Fresh Problem with the Ark

The space between "url=" and the URL messes up Opera and perhaps other browsers ... try Fossil Hunting by the Ancients.

edited to fix, thanks

Just a passing though, don't see a problem with freshwater, if it was raining down, it was raining freshwater, and granted is was also raining down sediments from the fountains of the deep, however in a water plant sediments settle out quite quickly with iron and aluminum ions, which the basalt sediments would of been quite high in, so over the continents the fresh rain water would of rose upward over the continents, with the sediments settling and the dead animals of the dry land, and some not of the dry land, settling within the settling sediments, however, the waters just below the wave base would of been fresh waters over the continents, meaning as the waves over the continents mixed the surface waters with the waters under the wave base, it was mixing freshwaters, and actually causing the iron, aluminum ions to flocculate the sediments to clear the turbities, over the oceans the salty waters under the wave base would of been constantly mixing with the fresh waters raining down, the solution to pollution being diluton, meaning the great salinity factors of the ocean itself preserved the ocean fisheries, In fact after the flood was over, it mentions a wind blowing across the face of the earth, this would of insured the oceans salinity mixed, as the freshwater rushed off the continents, preserving the salinity requirements for the ocean fisheries, and over the continents keeping the waters from becoming stagnant, for all the creatures surviving on the living islands of refuge of life of trees and other floating debris, until they came to rest and these creatures ventured out from their island of life to reseed the earth, etc...The bible kind of says that the creatures of the dry land (the fowl, the cattle and the creeping things), were preserved by Noah, don't see no mention, to him preserving the fishes, platapus, beavers, perhaps they survived on these floating islands of debris, with the penquins, seals, snakes, some or all reptiles, some if not all the water insects, larvae hatching, would think Noah might of preserved the bee's, and some of the other insects, of the various kinds, etc...It all gives more room on the ark, etc...I'm only saying freshwater wouldn't of been a problem, for it was freshwater that rained down from the heavens, and the basalt sediments would of been high in iron, aluminum, settling out turbidities, as they rained down upon the earth, etc...P.S. The bible said all the creatures of the dry land perished, but a muskrat, beaver, platapus, otters, walrus, seals, dolphins, whales, etc... would not of been a creature of the dry land, the fish provided shelter under these islands of debris, and all the larvae hatching out on these island preserving the insects, that perished from the flood, being hatched out on these islands of life as trees reseeded, grass reseeded, as these island settled out as the waters rushed off the surface of the earth, etc...kjv Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.

What -- For 40 days\nights, the ark then floats for something like 600 days before everybody disembarks from the Noah Cruise Line Flagship. Enough time that any water that was fresh has spoiled. Last I checked basalt is rock and not a very soluble source (wikipedia: basalt). The processing of aluminum salts for use in flocculation tanks in treatment plants is much more refined than throwing in some rocks. Turbidity would have been high with those fountains stirring things up, and clay and silt particles would have remained in suspension for a good portion of those 600 days (as they continue to do to this day), particularly with currents. Floating organic matter would also be impervious to your flocculating mechanism, and the putrefaction from the bloated bodies would have been a major source of infections and disease. So the waters that flood over the land would have been diluted to fresh consistency by the amount of fresh water already in lakes and rivers? That means you make 90% or so of the flood come from those lakes and rivers ... it doesn't compute. And even 90% is borderline brackish and not good for long term consumption (as in another 600 days). Note the quantity of fresh water in comparison to salty water in the oceans covering 3/4ths of the surface of the earth currently is pretty small. The water in the oceans must be pretty close to the average, thoroughly mixed water from the flood event, given the quantity involved and the lack of
(K) time to change it by YEC standards and
(4) no mechanism to cause saltiness only after the flood event.The solution may be dilution, but the diluting solution was salty water. Might just as well only have the cattle, goats, chickens and the family 8 on board and let everything outside survive. Why bring any animals to the ark when they can be provided some safety net (much easier on the travel expenses). Furthermore, once you make magical allowance for survival outside the ark of any animals (in spite of the bible saying all outside the ark died), then you have to likewise allow that all the other land and sea creatures from the beginning of creation would survive equally, especially ones like the plesiosaur that would have had plenty to feed on ... why is there no evidence of such survival of sea creatures relative to land creatures? And why would no humans then survive in such a manner? Seems pretty slack operation.It really amazes me the lengths people will go to rationalize such an incredible story that belief would be mocked if it came from any other source ... there is absolutely no mention of any animals surviving outside the ark -- not a single one -- anywhere to base any belief of an exclusionary clause in the contract of death and destruction. Put against this the gen 8:21 "neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."Either all living things were preserved within the ark and all else died, or the whole rigmarole is misrepresented as being much more invasive an operation than it really was. If the first was true then you have trouble with the water supply, sufficient food supply, quantity of living things preserved inside, etcetera. If the later is true the story cannot be taken literally.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

