The flood in Genesis

[themadhair]

I’m with Galileo on this one:

I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.

 

[painted wolf]

Such a god is untrustworthy to the extreme... even Satan is just a worthless pawn in comparison!

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

You know at the least I am pointing out from a biblical perspective what the bible actually teaches. This should help you against those that claim God is a teddy bear, or at least the bible represents God (if there is one) as a teddy bear. I realized just like I did growing up that American government was not good! What a revelation that was at age 12, and that our gevernment raped and killed people for evil reasons (rape never has a good reason). I think it is just as important to point biblical truth (oximoron to many) out as a christian to other christians.

I can't tell you how many time I have heard from people who say "I believein God" and then learn what the bible really says about God, they always start back peddling. Really strange thing we as people do, I admit!

Yup, the Biblical God is a genocidal maniac--and you worship Him!

 

[darkendless]

Yes. Plus you would have more problems. If Pangea existed a few thousand years ago, the continents would be speeding apart at a much higher rate of speed than they are.

Now not only are the Chinese, Indians and Egyptians not noticing they're underwater, now they're failing to notice that they're next door to each other and their land is zooming around like a skateboard in a pool.

Basically, it's like this. We've got these smart guys. They're called Geologists. They do this thing. It's called science. It works. They've figured out that there never was such a flood. Further, it turns out that everything they've figured out matches up with Biology, Paleontology, Anthropology and a bunch of other stuff.

If you want to assert that there was, you first have to achieve a Ph.d level of knowledge in Geology and show them why they're wrong. Putzing around in a thread on the internet ain't gonna do it. Science is hard, very hard.

Your other option is to reject science and its methods. Of course, you can't do that on the internet either, can you?

The only thing you need a PhD for is to BS your way through and make it appear like there was a flood.

I could provide enough evidence to prove there was no flood and ive only done a year of geology.You could disprove the concept of a "great flood" with simple facts i learn't in the first 3 weeks of University.
A few little facts, because its not like there's never been a geotechnical analysis of wherever this flood was:

- pretty much nothing would grow in the area because organic matter and material would be washed away. All trees and plants would be dated in the last 4000 years.
- this would cause a break in the soil profile about 12-15 inches below the surface where the soil would be lighter than the soil above it. This would be the first thing a geologist would look for so obviously its not the case because they didn't find anything.
- Rocks give clues. Certain abundances of elements and particularly water develop certain types of rocks. Mixed with other abundant elements on the surface, which would still be there today, would give a consistent pattern of rock formation.
- If there was a giant flood, the clouds would have to hold considerable amounts of water, like rediculous portions of the stuff. The only way for this to occur would be a warmer earth because a warmer earth yields more rain. However, weather patterns have never suggested such a thing and we can predict weather patterns for about 20,000 years no problems. As Auto said, its a correlation of a few different areas of science.

Its too early in the morning to be technical. I hope what i've said is understandable.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The only thing you need a PhD for is to BS your way through and make it appear like there was a flood.

I could provide enough evidence to prove there was no flood and ive only done a year of geology.You could disprove the concept of a "great flood" with simple facts i learn't in the first 3 weeks of University.
A few little facts, because its not like there's never been a geotechnical analysis of wherever this flood was:

- pretty much nothing would grow in the area because organic matter and material would be washed away. All trees and plants would be dated in the last 4000 years.
- this would cause a break in the soil profile about 12-15 inches below the surface where the soil would be lighter than the soil above it. This would be the first thing a geologist would look for so obviously its not the case because they didn't find anything.
- Rocks give clues. Certain abundances of elements and particularly water develop certain types of rocks. Mixed with other abundant elements on the surface, which would still be there today, would give a consistent pattern of rock formation.
- If there was a giant flood, the clouds would have to hold considerable amounts of water, like rediculous portions of the stuff. The only way for this to occur would be a warmer earth because a warmer earth yields more rain. However, weather patterns have never suggested such a thing and we can predict weather patterns for about 20,000 years no problems. As Auto said, its a correlation of a few different areas of science.

Its too early in the morning to be technical. I hope what i've said is understandable.

Thank you. Now I hope we can put this silly, silly subject to rest. There was no such thing as "the great flood"....regardless of what Sumerian tablet or copycat bible scroll you read. It didn't happen.....I could see if we were talking about (regional flooding)...but we're not nor is the bible suggesting that.

