Where did the flood waters come from and where did they go?

Jesus did it! The Bible says he changed wine into water. Oh wait. Never mind.

Ok serious answer. I am a little out on a limb here but my understanding is that the Babylonians also had a flood epic. And isn't it true that much of the Old Testament was written during the Jewish exile in Babylon? My thinking is that the flood story was lifted from the Babylonians and written into the Hebrew scriptures. There must be linguistic and textual analysis that could confirm whether this is plausible. Now - the water. I remember reading a while back about an ancient shoreline being discovered under the Black Sea? that would suggest a rapid rise in water level at some time in the past. Does anyone know whether the dates of that event would precede the Babylonian flood epic and whether there is geological evidence for rapid wide spread flooding of an inhabited area? For example, an earthquake that broke a natural dam and allowed a valley to be flooded?This message has been edited by deerbreh, 06-22-2005 03:55 PM

Well, ok but it is kind of silly to speculate about the origin of water for a global flood if in fact there is a much simpler explanation - that there was a catastrophic flood but it wasn't global. Shooting down "just so" stories about water sources is not nearly as intellectually satisfying as trying to understand the underlying myth.

I agree that there is no "water problem" for mainstream geology. Why would there be? Mainstream geology can explain all of the various fluctations in sea level without invoking supernatural intervention. OTOH YEC apologists have a huge water problem if they take the Genesis flood story as fact because there has to be enough water to cover the highest mountains by 15 cubits (22 ft?) world wide. Fountains of the deep and canopies are not going to cut it, either from a supply or final water disposition standpoint. That leaves tectonics and sea level changes. That could work except that the time periods are absurdly short (for the flood itself and ages of the earth before and since)The YECs would have an easier (but still extremely difficult) time of it if they would just accept that the flood was local and the Genesis account is mostly a mistranslation/exaggeration of an earlier Sumerian account. (Here is one sensible explanation http://www.flood-myth.com/faq.htm )

TB says:
"We're not claiming to be able to inundate today's world."TB I was under the impression that you were a YECer. If so, that means you would place the flood at approximately 2000 BCE, no? In geological time, that is "today's world". That means you have to account for enough water to cover Mt. Everest. All 28,000 + feet. Sorry. As for Baumgartner, I am sorry but I can't take "creationist computer models" seriously. As has been said, "garbage in, garbage out." If one feels free to ignore inconvenient physical laws anything is possibleOn edit: Make that all 29,000 + feet.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 06-24-2005 10:51 PM

Nope, I am not going to bite. There is nothing to debate about. Baumgardner assumes speeded up radioactive decay rates and rapid plate tectonic movement, does he not? That is "ignoring inconvenient physical laws" imo. If someone takes that position they are basically saying "God did it." So from a scientific standpoint there is nothing to discuss. It is time to cut to the chase on this topic.How did we get enough water to cover Mt. Everest and where did the water go? Either answer that or concede the point. It is as simple as that.

But that is not a YEC viewpoint unless one assumes rapid plate tectonic movements (which violate all kinds of physical laws) to get to the topography we have today in 4000 years. Saying "God sent the water and took it away again when he was done messing with us" would be a more parsimonius explanation.On edit: Not only do you have to raise all of those mountains up in 4000 years - you also have to erode down old mountains such as the Appalachians AND revegetate them. Then there are all of those buttes and mesas in the Southwest.....Nope I still want to hear how we get enough water to cover Mt. Everest.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 06-25-2005 12:17 AM

TC said:
"the rate of tectonic motion is not a physical law"Well, that is parsing the definition rather narrowly, isn't it? In order to have rapid plate movement, one has to have a mechanism that makes sense in light of accepted scientific laws and theories about how such movement could occur. Also, one would have to explain the effect on life of such rapid movement and why we see no geological evidence of rapid movement. Baumgardner fails to do this on all counts so his hypothesis fails, regardless of what he can get a computer simulation model to do. Garbage in, garbage out.This is relevent to the discussion because rapid plate movement is being postulated as a reason why there is no need for "extra" water and thus no need to explain where it went.TC says:"If you have been reading the thread and understand what has been discussed, you would not be asking me this question.. this problem does not exist with CPT."But I am saying that rapid plate tectonics is nonsense, therefore, one does have to explain enough water to cover Mt. Everest, because every reputable geologist accepts that Mt. Everest was in place 4,000 years ago even if YECers don't. You can't propose a "God did it" scenario and then say, "the problem doesn't exist because there was a miracle (rapid plate tectonics). If you want to get away from having to explain all that water, then propose an alternative that doesn't violate physical laws.edited for typosThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 06-29-2005 01:04 PM

TC,
I have been asked not to reply because CPT is off topic but I will make just one point because I think it has general relevance in YEC/Evolution debates and is often ignored by the YEC side.You said:"The mechanism (for rapid plate movement) is runaway subduction. Can you show me that runaway subduction is inconsistent with known physics?"There is a saying in logical debate circles:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."Making a claim, ANY claim that is contrary to generally accepted scientific principles and theories is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic (me) but rather is on the person making the claim (you). Is there even ONE paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal that makes the case for rapid plate movement via the mechanism of runaway subduction? And by rapid plate movement I mean the rate needed to satisfy the YEC scenario. If there is a paper, you should provide the appropriate citation with the actual quote that supports your position. If there is no such paper, you should stop making the claim.

TC,
Discussion of CPT will be on topic so you can now provide us with your "extraordinary proof." And make no mistake - the burden of proof is on you, not me or anyone else. You cannot make a claim that is outside mainstream science and then say that anyone questioning you is the one making the claim with their question.