Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 56 (9054 total)
117 online now:
Phat, vimesey (2 members, 115 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,239 Year: 5,885/14,102 Month: 33/438 Week: 77/83 Day: 27/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2186
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004


(4)
Message 46 of 432 (642977)
12-03-2011 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ICANT
12-03-2011 12:56 PM


Re: Heat
If the continents were moved in 1 nanosecond how much heat would be created

Lots.

EK= (1/2)*m*(d/t)2

You're proposing a situation where an extremely large mass, is moved a very large distance in a very very very short amount of time.

edited to add. Moving a 1 kg mass 1 m in 1x10-9 s produces 5 x 1017 J of energy.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.


God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 12:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 47 of 432 (642978)
12-03-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ICANT
12-03-2011 12:56 PM


Re: Heat
In a nano second?

You do know that as a general rule, the faster things go (where friction is involved) the more heat is generated, don't you?

Mountains rising at 'a nano second' would most likely boil off much of the surrounding matter in... well, probably nano seconds.

Seriously, this is material physics that you should know already.

Kids know this.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 12:56 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 48 of 432 (642983)
12-03-2011 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
11-29-2011 5:09 AM


My General Understanding
Because the history is not repeatable, to an extent it is speculation, but from what the bible says, there was more water in the atmosphere then than now, as well as super-hot water coming from beneath the earth, and it is easy to show water exists beneath the earth.

It's important to take a look of a map of the globe without any water on it. The mid-oceanic ridge is much more explainable given a massive catastrophism, IMO, in that this explains the continents splitting. You can trace the continents being split by the ridge.

If you look at the continental shelves, there are double continental shelves visible.

I have not dug too deeply into this topic personally, but I do not think that it is a big problem, it is certainly credulous compared to a rock sprouting feelers, for example, whereby such a proposal is completely invented, 100% speculation, without any facts to look at.

Believing in a flood is not as big a deal as evolutionists want to make out. We also believe that life produces life. Abiogenesis, I would say, take much more faith to believe in, than a large flood, which is not just possible but easily probable.

These are my own opinions more than arguments, from the explanation I deem the best one.

I think the fossils, the continents, super-hot water, preservations of polystrate fossils, preservations of a vast number of kinds that have extant counterparts today, well......basically I don't see any problem as to why a flood is not conceivable. I won't argue this any more than I would argue that we breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, it is futile.

The reasonings against a flood I deem pretty tenuous. They are invented to thwart the flood rather than coming from any genuine attempt to falsify it. At the end of the day, for me it is much more reasonable to believe life comes from life and that X produces X, as the facts clearly show.

It should also be noted that the attitude that there can't be any supernatural answers for the problem is decidedly odd, considering it was a miraculous event, according to the bible. To have us believe that God would create a flood but could not then handle the consequences and therefore not be able to save a remnant of life on earth I regard as absurd.

Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 11-29-2011 5:09 AM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Trixie, posted 12-03-2011 5:19 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 62 by DWIII, posted 12-04-2011 7:31 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2769 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 49 of 432 (642990)
12-03-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ICANT
12-03-2011 12:16 PM


Re: It's your model!
ICANT writes:

Well it was not obvious to me.

The statement: "Even if that was the case and we accept that there was a single land mass (which I don't, even for a nanosecond),"

Look very, very carefully at your quote of what I said. Do you see that little curly thing at the very end? Well, that's called a comma and it demonstrates that you have quoted only that part of the sentence that allows you to attempt to score dishonest points by claiming that I don't believe Pangaea ever existed. You may not be able to read minds, but I do expect you to read words in the posts you reply to.

ICANT writes:

I am argueing what the text says not what you, I or anyone else thinks.

This isn't a topic for arguing what the text says. Once more you have failed to read properly what I wrote. For the sake of this debate I'm allowing you to include your pre-flood single land mass because I'm asking you about your model.

You've provided a little more information about your model. You say that in the beginningall the land was covered, so there is already enough water to cover it again in the flood. So where did the water go? How was it kept from covering the dry land that appeared? Either the land was made higher or the amount of surface water was reduced in volume by sequestering it somewhere else. I expect you'll tell me it went into the fountains of the deep.

ICANT writes:

A minimum of 1 inch as there was dry land

So your preflood, single land mass was 1 inch above sea level. That would cause problems with tides, would it not? It would flood twice a day. You have to accept that some of it was higher than that otherwise you're unable to account for hills. Don't forget that the text says the water covered the "highest hills" according to you and it covered them to a depth of 15 cubits, around 7.73 metres (using Noah's cubit of 20.3 inches, obtained from an online ark size calculator).

