~~The Flood~~ Global or Local???

[chaoschristian]

It'll take me a little bit, but there is a site I know of that looks at these claims and then runs the calculations on what would happen, as posited here, when energy in the amounts implied are released.

I believe the conclusion is: burning slag heap.

When most people look at the account of the flood they consider only "rain" or current surface water (that would include the ice caps). The bible states that it was not just rain.

Genesis 7:11b "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

There is water in the earth's core. There are mud volcanoes on the shelves and continental slopes. There are cold and hot water gysers around the earth.

I suspect the great flood probably was caused by water from the earth's core breaking out, rather than just water in the atmosphere or surfaces of the earth suddenly, slowly, rising.

If you consider the cataclysmic possibilities it fits the order the bible lays out. The earth opens up and spews water from the core at such a force and heat that this affects the atmosphere, bringing down a rare and very unusual rain.

Despite criticisms of the flood, the fact is, Genesis, the Qur'an, the Critias and Timaeus of Plato, and the Babyloanina Gilgamesh all refer to the flood. In fact, Gilgamesh very closely resembles the biblical account, down to the dove flying out.

Science admits that the world is covered in flood sediment. It has problems over the layering of that sediment, and it has problems with the disbursement of animal life.

People look at current mountain ranges and say it isn't possible. Have they addressed the fact that the height of ranges alters? An earthquake in 2004 caused an uplift of 20 feet at a speed of 240 feet per hour.

If, indeed, water came from within the earth, that means some type of earthquake had to have taken place, reshaping the mountain ranges of the world.

This also explains where the water went. Those who support a catastrophic plate tectonics event believe there was a great water table beneath the earth. Livign over the Ogallala Aquifer, I have little problem with that belief.

 

[PaladinValer]

When most people look at the account of the flood they consider only "rain" or current surface water (that would include the ice caps). The bible states that it was not just rain.

Genesis 7:11b "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

There is water in the earth's core. There are mud volcanoes on the shelves and continental slopes. There are cold and hot water gysers around the earth.

There is no water in the Earth's core. Underneath the surface of the Earth, there is nothing but rock, molten or solid.

You either don't know or forget that it is upon the crust of the Earth that all water rests upon. The only other water we can see other than on or within a solid object is it either falling down from the sky in the form of precepitation or seeing it as cloud.

The idea of water being underneath the Earth comes from old Hebrew cosmology, which taught that an ocean of water existed under the Earth, between the surface and sheol.

See: http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/ThreeTieredUniverse.htm

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

http://home.messiah.edu/~kbauer/

I suspect the great flood probably was caused by water from the earth's core breaking out, rather than just water in the atmosphere or surfaces of the earth suddenly, slowly, rising.

No water underneath the crust.

 

[gluadys]

Not necessarily.

Many ice cores show that there was both a climatic change and dust spike around the time that Noah's flood happened.
Dust spikes could be a result of all vegetation dying leaving the ground without any roots to hold it in place.

Dust spikes in Ice Cores

How could ice cores survive a flood much less record one?

There are also hundreds of writings all over the world that tell of a worldwide flood. Archeologically, we also know that ancient civilizations came to an end around the time of the flood.

And also plenty that don't, but continue on with no appearance of having been disrupted by the flood. Even one civilisation not experiencing the flood is evidence it was not global.

 

[PaladinValer]

How could ice cores survive a flood much less record one?

This is what I meant by ice cores. The fact is that the water would have melted the ice.

And also plenty that don't, but continue on with no appearance of having been disrupted by the flood. Even one civilisation not experiencing the flood is evidence it was not global.

And thank God that in Africa, Deluge myths are rare.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Archeologically, we also know that ancient civilizations came to an end around the time of the flood.

reference for just one "ancient civilization came to an end around the time of the flood" because of a universal/global flood, please. i am aware of none such and would like to investigate this claim further.

 

[dad]

There is no water in the Earth's core. Underneath the surface of the Earth, there is nothing but rock, molten or solid.

