Source of water for the flood

[TheManeki]

Fortunately, you aren't the one putting the final grade on my papers.

Ah, but how can you be sure that the Grader agrees with your answer to this particular question?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Fortunately, you aren't the one putting the final grade on my papers.

Hopefully you didn't go with the $1.76 study guide available at the checkout lane.

 

[necroforest]

You're close --- only their top representatives boarded the Ark.

Look at it this way. Suppose I wanted to destroy all the numbers ever written and currently in existence, but wanted to preserve a set on one little 3x5 card, so they could "replenish a journal."

All I would have to do is save numbers 0 - 9 and problem solved.

As to your parenthetical, God could have fed them Himself, much as He did the widow of Zarephath in 1 Kings 17. We're not totally ignorant of how God operates, or what He can do.

Yes, but there are only 10 decimal digits. There are literally millions of species on this planet right now.

 

[Psudopod]

Easy, the Ark wasn't a black hole but a ship with "known" dimensions. Ergo It couldn't have fitted the amount of animals it supposedly did.

To be fair, AVET is right: an omnipotent deity can do whatever he wants. The ark could have been like a tardis, the animals could have gone without food for a year, whatever was necessary for the flood to "work". There are theological issues, like why the flood was necessary and why an ark was necessary, rather than god just saving noah, his family and a breeding pair of each animal if that's what he wanted to do, but that's not for this forum. You and I don't believe in a global flood, Avet does. End of that story.

Now the flood is impossible. The evidence says this. A global flood never happened in the history of the earth. It is possible that in removing all the excess water and the unsanitary corpses of drowned things god rewrote the history of the earth so that we see it as impossible even though it did happen. Again ominpotent diety can do what he wants.

Basically, the reality we see before us says the global flood never happed; Avet has faith that it did. He can't refute the science, and the thelogical arguments are for another forum.

That all beign said, I'd like to know why you think "goddidit, case closed" should be enough for everyone? I understand that not everyone understands science and not everyone wants to, but that no one should be interested in studying the magesty of creation? I can't understand this position, especially in a christian. The goddidit part, fine. That's what you believe, I don't want to challenge you on that. But to say that it's enough to know simply that he did, rather than looking at what he has created for us seems a waste of his talents, really.

I know you say you are happy with science when it doesn't contradict scripture, but should we ignore it when there is a condradiction? Or should we re-evaluate our understanding of both. The vast majority of christians would disagree with you on the idea that case closed is enough, nor do they accept the idea that non-literal = false.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The volume of water necessary is more than double what we currently see. The sea floor would have had to rise higher than the current sea level is.

Not really. The average ocean depth is over two miles and covers nearly seventy per cent of earth's surface. The average height of land above sea level is about 450 feet. There's plenty of water.

Oceanic crust is denser than continental crust. Why is it that a denser substance is at a higher elevation than one which is not as dense?

If you are asking why ancient sea floor strata is found above sea level such as is found near the top of Mt. Everest you are making my case that such upheaval is possible. What do you think happened to the water when such an upheaval occured? My guess is that there would have been some flooding somewhere.

owg

 

[Adivi]

Not really. The average ocean depth is over two miles and covers nearly seventy per cent of earth's surface. The average height of land above sea level is about 450 feet. There's plenty of water.




If you are asking why ancient sea floor strata is found above sea level such as is found near the top of Mt. Everest you are making my case that such upheaval is possible. What do you think happened to the water when such an upheaval occured? My guess is that there would have been some flooding somewhere.

owg

But the flood covered all the mountaintops, not just all land, at least according to the Bible; the height of Mount Everest is about 4 miles above sea level.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But the flood covered all the mountaintops, not just all land, at least according to the Bible; the height of Mount Everest is about 4 miles above sea level.

Everest is closer to six miles high. I'm hoping someone will construct a flood model someday that will be useful.

The flood is a metaphor for baptism by emersion. Noah and all were baptised "unto salvation". The rest of the world received the 'burial' but not the 'resurrection' just like Pharaoh's army.

Because the flood was a baptism, both actually and metaphorically all that was necessary was for the earth to be completely submerged at least for a moment, just like our ritual baptism.

In view of this Mt. Everest needed to be submerged only for a short time for the whole earth to be covered with water. Giant tsunami sized waves approaching from opposite directions may have swelled up and over the peak thus fulfilling the baptism type. The waters did not have to 'stand' over the peak just 'prevail' or conquer the highest peak.

So all that was needed was enough water to accomplish that scenario.

owg

 

[lemmings]

Everest is closer to six miles high. I'm hoping someone will construct a flood model someday that will be useful.

The flood is a metaphor for baptism by emersion. Noah and all were baptised "unto salvation". The rest of the world received the 'burial' but not the 'resurrection' just like Pharaoh's army.

