Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9049 total)
97 online now:
anglagard, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 94 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Happy Birthday: Coragyps
Post Volume: Total: 887,685 Year: 5,331/14,102 Month: 252/677 Week: 57/54 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1 of 242 (788408)
07-31-2016 10:30 AM


Faith writes:

You know what's really silly? It's when people who are hostile to the idea of the Flood try to imagine what it would have been like -- or even think they understand what Flood believers say about how it happened. THOSE ideas are sheer silliness.

Faith on several occasions has asserted that no one can know what the Biblical Flood would have been like.

That seems to be a really silly assertion once again totally refuted by all the evidence, reason and reality; so I think it might be worthwhile to explore both why it is possible and what the evidence of such an event MUST be.

First, the two stories give us beginning criteria; rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

Water from the rainfall and from unspecified "fountains of the deep".

All the water recedes over about 12 months until fertile land is again exposed.

So based on those assertions from the stories and considering reality, physics and geography we can make a few basic conclusions.

The water that fell as rain had to come from water already in the seas so there would be a net rise of water level from rain of zero.

The water from the "fountain of the deep" would result in two effects; local land subsidence at the source of the fountains extending across the area above that aquifer; and local flooding around the fountains.

Water taken from aquifers would have a long recharge time and so the water from the "fountains of the deep" would remain as surface water for longer than the time between the supposed flood and today.

The land that subsided over the source aquifers would still be at the level of the initial subsidence and most likely show up today as lakes immediately over aquifers and that that did not exist over 4000-4500 years ago.

While loose materials would be washed down hill to be deposited at lower levels there would be almost no additional noticeable wear to any lithified rocks. The floods total duration is simply too short to cause any appreciable erosion to anything but loose materials and extremely soft surfaces.

What would get deposited during the recessional event would be a jumbled mass of mostly unsorted materials with the only identifiable sorting being most dense items on the bottom graded to least dense items at the top.

There should be a uniform and universal interruption of existing cultures, biology, environment and ecology that shows a radiating pattern of return beginning somewhere near where the Ark of the stories was supposed to have ended up.

What the above are based on?

We can look at the current real evidence found in the world today to make conclusions based on current processes as well as geology, physics, chemistry, hydraulics, current annual events like monsoons and major annual flooding and land subsidence as we pump waters out of aquifers and wear to lithified materials seen in falls and from rainfall.

Those processes; getting water into the air to fall as rain, measuring erosion to lithified surfaces as found all over the world, measuring subsidence, measuring aquifer refill data, looking at the result of floods and tsunamis and annual inundations give us baseline studies that can then be used to make predictions given the conditions laid out in the stories.

Are there other things based on reality, physics, chemistry, geology and paleontology that should be seen?

Are there other things that must be seen if the Biblical Flood really happened?

AbE: likely Geology and the Great Flood.

Edited by jar, : suggest proper forum


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by 14174dm, posted 07-31-2016 1:34 PM jar has responded
 Message 99 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2016 1:31 PM jar has acknowledged this reply
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 08-03-2016 4:24 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 3 of 242 (788413)
07-31-2016 11:39 AM


Yet one more thing we can say
There is yet more conclusions we can make based on the stories themselves.

The stories say that the Ark came to rest among mountains. It also says (at least one of the stories) that one of the indications was a a freshly picked olive leaf.

So what does that tell us?

Olive trees have a fairly shallow root system but one that extends far beyond the canopy line, often as much a four times the diameter of the canopy drip line.

They require a soil base, not lithified rock.

That means that the recessionary phase of the flood did not strip away the soil even in mountainous areas and that the flood duration at that location did not last long enough to kill the tree.

AbE:

We can say a little bit more based on the story itself. Olive trees cannot stand waterlogged soil and so even if the area around the tree received lots of rain the base did not remain underwater for any extended period and the excess water from the rain or "fountains of the deep" drained away rapidly; certainly for far less than a full year.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin show ----> so

Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin requite ----> require fumble finger and reading what I know I wrote instead of what I actually wrote.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 6:46 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 5 of 242 (788428)
07-31-2016 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by 14174dm
07-31-2016 1:34 PM


Re: Currents for eroding the pre-Flood sediment
While the utterly dishonest, delusional or willfully ignorant might be swayed by such nonsense once again reality intervenes and says Bumgardner etal are full of shit.

