Solving the Mystery of the Biblical Flood

Patrick;Read your papers, it will take me awhile to look this stuff up anyway, I hope to go to the library this weekend, and I will check out the references you have posted."for the record if the you associate the freshwater-brackish transition in the Baltic Sea with the Black Sea flood?" Yes, I do." impact origin for the Carolina Bay lakes" I would agree with you that a standard direct impact is eliminated by the evidence. However, occurrence from a secondary impact event under unusual circumstances has not been, and is probably the best answer for most of the Carolina Bay lakes. Some possibilities for the shallowness of the disturbance could be the ground was frozen, or an unfrozen layer above permafrost, or the impacts occurred underwater, or a combination of these effects and others may be responsible for the form of the CBls, and some may date to earlier events. Its easy to tear down, harder to built. Any one can find fault, what I would like to hear is a better theory on the formation of the CBls.Edge;"references showing that filled oceans offer more support to continental mountains than shallow oceans" In reference to island mountains and sea level. "During each Glacial stage, a weight of water scores of meters deep was removed from a wide area of the crust around each island. That lowering of water pressure removed some support for the volcanic mass. Hence, the island tended to sink" (The Changing World of the Ice Age by Reginald Aldworth Daly 1934, p.155) Mountains along the edge of a continent would also be effected in the same way, but to a lesser degree.On flexing the entire earth, "evidence that there was this sudden shift . . . has happened?" We do have extensive evidence that there has been wide scale and large shifts in elevations in connection with departure of the ice age glaciers. "The occurrence of a canyon, incised into thick deposits of till and fluvial conglomerates, shows that in Quaternary time the Himalayas underwent a powerful tectonic uplift, which approached 3000 m in axial parts (Xitao 1975)." (The Pleistocene; pages 315-316) The downward subsidence of the land during the ice age and it's subsequent rise at the end of the Wisconsin Ice Age is also affirmed by the pattern of river erosion. When an area of a river sinks, reducing the slope or grade of the river, sediments settle out in the slow moving water and build up. When the area is later uplifted, the grade is increased and the water flows faster, rapidly eroding down into the sediments and into the raised bedrock beneath the river bed. This pattern of sedimentation and later erosion is noted to have occurred in connection with the end of the Ice Age. "many streams filled part of their valleys with sediment during the ice age, and now they are cutting through that sediment fill to form stream terraces." (The Earth's Dynamic Systems; A Textbook in Physical Geology, fifth edition by W. Kenneth Hamblin 1989, p.208) This uplift and later erosion happened not once but a number of times in pulses through out the two million year long Pleistocene ice advances. A computer model of the erosion of the Colorado river revealed that most of the erosion had occurred in pulses. "Erosion of the canyon was not uniformly fast or slow, but occurred in a series of pulses. Downcutting of the main stream was extremely rapid and was largely a function of the rates of uplift." (The Earth's Dynamic Systems; p.200) What has been happening is simple, as the sea beds rebounded with the removal of water to the ice caps, the land subsided under this effect and the weight of glacial ice in the form of ice sheets and mountain glaciers."Can you tell us about coral that can survive thousands of feet of submergence for a year? Where are the extinct coral reefs that the flood undoubtedly killed?" As to what species if any were able to survive the flood submergence, I have no idea, probably few if any. As I said earlier, much of the coral we have today could be regrowth. Areas that had coral before the flood and don't now due to greatly increased water depth are the submerged former reef islands. Deep beneath the waves lay drowned islands called seamounts. Many of these seamounts are over 5,900 feet under water and are called guyots because they have flat tops which were once cut by waves. On some of these guyots coral remains have been found. On areas like these that ended up deeply submerged, there the coral died. In areas that ended up again in a depth of water suitable for coral, the coral was restarted and grew over the old coral, if the original coral didn't survive.King David;The flood waters would have contained much floating debris which would have provided plenty of landing places for insects and held fresh water in small traps. On mammals, maybe that was why God had Noah build an ark, plus many survived outside the ark by rafting or on floating ice in some areas. Your points on poor chances mankind would have of surviving such an event are correct, and an explanation is given at Genesis chapters 6-9 on how man was able to survive along with a core population of animals. As to where the water went. The ice age had pulled enormous quantities of water out of the oceans, causing them to shrink and their floors to rebound upward, this in turn also caused the adjoining land to sink. Then at the end of the ice age, a sudden collapse of the ice sheets put water and ice back into the oceans much faster than the ocean floors could sink back down. This resulted in a global flood as the sea level was temporally above the level of the land. Then as the sea floor sank down under the increased weight of the deeper waters, the water drained off the land into the deepening oceans. As the oceans were pushed down, the land now freed of much of the weight of glacial ice, rose upward above the waters. On your comment. "cant be in the glaciers, b/c this is a biblical story." Why not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wmscott:

