Evidence of NOAH's FLOOD

[Subduction Zone]

Ground water is only the beginning. There's more but I leave the rest for you.

Ground water is not even a beginning. There is a reason that it is called "ground water". It does not just rise up for no reason at all. You could not find any sources of water. All that you could do was to misunderstand some science based articles.

The problem for you is that you keep yourself scientifically illiterate. That is required by the JW's because if you understood just a small fraction of science you would see how all of the scientific evidence tells us that the Flood never happened. Now could an omnipotent God plant false evidence? Yes, he could, but that would be a form of lying. As I have to repeatedly point out if you say that the Flood actually happened, you are also calling your God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Natch you don't have to believe this postulation by science but here it is...from https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-earth-was-water-world
"Across the ages...Earth's total surface water was always assumed to be constant." (Note the word assumed there...assumed for a long time.)
But evidence is mounting that a few billion years ago the planet's oceans held nearly twice as much water--enough to submerge today's continents above the peak of Mount Everest."
Oops above Mount Everest. But then, of course, that's only based on the "mounting evidence."

That may have been true billions of years ago. We do constantly lose hydrogen and helium at the top of the atmosphere to space so it is a slight possibility. But that was billions of years ago. You need that water here now. And it simply does not exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've found him useful:

"The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, 'What would change your minds?' Scientist Bill Nye answered, 'Evidence.' Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, 'Nothing. I'm a Christian.' Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

That is a really worthless standard that places an arbitrary and artificial demand on believers to deny reality in my opinion. He's not a Christian I put any stock in. Especially using his position to coerce others into believing his personal interpretation as if were a fact and rejecting the intelligence and abilities that I consider the gifts of God. It isn't a demand I would call Christian and it isn't consistent with the biblical idea of free will either.

Probably not, Dan, but thanks for thinking of me. And no, I don't consider you ignorant for being a theist (from another thread): "By the way, as a theist, atheists already think my beliefs are irrational and that embracing them is ignorance."

I thought you had comment something to that effect, but no doubt I am mistaken. Well, I appreciate the knowledge, reason and honesty of your posts. I find it sad that I don't always find that or from the sources I should expect it from.

Again, I appreciate that. It was perhaps, to sweeping a generalization.

From a previous post back in Topix days:

What volume of water must be added to the earth to flood all of its land. We do that by comparing the volume of the unflooded earth to the volume of the earth with ocean levels raised to above the highest mountain, Mt. Everest, which stands about five-and-a-half miles high.​

​

[1] The mean radius of the unflooded earth is about 6370 km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_radius​

​

[2] The volume of a sphere is =(4/3)(pi)( r^3)​

​

[3] Thus the volume of the unflooded earth is =(4/3)(3.14)(6370) ^3 = 1.08214805 × 10^12 = 1,082,148,050,000 km3​

​

[4] The height of Mt. Everest is 8.85 km (5.50 miles, 29029 feet) http://www.bharatonline.com/nepal/mount-everest/everest-height.html​

​

[5] Volume of flooded earth =(4/3)(3.14)(6378. 85)^3 = 1.08666469 × 10^12 = 1,086,664,690,000 km3 [Notice that the radius has been increased from 6370 to 6378.85]​

​

[6] The difference = about 4,500,000,000 km3 of water that must be added to the earth to cover Everest.​

​

[7] “About 3,100 mi3 (12,900 km3) of water, mostly in the form of water vapor, is in the atmosphere at any one time. If it all fell as precipitation at once, the Earth would be covered with only about 1 inch of water.” http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html Thus the atmosphere can provide about 12,900 of the 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of water needed, or about 1 inch of the five miles needed. What would happen to the marine life if you added this much fresh water to the oceans?​

​

[8] The total amount of water on earth is about 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html So, the water needed to flood the land completely - about four times as much water as the earth presently holds in all forms including oceans, ice, lakes, rivers, ground water, atmospheric water, and the water in living things - could neither appear nor disappear without magic, could not be contained in the atmosphere and fall as rain, would fall like a waterfall (30 ft/hr*) everywhere at once destroying the ark and drowning its inhabitants if it did, and **would kill all non-freshwater living aquatic life to boot​

*[Forty days is 960 hours. For the water to rise 29029 feet in 960 hours, 30.2 feet of water must fall ever hour over every square inch of the earth at once, or twice as much over half of the earth at once. Imagine a shower filling up a three story building in an hour.]