Because the flood was a baptism, both actually and metaphorically all that was necessary was for the earth to be completely submerged at least for a moment, just like our ritual baptism.

In view of this Mt. Everest needed to be submerged only for a short time for the whole earth to be covered with water. Giant tsunami sized waves approaching from opposite directions may have swelled up and over the peak thus fulfilling the baptism type. The waters did not have to 'stand' over the peak just 'prevail' or conquer the highest peak.

So all that was needed was enough water to accomplish that scenario.

owg

The December 2004 tsunami caused waves only hundred feet tall.

This concrete building was obliterated.

What do you think would happen to a wooden structure if it were hit by a wave over a hundred times taller than this one?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The December 2004 tsunami caused waves only hundred feet tall.

This concrete building was obliterated.

What do you think would happen to a wooden structure if it were hit by a wave over a hundred times taller than this one?

I assume you are referring to the ark itself.

The ark floated upon the flood, it wasn't broadsided by it. The floodwaters came in pretty gently over the Mesopotamian plain and rather gently lifted the ark up. The heavy weight of the ark would have caused it to ride very low in the water with very little freeboard. This would prevent even large waves from upsetting or damaging it.

owg

 

[RobertByers]

If you believe that there was at some point a global flood that covered all the mountains: [BIBLE]Genesis 7:19[/BIBLE]
Then where did the water come from? If it used to be underground, then the crust would have to have a porosity of about 50%; in reality, we find that it is about 1% due to the extreme pressures (source: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ278607 ). If it came from the atmosphere, then the sheer enormity of the amount of water present beforehand would introduce similar problems, as well as raise the question of why it didn't rain beforehand.

My two cents.
First the earth before the flood certainly didn't have great mountains but at most small ones. So covering the mts is less of a problem.
I know much undergound rock has in its spores great amounts of water. in fact I read somewhere that if it was placed on the earth it would drown everything to tens of feet.
Then their arepools of water here and there. They found one recently in North Asia I think.
Then the ice.
Then the surface and ground water.
Then the water in the atmosphere.
I think there is other sources of water in the ground but can't quote.
Perhaps in the preflood world there was not great depth in the seas but the flood dug up the seas and so much water went in.
The sea water today is occuping more then the old shallower seas.
Plenty of water to flood the globe.
Oh theres some more here in canada
Robert Byers

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

My two cents.
First the earth before the flood certainly didn't have great mountains but at most small ones. So covering the mts is less of a problem.
I know much undergound rock has in its spores great amounts of water. in fact I read somewhere that if it was placed on the earth it would drown everything to tens of feet.
Then their arepools of water here and there. They found one recently in North Asia I think.
Then the ice.
Then the surface and ground water.
Then the water in the atmosphere.
I think there is other sources of water in the ground but can't quote.
Perhaps in the preflood world there was not great depth in the seas but the flood dug up the seas and so much water went in.
The sea water today is occuping more then the old shallower seas.
Plenty of water to flood the globe.
Oh theres some more here in canada
Robert Byers

Plenty of water, huh? You done the calculations then? I'd love to see the math on that - think you will find that without a whole lot of not discussed in the Bible miracles, there certainly is not enough water. Also the methods of getting the water onto the surface (rain fall and "fountains of the deep") would cause all sorts of problems for Noah - one would burn him alive from the heat coming from kinetic energy impacts and the other would freeze him solid from the rapid depressurized water released. Not fun either way.

Of course that doesn't even touch on what the animals ate after they got off the Ark. Two lions can take out at least an antelope a week and I'm pretty sure the two antelope wouldn't be able to repopulate all that well after the first week!

 

[Paulos23]

I assume you are referring to the ark itself.

The ark floated upon the flood, it wasn't broadsided by it. The floodwaters came in pretty gently over the Mesopotamian plain and rather gently lifted the ark up. The heavy weight of the ark would have caused it to ride very low in the water with very little freeboard. This would prevent even large waves from upsetting or damaging it.

owg

If it is low in the water it is hard to roll it, it would take a massive wave to do that. But have you ever seen what even just small waves can do to a ship? A steel ship with power?

And you where claiming that there where waves to cover the highest mountain. The ark, a wood vessel with no power or steerage, would take a lot of damage from such a wave. Even if it was smaller waves, just big enough to crest over the side of the ark, they would ring that ship over and over. Eventually the hull would break or planks would shake lose and the water would come in.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

My two cents.
First the earth before the flood certainly didn't have great mountains but at most small ones. So covering the mts is less of a problem.
I know much undergound rock has in its spores great amounts of water. in fact I read somewhere that if it was placed on the earth it would drown everything to tens of feet.
Then their arepools of water here and there. They found one recently in North Asia I think.
Then the ice.
Then the surface and ground water.
Then the water in the atmosphere.
I think there is other sources of water in the ground but can't quote.
Perhaps in the preflood world there was not great depth in the seas but the flood dug up the seas and so much water went in.
The sea water today is occuping more then the old shallower seas.
Plenty of water to flood the globe.
Oh theres some more here in canada
Robert Byers

You are living in a dream world if you think the Earth was flat 6000 years ago, and remember for your so called flood geology to work you need high ground to supply the sediments needed to form the geological column.

