Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
99 online now:
PaulK, Pressie (2 members, 97 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 887,687 Year: 5,333/14,102 Month: 254/677 Week: 59/54 Day: 2/10 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 1 of 432 (642537)
11-29-2011 5:09 AM


In the thread "Evidence for a recent flood", claims have been made as to the sources of the water of the flood, the "fountains of the deep" amongst other sources.

Arguments have been made that the flood was not catastrophic or violent, that water flows uphill, that the opening of the fountains of the deep doesn't mean water reaching high in the atmosphere, that water wasn't in the mantle pre-flood, but got there afterwards when the "single land mass" divided in the days of Peleg.

So many different arguments have been made, some inconsistent with others, that it's difficult to visualise the floodist's model and the various statements are scattered over numerous posts and threads.

In the distant past we've discussed this topic, touching on Walt Brown's hydroplate theory and vapour canopies etc, but it would be worthwhile to discuss this subject in light of the ongoing thread "Evidence for a recent flood". In that thread many claims are made regarding the source of the flood water. Discussion of that would be off topic in that thread (I think) and it would be useful to have all the claims together in one thread.

Geology and the Great Flood if approved.

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-29-2011 7:29 AM Trixie has responded
 Message 8 by frako, posted 11-29-2011 8:24 PM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Modulous, posted 12-01-2011 11:29 AM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 12-01-2011 10:29 PM Trixie has responded
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 3:25 PM Trixie has responded
 Message 55 by Rahvin, posted 12-03-2011 11:22 PM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Portillo, posted 12-11-2011 12:23 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 3 of 432 (642539)
11-29-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
11-29-2011 7:29 AM


It's not so much asking for evidence as asking for the "models" proposed to be examined for plausibility with regard to current science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 11-29-2011 7:29 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 5 of 432 (642547)
11-29-2011 5:10 PM


In the thread "Evidence for a recent flood", the source of the water is claimed to be the fountains of the deep. As far as I can tell, these fountains resulted from the release of water from the mantle (so the argument goes).

A rough calculation puts the amount of water required to flood the entire earth at 2046 million cubic km. To help get an idea of what that means, the Earth's crust is estimated to be 1332 million cubic km (I googled that). The temperature of the mantle ranges from 1400C to 3000C with densities ranging from 3.4 - 4.3 g/cm2.

What effect would 2000 million cubic km of superheated pressurised water have on the atmosphere, crust and life if it was released to the surface over a period of 40 days? What sort of atmospheric temperatures are we talking about here?

When water becomes steam it increases in volume by 1600 times, giving us a total of 3.2 million million cubic km. In contrast, the earth's atmosphere is estimated to be 51,000 million cubic km so the volume of steam is 62.7 times the volume of the earth's atmosphere

Edited by Trixie, : To add the steam stuff


Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 11-29-2011 7:51 PM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Rahvin, posted 11-29-2011 7:57 PM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 145 by foreveryoung, posted 12-27-2011 11:30 AM Trixie has responded
 Message 263 by jrchamblee, posted 02-13-2012 7:02 PM Trixie has acknowledged this reply
 Message 307 by dad, posted 07-11-2020 2:58 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 16 of 432 (642709)
11-30-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by frako
11-30-2011 4:18 PM


frako writes:

i think we do have enough watter to cover the earth if we raise the land under the oceans to our current elevation and squash the mountains down a bit

The problem with that approach is that the surface would have been flooded from the start or you'd have to propose a mechanism whereby the entire surface of the earth flattened out once the ark was built. With that amount of remodelling of the planet's surface a flood would have been the least of Noah's problems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by frako, posted 11-30-2011 4:18 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by frako, posted 11-30-2011 6:40 PM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 12-01-2011 1:11 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 29 of 432 (642836)
12-02-2011 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by ICANT
12-01-2011 10:29 PM


Re: Catastrophic
ICANT writes:

The problem with the amount of water required to cover the Earth as stated in the 7 th chapter of Genesis arises when it is applied to the Earth as it is today. That is nothing but a strawman of those who say the flood could not happen. I have noticed that Mt Everest has already been mentioned as having to be covered when it did not exist at the time of the flood

See, that's a problem we keep encoutering. You keep telling us how the earth wasn't, but you won't tell us how it was.

Are you making the point that since the Himalaya have been pushed up by India and Asia colliding, that would have occurred after the days of Peleg? Even if that was the case and we accept that there was a single land mass (which I don't, even for a nanosecond), there must have been mountains on your single land mass since the ark came to rest on one. How high do you think that mountain was? I'm not asking you to tell me how high the Bible says it was, but how high you think it was. Remember, it's your model that we're examining.

