Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

Hi jar

jar the Flood Faith argues about is the one that was invented in the mind of a teenager that had been hit in the head with a rock and was in a coma for 3 weeks.

Almost everything I have seen that Faith has written concerning the flood is written in the books of Ellen G. White.

Why she or anyone else can say they believe in the Bible and also believe in the flood described by Mrs White is beyond my comprehension.

In a later message you mentioned the water in the atmosphere would be salty.

The rain that comes from the atmosphere today is not salty.
If I understand it properly the water is vaporized by the heat of the sun and rises into the atmosphere. When it turns to the form of water it is too heavy to stay in the atmosphere so it falls to the ground as rain. The salt content in the water would not vaporize and rise thus it would stay in the ocean.

There is enough water in the atmosphere to cover the earth with 1 inch of water. Not enough for the Biblical flood.

The springs (fountains) of the deep produce water that is clearer and cleaner than any bottled water you can buy. It comes from rivers that run under the surface of the earth just like any of the number of springs in Florida.

I would think the rising of the waters from the oceans would be like what is seen two time a day at the Bay of Fundy. The water rises and falls 48 feet every 12 hours. But what would happen if the tide did not go our and the water just kept rising? Forty days later the water would be 3,840 feet deep. Just a thought.

If you look at the Bay of Fundy you can't tell much difference in the looks of everything after the water rises 48 feet then falls 48 feet.

I thought I would address these things and when I read the thread further I may make further comments.

God Bless,

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: I would think the rising of the waters from the oceans would be like what is seen two time a day at the Bay of Fundy. The water rises and falls 48 feet every 12 hours. But what would happen if the tide did not go our and the water just kept rising? Forty days later the water would be 3,840 feet deep. Just a thought. Do you understand how tides work? Is this really a plausible thought?

I think they are caused by the moon's gravitational effects on the water and the earth. At least that is what I was told.

But what would that have to do with the water from the fountains of the deep that could open up and supply water where the tide would not recede.

So why would it not be plausible?

My point was that the water at the Bay of Fundy does not do a lot of damage even though it has a high tide every 12 hours and 25 minutes.

There would be no force to tear up the earth as required by young earth creationist

According to AIG there was enough mass on earth at the time of the flood to create the coal that is found. They forget about the trillions of tons of mass required to produce the 1 trillion barrels of oil we have used and the 3 trillion barrels still left, plus all that can not be retrieved. It takes 98 tons of mass to make 1 gallon of gas. A barrel of oil will produce 19 gallons of gas and 12 gallons of diesel. Then you have to get that mass under 5 miles of rock and earth under 22,000 psi pressure.

I can't even get an answer out of the scientific community for the mechanism of the oil being where it is at.

The Biblical flood just did not produce a mechanism to produce all the oil, natural gas, and coal in the earth and the formations seen in the rocks.

God Bless,

Hi Faith

Faith writes: I'm not a seventh day adventist and I have no idea what E G White wrote about the Flood,

You don't have to be a seventh day Adventist to have the same crazy ideas Ellen G White had.

There are many evangelicals and others that believe in a young earth.

But do you want me to believe you sat around and come up with the garbage you have posted on this site about the flood all by yourself?

I know one thing you did not get it out of the Bible because your flood and E G Whites's flood is not the one recorded in Genesis.

Faith writes: As for salty water, rain is not salty.

Go back and read my post again. I said the water that comes down in the form of rain is water that was evaporated from the oceans as well as lakes and rivers. But the salt would be separated from the vapor.

Now to what a Biblical flood would look like.

There is enough water in the atmosphere to cover the earth as we know it today with 1 inch of water. When that water comes down in the form of rain more evaporated water has to be drawn up into the atmosphere to return to the earth in the form of rain. So you are only going to get 1 inch of water out of the atmosphere. The rest had to come from the springs (fountains) of the deep.

There is no way the catastrophic flood required by YEC could have taken place and be the flood described in the Bible.

Do I believe in a flood that covered all the land mass as recorded in Genesis? Yes I do.

