Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 61 of 432 (643044)
12-04-2011 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Chuck77
12-04-2011 4:00 AM


Well, it still seems odd to me. The words: "As far as magic goes, I think there are better explanations" are basically what scientists chiseled on the gravestone of creationism. And now you're saying it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Chuck77, posted 12-04-2011 4:00 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 1752 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


(4)
Message 62 of 432 (643047)
12-04-2011 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
12-03-2011 3:25 PM


Re: My General Understanding
mike the wiz writes:
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.
I find it hilarious how creationists make use of and then subsequently distort scientific findings for their own ends. For example, "continental drift" was for many years very much a fringe idea that had no serious support by anyone, until the discovery of plate tectonics provided the necessary mechanisms. All of a sudden, YECreationists en masse seized on this and proclaimed it physical confirmation of the old Peleg story ("See? Science supports our side!") and subsequently invented nonsense like runaway subduction solely for the purpose of squeezing it all within their cramped time-frame.
Well, scientific knowledge in geology has continued to advance a great deal since then. Are you aware, Mike, that there is evidence of the existence of several previous supercontinents before Pangaea (c 200 mya)? How do creationists deal with these prior supercontinent cycles, such as Pannotia (550 mya), Rodinia (750 mya), and Columbia (1500 mya), other than complete silence?
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.
"Rock sprouting feelers"??? I really had to scrape the bottom of the Google barrel for this one. Guess what, yours (Message 28 from way back to 2008!) is the only reference on teh entire internets, referring to your personal incredulity per abiogenesis.
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.
Belief is irrelevant. Even if it were, isn't it immensely ironic how fundies continually belittle the very concept of faith (a key component of their own belief structure)?

DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 3:25 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 63 of 432 (643054)
12-04-2011 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chuck77
12-04-2011 1:31 AM


And other than by magic, do you have a process that could have done that?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chuck77, posted 12-04-2011 1:31 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 64 of 432 (643076)
12-04-2011 4:40 PM


Water
In Genesis 1:2 and the beginning of Genesis 1:9 there was no dry land.
All land was covered so there was enough water to flood the Earth on the surface of the Earth.
Genesis 1:9 last half of verse dry land appeared when the water was gathered to one place.
So the water had to go somewhere for the dry land to appear.
Where ever that water went it could have been retrieved to cover the dry land at a later date.
There was enough water to cover the Earth.
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."

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by jar, posted 12-04-2011 4:42 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 66 by Trixie, posted 12-04-2011 6:38 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-04-2011 8:16 PM ICANT has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 65 of 432 (643077)
12-04-2011 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
12-04-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Water
What is the mechanism?
What is the model?
Where did the water come from?
Where did it go?
How did it happen?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2011 4:40 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 66 of 432 (643078)
12-04-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
12-04-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Water
So your "model" is that some of the water from creation "went somewhere", when it was needed for the flood it came back and at the end of the flood it "went somewhere" again.
The only problem with that is if God gathered all the water in one place, forming the oceans, then all the water was in the oceans, so there can't be any somewhere else to retrieve and dump in the oceans when it was needed for the flood.
The fountains of the deep which were closed prior to the flood and opened to cause the flood must be separate from the oceans if opening them caused the sea level to rise. If the source of your flood water is the fountains of the deep then the water wasn't all in one place prior to the flood - some was in the oceans and some was in the closed fountains of the deep.
It's your literal reading of the water being gathered into one place which is biting you on the bum when it comes to the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2011 4:40 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 12-05-2011 4:29 PM Trixie has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 432 (643084)
12-04-2011 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
12-04-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Water
In Genesis 1:2 and the beginning of Genesis 1:9 there was no dry land.
All land was covered so there was enough water to flood the Earth on the surface of the Earth.
Genesis 1:9 last half of verse dry land appeared when the water was gathered to one place.
So the water had to go somewhere for the dry land to appear.
Where ever that water went it could have been retrieved to cover the dry land at a later date.
There was enough water to cover the Earth.
In Alice In Wonderland Chapter 1, Alice sees a talking rabbit. Wherever it went, it could have come back to make an appearance in Chapter 4.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2011 4:40 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 68 of 432 (643204)
12-05-2011 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Trixie
12-04-2011 6:38 PM