Here’s a back of a beer mat calculation of how much water is needed to flood the Earth.


The Earth’s radius at sea level is ~6378135 m

The Earth’s radius at the top of Everest is 6386983 m

The Earth’s volume at sea level is 3.46 x 10^20 m cubed

The Earth’s volume at the top of Everest is 3.47 x 10^20 m cubed

The volume of water needed to flood the Earth is 1 x 10^ 18 m cubed

The volume of water in litres to flood the Earth is 1 x 10^ 22 litres

The amount of water presently on Earth is 1.26 x 10^21 litres

So to flood the Earth up to the top of Everest we would need 8 times more water than is presently on earth.

Stop deluding yourself

 

[TheManeki]

The flood is a metaphor for baptism by emersion. Noah and all were baptised "unto salvation". The rest of the world received the 'burial' but not the 'resurrection' just like Pharaoh's army.

Because the flood was a baptism, both actually and metaphorically all that was necessary was for the earth to be completely submerged at least for a moment, just like our ritual baptism.

If a global flood works well enough as a metaphor, and there is no evidence that it actually happened, why do you believe it must also be literal?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, owg ---

The floodwaters came in pretty gently over the Mesopotamian plain and rather gently lifted the ark up.

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think the Ark was built in Mesopotamia?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If it is low in the water it is hard to roll it, it would take a massive wave to do that. But have you ever seen what even just small waves can do to a ship? A steel ship with power?

And you where claiming that there where waves to cover the highest mountain. The ark, a wood vessel with no power or steerage, would take a lot of damage from such a wave. Even if it was smaller waves, just big enough to crest over the side of the ark, they would ring that ship over and over. Eventually the hull would break or planks would shake lose and the water would come in.

The ark was nowhere near Mt. Everest so a large wave or swell wouldn't affect it. The ark drifted north and settled in the "mountains of Ararat". Vessels can ride up and over large waves or swells. It's when they 'break' that they become dangerous.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The floodwaters came in pretty gently over the Mesopotamian plain and rather gently lifted the ark up. owg

Please forgive me if I'm not following, you see, I'm a bit new to "Flood Geology".

Here's a picture from Northern Iraq just south of the border with Turkey (SOURCE):

Look very closely at the middle of the picture. This is a classic "thrust fault" of a large large scale. Was this before the Flood or was this part of the enormous cataclysm many Flood advocates like to tout to explain their abysmal geologic knoweldge?

From about the same place:

We see some seriously tilted beds. Was that pre-Flood? Or was this a "gentle" event during the time of the Flood? (And if you could explain to me how a cohesive layer of what appears to be a whiter (cleaner?) higher energy sandstone overlies a lower-energy mudstone as depicted here, and how it could be lithified sufficiently to hold together through significant tilting. I'm curious about the "hydraulics" involved here...lesser intellects such as mine are so limited by what science tells us about how things like this happen, that I really need to hear some from the "other side" of the debate.)

Here's another massive thrust from the same area:

How gentle was the Flood?

Like I said, I'm a newbie to "Flood Geology" and I'm sorely confused by the various hypotheses about how violent the flood was or how gentle it was. It seems to come in waves depending on the weather for the particular YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like I said, I'm a newbie to "Flood Geology" and I'm sorely confused by the various hypotheses about how violent the flood was or how gentle it was. It seems to come in waves depending on the weather for the particular YEC.

I'll bet you can't explain this either, can you?
​

​

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hi, owg ---



Just out of curiosity, what makes you think the Ark was built in Mesopotamia?

Mesopotamia was the cradle of civilization in the time of Noah. Because the flood waters would have come up from the south through the Persian Gulf and from the Mediterranean Sea from the West the ark would have been carried northward and eastward to its resting place in the mountains of Ararat.

The building site would have been near major population centers and trade routes in order for labor and materials to be assembled.

This is a construct of events as if they had actually happened. Whether or not they did......??????????

owg

 

[AV1611VET]

Mesopotamia was the cradle of civilization in the time of Noah. Because the flood waters would have come up from the south through the Persian Gulf and from the Mediterranean Sea from the West the ark would have been carried northward and eastward to its resting place in the mountains of Ararat.

The building site would have been near major population centers and trade routes in order for labor and materials to be assembled.

This is a construct of events as if they had actually happened. Whether or not they did......??????????

owg

Okay --- thank you ---