Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

Zzyzx and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate on the Biblical flood.

The question for us to debate:
Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

Here are the relevant verses:

Genesis - Chapter 6

Gen 6:5 ¶ And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.


Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.


Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.


Gen 6:9 ¶ These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.


Gen 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.


Gen 6:11 ¶ The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.


Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.


Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.


Gen 6:14 ¶ Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.


Gen 6:15 And this [is the fashion] which thou shalt make it [of]: The length of the ark [shall be] three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.


Gen 6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; [with] lower, second, and third [stories] shalt thou make it.


Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.


Gen 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.


Gen 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every [sort] shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep [them] alive with thee; they shall be male and female.


Gen 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every [sort] shall come unto thee, to keep [them] alive.


Gen 6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather [it] to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.


Gen 6:22 ¶ Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Genesis - Chapter 7

Gen 7:1 ¶ And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.


Gen 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that [are] not clean by two, the male and his female.


Gen 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.


Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.


Gen 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.


Gen 7:6 And Noah [was] six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.


Gen 7:7 ¶ And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.


Gen 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that [are] not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,


Gen 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.


Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.


Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.


Gen 7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.


Gen 7:13 ¶ In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark;


Gen 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.


Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life.


Gen 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.


Gen 7:17 ¶ And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.


Gen 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.


Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that [were] under the whole heaven, were covered.


Gen 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.


Gen 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:


Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.


Gen 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained [alive], and they that [were] with him in the ark.


Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.


Genesis - Chapter 8

Gen 8:1 ¶ And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that [was] with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged;


Gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;


Gen 8:3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.


Gen 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.


Gen 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.


Gen 8:6 ¶ And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:


Gen 8:7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.


Gen 8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;


Gen 8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters [were] on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.


Gen 8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;


Gen 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth [was] an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.


Gen 8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.


Gen 8:13 ¶ And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first [month], the first [day] of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.


Gen 8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.


Gen 8:15 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, saying,


Gen 8:16 Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee.


Gen 8:17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that [is] with thee, of all flesh, [both] of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth.


Gen 8:18 And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him:


Gen 8:19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, [and] whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark.


Gen 8:20 ¶ And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.


Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.


Gen 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.


Genesis - Chapter 9

Gen 9:1 ¶ And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.


Gen 9:2 And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth [upon] the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.


Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.


Gen 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.


Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.


Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


Gen 9:7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.


Gen 9:8 ¶ And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,


Gen 9:9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;


Gen 9:10 And with every living creature that [is] with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.


Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.


Gen 9:12 And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:


Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.


Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:


Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.


Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that [is] upon the earth.


Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This [is] the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that [is] upon the earth.


Gen 9:18 ¶ And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan.


Gen 9:19 These [are] the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

[otseng]

I will be arguing from the position that the Biblical account of the flood in Genesis is to be taken literally.

The entire world was covered with water. It was not a localized flood. And it was not a mythical story.

[Zzyzx]

I will be arguing from the position that the Biblical account of the flood in Genesis is to be taken literally.

The entire world was covered with water. It was not a localized flood. And it was not a mythical story.

Thank you, Sir, for a very solid opening.

I will argue that the flood account should not be taken literally.

Opening gambit.

As a person who studied scientific fields and who taught university courses in Geology, Geography, Earth Science, Meteorology and Climatology, I have difficulty accepting as literal the claim that 40 days and 40 nights (960 hours) of rainfall (even supposedly augmented with water from the interior of the Earth) could produce the flooding described in the Genesis account. All mountains would have to be covered to meet the criteria supposedly set by god “every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth” (7:4), “and the mountains were covered” (7:20).

Point #1) The rate of rainfall required to fulfill biblical claim.