I apologize for being so abrupt here. I have a big problem with the bible sometimes and those that thump it. From Adam and Eve to Noah to Moses...etc. None of it seems likely to have occurred but as soon as you throughout the scientific proof that it didn't then people start back peddling and say....(no..no...no...The story was a metaphor..don't take it literally... it was meant to teach a lesson)....blah...blah....blah....

Unfortunately the bible starts with Adam and Eve as the first and about time you get to the NT, even to Paul you get the sense these people in the bible thought these beings to be flesh and blood humans and were the beginnings of man on the planet...so much that writers of the NT (gospels) built a genealogy tracing back to them and from the beginning of the book a genealogy is established from Adam and Eve up.....Noah and Moses included.

I'm starting to think that if the stories and the genealogy, geology and history don't match then maybe a lot of these people and their existence are questionable. I certainly believe the bible holds a lot of history and some facts but there appears to be a lot of folklore/myths/fairy tales......inaccurate science...etc..

Tee..heee...heee..

Ok....I'm done ranting

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You could disprove the concept of a "great flood" with simple facts i learn't in the first 3 weeks of University.

Some sentences deserve preservation ...

 

[rusra02]

Well you've got a problem then, because it's absolutely clear, without doubt, there was never any such flood. Might want to revise your theology accordingly.[/size][/font][/size][/font] Baloney of the best quality.

Geologists studying the landscape of the northwestern United States believe that as many as 100 ancient catastrophic floods once washed over the area. One such flood is said to have roared through the region with a wall of water 2,000 feet high, traveling at 65 miles an hour —a flood of 500 cubic miles of water, weighing more than two trillion tons. Similar findings have led other scientists to believe that a global flood is a distinct possibility.
You have scoffed at this account. Yet seashells are found on high mountains. And further evidence that a flood of immense proportions occurred in the not-too-distant past is the great number of fossils and carcasses deposited in icy, mucky dumps. The Saturday Evening Post noted: “Many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright. . . . Here is a really shocking—to our previous way of thinking—picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures . . . Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved.”
This fits in with what happened in the great Flood.
For those who believe that the Bible is God’s Word, though, a global flood is more than a possibility. It is a fact. Jesus said to God: “Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) The apostle Paul wrote that God’s will is that “all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (1 Timothy 2:3, 4) How could Paul teach followers of Jesus the doctrinal truth if God’s Word contains myths?​

 

[Buttons*]

I noticed studying the story of the flood that Noah entered the ark at a certain date, and then exited the ark at a certain date. According to my calulations it was exactly 370 days from the time they entered to the time they exited.

What was curious about this to me, was the fact the land had become dry 2 months and 27 days prior to then exiting. Why dos the story have them hanging out another 2 months and 27 days before exiting.

Any Genesis buffs here, want to shed some light?

Thanks...

for LOLS *scurries away*

 

[darkendless]

Geologists studying the landscape of the northwestern United States believe that as many as 100 ancient catastrophic floods once washed over the area. One such flood is said to have roared through the region with a wall of water 2,000 feet high, traveling at 65 miles an hour —a flood of 500 cubic miles of water, weighing more than two trillion tons. Similar findings have led other scientists to believe that a global flood is a distinct possibility.​

Can you provide me with a doctrate link? As in, i dont want a link from a religious website, only from a university website if possible.

 

[themadhair]

Seconding darkendless’s request for proper research to confirm the myriad of claims being put forward by rusra02.

Geologists studying the landscape of the northwestern United States believe that as many as 100 ancient catastrophic floods once washed over the area.

Floods happen. This is sort of already known. The fact that such floods occur are and are well understood to the point that geologists can identify them in the geological record, completely and utterly destroys the claim of a global flood when those same geologists can’t find evidence for that global flood.
Think about what you are claiming here. You are, on the one hand, crediting geologists for having sufficient understanding to identify the signs of flooding on the geologic record while, on the other hand, completely ignoring that same understanding that leads geologists to reject the global flood.

One such flood is said to have roared through the region with a wall of water 2,000 feet high, traveling at 65 miles an hour —a flood of 500 cubic miles of water, weighing more than two trillion tons. Similar findings have led other scientists to believe that a global flood is a distinct possibility.

The second law of creationism – whenever a creationist starts chucking numbers into a problem you can bet the mortgage that they have gotten something horribly wrong. Let’s have a look at these numbers shall we?

