Noah's Flood

[coffee4u]

That much water would cause the atmospheric pressure to rise to the level that both O2 and N2 in the atmosphere would become toxic . No matter how you spin that story IT DOESN’T WORK! Whether you start with the genetic bottleneck the animals go through, the lack of ability for 8 humans to take care of just the large herbivores let alone the other species, The lack of space for food , and ammonia stench of urine soaked wood in a boat with one window, or the water itself , NOTHING about that story is even remotely plausible

What and where you are talking about would kind of be helpful to the discussion. I assume you mean the vapour canopy? Again no one has said an amount because no one knows the amount. The flood came from the canopy above and from water under the crust. So do tell where you get your knowledge of how much the canpoy held to be able to say it would "cause the atmospheric pressure to rise to the level that both O2 and N2 in the atmosphere would become toxic."

The flood wasn't caused by natural phenomenon it was caused directly by God. The ability to keep the animals safe was part of the miracle. We are not told how the animals were kept on the ark but my guess is God caused them to hibernate.
The 3 men walking around in the flames isn't 'plausible' either, nor is the resurrection or any of the other Biblical miracles.

miracle
An effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

 

[Brightmoon]

You do realize the PV= nRT is 18th century science ? Pressure , Volume, number of molecules , gas constant and temperature . The atmospheric pressure from the Flood alone would probably crush someone . You see this situation on Venus which long ago boiled off its water .

 

[coffee4u]

You do realize the PV= nRT is 18th century science ? Pressure , Volume, number of molecules , gas constant and temperature . The atmospheric pressure from the Flood alone would probably crush someone . You see this situation on Venus which long ago boiled off its water .

Those who follow creation science have said there was greater air pressure and more oxygen. Amber shows nearly 35 percent oxygen compared to present levels of 21 percent.
Obviously it was a deleicate balance, God would know what to adjust so it wasn't crushing or boiling. You seem to think the earth is simply at the whim of nature, God put those laws into effect and changes them as needed.
All you ever see is nature and science, where does God fit into this view?

 

[Brightmoon]

When it comes to science all I see is natural phenomena. That’s what science does , it explains natural phenomena. I’ll repeat NATURAL phenomena. Science has nothing to do with supernatural phenomena. If you give me a natural phenomenon that has been twisted by ignorant ,arbitrary ,creationist pseudoscience explanations I’m simply going to correct them .

Yes earlier earth had higher O2 levels but that was many many millions of years ago in the Carboniferous. Those high levels would cause spontaneous combustion problems and we know this because we find fusain which is fossil charcoal

 

[coffee4u]

When it comes to science all I see is natural phenomena. That’s what science does , it explains natural phenomena. I’ll repeat NATURAL phenomena. Science has nothing to do with supernatural phenomena. If you give me a natural phenomenon that has been twisted by ignorant ,arbitrary ,creationist pseudoscience explanations I’m simply going to correct them .

Yes earlier earth had higher O2 levels but that was many many millions of years ago in the Carboniferous. Those high levels would cause spontaneous combustion problems and we know this because we find fusain which is fossil charcoal

The creation and the flood were NOT natural phenomena.

 

[Brightmoon]

So why do you expect science to prove it ? It doesn’t . There no evidence that the Flood ever occurred and there is a lot of evidence that refutes that belief . Creationist organizations lie about this .

 

[coffee4u]

So why do you expect science to prove it ? It doesn’t . There no evidence that the Flood ever occurred and there is a lot of evidence that refutes that belief . Creationist organizations lie about this .

I've never said science should prove it, I keep telling you science can't. Miracles are outside the realm of science. It doesn’t matter how the world looks at present or how it tests at present, that is only good for the present. All we have are clues, some of which point to young and some to old and people that make assumptions about them. Scripture is the only reliable source about the distant past. God said he created in 6 days, that he made a water firmament above and sent a global flood using water from that and from under the ground. So that is what I believe. The clues found are merely interesting but they do not spell out the story of how they came to be, people have simply spun stories around them.

 

[Brightmoon]

Science has disproved the Flood . It’s up to creationists to find evidence that this has happened not scientists . If creationists have to lie about the facts of nature that’s not evidence, it’s just a lie

 

[coffee4u]

Science has disproved the Flood . It’s up to creationists to find evidence that this has happened not scientists . If creationists have to lie about the facts of nature that’s not evidence, it’s just a lie

I don't care what secualr science thinks it has prooved. It is wrong and God is right. I don't know why you bother to reply to me when you already know my answer.
I lie about nothing but trust in God and in his Word.

