[__ Science __ ] How Could the Ark Have Survived the Stresses of the Flood?

[hawkman]

There is no doubt there was a flood , right ?

Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood.

 

[miamited]

Hi Uncle J

It's because an earth with a surface that's 100% water would have nothing to stop winds, waves, storms, etc.

And so it's your understanding that out there 1,000 miles from land in the middle of the southern oceans, the water's all different than everywhere else?

entire mountain ranges were formed during the flood as tectonic plates jetted around the globe, which obviously would result in extremely tumultuous conditions.

Again, that would all be happening under the surface. We have undersea cataclysmic changes in the earth's surface today and other than maybe a tsunami, the water on the surface isn't much affected. And the tsunami is fairly short and done. If one is on a big ship when a tsunami comes roaring across the ocean, which it doesn't really get bad until it gets near land, do all the ships break up? Personally, I believe that what's happening here is that people are making up scenarios that aren't true of the event of the worldwide flood. And because we've never had another, we won't ever know. We can only make up 'how' things might have happened but not know that they did happen as we are trying to explain them.

Here's what I know. God's word says that He flooded the entire earth. Based on the description of that flood, there isn't any way that it would have been some localized flood. Water won't stay high if there are lower places for it to go. So, you might flood the mountain of Ararat by 20' and it might stay for 2-3 days, but it's all going to recede fairly rapidly to the lower places surrounding it that aren't flooded pretty quickly. There just is no way that without flooding the entire earth, that water would stay at flood stage for more than a few days or weeks at most, in some single area of the earth, no matter how big you want to make that flooded area to be. It rained for 40 days and the springs of the deep opened and flooded the mountains, in the area that God is referencing by some 20'. But then the water stayed flooded upon the earth for nearly 6 months. That can't happen if there's lower areas outside of the flood zone for the water to flow into. That's science!!!!

Yes, there is some evidence that the mountains, as high as we now see them, may have been created by the earth's crust opening to allow the springs of the deep to burst forth, but the earth isn't covered by mountains and those mountains would not necessarily cause the surface water to be soooo turbulent that a well built wooden ship the size we are shown in the Scriptures couldn't have just remained floating on top as some rough waves 'may' have passed over the surface. But all of that is conjecture. Go ahead! Fill your bathtub up and move some large plates underneath without your arms sticking down from the top of the water and see how much the surface water is changed. It just isn't a verifiable fact that the tectonic plates moving would make the ocean terribly turbulent on the surface any more than when tectonic plates move under the ocean today.

We can all make assumptions of what we think might have happened in the flood, but unless it happens again or someone you know was there, we can't prove it. As I mentioned before, we see floods coming down from some broken dam or swollen river that sits in the bottom of some deep vally created by mountains. But that water is only 20-30' higher than the water in which it is running. But as that water gets up 50-100' up the sides of the mountains, it calms considerably because of the wider spacing between the mountains. But a broken blown out dam isn't how God explains the flood.

I just am not convinced that it's true that the ark would have had to have been built of titanium or some super strong steel in order to float on the surface as the flood waters rose upon the earth. All of these accounts of how tumultuous the surface 'might' have been come from drawings that people have made who weren't there. They, like yourself, are using their imagination to consider what it 'might' have been like.

Flood waters, act differently under different geological formations of the earth. Also the depth of the flood waters will have an effect on how tumultuous they may be. Do you know why floods in Minnesota aren't particularly problematic to the city of New Orleans sitting at the mouth of the Mississippi river? They settle and spread and lose a vast amount of their initial energy fairly quickly. People in New Orleans, unless they read the news from Minnesota, don't even know that there was a flood 1,000 miles up the little tiny Mississippi in Minnesota.

So, try this imagination on for size. Suppose that Noah built the ark on a plain of land. The flood waters would rise up underneath it and it would just begin to float once the displacement of the ark was lifted off of the earth's surface. It could very likely have been just a fairly slow, maybe a few feet per minute or hour increase in the depth of the water just like when you fill your bathtub. But, of course, a much larger bathtub.