Firstly, there is actually no way to tell from the geological evidence how high a particular flood is. If you have discovered some secret technique unknown to the rest of the scientific community then please feel free to share.
Secondly, it is pretty clear that the figure of ”two trillion tons” has been completely made up. Let’s look at it shall we and see if it is possible to get a global flood from such a figure. To cover the earth with a single-molecule layer of waters takes about 150,000 tons. This means that two trillion tons would leave covering of water on the earth of about 13 millions water molecules, which is roughly equivalent to a thickness of a tenth of a millimetre. To be blunt about this – the creationists understanding of the science involved is so poor that they even fail to have their made up numbers accomplish the task of the global flood.

You have scoffed at this account. Yet seashells are found on high mountains.

Unfortunately for creationism, this point would be more convincing if these seashells were of species still alive today, and if these seashells didn’t display evidence that they lived in situ for extended periods of geologic time.
The first account of this AFAIK was given by Aristotle who correctly deduced that the position of the sea and land had changed over large period of time. Leonardo da Vinci had also studied this and he recognised that rivers carrying sediments to the sea became sedimentary rock which was uplifted.
But the real killer to the idea (not that Aristotle hadn’t buried it 2,300 years before) is that not all mountain ranges have the same distributions of seashells. If the flude were the explanation for these seashells (I love how creationists calling them seashells helps reinforce the mistaken idea that these seashells are somehow similar to their modern-day counterparts) then what seashells we find should be determined by the mountain’s elevation. This is clearly not the case. To really emphasise the point, the flude can’t explain why we find aquatic fossils buried deep within the mountains. Sedimentation and uplift can though.

And further evidence that a flood of immense proportions occurred in the not-too-distant past is the great number of fossils and carcasses deposited in icy, mucky dumps. The Saturday Evening Post noted: “Many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright. . . . Here is a really shocking—to our previous way of thinking—picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures . . . Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved.”
This fits in with what happened in the great Flood.

Two things. Firstly, I have absolutely no idea what carcass freezing has to do with the flude. Seriously I don’t get how this phenomenon could be in any way connected with the flude.
And secondly, why do creationists always ignore that these carcasses were not perfectly preserved? The best preserved example, called Dema IIRC, had suffered decomposition despite the idea conditions in which it was preserved (it was very small and had practically starved).

<rant>
Does it bug anyone else who badly science is reported in the general media? It annoys me when I read a sensationalised story only to discover, by searching the journals, that the whole thing was exaggerated out of all proportion.
</rant>

For those who believe that the Bible is God’s Word, though, a global flood is more than a possibility.

Unfortunately this also means that requiring evidence to substantiate the claim becomes optional.

How could Paul teach followers of Jesus the doctrinal truth if God’s Word contains myths?

How could Homer teach the word of Zeus if the Iliad contained myths? How could Hubbard teach the words of scientology if the OT3 story contained myths? How could the Aboriginal elders teach the story of ‘dreamtime’ of it contained myths?

Only one thing counts in the court of science – cold hard physical evidence. Better get used to it or stop trying to play scientist.

 

[Autodidact]

Geologists studying the landscape of the northwestern United States believe that as many as 100 ancient catastrophic floods once washed over the area.​

That's right. Not one big flood, 100 local floods. Also, in probably every low lying area of the world. Recently, we've seen floods in Iowa, Louisiana ande North Dakota. No on is arguing that floods happen, just that there was a single global one 4000 years ago. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER ON EARTH TO COVER ALL OF IT AT ONCE.

One such flood is said to have roared through the region with a wall of water 2,000 feet high, traveling at 65 miles an hour &#8212;a flood of 500 cubic miles of water, weighing more than two trillion tons.

Oh really? Said by whom? Where? Got a scientific reference for this baloney.

Similar findings have led other scientists to believe that a global flood is a distinct possibility.

No they haven't. There is not a single reputable geologist, archeologist or paleontologist who believes this.

You have scoffed at this account. Yet seashells are found on high mountains

Are you trying to assert that sea-shells on mountains are evidence of a global flood? Have you accounted for the fact that THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER ON EARTH TO FLOOD THE WHOLE PLANET? We know those mountains were once low-lying areas under oceans

. And further evidence that a flood of immense proportions occurred in the not-too-distant past is the great number of fossils and carcasses deposited in icy, mucky dumps. The Saturday Evening Post noted: &#8220;Many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright. . . . Here is a really shocking&#8212;to our previous way of thinking&#8212;picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures . . . Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved.&#8221;

Yeah, I get my evidence from the Saturday Evening Post too. Where? When? Who wrote it? Who discovered what? Who says it means there was a global flood?

