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

In my flood model, the water released from subterranean waters does not come forth to the surface as steam. I do not subscribe to Walt Brown's hydroplate theory, although I used to. The noahic crust of the earth was bombarded with meteorites and asteroids. This shattered the crust over a period of 40 days. The water underneath the crust would not turn into steam because the super-fragmented crust would not put much pressure on the water. The crust would simply sink to the bottom of the voluminous subterranean water compartment. The water would be hot, but it would not be steam.

quote:

---

The noahic crust of the earth was bombarded with meteorites and asteroids. This shattered the crust over a period of 40 days. ---foreveryoung.
You'd think that would deserve a passing mention. God wouldn't have needed a flood to wipe out all life, the asteroids would have done it!
  —trixie

---

It was mentioned. 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.--Genesis 7:11. You are assuming that all God wanted to do was wipe out all life on earth. He also wanted to recreate it from scratch. He couldn't do that with a bunch of soggy ground and rotting corpses stinking up the place. The asteroids served as the tool to break up the existing crust into reworkable tectonic material.

quote:

---

The crucial question is how much pressure the crust was putting on the water before it was fragmented. What do you think happens to 500C water (kept liquid by pressure) when that pressure is released?
  —trixie

---

You are assuming there was nothing holding the crust up and thereby the water was under tremendous pressure. There could have been huge stabilizing columns all over the place holding the crust up. There is no need for the water to be hot or under tremedous pressure.

quote:

---

So the entire crust sinks into the subterranean water. That means that your subterranean water is beneath the crust at the mantle-crust boundary. Have you any idea of the temperatures there?
  —trixie

---

It doesn't mean that at all. You are assuming the mantle crust boundary that exists today, existed 200,000 years ago. There was no core at that time either. Everything under the subterranean was very cold compared to the temperature known there today. It was at this time that accelerated radioactive decay began to kick in and the upper mantle, lower mantle, outer core, inner core began to form from an undifferentiated inital mass. There was no extraordinary heat underneath the subterranean water.Edited by foreveryoung, : correcting quotes

quote:

---

Try calculating the energy released by the conversion of the potential and kinetic energy from so many comets and asteroids into heat, and you'll find the water will be steam all right, and the surface of the Earth will be molten. Not that any macroscopic life will remain after the blast waves to see it.
The asteroid that wiped out (or at least severely impacted ;-) ) the dinosaurs was much too small to have the effect you are looking for.
  —JonF

---

You are assuming way too many things. You don't know the size of the objects or how many of them there were or over what period of time they hit the earth. The windows of heaven were opened for 150 days according to the bible. That is alot of time. The water is beneath the crust. The crust will disintegrate into fine sand before water ever starts to boil. The subterranean water will absorb the heat and so there is no need for the mantle to completely melt. If you consider the amount of heat necessary to disintegrate miles of crust into sand and the amount of heat lost when water was absorbed into the mantle, there is no need to conclude all water was vaporized.

quote:

---

That's nice. Have you ever heard of kinetic energy, Foreveryoung? Do you know how much kinetic energy gets converted into heat when a 100,000-kg space rock hits the Earth at a speed of 7000 meters per second?

​

Yeah, I thought not. I get 4.9 trillion joules. Do you know how much heat that translates into? No? It's enough to heat the rock plus about 600 times the rock's weight of the rock it hit by 100 degrees Celsius. I think that even cool water might boil a bit.
  —coragyps

---

You are just one in thousands of anticreationist with an arrogant attitude that thinks we are ignorant neanderthals. Yes, I have considered all those things, and I have also considered that you assume way too much.Yes, 4.9 trillion joules is enough heat to raise 700,000 kg of crust by 100 degrees. You assume all the kinetic energy is translated into heat. WRONG! The kinetic energy could be translated into breaking lattice bonds that hold the rocks together. It takes quite a bit of energy to break 700,000 kg of rock into tiny little silicon tetrahedrals with maybe an extra iron or sulfur or calcium or sodium atom attached. Once all that is accomplished, more heat can be consumed into creating bonds that hydrate the silica tetrahedrals into new rock with high water content. There is no reason that this could not have happened. Just because heat is one of the possible outcome of kinetic energy translation doesn't mean it's the only one or the most likely.