As I noted earlier, it was Christian geologists of the 1800's who first moved away from the global flood model because,

Yes, and that's exactly what the Scriptures describe for us concerning the nature of man as time moves forward. Paul wrote to Timothy about it. That a time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Now, just because someone who says they're a believer tells you something that contradicts God's word, that doesn't mean that they're right... you do know that, right? God's word also warns us that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise. Everybody that I talk to that holds to the 'scientifically proven' theories that we have today generally consider those scientists to be wise.

I believe the earth, and all of the universe from here to however far you can see with the most powerful telescope that we may have, is only about 6,000 years old. I believe that God set it all into place during the six days of His creative work, for which He repeated for us at least three times that He did. I believe that God did flood the entire planet. That there was not one spot of the earth that was not covered in water from pole to pole and circumferencing the equator. I believe that water stayed upon the whole of the earth for the period of days that God's word tells us that it did. I believe in a God who is not only powerful enough to have done all that He claims to have done, but that He also loves and cares for us enough to have told us the truth concerning these things. So that we, mankind, don't ever forget that we're here because God created all things.

For you are worthy our Lord and God to receive all glory and honor and power. For you created all things. By your will they were created and have their being. Mankind is not here because two creatures of some other physical make-up finally was able to birth a man creature. No!!!! We are here because God stooped down and fashioned a form of a man and blew into that form His breath of life. The earth exists because at some point about 6,000 years ago as man accounts time, God merely spoke it to exist and it came to be. Sitting lonely, solitary in all of the black inky universe which is all around us forever and ever and ever. Then, as the earth spun on its axis He separated the waters and brought forth the land and planted all the herbs and created all the other living creatures upon the earth. And at some point in the fourth spin of the earth upon its axis He flung all of the stars and other heavenly bodies out into the vast expanse of the universe. He just spoke it and it happened.

That's how the Scriptures describe it and I'm one who believes that is how it happened. And you know what? If the Scriptures are true... you're going to see Him do it again. This creation is going to be rolled up like a scroll and God will create a new heaven and a new earth. On that day, everyone's going to say to themselves, even those who are trying their darndest to get you to believe that He didn't, "Well, I guess He can do that!"

 

[Uncle J]

The energy required to accelerate all that mass to such velocities and then slow them to the presently-observed rate would have to be released as heat. It would have boiled the oceans. I suppose I can't do the numbers if anyone is interested.

Baumgartner (creationist) did some rough estimates and concluded that none of it could have happened without constant intervention by God, i.e., miracles, which is fine for a religious belief but is a non-starter for science.

 

[Uncle J]

Hi Uncle J

Hey!

And so it's your understanding that out there 1,000 miles from land in the middle of the southern oceans, the water's all different than everywhere else?

No, and I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Again, that would all be happening under the surface. We have undersea cataclysmic changes in the earth's surface today and other than maybe a tsunami, the water on the surface isn't much affected. And the tsunami is fairly short and done.

But those are separate, single events on a very minor scale (only sections of plates moving very small distances for a few seconds). Some creationist flood scenarios OTOH require entire tectonic plates moving long distances and creating entire mountain ranges where none existed before. And as Barbarian noted, not only does that create chaotic sea conditions, it would generate enough heat to boil off all the water and the atmosphere to boot.

If one is on a big ship when a tsunami comes roaring across the ocean, which it doesn't really get bad until it gets near land, do all the ships break up?

See above, the difference in scale is enormous.

Personally, I believe that what's happening here is that people are making up scenarios that aren't true of the event of the worldwide flood. And because we've never had another, we won't ever know. We can only make up 'how' things might have happened but not know that they did happen as we are trying to explain them.

And that's fine as a religious belief. Just like some Mormons have their own beliefs about the history of N. America, some Protestant Christians have their own beliefs about a global flood.

