Summations Only

Hey ICANT,You are illustrating one of the big problems with discussing creation with a creationist.Many creationists use different versions of the Bible in order to develop their opinion.Each creationist seems to have their own interpretation of the Bible they choose to use.Most creationists are quick to advise others to ignore people with a different interpretaion.The effect of this is that each creationist has their own version of the events discussed in the real world as well as in forums such as this.Each creationist also discusses their version as it were the truth, they discuss their version as if it were fact.I have heard a lot of different versions of the flood of Noah. Your version is a fresh one.As far as I can tell, if your version were true, there would be no physical evidence. Or the evidence would be nearly impossible to find. This is because the flood occured before the breakup of the continents. It would be difficult to find verifiable evidence of any event occuring prior to the breakup of the continents.I am interested in your version. Maybe you could start a thread to discuss it.However, this thread is about a recent flood and evidence for that recent flood.Considering your version is not recent and would also leave no verifiable evidence, I am not sure where you are trying to take a thread titled 'evidence for a recent flood'.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : reword

I'd like to point out to you first that you are yet again changing the subject but that yes, even geysers and hydrothermal vents work because water flows downhill. How exactly did you think the water got to the point where it could be heated?The topic though is about evidence and it is time that you provided some evidence for your assertions, evidence that there was a flood and that there was a single land mass before the flood that split apart after the flood and that there were fountains of the deep and that the water flow from those fountains was many times greater than the flow from rain.Evidence.When was the flood?What is the evidence of the flood?Where are the sites where that evidence may be examined?

Hi Percy, Can I start a thread asking for the evidence to be presented of how the universe began to exist?If no one is allowed to participate in such a thread without presenting evidence there would be two posts. Mine presenting the problem and yours promoting the thread. There is no evidence.So when we are talking about how a flood such as the one in the Bible story of the flood of Noah there would be very little evidence.The Bible text says the dry land was covered with water. Genesis 7:19The Bible says the people were scattered over the face of the dry land. Genesis 11:8The Bible says the Earth was divided after the flood. Genesis 10:25That is the evidence of what was said about the flood of Noah. You can accept it or reject it that is your choice.Now I believe the flood was in recent times but I am not locked into such a belief.I do believe that it happened or it would not be recorded in the Bible from the writings of Moses. What evidence would you expect to find?I have given the example of the Bay of Fundy and how it rises 55 feet in 6 hours.If the fountains of the deep opened up and released enough water to raise the water at such a rate what would you expect to see left behind when it receeded?The waters began to rise in the 600th year, 2nd month and 17th day of Noah's life.It rained for 40 days as well as the water came forth from the fountains of the deep. Twelve months and 10 days after the rain began Noah and the passengers exited the ark.So it rained for 40 days and then had around 330 days to receed before Noah exited the ark. So the water did not rush back to where it came from but slowly receeded.If the waters from the fountains of the deep caused the ocean to rise as does the tide at the Bay of Fundy, in the fourty days the water would rise 8,800 feet. Then if all the water that can be held in the atmosphere also came down that would have added 1 inch more of water.The water rising the 55 feet at the Bay of Fundy in 6 hours and then receeding in 6 hours does not change the landscape as everyone here declares that the flood would have done.So could you explain to me what evidence there would be left by a flood that the water rose for 40 days and then receeded for 330 days on all the existing dry land on the Earth?Then add in the Earth was divided after the flood took place.The only evidence you would find is that there was local floods in a lot of places around the world. But then there have been many floods in local areas all over the world since the time of the flood of Noah.I can see no possibility of any evidence being left by a global flood as the Earth was divided after the flood.Now if you guys want to really continue to discuss the flood of Noah you need to discuss it in the light of the evedence that is found in the Bible as that is the only place the account of the flood of Noah is recorded.God Bless,

That's likely because the tide have been operating in the Bay of Fundy ever since the North American ice cap melted up there - maybe 14,000 years ago?? And that twice-a-day inrush and retreat for five million days or so has already done most of the earthmoving it is going to do!!! This has been explained to you a couple of times now - not that you would acknowledge something glaringly obvious like that if it disagreed with your pet "theory" of the day. Well, except for the overwhelming evidence that you have seen at this forum about eighty times. That has been carefully explained to you by degreed physicists over and over.

Why? No, that is the account that the Bible presents. What we are asking for is the evidence that what the Bible presents actually occurred. Using the verses you used above, we should see a flood layer that is dated using 14C from human artefacts such as middens or charcoal across all continents. You are free to use other dating methods if you are looking at time frames greater than 40k years before present. However, flooding does leave evidence, and it is that evidence that we are asking for. Something similar to the recent tsunamis. We would expect to see ruined human villages with a silt layer. If the land split as you say then we should see this reflected in the dating of sea floor rocks where the spreading occurred. That is, the sea floor should all date to around the same time. So where is that evidence?

And that doesn't strike you as a bit odd - that nobody else noticed, or that Ham's and Japeth's grandkids never passed on stories of the Fludde to their non-Jewish descendants? Or that there is no freakin' evidence in the Bible - only a mischmash of two stories cribbed from older Babylonian stories?

