Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"The history of mainstream geologic study overwhelmingly supports the old Earth uniformitarianism interpretation of what happened. The burden is on the creationist/flood geologist to explain how the "great flood" explains it better."
--I guess were back to the old 'I asked you first' Claim arn't we? Using your interperetation of the evidence I could conclude that you could wind up with quite a story with twists and turns if you were to get extreamly specific. Likewize the evidence points equally if not better to another interperetation of the evidence.

​

"Details please, on this overwhelming evidence. And you can't just stuff those non-fitting natural formations into the middle of the pile, if your origin theory can't explain them."
--I would equally ask for details, but we have to start somewhere don't we? The explination of the origin of these formations are all explainable by a Global Flood, this is just a list:

​

The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Earthquakes
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil Formations
Methane Hydrates
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils
Metamorphic Rock
Limestone
Plateaus
Salt Domes
Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
Changing Axis Tilt
Comets
Asteroids and Meteoroids

​

--If you would like to pick out a couple I could explain, I would equally like an explination in an evolutionists perspective. And yes the Global Flood can explain them, if not Associated with a young earth.

​

"SHOW US THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT A "GREAT FLOOD" HAPPENED A FEW THOUSAND YEARS AGO. SHOW US SOME DETAILS ON HOW THE GEOLOGY WAS A RESULT OF THE FLOOD."
--I would consider there being fossils, period, as being great evidence for a global Catastrophe. What is your origin on Coal Beds? Sub-terranian seashells are found on top of Mt. Everest. Fossilization, petrification, and/or premineralization being a quick process in the right conditions. Grand Canyon and canyons alike with massive erosion all over the world indicating it was all under a world flood.

​

'There is an exquisitely preserved fossil of an extinct marine reptile called an ichthyosaur. The mother ichthyosaur is shown having almost completed giving birth to a live infant — the beak of the young reptile is still inside mother's birth canal.'