Rough calculation of the rate of rainfall required is simple division. Mt Everest must have been flooded to meet the bible’s “mountains were covered” description. It is 29,028 feet above sea level. Divide 29,028 by 40 (days) and again by 24 (hours) = 30.24 feet per hour. Subtracting continental mass above sea level changes the calculation very little (2.5 miles average continental elevation, 25% of the Earth’s surface = reduction of 3300 feet = ten percent less than 30 feet = 27 feet per hour)

There is no known atmospheric condition capable of producing 25+ FEET of rainfall per HOUR – and this rate would have to been maintained for 960 hours (almost six weeks). Twenty-five feet is enough water to cover the roof of a two story house – every hour – of every day – for six weeks.

That amount of water falling from the sky would require a veritable waterfall upon every square foot of the Earth’s surface. There is mention of water from other sources – but the total “added water” must amount to thirty feet per hour upon every square foot of the Earth’s surface, including oceans.

The record monsoon rain that flooded Bombay in 2005 was approximately three feet in 24 hours – 1/240 as much. The wettest climates on Earth have about 400 inches (33 feet) of rain per YEAR – a little over one inch per day average (1/327 as much). For the biblical account to be true every place on earth must receive as much rain every hour for almost one thousand hours as the wettest places actually receive in a year.

Opinion begins here:

Incredible (defined as: too extraordinary and improbable to be believed). Not credible. Not believable. Not literal. IMO.

A logical explanation, In My Opinion, is that the Bronze Age clerics told a fantastic story to enhance the apparent power of their proposed god. Their level of knowledge about the Earth and its natural processes did not allow them to temper their claims with reason and information. Their exaggerations may not have been challenged by Bronze Age listeners who suffered similar limitations of information and understanding. However, the extravagant claims do not withstand scrutiny based modern knowledge about the Earth and its processes.

Continuing My Opinion: Fanciful accounts were eventually recorded and became embedded in Christian lore to be included in what is known as the Christian Bible (and its predecessor literature). Many modern Christians may be inclined to defend the biblical account as literal because admitting that biblical accounts are non-literal opens the entire work to doubt. If non-literal parts occur throughout the work and are inseparable from other parts, there is no rational way to distinguish actual, literal truth (if any exists). It is also difficult to defend a non-literal Bible as “the word of God”, “divinely inspired”, “inerrant” or “infallible” – or as anything more significant than fanciful and fictional tales of people who did not know much about the Earth.

A creator god would, of course, have known about the Earth.

[otseng]

As a person who studied scientific fields and who taught university courses in Geology, Geography, Earth Science, Meteorology and Climatology

I didn't know this prior to accepting to debate you. Perhaps it's better that I didn't. But, I look forward to the challenge of debating someone schooled in the geological sciences.

I have difficulty accepting as literal the claim that 40 days and 40 nights (960 hours) of rainfall (even supposedly augmented with water from the interior of the Earth) could produce the flooding described in the Genesis account. All mountains would have to be covered to meet the criteria supposedly set by god “every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth” (7:4), “and the mountains were covered” (7:20).

Given the current heights of the mountains and that if the water only came from rainfall, I would agree that it could not possibly explain how all the mountains could be covered by water.

In the next few posts, I'll present the Flood Model to account for where all the water came from and how it covered all the mountains.

First I'll state that my main primary source is In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walt Brown. I don't agree with everything Brown presents, but I do agree with his general idea of the hydroplate theory. To avoid debates about whether it can really be considered a scientific theory (which I believe it is), I'll be referring to the explanation as the Flood Model (FM).

Also, I'll be drawing from several existing threads that deal with the flood. The main thread is Global Flood - Was the whole world covered by water?. So, I'll be copying several posts from there to here. Other relevant threads that I'll be using are: Plate Tectonics, Scablands and a catastrophic flood, Drumlins, Ribbed Moraines, and Giant Ripples, and Glacial Erratics.

[otseng]

Continuing My Opinion: Fanciful accounts were eventually recorded and became embedded in Christian lore to be included in what is known as the Christian Bible (and its predecessor literature). Many modern Christians may be inclined to defend the biblical account as literal because admitting that biblical accounts are non-literal opens the entire work to doubt. If non-literal parts occur throughout the work and are inseparable from other parts, there is no rational way to distinguish actual, literal truth (if any exists).

