Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

All we know is that the Bible says the land mass was one single land mass that was surrounded by water as it was in one place.

Pangea, which was the most recent example of all land being in one mass, broke up some 175 million years ago.

Are you suggesting that humans were in existence that long ago?

ICANT writes: But according to the Bible there was one land mass at the time of the flood. Genesis 1:9

That isn't what Genesis 1:9 says. It says the waters were gathered together in one place, not the land. There could have been thousands of land masses - and not surprisingly, there are.

ICANT writes: We do know there was enough water available to cover all the dry land with water, as it did in Genesis 1:2.

Genesis 1:2 doesn't say that.

I'd like to try to return to the points raised in the Opening Post.

quote:

---

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 any objections to those characteristics?

Are any of those indicators that should be seen if a Biblical flood happened found in the real world?

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: I asked you the relevance of your example regarding the Bay of Fundy because you appeared to use it to tell us that extreme rising of water levels in a short period were feasible. Here is what you said:

And I gave you the answer just above what you quoted.
The water in the big part of the bay is rising 1 1/2 inches per minute.
As it goes up the river it is multiplied about 10 times.

A single land mass with water all around it with water rising 1 1/2 inches per minute would do little damage to the landscape.

YEC"S have the water tearing up the surface of the dry land as well as the surface of the earth that is under the water.

So my reference was to show that the water could rise without doing much damage. It could also recede without doing much damage as takes place in the Bay of Fundy twice a day.

NoNukes writes: What portion of the above sentence is the least bit relevant to the flood as you describe it happening. What you did above is simply take the water level rise in a 12 hour period and multiply it by 80 to find a rise in 40 days. How is it relevant to do such math without implying a similar mechanism?

The springs (fountains) of the deep would supply the rising water.

I covered your other musings by giving the total amount of water the atmosphere can hold before it falls on the earth.

God Bless,

Hi Coyote

Coyote writes: Pangea, which was the most recent example of all land being in one mass, broke up some 175 million years ago. Are you suggesting that humans were in existence that long ago?

At least you agree that the land was in one place at one time.

I would just disagree on your time frame.

But yes there was people on earth when the land mass was surrounded by water.

There are several very old clay maps from Babylon, and Sumaria which show a land mass with a large mote around it.

God Bless,

Hi ringo

ringo writes: That isn't what Genesis 1:9 says. It says the waters were gathered together in one place, not the land. There could have been thousands of land masses - and not surprisingly, there are.

So you don't believe all the land mass was in one place in the past.

I thought according to scientific information it had been that way at least three times in the past.

God Bless,

NoNukes, you are missing my point. The Bay of Fundy has been having these 45+ feet tides two times a day for a very long time. They haven't destroyed everything yet.

Where did you make such a point?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

ICANT writes: So you don't believe all the land mass was in one place in the past. I thought according to scientific information it had been that way at least three times in the past. God Bless,

Learn to read. What Ringo and others have told you is that Genesis 1:9 does not say that the land was in one place.

I would just disagree on your time frame.

And what scientific evidence would you use to dispute the time frame?

None, right?

Your disagreement with scientific dating is another example of creationists' use of "rubber band years" to find some date--any date--that might be home to the flood. The fact that humans weren't around 175 million years doesn't seem to be a problem. There was one land mass back then, so creationists stretch the evidence by about 174.8 million years in an effort to support their flood myth.

Good thing creationists aren't real scientists, though they sometimes pretend that they are. A real scientist who tried to stretch the dating like that would be laughed out of whatever profession he was in. With creationists, its just apologetics as usual. If that date doesn't fit, they'll just try some other date.

"Evidence? We don't need no steeenkin' evidence!"

ICANT writes: So you don't believe all the land mass was in one place in the past.

The Bible doesn't say that it was. You'd have to twist what the Bible says to create any consilience with science.

The OP suggests several specific things that we should see if the flood really happened. The age of the earth isn't particularly relevant, nor is any other consilience with science.

Hi Coyote

Coyote writes: And what scientific evidence would you use to dispute the time frame?

The assumptions you have to use to begin with.

God Bless,

Hi NoNukes

NoNukes writes: Where did you make such a point?

In Message 110 I said:

quote:

---

My point was that the water at the Bay of Fundy does not do a lot of damage even though it has a high tide every 12 hours and 25 minutes.

---

In Message 104 I said:

quote:

---

If you look at the Bay of Fundy you can't tell much difference in the looks of everything after the water rises 48 feet then falls 48 feet.

---

God Bless,

If you look at the Bay of Fundy you can't tell much difference in the looks of everything after the water rises 48 feet then falls 48 feet.

Let's consider that argument.

1. What you observe now is what happens after every removable bit of soil has been eroded. Is there some evidence of what happened the first couple of times the tide came in? What would happen if I put up a tent city in the path of that 48 foot flood right now? Nothing?

2. If I noticed that not much changed after a bunch of 4 inch floods, would it be reasonable to assume that nothing much occurred after a single 4000 inch flood?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I didn't say you had to endorse YEC, I wondered how a Christian can simply do away with actual Biblical text.

It is YEC folks who claim that the Bible describes a canopy of water. The Bible actually does not say any such thing. So, yeah, in this case, it is only necessary to dismiss the YEC interpretations. In other situations, folks may question whether the text as written was intended to be interpreted in the literal way that YEC folk are prone to do.

Let's be careful about throwing around accusations that folks "do away with actual Biblical text" the way you do here, particular when the accusation is really intended to classify folks as non-Christian. Despite vigorous disagreements with you regarding what the Bible says, I would not call you a liar simply for expressing your opinion.

Coyote writes: And what scientific evidence would you use to dispute the time frame? The assumptions you have to use to begin with.

Way OT, but the only assumption underlying the time frame is that there is a real world we can investigate with our senses. The YEC three "assumptions" are BS. Modern methods do not assume known initial daughter product or closed system, and the constancy of radioactive decay rates is proven both experimentally and theoretically.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.