ICANT writes:

Regardless of where the water was it would have been available to cover the dry land at a later time.

So the source of the water is available, now what?

No, you have said that the water was available, but you haven't specified the source. Where was this water in the preflood world? It can't be in the single body of water otherwise there would be no dry land at all.

Edited by Trixie, : To fix a formatting error


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 12:16 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 6:49 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2769 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 50 of 432 (642991)
12-03-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
12-03-2011 3:25 PM


Re: My General Understanding
mike the wiz writes:

It should also be noted that the attitude that there can't be any supernatural answers for the problem is decidedly odd, considering it was a miraculous event, according to the bible. To have us believe that God would create a flood but could not then handle the consequences and therefore not be able to save a remnant of life on earth I regard as absurd.

I don't have a problem with what you say here and if that was what all "floodists" said then that would be fine. However many try to find scientific support for their flood and propose models which may or may not stand up to scientific scrutiny. They also attempt to rubbish what science has told us about the history of our planet by rubbishing the science itself. They have attempted to get this sort of thing taught in schools as fact, claiming scientific support and claiming that they are using science as well. When they choose to use science to try to bolster their claims it's fair game to show where the "science" they use is faulty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 3:25 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by mike the wiz, posted 12-06-2011 3:30 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 16 days)
Posts: 6426
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 51 of 432 (643000)
12-03-2011 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Trixie
12-03-2011 5:05 PM


Re: It's your model!
Hi Trixie,

Trixie writes:

This isn't a topic for arguing what the text says. Once more you have failed to read properly what I wrote. For the sake of this debate I'm allowing you to include your pre-flood single land mass because I'm asking you about your model.

My model is found in the text.

If I can't argue the text I can't argue.

So I am out of here.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Trixie, posted 12-03-2011 5:05 PM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 12-03-2011 6:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 12-03-2011 9:17 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33492
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 52 of 432 (643001)
12-03-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
12-03-2011 6:49 PM


Re: It's your model!
There is no model in the text.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 6:49 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Wollysaurus, posted 12-03-2011 8:04 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 3554 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


Message 53 of 432 (643010)
12-03-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
12-03-2011 6:52 PM


Re: It's your model!
That model seems to consist of very little:

KJV GEN 7:4 writes:

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

KJV GEN 7:11-12 writes:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

KJV GEN 7:20...24 writes:

And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days [...] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

KJV GEN 8:2-3 writes:

The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

Pretty light on detail and not much of a model. The problem is that this opens up every crackpot to expand on what the "fountains of the deep" and "windows of heaven" actually are, without any supporting evidence. The problem is even further exacerbated by the fact that whatever 'theory' they come up with can be claimed as being "supported by scripture".

In the end, what one usually ends up with is a finger snap of "God Did It". Which is fine, as long as one admits that they don't actually have any evidence, and don't go trying to twist what we know of history and geology into the flood narrative.

Alas, "mechanisms" for this normally end up being less believable than the technobable of your average star trek episode.

Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 12-03-2011 6:52 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12731
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


(1)
Message 54 of 432 (643012)
12-03-2011 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by ICANT
12-03-2011 6:49 PM


Re: It's your model!
Hi ICANT,

You're working very hard at being paranoid.

This thread is asking creationists to describe their model of where the water came from and where it went. In this thread it doesn't matter how the Bible is interpreted to arrive at the model. No one will dispute any Biblical interpretation because this thread was not intended to discuss Biblical interpretations. That's all that Trixie meant when she said, "This isn't a topic for arguing what the text says." Its for discussing the model from a scientific perspective. How the Bible was interpreted to arrive at the model doesn't matter.

So if you want to discuss how the Bible was interpreted in order to determine where the water came from and where it went, then this is the wrong thread. That would be a topic for a different thread.

All this thread is asking is for creationists to describe their model so that it can be examined and discussed from a scientific perspective.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 6:49 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Trixie, posted 12-04-2011 5:47 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 25 days)
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


(4)
Message 55 of 432 (643029)
12-03-2011 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Trixie
11-29-2011 5:09 AM


Okay, so apparently I lied, and this is still interesting to me. This time, though, I'm going to try to play devil's advocate. Please understand that I don't necessarily believe the arguments I'll make in this thread, but I intend to do my best to argue in favor of the Biblical flood myth as representing an actual global event. So, here we go:

{Devil's Advocate}

Arguments have been made that the flood was not catastrophic or violent, that water flows uphill, that the opening of the fountains of the deep doesn't mean water reaching high in the atmosphere, that water wasn't in the mantle pre-flood, but got there afterwards when the "single land mass" divided in the days of Peleg.
...
In the distant past we've discussed this topic, touching on Walt Brown's hydroplate theory and vapour canopies etc, but it would be worthwhile to discuss this subject in light of the ongoing thread "Evidence for a recent flood". In that thread many claims are made regarding the source of the flood water. Discussion of that would be off topic in that thread (I think) and it would be useful to have all the claims together in one thread.

