Some thoughts on the Flood

[_Themis]

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.

You are right at least in that you do not know. Offering the possibilities you have been shows us how ignorant you are about scientific knowledge. I am not being condescending, but this is just the facts. You certainly are not alone either. I cannot really go into more detail here becuase you lack so muck knowledge it would be a fruitless en-devour, and I suspect your mind is to closed to make serious efforts to learn science from the scientific community. This really is where people have to start in order to really understand why a global flood is ludicrous. I try not to waste to much time debating this issue, and would rather talk about science separately in order for a person to learn scientific principles without feeling their beliefs are being attacked and then they have a better chance of questioning it themselves later on.

[_just me]

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

How did they fit the hundreds of thousands of tons of food on the ark? Where did they get all the extra food? How did they have enough vessels to hold rain water every day to hand out to everything to drink? Where did they get water to drink after the rain stopped?

What of the fossils that show that there were omnivores and carnivores prior to 2500 BCE? The ecosystem works because everything isn't fighting for the same food. If everything only ate plants there would be huge problems. How could the ocean produce enough vegetable matter for all the animals in there? How could the earth produce enough vegetable matter for every single animal?

Why would all those dead animals just lie their to rot without the scavengers coming to pick at them? What a waste. The ecosystem works so well because it is tiered.
If people didn't eat meat did they not use any animal products? Did they kill animals just for their skins and leave the meat to rot in the sun? Did they go pick the bones out of rotten carcases to use for their purposes? The idea that good meat was just left to rot is so horrid to me.

There is a place where archeologists have found a cliff that people stampeded a herd over about 8,500 years ago. They were only able to butcher about 2/3rds of the kill. They killed the animals to eat the meat.
We have so much archeology showing animals and humans hunting and eating eachother. Why have sharp teeth if you aren't going to use them? Why be able to run super fast if you have no need of chasing or fleeing? It makes no logical sense whatsoever.


Whoa, whoa, whoa. OK. I just starting readin an apologetic on the CARM website here: http://carm.org/species-procreating-after-noahs-ark

It reminded me that Noah did not leave the ark until an olive leaf had sprouted. That would have taken such a long time. The flood lasted long enough to not only kill the trees but probably the seeds as well.

We had a hail storm two years ago and a friend has grape vines that haven't produced since. Something as catastrophic as a worldwide flood would be expected to negatively impact the growth of vegetation even worse. Just because the water went away doesn't mean everything could just go on as usual.

I think their are oxygen problems with the worldwide flood, too. Living vegetation is needed for the production of oxygen.

[_just me]

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.

How did everything survive for 1500 years with no rain?

[_dogmatic]

[url]How did everything survive for 1500 years with no rain?[/url]
misting on the ground

[_dogmatic]

[url]How did everything survive for 1500 years with no rain?[/url]
misting on the ground is what I've heard

[_just me]

[url]How did everything survive for 1500 years with no rain?[/url]
misting on the ground is what I've heard

OMG, I had to stop and stare at your avatar for, like, a whole minute. SOOOOOO adorable!!!!!!!!!!!!

How is misting different than raining? Heh. Did they explain that part?

[_Rambo]

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.

Maybe a scale model could be made?

Thanks for the answers Hoops. You actually remind me of my buddy. He believes in many things that you believe and he gives answers according to what is written in scriptures. I may not understand the way of thinking but I think he is smart and a great guy.

[_Rambo]

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.

Hoops, do you have the scripture references to no rain before the flood? Oh and do you have the one to no eating other animals before the flood?
Thanks!

[_Hoops]

You are right at least in that you do not know.

I have as much confidence in you as you do in me.

Offering the possibilities you have been shows us how ignorant you are about scientific knowledge.

Perhaps. I thought they might good points for discussion.

I am not being condescending, but this is just the facts.

Of course you are. These discussions inevitably descend to this. See below.

I cannot really go into more detail here becuase you lack so muck knowledge it would be a fruitless en-devour,

and I suspect your mind is to closed to make serious efforts to learn science from the scientific community.

I can say the same of you. And do.

This really is where people have to start in order to really understand why a global flood is ludicrous. I try not to waste to much time debating this issue, and would rather talk about science separately in order for a person to learn scientific principles without feeling their beliefs are being attacked and then they have a better chance of questioning it themselves later on.

How utterly magnaminous. What your forgetting, or choosing to ignore, is that we know that the earth, and its inahbitants, experienced a dramatic and incomprehensible change during the flood. I'm not sure one would EXPECT science to always match up.

[_Runtu]

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.

Land masses are not affected much by the movement of water, other than erosion (which, as you're aware, takes an awful long time), because the water sits on top of the continental plates. The continents move because of plate growth at specific junctures between plates, with growing in a consistent direction because of convection currents in the underlying molten rock.

The age of the surface rock tends to get older as you move away from the growth points, and the old rock is eventually subsumed under an adjoining plate. Furthermore, the earth's magnetic polarity has reversed with some regularity every 10,000 years or so. Igneous rock is magnetized toward the pole that was "north" when it emerged from the growth point. The shifts in magnetic orientation of undersea rock appear as regular "stripes" that correspond to the reversal of polarity. And they accord quite nicely with the other methods of radiologically dating undersea rock.

The science is pretty solid as to how long it took for the continents to separate, what the effects were on flora and fauna, and what the original land masses looked like. A rapid "division" of the land would look different from what we see in the geological and biological record.

As for marsupials, even assuming that the land masses were all joined and sprung apart after the flood, why did they end up only in two locations? Australia was originally joined to the east coast of Africa or East Gondwana, whereas South America was joined to west Africa. There's still a long distance between both groups of marsupials. If they spread out that broadly over the souther half of the continent, why don't we see any remnant of a marsupial migration from the landing place of the ark? For your "hopping" theory to work, they would have had to hop without stopping, with not a single animal remaining or even dying en route. The likelihood, again, is unbelievably small.