Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?

We do have a book that gives information concerning the flood just as there is information as to where the water came from that is on Earth. The problem is the book that talks about the flood is discarded but the book that talks about where the water on Earth came from is accepted as fact. Kinda a double standard there.

A single standard: does the book conform with the evidence?

As far as magic goes, I think there are better explanations.

Seriously, what is it with you guys?

Every time we provide you with a naturalistic explanation of something that has actually happened, you chaps start yelling blue murder about atheist scientists and their materialismisticarianist dogma. But for this one thing, the Flood, which didn't actually happen, you seem determined to think up a naturalistic explanation that puts God as far as possible out of the picture.

Why?

Well, it still seems odd to me. The words: "As far as magic goes, I think there are better explanations" are basically what scientists chiseled on the gravestone of creationism. And now you're saying it?

In Genesis 1:2 and the beginning of Genesis 1:9 there was no dry land. All land was covered so there was enough water to flood the Earth on the surface of the Earth. Genesis 1:9 last half of verse dry land appeared when the water was gathered to one place. So the water had to go somewhere for the dry land to appear. Where ever that water went it could have been retrieved to cover the dry land at a later date. There was enough water to cover the Earth.

In Alice In Wonderland Chapter 1, Alice sees a talking rabbit. Wherever it went, it could have come back to make an appearance in Chapter 4.

Is an English word that was used as the definition of a Hebrew word that the archaic meaning is summit.

"Hill" is an English word used to translate the Hebrew word meaning hill.

I said in the beginning there was at least 1 inch of elevation as there was dry land. I will stick with that conclusion. As far as the elevation of any other height the original text does not give any. To get one I would have to make an assumption which I refuse to do.

Surely you need more than 1 inch of water to ... y'know ... drown people? As I understand Genesis, God did not merely punish the wicked by giving them damp feet.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Why should I reply to your strawman? I never said 1 inch of water. I did say at least 1 inch evevation as there was dry land protuding out of the water. Using the Holy cubit I would need 39 feet and 1 inch of water to cover that land mass that was protruding 1 inch out of the water.

Well, 39 feet to cover the hills, and 39 feet 1 inch to cover the valleys between them.

Continental crust (material that has been weathered)

WTF?

It would require 39 feet and 1 inch to cover the dry land with 39 feet of water.

No, it would take 39 feet and 1 inch to cover the valleys with 39 feet and 1 inch of water, and 39 feet to cover the 1 inch high hills with 39 feet of water.

Since the surface of the water must be level, the depth of the water must vary from place to place according to whether it lies above the lofty summits of the 1 inch high hills or above the shadowy chasms of the 1 inch deep valleys that lie between them.

We haven't drilled into the lithosphere yet ...

Oh for fuck's sake.

Science does say there is contintental crust under 4,000 feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico. It has been drilled in. Yet you guys tells me it does not exist.

Who told you that there was no continental crust in the Gulf of Mexico?

HINT: No-one whosever. You made that up.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You are assuming way too many things. You don't know the size of the objects or how many of them there were or over what period of time they hit the earth.

So tell us. It's your hypothesis.

The windows of heaven were opened for 150 days according to the bible. That is alot of time. The water is beneath the crust. The crust will disintegrate into fine sand before water ever starts to boil. The subterranean water will absorb the heat and so there is no need for the mantle to completely melt. If you consider the amount of heat necessary to disintegrate miles of crust into sand and the amount of heat lost when water was absorbed into the mantle, there is no need to conclude all water was vaporized.

Please show your working.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's not how it works buddy.

Yes it is.

Again, that is not how it works buddy.

Again, yes it is.

I show you ways that it is not impossible. I just did.

No ... you ... didn't.

You need an actual scenario.

Otherwise the conversation we're having looks rather like this one.

You: Contrary to what you think, it's perfectly possible to build a time machine.
Me: Oh yeah? How would it work?
You: Using electricity!
Me: Could I see an actual circuit diagram, or maybe even a working prototype? Or can I at least hear why you think it would let you travel through time?
You: That is not how it works buddy. You guys are the one who make the claim of impossibility. I show you ways that it is not impossible. I just did. It is now up to YOU to show why my scenario is impossible.