Matthew 24:39
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

 

[Brightmoon]

Well that’s obvious that you don’t understand or care that you’re scientifically illiterate. Most other creationists don’t either . Which is why scientists ignore them when they complain about anything having to do with confirmed facts

 

[coffee4u]

Well that’s obvious that you don’t understand or care that you’re scientifically illiterate. Most other creationists don’t either . Which is why scientists ignore them when they complain about anything having to do with confirmed facts

And you obviously don't care that you go against scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

Which part do you have an issue with? God raising the mountains after the flood,

There were mountains raising before and after the flood, just as they are raising and lowering today. But God uses natural means to do it.

 

[SeventyOne]

There were mountains raising before and after the flood, just as they are raising and lowering today. But God uses natural means to do it.

Scripture tells us specifically that God raised the mountains and lowered the valleys after the flood for the purpose of shifting and receeding the waters to specific locations. This was a specific action for a specific purpose.

 

[The Barbarian]

Scripture tells us specifically that God raised the mountains and lowered the valleys after the flood for the purpose of shifting and receeding the waters to specific locations.

But you couldn't cite the verses? I think I know why.

 

[SeventyOne]

But you couldn't cite the verses? I think I know why.

What do you mean I couldn't cite verses? Your post didn't ask so I assumed you saw where I had already cited them earlier in the thread.

Here you go (again):

Psalms 104:5-9 He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke they fled; at the sound of your thunder they took to flight. The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place that you appointed for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass, so that they might not again cover the earth.​

 

[The Barbarian]

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.

The Earth moves constantly. So this is figurative, not literal. . It isn't meant to be literal, unless you want to deny that the Earth turns on its axis and revolves around the Sun.

 

[DaveISBA]

The Earth moves constantly. So this is figurative, not literal. . It isn't meant to be literal, unless you want to deny that the Earth turns on its axis and revolves around the Sun.

There are accounts from different cultures around the world that indeed report the worldwide flood as a literal one!
Dr. James Perloff holds PhDs from Harvard, MIT and Oxford., awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. Noted in his book (Tornado in a Junkyard): p. 167, 168 “Legends have been reported from nations such as China, Babylon, Mexico, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Persia, India, Norway, Wales, Ireland, Indonesia, Romania, etc.—composing a list that could go on for many pages”
“In 95 percent of the more than (two hundred flood legends), the flood was worldwide; in 88 percent, a certain family was favored; in 70 percent, survival was by means of a boat; in 67 percent, animals were also saved; in 66 percent, the flood was due to the wickedness of man; in 66 percent, the survivors had been forewarned; in 57 percent, they ended up on a mountain; in 35 percent, birds were sent out from the boat; and in 9 percent, exactly eight people were spared“

 

[The Barbarian]

There are accounts from different cultures around the world that indeed report the worldwide flood as a literal one!

Since the Bible doesn't say it was global, and most of the others don't either, I don't see that. Either humans tended to settle in valleys where regional floods sometimes occurred, or there was a global flood for which there is no evidence.

I think I know which one is true.

 

[DaveISBA]

Since the Bible doesn't say it was global, and most of the others don't either, I don't see that. Either humans tended to settle in valleys where regional floods sometimes occurred, or there was a global flood for which there is no evidence.

I think I know which one is true.

Genesis 7:18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and (all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered). One can only conclude it covered the whole earth!!
The author found that “In 95 percent of the more than (two hundred flood legends), the flood was worldwide"
I believe it's true because of the Bible, the author along with other findings about worldwide flood legends, add to that the similarity in flood accounts in a list that can be found on, of all places...Talkorigins!
Flood Stories from Around the World
Yes there is physical evidence of a worldwide flood!

 

[SeventyOne]

The Earth moves constantly. So this is figurative, not literal. . It isn't meant to be literal, unless you want to deny that the Earth turns on its axis and revolves around the Sun.

Or... it doesn't.

I understand that you are trying to find any way to quickly dismiss what it says so you can retain your current paradigm, but if you value what it states in any way, perhaps you shouldn't be too hasty to judge them based on your own understanding.