Noah's Ark Flood Theories

[Man of Faith]

Gilgamesh anyone?

I'll take Gilgamesh for 1,000 Alex.

 

[Man of Faith]

Hopefully. This thread I started is pretty weak-sauce. I was hoping for a stronger Creationist turn out and hopefully they would lay all their cards on the table as to what they think the scientific evidence is that makes their case. Perhaps I was a little too optimistic? Or is this all they have?

You need to get out more. This is just one forum in a big created world.

 

[JeLy]

That may have not always been the case, such as before the cataclismic flood.

Okay, I will concede that those percentages might not be entirely accurate when speaking in terms of a few thousand years ago. Although I will not agree that the possible discrepancy would be enough to cause a flood. However, matter cannot simply appear and disappear, so if water came from underground and the atmosphere - where did it go after the flood had ended?

 

[Man of Faith]

Okay, I will concede that those percentages might not be entirely accurate when speaking in terms of a few thousand years ago. Although I will not agree that the possible discrepancy would be enough to cause a flood. However, matter cannot simply appear and disappear, so if water came from underground and the atmosphere - where did it go after the flood had ended?

It went into the newly created oceans. What I believe, the Bible teaches and science confirms is the world was very different in the past, what we disagree with is the time frame. Science agrees that continents used to be connected to each other. Some scientists argue for a long slow continent shelf movement and some scientists argue for a quick catastrophic breakup. Science also agrees that there are marine fossils on top of the highest mountains, which tells them they used to be underwater. There are also marine fossils all over the world on dry land.

What could have happened is before the flood, there was more water under the earth than above it. According to the Bible it never rained until the first time when the world was flooded. Genesis 2 describes how springs came up from the ground and watered all the land. In Genesis 7 it describes how “the fountains of the great deep were broken up”. There we have a calamity of world wide proportions described and supposedly told to Moses by God. The earth cracked up, continents were shifted where they are today, and the flood waters receded into the oceans we have today.

 

[Vile Atheist]

some scientists argue for a quick catastrophic breakup.

Who??

 

[JeLy]

Okay, I see your argument. Now, I'm not trying to actually debate whether or not there was a flood because you clearly believe there was and I happen to disagree. Debating point after point won't sway either of us on this topic. So, I'm more or less trying to understand why you believe what you do - and I appreciate your answers.

According to biblical literature, you say that it never rained before the flood yet there was enough water in the atmosphere to cause one... why do you think there would be moisture in the air that was never released? For instance, there is little - if any - atmospheric moisture in a desert, and that's why it is a desert. The rainforests are filled with atmospheric moisture that provides rain and produces the most biological life of any terrain on Earth. I assume you do not believe that the planet was covered in deserts at the time of the flood since life was already here, so I'd appreciate some clarification on why there could never have been rain - yet an abundance of life.

 

[Nepenthe]

It went into the newly created oceans. What I believe, the Bible teaches and science confirms is the world was very different in the past, what we disagree with is the time frame. Science agrees that continents used to be connected to each other. Some scientists argue for a long slow continent shelf movement and some scientists argue for a quick catastrophic breakup. Science also agrees that there are marine fossils on top of the highest mountains, which tells them they used to be underwater. There are also marine fossils all over the world on dry land.

What could have happened is before the flood, there was more water under the earth than above it. According to the Bible it never rained until the first time when the world was flooded. Genesis 2 describes how springs came up from the ground and watered all the land. In Genesis 7 it describes how “the fountains of the great deep were broken up”. There we have a calamity of world wide proportions described and supposedly told to Moses by God. The earth cracked up, continents were shifted where they are today, and the flood waters receded into the oceans we have today.