If you want to believe all the creatures including the whales were on the ark, then you are not in line with the bible, it says all the creatures that was in the dry land perished, it says that both man, cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the heaven were destroyed from the earth, how you make this include the fishes, or the creatures of the waters is beyond me, etc...P.S. It says the waters were abated after 150 days, the mountain tops were only covered by 15 cubits of water, so as soon as the waters started to flow off the earth, these mountains would of been exposed much sooner than the 150 days, however, I thought that today, water plants do use iron to settle out turbidities, the erupting basalts would of been ground into your clays, it would of been primarily the iron that would of cleared the turbidities, granted oxygen has long since converted them to oxides, all the other minerals in the sediments ground into fine sediments by the cavitation processes explained by Walt Brown in his hydroplate theory, these other minerals would of only helped the flocculation processes aiding sedimentation, when the waters cooled they came back as fresh water, the wind would of provided the mixing so the sediments would of settled quickly, just as what happens in water sedimentation tanks, over the oceans salt waters specific gravity would of been mixing continually with the waters raining down upon the earth, these salts would of helped settling rates too, but over the oceans it would of preserved the salt water fisheries, however, the waters over the continents wouldn't of had the salt water, primarily because the specific gravity of salts would of caused them to settle to the bottom of the freshwaters over the continents, but because the oceans would of been salty, the waves themselves mixed the salty waters, even today they believe the solution to pollution is dilution, you could take all the landfills in the entire world, and dump them in the middle of the ocean, and not see an increase in the mineral concentrations of the ocean, such is the power of dilution, the salts of the ocean preserved the salinity of the oceans, but over the continents you had the reversal, happening, freshwater under the wave base, as freshwater begets freshwater, you didn't have salty water under the wave base over the continents water rising upwards, etc...The bible says the water came from the fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven, which were opened, I was just explaining how easily the freshwater and saltwater fisheries survived, by natural processes seen in the natural even today, etc...

whales are air breathers, mammals. your list of exclusions was even more fantastical. The verse in the bible says to me (after listing some examples of what died) "and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark" (and there are no exclusions listed) that means everything outside the ark died. Only those creatures inside the ark survived. Only. Like Everest ... 29,035 feet high ... what's another 22 feet give or take. Or we get into some geological fantasies about massive changes to the earth afterwards completely at odds with any geological evidence ... And I thought the ark came to rest on the first exposed land, my bad. Must have been a jungle around it when they finally opened up ... except for what Noah saw when he opened the hatch ... and then sent off those birds .... and you need to add up your months and other timing. I would be happy to have any number of inputs to how long the flood period lasted as I have seen a number of different calculations ... ideally you would be able to tell me what day of the year the flood started and what day of the year it ended. I'll be happy to let you sort this out with other YEC's and get back to me. 150 days is still long enough that the saved water would be spoiled. Even crushing the rock will not make the aluminum and iron become suitable for flocculation purposes, in spite of the fact that no such geological process has been observed, nor any one involving jets of water. They need to be in a soluble form, and any process you have that would cause these elements to go into solution sufficient to handle the amount of flocculation necessary would cause so many other minerals and elements to be in solution that you now have toxic water.Now here's the real kicker: flocculation does not mean that the clumped particles settle out, just that they are clumped (which makes the active process of sand filtering work better) -- without an active filtering process the flocs remain in suspension in the water, forming visible mats. The flocculating agent chosen for use in water treatment plants are those that stay in suspension the longest while forming the largest flocs, thus maximizing exposure of the full volume of water to the process. Nothing like a little circular hyperbole to create an atmosphere of confusion. If you can't argue with facts, baffle them with bs. Over the ocean fresh mixes with salty water but over the land it doesn't? Specific gravity keeps it from happening? Try this experiment -- in one glass put 1/4 cup of tap water, mix up 2 cups of water with 4 tablespoons of salt, letting any undissolved salt settle out and then fill the first glass with the salty water ... use a straw to taste water in different parts of the glass and find any that is not salty. Ignoring the erroneous thinking here for now on the limits of detecting changes, you could take all the fresh water in the world and dump it in the ocean and not significantly decrease the mineral concentrations of the ocean, such is the power of dilution ... which is why there would be no source of fresh water other than old rain. Actually you have explained nothing based on factual behaviors of water and natural processes.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