Here's what I know. God's word says that He flooded the entire earth. Based on the description of that flood, there isn't any way that it would have been some localized flood. Water won't stay high if there are lower places for it to go. So, you might flood the mountain of Ararat by 20' and it might stay for 2-3 days, but it's all going to recede fairly rapidly to the lower places surrounding it that aren't flooded pretty quickly. There just is no way that without flooding the entire earth, that water would stay at flood stage for more than a few days or weeks at most, in some single area of the earth, no matter how big you want to make that flooded area to be. It rained for 40 days and the springs of the deep opened and flooded the mountains, in the area that God is referencing by some 20'. But then the water stayed flooded upon the earth for nearly 6 months. That can't happen if there's lower areas outside of the flood zone for the water to flow into. That's science!!!!

Again, that's fine as a religious belief.

Yes, there is some evidence that the mountains, as high as we now see them, may have been created by the earth's crust opening to allow the springs of the deep to burst forth, but the earth isn't covered by mountains and those mountains would not necessarily cause the surface water to be soooo turbulent that a well built wooden ship the size we are shown in the Scriptures couldn't have just remained floating on top as some rough waves 'may' have passed over the surface. But all of that is conjecture. Go ahead! Fill your bathtub up and move some large plates underneath without your arms sticking down from the top of the water and see how much the surface water is changed. It just isn't a verifiable fact that the tectonic plates moving would make the ocean terribly turbulent on the surface any more than when tectonic plates move under the ocean today.

And this is where y'all get yourselves into a tight spot. Rather than just be content with your beliefs, you feel compelled to try and argue that it's not just a belief, but is actually scientifically supported too. And that forces you to 1) attack science and scientists because they rejected those beliefs 200 years ago, and 2) make up all sorts of goofy scenarios (e.g., tectonic plates jetting across the globe) to try and make it seem scientifically plausible.

That always made me wonder why it being in the Bible isn't good enough. Why do you also need the support of science?

We can all make assumptions of what we think might have happened in the flood, but unless it happens again or someone you know was there, we can't prove it. As I mentioned before, we see floods coming down from some broken dam or swollen river that sits in the bottom of some deep vally created by mountains. But that water is only 20-30' higher than the water in which it is running. But as that water gets up 50-100' up the sides of the mountains, it calms considerably because of the wider spacing between the mountains. But a broken blown out dam isn't how God explains the flood.

Yep, and that's why creationists constantly pointing to Mt. St. Helens doesn't work either.

I just am not convinced that it's true that the ark would have had to have been built of titanium or some super strong steel in order to float on the surface as the flood waters rose upon the earth. All of these accounts of how tumultuous the surface 'might' have been come from drawings that people have made who weren't there. They, like yourself, are using their imagination to consider what it 'might' have been like.

Mostly it's just from taking creationists at their word about what happened, going from there, and pointing out some of the most obvious problems.

Flood waters, act differently under different geological formations of the earth. Also the depth of the flood waters will have an effect on how tumultuous they may be. Do you know why floods in Minnesota aren't particularly problematic to the city of New Orleans sitting at the mouth of the Mississippi river? They settle and spread and lose a vast amount of their initial energy fairly quickly. People in New Orleans, unless they read the news from Minnesota, don't even know that there was a flood 1,000 miles up the little tiny Mississippi in Minnesota.

So, try this imagination on for size. Suppose that Noah built the ark on a plain of land. The flood waters would rise up underneath it and it would just begin to float once the displacement of the ark was lifted off of the earth's surface. It could very likely have been just a fairly slow, maybe a few feet per minute or hour increase in the depth of the water just like when you fill your bathtub. But, of course, a much larger bathtub.

You're forgetting entire continental plates crashing around the planet, the land above the "waters of the deep" collapsing into the newly-created empty spaces, etc.

If it really were that calm, why didn't any other people survive it? Why didn't any people from seafaring populations just ride it out? They already had boats, right?

Yes, and that's exactly what the Scriptures describe for us concerning the nature of man as time moves forward. Paul wrote to Timothy about it. That a time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Now, just because someone who says they're a believer tells you something that contradicts God's word, that doesn't mean that they're right... you do know that, right? God's word also warns us that He will make foolish the wisdom of the wise. Everybody that I talk to that holds to the 'scientifically proven' theories that we have today generally consider those scientists to be wise.