​

---

The Grand Canyon and Other CanyonsNope. The canyon provides evidence of downward water erosion. If there was a flood of many miles depth, there would be erosion on the same scale on the sides of the canyon, & it simply wouldn’t be a canyon. Also, the sediments that make the canyon would have to have lithified practically instantly upon deposition, to avoid being swept away.Changing Axis TiltI think this was your source.
Changing Axis Tilt. George F. Dodwell served as the Government Astronomer for South Australia from 1909 to 1952. In the mid-1930s, he became interested in past changes in the tilt of the earth’s axis. He collected almost 100 historic and precise measurements by ancient astronomers. These measurements spanned 4,000 years. During that time, the tilt of the earth’s axis smoothly decayed from 2510' to its present value of 2327'. Based on the shape of the decay curve, Dodwell estimated that this axis shift began in about the year 2345 B.C.23
Gravitational forces from the Sun, Moon or planets acting on earth’s equatorial bulge, cannot explain such a large and rapid change. Extraterrestrial bodies striking earth would provide a sudden change in axis orientation, not the pattern of decay Dodwell measured. Besides, for an impact to change the axis this much would require a massive and fast asteroid striking earth at a favorable glancing blow. The resulting pressure pulse would pass through the entire atmosphere and quickly kill most air-breathing animalsa recent extinction without evidence.But, it has now been discovered that.. http://newmedia.avs.uakron.edu/geology/ge/ch/ecs/climcaus.htmThe tilt of Earth's axis is currently tilted at 23.5 but axial tilt ranges from approximately 22-25 degrees over a 41,000-year CYCLE. Decreasing tilt reduces the contrast of insolation associated with the seasons, increasing tilt exaggerates seasonal differences. Lesser tilt promotes the buildup of ice at the poles, greater tilts allow for more insolation during polar summers, causing more snow melt.
Axial tilt is not evidence of a flood.Ice Age http://school.discovery.com/homeworkhelp/worldbook/atozscience/i/270780.htmlThe evidence actually suggests multiple ice ages. This is evidence against the flood occurring.Evidence of ice ages and their climates. During the Pleistocene Epoch, as many as 18 ice ages may have occurred. Each ice age consisted of many warmer and colder times of varying length and intensity. The amount of ice also varied. Sources of evidence of the various ice ages and their climates include sediments (deposits of mud and other matter) on land and in the oceans, and today's glaciers and ice sheets.
Evidence from oceans comes from cores (cylindrical samples) drilled out of sediment in the ocean floor. For example, researchers count the shells of different kinds of tiny ocean-dwelling animals called foraminifera found at various depths in the cores. Some of these species grow well in warm water, while others grow well in cold water. By comparing the numbers of the species at a given depth, researchers estimate the temperature of the water when the specimens were deposited.
Scientists determine how much ice was locked in glaciers and ice sheets by measuring the isotopes (forms) of oxygen in foraminifera shells. Two isotopes of oxygen occur most often in nature. One of them, known as O-18, is heavier and much rarer than the other, O-16.
A water molecule consists of two atoms of hydrogen (H) and one atom of oxygen (O). Water molecules with O-16 evaporate more readily than do water molecules that have O-18. The O-16 isotope therefore accumulates in snow and ice sheets, while O-18 stays more in the ocean. Thus, during ice ages, when the sea level was low, the ocean had a higher percentage of O-18 than during interglacial periods.
The shells of foraminifera contain carbonate, which consists of one atom of carbon (C) and three atoms of oxygen (O). Foraminifera obtain the oxygen for their carbonate from the ocean water. Thus, foraminifera that lived during ice ages accumulated a higher percentage of O-18 in their shells than did foraminifera that lived during interglacial periods.Frozen Mammoths,You just need water that freezes, to freeze a mammoth. Your source claims that freezing must happen quickly to —150 deg F, or internal temperature would destroy the food in their alimentary canal??!!I would get a better source. This site also claims that bacteria have been found on meteorites!Magnetic Variations on the Ocean FloorThis is evidence for relative constancy of sea floor spreading. NOT the flood.I have open on my desk a magnetic anomaly pattern for Reykjanes ridge (J.R.Hiertzler, X. Le Pichon, & J.G. Baron, Deep Sea Reasearch, vol 13, p 427) clearly showing the bands of anomaly.Strata and Layered FossilsWe’ve done this one, the flood fails to explain the depositions of fossils.Comets, Asteroids and MeteoroidsDone this one. What exactly does this evidence point to?Methane Hydrates http://www.ornl.gov/reporter/no16/methane.htmGas hydrates are clathrate compounds. A clathrate is simply a structure in which water molecules under certain conditions bond to form an ice-like cage that encapsulates a gas molecule, known as a guest molecule. When that guest is a methane molecule, you have methane hydrate.
Methane hydrates, which form at low temperature and high pressure, are found in sea-floor sediments and the arctic permafrost. They can be scattered through several-hundred-meter depths and at various concentrations. The gas hydrates being evaluated by ORNL researchers are methane hydrates and carbon dioxide hydrates.
Methane hydrates are just evidence of methane & water being present at low temperature & high pressure, & not a global flood.So the list has been reduced to :Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Earthquakes
Coal and Oil Formations
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Metamorphic Rock
Limestone
Plateaus
Salt Domes
Submarine Canyons
Jigsaw Fit of the ContinentsNone of these provide evidence of a flood, but hint at proposed mechanisms for it. All the above are explained adequately by mainstream geology. I need evidence that those mechanisms hinted at, were actually responsible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

""All the springs of the great deep burst forth". You're interpreting that to mean sea floor spreading??? Well, maybe? During the phanerazoic, there was also a lot of continental siesmic and volcanic activity - Things were really shaking and baking. Also, probably a lot of obnoxious gases were released in all that volcanism."
--Yes you would have to agree that it is very possible and feasably explained by the 'springs of the great deep bursting forth'. What evidence points to it being during the Phanerazoic? Mind you, the phanerazoic consists of 3 'Era's' of 'Geologic time', about 4/5ths the Geologic column.

​

---

Firstly, small correction, the phanerozoic is about 570 mn. years of 3.8 bn. years, only about 1/7th of the geologic column.Saying there was a lot of seismic activity over a 570 my. Time period isn’t saying much. http://www.gsajournals.org/gsaonline/?request=get-static&name=featurearticleThe two major extinctions, The K-T, & P-T (Permian-Triassic, the granddaddy of extinctions) are now both attributed to bolide impacts, & not volcanism. It is true that there was increased volcanism on the Indian sub-continent at the time of the K-T boundary, & this may have played a significant part in that extinction, but this was local, not global (the eruptions were local), so still fails to account for flooding.That there was shaking & baking, is not in issue. That this could lead to flooding nearly 6 miles deep, & would start & finish in 190 days, is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

'There is an exquisitely preserved fossil of an extinct marine reptile called an ichthyosaur. The mother ichthyosaur is shown having almost completed giving birth to a live infant — the beak of the young reptile is still inside mother's birth canal.'