This fits in with what happened in the great Flood.

Really? Cite the Bible verse that says there was quick-freezing.

For those who believe that the Bible is God&#8217;s Word, though, a global flood is more than a possibility. It is a fact.

More pity them, living in a world of myth and magic.

Jesus said to God: &#8220;Your word is truth.&#8221; (John 17:17) The apostle Paul wrote that God&#8217;s will is that &#8220;all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.&#8221; (1 Timothy 2:3, 4) How could Paul teach followers of Jesus the doctrinal truth if God&#8217;s Word contains myths?

That's right. The Bible is full of things that just aren't true. Either adjust your theology accordingly, become an atheist, or live in a world of fantasy--the choice is yours.​

 

[painted wolf]

Isn't it funny how the most primitive and extinct shells are found on mountains... but no animals or people who would have climbed up the mountain to escape the flood?

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

Isn't it funny how the most primitive and extinct shells are found on mountains... but no animals or people who would have climbed up the mountain to escape the flood?

There have been animal remains discovered in the mountains, but nothing resembling extant creatures though.

I never understand why the fact that 99% of the geological column contains fossils completely unlike extant creatures doesn’t snap creationists out of it.

 

[painted wolf]

There have been animal remains discovered in the mountains, but nothing resembling extant creatures though.

seeing as mollusks and trilobites are animals...

I never understand why the fact that 99% of the geological column contains fossils completely unlike extant creatures doesn&#8217;t snap creationists out of it.

Why let one of several facts stand in the way of literalist dogma?

wa:do

 

[rusra02]

That's right. Not one big flood, 100 local floods. Also, in probably every low lying area of the world. Recently, we've seen floods in Iowa, Louisiana ande North Dakota. No on is arguing that floods happen, just that there was a single global one 4000 years ago. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER ON EARTH TO COVER ALL OF IT AT ONCE. Oh really? Said by whom? Where? Got a scientific reference for this baloney. No they haven't. There is not a single reputable geologist, archeologist or paleontologist who believes this.​

Are you trying to assert that sea-shells on mountains are evidence of a global flood? Have you accounted for the fact that THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER ON EARTH TO FLOOD THE WHOLE PLANET? We know those mountains were once low-lying areas under oceans Yeah, I get my evidence from the Saturday Evening Post too. Where? When? Who wrote it? Who discovered what? Who says it means there was a global flood?
Plenty of Water to Flood the Earth​

The earth is still flooded. Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30 percent is dry land. Moreover, 75 percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps. If all this ice were to melt, the sea level would rise much higher. Cities like New York and Tokyo would disappear.
Further, The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.( The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1987, Vol. 25, p. 124) So, if everything were leveled out—if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in—the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.
For the Flood to have happened, the pre-Flood sea basins would have to have been shallower, and the mountains lower than they are now. Is this possible? Well, one textbook says: “Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea.”( Wonders of Nature, edited by Claus Jürgen Frank, 1980, p. 87) Since the mountains and sea basins rise and fall, it is apparent that at one time the mountains were not as high as they are now and the great sea basins were not as deep.
What happened to the floodwaters after the Flood? They must have drained into the sea basins. How? Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles [more than 10 km] deep at the plate boundaries.( The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1987, Vol. 9, p. 505.)It is quite likely that—perhaps triggered by the Flood itself—the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.

All this was an act of God. An important verse in the Bible says this "In the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule... For according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice,that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water." (2 Peter 3:3-6)
The Bible does not depend on the testimony of humans for it's truthfulness. Despite attacks over centuries the Bible has proven correct and true and science has not successfully refuted its truthfulness.

 

[painted wolf]

Yeah.... do you realize how fast the plates would have to move to create the trenches and mountains to drain the flood?

Also why don't we find a single massive flood layer? Why don't we find dinosaurs next to mammoths and trilobites?

The bible is believed to be correct and true... not proven.

Plus, if you are going to quote Hal Flemings you should cite him and his book "Examining Criticisms of the Bible"... it's only polite. (and legally required)

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

All this was an act of God.

Translation: I refuse to allow physical reality to question my beliefs.