One quick response to this.

There is a scientific theory that the entire Earth was once entirely covered with ice/snow. This is not considered quack science and active research is being pursued on this. Yet, the idea that whole world was covered with water is immediately scorned and rejected. I would say this is a bit hypocritical and that the only reason water is rejected is because it is presented in the Bible. But, if one considers the evidence without having any bias beforehand, I believe that the FM is a reasonable explanation.

[Zzyzx]

As a person who studied scientific fields and who taught university courses in Geology, Geography, Earth Science, Meteorology and Climatology

I didn't know this prior to accepting to debate you. Perhaps it's better that I didn't. But, I look forward to the challenge of debating someone schooled in the geological sciences.

Pardon me for not clearly stating my background. I have been rather open about that in many threads and thought it was general knowledge. My mistake. Sorry.

My area of specialization in academia was fluvial geomorphology -- study of the landforms in relation to the action of flowing water. That is within the overall fields of physical geography (particularly landforms) and geology (particularly Earth processes).

If my background in science puts either of us in an awkward position, perhaps we should reconsider having a debate on the flood topic. Part of my reason for suggesting that topic was your interest in science.

I do not glorify schooling and make a strong distinction between what occurs under that title and what constitutes true education. I was fortunate to have experienced both, prompted by three outstanding mentors who were truly inspiring educators rather than mere teachers.

The reason that I seldom engage in debates between science and religion is that the two are incompatible, IMO. Although others maintain differently, I see irresolvable, fundamental differences between religion and science that insure conflict and competition, and preclude agreement or even compromise. The best situation, IMO, is for science and religion to ignore one another and “preach to their own respective choir” (I hold the same position with regard to politics and religion).

True science seeks to LEARN and to TEST its ideas based upon evidence and reproducibility. The heart of true science is the METHOD of learning that has been shown to be an effective path toward understanding of nature. The most fundamental part of the method is to TEST ideas and modify them as need is indicated by experience and observation. True science is willing, even eager, to change its ideas to incorporate new truths that are discovered through the study of nature of the real world we inhabit (though individual scientists or groups may temporarily attempt to maintain old positions in spite of new information).

Religion seeks to PROMOTE and to PROVE its existing, static ideas and to NOT change any fundamental or significant ideas (only perhaps a few irrelevant or minor details). Religion does not seek to learn or to change its ideas because it claims to know the answers to ultimate questions such as origin of the universe, origin of life, existence of an “afterlife”, presence of supernatural beings and occurrence of nature-defying events. All of these “answers” are supposedly provided by writings of Bronze Age people with very limited knowledge of the Earth and nature – people who made up stories to “explain” the unknown and to make death seem less fearful.

Rather than welcoming doubt, question and request for evidence and reproducibility (all of which reinforce true answers), religion resists and resents – particularly the very logical request that impartial, independent verification of claims be provided before a theory (including god theory or bible story) is accepted as being true. “Believe on faith alone” is the antithesis of science, reason, logic or learning. It is indoctrination. In reasoned discussion claims are expected to be verified.

“Junk science” attempts to “prove” or promote ideas whether they are true or not – usually for purposes of ego, profit or religion. I am a strong opponent of attempts to “prove” conclusions rather than to learn truth. Junk science attempts to use “pick and choose” portions of actual scientific studies in order to “prove” its assumptions. “Junk scientists” are often not trained in science or in the area of science they “junk”. Often they represent fields that have no interest in scientific methods or scientific study. Advanced training in medicine or theology, for instance, does not qualify anyone to speak with authority about plate tectonics.

When one assumes that they have the answers, they cease to learn or to seek new information, and simply attempt to defend their au priori ideas against the competition of new (and often more accurate) information and knowledge. Stagnation and static ideas result from such action.