​

---

So even reptiles die during childbirth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

Just present a small example, we don't need a book on this to have discussion.

---

But the evidence in its entirety needs examination.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Firstly, I'd like to make it clear I'm just tossing around ideas here. Why is it a global flood? Going by your title, you consider it to be a global flood, much like many other creationist. Is this what it says in the Bible? That it covered the entire globe.Well, perhaps you should read it in its context. Firstly, get an idea of the time this would've been written. I'm doubtful Moses (the supposed author of Genesis) would of known the earth as the 3rd planet from the sun, but rather earth as dirt, ground, etc. Earth just seems like a flashy word thrown in there which leads to a lot of confusion in our bad english. I think land, or country would of been a better word to put in there for its english translation. Just like his heavens would be more like sky. I'm just being realistic here.Now go through and replace earth with land/country and heavens with sky. It hardly reads like a global flood does it? It would of only had to cover the land where the people lived, since that was Gods intention, wipe us out. =( Then Noah built a boat to save his family and the animals of that land. Why does it have to be global?This is purely an observation on my part, I'd really like to hear if I'm wrong or not. But when I read it like that it seemed to work a lot better. Not saying I'm right though (not really sure), it's just strange though, since I've been praying to God a lot lately to give me answers (taking the Bible from a common creation stand point has been troubling me lately). Recently I've been having dreams on possible ways the Bible could work, I awake to find that a lot of what I strangely learnt in my dreams is how it fits in better with the Bible (not just usual messed up stuff which doesn't relate with reality in the slightest). Just thought I'd share that with you atheist since lately I've felt like Gods reached down and patted me on the back. :-)

I did a quick search and found this, I think this is a very good page for you to read and decide whether it says it was a Global or local flood, its not too long too. If you have any further questions, I could help answer them. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c005.html------------------ <

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-01-2002]

I had been preparing a reply to TrueCreation's post # 59, but Mark24 beat me to it in #61, and did a much better job.My comment(s) on #61:

quote:

---

Moose: ""All the springs of the great deep burst forth". You're interpreting that to mean sea floor spreading??? Well, maybe? During the phanerazoic, there was also a lot of continental siesmic and volcanic activity - Things were really shaking and baking. Also, probably a lot of obnoxious gases were released in all that volcanism."

​

TrueCreation--Yes you would have to agree that it is very possible and feasably explained by the 'springs of the great deep bursting forth'. What evidence points to it being during the Phanerazoic? Mind you, the phanerazoic consists of 3 'Era's' of 'Geologic time', about 4/5ths the Geologic column.

​

Mark24: Firstly, small correction, the phanerozoic is about 570 mn. years of 3.8 bn. years, only about 1/7th of the geologic column.
Saying there was a lot of seismic activity over a 570 my. Time period isn’t saying much.

​

The two major extinctions, The K-T, & P-T (Permian-Triassic, the granddaddy of extinctions) are now both attributed to bolide impacts, & not volcanism. It is true that there was increased volcanism on the Indian sub-continent at the time of the K-T boundary, & this may have played a significant part in that extinction, but this was local, not global (the eruptions were local), so still fails to account for flooding.

​

That there was shaking & baking, is not in issue. That this could lead to flooding nearly 6 miles deep, & would start & finish in 190 days, is.

---

I have added the attributes to the above quotes.The "shake and bake" comment was mine, not TrueCreations. My intended meaning was to say that there was a lot of seismic activity and volcanism in the phanerazoic - that phanerazoic that was being compressed into the "great flood" event time period by http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm (570 million years compressed into at most a few years).I am under the impression that the cause of the P-T extinction is poorly understood. My hazy recollection is that massive volcanism, in Siberia and India at the time, may have been the cause.Moose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:
I had been preparing a reply to TrueCreation's post # 59, but Mark24 beat me to it in #61, and did a much better job.