As has been mentioned many times on this forum, there simply is not sufficient water currently on the Earth to allow a global Flood to have occurred as described in the Biblical story, covering the mountains and killing all life aside from that which was preserved on the Ark.

The answer, then, is that the flood itself was miraculous, and that God literally used magic (or however one wants to describe deific omnipotence) to create the water as He created the Universe, and then took the excess water away afterward. The water was not drained to "hide evidence," as the Biblical God is not a trickster like Loki, but rather because as has been mentioned, if sufficient water existed on the Earth to cover the mountains, the mountains would still be covered.

To deny the possibility of a miraculous appearance/disappearance of the water unfairly discounts a valid hypothesis. It is conceivable, though admittedly not probable through the lens of modern experience, that some agency used technology or other abilities to alter the water content of the Earth beyond normal naturalistic processes. If we're even allowing that the flood myth in the Bible might describe a real global event, then we're also talking about accepting for the argument the existence of a deity who warned Noah, allowed him time to prepare, and put the entire sequence of events in motion. To accept that basic idea we're already talking about a being who can violate what we would call the laws of physics, because that level of prediction requires at a minimum either precognition (basically time travel, since it involves receiving information sent from the future), or the ability to set in motion a global flood.

This provides a problem: how do we tell whether the flood myth recounted in the Bible was representative of a real global event? With miraculous flood waters, the amount of water on Earth as we observe it today would be the same, either way.

The problem is somewhat akin to a criminal investigation, where the perpetrator of a crime has deliberately tried to cover his tracks, or to even place evidence that would mislead investigators. This is not to say that deception was God's motivation, however - remember, so long as that amount of water exists on the planet, the whole of the Earth would remain flooded as sea level would be a higher elevation than any land mass. God had to add and remove water from the Earth in order to create a flood, if there was going to be a global flood at all.

So what, then, should we look for? We have one potential hypothesis in which the evidence in question would be the same regardless of whether the flood happened or not.

The answer is simple: we need to ask ourselves what else we would expect to see, both if the world had been flooded, and if the world had not been flooded, and then examine the evidence to see which hypothesis best represents the world we actually live in.

Off the top of my head, one thing we would expect to see would be the frequency of myths, legends, and religious stories involving global floods, either as creation myths or as divine acts to cleanse the world of the wicked. The survivors of the Flood were all parts of Noah's family - after a few generations and tribal migrations as the human population recovered, we would expect the tale to be retold and slightly changed across multiple different cultures. Since all cultures would of necessity trace their ancestry back to Noah's family, it's conceivable that some tribes would eventually regard the flood as a creation event - in a way, it was the beginning of the world, because the old world was swept away and drowned.

We would expect to see more of these flood myths (specifically dealing with divine punishment or creation) if the flood was an actual event than otherwise, because many myths and legends are at least based loosely on true events, and because a global flood is sufficiently specific to make spontaneous similarity (similar stories arising in multiple cultures independently) unlikely.

And of course, when we look at cultures around the globe, we find that flood myths are extraordinarily common. They exist in cultures from every corner of the world.

I realize that the topic of this thread is the origin and destination of the actual flood water - but I think that sufficient evidence has already been posted so as to make the question moot. Clearly, there is not today enough water to flood the Earth as described in the Bible. Clearly, there was not sufficient water on the Earth before the flood. In either of those cases, the Earth would simply have been flooded.

The answer, then, regardless of how improbable, has to have been some additional mechanism capable of adding and removing that volume of water to the Earth. Hypotheses involving extant water have simply been ruled out, and the remaining hypothesis space including a global flood requires for the water to have been added and removed.

Since we know of no natural process that would allow for such a volume of water to be added and removed, we know we need to find an additional factor for our equation. We're missing a necessary term.

And the very Bible that leads us to investigate the possibility of a global flood also gives us the missing piece of the puzzle: an omnipotent deity, who earlier in the same narrative created the entire Universe ex nihilo. If God created the entire Universe, where water is the second-most-common molecule in existence, certainly He could have created a bit more water on Earth and then removed it once His purpose was accomplished!