How do you know you're not the one with unsound doctrine?

I liken it to the Galileo affair, where some Christians were convinced that the Bible clearly depicted a stationary earth. But eventually when the science became irrefutable they had to change how they read certain passages to accommodate the new info. So maybe the same process is playing out on this subject as well.

I had to cut out the rest of your post due to the max character limit, so I'll just say thanks for sharing your beliefs.

 

[miamited]

Baumgartner (creationist) did some rough estimates and concluded that none of it could have happened without constant intervention by God, i.e., miracles, which is fine for a religious belief but is a non-starter for science.

I agree 100% with that claim.

 

[Uncle J]

I agree 100% with that claim.

Right, and that's why most of these debates about the flood aren't all that useful. It's a religious belief and as long as it involves miracles, it's a scientific non-issue (science cannot test or study gods), which then makes me wonder.....why are we debating then? We may as well be debating the physics of living in heaven.

 

[Uncle J]

There is no doubt there was a flood , right ?

Depends on who you talk to. If it's someone from the scientific community, they'll likely tell you there's no doubt that it didn't happen. OTOH, if it's someone from certain religious groups they'll likely tell you there's no doubt that it did happen.

Native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth. Old world missionaries reported their amazement at finding remote tribes already possessing legends with tremendous similarities to the Bible's accounts of the worldwide flood.

Years ago I debated someone about this and in doing so, I read through several of these indigenous flood stories. I'll just summarize by saying that from what I read, creationists have misrepresented them quite a bit.

 

[miamited]

Hey again Uncle J

No, and I'm not sure what you're getting at.

You made the claim that the water surface would have been rough because there were no mountains to calm the seas, I suppose by breaking up the winds, as we apparently have today. I think that was your point. I'm saying that we have water surfaces that are, in every direction, at least 1,000 miles from any such land features and those surfaces seem to be fairly much as navigable as any other ocean surfaces upon the earth.

But those are separate, single events on a very minor scale (only sections of plates moving very small distances for a few seconds). Some creationist flood scenarios OTOH require entire tectonic plates moving long distances and creating entire mountain ranges where none existed before. And as Barbarian noted, not only does that create chaotic sea conditions, it would generate enough heat to boil off all the water and the atmosphere to boot.

From my understanding of the Scriptures, it doesn't mention anything about tectonic plates moving, but what it does mention is that the springs 'of the deep' burst forth. Now yes, some believe that the 'springs of the deep bursting forth' would have created great tectonic plate movements and that's what created the mountain ranges. That's not a proven position according to the Scriptures, that again, is merely how man seems to be able to figure out that it was done. There's really nothing in the Scriptures describing the event that says anything about mountains being higher or different than they were before, but some want to say that the 20' of water covering the highest mountain must have meant that the mountains were lower. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know, I wasn't there. But as I understand the springs of the deep bursting forth is akin to some vast blow of water coming into the oceans from say the Mariana Trench and some of the other deepest cervices on the deep-sea floor. But that is just my understanding and may or may not be correct. But would fit with the description that the 'springs of the deep burst forth'. Again, water rushing in by the trillions of gallons thousands of feet below the surface of the ocean wouldn't necessarily cause great tumult on the surface. But some believe that the 'springs of the deep' were all over the surface of the land and burst forth on the land. That would have made the water surface tumultuous where those springs were bursting forth, but they may have been hundreds of miles from Noah sitting in the ark. We just don't know, but when God does something it is what we call a miracle. Man cannot explain how He does things.