Re: Water
Hi Trixie,
Trixie writes:
So your "model" is that some of the water from creation "went somewhere",
Any water that existed at the time of creation went somewhere as it was covered with miles of rock. More than likely it would have been around where oil is located today. Creation took place in Genesis 1:1 the seven days of Moses recorded in Genesis 1:2 - 2:3 was not creation. The Earth is billions of years old if not trillions.
Trixie writes:
The fountains of the deep which were closed prior to the flood and opened to cause the flood must be separate from the oceans if opening them caused the sea level to rise.
When was they ever closed? They are still operational in the water cycle today.
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 66 by Trixie, posted 12-04-2011 6:38 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by edge, posted 12-05-2011 5:21 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 70 by Trixie, posted 12-05-2011 6:03 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 73 by Trixie, posted 12-06-2011 4:03 AM ICANT has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 69 of 432 (643227)
12-05-2011 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
12-05-2011 4:29 PM


Re: Water
Any water that existed at the time of creation went somewhere as it was covered with miles of rock.
And you know this, how?
More than likely it would have been around where oil is located today.
Any evidence for this? Did the oil displace the water?
So, your story is that the fludde waters were primitive (meaning the occurred at the same time as the earth), and they were somehow concealed from human observation, probably within the earth. Is that right?
Do you have any evidence of such reservoirs? I cannot envision all of the oil reservoirs in the world holding enough water to cause a global flood. And if they did, there should be ample evidence.
Can you give us some kind of a timetable on how this happened? I'm a little foggy on that part.
Creation took place in Genesis 1:1 the seven days of Moses recorded in Genesis 1:2 - 2:3 was not creation. The Earth is billions of years old if not trillions.
Okay, we'll go with billions for now.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 12-05-2011 4:29 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 5:46 PM edge has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 70 of 432 (643242)
12-05-2011 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
12-05-2011 4:29 PM


Re: Water
ICANT writes:
Any water that existed at the time of creation went somewhere as it was covered with miles of rock.
So the excess water ended up in a different place from the rest of the water that formed the oceans when God moved all the water to one place. That's two places, i.e., not one place.
If the fountains of the deep have always been "open" and are present and open now, what enabled them to flood the earth? Why did they not flood the earth before or since Noah's flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 12-05-2011 4:29 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 71 of 432 (643264)
12-05-2011 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chuck77
12-04-2011 1:31 AM


{Devil's Advocate}
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.
If the Earth was "smooth" enough to allow a global flood, then the Earth would have been flooded.
The Genesis story involves an Earth that was not flooded, then was flooded for a brief time, and then was not flooded again.
In order to posit geological events as the cause of the flooding, you would require rapid geological movement via an unknown mechanism to raise the sea floor (and thus sea level) to cause the flood, and then more rapid geological movement after the flood to lower sea level and allow the water to recede, all without rendering the Earth uninhabitable or boiling away the flood waters. This level of geological motion would be greater than the sum total of all geological activity involved in the breakup of Pangaea into the modern continents combined, focused into less time than the flood waters covered the Earth, twice.
You still, in other words, require miracles.
Since the Bible specifically mentions water but does not specifically mention catastrophic geological processes, I think the most parsimonious view is that God created additional water to cause the flood ex nihilo, and then removed it after the flood was complete. It fits the story without requiring additional miracles.
Catastrophic geology strikes me as an apologetic attempt to give the flood story a more "sciency" feel, but the reality is that it does nothing of the sort to anyone who knows the slightest bit about geology.
Since parsimony also suggests ex nihilo water creation via an agent already known within the context of the narrative to create things like water ex nihilo, I think catastrophic geology is by far the less likely of the two hypotheses.
{Devil's Advocate}

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 56 by Chuck77, posted 12-04-2011 1:31 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Chuck77, posted 12-11-2011 4:41 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 72 of 432 (643273)
12-05-2011 9:13 PM


I'm not sure where the water came from, but I figured out where it went:
"Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail," - Job 38.22
I'm just glad I don't have to count inventory in either.