Currently, Mt Ararat is reckoned to be 5,137 m, however that includes the snow cap so it may be a little less. The calculation I used assumed a flood depth of 4,000 m so if we use the height of Mt Ararat in the calculation we'd need even more water. The last major eruption is thought to have been around 3,000 BC and bronze age artefacts have been found under pyroclastic flows, along with human remain (all from Wiki).

Although this is a science thread, I'm not asking for scientific evidence of your flood. Thus, for the purposes of this thread the information given in the Bible can be used to provide the evidence which you have used to formulate your model and it's this model which will be examined. the accounts in the Bible can be used to formulate your model, and it's this model that will be examined for credibility given the known laws of science. Look on this as a way to refine your model.

Edited by Admin, : Wordsmith middle sentence of last paragraph. Trixie, if I drifted away from your intent please correct it back. I was trying to make sure there were no misunderstandings regarding the roles of evidence and known science in this thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ICANT, posted 12-01-2011 10:29 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 8:42 PM Trixie has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 40 of 432 (642962)
12-03-2011 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ICANT
12-02-2011 8:42 PM


It's your model!
ICANT writes:

Trixie writes:

Are you making the point that since the Himalaya have been pushed up by India and Asia colliding, that would have occurred after the days of Peleg? Even if that was the case and we accept that there was a single land mass (which I don't, even for a nanosecond),

Are you saying you don't believe Pangaea existed?

Lets look at what I actually said

Are you making the point that since the Himalaya have been pushed up by India and Asia colliding, that would have occurred after the days of Peleg? Even if that was the case and we accept that there was a single land mass (which I don't, even for a nanosecond), there must have been mountains on your single land mass since the ark came to rest on one.

From the context (i.e., the ark coming to rest on a mountain) it's obvious that I'm referring to a single land mass at the time of the flood and it's this that I don't accept.

ICANT writes:

First I don't believe there was a mountain they are caused by plate's diving under one another and the dry land had not been divided at the time of the flood.

Did you miss the part that said Ararat was volcanic?

ICANT writes:

Why should I guess how high the land mass was?
If I have a model it will come from the Bible text not my imagination.

Because it's your model. You seem willing to use information in your model for which there is no source other than your opinion if it suits your case. Let's try another way of asking the question. How high does your model require any elevation to be? Remember that your model doesn't have mountains being pushed up until after the flood, so you have to account for having somewhere for the ark to land.

ICANT writes:

First off your source say's it is not known when the last eruption occurred. Then it says "It seems that Ararat was active in the 3rd millennium BC.

What problem do you think I would have with that?

Given the way you've worded your quote, I'd say that you believe that the two statements are contradictory. They are not. I make no claim, and neither does the source, that the eruption in the 3rd millenium BC was the last one. In fact there is argument that during an earthquake in the 1800s which buried a town, there was a minor eruption under ground water level, however that has not been established. So, to summarise, the last eruption date is unknown, but there was an eruption in the 3rd millenium BC.

All that aside, this thread is asking for the source of the water. You have to postulate a source which can contain enough water to cause a global flood since that's what your model claims. To do that, you need to have an idea of how much water would be required to cover the highest point, so how high does your model require the highest point to be, whether it's a hill, a mountain or a pimple on the face of the earth? Are you talking tens of metres, hundreds of metres or thousands of metres?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ICANT, posted 12-02-2011 8:42 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by frako, posted 12-03-2011 6:44 AM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 12:16 PM Trixie has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 49 of 432 (642990)
12-03-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ICANT
12-03-2011 12:16 PM


Re: It's your model!
ICANT writes:

Well it was not obvious to me.

The statement: "Even if that was the case and we accept that there was a single land mass (which I don't, even for a nanosecond),"

Look very, very carefully at your quote of what I said. Do you see that little curly thing at the very end? Well, that's called a comma and it demonstrates that you have quoted only that part of the sentence that allows you to attempt to score dishonest points by claiming that I don't believe Pangaea ever existed. You may not be able to read minds, but I do expect you to read words in the posts you reply to.

ICANT writes:

I am argueing what the text says not what you, I or anyone else thinks.

This isn't a topic for arguing what the text says. Once more you have failed to read properly what I wrote. For the sake of this debate I'm allowing you to include your pre-flood single land mass because I'm asking you about your model.

You've provided a little more information about your model. You say that in the beginningall the land was covered, so there is already enough water to cover it again in the flood. So where did the water go? How was it kept from covering the dry land that appeared? Either the land was made higher or the amount of surface water was reduced in volume by sequestering it somewhere else. I expect you'll tell me it went into the fountains of the deep.