We can't even explain the seemingly much simpler miracle of how a young Hebrew woman wound up having a baby in her womb without ever having had sperm introduced into her body. Even Mary couldn't figure out how that was going to happen. So, I believe that when God says that He has done something, man can't ever explain it. We can't explain how God made the sun stand still in the sky, but God says that He did. We can't explain how every single family in all of Egypt lost their first-born child in one single night, but God's word says that He did. We can't explain how a shadow can go backwards, but God's word says that He caused that to happen. Even the man that God was using that event to prove himself, said that it was a simple task for the shadow to go forward and so asked that it go backward. Knowing that would only be something that God could do.

I believe that God created this realm in which we exist for the purpose of providing a place for man to live and that He did everything that He tells us that He did in creating this realm. He spoke the earth to exist and populated it with plants and animals and made the atmosphere to sustain oxygen and water for us to live. He flung all of the heavenly bodies into their places by the power and majesty of merely His commanding that it happen... and it did.

Now yes, science isn't willing to accept that all that we see just suddenly popped into existence and we have gathered together those who surround us and fill our itching ears with what we want to hear. I was just reading a news feed today that said one of the differences between American society in the 50's and today is that in the 50's it was generally taught that God created. Now in 2024 our schools teach that evolution and great expanses of time created what we see around us.

The days are coming when men will not put up with sound doctrine. But rather will surround themselves with great teachers who will tell them what their itching ears want to hear. Our need to 'know' all about everything is the same sin that Eve fell victim to. Our itching ears make us want to 'know' everything that we can know. I believe that a lot of what we believe to know about things that happened thousands of years ago is pretty much guess work that is extrapolated from other knowledge that we have.

For example: we believe that the stars are trillions of years old because we believe that there's no way that we could see their light because they are trillions of light years from us. But if God created the stars and lights in the heavens for what He says was His purpose in creating them, man to know seasons and times, then God would want Adam to see all the stars when they were created. Just like God can make a shadow go backwards and a woman who never slept with a man to be pregnant to fulfill his purposes, then He can make the light of the stars visible upon the earth in the moment that they were flung into the heavens. That's the God I know.

Mostly it's just from taking creationists at their word about what happened, going from there, and pointing out some of the most obvious problems.

No! It's believers in the God of love and miracles telling us the truth and believing it... despite what supposedly wise men might try to fill our itching ears with.

I have always said that when science can prove to me how Mary wound up pregnant without having slept with a man, then I'll believe the other stuff they try to tell us is the truth that 'they know'.

You're forgetting entire continental plates crashing around the planet, the land above the "waters of the deep" collapsing into the newly-created empty spaces, etc.

But you don't know that's what happened during the flood. As I said above, the Scriptures don't mention anything about tectonic plates moving. It merely says that the great springs of the deep burst forth. Now, how that came to be, I don't know, you don't know, but God does. And I believe that He has told us the truth in these matters.

 

[miamited]

Years ago I debated someone about this and in doing so, I read through several of these indigenous flood stories. I'll just summarize by saying that from what I read, creationists have misrepresented them quite a bit.

I suppose that in your thinking there's no way that it's the other way around. That the other flood stories, having just been stories handed down by man are not fully correct, but God's account is. Hmmmm? That seems odd to me that one wants to use accounts of other civilizations and accept them as true, but not what God has said.

 

[Barbarian]

Baumgartner (creationist) did some rough estimates and concluded that none of it could have happened without constant intervention by God, i.e., miracles, which is fine for a religious belief but is a non-starter for science.

Once you're allowed to call in a non-scriptural miracle every time your story proves impossible, any story is equally plausible.

 

[Barbarian]

That seems odd to me that one wants to use accounts of other civilizations and accept them as true, but not what God has said.

In fact, there was a huge regional flood in the Middle East at the right time to have been the flood of Noah. Since God never said the flood was worldwide, it's very likely that the story is not a parable, but an actual event.

 

[Uncle J]

You made the claim that the water surface would have been rough because there were no mountains to calm the seas, I suppose by breaking up the winds, as we apparently have today. I think that was your point. I'm saying that we have water surfaces that are, in every direction, at least 1,000 miles from any such land features and those surfaces seem to be fairly much as navigable as any other ocean surfaces upon the earth.