​

My comment(s) on #61:

​

I have added the attributes to the above quotes.

​

The "shake and bake" comment was mine, not TrueCreations. My intended meaning was to say that there was a lot of seismic activity and volcanism in the phanerazoic - that phanerazoic that was being compressed into the "great flood" event time period by http://www.icr.org/research/jb/largescaletectonics.htm (570 million years compressed into at most a few years).

​

I am under the impression that the cause of the P-T extinction is poorly understood. My hazy recollection is that massive volcanism, in Siberia and India at the time, may have been the cause.

​

Moose

​

---

Moose, I think you mean the K-T extinction, India never existed as such in the Permian. re. Shake & Bake, I agree with you, the creationist position is to compress 570 m.years activity into 40 days. Its not the "shake & bake" quote I object to, but that increases in volcanism are great enough to cover the globe in water.The link I supplied adds evidence to a bolide impact rather than volcanism/desertification.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Mark 24: ...but that increases in volcanism are great enough to cover the globe in water.

---

Things are perhaps getting a little muddled, as we have been talking about both continental and mid-ocean volcanism.I think that an increased mid-ocean spreading rate, and a related rise in the ocean floor, has a broad acceptance in the geologic community, as the cause of the major sea transgressions onto the land. On line documentation of this seems to be pretty scarce though.Further research by me has (re)found support for the possibility that Siberian volcanism may have contributed to the P-T extinctions. Need to do a this site search, to see if a topic has already been started, concerning extinction events. If not, perhaps a "Topical Debate" thread should be started.See "The Five Worst Extinctions in Earth's History" at:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.htmlMoose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I'm doubtful you would be able to help me TrueCreation, I understand the creation views very well, I already have read a lot of those pages from the creation sites and I've got probably about 50 of those creation ex nihilo mags. I still don't think it was a global flood. It just doesn't seem right. The Bible is written by men inspired by God, so you have to expect to get a lot of there views in it as well, that doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means you have to put it in its correct context so you don't go coming up with such conclusions as a global flood. The main message is there, so that's all that matters for the christian faith. However, when it comes to history as such on the Bible, I think it should be a lot more open for discusion, sites like answersingenesis are just putting across there interpretations of the scriptures and completely blocking out anyone elses views. I think this is very discrediting to the Bible.The whole point of the flood was to wipe out men kind, I'm doubtful they would have spread across the entire globe, in fact I'm certain they wouldn't of. Saying how big the population is will do little, look at China, there all in one space. Also, everyone spoke the same language back then so they hadn't needed to really spread out yet, it wasn't until the tower of babylon that caused such division. But if you want to look at the blatently obvious, the people in Noah's Ark were the only ones that survived, so no one as of yet was doing sailing expeditions to explore the unknown. They were all still in that same spot otherwise there would of been others that owned ships who survived. So saying it had to go across the whole globe just seems like a waste. The animals weren't sinning.Obviously you didn't try what I said. I think your giving the sheppard that wrote this book way to much credit. You seem to be making out he knew astrology just like we do today. Your looking at earth and heaven in the wrong context. Here's an example:earth: 1. the third planet from the sun. 2. the dry surface of this planet; land; ground.There are others in the dictionary but I think these are the only two that apply hear. Now try think about it and get a bit of a feel for this time when it was written. We can instantly dismiss the first one since, even though they had limited astrology back then, it wasn't at this level. They would of considered earth to be of the latter. Simply the dry ground by which they were living on. Nor would of they probably known of places such as Australia and the U.S.A. So what they considered everything was still at a very limited understanding. So when they talk of it covering everything it would of been what they saw from one horizon to the other. That's why, even though earth isn't technically wrong, try putting land in there to read it in the more proper context. As for mt. Ararat. Well that simply means sacred land or high land. It doesn't necessarily mean the mountain in Turkey (I think that's where it is). It covered the mountains of that area where the people had lived. Try looking at things more from mens perspective and not God. As God wasn't the literal writer of the books in the Bible, but rather the inspirer.Please don't just dismiss this because it contradicts the views of christiananswers.net. If one really wants to read the flood as it really should be read from the time it was written, then it doesn't sound like a global flood at all. It was just there to wipe out men, plain and simple. Noah built an ark to save his family and the animals of that land. Why is it so hard to take it like that? I'm planning on trying to start getting an understanding of the literal hebrew so I can then understand it in its true context, without all this english with one word meaning a billion things. It can be very misleading and I personally don't think people think first to read it like it should be read.

