Do you believe in a global flood?

[rusra02]

If the flood did indeed cover the land, what happened to the terrestrial plant life? Didn't a dove return with an olive leaf? If so, where on Earth (literally) did it find a surviving olive tree? No terrestrial plants that I know of can survive fully submerged for 40 days and still produce viable leaves.

There are two possibilities. Since the olive is quite a hardy tree, it might have remained alive under water for some months during the Deluge. With the abating of the floodwaters, an olive tree that had been submerged would again be on dry ground and could put forth leaves. The olive leaf carried to Noah by the dove could also have been taken from a fairly young sprout that came up after the floodwaters had abated.

 

[Noaidi]

There are two possibilities. Since the olive is quite a hardy tree, it might have remained alive under water for some months during the Deluge. With the abating of the floodwaters, an olive tree that had been submerged would again be on dry ground and could put forth leaves. The olive leaf carried to Noah by the dove could also have been taken from a fairly young sprout that came up after the floodwaters had abated.

I could find no evidence of olive trees withstanding full submersion (i.e. the entire tree, not just the roots) and surviving due to:
1. lack of oxygen - a result of being in water and a lack of photosynthesis
2. root rot - which olives are prone to in wet conditions. This also applies to seedlings grown on very wet soil which, I assume, the land would have consisted of, having just undergone a 40-day flood.

 

[rusra02]

I could find no evidence of olive trees withstanding full submersion (i.e. the entire tree, not just the roots) and surviving due to:
1. lack of oxygen - a result of being in water and a lack of photosynthesis
2. root rot - which olives are prone to in wet conditions. This also applies to seedlings grown on very wet soil which, I assume, the land would have consisted of, having just undergone a 40-day flood.

I assume you found no evidence one way or the other. Effects of Flooding on Trees | Horticulture and Home Pest News

says: "Except in cases where flood waters persist for months or where trees have been injured by the sheer force of rushing water, most trees experiencing flood conditions should survive"

 

[Noaidi]

My post above referred to olive trees - the tree mentioned in the bible.

 

[Noaidi]

Olive trees and waterlogging:

SpringerLink - Journal Article

Last line of the article's abstract: "The coupled effects of salinity and waterlogging (hypoxia) stresses were most detrimental for olive's growth."

 

[rusra02]

Olive trees and waterlogging:

SpringerLink - Journal Article

Last line of the article's abstract: "The coupled effects of salinity and waterlogging (hypoxia) stresses were most detrimental for olive's growth."

Thanks. Even if ALL the olive trees were destroyed, which we cannot assume, the seeds of the olive tree could still germinate and grow.
My point is the objections raised to the Biblical Flood are weak or non-existent on close examination. The evidence does support the fact that the Flood happened.

 

[Noaidi]

Rusra02

I made a mistake in my post you quoted above. I said that the flood lasted 40 days. Just checked Genesis 7:24 "The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days". This makes it even more unlikely that an olive tree (a tree adapted to dry conditions) would be able to tolerate flooding.

 

[Noaidi]

Thanks. Even if ALL the olive trees were destroyed, which we cannot assume, the seeds of the olive tree could still germinate and grow.

But how? The root sent out from the germinating seed could not tolerate the excessive soil moisture. As I said, olives are dry-adapted plants. To assume that somehow they can change their environmental tolerance within a few months is unfounded.

 

[rusra02]

But how? The root sent out from the germinating seed could not tolerate the excessive soil moisture. As I said, olives are dry-adapted plants. To assume that somehow they can change their environmental tolerance within a few months is unfounded.

The seeds would not germinate under water. Once the land dryed off, dormant seeds could then germinate and grow. Also, as stated, many plants can survive for months under water and then grow again.

 

[Noaidi]

The seeds would not germinate under water. Once the land dryed off, dormant seeds could then germinate and grow. Also, as stated, many plants can survive for months under water and then grow again.

Genesis 8: 8-9 Noah send out a dove. The land is still flooded, and the dove has nowhere to land. Dove returns to the ark.
Genesis 8: 10 Noah then waits for seven days before sending out the dove again. Dove returns that evening with an olive leaf.