There's a reason why storms tend to strengthen over oceans and weaken as soon as they hit land. And again, the differences in scale between what we see today vs. what we'd see if the entire globe was covered in water are extremely important.

And again I have to apologize for cutting out portions of your post, but I think this all boils down to.....

We just don't know, but when God does something it is what we call a miracle. Man cannot explain how He does things.

Which means there's no point in debating about how rough seas were, how a wooden boat would've fared, or any of the other aspects of the belief. Everyone can believe pretty much whatever they want and anytime it seems implausible, they can just invoke a miracle.

And to repeat, that's fine in religion but not in science. So when a believer in the flood tells me they believe it because that's what the Bible describes, I'm okay with that and will respect their beliefs even if I don't share them. But if that person started going on about how scientists are part of some anti-God, anti-Bible, satanic conspiracy, or something similar, that's when we have a problem.

We can't even explain the seemingly much simpler miracle of how a young Hebrew woman wound up having a baby in her womb without ever having had sperm introduced into her body. Even Mary couldn't figure out how that was going to happen. So, I believe that when God says that He has done something, man can't ever explain it. We can't explain how God made the sun stand still in the sky, but God says that He did. We can't explain how every single family in all of Egypt lost their first-born child in one single night, but God's word says that He did. We can't explain how a shadow can go backwards, but God's word says that He caused that to happen. Even the man that God was using that event to prove himself, said that it was a simple task for the shadow to go forward and so asked that it go backward. Knowing that would only be something that God could do.

I believe that God created this realm in which we exist for the purpose of providing a place for man to live and that He did everything that He tells us that He did in creating this realm. He spoke the earth to exist and populated it with plants and animals and made the atmosphere to sustain oxygen and water for us to live. He flung all of the heavenly bodies into their places by the power and majesty of merely His commanding that it happen... and it did.

Understood.

Now yes, science isn't willing to accept that all that we see just suddenly popped into existence

It's not that scientists aren't willing to consider that as a possibility, rather it's that they'll need to see evidence of such a thing and "it was a miracle" doesn't suffice as an explanation or mechanism. As I pointed out before, that's because gods can't be scientifically tested or studied.

I was just reading a news feed today that said one of the differences between American society in the 50's and today is that in the 50's it was generally taught that God created. Now in 2024 our schools teach that evolution and great expanses of time created what we see around us.

Many were also taught in the 50's that blacks were inferior and should be kept separate from the rest of society.

The days are coming when men will not put up with sound doctrine. But rather will surround themselves with great teachers who will tell them what their itching ears want to hear. Our need to 'know' all about everything is the same sin that Eve fell victim to. Our itching ears make us want to 'know' everything that we can know. I believe that a lot of what we believe to know about things that happened thousands of years ago is pretty much guess work that is extrapolated from other knowledge that we have.

Well, I'm certainly glad not everyone shares your lack of curiosity.

For example: we believe that the stars are trillions of years old because we believe that there's no way that we could see their light because they are trillions of light years from us. But if God created the stars and lights in the heavens for what He says was His purpose in creating them, man to know seasons and times, then God would want Adam to see all the stars when they were created. Just like God can make a shadow go backwards and a woman who never slept with a man to be pregnant to fulfill his purposes, then He can make the light of the stars visible upon the earth in the moment that they were flung into the heavens. That's the God I know.

Well yeah, you can play the "God just made it look that way" card in any situation. It's the basis of the "Last Thursdayism" rhetorical (God created everything last Thursday, but miraculously made everything seem older).

But you don't know that's what happened during the flood. As I said above, the Scriptures don't mention anything about tectonic plates moving. It merely says that the great springs of the deep burst forth. Now, how that came to be, I don't know, you don't know, but God does. And I believe that He has told us the truth in these matters.

Well like I said, from a purely scientific standpoint it's been a non-issue for over 200 years now. If some folks want to continue to believe in it for religious reasons, more power to 'em.

 

[Uncle J]

Once you're allowed to call in a non-scriptural miracle every time your story proves impossible, any story is equally plausible.