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 01-02-2002]

RetroCrono,
The problem faced by fundamentalist christians regarding a global flood, is that if not the flood, where did the fossils come from? They are then faced with an old earth, evolution, & all the theological problems that that brings. It's easier to maintain a "global flood" concept than face the other two.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

But the scriptures don't read like that so I won't take it as a global flood. A literal interpretation of the Bible is in fact very supportive of evolution. I only realised this a few days ago so no longer am I going to be shut off to anyone elses views. Now, I still don't fully believe in evolution, I think it has happened to an extent, but not the major one as presented in the ToE. I'm still kinda trying to figure out what I believe.Also, the Bible never once speaks of a young earth. For example:There is a thing of which [one] saith: `See this, it [is] new!' already it hath been in the ages that were before us! Ecclesiastes 1:10This was taken from Young's Literal Translation. A translation that in fact makes a lot more sense. There are plenty of other passages that refer to the earth as rather old, so if it says that and all the scientif evidence says that than perhaps I should believe it is old and not young. I'm only working on comman sense here. Trying to dissaprove science straight off the mark becuase they think it destroys the Bible only causes it to be more discredited. But since it doesn't make these claims then they're just shooting themselves in the foot.

I fully agree with you on discussion of this topic, though I have already come up with my own conclusion that it was a global flood in my own interperetation, I feel the evidence points to it, and also that it points to it simply from biblical context. After a good reading of Genesis 6-8 I have a couple questions.I know what you mean by God wanting to wipe out 'man' in particular but as it says in Genesis 6:7:
6:7 - So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."
God declared that he was to wipe out all of mankind also animals, and creatures that move along the ground and birds. Animals would have been likely I would think not to stay in one area but to spread. Also birds and the like.In Genesis 6:13 we see that God was going to destroy everything on the face of the 'earth' As we see earlier in Genesis when God called the land earth, we can possibly interperete this to say he was to destroy everything on the land.
6:13 - So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.Then Genesis refers to destroying all life that has the breath of life in it.
6:17 - I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.In Genesis chapter 7 it declares that all the earth under the 'entire' heavens were covered, this would include the sky above the waters, not just land.
7:19 - They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.It also says that all of the water rose and covered the mountains to a depth of 20ft, assuming a cubit in that time was about 18 or so inches. Now when water is suspended above the ground what it will obviously do is spread untill it is level with its blocking surroudings. A depth of 20ft tells us that the land either had a blockade for the water to be suspended to that depth all around or all of the land was flooded and also the rest of the oceans of the world to the same sea level, thus concluding that the whole Globe was indeed covered with water to this sea level. This flooding went on for 150 days as it tells us in verse 24.
7:20The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet.I would just wonder how someone would interperete that as to be a non-global flood, or help me better understand what exactly this flood was like, what did it cover?

The only one I'm unsure about is the first one you pointed out since it said God said so.However, like I said, earth doesn't exactly mean the planet earth, but rather the land they were living on. The same is with the heavens, under the sky would of been everything he saw under the sky. I'm doubtful they knew of the rest of the world. Unless you can show me God wrote it I would rather put it in its correct context as it should be read.Once again, you obviously forgot to do what I said. As I clearly pointed out, your interpretation of earth is greatly different to someone of that time who saw the sun rise from one side and set on the other. From one horizon to other to him would of been everything as that's all he saw. He also considered the heavens to simply be the sky and I'm sure you agree with me there. However, when it comes to what he saw as earth, it would of been the same scenario there. Lets be realistic now. Since Noah seemed to be the only one with a boat they were still all on the same small amount of ground.I've read the Bible verses over and over again, it just doesn't seem like a global flood. You don't mind interpretating heaven as it should but when it comes to earth all creationist refuse to budge. Unless it said the entire planet earth or something, don't take it out of context.As on the next bit, I've always found it strange that you have to take it as one universal water height. Why if it is flooding in one spot does it have to be at the same level on the other side of the world? I'm not saying it was a local flood like you see on the news and such, I still think it was a decent flood, defiently the biggest in history. Enough to wipe out man kind, but not a global, ever since I was little I thought that sounded kinda silly. I don't think there was enough time for the water to receed. Even Leonardo DeVinchi I think commented on this. A big local flood sounds just about right for the water to take that long to go down until it came to rest on some high hill. Like you said it needs to spread out. How did it spread out if it was a global flood? That really isn't enough time for it to all receed into the ground.I've always found it strange how it says a great wind came to blow the water down. If it was a global flood that just sounds silly. Where is it to blow the water, to the other side where it is flooding? I think that really tips to a local flood.But God remembered Noah and all the wild animals and the livestock that were with him in the ark, and he sent a wind over the earth, and the waters receded.Genesis 8:1Obviously I am write about the context of earth. The wind had to blow it some where where it was not already flooding.It is very basic observations that it is not a global flood and I'm sure there are plenty of other people (I hope) that would agree with me. Once you read it like it should be read (not that it is technically wrong) it doesn't sound like a global flood at all. Noah wasn't an astrologist, just an observer. Anyone else on this board agree with me?