​

The flood waters would have contained much floating debris which would have provided plenty of landing places for insects and held fresh water in small traps. On mammals, maybe that was why God had Noah build an ark, plus many survived outside the ark by rafting or on floating ice in some areas. Your points on poor chances mankind would have of surviving such an event are correct, and an explanation is given at Genesis chapters 6-9 on how man was able to survive along with a core population of animals. As to where the water went. The ice age had pulled enormous quantities of water out of the oceans, causing them to shrink and their floors to rebound upward, this in turn also caused the adjoining land to sink. Then at the end of the ice age, a sudden collapse of the ice sheets put water and ice back into the oceans much faster than the ocean floors could sink back down. This resulted in a global flood as the sea level was temporally above the level of the land. Then as the sea floor sank down under the increased weight of the deeper waters, the water drained off the land into the deepening oceans. As the oceans were pushed down, the land now freed of much of the weight of glacial ice, rose upward above the waters. On your comment. "cant be in the glaciers, b/c this is a biblical story." Why not?

---

Thanks for replying, again if any of my points have already been discused just point to the page.Good point on the insects, its a possibility, though not probible due to the huge expanse of the oceans that the debri would spread over, and the reletivly short flying span of insects, but I'll leave that alone for now. As far as Naohs ark, and the theory that thats how the world's animals were saved, I dont see how this is possible. For one, Naoh was just human, how was he supposed to get animals from around the world, like Europe, the Americas, Austraulia, etc.? A task of rounding up a pair of each of the animals, one female, one male, is humanly impossible. For example, there are hundreds of thousands of animal species around the world, if not more, rounding up a pair of each would take liftimes to accomplish, if it could be accomplished at all back then, due to the fact that they new nothing of the Americas, Australia, etc. And a ship to accomidate them all and food for the 40 day journey would no doubt be another impossible feat to accomplish, as the ship would have to be the size of something close to a modern day oil tanker, or many many times bigger.Now about your theory of how the entire world flooded. You stated that the ice age pulled huge amounts of water out of the oceans, causing the ocean floors to move upwards, and the land masses to sink. Why would the land sink if the ocean floors rose upwards. And, just because there is less water in the actuall oceans deosnt mean that there is less mass on top of the ocean floors which would therefore make the ocean floors rise due to lower presure from above. Wether ice or water, it still wieghs the same. Also im confused as to how an ocean floor can move upwards or downwards, when your talking about the entire planet's floors. Now i can imagine the ocean floors of a particular region receeding, or moving upwards, but when you say that the entire planet's ocean's floors move down towards the core, or upwards ( which is whats need to have the entire world flood)then your saying that the space where the ocean floors are receeding to is simply disapeering. Its like decreesing the radius of the earth and the solid rock underneath the floors simply ceases to exist, and if the ocean floors rise, its like increasing earths radius and new matter simply comes into existence to fill in that space.You said at the end of the ice age is when the ice sheets collapsed, and therefore flooded the world. However if ice sheets "collapse", that deosnt creat new water, the ice sheets would still float, and the same water level would exist. As for the rains due to the impact of meteors, the ice would simply melt in that region of the impact which would no doubt hinder its ability to travel very high into the atmosphere, which is need to create actual rains.

​

[This message has been edited by King David, 02-14-2002]

quote:

---

Coral- The flood was brief enough for some coral to survive.

---

Some did not survive and was restarted by new growth. [b]I'm sorry. Your quick assumption that coral survived won't cut it. the coral would have died, along with nearly every other non-brackish fish in the sea! Why? Because during the flood, salt and fresh water would have mixed. most fish cannot tolerate even slight changes in salinity. They die RIGHT AWAY. NO, THEY COULDN'T HAVE SURVIVED THE FLOOD (AND ANYWAY, THE FRESH WATER WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LONG TIME TO RESTORE THE OCEAN TO THE NORMAL LEVELS OF SALINITY). In addition, the rise in the ocean levels would have been so dramatic that it would have taken many days for it to return to normal levels. Coral could not have possibly survived this long.

quote:

---

Some did not survive and was restarted by new growth.