Today we can see examples of water flow within those speeds and so can also see just what little it does.

Here is a partial list of rivers with a discharge flow of over 1000 cubic meters of flow per second. Some of these rivers have even been studied by Scientists.

AbE: Plus the Bible says they are full of shit too. See Message 3.

Edited by jar, : see AbE:


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by 14174dm, posted 07-31-2016 1:34 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 07-31-2016 4:43 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 8 of 242 (788438)
07-31-2016 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
07-31-2016 4:43 PM


Re: Flow Volume and Flow Rate
You are correct. Mea Culpa. Yet according to the story the Olive Tree still stood.

AbE: I did a little more research and it seems the actual terminal velocity of a big rain drop is about 9 m/s but if it were falling in a vacuum it could reach velocities over 200 m/s.

AbE-2:Also checks and water cutting tools can deliver water at over 1km/s so it seems water can be made to move very fast over short distances when under very high pressure.

Also, from an article on the Coriolis force:

quote:
In 1908, the Austrian physicist Ottokar Tumlirz described careful and effective experiments that demonstrated the effect of the rotation of the Earth on the outflow of water through a central aperture.[43] The subject was later popularized in a famous 1962 article in the journal Nature, which described an experiment in which all other forces to the system were removed by filling a 6 ft (1.8 m) tank with 300 U.S. gal (1,100 L) of water and allowing it to settle for 24 hours (to allow any movement due to filling the tank to die away), in a room where the temperature had stabilized. The drain plug was then very slowly removed, and tiny pieces of floating wood were used to observe rotation. During the first 12 to 15 minutes, no rotation was observed. Then, a vortex appeared and consistently began to rotate in an anticlockwise direction (the experiment was performed in Boston, Massachusetts, in the Northern Hemisphere). This was repeated and the results averaged to make sure the effect was real. The report noted that the vortex rotated, "about 30,000 times faster than the effective rotation of the Earth in 42° North (the experiment's location)". This shows that the small initial rotation due to the Earth is amplified by gravitational draining and conservation of angular momentum to become a rapid vortex and may be observed under carefully controlled laboratory conditions.

So factors other than the Coriolis force would have far greater effect.

Yet the Olive Tree still stood.

AbE-3: The Gulf stream flow is about 2.5 m/s.

The Antarctic Polar Current flows at about half the speed of the Gulf Stream

Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Edited by jar, : see AbE-2:

Edited by jar, : see AbE-3:


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 07-31-2016 4:43 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 07-31-2016 5:54 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 13 of 242 (788448)
07-31-2016 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
07-31-2016 6:46 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Faith writes:

Life before the Flood, including olive trees, would have had far more endurance than anything that has grown since then.

Again Faith, that is simply another unsupported assertion refuted by ALL of the evidence that has been found.

Faith writes:

I remember something about paleosols that indicated that they had developed in a tropical climate under highly advantageous conditions, even something about their being unlike today's soils in their superior properties. Don't have the patience to look further than I just did, so maybe someone can correct me if this is wrong.

Seems to me such qualities in paleosols would indicate greater fertility and vitality in the pre-Flood world in general, and I would assume the same for anything growing then, such as an olive tree high in the mountains. In other words it may not be right to impute the weaknesses of today's olive trees to antediluvian olive trees.

Again Faith, this thread is dealing with reality and in fact the Olive in question would have to be both pre and post flood.

If the story found in the Bible were true it would simply be yet more proof there was never a world-wide flood.

The Bible is replete with such wonderful examples that proof the Bible is wrong.

AbE:

In addition, the issue is not whether or not the soils before the imaginary flood were fertile, it is that the flood did not knock down the olive tree or cover the root system in water for more than a few days or harm the tree in anyway.

