Backwards debate: the flood

While this seems like a good idea it is not really workable. It is like asking me to defend the idea that Halva is my favourite dessert when in fact it makes me want to puke whenever I smell it.It is nearly impossible to abandon a position that you have arrived at by reason without the uncomfortable sensation of cognitive dissonance.

Hi and welcome Bookworm So if I am to argue for the creationist side I would reply: The water to flood the earth came from when the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were opened. The water left the surface of the earth by returning to its place in the deep and by evaporation when a wind blew over the surface of the waters. Do I need an actual mechanism; do I need actual evidence of these things? Because I don't know of any that have any merit what-so-ever.This is why backwards debates just don't work. I am not convinced there are any meritorious arguments for where the water went and where it came from. None. It is really hard to argue using arguments that I think are faulty, so it comes down to generalizations such as "The water to flood the earth came from when the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were opened."You are doing the same thing. "Where did all the water go?" Why did you not demonstrate that it would be impossible for the amount of water that would be required to flood the entire earth to come from subterranean sources or to come from natural rainfall? Because you don't believe it to be impossible.I respect your intention of better understanding the other's position, but you seem to be operating on the assumption that "evolutionists" haven't considered the creationist position when in fact we have. Several of us here started out as creationists (I did) or were raised in creationists homes (I was). It was after examining the arguments on both sides that we came to the conclusions that we did.The better method of gaining understanding is to actually LISTEN to the other side. I could provide reasons why there is no possible natural source for the water of a global flood. You could prove a feasible mechanism as to where it could have come from and where it could have gone. Then we could both carefully consider the others argument and offer rebuttals. After repeating this cycle several times, we could each draw our own conclusions as to which argument is more convincing.What you are likely to find is that we have already heard the arguments you would present and it would appear to you that we are not listening to your position. This is indeed unfortunate. But just as unfortunate is that you are also likely to be so convinced that your version of the Biblical flood is correct, that no amount of evidence or argument will convince you otherwise.This is just the nature of the evolution vs. creation debate.HBD

Disclaimer: I have often considered creating a CreationistRingo alter ego to debate the other side. (I have been called argumentative and I can't deny it wthout shooting myself in the foot.) Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that it can't be done. There is no "other side". Creationism is the closest thing to a pure vacuum that humans have attained. Having said that, here goes: Back where it came from. God had it up His sleeve.The Flood was obviously a miracle, like the talking snake, walking on water, etc. It makes no more sense to look for scientific evidence of a Flood than it does to look for fossil snakes with vocal cords. The Greeks knew the real truth about the flood but they embellished their myths with a lot of naked chicks for marketing reasons.

Hi Bookworm 7890Considering that this was published on a science forum, to discuss a global flood doesn't make any sense.In a science forum the evidence need to be argued. Not something you got from your favourite holy book.Your first two sentences, coupled with the flood don't make any sense to me anyway. What would a global flood have to do with evolutionists? Evolutionists study biology.For these reasons it it futile to participate in this thread, pretending that I'm a creationist. Your thread doesn't make any sense.

Why pm those? Links to geology as used in practice by mining companies? Those who actually have to intensively study those rocks they’re mining? Sure. I’m not going to pm them to you though, it’s way more efficient out in the open where everyone can find those links.I can link you to lots of reliable sources showing that there hasn’t been any global flood during the last billions of years.For example The South African Journal of Geology . You need to pay to read it. No sign of a global flood in our country.Other sources are for example Exxaro , a big coal mining company in my country. I think that they know a lot about the rocks they’re mining; way more than you would.They think that their coal deposits are late Carboniferous and early Permian (depending on the area). Millions of years old.No global flood mentioned anywhere. No evidence for such a flood in my country.By the way, I accept the biological Theory of Evolution because I know that every single one of those hundreds of thousands of biologists (be they geneticists, etc. ), all over the world knows more about biology than I do.It seems as if you're struggling to differentiate between the different natural sciences.Let's give you a hint or two: Biologists study life. They don't study rocks.Geologists study rocks. They don't study life.

quote:

---

The Biblical flood was very real, but it wasn't global, it didn't begin 4500 years ago, and it lasted far more than a year, right up to the current day. Around 10,000 years ago the Mediterranean breached the barrier separating it from the Black Sea, which was then half its current size. Water poured into the Black Sea over an immense waterfall for a century, eventually filling the Black Sea to current levels. The displaced civilizations scattered, some to the Levant where memories of the ancient flood became legends and myths that were one day recorded in the Bible.

---

I don't understand how this can have happened. At the present time several large rivers (the Danube, the Dniester, the Dnieper, the Don, and the Kizil Irmak (in Turkey)) flow into the Black Sea, and the flow through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles is from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean. Unless the Russian and Turkish rivers were much smaller 10,000 years ago, or there were larger rivers flowing into the Mediterranean, your explanation won't work. Can you provide evidence for these changes in the drainage patterns?
Since the Euphrates and Tigris rivers have a long record of floods (mostly due to the spring melt of snow in the mountains of Turkey and Iran) dating back thousands of years, it seems more likely that the story of Noah's flood is based on events in Mesopotamia.

Hi Astrophile,The idea isn't mine, you might want to read the Black Sea deluge hypothesis article at Wikipedia. There's evidence both pro and con.I can pretend to argue the other side, but I can't pretend to give up an evidence-based approach. The Black Sea flood scenario is the best I can do to argue for the creationist side.--Percy

Hi Bookworm7890 and welcome to the fray There is more than enough water currently on the earth to cover the globe if it were spread evenly; there are two ways this could have occurred:

1. the earth was originally a near perfect oblate spheroid and what land there was before the flood subsided into the sea; afterward the land rose again (and it is still rising), or
2. by applying the same power over water that was later displayed by Moses at the Red Sea, except instead of making a passage across the sea it made the water sweep over the land until it covered everything; afterward the sea was allowed to flow back to the sea.

And now that I have shown that it was possible, you need to accept my explanation as a valid possibility that should be considered alongside your scientific theorizing.Enjoy

Since the Bible says the flood waters were fifteen cubits deep (Genesis 7:20), we should be able to calculate how much water is necessary to make a layer fifteen cubits deep covering the whole surface of the earth, up the sides of the mountains and so on.

Or conversely take the area of the ocean that is 15 cubits deep and see that there is plenty to cover the land area. Again this demonstrates that it is possible, so it should be accepted as a valid argument. Think of gravity being switched to being a force perpendicular to all hard surfaces (even vertical cliffs) and the water would flow naturally to cover everything. Switch it back to the center of the earth and the waters return to their basins of origin.Enjoy

What happened to Bookworm? I need some more Evil-utionist lies to denounce. Where's a godless blasphemer when you really need one, huh?