The order of fossils in the geological column

[Queller]

Thinking I'm an atheist, when I've already been called Omphalos, Last Thursday and YEC doesn't even register on my radar.

Who called you an Atheist?

I could say I believe Jesus walked on water, and that would be enough to start ridiculing us.

I certainly wouldn't ridicule you for that, I believe the same thing.

I can't think of a time when I've ever argued successfully against anything here.

That should tell you something, don't you think?

The Trinity, the Rapture, the Resurrection, dispensation theology, catastrophism -- all can take a hike as far as you guys are concerned.

Not everyone that disagrees with you is an Atheist. Some of us are Christians who disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION of God's Word.

Even posting in threads far from here brings ridicule.

Why do you think that might be?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

?? Why would the present plain in that position be the probable point that the ark made it's port in pre flood Pangea?

Mountains may not have been high, as the plate movements that caused uplift and mountain building may have been post flood.

I don't think the flood caused continental drift or upheavals of mountains.

Nice try, but when the fountains of the deep and the portals in space are opened pouring water on the planet, that slow stuff is out the window. Jesus mentions that the folks were taken away with the flood. That does not lend itself well to some slow rain.

The driving force for the actual flood of God was water from space and under the earth.

I think the language leaves room for my interpretation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Assuming that you by "Mts. of Ararat" refer to the Ararat mountains in Turkey, please note that they are over 5000 meter high. Less than mount Everest, but still a lot to flood in 40 days.

The main flood 'prevailed' for 150 days.

 

[Herman Hedning]

The main flood 'prevailed' for 150 days.

OK, let's go with that. It still means the water would have to rise more than 100 ft per day - 50 inches per hour. That couldn't possibly be very gentle could it?

 

[dad]

I don't think the flood caused continental drift or upheavals of mountains.

Me either, I suspect the state change over a century after the flood. For the sake of simplicity I mentioned 'around the time of the flood'.

I think the language leaves room for my interpretation.

Logically, if the wicked were not swept away fast, they would probably have attacked the ark, burned it etc.

 

[dad]

What features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify your model?

What features would your mom have if she lived through the flood? What features would the geologic formation need to exhibit if the spaghetti monster slept on them? Try coming up with sound questions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Me either, I suspect the state change over a century after the flood. For the sake of simplicity I mentioned 'around the time of the flood'.

So, magical thinking over a period of time, then.

Logically, if the wicked were not swept away fast, they would probably have attacked the ark, burned it etc.

Logically, if the wicked were going to attack the ark, they'd want it intact for themselves... "wicked" does not mean "stupid."

 

[dad]

So, magical thinking over a period of time, then.

To the wicked witch doctors of so called science God changing the world might seem like magic.

Logically, if the wicked were going to attack the ark, they'd want it intact for themselves..

If they could get it! The door was high, strong, and closed by God. Guess the wicked might think that was magic too! Knowing the dark heart of man, if they could not have it for themselves, they would want to destroy it.

. "wicked" does not mean "stupid."

I disagree. Getting saved as God offers man is the smart thing to do.

 

[Queller]

You're making my point about flood models.

My model has a gentler, and purposeful, rain that only lasts for 40 days. This would allow Noah to capture fresh water, and, would serve to swell the wooden ark to a watertight condition. That it took forty days for the main floodwater to reach and float the ark indicates slow moving water (based on the probable location of the ark site on the Mesopotamian Plain).

The problem is that your model ignores both the Bible's description of the Flood and the scientific evidence that we see.

For example, 40 days of gentle, purposeful rain (not quite sure what qualifies as "purposeful" rain) would not be anywhere near enough to flood the planet. Especially if, as you seem to be claiming, that it wasn't raining everywhere on the planet at the same time ("it took forty days for the main floodwater to reach and float the ark").

My model doesn't need Mt. Everest to be covered. 'Mountains' can be translated as 'high hills', meaning the Mts. of Ararat. Why flood a distant mountain that probably had no life on it whatsoever.

Depending on which mountains you need covered in the "mountains of Ararat" you still need 10s of millions of cubic miles of water. Mt Ararat itself is 16,000+ feet high. Even a global flood high enough to cover that but not cover Everest, would still leave a massive high water mark on Everest (and every other mountain taller than Ararat around the world). There isn't any such mark.

My model has the landmass sinking under the weight of the floodwater, much like the Amazon River basin sinks under the weight of seasonal floods, only on a continental scale. My flood water would come in slowly, only speeding up relatively when the land began to sink under the weight of it. By that time most of the movement of water would be near the top of the water column, not scouring and eroding the earth. Same when the water receded, where it would break up into many 'local' floods leaving no evidence of a single large flood. Local floods leave local evidence, just as is found in the geological record.

First, the continents are not equivalent to a river basin no matter how big the river.