Do you have anything besides insults? A person who ridicules and insults is afraid of something and is also afraid he doesn't have the intelligence to match his debater.

quote:

---

Still looking for your calculations of the energy converted to heat from those asteroid impacts, and the effect of accelerated nuclear decay on life, and how life survived those catastrophes.
  —JonF

---

You already calculated the energy converted to heat. The problem is that you assume all the energy is converted to heat like I already addressed. Accelerated nuclear decay would only affect life if it got anywhere near it. All the decaying nuclear material would start near the center of the earth and would take an enormous time before it got anywhere near to life on the surface.

quote:

---

Ever think about how much radioactive potassium-40 you have in your body, and the effect if it's decay were accelerated enough to fit a YEC scenario?
  —JonF

---

You are assuming noah and his family had the same radioactive potassium 40 in their bodies like we do today. It took an enormous amount of time for uranium and thorium and potassium 40 to reach the surface of the earth from where it started near the center of the earth.

quote:

---

So tell us. It's your hypothesis.
  —DrAdequate

---

That's not how it works buddy. You guys are the one who say a global flood and young earth are impossible. When I bring up a possible scenario, the onus is on you to show why it could not happen. When you do that, as trixie and others have, I show why that is not a real impossibility and show why like I just did.

quote:

---

Please show your working.
  —DrAdequate

---

Again, that is not how it works buddy. You guys are the one who make the claim of impossibility. I show you ways that it is not impossible. I just did. It is now up to YOU to show why my scenario is impossible.

quote:

---

A million years is a lot of time. 150 days is nothing.
  —JonF

---

It is more than enough time to get the job done.

quote:

---

Another un-evidenced assertion. (Oh, and meteorite impacts don't produce sand). Let's see the calculations.
  —JonF

---

We are discussing ideas here buddy. I'm not wearing a lab coat, and I don't have labratory utensils at hand, do YOU? Saying it is an un-evidenced assertion is like saying the sky is blue. It is meaningless to the discussion at hand. Meteorite impacts don't produce sand when you don't have 5 miles of subterranean water underneath you and the size of the crust is 35 miles. Those were not the conditions in noahs day.

No deal. I am not the one who is claiming a global flood/cataclysm described in the bible that destroyed all life is impossible. I am not going to come up with all the mathematics for you. I came up with a possible scenario. Others tried to shoot it down. I showed where they failed to shoot it down by showing that they had not considered other possibilites. It is not up to me to show the mathmatics of the other possibilities. It is up to those who arrogantly claim there was no biblical flood/catastrophe to show the math. Don't want to do that? Try shutting your piehole then.

quote:

---

Let's see your calculations.
  —JonF

---

No, hypocrite; let's see your calculations. You are the skeptic; not me.

quote:

---

It would also help if you could present a list of all the claims you have made or are going to make for which you have no evidence and require a miracle to produce.
  —JonF

---

That request doesn't make a lick of sense. I presented some ideas about how noah's flood happened. Do you know what an idea is? Evidently not. You think the ideas are nonsense? It is up to you to tell me why. Give me your reasoning. Here is how it works: Make your case. How? State what are the facts in your opinion. Use your reasoning skills(if you have any) to show why those facts make it impossible for my claims to be true. Can't do that? Sorry, it's not my problem.

quote:

---

Can you count the number of miracles he's assuming?

​

It's convenient that your God is so accommodating, popping up another miracle whenever you want.
  —JonF

---

I'm not sure I agree with his reasoning. Here is my version, and it only includes one miracle- the creation. How God initially created his world makes all the difference in these so called "problems" of 40K and 14C. As I have stated before, all radioactive elements of the earth were initally created and placed near the center of the earth. In order for there to be 14C, there has to be cosmic radiation that converts 14N into 14C. The bible says God created a great expanse of water above the firmament on day 2. This would have greatly limited the ability of cosmic rays to penetrate the atmosphere and make 14C. There are no post creation miracles at all in this scenario. I cannot speak for Dr Humphreys scenario. How God initially set the parameters of his creation make all the difference in the world to all of these supposed "problems" anti creationists like to propose.

quote:

---

Another un-evidenced assertion. Let's see the numbers.
  —JonF

---

I don't see you making any evidenced assertions , so your point is ridiculous. We are discussing ideas. This is something you seem to fail to grasp. You want to see numbers? Produce your own if you think you can disprove any claim that I make.

quote:

---

Lab coats and utensils aren't necessary to do the math. List your assumptions and calculate the impact.
  —JonF

