Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

1. Imo, I say, Imo, de deep flood did indeedy drop down.
2. The atmosphere was thick and high before the flood and provided a perfect climate for then relatively smooth planet earth which had small oceans and likely about 70% of the planet's surface continent.
3. The thin crusts of earth sank into the molten center, creating the deep oceans via the weight of the enormous volumn of water.
4. The weight of the huge volumn of water produced enough weight force to push the displaced molten earth core under the continents and raise up the mountain ranges. Thus the fact that most, I say most, are near the coasts.
5. According to the prophets, we're headed for big time drought and global warming.
6. According to the prophet John, a meteor will likely hit an ocean, wiping out a third of the ships.
7. Add up these, i.e. drought, global warming and meteor and/or huge continental shift and you have big time evaporation and possibly a bit of an adjustment in the position of planet earth.
8. The Biblical prophets predict a time coming on earth where men again live long lives and the climate of earth get so good that the "plowman will overtake the reaper"
9. The Biblical prophets predict that the sun and moon will be darkened some and when Christ Messiah returns to earth, he will come "with clouds." The world's atmosphere will become cloudy as drought and heat prevail.
10. The prophets predict violent weather and earthquakes, etc for "latter days".
11. One of the last things to happen in latter days is this humungus worldwide earthquake that levels all cities, islands and mountains. (This, imo, due to the evaporation of the oceans and the rewarping of earth's surface to preflood relatively smooth surface.
10. I'm adding this all up to conclude that the super climate which was in place before Noah's flood will indeed return to planet earth, essentially making it again a terrarium type environment.I know this is RADICAL STUFF, but then, so was Noah's flood and soooo much else we read in this fantastic supernatural book we call the Bible.

quote:

---

2. In the Bible it says that the waters rose to cover the
mountains. Therefore, the mountains already existed and the
earth was not flatter than nowadays.

---

That's why I said, 'relatively' smooth earth. Yes there would've likely been what was referred to as mountains and oceans, but the mountains would've been like our foothills and the oceans small and relatively shallow. This also requires much less water to cover the earth than would be required after everything settled to what we observe.

quote:

---

Which has the higher density, water or rock? Can you propose some mechanism whereby water, density about 1.0 kg/liter, can flow into low spots and force rock, density 2.6 or more, upward by any significant amount? Try it on a seesaw at a local playground: do the experiment as to the depth of water required to raise a foot of rocks. Then compare your results to the bathymetry/altimetry of the west coast of South America, and get back to us on your results.

---

Notice I alluded to the great volumn of water. Yes, rock is far denser than water, but 70% of the earth is ocean. The volumn of water would've overpowered the density factor of rock. Then too, I would assume that hot liquid earth core would be somewhat less dense than cold hard solid granite and more suitable for uplift after which it would cool and harden.

Some good points have been made to refute my thinking as to how the water would sink the thin crust down into the core.Question 1. What then made the ocean as deep as it is?Question 2. If the continents have allegedly been moving about for millions of years, what has kept them from eventually filling the ocean depts with a smoothing out effect on the earth.

quote:

---

I think both your questions are based on the same mispreception. You seem to be thinking of the oceans as holes of some sort, as depressed and the continents as the "normal" level.
It is (well sort of) the reverse of that. The continents float on the surface of the earth. They are made of material that is lighter than the underlying basalt. They are like giant icebergs.

​

They are pushed around by the stir of the mantle underneath them like a scum on hot coffee. They move as mostly solid lumps and don't smooth anything out.

---

Thanks Ned. Not really. I understand the crust over the mantle is thick an thin, depending on where you are. At the Ocean bottoms it is generally thin. I assume you to believe the mountains are allegedly formed by the shifting and shoving process of the movement of the continents. My question is that if all this movement is going on with plates of the crust bumping around over the millions of years, how can the deep oceans remain deep in all this alleged stuff?? Where'm I goin wrong??

quote:

---

My favorite introductory geological text, definitely written for the layman, is Earth Story by Simon Lamb and David Sington. A similar text, but more techical, is Building Planet Earth by Peter Cattermole.