There was.

The idea of water being underneath the Earth comes from old Hebrew cosmology, which taught that an ocean of water existed under the Earth, between the surface and sheol.

The idea there was none is a modern fairy tale based on nothing but assumptions the world was always like it now is.

 

[PaladinValer]

Geology proves otherwise.

 

[FaithfulServant]

How could ice cores survive a flood much less record one?

Probably in a similar way that there is still a huge block of ice on the North Pole.

 

[dad]

Geology proves otherwise.

No, it supports a young earth, as the bible says with a different past. Sorry you were misinformed.

 

[gluadys]

Probably in a similar way that there is still a huge block of ice on the North Pole.

with no indication in the ice cores from that region that much of its surface was once melted by a flood. You would think there would be a significant demarcation of pre-flood and post-flood ice formations in ice cores. But as with varves we don't find any.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Probably in a similar way that there is still a huge block of ice on the North Pole.

the ice on the North Pole is sea pack ice.
it floats.

the ice cores are from Greenland glaciers, they don't float.....*grin* 120K years plus of cores from there.

not the same thing, except they are both cold.

 

[PaladinValer]

There is absolutely no water underneath the crust.

Where do you get that idea from? Hebrew cosmology? Not from science; the only thing under the crust is molten rock and a core mostly of iron

 

[Mandrake]

I'll come out as local flood too. Several other posters have given the same reasoning for that that I would have, and others try to make up science to suit their preconceptions. Stop treating the bible like a science textbook, it just kills the message that it contains.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Everything we've learend about the Earth thus far seems to say "local," so that's my answer.

 

[Deamiter]

I do know that there are local floods all over the Earth, but I think an important point is that most advocates of a "local flood" don't believe that the Genesis account is an accurate historical account of any one flood. Sure, a huge flood probably did inspire the myth, but it's totally up in the air about what is based in fact and what is there for symbolic meaning (and of course the significant overlap between the two).

I too think that there was no global flood for primarily scientific reasons. Just as I "know" that Jesus is not a vine because people cannot be vines, I "know" that there was no global flood because the Earth doesn't hold evidence of a global flood.

 

[Deamiter]

I do know that there are local floods all over the Earth, but I think an important point is that most advocates of a "local flood" don't believe that the Genesis account is an accurate historical account of any one flood. Sure, a huge flood probably did inspire the myth, but it's totally up in the air about what is based in fact and what is there for symbolic meaning (and of course the significant overlap between the two).

I too think that there was no global flood for primarily scientific reasons. Just as I "know" that Jesus is not a vine because people cannot be vines, I "know" that there was no global flood because the Earth doesn't hold evidence of a global flood.

 

[chaoschristian]

OK, here it a critique of the mechanics of flood geology from another site I frequent. The author is not Christian friendly, but his analysis still stands.

Is flood geology consistent with fundamental laws of physics? Once again, absolutely not. Not only do its proposals for a water source violate the concepts of buoyancy, gravity, and opacity, but they also ignore the laws of thermodynamics. While meteor theory depends on the laws of thermodynamics (the kinetic energy of the meteor must be converted into work and heat in order to generate the global holocaust scenario), flood geology ignores those laws by neglecting the energy involved in the storage and/or movement of all the water:

1. Consider the "vapour canopy" theory. We all know that an object picks up speed and kinetic energy as it falls, but what about a million trillion tons of water falling from fifty kilometres? The energy released in this case would be equivalent to more than a hundred billion megatons! This staggering amount of energy would have manifested itself in the form of extreme temperatures, vapourizing the oceans, superheating the atmosphere, and creating a vast globe-spanning cloud of steam that would have sterilized the entire surface of the planet. The victims of that sterilization would, of course, includes Noah and his ridiculous little wooden boat. Boats, after all, do not float in clouds of superheated steam.