The claim is unfalsifiable, at least so far as quantities of water are concerned. That particular bit of evidence would look the same to us, either way. But when we have exhausted the alternatives, the remaining hypotheses, however less probable they seemed at first, must contain the truth. Even if those hypotheses require something as improbable and untestable as divine intervention. Science cannot exclude potential hypotheses - what we do not understand today, we may understand tomorrow. "Magic" carries significant negative connotations in science, but the simple fact is that sufficiently advanced technology, or indeed any sufficiently mysterious phenomenon will be indistinguishable from "magic." My cell phone would appear to work by magic to a person from three centuries ago.

And the God of the Bible is no trickster. He would not lay false trails and attempt to deceive His own creations - if He were that sort of God, He wouldn't have bothered to leave us the Bible at all to recount the true story.

So while this one bit of evidence would look the same either way, we must shift our focus to other observations, other facts about the world that would be different if the Earth had or had not been flooded.

{/Devil's Advocate}

How'd I do?


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Trixie, posted 11-29-2011 5:09 AM Trixie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Chuck77, posted 12-04-2011 1:31 AM Rahvin has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 432 (643035)
12-04-2011 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Rahvin
12-03-2011 11:22 PM


Rahvin writes:

{/Devil's Advocate}

How'd I do?

Who am I to judge how anyone does anywhere but I like your points about the various flood stories each culture has.

As far as magic goes, I think there are better explanations.

The earth could have been "smoother" than it is today, the ocean floors not as deep as they are today letting the water available back then cover the earth.

After the effects the flood caused (deeper ocean floors, and more mountanous) it leveled out to where it stands today. Possibly.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2011 11:22 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2011 3:23 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 60 by Trixie, posted 12-04-2011 6:38 AM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 63 by jar, posted 12-04-2011 10:00 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 71 by Rahvin, posted 12-05-2011 8:08 PM Chuck77 has responded
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-06-2011 2:13 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 57 of 432 (643038)
12-04-2011 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chuck77
12-04-2011 1:31 AM


As far as magic goes, I think there are better explanations.

Seriously, what is it with you guys?

Every time we provide you with a naturalistic explanation of something that has actually happened, you chaps start yelling blue murder about atheist scientists and their materialismisticarianist dogma. But for this one thing, the Flood, which didn't actually happen, you seem determined to think up a naturalistic explanation that puts God as far as possible out of the picture.

Why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chuck77, posted 12-04-2011 1:31 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Chuck77, posted 12-04-2011 4:00 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 432 (643039)
12-04-2011 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Dr Adequate
12-04-2011 3:23 AM


Why?

Just trying to provide a model so that it can be examined and discussed from a scientific perspective.

If that's what possibly could have happened i'd like to explore it. If that's not what possibly happened then the water had to have come from somewhere else.

Maybe the water came out of the earth when the "fountains of the deep opened up"?

The ocean floors sank, and were able to take all the water back in that they spit out?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2011 3:23 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2011 7:07 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2769 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 59 of 432 (643040)
12-04-2011 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Admin
12-03-2011 9:17 PM


Re: It's your model!
Thank you, Admin. Once more you manage to say what I was trying (and obviously failing) to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 12-03-2011 9:17 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2769 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 60 of 432 (643041)
12-04-2011 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chuck77
12-04-2011 1:31 AM


Finally something to work with!

To examine your suggestions, we need to determine what evidence there is and what evidence we would expect for each one.

Your idea of a smoother surface, while making flooding the whole surface easier will struggle to explain why it was not flooded previously. You still would need more water from somewere unless it was the "becoming smoother" which allowed the oceans to flood the land. The text states that extra water was added, via the fountains of the deep and 40 days of rain, and a smoother surface would require less water to flood it, however the smoothing out process would have been noticable at the time, given that giant tsunamis would have resulted.

So, how much water would we need in your suggestion? All I've got from ICANT is that it would have to be 15 cubits plus a minimum of 1 inch deep which doesn't take into account the existence of hills etc. Once we have an idea of that, we can look at where it may have come from, i.e., what the fountains of the deep may be.

It also gives us something to work with when we look at where the water went. A deepening of the oceans and an uplift of the areas that were going to dry out would certainly do it, but what would we expect to see if that was the case? Or did it return to the fountains of the deep, in which case is it still there? Wouldn't that amount of remodelling under the surface of the water while Noah floated around cause huge amounts of heat to be released and boil the flood? What effect would it have on the geological record?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chuck77, posted 12-04-2011 1:31 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Chuck77, posted 12-11-2011 4:26 AM Trixie has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021