---

Thanks Percy. In the mean time, could you address my two questions briefly?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-25-2003]

quote:

---

I would if I believed they would be the last two questions. That's why I suggested you do some reading.

---

Last two questions? I don't see what sense that makes. You need only answer what questions you choose to answer or can answer. Do you have an answer to these two questions? If you can't answer them, How can I find the answer to them by reading what you've read?

quote:

---

The question is still a bit confused I think. The continents remain high because they are light not the oceans remaining deep. The ocean bottoms are wide plains with occastional deep trenchs. (a geologist might want to correct me). The trenchs are caused when the ocean bottom dives under the continent. So to some degree you're sort of right. The oceans are flat with the bumps filled in by sediment.
Here one picture of the topography.
http://mscserver.cox.miami.edu/MSC111/Lectures/Lec04.htm

​

Not the oceans bottoms are more or less flat with the mid ocean ridges pushed up and the ocassional hot spot mountain chain. They stay this way because the cotinents don't plow over them. The ocean bottoms are formed at the mid ocean ridge and destroyed at the subduction trenchs. The continents don't get into this. The continents are pushed around by these moving ocean bottoms which have been described as "conveyor belts".

​

Is that clearer?

---

Hmmm, I appreciate your answers, but it appears you end up with the same problem you had with my opening statements. Over enough time, the density and weight of the contnents being so much greater than that of water, it seems to me that they should eventually settle to the lower levels if indeed they moved about over millions of years. You believe the continents were pretty much connected together in ages past, don't you?

Ned, with all due respect and gratitude for your answers, your/the explanation/theory you've presented seems to be even less likely to me than my own. It seems to me that the hard heavy rock Canadian plate aided by earths gravity should then be pressing upon earth's softer partially molten mantle and the even softer totally molten outer core, forcing the thin ocean crust upward to displace the lighter density oceans by breaking up their thin crusts.Getting back to the Biblical flood, Genesis does mention the "breaking up of the fountains of the deep" at this event which indicates substantial subsurface lakes or cavities in earth's crust which may factor in somehow on the Biblical flood an exactly what may have happened.There seems to be quite a lot of guess work on both sides of the isle here, as a lot of hypothetical stuff is involved in both explanations. Nobody's seen the so called partially molten mantle, the earth's alleged inner core nor the earth's alleged outer core. The Bible tells of a place in the earth called Hades or Hell, where compartments of both dead sinners and saints were, the compartments being separated, one cool and one hot. Jesus is supposed to have descended into the cool compartment, i.e. "heart of the earth," to minister to and raise out the ones from there before his assention into Heaven after his resurrection. This wording suggests the core of the earth. Of course neither of us can prove or disprove what we believe, but interesting, imo, to talk about and debate.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-26-2003]

quote:

---

(Incidently I must warn people that The Core is total science fantasy - I have only heard about it, and I have already laughed my ass off several times over the plot.
I can't wait to see it )

---

If the Bible implication is correct and it's Hades, maybe you don't want to see it.

quote:

---

Of course I have answers to these questions. The reason I won't answer them for you is because I don't believe these will be the last questions you'll ask. The reason I believe this is because you know next to nothing about the views of modern geology, I can't see how answering two little questions is going to fill such a huge knowledge void, and so there are bound to be more questions. It would be a very time consuming exercise to in essence give a course on elementary geology by typing answers to questions into a little message box. I suggest you do some reading.

---

Ok let's make a deal. I promise I won't ask you any more questions on this subject in exchange for your answers to my two questions. Deal?

quote:

---

Well it does press down! You are making up your mind about something you clearly know less about than my grade 8 son from his simple science classes.