2. Now, consider the "hydroplate" theory. It's better, right? Well, not really. It proposes that buried water shot up as steam into the upper atmosphere, and then fell back to Earth as rain. However, this merely exacerbates the problems of the vapour canopy! Now, not only does the water have to fall from the upper atmosphere and hit the Earth like a hundred billion megaton bomb, but it must be shot out of fissures in the Earth's crust beforehand.

3. And finally, consider the "flat continents" theory. The deformation of any material requires energy; that's why it takes effort to bend a piece of metal, and that's why it will be slightly warmer after you've bent it. The heating effect of deformation is not often obvious in everyday situations, but if you've ever seen a steel rolling mill, you'll be convinced. Metal strips can become red hot after passing through just a few rolling mills, and that's because the work performed on the metal has to go somewhere. The same is true of rock, yet the YECs claim that millions upon trillions of tons of rock moved effortlessly up and down by 5 miles or more! Don't they realize that hundreds of billions of megatons of work would be required, so the land masses would become red hot and the oceans would boil off? Apparently not. You can't just arbitrarily speed up a process like continental drift to many hundreds of millions of times its normal rate, because that will also accelerate the rate of energy release by the same factor, with lethal consequences.

 

[Emkay]

Child_of_Yahweh,

I personally believe that the Flood was global as Genesis describes. I mean, what kind of things would you expect if such a Flood occurred? You would expect, for example, millions of living things burried in sediments laid down by water all around the earth and this is exactly what we find. Of course, the evolutionist just explains this differently - they do not dispute that there are millions of living things that are burried in sediments laid down by water all around the world, they just say that it originated some other way without a global flood.

Those who claim that "there is no evidence" for the Flood are simply naive and to be frank, wrong. It is their interpretation of the evidence (e.g. fossils) that says the Flood could not have happened. There are also many geological features, such as Uluru in Australia, which can be explained consistently with a global flood and appear to be difficult for the old agers to explain.

With a Flood on the scale of magnitude as this, the large majority of the world's geology and fossils were formed during this time. In the several hundred years that followed the Flood, an ice age is believed to have occurred.

Other than that, the biblical evidence itself also suggests that it was local. It says that it killed all animals and all people except for those on the ark (i.e. Noah's family). Now, logically one has to ask if it is local, then why did not the people and animals simpily shift to where it was not flooding? Or put another way, why didn't God send Noah and his family else where to a place where they would be safe from the flood waters rather than have him build a boat for two hundred years?

Another point is that God promised to never again send such a flood upon the earth so long as it lasts. If this was only a local flood, then He has broken His promise time and time again since then - who then can trust Him on anything He says, let alone the requirements for our salvation?

Jesus also seems to take this story literally as history when he talks about it in the Gospels, as do the apostles such as Peter when he talks about it in his letters.

That's IMHO anyway.

 

[Brownsy]

Definately local in my opinion. There is just too much scientific evidence that points to there not being a global flood (as many people have posted here in a far better fashion then I ever could).

Not only this, but the whole idea of a global flood, of 2 of every kind of animal in the whole world fitting, onto a man made arc, harmoniously co-existing for an extended period of time and surviving to pro-create an repopulate the earth is nothing short of impossible in my eyes.

Just my opinion of course

Blessings to you all

 

[Emkay]

Not only this, but the whole idea of a global flood, of 2 of every kind of animal in the whole world fitting, onto a man made arc, harmoniously co-existing for an extended period of time and surviving to pro-create an repopulate the earth is nothing short of impossible in my eyes.

Although I respect your opinion, are you doubting the ability of God to allow co-existance of animals who naturally would eat each other? This is how it will be in the new heavens and new earth, frequently called the 'restoration of all things,' where the "wolf will lie down with the lamb." Further more, God made it such that the lions did not eat Daniel. Also, the ark was a very big ship being more than adequate for the task that God had assigned it for with quite a bit of room to spare.

I guess part of what I'm trying to say in effect is: with man alone this is impossible, but all things are possible with God.