If you mean evidence of what came before the Big Bang, then you're right, there's no evidence and a thread wouldn't be a good idea. A thread about hypotheses of what came before the Big Bang might be pretty interesting, though.But if you mean evidence of the Big Bang then there's lots of evidence, and a thread would be a fine idea. This is a science thread. Why are you asking me? This thread is an opportunity for those who believe the flood really happened to present evidence demonstrating it's not just a religious myth. If you need some ideas for what to look for then I think some have already been mentioned in this thread. A few that come easily to mind off the top of my head:

• A genetic bottleneck the same age as the flood.
  ​
• Massive openings in the Earth's surface from which water flowed.
  ​
• Scoured landscape around these massive openings where the water flowed over the land before the water level rose.
  ​
• Debris fields similar to northern Japan all dating to the same age.

And since you believe the separation of the continents was post-flood:

• Young seafloor all around the world, slightly younger than the flood.
  ​
• Mountains pushed up by plate tectonics dating slightly younger than the flood, such as the Himalayas that are the result of India colliding with Asia.
  ​
• Absence of life on Earth, since the rapid motion of the continents would have generated enormous heat.

--Percy

removedEdited by NoNukes, : Percy already covered this stuff.

Hi jar, There is enough water beneath the crust of the Earth to fill our oceans from 5 to 10 times depending on who you are reading beind.Are you telling me all that water rained down out of the atmosphere and ran downhill to get to where it is at?The most water that can be in our atmosphere would only put 1 inch of water on planet Earth if it all came down at once.That water that is in the atmosphere has to go uphill from the surface of the water on planet Earth to get in the atmosphere. So water has to go uphill before it can go downhill. There is evidence that all the land mass has been covered with water.Fossils declare that all the land mass has been covered with water in the past. The land masses of the Earth are moving and if you trace it back you will find that there was one body of water and one land mass in the past.The Bible agrees and said all the water was gathered to one place leaving dry land.Since the idea that all the land mass was in one place has only been around for 96 or so years the author of Genesis was a pretty smart guy, don't you think?He said Pangea existed some 3500 years ago. There are fountains of the deep today and I think it is safe to assume they have always existed because of the way they exist today. The Bible does not say. I have an opinion but so does everyone else but none of our opinions is evidence. Fossils of sea creatures such as whales that were the size of busses in the Atacama Desert the driest place on the planet. You could try Chili for the whales in the desert or visit any mountain and you can find sea creature fossils.Now as far as finding the evidence of the flood of Noah I have no idea where you will find that evidence as the Earth was divided after the flood.God Bless,

Evidence of a flood.The fact that something was once underwater is NOT evidence of a flood.Yes, the water is where it is because water runs down hill.No where does the Bible say that all the land was in one place.You still refuse to answer the basic questions.To make it easy I'll limit it to one at a time.When was the flood.AbE: The author(s) of Genesis did not say that Pangea was around.Edited by jar, : see AbE:Edited by jar, : fix quote box

What you forget to mention is that this water is locked within the constituents of the plastic mantle, and it is in the form of molecular water, that is sinlge molecules of water within the mantle matrix. For this water to flood the Earth it would require all of the mantle to come to the surface at some point during the flood and expunge all of the water from it. This is hardly a viable mechanism. What you fail to mention is that there is no evidence that it was covered by water at the same time. The part you fail to mention is that humans were not around when the land masses were together. So then it should be easy for you to show us the evidence of this. Where is it?

If the Earth were the size of an apple, the depth of the oceans would be less than the thickness of the apple's skin. The mantle is almost 2000 miles thick. The mantle is about 80% of the volume of the entire Earth. It is big. Enormous. Yes, it contains a lot of water. It contains a lot of almost anything you care to name.So sure there's more water spread throughout the 2000 mile thick mantle than in the 2 mile deep (on average) oceans. We all know and agree about this.The question for you is, where is the evidence that this water ever left the mantle, rose to the surface, and flooded the entire Earth? Since this water is roughly equally distributed throughout the mantle but came to the surface from "fountains of the deep", it must have somehow been aggregated into regions beneath these fountains. Where is the geological evidence of these regions where the water gathered beneath the surface? Where is the geological evidence of these fountains of the deep?And where is the evidence that the water eventually left the surface and somehow became distributed back into the mantle? The magma that emerges from volcanoes contains no evidence of a recent period of diminished water content. Water plays a key lubrication role in tectonic movements, and its temporary reduction would have had a measurable impact. The water content of subducting plates also plays a key role in forming rising bubbles of magma that are responsible for the formation of volcanoes when they reach the surface, so we should see a reduction of this process at depths that correspond to the period of the flood.Imagine I claimed that 5000 years ago all the methane or helium or mercury or whatever in the mantle rose to the surface, stuck around for 9 months, then returned to the mantle. Wouldn't you want to see some evidence before accepting this idea?--Percy

I'd appreciate someone checking this out for me because me and numbers have "issues" with each other.Using the radius of the Earth I've calculated the volume, then using the radius plus 4000 metres I calculated it again (Everest is approx 8000 metres). The difference between the second figure and the first figure gave me the volume of water required to cover the Earth's surface completely.I'm not claiming accuracy here, more of a rough guesstimate, a ballpark number and it comes out at 2046 million cubic km. To help get an idea of what that means, the Earth's crust is estimated to be 1332 million cubic km (I googled that).Even if it's argued that the mountains weren't as high at the time of the supposed flood, you're still talking about alot of water.

Hi Coragyps, cavediver and Son Guku have said "We do not Know". That tells me there is no evidence. That is not to say that there are not opinions and even hypothesis's.The same goes for what I have been discussing here.God Bless,

I get 2.1 billion km³. Here's what I typed in to Google: --Percy