"The only one I'm unsure about is the first one you pointed out since it said God said so."
--How are you unsure? Its right out of the bible. Do you think that the part where God said so shouldn't be there?"However, like I said, earth doesn't exactly mean the planet earth, but rather the land they were living on. The same is with the heavens, under the sky would of been everything he saw under the sky. I'm doubtful they knew of the rest of the world. Unless you can show me God wrote it I would rather put it in its correct context as it should be read."
--I would agree with what you say about the 'earth' as I believe I said in my last post. In youngs literal translation and the KJV, NKJV, God called all of the dry land Earth, but he also referes to the world as earth beforehand. And he sayed that he made plants grow on the face of the 'whole' earth ( dry land ). I would disagree that you say earth to be the land that only people lived on."Once again, you obviously forgot to do what I said. As I clearly pointed out, your interpretation of earth is greatly different to someone of that time who saw the sun rise from one side and set on the other. From one horizon to other to him would of been everything as that's all he saw. He also considered the heavens to simply be the sky and I'm sure you agree with me there. However, when it comes to what he saw as earth, it would of been the same scenario there. Lets be realistic now. Since Noah seemed to be the only one with a boat they were still all on the same small amount of ground."
--I would say that the 'Earth' was the whole dry land, not just what adam and eve, or the whole population after could see. I don't think that I would consider 'exactly' what you interperete the 'heavens' to mean only the sky that the people could see, as God said that the heavens is the expanse and in the expanse are the stars, the sun and the moon. God also later says that he let the fowl fly over the earth and under the face of the expanse, meaning the heavens (and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.) I would say that Noah wouldn't have been the only one with a boat, but he would have been the only one with a boat massive enough to prevail against the waters."I've read the Bible verses over and over again, it just doesn't seem like a global flood. You don't mind interpretating heaven as it should but when it comes to earth all creationist refuse to budge. Unless it said the entire planet earth or something, don't take it out of context."
--I would interperete the 'earth' to mean all the dry land of the world, and I explained what I would interperet the heavens to be earlier. I would agree it doesn't say the entire planet."As on the next bit, I've always found it strange that you have to take it as one universal water height. Why if it is flooding in one spot does it have to be at the same level on the other side of the world?"
--Unless there is a dam, or some sort of blockade to stop the waters from spreading and equalizing to sea level yes it would of had to be the same level on the other side of the Earth unless there was something to stop the waters."I'm not saying it was a local flood like you see on the news and such, I still think it was a decent flood, defiently the biggest in history. Enough to wipe out man kind"
--And the animals im sure."but not a global, ever since I was little I thought that sounded kinda silly"
--I guess I dont' remember exactly what I thought when I was 7 or so years old. I guess I just imagined lots of water and a big boat with animals on it. *shrugs*"I don't think there was enough time for the water to receed. Even Leonardo DeVinchi I think commented on this. A big local flood sounds just about right for the water to take that long to go down until it came to rest on some high hill. Like you said it needs to spread out. How did it spread out if it was a global flood? That really isn't enough time for it to all receed into the ground."
--The waters didn't need to recede 'into the ground'. They just needed to escape from the earth (land). They needed to recede off of the land, not into. A local flood no matter the size unless it covered the thole land *thereby making it a global flood* just doesn't sound right to me for an all mighty God to know how everything works. What do you mean by 'A big local flood sounds just about right for the water to take that long to go down until it came to rest on some high hill', water goes down untill it gets to the top of a high hill?"I've always found it strange how it says a great wind came to blow the water down. If it was a global flood that just sounds silly. Where is it to blow the water, to the other side where it is flooding? I think that really tips to a local flood."
--I always found God to be very smart to bring a strong wind, as it would be needed to help the water recede off of the land and into the oceans. Which would have been an effect of uplift on land and 'sinkage' of the ocean basins."Obviously I am write about the context of earth. The wind had to blow it some where where it was not already flooding."
--That is partly right, the wind had to blow it somewhere. But where the ocean already is, an ocean with a higher sea level would technically be 'a flooded ocean'. The whole earth was flooded, including the oceans, having a higher sea level, thereby covering the earth(land)."It is very basic observations that it is not a global flood and I'm sure there are plenty of other people (I hope) that would agree with me. Once you read it like it should be read (not that it is technically wrong) it doesn't sound like a global flood at all. Noah wasn't an astrologist, just an observer. Anyone else on this board agree with me?"
We should read it like it is written, and mean what it means. And in doing so it brings up discussion.----------------