---

Nope! coral takes MILLIONS of years to regrow. Even of this quick regrowth had indeed occured, we would see evidence of this.The flood would have made farming impossible (salt water destroys land), despite the fact farming was recorded several yrs after the flood. The flood would have killed all plants, including aquatic plants, which would have died without the shining of the sun. The chines and the Egyptians have made no record of the flood. Funny how they'd fail to even mention a rainstorm that covered the entire surface of the planet in 100s of ft of water. Shortly after the "flood", Chinese and Egyptians, who would have been moving back to their distant lands, were recording normally. If the flood had occured, the pyramids would have been destroyed. American species (we'll say the llama) would have travel across the deserts of the Mideast, the tropics of south asia, the temperates of china, the siberian tundra, the thick forest of alaska, the steep cliffs of the rockies, the thick forests of the cascades, the deserts of california, the mountains of mexico, and then finally home to their various homes in South america. all this without any food (where would you find food after a giant flood [noah, by the way, did not save plants]). they also did this without leaving one fossil behind. no remains either.and here's an article THAT I DIDN'T WRITE. THE AUTHOR LEFT THE FOLLOWING NOTE ON HIS SITE:R. J. Rigginsemail me
Use or repost at your pleasure, just leave my name on it, please.Here is the article:
Koalas
They live only in Australia. Their diet is so restricted--to a few subspecies of eucalyptus--that they're threatened now by destruction of the only kinds of trees they will eat. It's also hard to imagine them migrating. Over many generations they might slowly spread through an area--but travelers, they ain't.
And when they did migrate over 9,000 miles, in a tiny herd from Ararat to New South Wales, eating a convenient trail of long-disappeared eucalyptus (which took how many years after the Flood to grow?), they left no trail of koala fossils behind.A suggestion for creation "researchers": instead of wasting endless hours combing through the writings of real scientists to find phrases to yank out of context that make them seem to doubt evolution--instead of that, put together a real research expedition! Find us that bee-line trail from northern Turkey to Australia. Find us those fossilized eucalyptus leaves, koala footprints, and koala bones. While you're at it, it would be lovely if you turned up a few kangaroos, giant moas, marsupial lions, Tasmanian wolves, and platypuses along that superhighway to the South Pacific.WOW! Now that you've seen all this, still believe?thank you

why is it that my posts are not appearing right away? I am a little frustrated.sorry
and thank you

---

Quicksink writes:
Why is it that my posts are not appearing right away? I am a little frustrated.

---

Good question!When you post a new message, the software creates a new version of the HTML webpage with your message at the bottom. When your browser sees that it's posting a webpage that it already has in its cache it doesn't bother refetching it from the website, it just redisplays the version in its cache. Most browsers will occasionally check for new versions, but only every so often, not every time a page is fetched.If you don't see your message, simply hit the refresh button on your browser.You can also cause Internet Explorer (and probably in Netscape, too) to always fetch the page. Select Tools->Internet Options, then click on Settings under Temporary Internet files and click on "Every visit to the page."--Percy

The biblical flood is a myth, just like the tower of babble and santa claus.

"biblical date" of the flood.Just began to read this thread. Hope I'm not repeating anyone.Some Bible students speculate that the flood happened around 3500 BC. I can make the case for a more recent occurence but the Bible itself offers nothing conclusive on the subject.Even if we assume, as some do, that it occured 5500 years ago, it still falls short of the 7000 years you suggest.

Thanks for the clarification! i get it now

doctrbill
are you a creationist or evolutionistjust curious

William Scott wrote:"I highly favor the more recent biblical date for the flood"Did I miss something, or have you revealed what you believe that date to be?"Basically anything man can do, man can screw up."Such as writing, translating, and interpreting the Bible?

I'm degreed as a Biologist and educated as a Bible expert. Both of these are just hobbies now.PS. Not a "real" doctor, just like to play ...
And was "converted" from creationism by virtue of a course called Philosopy of Biology, which was taught at the same Christian school where I studied Theology.

​

[This message has been edited by doctrbill, 02-15-2002]