An important verse in the Bible says this "In the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule...

Does this mean that even the bible knew how wrong the global flood was? And that it knew that those whole believed the global flood would be subjected to ridicule?

The Bible does not depend on the testimony of humans for it's truthfulness.

It’s truthfulness does, however, depend on its correlation with physical reality.

Despite attacks over centuries the Bible has proven correct and true and science has not successfully refuted its truthfulness.

I have a genuine question that I want you to consider the next time you are preaching:

If you want to understand the physical world then science is where it is at. Your computer, your car, every electrical device in your house, your healthcare, etc. etc. are all products derived from the understanding of the physical world delivered by science. Whenever someone is arguing against science they are, in essence, demonstrating there incapacity to understand the physical world. So my question to you is – given that you have failed in your attempts to understand the physical world, why should anyone trust your understanding of the metaphysical one??

 

[Autodidact]

That's right. Not one big flood, 100 local floods. Also, in probably every low lying area of the world. Recently, we've seen floods in Iowa, Louisiana ande North Dakota. No on is arguing that floods happen, just that there was a single global one 4000 years ago. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER ON EARTH TO COVER ALL OF IT AT ONCE. Oh really? Said by whom? Where? Got a scientific reference for this baloney. No they haven't. There is not a single reputable geologist, archeologist or paleontologist who believes this.

Are you trying to assert that sea-shells on mountains are evidence of a global flood? Have you accounted for the fact that THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER ON EARTH TO FLOOD THE WHOLE PLANET? We know those mountains were once low-lying areas under oceans Yeah, I get my evidence from the Saturday Evening Post too. Where? When? Who wrote it? Who discovered what? Who says it means there was a global flood?​

Plenty of Water to Flood the Earth​

The earth is still flooded. Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30 percent is dry land. Moreover, 75 percent of the earth&#8217;s fresh water is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps. If all this ice were to melt, the sea level would rise much higher. Cities like New York and Tokyo would disappear.
Further, The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: &#8220;The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.( The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1987, Vol. 25, p. 124) So, if everything were leveled out&#8212;if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in&#8212;the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.
For the Flood to have happened, the pre-Flood sea basins would have to have been shallower, and the mountains lower than they are now. Is this possible? Well, one textbook says: &#8220;Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea.&#8221;( Wonders of Nature, edited by Claus Jürgen Frank, 1980, p. 87) Since the mountains and sea basins rise and fall, it is apparent that at one time the mountains were not as high as they are now and the great sea basins were not as deep.
What happened to the floodwaters after the Flood? They must have drained into the sea basins. How? Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth&#8217;s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles [more than 10 km] deep at the plate boundaries.( The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1987, Vol. 9, p. 505.)It is quite likely that&#8212;perhaps triggered by the Flood itself&#8212;the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.

All this was an act of God. An important verse in the Bible says this "In the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule... For according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice,that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water." (2 Peter 3:3-6)
The Bible does not depend on the testimony of humans for it's truthfulness. Despite attacks over centuries the Bible has proven correct and true and science has not successfully refuted its truthfulness.

1. Please learn to use the quote tags. I will be happy to give you a lesson.
2. Why don't you tell us which creationist liars you are plagiarizing?
3. Yes, those dumb geologists are just ignorant of the fact that 70% of the earth's surface is covered in water, and in calculating that THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER TO COVER THE EARTH, failed to take that into account. I suggest that you correct them, and be sure to let the Nobel people know.
4. Stop and think for a moment about what you're saying. This always happens when flood fantasists try to make their bizarre myth fit reality; they start embroidering and making stuff up to make it work, until it no longer even resembes the myth they're advocating. You're saying that the sea basins were shallower, the mountains lower, just 6000 or so years ago.

a. Reflect a moment. You can't have both the basins shallower, and mountains lower. What you're doing here is making the earth smaller than it is. When a trench opens up somewhere on earth, a mountain range shoves up on the other side of the plate. There's a fixed quantity of land, and it just moves around; it doesn't evaporate and magically re-appear.

b. If mountain ranges were somehow springing up out of the earth like Spring flowers, don't you think someone would have noticed?

c. Did you notice that the Bible itself doesn't mention the earth swelling like a basketball, mountain ranges rising out of nowhere, or anything else you just made up? Heresy, anyone? The Bible itself has the flood covering the high mountains. The ones you say weren't there. So, if you have to re-write the Bible to support the Bible, no problem?

c. The math you're attempting is inapplicable. You're draining all the seas, and pouring them over the mountains. That's not what you need. You need all the seas to remain, and an additional source of water sufficient to cover all the high mountains. There simply isn't enough water to do it, period.
​

And that's just one problem. The bigger one is, we know what evidence of a flood looks like (tree rings, ice cores, a huge sedimentary layer, a mass layer of fossils, etc. etc.) and that's not what we see.


