Noah's Flood

[Split Rock]

Only to a point.

Microevolution doesn't mean macroevolution, even though it moves in that direction.

Plates moving n-cm per year doesn't mean they have been moving n-cm per [millions of] years.

Theory vs. Doctrine

This is all theory.
I love it when you guys claim both at the same time:
1. "X" theory is dogma that cannot be questioned.
2. "X" theory changes with the flavor of the week.
Which is it, btw?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is all theory.
I love it when you guys claim both at the same time:
1. "X" theory is dogma that cannot be questioned.
2. "X" theory changes with the flavor of the week.
Which is it, btw?

Thanks for asking!

I'll go with "microevolution" and "microdistance" -- but that's all I'm going to go with.

As the saying goes: Give them an inch and they'll want a mile.

Deep time can take a hike.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Thanks for asking!

I'll go with "microevolution" and "microdistance" -- but that's all I'm going to go with.

As the saying goes: Give them an inch and they'll want a mile.

Deep time can take a hike.

Shall it hike an inch or a mile?

 

[CabVet]

Outside of the Bible, is there any way to ascertain if Noah's flood was global?

Yes, I will give you three examples:

1. The distribution of plants and animals. If the earth was flooded and recolonized 4,000 years ago from the single point where the ark landed, plants and animals would not be distributed the way they are today. There is no "single origin" point for the earth's biota, every continent (and every island, every river, every sea) is different and has its unique fauna and flora. In other words, you would need one ark for every island, continent, river, sea, ocean and even different sides of mountain ranges.

2. Genetic bottlenecks. Humans can sequence genomes now. We can calculate things like mutation rates. If all animal/plant populations had been reduced to single breeding pairs (or however few the Bible says there were) we would see a clear signal in every species population genetic structure. We do not see that. You can say that mutation rates are bogus, but even if they were, we would still see those genetic bottlenecks occurring in all species (albeit at different times). We do not see such thing.

3. Glaciers. If all the glaciers in the world today were submerged in water for months they would melt. Some of those glaciers (the ones in Antarctica for example) are more than 2 miles thick. It takes time, a long time for ice to accumulate like that. A global flood would wipe out all glaciers and we would only have very thin ones today. That is not the case.

Need more?

 

[Casual Observer]

3. Glaciers. If all the glaciers in the world today were submerged in water for months they would melt. Some of those glaciers (the ones in Antarctica for example) are more than 2 miles thick. It takes time, a long time for ice to accumulate like that. A global flood would wipe out all glaciers and we would only have very thin ones today. That is not the case.

I'm not staking out a position here, just pointing out poor reasoning. Water and ice co-exist at 32 degrees. (Slight variance for atmospheric conditions aside)
Thick ice deposits could survive

 

[driewerf]

Outside of the Bible, is there any way to ascertain if Noah's flood was global?

Yes, I will give you three examples:

1. The distribution of plants and animals. If the earth was flooded and recolonized 4,000 years ago from the single point where the ark landed, plants and animals would not be distributed the way they are today. There is no "single origin" point for the earth's biota, every continent (and every island, every river, every sea) is different and has its unique fauna and flora. In other words, you would need one ark for every island, continent, river, sea, ocean and even different sides of mountain ranges.

2. Genetic bottlenecks. Humans can sequence genomes now. We can calculate things like mutation rates. If all animal/plant populations had been reduced to single breeding pairs (or however few the Bible says there were) we would see a clear signal in every species population genetic structure. We do not see that. You can say that mutation rates are bogus, but even if they were, we would still see those genetic bottlenecks occurring in all species (albeit at different times). We do not see such thing.

3. Glaciers. If all the glaciers in the world today were submerged in water for months they would melt. Some of those glaciers (the ones in Antarctica for example) are more than 2 miles thick. It takes time, a long time for ice to accumulate like that. A global flood would wipe out all glaciers and we would only have very thin ones today. That is not the case.

Need more?