ICANT writes:

A minimum of 1 inch as there was dry land

So your preflood, single land mass was 1 inch above sea level. That would cause problems with tides, would it not? It would flood twice a day. You have to accept that some of it was higher than that otherwise you're unable to account for hills. Don't forget that the text says the water covered the "highest hills" according to you and it covered them to a depth of 15 cubits, around 7.73 metres (using Noah's cubit of 20.3 inches, obtained from an online ark size calculator).

ICANT writes:

Regardless of where the water was it would have been available to cover the dry land at a later time.

So the source of the water is available, now what?

No, you have said that the water was available, but you haven't specified the source. Where was this water in the preflood world? It can't be in the single body of water otherwise there would be no dry land at all.

Edited by Trixie, : To fix a formatting error


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 12:16 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 6:49 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(2)
Message 50 of 432 (642991)
12-03-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by mike the wiz
12-03-2011 3:25 PM


Re: My General Understanding
mike the wiz writes:

It should also be noted that the attitude that there can't be any supernatural answers for the problem is decidedly odd, considering it was a miraculous event, according to the bible. To have us believe that God would create a flood but could not then handle the consequences and therefore not be able to save a remnant of life on earth I regard as absurd.

I don't have a problem with what you say here and if that was what all "floodists" said then that would be fine. However many try to find scientific support for their flood and propose models which may or may not stand up to scientific scrutiny. They also attempt to rubbish what science has told us about the history of our planet by rubbishing the science itself. They have attempted to get this sort of thing taught in schools as fact, claiming scientific support and claiming that they are using science as well. When they choose to use science to try to bolster their claims it's fair game to show where the "science" they use is faulty.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by mike the wiz, posted 12-03-2011 3:25 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by mike the wiz, posted 12-06-2011 3:30 PM Trixie has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 59 of 432 (643040)
12-04-2011 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Admin
12-03-2011 9:17 PM


Re: It's your model!
Thank you, Admin. Once more you manage to say what I was trying (and obviously failing) to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Admin, posted 12-03-2011 9:17 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 60 of 432 (643041)
12-04-2011 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chuck77
12-04-2011 1:31 AM


Finally something to work with!

To examine your suggestions, we need to determine what evidence there is and what evidence we would expect for each one.

Your idea of a smoother surface, while making flooding the whole surface easier will struggle to explain why it was not flooded previously. You still would need more water from somewere unless it was the "becoming smoother" which allowed the oceans to flood the land. The text states that extra water was added, via the fountains of the deep and 40 days of rain, and a smoother surface would require less water to flood it, however the smoothing out process would have been noticable at the time, given that giant tsunamis would have resulted.

So, how much water would we need in your suggestion? All I've got from ICANT is that it would have to be 15 cubits plus a minimum of 1 inch deep which doesn't take into account the existence of hills etc. Once we have an idea of that, we can look at where it may have come from, i.e., what the fountains of the deep may be.

It also gives us something to work with when we look at where the water went. A deepening of the oceans and an uplift of the areas that were going to dry out would certainly do it, but what would we expect to see if that was the case? Or did it return to the fountains of the deep, in which case is it still there? Wouldn't that amount of remodelling under the surface of the water while Noah floated around cause huge amounts of heat to be released and boil the flood? What effect would it have on the geological record?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chuck77, posted 12-04-2011 1:31 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Chuck77, posted 12-11-2011 4:26 AM Trixie has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 66 of 432 (643078)
12-04-2011 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
12-04-2011 4:40 PM


Re: Water
So your "model" is that some of the water from creation "went somewhere", when it was needed for the flood it came back and at the end of the flood it "went somewhere" again.

The only problem with that is if God gathered all the water in one place, forming the oceans, then all the water was in the oceans, so there can't be any somewhere else to retrieve and dump in the oceans when it was needed for the flood.

The fountains of the deep which were closed prior to the flood and opened to cause the flood must be separate from the oceans if opening them caused the sea level to rise. If the source of your flood water is the fountains of the deep then the water wasn't all in one place prior to the flood - some was in the oceans and some was in the closed fountains of the deep.

It's your literal reading of the water being gathered into one place which is biting you on the bum when it comes to the flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 12-04-2011 4:40 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 12-05-2011 4:29 PM Trixie has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 70 of 432 (643242)
12-05-2011 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
12-05-2011 4:29 PM


Re: Water
ICANT writes:

Any water that existed at the time of creation went somewhere as it was covered with miles of rock.

So the excess water ended up in a different place from the rest of the water that formed the oceans when God moved all the water to one place. That's two places, i.e., not one place.