Physics is still physics. Biology is still biology. Chemistry is still chemistry. Mechanics is still mechanics. The Olive tree would have been the same Olive tree both before and after the flood. The soil the tree is growing in is still the soil that was there before the alleged flood.

Edited by jar, : see AbE:


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 6:46 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 9:48 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 15 of 242 (788451)
07-31-2016 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by 14174dm
07-31-2016 8:02 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
14174dm writes:

The research by the Institute for Creation Research shows that no soil would be left on the continents by the Flood.

Please don't suggest that ICR actually does any research; that is just too big a guffaw to stomach. And as usual, the Bible says that ICR is full of shit.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by 14174dm, posted 07-31-2016 8:02 PM 14174dm has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 16 of 242 (788453)
07-31-2016 9:01 PM


More evidence that the Biblical flood did not cause much erosion
There is yet another piece of information we can get from the flood stories and that is in general almost none of the loose soil was washed away and somehow sea water did not rise up to cover the lands. That is another factor found in the stories, Noah planted a vineyard. Now grapes unlike olives have deep root systems often going down ten feet or more. Like the olive though they will not grow in soggy or water logged soil, or soil lacking nutrients or extremely acidic or alkaline soil.

This tells us that both the depth of the soil and the makeup of the soil remained pretty constant and that the soil definitely did not spend a year under water or get flooded by seawater or salts washed down from higher levels.

It seems the flood described in the Bible stories was far more like the annual Nile delta or Amazon basin flooding.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin don ----> down


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 10:09 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 18 of 242 (788459)
07-31-2016 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Faith
07-31-2016 9:48 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Faith writes:

Yes one wouldn't normally expect any tree to survive the Flood as this one apparently did. But that's why I said what I said about its likely greater health compared to today's trees. No it was not BOTH pre and post Flood, it had grown in the pre-Flood period and would have had all the attributes given it from that period.

Come on Faith. Of course it was both pre and post flood. The flood only lasted a year and the tree was old enough to be bearing leaves so it had to been alive before and after the flood.

And again there is no evidence of any pre-flood attributes.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 9:48 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 9:59 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 22 of 242 (788464)
07-31-2016 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
07-31-2016 9:59 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Actually no, we are NOT trading plausibility.

The story says the tree was alive after the flood.

That means the tree was alive before the flood.

Thems the facts of the story.

There is nothing in the story of any different environment before the flood and there is absolute and overwhelming evidence from the real world that the environment before the supposed flood was very much the same as the environment after the supposed flood.

Those are facts.

The depth and style of root systems for olive trees and grape vines is not supposition but again a matter of fact.

That neither olive trees nor grape vines will live in water logged soil is not speculation but fact.

The story claims Noah plated a vineyard so there had to be fertile soil that was not contaminated by sea water and had good drainage and was not washed away by the receding flood if the story is to be believed.

There is much we can say about the conditions and consequences of either of the Biblical Flood stories; it is not at all hard to know what the conditions had to be like.

Abe:

Faith writes:

As for salty water the usual understanding is that the oceans weren't nearly as salty then as they are now, and besides, the Flood had the input of the "windows of heaven" as well as the "fountains of the deep," which wouldn't have been salty.

And what is the evidence that supports the water from the windows of heaven or the fountain of the deep would not be salty?

Edited by jar, : see AbE:


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 07-31-2016 9:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 3:58 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 25 of 242 (788481)
08-01-2016 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by NoNukes
08-01-2016 3:58 AM


and yet another thing we should see.
NoNukes writes:

Is it really reasonable to inquire into whether or not imaginary sources of water might contain dissolved minerals?

As long as it is understood that we are discussing imaginary water then it can be a pure as anyone wants.

But if we are asserting that it is real water not imaginary water then it's worth considering what the reality shows.

There are lots of examples here on Earth of "Waters of the Deep" ranging from gentle springs to geysers to the true fountains of the deep, the hydrothermal vents. One characteristic of many such fountains of the deep is that the water is far from pure but instead filled with dissolved minerals. In fact we have developed whole industries showing folk around the deposits from waters of the deep, mining sulfur from the areas, bottling and selling it as "Mineral Water" and creating spas where people can come and soak in the waters.

