Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

http://aventalearning.com/...007BiologyB/unit6/section3.html Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

And you think this cartoon of reconstructed continental plates is a detailed realistic map of the late Palaeozoic? Seriously? I mean google non-marine sediments for this period - there were obviously lakes present not shown on this cartoon.Fail

Good grief, man, just look up "Pangaea." That's just one of the many maps you'll find of this supposed supercontinent. It ought to show you that you are wrong about a former land mass that contained all the land masses in one. Your argument is with Geological science, not with me.

OK, here's what I get. Note the multiple landmasses and multiple water bodies?

Here's another one. Definitely not all the water is in one place here...

And another - multiple bodies of land and water. In fact there are so many I'm amazed you couldn't find a single one.

Faith's own source says that her map happened millions of years ago. It's funny how she cherry-picks the parts she likes and ignores the rest. It's right when it agrees with her misinterpretation of the Bible but the same source is wrong when it disagrees with her other misinterpretation of the Bible.

In Faith's defense, she did refer to the "supposed" continent Pangea. Also, the question about water being all in one place was not in the portion of ICANTs message that was quoted, which explains Faiths initial post.

I guess it just doesn't pay to contribute something to help out. I have no idea what the complaints are all about, they make no sense to me. ICANT was talking about a single land mass as described by science, not just the Bible, and to me that's Pangaea which is pretty standard stuff, THE supercontinent as found on any number of science sites. So I found A map of it and posted it only to hear how wrong it is.So Boof put up another map which has more detail and declared it right and mine wrong, though it's simply a more detailed version of Pangaea. Now ringo is accusing me of cherry-picking for some nefarious purpose having to do with the Bible, which hadn't entered my mind. I honestly don't get this. All the maps are maps of Pangaea, some are more detailed than others. The fact that passages of water appear more clearly in the more detailed one does not make it any less a supercontinent and it's always called a supercontinent, one land mass, as far as I've ever seen.(I really don't know what to make of Pangaea, how it was put together; I don't have any reason to affirm or dispute it. I accept that befpre the Flood there was one land mass that split up but whether Pangaea is a fair representation of it or not I have no opinion, and I certainly have no reason to choose one map of it over another.)Weird but just another typical weird day at EvC.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Bible does not say there was ever a single land mass.But the topic has to do with describing what the Biblical flood would be like.Pangaea is of course irrelevant to ANYTHING related to one of the Biblical flood stories.To try to get away from more of ICANTs nonsense, here is the OP again.

quote:

---

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?

---

Other than those items what should be seen if one of the Biblical flood stories actually happened?

Well maybe if you read a few of ICANT's posts, and my post that you responded, to you might be less confused. Let me recap.This is from the first half a dozen or so posts of his in this thread, before I got bored: And he claims that this is supported by the Bible (wrong), science (wrong) and logic (wrong). I was just focussing on the science aspect, which is why I asked him to find a scientific document that supports his claim that science agrees with him that all the land mass was in one place at one time and that all the water was in one place at one time. To bring up a cartoon representation of a Pangaea reconstruction (clearly ignoring scientific evidence there were land-locked bodies of water present during Pangaea time, and various other reconstructions showing multiple land bodies and water bodies likely did exist) is not helpful.

I had followed what ICANT was saying and I couldn't see why you objected to the idea of a single land mass, and I still don't, nor why you find my "cartoon" map a problem. Pangaea is always described as a supercontinent which implies one mass; the presence of water passages seems designed more to show where it will eventually split apart than to suggest it's not a single land mass. Those water passages are also indicated on my cartoon map anyway. I think you are making a big deal out of nothing.The idea of the water collecting in one place doesn't seem to be a problem to me either, just a way of saying if the land is all in one place then so is the water in one place.But I'm sorry I interfered.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm led to believe that you agree with ICANT that Pangaea was a single land mass combining all of our current continents yet without a single lake, loch, pond, lagoon, waterhole within. No big deal I guess, but it does make me wonder what all of those humans and animals wandering around at the time were drinking...

I guess I failed to grasp that you think any interior body of water makes it not a single land mass? Does that mean that North America isn't a single land mass because of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River etc?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are right about that.The issue is here is that ICANT argues for a combination of a single land mass with all of the water in one place. Interior bodies of water are not allowed.