Tracks of migrating animals. If Noah's flood was global, we would see tracks of migrating animals to the ark, and later from the ark. We would find fossilized excrements in regios where these animals don't live today. The densisty of these tracks would be much bigger close to the ark, and gradually go down away from teh ark.

 

[CabVet]

I'm not staking out a position here, just pointing out poor reasoning. Water and ice co-exist at 32 degrees. (Slight variance for atmospheric conditions aside)
Thick ice deposits could survive

So now flood waters were 32 degrees... Keep going, I like this. Do you have any idea what would happen to atmospheric circulation if the planet was completely covered by water for months? What about ocean circulation? But I will play this game with you. Mount Everest is give or take 7,000 meters above sea level. Many of those thick glaciers are just slightly above sea level, which means that a global flood to cover Everest would cover glaciers with kilometers of water. Even if the ice didn't melt during the months it spent underwater, glaciers would break up, float to the surface and be carried by currents. The would be completely different than they are today.

What about the other claims? Good reasoning?

 

[Casual Observer]

So now flood waters were 32 degrees... Keep going, I like this.

The poles are suddenly the same temperature as the equator? You really want to stand by that position?

Do you have any idea what would happen to atmospheric circulation if the planet was completely covered by water for months? What about ocean circulation?

None whatsoever. What do you think would happen, the entire earth magically poofs into the same temp?

Mount Everest is give or take 7,000 meters above sea level.

IS, yes. Fossil finds there prove this was not always the case. Anything approaching reason has to put the flood on either a very different surface, or restrict it to something local.

What about the other claims? Good reasoning?

I couldn't find fault. I also rather like the comment about tracks to and away from the ark, but asserting that there MUST be fossilized droppings doesn't seem sound. Same goes for fossilized tracks, but its not unreasonable to think we might find something.

 

[CabVet]

The poles are suddenly the same temperature as the equator? You really want to stand by that position?

Not quite, but the difference would be much smaller than what it is today with the continents. Water would be cooler in the equator and warmer in the poles. Currents (and water mixing) would be much stronger. But don't take my word for it, people actually made calculations about it:

PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD

And look who it is, "Institute for Creation Research", first time I used one of their own "papers" to discredit a global flood.

None whatsoever. What do you think would happen, the entire earth magically poofs into the same temp?

Not really, but for one, without continents for them to weaken over, there would be never-ending hurricanes.

IS, yes. Fossil finds there prove this was not always the case. Anything approaching reason has to put the flood on either a very different surface, or restrict it to something local.

That we agree on, but I still don't get your position, are you arguing for or against a global flood?

I couldn't find fault. I also rather like the comment about tracks to and away from the ark, but asserting that there MUST be fossilized droppings doesn't seem sound. Same goes for fossilized tracks, but its not unreasonable to think we might find something.

That we also agree on, fossilized tracks and droppings seem too much of a stretch.

 

[Casual Observer]

Water would be cooler in the equator and warmer in the poles. Currents (and water mixing) would be much stronger.

PATTERNS OF OCEAN CIRCULATION OVER THE CONTINENTS DURING NOAH'S FLOOD

And look who it is, "Institute for Creation Research", first time I used one of their own evidences to discredit a global flood.

HAHA - extra points!

Not really, but for one, without continents for them to weaken over, there would be never-ending hurricanes.

Interesting idea. Not sure how Noah's boat would fare in such conditions, but God could have kept him in the eye, yes?

That we agree on, but I still don't get your position, are you arguing for or against a global flood?

I take no position. The whole thing could be myth with moral and my Scriptures are still fine, and my Faith intact. (The whole thing makes better sense that way)

That we also agree on, fossilized tracks and droppings seem too much of a stretch.

Honest question: assuming some kind of massive flood, would the gathering around the ark upon entry yield conditions more favorable to fossilization, or less? Would they more likely all be washed away, or would something about it make fossils more likely?

Same questions about the exit from the ark? Anyway you understand the details, the story has to account for a rather large and diverse gathering.

 

[CabVet]

I take no position. The whole thing could be myth with moral and my Scriptures are still fine, and my Faith intact. (The whole thing makes better sense that way)

Good for you!