King David:Odd screen name for someone arguing against the flood, could you please state your viewpoint, would save time. Secondly, this post started about a book I have written on the flood, the basic type questions are all addressed in the book. If you want quick answers, I would suggest reading it. Some issues have been addressed in lesser or greater length on this page. I don't think we have talked much about the ark here. First off, Noah could have only had a small cross section of animals on the ark. The rest survived on their own, that view is compatible with scripture by the way. On the geology, we have been talking about that at some length, and is on just about all of the proceeding pages. All of the points you raise are also in the book, which presents it in a logical way that is much easier to follow than our postings.quicksink;I have been busy flooding the world, so I haven't had time to predict the effects on each and every living thing. Coral regrows much faster than "millions" of years, many areas that have extensive coral reefs have geological ages less than a million years. The salinity problem, isn't a problem, the amount of freshwater on the earth compared to salt water, is much too small to be a problem. Even if the earth had ice caps as large as the high end of my theory, the water would have for the most part, have been released progressively as the ice melted and not all at once. The length of deep submergence for most areas would have had to had been months with the biblical flood having a duration of close to a year. I doubt most coral could survive such, but with all the difference types of coral, I hesitate to say that none could have survived. So, perhaps some did survive, the rest regrew from their larval 'seeds'. As for a salt water flood preventing agriculture, talk to the Dutch. Actual sea bed can be turned into farm land, and rather good farm land at that. Post flood rains would have flushed the salt off the land in a fairly short time. Occurring in the northern winter, combined with the global nuclear winter effects predicted wide spread freezing of the ground which could have prevented salt entry. The flood occurred at the end of the last ice, which I believe happened at the date the bible gives for the flood, or perhaps earlier. No civilizations predate the end of the last ice age. If the bible date is correct, the ages of these civilizations has been over estimated just as the timing of the last ice age may have been as well. And as I have been posting, not all the animals were on the ark, many survived outside on their own.doctrbill;The biblical date for the flood is 2370 BC. The date is arrived at by adding up the generations and working back from later dated events in the bible. I allow for the possibility that the bibles we have today could be missing some names, maybe even a lot of names, and the flood possibly occurred earlier. But considering what a huge omission that would be, I strongly favor the biblical date. On screwing up the bible, the writers were inspired and God has seen to it that his word has survived intact, the question is how intact, do we now know every textual error that has creeped in over the years, or are there a few left? Any errors left would have to be small, but a small string of omission in one of the genealogies would have a big impact on dating the flood. On errors in interpreting the Bible, those errors are so wide spread and common, it is a profession. But the bible speaks for itself if you are willing to lisen.

"The biblical flood is a myth, just like the tower of babble and santa claus."
--I already showed you why the Tower of Babbel is not myth here:--Post #87 - Evolution is a religion. Creation is a religion:

quote:

---

​

--I already gave evidence (actually we can go and see the tower today) of the Tower of Babel, the bible is completelly accurate on this point: From another forum, posted by myself in response to another asserting the same:

​

[Quote] --Why would you assert something so untrue? The tower of bable has been found.
http://artiom.home.mindspring.com/gumilev/ch4.htm

​

[Quote] The only thing the Bible believers have to go on is the obscure references of the tower of Babel...which incidently was never discovered,either intact or in ruins and dont tell me that it was the alledged Flood since it occured after the flood in biblical mythology and the yet unproven assertion,both in fact and in theory that the oceans all dried up after the alledged flood.

---

--And this is a link with the discussion of the Tower of Babel and Ziggurats.
-- TOWER OF BABEL - Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel? - ChristianAnswers.Net------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-15-2002]

I'm genuinely confused here, TrueCreation.Are you saying that the Biblical Tower of Babel definitely existed:in the circumstances described in the Bible
of a nature as described in the Bible
and with consequences as described in the Bibleand that the link you give provides evidence of this?If so, do you apply the same standards of evidence to your assessments of the evidence for evolution?

Scott wrote:
----------------------------------
"First off, Noah could have only had a small cross section of animals on the ark. The rest survived on their own, that view is compatible with scripture by the way."
----------------------------------How is it compatible with the following?"I will cause it to rain upon the earth ... and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." Genesis 7:4 King James Version."He blotted out every living thing ... man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark." Genesis 7:23,24 Revised Standard Version.----------------------------------
"The flood occurred at the end of the last ice, which I believe happened at the date the bible gives for the flood, or perhaps earlier." ... "If the bible date is correct ..."
----------------------------------IF?----------------------------------
"... not all the animals were on the ark, many survived outside on their own."
----------------------------------A reasonable assumption but incompatible with scripture - "He blotted out every living thing ..."----------------------------------
"The biblical date for the flood is 2370 BC."
----------------------------------Your choice. One of many interpretions.----------------------------------
"The date is arrived at by adding up the generations and working back from later dated events in the bible."
----------------------------------Biblical events are dated by linking them to calculated timelines drawn on cultures outside that of the Hebrews. Those timelines are themselves approximate at best. For example we cannot know for certain when Jesus was born, much less IF he was born!----------------------------------
"I allow for the possibility that the bibles we have today could be missing some names, maybe even a lot of names ... But considering what a huge omission that would be, I strongly favor the biblical date."
----------------------------------You cling to this timeframe, based on questionable interpretation of an ancient document, whilst ignoring a mountain of data which refutes it! How "scientific" is that?----------------------------------
"On screwing up the bible, the writers were inspired and God has seen to it that his word has survived intact, the question is how intact, do we now know every textual error that has creeped in over the years, or are there a few left?"
----------------------------------A certain uncertainty!----------------------------------
"Any errors left would have to be small, but a small string of omission in one of the genealogies would have a big impact on dating the flood."
----------------------------------Among other things.----------------------------------
"On errors in interpreting the Bible, those errors are so wide spread and common, it is a profession. But the bible speaks for itself if you are willing to lisen."
----------------------------------Hear Ye. Hear Ye."He blotted out every living thing ... "