|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did the Flood really happen? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Most important (to me) is that the Flood evidence would have to be EVERYWHERE. We have evidence for relatively small floods all over the world. Your challenge is to find evidence of ONE BIG FLOOD, not just evidence of "floods". Contemporary local floods do show both features of erosion and deposition. (you can not have one without having the other). However, may be in your imagination, a global flood should produce similar features but in a super large size. This is a misconception. It won't. In most cases, it won't even make flood features larger than any local flood. During a global flood, most place on the earth would simply see a gradual rise and fall of quiet water. It is quite similar to the flood we usually see along the downstream floodplain of Mississippi River. We probably can not find any geological evidence of the global flood. Except may be the unusual abundance of seawater.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
I think that would depend on the cause of the Flood. If it is primarily rainwater, delivering 1100 feet of rain in 40 days and nights would require more than 25 feet of rain every day. Everywhere. If the area is restricted the amount of water delivered in those areas where it did rain would have to be accordingly greater. I think the main source of water is from the "fountains of the great deep". Can you imagine people at a few thousand years ago wrote this wonderful term? It is simply amazing. We can approximate how much water could be given by the rain. The saturation moisture in the air could be much higher than it is today due to a possible denser atmosphere. And the temperature could be some degrees higher. Today, the water stored in the air is approximately the same amount of surface water on the land.
Doesn’t that deposit sediment in the flooded areas? And if it lasted longer, should there not be more sediment? Anything deposited during the global flood is likely to be eroded away in a very very short geological time. They are not special substance but are normal sediments. They get washed into the ocean and no one can tell them apart from sediments of other sources. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
I don't like to do multiple answers in a post. So I only pick this one to reply. If you like to talk about the other two, we can do it later.
There are enough areas where it would be preserved that I think you should be able to detect a period of widespread and short-lived flooding, on a global scale. Not in every location, of course, but in every region. New flood sediments spread on land, will be quickly washed into channels, lakes, swamps, and other environments of deposition. Once they are remobilized and redeposited, they can not be recognized as the original flood sediments any more. All sedimentary environments on land will also not last longer than one million years or so. All flood sediments will be ended in ocean. It is hopeless in trying to identify sediments laid down by the global flood anywhere on land. (Needless to consider all kinds of facies variation of the deposits.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
What do you mean "the water stored in the air is approximately the same amount of surface water on the land"? My geology book says about 0.001% of Earth's water is in the air, less than 3% on the land, 97% ocean. Water on land includes running water (river, lake), groundwater and ice. Surface water means running water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
So, according to you even local flooding will leave no trace? Good point. That is what I said. Don't forget that I have limitation of time. Of course you can see flood sediments one day after the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Erosional landform last longer and is a better indicator for large flood. Just like you said, the channel scablands is a good example.
But, like I said, the current landforms are mostly younger than one million years. The channel scablands are mostly likely eroded out of shape within one million years. Probably in two million years, that particular landform will disappear. Can anyone find flood related erosional landform older than 2 million years? Not likely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
If you’re going to have a human Noah, your Flood will be less than a million years ago. A normal human being is not likely to be 600 years old as Noah was.The situation was anything but normal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
No, you have to produce 4 billion cubic kilometer of extra water for that. I guess you mean to flood the Himalayas?It is not needed. There was no Himalayas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
According to a "Oceanography", Paul Pinet, 1992, West publishing Company, all the seas and oceans combined contain 1.36 million km of water. Taking the Mount Everest at 8 kilometers, and the Earth radius at 6371 km, the volume of the shell, to cover the entire water is given by: V= 4/3 * Pi* (R-r) The earth had no land and no water on the surface. The ratio land and water accumulation on the earth is about 990:1 by weight. i.e. to have 1 kg rock (land) on the earth, the same process will only produce about 1 gm water. According to the normal cooling process of the earth, a global size flood is impossible, and we will not have an ocean of the current size.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Noah’s age is one of the elements that tells us we are dealing with myth, not history. So taking it as fact is a mistake. My whole point till now is to say: Geologically, a global flood is a strong possibility, not a myth. How to put Noah into the explanation? Since we do not understand how could human live that long, then we have to deal with the problem of TIME, not flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
And you haven’t got to the point where it is anything like a strong possibility. I said and you do not listen.A lot of water suddenly showed up on the surface of the earth and inundated the low-relief land. This is a nutshell of the story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Of course, silly me, floodists can declare a world and natural just as it suits them. A mount Everest that stands in the way, just declare the Himalays gone. Nobody said the Himalayas is gone. I said it has not shown up yet. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
Where is the evidence that it happened suddenly? Where is the evidence that it was sufficient to cover all the land? Without these you have not established it as a strong possibility And why would we conclude that this flood - if it happened - was Noah’s Flood? Indeed it would seem to more closely match the hypothetical catastrophe proposed by Gap theory. My posts were short because there is no need to give more than what I said. If one can respond to what I said, then I will continue. Otherwise, I won't spend time to say even one word more than needed. The increase of surface water on the earth has two possible patterns: gradually, include episodic; or suddenly. When consider the processes of water generation, it is more likely the water would first accumulate underground and then suddenly released to the surface. You can reason or ask question. But it is not appropriate for you to ask evidence. Because you won't understand. For example, one major evidence is that mantle rock of the earth has various amount (but not consistent) of water content. (Do you still like to see the evidence of that? There are tons of petrological papers related to it.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
As i said, floodists just build a world that suits them, detached from reality. Himalayas was not there is a reality. Do you want to deny it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Juvenissun Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 332 Joined: |
By your own statements much of the water was NOT generated underground. Nor have you given a reason why it would suddenly be released to the surface - or why that would be a one-time event, rather than a series of such events separated in time. These are important questions. This is the first time I see people ask about it. The key answer is: Magma solidified much faster than the making of free water, which is produced by separating itself from magma. So, water can only be sealed underneath thick layers of rock, until the critical moment of eruption. I am sure it is hard for you to understand (it is a graduate level stuff). Well, how much you can learn really depends on how much you can ask. I am trying to give a simplest answer, but am not going to write a textbook on that. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024