I kind of hear you, water prevailed upon the earth 150 days, not that Mt. Everest was that tall, at this point of the earths history, so its kind of hard to believe creatues could of survived on floating debris, cattle, birds, creeping things, but seals, fish, otters, walrus, whales, dolphins, fish, snakes, were all creatures not of the dry land, it says in kjv genesis 7:22 of all that was in the dry land died, and all were destroyed that was upon the face of the ground, but save Noah and the creatures on the ark, but creatures not of the dry land, seemed to be excluded from the creatures of the ark, depending on how you interprete it, because the trees were floating above the surface of the earth, there seeds were not destroyed (buried in the sediments covering the surface of the earth), the grasses growing in the dirt of the debris, as even nurtured by the sediments building up on the floating mats, as it rained for 40 days then it appears the waters remained over the surface of the earth, until God caused the oceans to settle, and the mountains to rise, kjv psalm 104:6-9.P.S. The cavitation forces of the waters erupting out of the earth's fountains of the deep, would of reduced the basalt to powder, and flocculation in a sedimentation tank, settle out as the particles clump together, basalt would of been high in iron, not to mention limestone found all around the world, and heavier particles would of settled without floccualtion and the lime and iron would of settled out the silt like particles, though if the basalt and the granites were reduced to sedimentary rock, they would of had a greater specific gravity, aided with flocculative forces, would of settled like a rock, etc...It does appear you understand the process of rain being fresh water, and the vastness of the surface of the earth, that the waters would of remained fresh over the continents, and remained salty over the oceans, given Noahs ark came to rest by the bible accounts in the mountains of Ararat, Noah never was without fresh water, if he had water storage tank, and that it rained after the ark came to rest on the mountains of ararat, this is how people used to get their water, water running from gutters to cisterns, rain water filling storage tanks, Noah never was without freshwater, etc...

Can you show me where it says this in these verses?

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

Asgara, This psalm is about the biblical flood, how it covered the earth as a garment, but that God set up a bound that it would never again turn again and cover the entire earth, because he created a place for the waters, even today, you have evidence of the biblical flood, the oceans themselves testify, there is more than enough waters to cover the earth, over a half mile in depth in water if it was a smooth sphere, but God promised it would never again happen, gave us the rainbow of this covenant to man, and the creatures of the earth, as he caused the oceans to sink, at the thunder of his command, the waters went to the place he founded for them, so the water would not turn again to cover the earth.P.S. I think it was Walt Brown that quoted this psalm, it does kinda support his hydroplate theory, but then we all agree the mountains are still rising a bit, and the oceans settling a bit, the Pacific seamounts are still over a half mile under the waters, supporting the oceans settled, and the flood waters covered them, as the flood waters rushed past the mountains, confirming the biblical accuracy of kjv Psalm 104:8.

Oh? Tell that to our rattlesnakes out around here. It's pretty damn dry land they live on.

quote:

---

there is more than enough waters to cover the earth, over a half mile in depth in water if it was a smooth sphere, but God promised it would never again happen, gave us the rainbow of this covenant to man, and the creatures of the earth, as he caused the oceans to sink, at the thunder of his command, the waters went to the place he founded for them, so the water would not turn again to cover the earth.

---

1. There is no evidence that the ocean floors were substantially higher 4,000 years ago than they are now.2. There is no evidence that the mountains were substantially lower 4,000 years ago than they are now.3. There is no evidence waters beneath the earth in enough volume to cover the earth as it is now.4. Asserting that any of the above are untrue is to assert without evidence. Otherwise known as a line of BS to cover up an ad hoc theory. A theory whose only purpose is to support a worldview falsified 150 years ago but still needed to support one's faith.It isn't realities problem that it conflicts with your reading of Genesis. Perhaps you should put faith in God, and let reality worry about the details.

Coragyps, The rattlesnakes were not a creeping creature, where I come from we have snakes, I was told that snakes are quite adept at swimming, like my old swimming hole, they killed the snakes because they said they can swim underwater, they said they had rattles, think they were trying to scare us bit, think they were just pine snakes, but they sure seemed to swim quite well, I think the snakes would of swam quite well in the flood, even rattlesnakes, and have a bit of respect when seeing a snake swimming in the water, even too this day, etc...P.S. Do you have any proof rattlesnakes are unable to swim, if not then they would of swam out the flood, feeding along the way, etc...

Dammit, whatever! I stand in wonder! You are unstoppable! Logic or basic common sense have no hold on you at all! And it makes no difference to you how many things you say that contradict what your Book says, as long as you can have your flood. Your nickname is most aptly chosen!

Actually I still have a problem with kjv genesis 7:23, just not sure what creatures the bible means when talking about the beast, creeping things, and the fowl, etc...does this includes the swimming creatures, however, its a given the fish, were not included, so whatever creatures were on the ark, to satisfy genesis 7:23 perished on the earth, but there appears its only talking about the living substances on the surface of the earth perished, because it was covered by thousands of feet of sediments, the trees because they floated their life substances wasn't destroyed because they were not on the surface of the earth, by floating on top of the waters, but whatever beast, creeping things, or fowl that were on the ark perished on the earth, which is why they gained passage on the ark, etc...

What about Gen 6:17 (KJV) Sounds to me like everything living...at the very least, everything that breaths

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"