Honest question: assuming some kind of massive flood, would the gathering around the ark upon entry yield conditions more favorable to fossilization, or less? Would they more likely all be washed away, or would something about it make fossils more likely?

Same questions about the exit from the ark? Anyway you understand the details, the story has to account for a rather large and diverse gathering.

Geology and paleontology are not my specialties, so you should take what I say with a grain of salt. I think there would be less chance of fossilization on both accounts for a few reasons. First, there would be too many animals going over the same path, smashing everything the previous one left. Second, on the entrance, rain would probably wipe everything out before it fossilized. Third, on the exit, Noah would probably have settled close to the ark and again wipe everything out.

But the more you look at a global flood, the less likely it seems. The world population during Jesus' time (or 2,000 years after the flood) was just about 200 million (and I am being conservative here, some estimates say 400 million). With the death rates of ancient times it would take some serious reproducing to go from a few individuals to 200 million in 2,000 years.

 

[Casual Observer]

The world population during Jesus' time (or 2,000 years after the flood) was just about 200 million (and I am being conservative here, some estimates say 400 million). With the death rates of ancient times it would take some serious reproducing to go from a few individuals to 200 million in 2,000 years.

They really knew how to get jiggy with it? They had help from angels?? I'm grasping at straws??

I've seen some ideas for a large but localized flood that seem plausible, both from the standpoint of physical evidence and the Scripture.


National Geographic: Noah’s Flood/Black Sea Expedition

 

[CabVet]

They really knew how to get jiggy with it? They had help from angels?? I'm grasping at straws??

"God did it" is impossible to refute, I always tell creationists to leave science alone and stand on that position, but they ignore me...

I've seen some ideas for a large but localized flood that seem plausible, both from the standpoint of physical evidence and the Scripture.

National Geographic: Noah’s Flood/Black Sea Expedition

Yes, a local flood is certainly plausible and likely happened given the fact that similar flood myths are present in other cultures of the area. It does contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible though.

 

[Casual Observer]

Yes, a local flood is certainly plausible and likely happened given the fact that similar flood myths are present in other cultures of the area. It does contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible though.

Not really. A "literal interpretation" has to mean what the original language says, and what would be understood by the original audience, right? Both of these point to a localized but large flood. The only problem this poses to Scripture is if you want to get all technical with the dates and geneologies, Ussher style. NT comes along and tells us that's a bad idea.

Still interesting to kick ideas around though

 

[CabVet]

Not really. A "literal interpretation" has to mean what the original language says, and what would be understood by the original audience, right?

Most creationists here would disagree with that statement. Not me though. I think that is exactly what the Bible is (or at least the OT), something written for a people that lived 6,000 years ago, with language they would understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most creationists here would disagree with that statement. Not me though. I think that is exactly what the Bible is (or at least the OT), something written for a people that lived 6,000 years ago, with language they would understand.

What's your interpretation of this passage?

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

 

[CabVet]

What's your interpretation of this passage?

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

I will give you an interpretation if you post the entire passage and not just a mined quote. Context is everything

 

[AV1611VET]

I will give you an interpretation if you post the entire passage and not just a mined quote. Context is everything

Can't you do it?

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[Casual Observer]

Most creationists here would disagree with that statement. Not me though. I think that is exactly what the Bible is (or at least the OT), something written for a people that lived 6,000 years ago, with language they would understand.

Ok then But if I might refine that a tad - a lot of it wasn't written til more like 2600 years ago. Some of it didn't even happen til about then It's even possible that the parts that happened sooner never got written down until then, and so were already kinda cryptic to most of Israel right off the bat. Either way, we can be certain there is a wide diversity of cultural context, and possibly some linguistic challenges to go along with that. This all results in a variety of literature, which is hopefully taken into account by those trying to figure it out.

 

[Casual Observer]

What's your interpretation of this passage?

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

That? That's easy. That's where we get the story about the tortoise and the hare from. Either that or it refers to fingernails, like being cut to the quick?

Haha