So, within a seven-day period, the water that covered the earth has subsided in an area that allows an olive seed to germinate and produce leaves. Bearing in mind that, although the water may have subsided, the ground would still be saturated seven days later, given the amount of water that would have been present. Olives, as I said, cannot tolerate flooded conditions. This is why olive trees only grow in certain regions of the world (i.e. dry regions). Their roots are not adapted to high water content in the soil. Any root that emerged from the seed would rot. *

I feel we are going round in circles with this discussion. I’m giving you scientific evidence regarding the conditions necessary for olive trees to grow, but you seem adamant that they defy their physiology. Can you provide me with evidence for this? If you can, then we could debate it further. Until then, I’m afraid that I can’t accept what’s written in a 3000 year old book as valid botany (trust me - I'm a botanist by training!)


*Edited to add: It has been noted that germination is spasmodic, taking from a few weeks to a few months. Substantially longer than the 7-day period stated in the bible. After germination, the growth rate of the seedling is slow, negating the idea that leaf production can occur within a week.

 

[rusra02]

Genesis 8: 8-9 Noah send out a dove. The land is still flooded, and the dove has nowhere to land. Dove returns to the ark.
Genesis 8: 10 Noah then waits for seven days before sending out the dove again. Dove returns that evening with an olive leaf.

So, within a seven-day period, the water that covered the earth has subsided in an area that allows an olive seed to germinate and produce leaves. Bearing in mind that, although the water may have subsided, the ground would still be saturated seven days later, given the amount of water that would have been present. Olives, as I said, cannot tolerate flooded conditions. This is why olive trees only grow in certain regions of the world (i.e. dry regions). Their roots are not adapted to high water content in the soil. Any root that emerged from the seed would rot. *

I feel we are going round in circles with this discussion. I’m giving you scientific evidence regarding the conditions necessary for olive trees to grow, but you seem adamant that they defy their physiology. Can you provide me with evidence for this? If you can, then we could debate it further. Until then, I’m afraid that I can’t accept what’s written in a 3000 year old book as valid botany (trust me - I'm a botanist by training!)


*Edited to add: It has been noted that germination is spasmodic, taking from a few weeks to a few months. Substantially longer than the 7-day period stated in the bible. After germination, the growth rate of the seedling is slow, negating the idea that leaf production can occur within a week.

You are making some unwarranted assumptions about the account in Genesis 8.
Verses 4-8 state: "And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ar′a·rat. And the waters kept on progressively lessening until the tenth month. In the tenth month, on the first of the month, the tops of the mountains appeared. So it occurred that at the end of forty days Noah proceeded to open the window of the ark that he had made. After that he sent out a raven, and it continued flying outdoors, going and returning, until the waters dried off the earth. Later he sent out from him a dove to see whether the waters had abated from the surface of the ground.

The dove did not find dry land on its first release from the ark. We cannot assume there was no dry land, simply that the dove did not find any. It is said that doves rest only on dry ground, are known to fly low in valleys, and feed on vegetation. Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia notes: “As is true of all pigeons and doves eating seeds and nuts, there is difficulty in feeding when snow [or water] cover persists more than a day, most of their potential food being on the ground surface.” You also make assumptions about the moisture content of the soil. Quoting you, "the ground would still be saturated seven days later, given the amount of water that would have been present."
There is no reason to believe the ground was saturated, since the dove did not return after being released a third time. To the contrary, this would likely mean the dove found both food and shelter. (Gen 8:12). This is indicated also by the comment in verse eleven, "so Noah got to know that the waters had abated from the earth."

To summarize, it is not possible for us to know about the soil moisture content or topography of the area where the ark came to rest after the flood, and there is certainly no compelling reason to doubt the truthfulness of the account in Genesis chapter 8.

​

 

[Noaidi]

.... and there is certainly no compelling reason to doubt the truthfulness of the account in Genesis chapter 8.