And then there's the fact that the whole story is impossible and makes no sense. The ark is not possible. The survival of life on earth, the utter destruction of all plant life, everything.


It's just a fable; get used to it. Adjust your theology accordingly.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is some additional discussion of this silly idea:

The first problem encountered is the Bible, itself. Good translations speak of the flood rising high above the earth, of covering all the high mountains (The New Oxford Annotated Bible and others). The Bible knows only of a simple flood which floods the land by special rain and by waters upwelling from the unchecked depths below the earth. (Ancient cosmology imagined a flat earth which rested on top of a primeval ocean, a world covered with a dome [the firmament] which kept vast quantities of water above the firmament from crashing down. To flood the ancient earth the deity only had to open the windows of the firmament and release the checks on the water below the earth [Babinski, 1986].) Where in this flood account do you hear of mountains rising and the surface of the earth being totally dissolved into sediment? There is not one iota of clear, unequivocal Scriptural evidence for such wild speculation! In their desperation, creationists have simply rewritten the Bible!
A second problem involves the thickness of sedimentary rock on the ocean floor as well as missing flood layers. Let us start with Dr. Hovind's assumption that the earth was relatively flat during the flood and that the excess water was drawn off into deepening ocean basins, even as the continental regions rose up. Former ocean areas and former land areas would have received approximately the same amount of sediment during a worldwide flood which reworked the earth's original outer crust to a great depth. After all, the low hills and flat lands of Dr. Hovind's antediluvian world are not going to provide more than a fraction of the sediment generated. Thus, even if that sediment were not transported to nearby ocean areas, an extremely unlikely possibility given the assumed violence of the flood, the sediments would still be distributed about equally over former ocean and land areas. Right?
Such would be the condition after the sediment first settled out. The excess water, now rushing off the rising continental areas, would wash vast amounts of sediment into the new ocean basins. Thus, today's ocean basins should have a much thicker layer of sedimentary rock than the continental areas. In addition, the first flood strata laid down on the new ocean floors should match the first flood strata laid down on today's continental areas, especially in areas adjoining the border between the two zones.

Why are the sedimentary rocks generally thinner on the ocean floor than in continental regions? Why are the sedimentary rocks of the Pacific and Atlantic sea floors no older than the late Jurassic? What happened to the Cambrian, the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, the Carboniferous, and the Permian strata? Funny, that Noah's flood should deposit all those strata in many, many places while systematically missing vast areas that were to become today's ocean floors!
A third problem lies in the fact that there is a sharp difference in the sedimentary strata as you move from a continental area (including the shelf) to an ocean area. According to the flood model this boundary area was originally flat and should have collected similar sediments before one section sank and the other rose. The sedimentary strata, without changing its composition, should simply dip (or drop along a fault) as it goes from continent to ocean. That is not what is observed!
A fourth problem lies in finding a believable mechanism to make the ocean basins sink in a few weeks(!) so as to make space for the retreating flood waters. The crust may be thin, thinner in proportion than the skin on an apple, as Dr. Hovind put it, but the material under it is heavier. Light stuff (like a cork) does not sink in heavier stuff (like water). The reason the ocean basins are lower is because they are made of denser material. The reason the continents are higher is because they are made of lighter material. Where does one get the force for depressing the basins and moving trillions and trillions of tons of heavy, semimolten rock out of the way? How are those trillions and trillions of tons of heavy, semimolten rock to be lifted up in the first place to support a rising ocean basin? (By raising the ocean floor slightly with respect to the land, creationists obtain the water they need to flood the earth.) Worse, how do creationists propose to move this hot rock in a few weeks (at the end of the flood) since it can only move a few inches a year? At that rate it can act like a fluid; try to speed it up and you have material acting like solid rock. As far as I can tell, nobody has the foggiest clue as to how this can be done scientifically.
A fifth problem lies in the instant rising of mountains. Just what mechanism do creationists have in mind which can propel a mountain 20,000 feet up in a couple of thousand years and, then, stop on a dime? Today, after great earthquakes, mountains are observed to rise a few feet at most. That is how most nonvolcanic mountains actually rise. Are we to believe that the ancient world endured one magnitude 8 earthquake after another, day and night, for centuries, so that the mountains might be lifted up in record time? Of course not. Nobody could have built cities of brick under those conditions. It never happened.
A sixth problem lies in the absence of great gorges and canyons perpendicular to the coast. Rivers have cut deep gorges in places, but nothing like what we would expect for the vast quantities of water rapidly draining off continents of soft sediment. Where are these deep scars which Noah's flood would have left? We should have numerous "Grand Canyons" along all the coasts of the world by creationist reckoning. Ironically, the Grand Canyon doesn't count because it contains meandering patterns which could not have been formed by vast quantities of water quickly draining off the continent. Nor would soft sediments support the high, vertical walls and pillars found in the Grand Canyon. They would have slumped like a water-soaked sand castle!

