Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?

The problem with that approach is that the surface would have been flooded from the start or you'd have to propose a mechanism whereby the entire surface of the earth flattened out once the ark was built. With that amount of remodelling of the planet's surface a flood would have been the least of Noah's problems.

Details, details

Not necessarily. Remember that the topic is where did the water come from and where did it go? Same amount of water. Just rearranged landscape. Right before the flood, god could have rearranged the earth's geology and voila floods!

Once again, instead of some sort of evidence, we are treated to "what-ifs" -- objections made up with no scientific or logical support which are designed to reinforce a belief which otherwise would have to be questioned.We see this on all the threads where creationists post their "evidence" -- and thereby show their lack thereof.No "what if" is too outlandish to post if it serves it's function. And if it is rebutted, well here comes another, and yet another. Pretty soon the first one is recycled, and around and around we go.Guess that's what you have to do when you're doing apologetics instead of science, eh?And when you have no real evidence to back up your claims.

quote:

---

used to find topics like this interesting...but now, I'm tempted to just say that, when we're including in the proposed scenario a magical man in the sky who created the Earth and all life in 6 days and took a year to drown it, maybe naturalistic explanations just don't matter and we'll just say it was magic. After all, we don't ask where the water comes from when Harry Potter casts a water-creating spell.

---

It raises the question why even talk about this myth. Why have a subforum for it. Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.Edited by Portillo, : No reason given.

Because some people want the Fludd to be taught as fact in our schools. The more people that come to EvC and get that notion scubbed from their minds the less chance school kids have of having their science lessons ruined by religion.

The deep: tĕhowm. It is the same word as in Genesis 1:

quote:

---

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

---

So what is the deep? Other near Eastern religions had the world starting as just water, the Genesis account seems consistent with this. The face of the waters just exists at the start of Genesis, it is never explicitly created. Theological arguments may be made for god creating the deep, the waters, but that's for another time.Either way, god created the firmament and put some of the waters of the deep on one side of it, and put the rest underneath the firmament. He then moved the water around to reveal dry land, thus explaining where the water we presently have came from.The flood waters came from holes in the firmament which held back some of the waters from the deep. And from the 'fountains of the deep'. A world we are separated from by the firmament. How they thought these fountains worked is anybodies guess. Where they fountains tapping into some of the deep that is below the land? Where they fountains in the firmament? I don't know.So that's where the water came from: the primordial state of everwater called the deep.Where did that water go? There are two possible answers. The first is the simple reading: The water dried up. The people that wrote this story probably did not realize that when water dries up, it goes somewhere.A second answer, which does not assume its a plot hole resulting from scientific ignorance, would be that the water presumably returned to the deep. It evaporated back up through the firmament. Presumably the stoppers Yahweh used were semi permeable membranes or something. Or maybe it drained into the large cavernous underworld?Personally: I think they just thought it dried up and was thus accounted for.

The reason to talk about it is really simple.There are people, even here in the US of A, that think there was a Biblical Flood and unfortunately, there are even children being taught that it really happened.In the US it is perfectly legal to teach children absolute falsehoods as long as those falsehoods can be couched as "Religious Beliefs" and the children are not in one of the public schools.There are even candidates for the highest off in the land that believe such nonsense as "The Biblical Flood actually happened" should be taught even in the public schools.As long as there are voters who continue to want to teach children such utter nonsense as though it were fact, we, particularly Christians, need to not just discuss the issue but soundly refute and ridicule such behavior.

Thing is once someone believes that god made everything in 7 days, made a woman out of a rib (cause presumably the nothing he created everything else from ran out), and talking snakes, magic apples .... If one swallows all that garbage a simple flood story provides no trouble god did it it says so in the bible and he probably used magic so scientists will never understand how he did it.

Hi frako, If that is what a basic creationist is then I ain't one.I appreciate what Walt Brown has tried to do. But I have a copy of his entire plate techronics theory papers and I disagree with him totally.He is trying to place the entire history of the Earth into a little over 6,000 years more or less and account for all the layers of sediment in the Earth. Which did not happen.The Earth was created in the beginning whenever that was, nobody has ever been able to tell me when that was.But this has nothing to do with the questions of the OP.God Bless,

