Noah's Ark

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok, so you do acknowledge that it's a purely faith based position.

Why then, are you arguing about physical evidence for/against the flood?

That's the topic of the thread. Whenever I see such a thread I jump in with my theories. I'm pointing out that the conventional rebuttals just don't hold water (pardon the pun).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Ok, so you do acknowledge that it's a purely faith based position.

That's the topic of the thread. Whenever I see such a thread I jump in with my theories.

Interestingly, all the earth, not just as if purely faith based position,
shows clearly the BIBLE is accurate .

To deny the BIBLE, requires faith in something besides/instead of God,
and that, of course, is fatal, unless repented of, God Willing.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's the topic of the thread. Whenever I see such a thread I jump in with my theories. I'm pointing out that the conventional rebuttals just don't hold water (pardon the pun).

Its not theories, its guesses by any reasonable use of terms.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm pointing out that the conventional rebuttals just don't hold water (pardon the pun).

hahaha

water water everywhere, and nary any clean....

 

[Obliquinaut]

You just didn't understand how I was using it in my argument. I was quite clear. That's on you, not me.

LOL. Yeah, sure. Of course. Actually I did understand it because you were focused on the flow lines up in the water column and when your attention was drawn to turbulent flow along the contact with the land you had to come up with this bizarre notion of a near perfect peneplain all over the planet that wouldn't induce much if any turbulent flow.

THAT is where erosion would happen.

Again, I welcome your calculations of the Reynolds number. (Because, you know, that is how one defines laminar flow regimes.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Interestingly, all the earth, not just as if purely faith based position,
shows clearly the BIBLE is accurate .

To deny the BIBLE, requires faith in something besides/instead of God,
and that, of course, is fatal, unless repented of, God Willing.

True. "In for a penny, in for a pound." If one starts denying revelation where does it end?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Your examples don't disprove anything.

-sigh-

1. YOU hypothesize laminar flow for the flood.

1a. I suggested that the contact between the land and the water would be rough on a variety of scales and that indeed it would NOT be laminar. But I was willing to consider your Re calculations (you never responded

2. YOU hypothesized that the Flood was water washing up form the oceans over the continents.

2a. I replied that indeed this is known as TRANSGRESSIVE SEQUENCE and is seen all the time in geology. So there would be evidence for this type of event. (At that point you suggested the water would come up very gently leaving no deposition or erosional features)

3. YOU hypothesized that shorelines were largely flat and didn't contain many areas where rising water would be channeled

3a. I replied by showing just 3 simple examples (I could have found literally MILLIONS of others) and explained how even if there were only a few such examples where rising oceans would be channeled that I could CORRELATE a global event.

At this point YOU claimed that the Flood wouldn't really have anything to do with geology.

QED>

Look at a world map that shows elevations. You'll see where the water came in. There are very few places where the water had to flow through constrictions.

And again, I will point out that all I need are a few widely geographically spaced points on the globe to correlate a massive influx of water simultaneously.

I am really wondering what kind of geology articles you are reading. Because so far it seems like you haven't heard of any of these topics because you never bothered to have an explanation for them beforehand. You seem to be on the defense with your hypotheses.

What is your primary geology journal you rely on?

 

[Obliquinaut]

Tell me, what is your confidence level that this event - a planet wide extinction event involving mass flooding - occurred?

From what I can gather for OWG it is 100%.

Also, what physical evidence leads you to think it occurred?

He has provided an hypothesis in which the global flood would leave almost no evidence. He will attempt to leverage various topics in hydrodynamics (laminar flow specifically) and geology (isostacy and transgression) but when met with someone who actually knows something about this he will have to modify how these things work (so far as far as I can tell he is proposing that 4X10^19 cubic feet of water rising up on the land in the space of 150 days would all be nearly perfectly laminar, even at the contact between water and land AND that nearly all the earth has no canyons or constrictions that would channel this water near the coastlines or anywhere sufficient to cause any real turbulence.)

So in other words: MIRACLE FLOOD.

Or, is this a totally faith based position? If so, it renders further discussion pointless.

I have been hoping he'd drop the science thing altogether because he's not really prepped with the background on it. BUT his points would be bullet-proof if he just decreed it 100% Miracle.

 

[bhsmte]

That's the topic of the thread. Whenever I see such a thread I jump in with my theories. I'm pointing out that the conventional rebuttals just don't hold water (pardon the pun).