from here.

 

[Arlanbb]

That's right. Not one big flood, 100 local floods. Also, in probably every low lying area of the world. Recently, we've seen floods in Iowa, Louisiana ande North Dakota. No on is arguing that floods happen, just that there was a single global one 4000 years ago. THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER ON EARTH TO COVER ALL OF IT AT ONCE. Oh really? Said by whom? Where? Got a scientific reference for this baloney. No they haven't. There is not a single reputable geologist, archeologist or paleontologist who believes this.​

Are you trying to assert that sea-shells on mountains are evidence of a global flood? Have you accounted for the fact that THERE ISN'T ENOUGH WATER ON EARTH TO FLOOD THE WHOLE PLANET? We know those mountains were once low-lying areas under oceans Yeah, I get my evidence from the Saturday Evening Post too. Where? When? Who wrote it? Who discovered what? Who says it means there was a global flood?
Plenty of Water to Flood the Earth​

The earth is still flooded. Seventy percent of it is covered by water and only 30 percent is dry land. Moreover, 75 percent of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in glaciers and polar ice caps. If all this ice were to melt, the sea level would rise much higher. Cities like New York and Tokyo would disappear.
Further, The New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 metres (12,430 feet), a figure considerably larger than that of the average elevation of the land above the sea level, which is 840 metres (2,760 feet). If the average depth is multiplied by its respective surface area, the volume of the World Ocean is 11 times the volume of the land above sea level.( The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1987, Vol. 25, p. 124) So, if everything were leveled out—if the mountains were flattened and the deep sea basins filled in—the sea would cover the whole earth to a depth of thousands of meters.
For the Flood to have happened, the pre-Flood sea basins would have to have been shallower, and the mountains lower than they are now. Is this possible? Well, one textbook says: “Where the mountains of the world now tower to dizzy heights, oceans and plains once, millions of years ago, stretched out in flat monotony. . . . The movements of the continental plates cause the land both to rear up to heights where only the hardiest of animals and plants can survive and, at the other extreme, to plunge and lie in hidden splendor deep beneath the surface of the sea.”( Wonders of Nature, edited by Claus Jürgen Frank, 1980, p. 87) Since the mountains and sea basins rise and fall, it is apparent that at one time the mountains were not as high as they are now and the great sea basins were not as deep.
What happened to the floodwaters after the Flood? They must have drained into the sea basins. How? Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates. Movement of these plates can cause changes in the level of the earth’s surface. In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles [more than 10 km] deep at the plate boundaries.( The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1987, Vol. 9, p. 505.)It is quite likely that—perhaps triggered by the Flood itself—the plates moved, the sea bottom sank, and the great trenches opened, allowing the water to drain off the land.

All this was an act of God. An important verse in the Bible says this "In the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule... For according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice,that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God and by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water." (2 Peter 3:3-6)
The Bible does not depend on the testimony of humans for it's truthfulness. Despite attacks over centuries the Bible has proven correct and true and science has not successfully refuted its truthfulness.

Rusra02 ~ I have a simple question for you. When did the Genesis Deluge happen on earth?

In the last 10 years I have surveyed over 300 archaeologist from all over the world asking them if they or anyone they knew had ever found any evidence for a worldwide Deluge that happened about 4350 years ago or in the last 10,000 years. Every one of them that answered back said "NO". How do you explain that not one of the archaeologist has ever found any evidence for a biblical deluge???