Some thoughts on the Flood

[_just me]

However, we know that the biblical addresses this. Perhaps not this problem specifically, but we know that before the flood, we did not eat meant, and animals did not eat each other. Second, we know that God instantly changed the structure or appearance of the creature that satan used to entice Eve. I would assume this would involve some kind DNA modification.

When you say animals did not eat eachother does this extend to every layer of the ecosystem? The oceanic animals, dinosaurs, misquitoes, everything? Everything fed on plants only according to the Bible from Adam to Noah....4000 BCE to 2500 BCE?

[_Rambo]

As you know, the Bible doesn't tell us about animal migration after the flood. My point, however, is that it seems terrible difficult to super-impose the way the earth looks now on the earth immediately (relatively) after the flood. It would seem that there would be significant environmental consequences to a catastrophic flood of this size that could cause any number of events to make animal migration possible.

Well if the flood was only 40 days then all that would happen would be the loose rocks would move and everything would be pretty freaking wet. I would think a lot of vegitation would die as well. As far as the actual land masses go I really doubt much would happen to them.

I'm not trying to sound condescending but have you ever taken a university geography, geology, fluid dynamic, and a physics course? I'm not trying to be rude but there seems to be a lack of education.

Then again shades probably doesn't think I have taken an english course before.

[_Hoops]

However, we know that the biblical addresses this. Perhaps not this problem specifically, but we know that before the flood, we did not eat meant, and animals did not eat each other. Second, we know that God instantly changed the structure or appearance of the creature that satan used to entice Eve. I would assume this would involve some kind DNA modification.

When you say animals did not eat eachother does this extend to every layer of the ecosystem? The oceanic animals, dinosaurs, misquitoes, everything? Everything fed on plants only according to the Bible from Adam to Noah....4000 BCE to 2500 BCE?

Pretty much. there is some differentiation for insects, but, yeah, that's what it tells us.

[_zeezrom]

The Bible tells us that the fountains of the deep were unleashed. Possibly by hugely significant volcanic activity. That alone might cause shifting of land masses in whatever proportions. In addition, when the waters receded back to underground, that might cause other manipulations of land masses.

volcanoes and artesian wells moved continents thousands of miles in the short time after the flood? The continents are not floating land masses but rather part of the earth's surface.

Waters receded to where? outer space?

[_just me]

As you know, the Bible doesn't tell us about animal migration after the flood. My point, however, is that it seems terrible difficult to super-impose the way the earth looks now on the earth immediately (relatively) after the flood. It would seem that there would be significant environmental consequences to a catastrophic flood of this size that could cause any number of events to make animal migration possible.

Well if the flood was only 40 days then all that would happen would be the loose rocks would move and everything would be pretty freaking wet. I would think a lot of vegitation would die as well. As far as the actual land masses go I really doubt much would happen to them.

I'm not trying to sound condescending but have you ever taken a university geography, geology, fluid dynamic, and a physics course? I'm not trying to be rude but there seems to be a lack of education.

Then again shades probably doesn't think I have taken an english course before.

Actually the Flood lasted about a year. It rained for 40 days solid. The fact is it would have killed every single living thing on dry ground. The stuff in the oceans would probably have been okay, I guess. However, there is the issue of salt water versus fresh water.

It would have taken a really, really long time for the ecosystem to recover and all the animals would have been dead by then....incuding humans.

How did they fit a year supply of vegetable matter on the ark for every living thing that was on it. That would be tons of food PER DAY needed.

[_dogmatic]

Adam to Noah....4000 BCE to 2500 BCE?

I think that's where Noah's flood argument gets problematic.. you have to go back to the young earth old earth thing. If noah happened much earlier, say, 75,000 years ago, where science says that all races of men came from one point. Or if it was before the plates shifted..etc.. then you could use that in the argument.. but i haven't looked into this at all. just throwing it out there. Maybe someone has.

[_Hoops]

Well if the flood was only 40 days then all that would happen would be the loose rocks would move and everything would be pretty freaking wet.

The flood was 40 days, the waters receding would have taken years.

I would think a lot of vegitation would die as well.

A lot of it probably did. But the vegetation, in small bits, only had to survive for the 40 days you mentioned above. That's not unthinkable at all.

As far as the actual land masses go I really doubt much would happen to them.

That's fine. All I'm saying is that I wonder how it's possible to test the sheer magnitude of the effects of that much water.

I'm not trying to sound condescending but have you ever taken a university geography,

Been a while.

geology,

Been a while.

fluid dynamic,

No.

and a physics course?

Been a while.

I'm not trying to be rude

You're usually not, so I'm not taking it that way.

but there seems to be a lack of education.

In this kind of science? Yes, of course. I'm just trying to explain the biblical record and offer possibilities.

[_just me]

Waters receded to where? outer space?

That is a good question. We know today that water evaporates back up in to the clouds. Then it comes back down again. I don't think there is enough water in the world/clouds to make a worldwide flood.

I'm not sure the water canopy theory is possible without God making the excess water disappear. And if God made it disappear he could have made the water appear to begin with making the water canopy theory unnecessary.

[_Hoops]

Adam to Noah....4000 BCE to 2500 BCE?

I think that's where Noah's flood argument gets problematic.. you have to go back to the young earth old earth thing. If noah happened much earlier, say, 75,000 years ago, where science says that all races of men came from one point. Or if it was before the plates shifted..etc.. then you could use that in the argument.. but i haven't looked into this at all. just throwing it out there. Maybe someone has.

The Bible does indicate that all men came from one place - using "one place" in a broad sense. I'm sure you know the tower of babel story, which was relatively close to Noah's flood.

[_Hoops]

That is a good question. We know today that water evaporates back up in to the clouds. Then it comes back down again. I don't think there is enough water in the world/clouds to make a worldwide flood.

I'm not sure the water canopy theory is possible without God making the excess water disappear. And if God made it disappear he could have made the water appear to begin with making the water canopy theory unnecessary.

There was some evaporation, one would assume. But you'll remember that the climate before the flood was much different than what we have (and that has implications even beyond this narrow discussion). Nonetheless, there was no rain before the flood so one might assume there were no clouds. Also, there was, presumably, much more land mass then. Finally, that amount of water receding BACK to "the fountains of the deep" surely created huge amounts of energy. Some here will say that's still not enough to alter the landscape in the way I described. Okay. I don't know. Just offering possibilities.