Thanks for your reply, rusra02. From the quote above, I take it you are reading genesis as a literal historical document?
Before I respond, could you tell me if you believe that the flood was global or local (with evidence for your assertion)? This has a bearing on the availability of dry land and where plants could have survived.

 

[sojourner]

If you believe in the Bible/are a Christian etc, do you believe the flood was world wide or simply localized but appearing worldwide to the then known world? What convinces you either way?

Not global.

 

[rusra02]

Thanks for your reply, rusra02. From the quote above, I take it you are reading genesis as a literal historical document?
Before I respond, could you tell me if you believe that the flood was global or local (with evidence for your assertion)? This has a bearing on the availability of dry land and where plants could have survived.

Yes, the Genesis account is both literal and historical. The flood was global, as the Bible says it was.

 

[Noaidi]

Hang on, hang on!!!

One christian says it's global, another says it's local. Are you guys reading the same book?!
It seems this book can be interpreted in such a variety of ways to render it meaningless.

Rusra02. Okay, I'll respond to you from your view that it was global. I'll get back to you.

 

[Noaidi]

Rusra02

In an earlier reply to DeitySlayer you said: “As to where the waters could have gone, the oceans are the obvious answer.”

If you believe in a global flood scenario, there were no oceans for the water to flow into – the whole world would have been an ocean.

Genesis 7: “The waters……rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet”.

If we are to believe that the water covered the highest mountains to a depth of 7 metres, then you have a total depth of water of over 8850 metres, measured from the submerged land surface. (assuming Everest hasn’t changed considerably over the last 3000 years). This is, by literalist reckoning, a global depth. Do the maths and calculate the volume of water that has to dissipate.

This directly relates to my question regarding the survival of land plants. There could not possibly have been enough time for the land to dry out sufficiently to allow the establishment of an olive tree. As was questioned above, where did that volume of water go in such a short period of time?

 

[DeitySlayer]

You say: "There is no credible mechanism by which water can maintain a 'shell' around the Earth without collapsing. Water does not float in shells around the Earth."
Of course, clouds float in the atmosphere full of water. However, the Bible says the waters were above the expanse. Your assumptions about the effects of this water canopy are, of course, unfounded conjecture. The Creator who placed this water canopy is more than capable of controlling it's effects.

I note you completely ignored the points that if such a canopy collapsed, the temperature and energy release would have cooked the Earth and the pressure release would have caused every living thing to explode like a deep-sea fish brought up to the surface.

 

[kejos]

It seems this book can be interpreted in such a variety of ways to render it meaningless.

It's a spiritual book, not a history book or science book. The value of the Noah story is its allegory of a few being saved from destruction by resting in an ark- not by rowing or sailing or making any effort, or climbing mountains, as in other, similar legends. The ark represents Jesus, and boarding the windowless ark represents faith in Jesus and his atoning sacrifice. It does not matter what happened (and nothing happened, imv); it's what is going to happen that matters.

 

[Noaidi]

It's a spiritual book, not a history book or science book. The value of the Noah story is its allegory of a few being saved from destruction by resting in an ark- not by rowing or sailing or making any effort, or climbing mountains, as in other, similar legends. The ark represents Jesus, and boarding the windowless ark represents faith in Jesus and his atoning sacrifice. It does not matter what happened (and nothing happened, imv); it's what is going to happen that matters.

Thanks for that. I agree that it is not a scientific or historical book, but it seems that, on this thread, some do see the bible as very much a historical book. I'm in a debate at the moment with Rusra02, who believes that a global flood did indeed occur.
How do you feel when fellow christians view this book as literal? ( know that question is a bit off-topic, but hopefully no-one will notice...)

 

[kejos]

Thanks for that. I agree that it is not a scientific or historical book, but it seems that, on this thread, some do see the bible as very much a historical book. I'm in a debate at the moment with Rusra02, who believes that a global flood did indeed occur.
How do you feel when fellow christians view this book as literal? ( know that question is a bit off-topic, but hopefully no-one will notice...)

If people want to regard it as literal, that's fine. When people talk about that rather than Christ, that's not fine. That's when they leave my church.