Second, do you have any sources showing the Amazon River BASIN sinks under the weight of seasonal floods? I can only find articles that talk about how the water level rises with seasonal runoff.

Third, The largest earthquake in recorded history in 1960 was a 9.5 in Chile. Two continental plates moved against each other a total of 22ft horizontally and about 10 feet vertically. This resulted in 1600+ dead in Chile, 61 deaths in Hawaii, and 138 dead in Honshu, Japan 10,000 miles away. The massive movement of the continental plates is not a gentle event and would therefore NOT result in gentle waves inundating a flood plain after 40 days of rain. Just as a comparison, the tsunami from the Chile earthquake I mentioned reached Japan only ONE DAY later.

The driving force for my flood is an uplifting (breaking up) of the ocean floors spilling the oceans onto the land; perhaps the last of a periodic series of such events stretching back for millions of years.

Unfortunately, such an event would not result in a gentle inundation but massive tsunamis.

ETA; Nothing in your model suggests where all that additional water went AFTER the Flood either. That is something any global flood model HAS to account for.

 

[Queller]

Completely false. The bible method disproves the science method.

That doesn't automatically mean that the "Bible method" is the best one to use to investigate scientific phenomenon.

 

[Queller]

I don't think the flood caused continental drift or upheavals of mountains.

But upheaval of mountains is actually what you are talking about when you say things like

"My model has the landmass sinking under the weight of the floodwater, much like the Amazon River basin sinks under the weight of seasonal floods, only on a continental scale."

I think the language leaves room for my interpretation.

How so?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

OK, let's go with that. It still means the water would have to rise more than 100 ft per day - 50 inches per hour. That couldn't possibly be very gentle could it?

Of course gentle is a relative term regarding floodwater. Topography is the main determinate of flood characteristics. Gentler over flat terrain, more violent over hilly or mountainous terrain.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Logically, if the wicked were not swept away fast, they would probably have attacked the ark, burned it etc.

By the time anyone thought of burning the ark there wouldn't have been much dry wood around. Also this assumes that a lot of people were still in the vicinity of the ark, and, that they knew the ark was a refuge from the flood and that they were denied entrance.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problem is that your model ignores both the Bible's description of the Flood and the scientific evidence that we see.

For example, 40 days of gentle, purposeful rain (not quite sure what qualifies as "purposeful" rain) would not be anywhere near enough to flood the planet. Especially if, as you seem to be claiming, that it wasn't raining everywhere on the planet at the same time ("it took forty days for the main floodwater to reach and float the ark").

Depending on which mountains you need covered in the "mountains of Ararat" you still need 10s of millions of cubic miles of water. Mt Ararat itself is 16,000+ feet high. Even a global flood high enough to cover that but not cover Everest, would still leave a massive high water mark on Everest (and every other mountain taller than Ararat around the world). There isn't any such mark.

First, the continents are not equivalent to a river basin no matter how big the river.

Second, do you have any sources showing the Amazon River BASIN sinks under the weight of seasonal floods? I can only find articles that talk about how the water level rises with seasonal runoff.

Third, The largest earthquake in recorded history in 1960 was a 9.5 in Chile. Two continental plates moved against each other a total of 22ft horizontally and about 10 feet vertically. This resulted in 1600+ dead in Chile, 61 deaths in Hawaii, and 138 dead in Honshu, Japan 10,000 miles away. The massive movement of the continental plates is not a gentle event and would therefore NOT result in gentle waves inundating a flood plain after 40 days of rain. Just as a comparison, the tsunami from the Chile earthquake I mentioned reached Japan only ONE DAY later.

Unfortunately, such an event would not result in a gentle inundation but massive tsunamis.

ETA; Nothing in your model suggests where all that additional water went AFTER the Flood either. That is something any global flood model HAS to account for.

My model has it raining (water running down drainages into the sea) but causing no large flooding (although there might have been flooding in catchment areas). The benefit of such a rain for Noah would be to swell the wood of the ark to a watertight condition (absolutely necessary; ask any wooden boat owner), and, to provide a supply of fresh water for the ark.

A slow upwelling of the ocean floors, much like the lava domes that form in volcanoes, would spill the sea waters onto the land, much like a tidal surge. As the water deepened the continents would begin to sink under the weight (the earth's crust is quite flexible). This would accelerate and expand the floods reach over all but the highest mountain peaks.

There is more than enough water in the seas to flood the entire earth. When the sea beds returned to their normal state the flood waters would return to the sea from whence they came. No mystery here.

The Amazon River basin sinks about 4 inches under the 80 or so feet of annual flood water. What is actually happening is the sagging river basin crust is being held up by the unaffected dry area around it. If the floodwaters were broad and deep enough whole continent would sink.