---

OUCH!! Now you're stepping on my toes. Likely your son is still reading about the alleged zillionth aged coelacanth, the alleged Nebraska man and the alleged Java man also. Just because you and the pros theorize differently than I doesn't make me stupid. Imo, I have sounder reasons to theorize what is oberserved and experienced Biblically than you do sciendiculously.

quote:

---

Nope, just on your side of the isle. Guessing based on no knowledge at all. The crust has been measured. The movement of plates has been measured. The physics is well understood. What "guesses" do you not like?

​

Don't go running off this topic until you demonstrate the integrity necessary to admit you didn't have a clue and are wrong about the overall geology of the earth.

---

With so many Biblical prophecies fulfilled and all, I've still gotta go with the Noah flood story and I'm not convinced that all that water didn't do a whole lot more than you folks figure if the flood did happen. for one thing the water is liquid and being liquid, if the mountains were only hills and the whole earth was covered with water, even the water on the continents would be puting pressure on the weaker thinner crusts under the oceans. The Bible tells of the "fountains of the deep" which may factor in some here also, implying there were cavities of subterrain oceans or lakes before the flood broke them up. There's a lot more that likely happened than any of us know, including the pros, imo.

My American Standard Bible uses the words, "high mountains" in verse 19 and "mountains" in verse 20, so both verses are referring to the same mountains. It's just that verse 19 described them as being "high," and the wording was to inform that the highest existing mountains were indeed covered by the flood. The problem with your critique is that neither verse says how high the mountains were. I believe the highest mountains then were no more than the height of our foothills and were considered "high" when they had nothing higher to compare them to. I can't prove that, no more than you folks can prove your sciendiculous stuff. It's my theory based on what the Bible says and my interpretation of what is observed. If the highest above sea level for the entire planet was, for example, 1500', that would be then considered "high mountains."

quote:

---

Incidently, I can't help but feel that buzsaw isn't reading my posts -either that or the talk.origins page that completely refutes the idea of Noah's Flood just hasn't sunk in...

​

Anyway the main bone of contention here seems to be that the weight of the water from the flood would have displaced the weaker thinner crusts under the oceans and pushed up the mountain ranges.

---

Hi Rocky. Yes, I'm readin you, but I'm building my structure here from a different kind of foundation than you. My foundation is the Biblical record which indeed has Noah's flood. Since the prophecies and other supernatural stuff prove the Bible to be supernatural, I believe I have a more sound foundation than you. So in my book THERE WAS INDEED A WORLDWIDE FLOOD. Biblical skeptics are resisting the message which data like Ballards recent Black Sea discoveries is shouting that there was a world flood, trying to limit it to the locality, but it's just another step in justifying the Biblical record of the flood, imo. More will come.For what it's worth, this from Psalms 104:5-9 (American Standard Version)

quote:

---

Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be moved for ever. You covered it with the deep as with a vesture. The waters stood above the mountains. At your rebuke, they fled; at the voice of your thunder, they hasted away. The mountains rose; the valleys sank down; unto the place which you had founded for them. You have set a bound that they may not pass over, that they turn not again to cover the earth.

---

(I've transcribed the old English thous and such into modern English.)I take scriptures like this and begin on these foundation stones. Ever so slowly, archeology and science is forced to move toward acknowledging these scriptures with a growing number of adherants to them in academia among them.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-27-2003]

Thanks very much, Percy for taking the time and effort to post your views as to my two questions. I know how much thought and time it requires to do these things and want you to know, I do sincerely appreciate your substantial response.It will take some time for me to read, reread and meditate on what you've said, so bear with me if it takes me a while to respond to what you've said. The first thing that came to my mind as I was reading it for the first time is 'WOW, these people criticize Biblicalists for believing stuff a few thousand years removed and they are wanting us to think they know all this alleged detail about things hundreds of millions to billions of years removed based on far less data than we have for our thousands to go on!!'Anyhow, thanks much and I'll mull it over some more.