No, it's up to you. Propose an actual scenario, not a mere vague fog of conjecture, and we'll see if it works. But the idea you have now definitely does not work, because it is a vague fog of conjecture.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You think the ideas are nonsense? It is up to you to tell me why.

Sure thing. Your ideas are nonsense because they are too vague and incoherent to constitute a testable hypothesis. In the famous words of Wolfgang Pauli, your ideas are not right --- they're not even wrong.

Let us know when you've fixed this.

Here under subduction.

I thought plate tectonics was part of your model, now you're supporting your arguments with reference to someone who denies it?

About the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

the journal was initially established to provide a forum for three main fields that had largely been neglected by mainstream science: ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology. It has also published research articles, essays, and book reviews on many other topics, including the philosophy of science, pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, alternative medicine, the process of peer review for controversial topics,[3] astrology, consciousness, reincarnation, minority opinion scientific theories, and paranormal phenomena.

Now I'm not saying that anything published there is necessarily wrong, but I would say that you'd take pretty much everything else they'd publish with a grain of salt.

To test the accuracy of the paper I chose one claim at random, concerning Indian endemic fauna --- this is the first thing I tried, so if I am guilty of cherry-picking it is entirely by accident. Your author, Pratt, writes as follows:

There is, however, overwhelming geological and paleontological evidence that India has been an integral part of Asia since Proterozoic or earlier time (Chatterjee and Hotton, 1986; Ahmad, 1990; Saxena and Gupta, 1990; Meyerhoff et al., 1991). [...] If the long journey of India had actually occurred, it would have been an isolated island-continent for millions of years – sufficient time to have evolved a highly distinct endemic fauna. However, the Mesozoic and Tertiary faunas show no such endemism, but indicate instead that India lay very close to Asia throughout this period, and not to Australia and Antarctica (Chatterjee and Hotton, 1986).

Note the two references to Chatterjee and Hotton.

Now, the trouble with all this is that the opponents of the "isolated India" model do not claim that the Cretaceous Indian fauna resemble Asian fauna, but that they resemble African and Madagascan fauna, e.g. Sahni:

At the generic and familial level there is a close correspondence between the Cretaceous vertebrates of peninsular India, Africa, and Madagascar.

Also Briggs:

Instead, we find that almost all Indian taxa were possessed in common with other continents. As time went on, the northern relationships became stronger and the southern ones weaker. Most of the recent geophysical accounts show India not making contact with Eurasia until the early Miocene, but fossil materials show that this event must have taken place by the early Eocene.

That is, the early lack of endemicism must be due to close contact with Gondwanan and not Laurasian fauna.

(A charitable view of Pratt is that he has got two arguments of the anti-isolationists mixed up: they claim a prolonged proximity to Africa and a subsequent early union with Asia as two successive mechanisms for lack of endemicism.)

As a result of these observations on fauna, specifically those of Sahni quoted above, Chatterjee and Hotton maintain, not that India was never detached from Asia, but that it spent much of the Cretaceous not far from Africa.

And yet Pratt cites them as showing that "India has been an integral part of Asia" since the Proterozoic --- when they never said so, when they never mentioned the position of Indian in the Proterozoic, and when the evidence which led them to their new model was the resemblance of early Cretaceous Indian fauna to Cretaceous African/Madagascan fauna, which is why they put India closer to Africa than had previously been thought.

So Pratt is taking a minor disagreement about the precise route of drift and parlaying it into "overwhelming evidence" that India was attached to Asia since the Proterozoic when that is not in the least what the evidence suggests, nor the conclusion of the authors that he cites.

I have not the patience to look at all of Pratt's claims, but if this random sample is at all typical of his method then I don't think that they bear much weight.

Hmm .... "The water is locked in moisture-containing rocks 400 to 800 miles (700 to 1,400 kilometers) beneath the surface." ... "It would still look like solid rock to you,” Wysession told LiveScience. "You would have to put it in the lab to find the water in it."

So this water climbed out of the rocks and then went back in again? How did that happen?

You guys need a slogan. How about: "CreationWiki ... For When AiG Isn't Dumb Enough".

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Right, but in that case why make reference to real things at all? The water appeared out of nowhere because God wanted it to, and then poofed away into nothing because God told it to. What's wrong with saying that? But if instead creationists want to produce a naturalistic explanation for their flood, then they are obliged to give us a bit more detail.