Picture a desktop globe. All it takes is a slight deformation, about the thickness of 2 or 3 sheets of paper, to cause global flooding from the oceans on the actual scale.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But upheaval of mountains is actually what you are talking about when you say things like

"My model has the landmass sinking under the weight of the floodwater, much like the Amazon River basin sinks under the weight of seasonal floods, only on a continental scale."

The story indicates that the mountains were already in existence at the time of the flood.

How so? ( Responding to OldWiseGuy's statement: "I think the language leaves room for my interpretation.")

I think the many poetic terms and phrases obscures what might have actually happened. Also the translators had to work within the framework of the language, and within the framework of what they believed, and/or what was expedient, at the time.

 

[Queller]

My model has it raining (water running down drainages into the sea) but causing no large flooding (although there might have been flooding in catchment areas). The benefit of such a rain for Noah would be to swell the wood of the ark to a watertight condition (absolutely necessary; ask any wooden boat owner), and, to provide a supply of fresh water for the ark.

You are still ignoring both what the Bible says about the characteristics of the Flood and the scientific evidence we see.

A slow upwelling of the ocean floors, much like the lava domes that form in volcanoes, would spill the sea waters onto the land, much like a tidal surge. As the water deepened the continents would begin to sink under the weight (the earth's crust is quite flexible). This would accelerate and expand the floods reach over all but the highest mountain peaks.

You need to give some evidence that continents can sink under the weight of water. After all, continents are just the highest part of continental plates. The water is already sitting on those continental plates and they don't seem to be going anywhere.

There is more than enough water in the seas to flood the entire earth.

Not to the depth you need. If the earth were a perfectly smooth sphere, and using the available water we have right now, the planet would be covered by a layer only ~1.6 miles deep. Not anywhere near enough to cover three mile high Mt. Ararat.

When the sea beds returned to their normal state the flood waters would return to the sea from whence they came. No mystery here.

The deepest seabeds are 36,000+ feet deep (Challenger Deep). For them to rise up to evenly distribute all the water all over the planet, and then sink back down again enough to leave the continents dry again, in slightly less than a year, would cause such massive tsunamis that nothing could survive it. We're talking tsunamis at least 1000s of meters high, if not more.

The Amazon River basin sinks about 4 inches under the 80 or so feet of annual flood water. What is actually happening is the sagging river basin crust is being held up by the unaffected dry area around it. If the floodwaters were broad and deep enough whole continent would sink.

One, I would still like to see some evidence of the Amazon River basin sinking.

Two, if the ocean depths have leveled out and the water is all over the planet, the continental plates won't go anywhere. Think of it this way, if you take an egg and completely surround it with your hand, then apply pressure evenly all around the egg, you won't be able to break it. The only way you can crack it in this situation, is to put sustained pressure at just one point, which you won't have your flood scenario.

Picture a desktop globe. All it takes is a slight deformation, about the thickness of 2 or 3 sheets of paper, to cause global flooding from the oceans on the actual scale.

Which will not give you enough water to flood the planet to the depths necessary to cover the mountains of Ararat and will result in massive tsunamis and heat from the rapidly rising and falling continental plates that you are proposing. This will not be the gentle event you are proposing.

 

[Queller]

The story indicates that the mountains were already in existence at the time of the flood.

Yes, that's true, but if the continents are moving up and down with the weight of the water, the mountains on those continents are going to be moving with them.

I think the many poetic terms and phrases obscures what might have actually happened. Also the translators had to work within the framework of the language, and within the framework of what they believed, and/or what was expedient, at the time.

Can you give some specific examples?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you give some specific examples?

Morse code, digital communication, the Internet:

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

 

[dad]

By the time anyone thought of burning the ark there wouldn't have been much dry wood around. Also this assumes that a lot of people were still in the vicinity of the ark, and, that they knew the ark was a refuge from the flood and that they were denied entrance.

Since Noah preached many years while building the ark, one assumes folks had some general idea, but did not believe it. Possibly one of the biggest structures in the pre flood world, the ark would likely have been seen for miles in several directions. I don't recall that Noah got some message to flee to the wilderness to build the ark either.

If there were slow rains, the wicked would have had weeks to try to burn or break into or somehow destroy the ark. They had metal in those days, so they had metal implements to do so. The pitch on the ark was likely some sort of accelerant to fire, and attacking a wooden structure with pitch inside and out in a mere slow rain would probably be no great deterrence.


I would say the picture is one od sudden destruction, where oceans of water poured down, and gushed up, utterly destroying life in short order...even though some folks would have sought higher ground in a hurry, and possibly survived some days longer.

 

[Queller]

Morse code, digital communication, the Internet:

Job 38:35 Canst thou send lightnings, that they may go, and say unto thee, Here we are?

Thanks for the laugh.

Oh wait, were you serious?