Since the Bible has the land mass in one place at the time (Genesis 1:9) of the flood there is no elevations of the earth given so we don't know how flat it was nor do we know the height above sea level. The land mass was not divided until the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) which was over a hundred years after the flood.

Everybody here keeps saying the land mass was not covered in water in the past. But scientist say it was covered in water and some even say it was covered in ice at one time. Scientist also tell us that the earth has lost 25% of its water. http://sciencenordic.com/earth-has-lost-quarter-its-water

God Bless,

Hi NoNuke

NoNuke writes: It's not feasible for the tide to come in and not go back out. Further the extreme rise of the tides at the Bay of Fundy is caused by the region's topology. The fountains of the deep are like the tides in what way? How would the effect get expanded to the rest of the world, where the tides are of a substantially smaller scale. What is the point of your comparison with the Bay of Fundy.

Yes Fundy is caused by it's location and topology.

But according to the Bible there was one land mass at the time of the flood. Genesis 1:9
The earth was covered with water.
The water gathered to one place and dry land appeared.

We do not know what the lay of the land mass looked like at that time, nor do we know the elevation above sea level.

We do know there was enough water available to cover all the dry land with water, as it did in Genesis 1:2.

So why is it not feasible for the water to begin to rise as the water of the tide as it comes in and continue to rise as the fountains of the deep opened up and water rose from the ocean floor, out of those fountains?

The water would be coming from all sides of the land mass at the same time. This would make the YEC model impossible.

God Bless,

Hi Faith

Faith writes: Why?

1. You don't know how large the land mass was that existed at Genesis 1:9.

2. You don't know how tall the hills were on this land mass if there was any.

3. You don't know the sea level of the land mass at Genesis 1:9.

The YEC model would require massive mountains and thousands of times the water in the atmosphere than can be in the atmosphere at any given time. There is only enough water in the atmosphere for a 1 inch rain fall on the planet.

The Yec Model would require underwater, and above water volcanos to be erupting shooting rocks and ground up material miles into the air. This would have to be done in a way to lay down the rock strata and formations we see today. I can't find any scripture to support any of that.

The YEC model would require millions of times the material to produce all the oil, natural gas, and coal found in the earth. Than was on the earth at the time of the flood. According to AIG there was enough to produce the coal we have but that would leave nothing to produce the oil, and natural gas.

Oh I forgot the earth had not been divided into the layout we see today, which invalidates the YEC model in itself. The Yec model requires the land mass to be distributed during the flood.

It was not divided until the days of Peleg according to Genesis 10:25.
Peleg was born 101 years after the flood.

Now if you disagree with the scriptures I presented I would be glad to discuss them with you.

Now the rest of you guys just save your comments that there is no way the earth could be divided without mankind knowing about it, and recorded it. Ops they did.

Next thing it could not have divided without creating too much heat.
That would be determined by how fast it was divided say like in a nano second.

God Bless,

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: Right. In particular, the effect of the tide over a large area is funneled into a small region multiplying the effect of the normal tide.

NoNukes, you are missing my point.

The Bay of Fundy has been having these 45+ feet tides two times a day for a very long time. They haven't destroyed everything yet.

It is awesome and still looks like it did in 1952 with very little change.
The water in the big part of the bay is rising 1 1/2 inches per minute.
As it goes up the river it is multiplied about 10 times.

As I said the Bible has the dry land mass of an undetermined size with an undetermined sea level elevation. We do not know what the highest elevation of any of the land mass was.

All we know is that the Bible says the land mass was one single land mass that was surrounded by water as it was in one place.

If the water was rising 1 inch per minute from all directions how much damage would it do? That is less than the Bay of Fundy. If it receded at the same rate it would do little damage.

Making the signs of the flood that everyone talks about missing, is missing because they were never made.

The water rising 1 inch per minute would equal 4,800 feet of water in 40 days.

So the elevation of the land mass would determine the amount of water needed to cover the highest point of the land mass.

With so many unknowns I don't see how people can tell me it could not happen.

