fast, and wouldn't have had a lot of time to radiate anyhow. This, combined with the fact that most fish would have no reason to strike out from their immediate vicinity, explains why we still observe specific heterogeneity today.

 

[Insane_Duck]

I don't dispute this in any way. Understand that I've in no way stated an opposition to evolution.


If there was a flood, there would be a stratified water column, as I've explained. You are correct in that this would result in a layer of interconnected fresh water. This interconnection would only persist as long as the flood water covered the continents entirely. As Insane_Duck (ID? lol) has pointed out, many fish do not swim terribly fast, and wouldn't have had a lot of time to radiate anyhow. This, combined with the fact that most fish would have no reason to strike out from their immediate vicinity, explains why we still observe specific heterogeneity today.

1. Please state your beliefs on the subject, I've asked you twice now.

2. Well, yes but when you have water systems as complected as many inland fresh water ones, you'd get a mix unexplainable by evolution. How did these animals get home anyhow? Divine power? What was the point of the whole ark hassle anyway?

Edit: Yes, I noticed that (ID) when someone else used it a day back or so.

 

[Orogeny]

1. Are they part of any animal diets?

I haven't the foggiest. Aren't they?

2. But can't we tell if they are filled with water? (are they?)

SDR's are not the chambers themselves. They would likely have overlain or abutted the chambers.

3. Wait, this would all happen on it's own? Without a reason to believe it did happen, there is no reason to insert a God or a flood.

I'm not sure which point you are addressing with this. You would be better understood if you would quote a passage, and then respond to it directly following, as most members of this form do.

I think you are referring to my comment about natural geologic processes. My point is that God worked through natural processes, so we can investigate with natural processes as well.

4. a. So they contain enough water to flood the earth to the highest mountain top? b. of the possibility, or of the actual event?

The chambers would have contained some portion of that water, with the other portion provided by precipitation.

5. No, not really. It's irrelevant whether natural processes could have caused the flood, because if we are talking can, either way God could make it happen. The question is did.

There is no wonder lost in understanding that God can work through natural as well as supernatural processes.

6. Here is one I found, I'm really don't have the time to find more, but if you're really not convinced, I can keep looking. A mass human extinction even would have disrupted both progress and cultures around the world. (Africans, and Native Americans wouldn't be there is the first point) The idea that one culture has a story like this, a culture that is neither the oldest nor remotely the most literate. I find that implausible.

Sumer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I notice a change from certain dates for the dynasties prior to the Akkadian Dynasty, and 'circa' dates starting with the Akkadian. The beginning of the Akkadian Dynasty coincides surprisingly well with the supposed time of the flood. It is possible that the Sumerian kingdom was repopulated post flood, and their culture (as understood from artifacts remaining after the flood) was in part adopted by the people living there. Of course, it is mere speculation by archaeologists that there was no break at this time. After all, trying to understand a thousands of years old culture via the few remaining artifacts of that culture is like trying to decipher the culture of New York City from the graffiti on the buildings and a few copies of the Times.