---

My assumption is that an asteroid strike would break lattice bonds of the crust before any energy would be converted into heat. To me, it is a matter of materials science. What happens when a sledge hammer pounds a small boulder? It smashes into tiny pieces. The boulder does not melt. If the crust has no lower density material underneath it , and it is 25 miles thick down to the moho, and there is even denser mantle material beneath that, I can see why it would melt. The lattice bonds are too hard to break because the pressure is great upon them from all sides. With no lattice bonds to break, all kinetic energy is converted into heat energy which conducts very fast through rock and melts it. The dimensions of the crust preflood are not like that and would be more likely to shatter than to melt. I didn't give you the math but I gave you examples. You cannot refute that a slege hammer smashes rock into bits, and so you see that not all impacts result in melting.

quote:

---

OK, let's see a list of the conditions that were different in Noah's day and the evidence that indicates that those conditions were different. Your un-evidenced assertions are still just that no matter what you want to claim about the sky today.
  —JonF

---

I don't know all of the conditions that were different in Noah's day, but with the help of skeptics like yourself, I will know them all someday. You think you are destroying the bible with all these supposed deathknell problems you guys keep proposing. You are only digging your own grave(hypothetically speaking). The bible make very few specific claims about the creation and the flood. It leaves a great deal of details to fill in on your own. What you don't see is that you guys are building our model for us. Every problem you bring up is an opportunity for us to fine tune our model. You guys think you have buried the global flood text to alice in wonderland material and laugh at those of us who take it seriously. You think you have it buried because you have attacked a very simplistic view that most YEC hold to and still seem to despite the evidence. Those guys deserve your scorn but I applaud their sincerity. I have been fine tuning my model for over three years during my time as an over the road truck driver during my downtimes mainly at night. I would discuss these matters on any forum my cell phone would let met get at. I finally quit truck driving july 4th and started college again to become a geologist. I have completed 14 hours so far with a 3.91 GPA. I do not let anyone know my beliefs for fear of sabotaging my career.You want evidence that the conditions preflood and today are different? LOL. Just look outside. There is no huge subterranean body of water. There is plenty of cosmic ray bombardment. There are plenty of radioactive materials near the surface and in our bodies. Those were not the case preflood.I guess you want to know how we got from those conditions to todays conditions? Here is how: Accelerated nuclear decay that itself has decayed to steady conditions sometime in the near past. A massive 150 day asteroid/meteorite bombardment. A 40 day torrential downpour of water from outerspace( not atmosphere driven or normal climate conditions of today driven). Accelerated plate tectonics over a 200,000 year period. The collapse of the water above the firmament would allow today's cosmic ray bombardment. All of those initially conditions could easily transform into the conditions of today using all known tectonic, and climatic and oceanic forces that we know today.

quote:

---

You're making the positive claim of possibility, we're requesting sufficient information to evaluate that claim. The ball's in your court. Under today's conditions the scenario you propose would wipe out all macroscopic life at least twice over. List the conditions for your scenario including the evidence that those conditions were as you are assuming. You also need to address the observations we have such as the constancy of radioactive decay rates, for example The fundamental constants and their variation: observational status and theoretical motivations. [
  —JonF

---

Why don't I have the right to make a positive claim of possibility when you guys make the negative claim of impossiblity? You don't have the right to say the flood is myth and stick out your tongue and say idiot, and then expect me to provide you with exact mathmatical proof that you are wrong. You do have the right to expect me to give reasons why I think your claim of impossiblity is wrong, and that is what I have done. Any demand greater than that is unreasonable given that it is you make claims of absolute truth.( the flood is a myth and impossible).Yes, my conditions today would wipe out all life twice over. That's what it was intended to do. It would not wipe out all life on the ark however. What is it about my conditions that would lead you to believe it would?Yes, we observe a constancy of radioactive decay rates today? Does anybody know why those rates are constant? I don't think so. Until you can give me a theory that explains why some nucleus' decay at a certain rate, there is no basis on which to state it is impossible for the rate to ever be greater or lesser. I have a geological theory that would show rates were much greater in the past than now, but don't know where to find that information. Here it is:Find a rock formation that you are absolutely certain is of shallow marine deposition. Find one such marine formation that has definite time marker stamps on it. One could be an ingneous intrustion. Others could be specific time index fossils. The fossils must be exclusive to a certain time period. The only other possibility for fossil marking is to have one type of fossil suddenly disappear, and then another suddenly appear that are known to always follow each other in the fossil record around a specific time period. Limestone deposits at a different rate than near shore sandstone and both deposit differently than lagoon silts. Calculate the depths of the sandstones then depths of the lagoon silts then the depths of the limestones.
Assign appropriate weights to each classification of deposits found within that formation. Divide that total depth of deposit by the length of time involved in that shallow marine environment of the past. That is a rate of depostion for your specific time period. Do the same procedure for a period of time that is significantly older or younger than the one above, and make sure it is a shallow marine deposit as well. If you do this for several different time periods and find that deposition rates were far slower in the distant past and gradually grew faster as the time period progressed toward today, then you have evidence for accelerated nuclear today in the past, in my opinion.