Bingo!!

 

[miamited]

Everyone can believe pretty much whatever they want and anytime it seems implausible, they can just invoke a miracle.

Yes, everyone can do that. But in the case under discussion God is the one who made the claims. I don't hold Him to be limited to 'everyone' as refers to mankind.

Look, you don't have to believe as I do, but it is what the Scriptures detail as regards the event under discussion. Frankly, I think this idea that the waters of the flood would have been so tumultuous that a large ship designed by God couldn't have weathered it, is merely a work of our imaginings. As I've asked, why do we suppose that the waters covering the earth during the flood would have been particularly more tumultuous than the waters that cover the earth today in our oceans? And we do today have plenty of ocean surface where winds travel freely for thousands of miles over the water before hitting any land feature. Why would the fact that there are no land features necessarily mean that the oceans would be rougher because the wind doesn't hit a land feature at all vs. wind not hitting a land feature for thousands of miles? I don't think you can prove that hypothesis, but I'm willing to look at your data on the matter.

If the springs of the deep were in the deeper parts of the existing oceans of those days, then the surface wouldn't have been particularly different than they are today. If the tectonic plates moved below the surface of the water, why would it make the oceans any more precarious than tectonic plate movements make the surface of our oceans today? Why?

As I've said, I think this is merely an effort to 'imagine' in our minds something that we honestly have no way of knowing what the reality of the event would have been like.

 

[Uncle J]

Yes, everyone can do that. But in the case under discussion God is the one who made the claims. I don't hold Him to be limited to 'everyone' as refers to mankind.

Sure, and like I said...more power to ya.

Look, you don't have to believe as I do, but it is what the Scriptures detail as regards the event under discussion. Frankly, I think this idea that the waters of the flood would have been so tumultuous that a large ship designed by God couldn't have weathered it, is merely a work of our imaginings. As I've asked, why do we suppose that the waters covering the earth during the flood would have been particularly more tumultuous than the waters that cover the earth today in our oceans? And we do today have plenty of ocean surface where winds travel freely for thousands of miles over the water before hitting any land feature. Why would the fact that there are no land features necessarily mean that the oceans would be rougher because the wind doesn't hit a land feature at all vs. wind not hitting a land feature for thousands of miles? I don't think you can prove that hypothesis, but I'm willing to look at your data on the matter.

If the springs of the deep were in the deeper parts of the existing oceans of those days, then the surface wouldn't have been particularly different than they are today. If the tectonic plates moved below the surface of the water, why would it make the oceans any more precarious than tectonic plate movements make the surface of our oceans today? Why?

As I've said, I think this is merely an effort to 'imagine' in our minds something that we honestly have no way of knowing what the reality of the event would have been like.

Again, I understand why you believe as you do. It's in the Bible, you believe the Bible is the literal Word of God, so if the Bible says there was a recent global flood, then there was a recent global flood. Everything else stems from that....wondering about how the seas were, how the boat fared, where the water came from, etc.....it all proceeds directly from belief in the Bible.

My point was simply that without that starting point (the Bible), just looking at the physical evidence around us and nothing more would never, ever lead anyone to the conclusion that the entire earth was flooded just a few thousand years ago and all life on earth was wiped out except what rode aboard a wooden boat.

That's why scientists moved on from the global flood model 200 years ago. It's not because of some anti-God or anti-Bible agenda or bias, it's simply because the physical evidence points a completely different direction, nothing more.

That's why oil and gas companies utilize an old-earth, non-flood model in their exploration and extraction work. It just plain works.

So by all means, continue to believe as you wish, just please stop bashing and demonizing people who are just doing their jobs (not you specifically Ted, just a general plea).

 

[miamited]

Mornin' Uncle J

My point was simply that without that starting point (the Bible), just looking at the physical evidence around us and nothing more would never, ever lead anyone to the conclusion that the entire earth was flooded just a few thousand years ago and all life on earth was wiped out except what rode aboard a wooden boat.