So how was this water contained? The Earth is not an airtight sandwich bag and rock doesn't float- such an abundance of water would have forced its way to ther surface long ago. A mile deep into the crust and the earth is incredibly hot; water would be boiling that deep and the waters that came from down deep would be scaldingly hot. Life would be boiled to death before any drowning took place.
And most importantly why is there no evidence for any mass exodus of water as you propose? Not one bit. The waters would have resulted in chaotically sorted basaltic deposits (which we do not find). We can make up whatever tale we want but if there's no actual evidence then it's ridiculous to entertain fantasies in lieu of scientific evidence.

Of course none of my critiques apply if God were responsible for controlling the waters but then we're no longer using science but advocating miracles and there's no need to even pretend you have any interest in explaining the world with science. Call it what it is- magic.

 

[Man of Faith]

Okay, I see your argument. Now, I'm not trying to actually debate whether or not there was a flood because you clearly believe there was and I happen to disagree. Debating point after point won't sway either of us on this topic. So, I'm more or less trying to understand why you believe what you do - and I appreciate your answers.

According to biblical literature, you say that it never rained before the flood yet there was enough water in the atmosphere to cause one... why do you think there would be moisture in the air that was never released? For instance, there is little - if any - atmospheric moisture in a desert, and that's why it is a desert. The rainforests are filled with atmospheric moisture that provides rain and produces the most biological life of any terrain on Earth. I assume you do not believe that the planet was covered in deserts at the time of the flood since life was already here, so I'd appreciate some clarification on why there could never have been rain - yet an abundance of life.

Like I said in the previous post, the whole earth was watered from the ground according to Genesis 2. That means there probably wasn't enough water in the atmosphere to cause it to rain, however plant and human life could still get water. The reason that it started raining was because of the waters from underground that erupted. In Genesis 7:11 it describes how the waters erupted from the earth and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky.

 

[Nepenthe]

It went into the newly created oceans. What I believe, the Bible teaches and science confirms is the world was very different in the past, what we disagree with is the time frame. Science agrees that continents used to be connected to each other. Some scientists argue for a long slow continent shelf movement and some scientists argue for a quick catastrophic breakup. Science also agrees that there are marine fossils on top of the highest mountains, which tells them they used to be underwater. There are also marine fossils all over the world on dry land.

As for this nonsense...
If the Flood waters ended up in the oceans why are there no great deposits of sediments to attest to this? Sediments are carried along until the waters slow and then stop, but there's nothing like this evident in the Earth's oceans. Under your model we'd find huge deposits of sediments in oceean basins but geologists find the ocean's sediments average 0.6 km thick, while on the continents it's 2.6 km thick. Why is that?

 

[Man of Faith]

So how was this water contained? The Earth is not an airtight sandwich bag and rock doesn't float- such an abundance of water would have forced its way to ther surface long ago. A mile deep into the crust and the earth is incredibly hot; water would be boiling that deep and the waters that came from down deep would be scaldingly hot. Life would be boiled to death before any drowning took place.
And most importantly why is there no evidence for any mass exodus of water as you propose? Not one bit. The waters would have resulted in chaotically sorted basaltic deposits (which we do not find). We can make up whatever tale we want but if there's no actual evidence then it's ridiculous to entertain fantasies in lieu of scientific evidence.

Of course none of my critiques apply if God were responsible for controlling the waters but then we're no longer using science but advocating miracles and there's no need to even pretend you have any interest in explaining the world with science. Call it what it is- magic.

I have no problem with God causing the waters to erupt on his time frame. I believe He cause creation on his time frame, he sent Jesus on his time frame and he will cause the world to end on his time frame. And science is silent on God so it doesn't disagree with that assesment.

 

[Man of Faith]

As for this nonsense...
If the Flood waters ended up in the oceans why are there no great deposits of sediments to attest to this? Sediments are carried along until the waters slow and then stop, but there's nothing like this evident in the Earth's oceans. Under your model we'd find huge deposits of sediments in oceean basins but geologists find the ocean's sediments average 0.6 km thick, while on the continents it's 2.6 km thick. Why is that?

There are large quantities of sediments depositied uniformly worldwide which were probably swept up to the earth's surface from the escaping subterranean waters.