**[If you added another 4,500,000,000 cubic kilometers of fresh water - in excess of a quadrupling of the total - the salinity of the oceans would fall to about 22.4% of its present level, killing virtually all marine life]

That's just a few of the hurdles that never get cleared by the people that claim the flood is a real event.

No believer does. Some remain literalists. The rest redefine what the myths mean to comport with the science, but they NEVER say that the Bible is wrong, that is, they don't think they're contradicting it, either. They like to use words like allegory and metaphor as when they argue that a biblical day wasn't a literal day rather than accepting that as with all mythology, the stories were wrong guess debunked by subsequent science.

We have talked about this before. I recognize that the authors of the original stories may have considered them literal events, but I interpret them as allegories, since no evidence supports the occurrence as actual events. Perhaps it is rationalization, but I consider that much better than denying reality, relying on logical fallacies and willful ignorance to sustain a demand that doesn't need to be met in order to be a Christian.

Those people have evaluated and understood the evidence, and simply won't ignore it. They're the same people who call the Genesis' myths allegory.

There is no biblical president requiring a Christian to believe the flood was a real event in order to be a Christian. I know some do, because they were told to and must in order to maintain a position in a particular sect, but again, not a requirement.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Was that your working or mine?




One of my arguments when debating the flood, where were two blue whales kept and the around 10 tons of krill each whale eats per day.

Personally, I think they had a fifth wheel and towed the whales. They feasted on all the dead krill that were wiped out by the rapid reduction in marine salinity and were cooked by all the heat released. Then they toughed it out for the remainder of the year. That seems plausible. LOL!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I have been in the mountains in heavy rainfall. Entire mountains are never covered in moving water. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a more "flood proof" place besides the side of a mountain. As long as one is not foolish enough to be in the bottom of a valley you will not be flooded.

I don't think the leeward side of high mountains get much rain at all and after a certain elevation, wouldn't much of the precipitation be in the form of ice and snow?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This doesn’t help your religious beliefs. The conditions of the planet well before humans evolved, some 200,000 years ago, doesn’t imply a literalist interpretation of Genesis is rational. Remember to you creationists evidence doesn’t matter. You assume a God that performs magic.

It has been as much said that no amount of evidence is going to convince some creationists to change their claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think the leeward side of high mountains get much rain at all and after a certain elevation, wouldn't much of the precipitation be in the form of ice and snow?

That would depend. In the middle of a high mountain range it might not make that much of a difference. I know that the leeward side of the Cascades as you approach them get a TON of rain. On the other side of the range it is almost desert, but the peaks in the middle still get a healthy amount of precipitation.

 

[Heyo]

It has been as much said that no amount of evidence is going to convince some creationists to change their claims.

And they admit it - but then claim that their stories are scientific even though science means to change a hypothesis in light of new evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Ground water is only the beginning. There's more but I leave the rest for you.

I'm not changing the recognised name because you can't accept it

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe it will rise to the hypothetical status.

It may given enough study and evidence, it may even become a theory... but not yet

 

[F1fan]

That is a really worthless standard that places an arbitrary and artificial demand on believers to deny reality in my opinion. He's not a Christian I put any stock in. Especially using his position to coerce others into believing his personal interpretation as if were a fact and rejecting the intelligence and abilities that I consider the gifts of God. It isn't a demand I would call Christian and it isn't consistent with the biblical idea of free will either.

If Hamm were fringe as a Christian I would agree. But as we see there are many Christians who agree with him. I'm not sure what the current poll numbers are but in recent years the percentage of Christians who believed in creationism was about 40%. Since when do believers worry about their religion being rational and consistent with text? There are Christians who interpret Genesis literally even though Jews don't.

This is the dilemma with religions, they aren't to be judged rationally or whether they are consistent, they are judged by their popularity among the masses in whatever form it is presented. Of course critical thinkers can assess and judge for our own understanding, but as we see this is rejected by the religious.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not changing the recognised name because you can't accept it

As I said, there are descriptions of ground water and how it affects the water quantity. The rest is up to you because there's more, much more but... it's ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm not changing the recognised name because you can't accept it

Who said anything about a recognized name?

 

[ChristineM]

As I said, there are descriptions of ground water and how it affects the water quantity. The rest is up to you because there's more, much more but... it's ok.

And its all called groundwater

 

[ChristineM]

Who said anything about a recognized name?

I did because you are ignoring the name as though that makes it even more water.

 

[Astrophile]

I am saying that scientists themselves either say or contest that the earth was covered by water at some time. Therefore, covering the earth with water is -- possible. Whether now or before...