I don't know how I either forgot it, or it got messed up somehow, but my list, wasn't going to consist of everyone of those, simply because I would be in a perdicament if someone responded to them all, I don't know about the Methane Hydrates, Plateaus, I don't remember enough about Salt Domes, I don't know what point I would be getting at with Jigsaw Fit of the Continents, and I didn't even know about the Changing axis tilt, I don't know enough about magnetic varriations as I have not come up with my own conclusion on it with different creationists and evolutionists say, I was to pick out the rest of them beside those so my list would have consisted of:The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons
Mid-Oceanic Ridge
Continental Shelves and Slopes
Ocean Trenches
Seamounts and Tablemounts
Earthquakes
Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
Submarine Canyons
Coal and Oil Formations
Ice Age
Frozen Mammoths
Major Mountain Ranges
Overthrusts
Volcanoes and Lava
Geothermal Heat
Strata and Layered Fossils
Metamorphic Rock
Limestone
Salt Domes
Comets
Asteroids and MeteoroidsI messed up there, but I could comment on possibly some of them that I didn't know of before, given some understanding."Nope. The canyon provides evidence of downward water erosion. If there was a flood of many miles depth, there would be erosion on the same scale on the sides of the canyon, & it simply wouldn’t be a canyon. Also, the sediments that make the canyon would have to have lithified practically instantly upon deposition, to avoid being swept away."--Theres a couple problems with Grand canyon, It loops back and forth, and it also has steep sides. A looping meandering river would be an 'old age river' and a low slope like the mississippi. Steep sides indicate fast moving, rough rivers, 'plowing' their way through the riverbed. Grand canyon has both. The colorado river could not have formed it over millions of years. This process could have took months or mabye years. The seiments got shook up, washed into this spot along with the massive amounts of water. And when the Flood was over and it was settling and washing away, the Grand lake was left behind on higher than sea level terrain, and after a while when It finally found an area where it could spill over or find a weak spot to break through, it washed out catastrophicly forming grand canyon in a matter of hours or days. Indeed Sediments would have to of at least partially lithified, though it would not have to happen instantly, it could have taken months or possibly years. And when the waters rushed through it carved out and massivly plowed its way down through the small canyon that would have formed when the waters first ran down earlier much slower enough to create a passageway for the next spill of Grand lake. It seems to be a logical explination and is very possible. The Flood could have indeed formed Grand canyon and similarely the other canyons in the world. I could also explain how the mississipi formed the way it did."The tilt of Earth's axis is currently tilted at 23.5 but axial tilt ranges from approximately 22-25 degrees over a 41,000-year CYCLE. Decreasing tilt reduces the contrast of insolation associated with the seasons, increasing tilt exaggerates seasonal differences. Lesser tilt promotes the buildup of ice at the poles, greater tilts allow for more insolation during polar summers, causing more snow melt.
Axial tilt is not evidence of a flood."
--Mind you, I just found out about the Changing Axis Tilt today, I was previously unaware, so I will try my best."The evidence actually suggests multiple ice ages. This is evidence against the flood occurring."
--Wow, I imagined alot more out of Discovery.com. For one thing, they don't even discuss the evidence in many of the points. All they say is Evidence points to, and scientists conclude, in much of the article. Also just about everything they talk about MUST have a foundational assumption that the world is indeed millions of years old, and that the flood didn't happen. If I had a couple hours of free time I could write a good thourough commentary to the whole article. The 'Ice Age' (the only ice age) was a result of a Massive Global Flood. What is this evidence that supports multiple ice ages? How do scientists make these conclusions on this 'unknown' evidence?"You just need water that freezes, to freeze a mammoth. Your source claims that freezing must happen quickly to —150 deg F, or internal temperature would destroy the food in their alimentary canal??!!"