Religion is the classic example of static ideas being defended by condemning newer, more accurate ideas that challenge old static “truths” – the ideas promoted by religion that were inherited from Bronze Age theorists and theologians and rigidly adhered to by prophets, priests and followers for thousands of years.

[otseng]

Pardon me for not clearly stating my background. I have been rather open about that in many threads and thought it was general knowledge. My mistake. Sorry.

No apology needed. I'm glad you pointed out your background.

My area of specialization in academia was fluvial geomorphology -- study of the landforms in relation to the action of flowing water. That is within the overall fields of physical geography (particularly landforms) and geology (particularly Earth processes).

Very interesting. I think this will definitely come into play in this debate.

If my background in science puts either of us in an awkward position, perhaps we should reconsider having a debate on the flood topic. Part of my reason for suggesting that topic was your interest in science.

No awkward position at all. I'd rather debate someone who is knowledgeable about a subject. And I welcome the challenge.

I do not glorify schooling and make a strong distinction between what occurs under that title and what constitutes true education.

I sort of share the same opinion. I do not have a very high opinion of formal schooling. But, I do place great value in personal education.

The reason that I seldom engage in debates between science and religion is that the two are incompatible, IMO. Although others maintain differently, I see irresolvable, fundamental differences between religion and science that insure conflict and competition, and preclude agreement or even compromise.

Some areas are incompatible, but I believe some areas are. And after reading Dawkins' The God Delusion, I was surprised that Dawkins shares the same view.

True science seeks to LEARN and to TEST its ideas based upon evidence and reproducibility.

Not all areas of science are reproducible, but in general I agree.

I will say this also for the purpose of this debate on the flood. I shall strive to concentrate on presenting empirical evidence to support the FM. I will not be using the Bible as primary evidence for the flood.

True science is willing, even eager, to change its ideas to incorporate new truths that are discovered through the study of nature of the real world we inhabit (though individual scientists or groups may temporarily attempt to maintain old positions in spite of new information).

Ideally that is true. But scientists are human also and some (perhaps most?) do not easily admit that their own ideas could be wrong. But, what we should go on is the empirical evidence and simply go where it leads. If the evidence points to concepts found in the Bible, I would hope that scientists would be open enough to entertain it.

[otseng]

(The following post is collated from several posts in the Global Flood thread.)

Let me start by describing the Earth before the Flood. The earth's atmosphere was very different than it is now. The temperature was more uniform throughout the earth and was mostly tropical. The entire world was covered by some sort of water canopy which allowed for a global tropical climate. It also did not rain. The earth had an abundance of large animals (dinosaurs) and large plants. The oceans did not exist as we know them now. However, there were seas that existed. The major mountain ranges did not exist and the mountains were smaller than what we have today. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth's surface. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were a connected land mass.

Here is a cross diagram of the earth before the Flood:


We all know the idea that the land mass of Europe/Africa and the Americas were once one land mass. The commonly accepted idea is that plate tectonics broke up Pangaea over millions of years. There are many problems with this theory. But the most notable one is the existence of the mid-Atlantic ridge. It is the longest mountain range in the entire world. It spans from Iceland to Antarctica (46,000 miles).



Just looking at it, it is exactly halfway between Europe/Africa and Americas. And it looks like this is where the two split. Looking at this, it seems like the E/A and Americas were once joined at the mid-Atlantic ridge, then it got split apart.

This split occured during the flood. During the initial stage of the flood (rupture phase), the crust split along where the mid-Atlantic ridge is. During the split, the subterranean water gushed out of the crack and eroded the the soil/rock on both sides of the crack. Meanwhile, as water was coming out, the two sides slid away from each other.

The two land masses were not once connected where the beaches are now, but they were connected where the continental shelves are. This explains the origin of the continental shelves.