If the fountains of the deep have always been "open" and are present and open now, what enabled them to flood the earth? Why did they not flood the earth before or since Noah's flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 12-05-2011 4:29 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 73 of 432 (643296)
12-06-2011 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by ICANT
12-05-2011 4:29 PM


Miles of rock
You mentioned that the excess water was covered "with miles of rock" and I'm interested in the scale of this. Since you used the plural, the minimum must be more than 1 mile, but that gives me no idea of the sort of distances you have in mind. Can you elaborate, please?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by ICANT, posted 12-05-2011 4:29 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 5:21 PM Trixie has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 86 of 432 (643452)
12-07-2011 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by ICANT
12-06-2011 5:21 PM


Re: Miles of rock
ICANT writes:

So there has to be some mechnism by which these life forms in a great quanity was available to be covered by miles of sediment. And a mechanism to cover the life forms with the sediment. It stands to reason when these areas of mass life forms was covered the water that was there at the time the sediment was provided would have been covered with the plant matter and life forms that became the oil in the Earth.

How can the water be the bottom layer of a water-plant-sediment sandwich? Surely sediment is sediment because it sediments out of water and falls to the bottom.

sediment [ˈsɛdɪmənt]
n
1. matter that settles to the bottom of a liquid
2. (Earth Sciences / Geological Science) material that has been deposited from water, ice, or wind
[from Latin sedimentum a settling, from sedçre to sit]

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

ICANT writes:

Now just as the oil in the ground whether on land or under water comes out of a well due to the pressure underneath it the water in springs come out due to the pressure under them. When the fountains of the deep were opened the water would have come out due to the pressure under them.

Water comes out of springs due to the force of water running into the spring, i.e., it isn't a closed system. Last winter I came across a broken field drain. I found it because water was spouting out of the ground to a height of a foot. The break in the drain was at the bottom of a gentle slope and the drain ran straight down this slope. Because of heavy rain the drain was working at full capacity and the pressure of the water in the drain was forcing the water out of the ground at the break. The force that generated that pressure was gravity acting on the water flowing through the unbroken, uphill stretch of field drain. However, the height of the little fountain represented the amount of energy put into the system by gravity acting on the uphill water and at no time could the little fountain have risen higher that the highest point of the field drain. You can try it yourself with a garden hose bent in a U shape. You will never get the water higher in one side than it is in the other. Now lower one side of the hose, but keep the opening facing upward. With more water in the tallside, the water will flow out of the low side until, yet again, the water is the same height on both sides.

Now take a bathsponge and saturate it with water. Apply pressure to the sponge by pressing down on it. What happens to the water when you do that? That's what happens to the water mixed in with sediment when more sediment falls on top, the weight of the new sediment will squeeze the water out of the lower sediment. Yes, there will be some water left, but not alot. So we're still struggling to find a mechanism that can take some of the original water from creation and put it beneath rock.

Oil is different. It starts off as a solid and can be compressed by mineral sediment. The behaviour of water under pressure is totally different from dead plant and animal material under pressure. That's one of the reasons that it takes approximately 90 tonnes of material to produce 3.8 l of gasoline.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the size of the earth grew because of constant sedimentation or because of asteroid impacts. One of the largest asteroid impacts was at Chixulub and the asteroid in question had a diameter estimated to be 10 km. The volume is therefore approximately 5,309 cubic km. You can caculate from that how thick a uniform worlwide layer would be and it's not much. I don't think asteroids added much to the size of the planet at all.

If you're suggesting that the size increased because of continual sedimentation, you're forgetting that the sediment had to come from another part of the earth, so nothing is being added it's just being rearranged.

ICANT writes:

When the fountains of the deep were opened the water would have come out due to the pressure under them.

How much pressure are you going to need to displace enough water to flood the entire surface of the earth? What fills the void left by the water exiting the the "chamber" it was in?

In posts to other people you've stated that we need to know the elevation of the land before we can calculate how much water would be required. So far all you've committed to is a minimum of 1 inch for the land elevation which takes no account of a hill for the ark to come to rest on. You need to work out how much water needs to be in your "chambers" to flood the entire earth in your model, then see if it's feasible to have "chambers" containing that amount, then a mechanism to get it out and added to the existing volume of water a the time of the flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ICANT, posted 12-06-2011 5:21 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by edge, posted 12-07-2011 8:28 AM Trixie has not yet responded
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 12-22-2011 1:59 PM Trixie has responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2733 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 94 of 432 (643768)
12-11-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Chuck77
12-11-2011 4:26 AM


Question : where did the water come from?
Answer : My position is that the water was already here plus the rain that fell.

But where is here? It can't be in the oceans or the earth would have been flooded prior to the flood! 40 days of rain isn't going to flood the planet on it's own.

Question : where did the water go?
Answer : Where it went could still be here.

If it was still "here" we'd still be floating, yet the biblical account tells us that the flood receded rather rapidly. How could it do that if the water remained "here". It has to have moved somewhere else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Chuck77, posted 12-11-2011 4:26 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021