If the Earth was entirely oceanic 3.2 billion years ago, that was because there were no continents at that time. Now there are continents, so it is no longer possible for the whole of the Earth's surface to be covered by water.

Natch you don't have to believe this postulation by science but here it is...from https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-earth-was-water-world
"Across the ages...Earth's total surface water was always assumed to be constant." (Note the word assumed there...assumed for a long time.)
But evidence is mounting that a few billion years ago the planet's oceans held nearly twice as much water--enough to submerge today's continents above the peak of Mount Everest."
Oops above Mount Everest. But then, of course, that's only based on the "mounting evidence."

There is something wrong here. The present volume of the water in the oceans is about 1.35 billion cubic kilometres (1.35×10^9 km³), so the volume about 3.2 billion years ago would have been about 2.7×10^9 km³. If the solid Earth had the same radius and surface area as it has now (r = 6371 km, A = 5.101×10^8 km²), the average depth of the global ocean would have been about 5290 metres, or 17,400 feet, only three-fifths the height of Mount Everest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said, there are descriptions of ground water and how it affects the water quantity. The rest is up to you because there's more, much more but... it's ok.

But there isn't. And ground water does not tend to come freely out of the ground. That is why they invented pumps.

 

[YoursTrue]

If the Earth was entirely oceanic 3.2 billion years ago, that was because there were no continents at that time. Now there are continents, so it is no longer possible for the whole of the Earth's surface to be covered by water.

There is something wrong here. The present volume of the water in the oceans is about 1.35 billion cubic kilometres (1.35×10^9 km³), so the volume about 3.2 billion years ago would have been about 2.7×10^9 km³. If the solid Earth had the same radius and surface area as it has now (r = 6371 km, A = 5.101×10^8 km²), the average depth of the global ocean would have been about 5290 metres, or 17,400 feet, only three-fifths the height of Mount Everest.

Whatever. I am not here to prove the flood as described in the Bible, only to show that it is possible according to science that there is/was enough water to cover the earth's surface, this includes the water enclosed under the crust and the Bible says underground water was released during that time.

 

[YoursTrue]

If the Earth was entirely oceanic 3.2 billion years ago, that was because there were no continents at that time. Now there are continents, so it is no longer possible for the whole of the Earth's surface to be covered by water.

There is something wrong here. The present volume of the water in the oceans is about 1.35 billion cubic kilometres (1.35×10^9 km³), so the volume about 3.2 billion years ago would have been about 2.7×10^9 km³. If the solid Earth had the same radius and surface area as it has now (r = 6371 km, A = 5.101×10^8 km²), the average depth of the global ocean would have been about 5290 metres, or 17,400 feet, only three-fifths the height of Mount Everest.

Whatever. I am not here to prove the flood as described in the Bible, only to show that it is possible according to science that there is/was enough water to cover the earth's surface, this includes the water enclosed under the crust and the Bible says underground water was released during that time.

That is a really worthless standard that places an arbitrary and artificial demand on believers to deny reality in my opinion. He's not a Christian I put any stock in. Especially using his position to coerce others into believing his personal interpretation as if were a fact and rejecting the intelligence and abilities that I consider the gifts of God. It isn't a demand I would call Christian and it isn't consistent with the biblical idea of free will either.

I thought you had comment something to that effect, but no doubt I am mistaken. Well, I appreciate the knowledge, reason and honesty of your posts. I find it sad that I don't always find that or from the sources I should expect it from.

Again, I appreciate that. It was perhaps, to sweeping a generalization.

That's just a few of the hurdles that never get cleared by the people that claim the flood is a real event.

We have talked about this before. I recognize that the authors of the original stories may have considered them literal events, but I interpret them as allegories, since no evidence supports the occurrence as actual events. Perhaps it is rationalization, but I consider that much better than denying reality, relying on logical fallacies and willful ignorance to sustain a demand that doesn't need to be met in order to be a Christian.

There is no biblical president requiring a Christian to believe the flood was a real event in order to be a Christian. I know some do, because they were told to and must in order to maintain a position in a particular sect, but again, not a requirement.

Of course Jesus spoke of it as having happened, warning of the future. So what else do some think he said that might not be true yet who claim to be Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatever. I am not here to prove the flood as described in the Bible, only to show that it is possible according to science that there is/was enough water to cover the earth's surface, this includes the water enclosed under the crust and the Bible says underground water was released during that time.

Sorry, but that water has been there since the formation of the Earth. It has almost certainly been slowly coming out as plate tectonics goes on. It does not help you. There is no way to get out the amount that you want without vaporizing Noah and family.