--I agree, you just need water in some form to freeze anything, I don't know exactly if you must freeze a mammoth at -150 degrees Ferenheight or not, but I know it must freeze in a couple hours, I would agree it would have to be to freeze the food in any area of the alimentary canal though I have not found after some research any reference for green plants in the alimentary canal except in the mouth and teeth, which doubtedly would need -150 degrees ferenheight. The mammoth argument is not a good argument by its lonesome unless you include the ice age.Magnetic variations I don't know too much about, but I do believe that sea floor spreading is very good evidence of the cause of catastrophe of the Flood. Is there evidence against it?"We’ve done this one, the flood fails to explain the depositions of fossils."
--How so? Name aspects that it can't explain."Done this one. What exactly does this evidence point to?"
--I don't remember doing this one? I would have to say that It points to a young earth, not much of an argument for the Flood topic though, as I don't know what It has to do with it."Methane hydrates are just evidence of methane & water being present at low temperature & high pressure, & not a global flood."
--I guess I simply don't know about methane hydrates, thus, wouldn't know what it points to. (It wasn't suppost to be included in the list)I would wonder what an evolutionists explination of Coal and Oil Formations, and Continental shelves would be."Firstly, small correction, the phanerozoic is about 570 mn. years of 3.8 bn. years, only about 1/7th of the geologic column.
Saying there was a lot of seismic activity over a 570 my. Time period isn’t saying much. "
It says alot if It isn't over 570 million years. Though you are right about it being 1/7 the time of the geologic column, I had a miss interperetation of what you said earlier in post #36 "The oldest undoubted fossils, primitive algae, exist in rocks 2.9 bn years old. (There are questionable example going back to 3.5bn years) What ever way you cook it, pre cambrian single celled life takes up at least 4/5ths of the fossil record", are there any place where you can get a measurements of each layer?"The two major extinctions, The K-T, & P-T (Permian-Triassic, the granddaddy of extinctions) are now both attributed to bolide impacts, & not volcanism. It is true that there was increased volcanism on the Indian sub-continent at the time of the K-T boundary, & this may have played a significant part in that extinction, but this was local, not global (the eruptions were local), so still fails to account for flooding."
--bolide impacts are only one theory on these extinctions, what evidence points to that these impacts did indeed take place in these geologic periods? I would agree with them whether they did or did not, its likely these impacts contributed to the global flood catastrophy. I would argue that this fails to account for the Flood."That there was shaking & baking, is not in issue. That this could lead to flooding nearly 6 miles deep, & would start & finish in 190 days, is."
--Shaking & bakin wasn't my analogy. To start a flood miles deep (in some areas i don't know where you get 6 miles) is very possible with the world geography in that day."So even reptiles die during childbirth."
--It wasn't whether it died during child birth, its that it was in the process of giving birth (it was still in the mothers 'brith canal'), indicating rapid burrial for itself and all the other unfortunate candidates around it in the area."But the evidence in its entirety needs examination."
--I agree when you start somewhere which is what we need to do and have done, you spread into many other areas of research because it all must compliment each other.-------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-03-2002]

TC,
Thanks for the response, give me a bit & I'll put a reply together.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Thanks, I know what you mean, its tough to put together a reply sometimes when you have things to do or it just requires some thought and research. I look forward, as always, to the continuing discussion. --After a lookover of that last post to you, I noticed I didn't return to the axis tilt of the earth and give an answer. But before I give any answer I would have to ask you what you would say it points to, old earth, young earth, no flood, a flood, and why? Thanx again.---------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-03-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-03-2002]