 

[Nepenthe]

I have no problem with God causing the waters to erupt on his time frame. I believe He cause creation on his time frame, he sent Jesus on his time frame and he will cause the world to end on his time frame. And science is silent on God so it doesn't disagree with that assesment.

And that's why it's impossible to debate creationists; they pretend to use science to bolster their claims, but when the science clearly doesn't match their dogma they simply shrug and say goddidit. There's no longer any pretense of unbiased, objective scientific inquiry. Just be honest and accept that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for a worldwide flood and that you accept the literal flood story because your God is omnipotent and can do magical things like floods that don't follow any laws of physics or geology. That your God can poof species into existence and completely circumvent any pretense of biology, zoology, genetics, anthropology, archeology, etc.

Just be honest.

 

[Humanistheart]

There are large quantities of sediments depositied uniformly worldwide which were probably swept up to the earth's surface from the escaping subterranean waters.

*looks around for the evidence of MoF's claims*

 

[Nepenthe]

There are large quantities of sediments depositied uniformly worldwide which were probably swept up to the earth's surface from the escaping subterranean waters.

Examples?
As I stated, the sediment deposits that actually exist are just the opposite of what one should find if the waters receded to the oceans. Science looks at what's actually there, science relies on evidence to arrive at some sort of hypothesis. Creationists start with a literal interpretation of the flood and cherry pick and distort and lie about the evidence to force it to conform to their dogma.

 

[Nepenthe]

*looks around for the evidence of MoF's claims*

 

[JeLy]

Like I said in the previous post, the whole earth was watered from the ground according to Genesis 2. That means there probably wasn't enough water in the atmosphere to cause it to rain, however plant and human life could still get water. The reason that it started raining was because of the waters from underground that erupted. In Genesis 7:11 it describes how the waters erupted from the earth and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky.

Okay then, so if the water that caused the flood was mainly from the ground - why did it not go back into the ground into these springs or aquifers that it came from?

 

[Man of Faith]

*looks around for the evidence of MoF's claims*

"These include limestone, dolomite, sandstone and shale, amongst others. Worldwide, sedimentary rocks cover approximately 75% of the worlds surface."

Deposition and Sedimentary Rock Formation

 

[Man of Faith]

Okay then, so if the water that caused the flood was mainly from the ground - why did it not go back into the ground into these springs or aquifers that it came from?

Because of the worldwide breakup and the creation of the oceans. When the mountain ranges were formed so were the ocean basins to hold the waters.

 

[Man of Faith]

And that's why it's impossible to debate creationists; they pretend to use science to bolster their claims, but when the science clearly doesn't match their dogma they simply shrug and say goddidit. There's no longer any pretense of unbiased, objective scientific inquiry. Just be honest and accept that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for a worldwide flood and that you accept the literal flood story because your God is omnipotent and can do magical things like floods that don't follow any laws of physics or geology. That your God can poof species into existence and completely circumvent any pretense of biology, zoology, genetics, anthropology, archeology, etc.

Just be honest.

Well I am no scientist so I don't have all the scientific data to support my position, however the data that I do see supports it IMO. You shouldn't be surprised that creationists believe that God did things.

 

[Nepenthe]

"These include limestone, dolomite, sandstone and shale, amongst others. Worldwide, sedimentary rocks cover approximately 75% of the worlds surface."

Deposition and Sedimentary Rock Formation

And how does the presence of any of these support a worldwide flood? Care to explain? You do realize sedimentary rock requires vast amounts of time- right?

Sedimentary rocks are not evidence of a worldwide flood. I already explained why your "waters receding to the oceans" claim is at odds with the sedimentary evidence. The excess waters would carry such a vast amount of sediments to the oceans the ocean basins today would have thicker sedimentary layers than the continent. The opposite is what actually exists: the continental sedimentary rocks are thicker than the ocean basins. But I already explained this to you but you'll persist in ignoring the evidence. Par for the course.