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 73 of 432 (643296)
12-06-2011 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
12-05-2011 4:29 PM


Miles of rock
You mentioned that the excess water was covered "with miles of rock" and I'm interested in the scale of this. Since you used the plural, the minimum must be more than 1 mile, but that gives me no idea of the sort of distances you have in mind. Can you elaborate, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 12-05-2011 4:29 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 5:21 PM Trixie has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 74 of 432 (643376)
12-06-2011 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chuck77
12-04-2011 1:31 AM


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
That'd be tough. The Earth is already smoother than a billiard ball.
quote:
The World Pool-Billiard Association Tournament Table and Equipment Specifications (November 2001) state: "All balls must be composed of cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+ .127 mm)] in diameter and weigh 5 to 6 oz [156 to 170 gms]." (Specification 16.)
This means that balls with a diamenter of 2.25 inches cannot have any imperfections (bumps or dents) greater than 0.005 inches. In other words, the bump or dent to diameter ratio cannot exceed 0.005/2.25 = 0.0022222
The Earth's diameter is approximately 12,756.2 kilometres or 12,756,200 metres.
12,756,200 x 0.0022222 = 28,347.111
So, if a billiard ball were enlarged to the size of Earth, the maximum allowable bump (mountain) or dent (trench) would be 28,347 metres.
Earth's highest mountain, Mount Everest, is only 8,848 metres above sea level. Earth's deepest trench, the Mariana Trench, is only about 11 kilometres below sea level.
So if the Earth were scaled down to the size of a billiard ball, all its mountains and trenches would fall well within the WPA's specifications for smoothness.
copied from here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chuck77, posted 12-04-2011 1:31 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 75 of 432 (643390)
12-06-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Trixie
12-03-2011 5:19 PM


Re: My General Understanding
Yeah, I'm not totally against you on that. For me, it's all about the logic. There is an element, more of logic, than science. Maybe a bit of science.
The creationists want to put it under "science" because it is the chief, the king. For me, truth matters more to me. The truth is that the flood has scientific elements, but also it obviously isn't a scientific proposal, it is more of a model to explain the facts, according to our beiefs. So I would not be determined to teach the flood as science, I would only encourage genuine critical thinking.
What is the problem in saying, "Here is the science, not everyone holds to that, but you do your own thinking, and reading, as you have freewill."
It's just reality in this world, that people are compelled to believe certain things, sometimes for reasons they can't clearly explain. Sometimes they have good reasons, even if you don't agree they are good.
Personally I don't think I would try and force something like the flood into science. For me, the reasons are compelling. Ultimately it is a matter of belief but I have enough facts to convince me.
We have the same facts. A lot of Creation Scientists do not hold to the uniformitarian view of things but I don't think they would rubbish the efforts of the evolutionists. The usual understanding is that the present-day efforts are continued from what they have inherited, scientifically speaking.
I am in no doubt that the evolutionary scientists are genuine, that they do their work genuinely. Al that concerns me is truth, which is not always a scientific matter.
I think there is evidence that should follow if there was a flood, which is enough for me to believe it happened. I am convinced of that, and I don't think I can change that. If you are persuaded by something, that it is true, you don't really choose to believe it, you simply believe it.
Sometimes I feel I am being attacked for having a certain colour of eyes, because having blue eyes is offensive. It's a strange thing - it's supposed to be about tolerance these days, but I assure you, I can't change my mind any more than my eye-colour!
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Trixie, posted 12-03-2011 5:19 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by edge, posted 12-06-2011 5:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024