When we look at the waters found in the heavens we also find that it is not just water but has many of the fairly complex chemical signatures we associate with the building blocks of life. In fact the composition of heavenly waters is different enough to allow scientists to determine if water is from a cometary source I understand. Even more interesting is the evidence that not all comet water is the same but many differ from what is found on the Earth while other match what is found on Earth.

As I pointed out back in Message 1 the water falling as rain came from the oceans and so there is a net zero there. Certainly localized flooding as the rain ran downhill would be common but the stories describe the whole world remaining inundated (with of course no explanation of where the excess water goes) for a full year. That means some additional amount of water had to be added.

So if a claim is made that the source of the extra water needed for a Biblical flood story is true then I think it is reasonable to question the content and makeup of that miracle water based on the reality of similar water found today.

BUT, it also adds one more thing we would have to see. Since the rain came from the sea and then ran back to the sea the post flood sea level should be the same as it was a year earlier. However if we add all the additional water from the "Fountains of the Deep" and the "Windows of Heaven" that excess water had no place to go except into the ocean. That should leave a very easy to spot one year sea rise equal to all the waters that covered all the land reaching high up into the mountains, a sea rise equal to what was seen after ice ages but happening in just one year not over centuries.

Since the Biblical Flood is supposed to have happened just about halfway between today and the last major ice age that telltale signature sea rise should be easy to find.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 3:58 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 08-01-2016 11:59 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 29 of 242 (788497)
08-01-2016 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
08-01-2016 9:37 AM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Faith writes:

I see no need to prove the timing, the important thing is that the geological column IS the evidence of the Flood, the whole shebang.

If you are asserting that as anything more than a personal belief then you must provide the model, method, process, mechanism, procedure or thingamabob for your claimed flood that can produce what is actually seen in reality; and so far no one has ever been able to do that.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 9:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 12:03 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 34 of 242 (788508)
08-01-2016 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
08-01-2016 12:03 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Faith writes:

It's been proved a million times over at EvC already, with all the features of a model and all the rest of it.

then provide a link to those posts or stop making that claim.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 12:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 12:19 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 36 of 242 (788513)
08-01-2016 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
08-01-2016 12:19 PM


Re: Yet one more thing we can say
Again, please provide the links because there is no flood model in existence that can explain what is seen in reality.

This topic is about explaining what a Biblical Flood would be like as well as why it must look that way. Unless you can provide some support for the Biblical Flood the answer is conclusively, "It just never happened."


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 12:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 41 of 242 (788524)
08-01-2016 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Faith
08-01-2016 3:14 PM


On some pre-flood environment
Faith writes:

There is nothing magical about the effect a completely different and more advantageous environment would have had on a tree.

When all of the evidence shows conclusively that the environment at the period that would have been before the alleged flood was very much like it is after the flood and there is only one year between the environment pre and post flood your claim certainly sounds like magic. In fact what other explanation could there be. In addition, nothing in either of the Biblical Flood stories says anything about any pre or post flood environments.

You are free to make stuff up but unless you have some support for your assertions they are not at all persuasive.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 3:14 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 5:21 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33446
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 45 of 242 (788534)
08-01-2016 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
08-01-2016 5:21 PM


Re: On some pre-flood environment
Faith writes:

Haven't heard anything from you yet except stuff you've made up, on top of your utterly wacko insistence on the idea of two floods in the Bible, which as far as I know is absolutely unique to you.

What I have said is that there are two mutually exclusive flood stories in the Bible, not that there were two floods.

And let's look and see if I posted anything that I made up.

First, please point to stuff I made up in Message 1.

Then point to the stuff I made up in Message 3.

After you answer those two issues I will gladly walk through every one of my posts in this thread to allow you to point to anything I made up.

Faith, this software even has a way readers can pull up each and all of my posts in this thread and I doubt you can point to anything I made up.

The issue is that it is very easy to describe what the Biblical Flood would have been like and to then check to see if what must be seen if it actually happened is found in reality.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 08-01-2016 5:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 9:12 AM jar has 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