Or the YEC'S to be so dogmatic about what they believe. But they believe what is taught rather than study it out for themselves and let the Bible be the final authority.

God Bless,

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: I asked you the relevance of your example regarding the Bay of Fundy because you appeared to use it to tell us that extreme rising of water levels in a short period were feasible. Here is what you said:

And I gave you the answer just above what you quoted.
The water in the big part of the bay is rising 1 1/2 inches per minute.
As it goes up the river it is multiplied about 10 times.

A single land mass with water all around it with water rising 1 1/2 inches per minute would do little damage to the landscape.

YEC"S have the water tearing up the surface of the dry land as well as the surface of the earth that is under the water.

So my reference was to show that the water could rise without doing much damage. It could also recede without doing much damage as takes place in the Bay of Fundy twice a day.

NoNukes writes: What portion of the above sentence is the least bit relevant to the flood as you describe it happening. What you did above is simply take the water level rise in a 12 hour period and multiply it by 80 to find a rise in 40 days. How is it relevant to do such math without implying a similar mechanism?

The springs (fountains) of the deep would supply the rising water.

I covered your other musings by giving the total amount of water the atmosphere can hold before it falls on the earth.

God Bless,

Hi Coyote

Coyote writes: Pangea, which was the most recent example of all land being in one mass, broke up some 175 million years ago. Are you suggesting that humans were in existence that long ago?

At least you agree that the land was in one place at one time.

I would just disagree on your time frame.

But yes there was people on earth when the land mass was surrounded by water.

There are several very old clay maps from Babylon, and Sumaria which show a land mass with a large mote around it.

God Bless,

Hi ringo

ringo writes: That isn't what Genesis 1:9 says. It says the waters were gathered together in one place, not the land. There could have been thousands of land masses - and not surprisingly, there are.

So you don't believe all the land mass was in one place in the past.

I thought according to scientific information it had been that way at least three times in the past.

God Bless,

Hi Coyote

Coyote writes: And what scientific evidence would you use to dispute the time frame?

The assumptions you have to use to begin with.

God Bless,

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: Where did you make such a point?

In Message 110 I said:

quote:

---

My point was that the water at the Bay of Fundy does not do a lot of damage even though it has a high tide every 12 hours and 25 minutes.

---

In Message 104 I said:

quote:

---

If you look at the Bay of Fundy you can't tell much difference in the looks of everything after the water rises 48 feet then falls 48 feet.

---

God Bless,

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: Let's consider that argument.

But you want to use the Bay of Fundy.

The dry land mass that appeared in Genesis 1:9, when the water gathered into one place was not shaped like the Bay of Fundy.

When the water began to rise it would have come on the land mass from all direction at the same time. With the water rising at the rate of 1" per minute there would be little to no damage to the land mass.
When the water receded if it was at the same rate or less there would still be little to no damage to the land mass, regardless of the elevation of the dry land.

So when someone says there is no sign in the earth of a world wide flood such as the YEC"S put forth they are correct. Because that kind of flood did not take place.

God Bless,

Hi Jon

Jon writes: The YEC three "assumptions" are BS.

I am not YEC.

I probably believe the earth and universe is much older than you do.

God Bless,

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: In particular, which assumptions are those?

The assumption that the Tectonic Plates have always moved at the same speed of one too two inches per year.

God Bless

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: The erosion effects would be generated by the water velocity rather than the rate of rise. Your argument that a global flood is just like the tide coming in, even with analogy to Fundy is ridiculous.

What would cause the velocity you are alluding too?

The Bay of Fundy has velocity because as the tide comes in the area gets smaller and smaller until the water is racing up river causing a rapids that people go rapid riding in..

But if you start with a relativity flat elevation and the water is rising from all directions as the sea is rising at 1 " per minute the water would rise like the tide coming in on the beach. There would be no Tsunami waves to tear everything up as the water would be rising at a steady rate.

I say relativity flat as there was no place the plates would have been diving under each other to make the mountain ranges yet.

God Bless,