quote:

---

Where is your evidence for what conditions were "in Noah's day?" I'll take scripture, even, as that is all you've got.
  —coragyps

---

You guys keep asking for evidence for claims when it is ridiculous to do so considering the context of what we are doing. Do you give evidence for what you post? No, you don't. Quit asking me for it if you are unwilling to do the same. I am posing ideas , and that is all. I thought science was supposed to be all about ideas and questioning old suppositions. I guess that isn't the case when it comes to creationism. I can give your reasons for what the conditions were in noah's day and you give reasons for why you think noah's flood was impossible. That is reasonable for both of us. Giving evidence for something which no longer exists is insane and it makes me wonder why you ask for the impossible. I give the above conditions as a possible scenario that would make noah's flood a possibility. Since the earth has erased all shred of that year, save today's oceans, it is insane to give evidence for its existence. The scripture give very limited information and is not heavy on details. You guys pick apart a "sunday school" version of it that isn't what really happened and think you can claim victory. The bible will not state the specific conditions I mentioned but it doesn't rule any of them out. To insist that the bible give modern man a detailed scientific list of everything that went down that year is laughable. God left the details for his followers to fill in.

quote:

---

Except I don't remember what verse says there's five miles of water beneath the crust. Or the one that says there is a crust. A simple "Genesis xx:yy" formal will be fine.
  —coragyps

---

Do you really think God is going to write down all the scientific details that modern man is familar with just to satisfy all the atheist crybabies? Sorry, but you are a complete idiot if you think so.

Not sure who said that, but the answer is the trees and dinosaurs and moss would be ripped into tiny shreds that eventually turned into kerogen. It would only be vaporized if it remained on the surface of a surface that was not broken into pieces already. What probably happened was that after just a few large and scattered meteorite hits, the thin crust was fragmented into thousands of spain sized microcontinents that each had no foundation. Each of these microcontinents probably sank 3 or 4 miles through the subterannean water only to be smashed into further bit by the rest of the late heavy bombardment.

Yes, this is where the water for the flood came from---under the ground, but also from outer space. He did notice the bombardment. He said the gates of heaven were open for 150 days. He did notice the shattering of the crust as well. He said the fountains of the deep were opened up. All of this was mentioned. They just didn't have terms like crust and bombardment and meteorites in the hebrew of the bronze age.What sort of physical evidence would I expect? The geological history we see in the record today is what I would expect. There is no solid boulder around today that has been dated later than 3.9 billion years ago. All rocks that were formed near this time were all formed in the presence of water. The massive archean and proterozoic amounts of metamorphosed sediment and massive amounts of metamorphosed basalt testify to reformation after a violent destructive period.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

I am of the opinion the biblical flood was a local flood in the black sea and caspian sea right before the emergence of the sumerian civilization. In the bible, we don't hear of any civilizations prior to the founding of the tower of babel. I believe it was civilized man that God created in the garden of eden. There were other humans before that time but adam was the first to have a soul breathed into him by God. Eve was supernaturally created by God from the body of adam. These were the first self conscious humans. Other humanoids starting with the australopithecus were mere animals with no soul. These supernaturally created homo sapiens migrated out of mesopotamia into the black sea and caspian sea areas. Because of their great difference in being able to think abstractly and higher ordered reasoning processes, they separated themselves from other homo sapiens. They had nothing in common with them. When God brings the great flood and destroys all flesh upon the earth, he is not lying. He does destroy all the flesh that he supernaturally created and the ecology that supported that flesh living in the black sea area. The nephilim that are mentioned in the bible before and after the flood are merely that offspring of adams race of homosapiens and the race of homosapiens who were not given a soul by God.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.