Do you know what a scientific theory is? You have opinions, not theories, big difference.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL. Yeah, sure. Of course. Actually I did understand it because you were focused on the flow lines up in the water column and when your attention was drawn to turbulent flow along the contact with the land you had to come up with this bizarre notion of a near perfect peneplain all over the planet that wouldn't induce much if any turbulent flow.

THAT is where erosion would happen.

Again, I welcome your calculations of the Reynolds number. (Because, you know, that is how one defines laminar flow
regimes.)

You get part of it. My point was that the flood water would rise fast enough that water at ground level would stop moving altogether, even the initial turbulence, in a very short time. This combined with the nature of the dominant vegetation, tall thick grass with perhaps a foot or more of tough, tangled roots, would so mitigate erosion that the flood water would cause very little erosion as it progressed. Because of this you can toss out most of the argument that there is no "evidence" of the flood in the form of a uniform 'high water mark'. The receding waters would indeed cause some erosion, but it would be widely scattered, and very vulnerable to subsequent degrading by wind and water. Of course there would be places where great displacement of the landscape would occur, but they are few compared to the overall effect of the flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

From what I can gather for OWG it is 100%.



He has provided an hypothesis in which the global flood would leave almost no evidence. He will attempt to leverage various topics in hydrodynamics (laminar flow specifically) and geology (isostacy and transgression) but when met with someone who actually knows something about this he will have to modify how these things work (so far as far as I can tell he is proposing that 4X10^19 cubic feet of water rising up on the land in the space of 150 days would all be nearly perfectly laminar, even at the contact between water and land AND that nearly all the earth has no canyons or constrictions that would channel this water near the coastlines or anywhere sufficient to cause any real turbulence.)

You are reading into my comments things that I didn't say, mean, or imply. Classic straw man construction.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you know what a scientific theory is? You have opinions, not theories, big difference.

I didn't say I had 'scientific' theories. But, I think science does support my theories. It certainly supports my laminar flow model regarding the flood.

 

[Obliquinaut]

You get part of it. My point was that the flood water would rise fast enough that water at ground level would stop moving altogether

You'll recall that is why I focused the discussion on the shorelines or the leading edge of the water intrusion. As I said, I've seen plenty of things in the rocks themselves showing transgressive sequences. There may be a spot near the center of the continental core after the water has moved in where the bottom flow is minimal. But again, you act as if your special case is all there is.

There IS a front where the water is advancing AT THIS POINT the flow at the bottom contact WILL BE MOVING by definition. This will cause EROSION. Even where bottom water flow is limited or nil (in very deep areas) there WILL BE DEPOSITION.

And each of these cases will leave marks which can be correlated in time to assess whether they are CONTEMPORANEOUS ACROSS THE GLOBE.

... no "evidence" of the flood in the form of a uniform 'high water mark'.

I don't think ANYONE is making the claim there needs to be a "high water mark". I"m pretty sure Subduction already pointed that out.

What we are talking about happens at the bottom of the water (erosion and deposition).

The receding waters would indeed cause some erosion, but it would be widely scattered, and very vulnerable to subsequent degrading by wind and water.

This sentence doesn't really make sense: Erosion that is degraded by water and wind???? Huh?

Perhaps you meant DEPOSITION that would later be degraded. It's hard to tell, you seem so unfamiliar with even basic geology terms.

Of course there would be places where great displacement of the landscape would occur, but they are few compared to the overall effect of the flood.

And you seem to think that geologists require that evidence needs to be EVERYWHERE. IT doesn't. This is why I keep belaboring the point of CORRELATION.

Maybe it's my time transcribing well logs in southern Illinois coal mines and correlating these formations that makes me more sensitive to this, but honestly, OWG, this is geology 101 stuff. If you don't understand this, you are going to have a tough time using geology to justify any of the FLood hypothesis.

Sorry to break it to you, but maybe you should come back to the OK Corral when you have some bullets in your gun.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

LOL. Yeah, sure. Of course. Actually I did understand it because you were focused on the flow lines up in the water column and when your attention was drawn to turbulent flow along the contact with the land you had to come up with this bizarre notion of a near perfect peneplain all over the planet that wouldn't induce much if any turbulent flow.