Hi Trixie,Trying to discuss this subject in a science thread is almost impossible as the evidence for a flood is not accepted.We do have a book that gives information concerning the flood just as there is information as to where the water came from that is on Earth.The problem is the book that talks about the flood is discarded but the book that talks about where the water on Earth came from is accepted as fact.Kinda a double standard there. The account given in the Bible does not present a catastrophic flood, therefore there was none, which science agrees with. The last time I took my grandson to the beach on Grand Cayman and we built a sand castle beginning shortly after low tide, it took quite some time and we also ate after we got through. By the time we finished eating the water was lapping at the sand castle. It was not long before the water was over where the sand castle had existed as the water had washed it away.I would say that experiment proves that the water ran uphill to get to where the sand castle had been constructed.If you disagree with my conclusions from my experiment please tell me how the water could wash away the sand castle, without running uphill. The source where the fountains of the deep is recorded does not say anything about the water reaching high in the atmosphere.It simply says the fountains of the deep were broken up.The Floridan Aquifer System which covers 100,000 sq. miles, is an artesian aquifer which is the largest, oldest and deepest aquifer in the southeastern U.S.There are free flowing artesian wells all over mid and south Florida. The only water that goes into the atmosphere is that evaporated by the sun.There are springs all over the state of Florida that are heads of rivers.
The water continually rises and runs off in these rivers.If the state of Florida was sumerged again as it was in the past, would the water that is in the lithosphere and the asthenosphere still be there?My conclusion to that question is that the water would still be there and it would be under more pressure than it is today.This lithosphere and the asthenosphere is on top of the mantle all over the planet Earth.I don't know if anyone has ever tried to put a well for water in them but I know they have drilled for oil under the gulf and when they drill into a pocket of oil the oil will flow through the pipe to the rig that is doing the drilling no pump required. It does that because of the pressure the liquid is under.A good example would be the BP well in the Gulf that blew out the shut off valve and emitted a lot of oil in the Gulf.There are vents that open under the ocean and release water all the time so if they are under 5 miles of water I think they would be classified as fountains of the deep. I could be wrong though.Fact #1 There is much water in the lithosphere and the asthenosphere.Fact #2 Much of that water comes to the surface without being pumped out of the Earth.Fact #3 There is much water in the asthenosphere as it serves as the lubercation for plate movement.Fact #4 There is much water in the mantle according to scientist. Enough to fill the oceans 5 to 10 times depending on whose numbers you use.Assumption #1 Since there is water above the lithosphere and below it in the asthenosphere I assume there is water in the lithosphere under the ocean as it is under our feet as we walk on dry land.This presents a source for the water to accomplish the flooding of the dry land that the Bible says existed in Genesis 1:10.The problem with the amount of water required to cover the Earth as stated in the 7 th chapter of Genesis arises when it is applied to the Earth as it is today. That is nothing but a strawman of those who say the flood could not happen. I have noticed that Mt Everest has already been mentioned as having to be covered when it did not exist at the time of the flood.If the source of the flood story is to be consulted the water gathered together in one place and dry land appeared. That is a discription of Pangea, put forth by scientist.The source material also says the dry land that appeared was divided in the days of Peleg.Now if we have to discard the source material this conversation is over.God Bless,

Fact #1 The atmosphere contains 21% oxygen by volume (wiki: Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia)Fact #2 Sea water contains 86% oxygen by mass (wiki: Seawater - Wikipedia)Assumption: If I am having trouble breathing I should stick my head in the ocean.I'm sure someone here can show us the fallacies in these arguments.Edited by Boof, : No reason given.

A single standard: does the book conform with the evidence?

See, that's a problem we keep encoutering. You keep telling us how the earth wasn't, but you won't tell us how it was.Are you making the point that since the Himalaya have been pushed up by India and Asia colliding, that would have occurred after the days of Peleg? Even if that was the case and we accept that there was a single land mass (which I don't, even for a nanosecond), there must have been mountains on your single land mass since the ark came to rest on one. How high do you think that mountain was? I'm not asking you to tell me how high the Bible says it was, but how high you think it was. Remember, it's your model that we're examining.Currently, Mt Ararat is reckoned to be 5,137 m, however that includes the snow cap so it may be a little less. The calculation I used assumed a flood depth of 4,000 m so if we use the height of Mt Ararat in the calculation we'd need even more water. The last major eruption is thought to have been around 3,000 BC and bronze age artefacts have been found under pyroclastic flows, along with human remain (all from Wiki).Although this is a science thread, I'm not asking for scientific evidence of your flood. Thus, for the purposes of this thread the information given in the Bible can be used to provide the evidence which you have used to formulate your model and it's this model which will be examined. the accounts in the Bible can be used to formulate your model, and it's this model that will be examined for credibility given the known laws of science. Look on this as a way to refine your model.Edited by Admin, : Wordsmith middle sentence of last paragraph. Trixie, if I drifted away from your intent please correct it back. I was trying to make sure there were no misunderstandings regarding the roles of evidence and known science in this thread.

Hi Trixie, Are you saying you don't believe Pangaea existed?

quote:

---

The Panthalassic Ocean, was the vast global ocean that surrounded the supercontinent Pangaea

---

Source

quote:

---

Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift. In his book The Origin of Continents and Oceans (Die Entstehung der Kontinente und Ozeane) first published in 1915, he postulated that all the continents had at one time formed a single supercontinent which he called the "Urkontinent", before later breaking up and drifting to their present locations.[3]

---

Source

quote:

---

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

​

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

---

SourceScientific theory is that all the water was in one place, the Panthalassic Ocean.The Bible says the water was all in one place.That is a perfect match.Scientific theory says the land mass was all in one place.The Bible says the land mass appeared when the water gathered to one place. Water in one place equals land mass in one place.That is a perfect match.Neither give any elevation of the land mass.Alferd Wegener's theory says the continents later broke apart.The Bible says the Earth was divided in the day's of Peleg.

quote:

---

Genesis 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

---

SourceThe primary meaning of the Hebrew word הר is hill, the translators chose to use mountains. First I don't believe there was a mountain they are caused by plate's diving under one another and the dry land had not been divided at the time of the flood.How high the land mass was would only be a guess as there is no information on the elevation of the land mass. Why should I guess how high the land mass was?
If I have a model it will come from the Bible text not my imagination.

quote:

---

Ararat - The Bible says that Noah's ark landed on the mountains of Ararat. This does not refer to any specific mountain or peak, but rather a mountain range within the region of Ararat,

---

Your SourceThis would refer to a region of Ararat which existed at the time the texts were copied from what Moses had written.

quote:

---

It is not known when the last eruption of Ararat occurred; there are no historic or recent observations of large-scale activity recorded. It seems that Ararat was active in the 3rd millennium BC; under the pyroclastic flows, artifacts from the early Bronze Age and remains of human bodies have been found

---

Your SourceFirst off your source say's it is not known when the last eruption occurred. Then it says "It seems that Ararat was active in the 3rd millennium BC.What problem do you think I would have with that?The Bible gives no date for the flood so I don't have one. I have a guess but that is all that it is.God Bless,