That's why scientists moved on from the global flood model 200 years ago. It's not because of some anti-God or anti-Bible agenda or bias, it's simply because the physical evidence points a completely different direction, nothing more.

Absolutely, just like man can't answer 'how' that young Jewish girl came to be pregnant, but all who have their faith and trust in God know that she did. The world tosses about stories like someone, like a Roman soldier, raped her. Or she was promiscuous, but because of the 'culture' of that day, she and Joseph had to make up a story to explain her pregnancy and everyone was talking about virgin women having babies because it's mentioned in the stories of the ancient Jews about some god that they believed in. Or just that the entire account is some fable that didn't really happen. But all the cultures of that day believed in various and sundry gods and the Jews had one for themselves, also.

But as I said, if the Scriptures are true, you're going to see it happen again. And when it does, we'll all know how long it takes for our Creator God to make and form things that were not, but now are.

The Scriptures tell us that the heavens declare the glory of God. That's because the heavens show us the majestic and perfect power of our Creator God. But I hope for you a healthy and satisfying new year. One day every eye will see the power and majesty of the God who Created all that exists.

The righteous shall live be faith.

 

[miamited]

In fact, there was a huge regional flood in the Middle East at the right time to have been the flood of Noah. Since God never said the flood was worldwide, it's very likely that the story is not a parable, but an actual event.

Hi Barbarian

Right! And the waters flooded this region for 6 months. Got it.

 

[KV-44-v1]

That's what it did.

He nearly became an atheist himself

Pick one.

turn out in the long run to be true?”

That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said ‘No!’

That was his opinion. What was his rebuttal to YEC? just denial?

YEC is a very efficient athiest-maker.

Why is it athiests who are being made by the colleges and education system, then?
One "example" (which, as youve seen, proves the exact opposite of the point youre trying to make) does not warrant the use of the term "efficient".

Watson and Crick got their Nobels for discovering the molecular mechanism of descent with modification.

And that modification is supposed to extraaaapolte into Bird-Dino evolution how??

The discovery that abiotic amino acids have an excess of L-forms shows why they became the dominant (but not exclusive) form of amino acids in living things. D-aspartic acid and D-serine for example. The evidence from living things is that L-forms are more common than D-forms in abiotic amino acids and peptides, something since confirmed by the material found in meteorites.

New study provides novel insights into the cosmic evolution of amino acids

All biological amino acids on Earth appear exclusively in their left-handed form, but the reason underlying this observation is elusive. Recently, scientists uncovered new clues about the cosmic origin of this asymmetry. Based on the optical properties of amino acids found on the Murchison...

www.sciencedaily.com

Ok

Guess how we know you don't read a lot of medical and scientific journals. One important one was the warning by Sir Alexander Flemming (discoverer of penicillin) that overuse of the antibiotic would lead to the evolution of resistant form of bacteria,

How does penicillin kill things? Did it lose genetic info? Did the bacteria already have that potential in their DNA, it was not "made"?

a prediction that was eventually verified by observed evolution of such resistance.

Too bad nobody can demonstrate that novel, unique DNA was being made, as opposed to a loss or that the needed DNA was already there. Oh well.

But as you fellow YE creationist, Dr. Wise admits, transitional between the two are well-documented.

Sometimes people are Wrong. Even YEC arent infallible.

 

[KV-44-v1]

The energy required to accelerate all that mass to such velocities and then slow them to the presently-observed rate would have to be released as heat. It would have boiled the oceans. I suppose I can't do the numbers if anyone is interested.

1. The earth's mantle could easily have absorbed and provided such energy.
2. Nobody knows for certain what the pre-flood composition and environment of Earth was like except based on the little info provided in the Bible, which Allegorists want to take away from us by claiming it was never real, but a story, and that earth today is nearly identical to how it was pre-Flood.

 

[KV-44-v1]

God never said there was a worldwide flood, s

God never said Genesis was allegory. You just added that.

What was the promise God made in Genesis then? Thats not real either? Thats one of the socalled "Yec inventions"?