THAT is where erosion would happen.

Again, I welcome your calculations of the Reynolds number. (Because, you know, that is how one defines laminar flow regimes.)

Once again I'm talking about a rising flood, not a constantly flowing river.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This sentence doesn't really make sense: Erosion that is degraded by water and wind???? Huh?

Perhaps you meant DEPOSITION that would later be degraded. It's hard to tell, you seem so unfamiliar with even basic geology terms. QUOTE]

I meant what I said, that both would be degraded as evidence, over time. Evidence of erosion can be filled in by later events, can it not? One such event would be cultivation of the land by man over the millennia, leaving no trace of the flood's effect in those areas.

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you know what a scientific theory is? You have opinions, not theories, big difference.

I previously stated my personal theory on the whole Noah and the flood matter and I am equally at peace with those who take the story literally and those who take it as allegorical/metaphor.

But let me play devil's advocate here.

1. All the science in the world cannot be certain of what the climate or temporary state of the world was at the time of Noah. And while the scientific consensus would be that a global flood was unlikely, at least the third day of Creation in Genesis 1, we can be sure that there were floods that to the unscientific eye and mind would look like they went on forever.

2. The issue of whether all the critters on Earth at that time could have fit on the Ark and whether there would have been room for feed for all of them is moot since with God, all things are possible.

3. The issue of whether a global flood of Biblical proportions would have contaminated all the arable land with salt is also moot because a) it was God's flood and therefore He would dictate whether it would or would not do harm and b) the seas might not have been so salty at that time. Or c) crops then might have been more salt resistant--there is scientific research going on right now to develop large scale commodity crops (wheat, corn, barley) that would thrive when irrigated with undiluted sea water. There are already crops that thrive using diluted sea water.

It is inevitable that as the global population continues to increase, the time will come that we will need fast, effective, economically feasible ways to produce potable water from the oceans.

In other words, it is interesting to think about, even to debate the pros and cons of it all, but there is plenty of argument and thought on both sides that we need not think poorly of the other person and/or his argument on the topic.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry to break it to you, but maybe you should come back to the OK Corral when you have some bullets in your gun.

Sarcasm doesn't add value to your position.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I previously stated my personal theory on the whole Noah and the flood matter and I am equally at peace with those who take the story literally and those who take it as allegorical/metaphor.

But let me play devil's advocate here.

1. All the science in the world cannot be certain of what the climate or temporary state of the world was at the time of Noah. And while the scientific consensus would be that a global flood was unlikely, at least the third day of Creation in Genesis 1, we can be sure that there were floods that to the unscientific eye and mind would look like they went on forever.

2. The issue of whether all the critters on Earth at that time could have fit on the Ark and whether there would have been room for feed for all of them is moot since with God, all things are possible.

3. The issue of whether a global flood of Biblical proportions would have contaminated all the arable land with salt is also moot because a) it was God's flood and therefore He would dictate whether it would or would not do harm and b) the seas might not have been so salty at that time. Or c) crops then might have been more salt resistant--there is scientific research going on right now to develop large scale commodity crops (wheat, corn, barley) that would thrive when irrigated with undiluted sea water. There are already crops that thrive using diluted sea water.

It is inevitable that as the global population continues to increase, the time will come that we will need fast, effective, economically feasible ways to produce potable water from the oceans.

In other words, it is interesting to think about, even to debate the pros and cons of it all, but there is plenty of argument and thought on both sides that we need not think poorly of the other person and/or his argument on the topic.

I'm glad you mentioned salt. Salt would have been the agent of purification that killed "all living substance", thus ridding the earth of the widespread corruption that it suffered. This might also explain why there are so many arid places, deserts, and a general lack of thick topsoil across the earth.

 

[lesliedellow]

I'm glad you mentioned salt. Salt would have been the agent of purification that killed "all living substance"

Ah, so that is why there are no fish, whales, sharks, crabs, shrimps or other aquatic life in the sea today then.

I always wondered why that was.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm glad you mentioned salt. Salt would have been the agent of purification that killed "all living substance", thus ridding the earth of the widespread corruption that it suffered. This might also explain why there are so many arid places, deserts, and a general lack of thick topsoil across the earth.

Foxfyre more or less said the opposite didn't she? I think she has a point, any objections can be overcome by claiming miracles so it's all a bit pointless really.