During the rupture phase as the subterranean water gushed out, the force of the water coming out eroded a lot of the soil/rocks and carried it high into the atmosphere and deposited it rapidly around the world. This destroyed the water canopy that had existed in the atmosphere. The pressure of the water gushing out would have formed the mid-Atlantic ridge.

The major land mountain ranges were formed as the water under the crust diminished. While there was water, the crust was free to move since water has a low friction coefficient. But once the water was gone, the crust hit the basalt underneath. With the large friction coefficient, the crust started to buckle. The crust had a huge lateral momentum as it was sliding away from the mid-Oceanic ridge. The momentum caused the crust to form the Rockies, Appalachians, Andes, Himalayas, etc.

As the water eroded the sides of the crust, it carried sediments and deposited it rapidly around the world. The entire world was covered with water and sediments at this point. Meanwhile, the crust was gradually settling as the water underneath decreased. As the land mountain ranges were forming and as the sediments in the water settled, the water receded into the oceans we have now and also froze in the North and South poles.

The massive amounts of sediments from the crust erosion formed practically all the rock stratas that we see today. So, instead of billions of years for it to form in the EM, it occurred within a year in the FM.

The rapid burial of the plants and animals caused the formation of most all the oil, coal, and fossils we find today.

There are 4 major phases of the flood: the rupture phase, the flood phase, the continental drift phase, and the recovery phase.



During the rupture phase, the crack on the crust formed that started at the mid-Oceanic ridge and traveled around the world. Water jettisoned from the underground chamber at the fissures into the atmosphere and eroded the sides of the cracks. I believe this phase occurred over days, perhaps weeks. Brown says this occurred in hours. I however think it must've been longer. I think the layers got deposited in stages to account for footprints in layers and also sequences of layers that could not be explained with a single deposit of sediments. Sorting of layers would take place between the stages where deposits were laid down. This entire process could not have happened in hours, but rather over many days.



During the flood phase, sediments and water covered the entire earth. The surface topography was still relatively flat at this point. Brown says this phase lasted months long. I would say this probably last much shorter, in the range of days/weeks. My basis for this is that I don't agree with Brown on how the mid-Oceanic ridge got formed. Brown believes it was formed by the weight of the continents pressing down on the basalt and it eventually caused the mid-Oceanic ridge to form. I have a different hypothesis. I believe the oceanic ridges were caused by hydrodynamic forces as the water was ejected out of the earth. The pressure of the escaping water would cause the basalt to be forced upward by the water pressure forces and form the ridges. The formation of the ridges caused the flood to go into the next stage, the drift phase. Since hydrodynamic forces would have immediately formed the ridges, the flood phase could not last too long.



During the drift phase, as the mid-Oceanic ridge formed, the hydoplates slid down the ridge and the Americas and Eurasia/Africa moved away from each other. As the hydoplates moved, there was still some underground water under the hydroplates to allow for movement. But, when the water was gone, the hydroplates would stop moving when it hit the basalt underneath. The momentum of the moving hydoplates would cause the formation of the mountains. Brown believes this phase to have lasted 1 day, though I believed it lasted much longer, days/weeks.



During the recovery phase, the water receded into the lower parts of the surface creating the oceans we have now. Canyons were created by water rapidly receding from the areas near mountains. The sea level was lower after all the water receded than compared to now. Over time, all the weight of the continents would cause the continents to gradually sink into the basalt underneath. This would cause the continents to be lowered, as well as push the sea floor up. This would explain land bridges in the past that are now covered by water today.

[Zzyzx]

Let me start by describing the Earth before the Flood. The earth's atmosphere was very different than it is now. The temperature was more uniform throughout the earth and was mostly tropical. The entire world was covered by some sort of water canopy which allowed for a global tropical climate. It also did not rain. The earth had an abundance of large animals (dinosaurs) and large plants. The oceans did not exist as we know them now. However, there were seas that existed. The major mountain ranges did not exist and the mountains were smaller than what we have today. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth's surface. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were a connected land mass.

Several questions occur with regard to your description of “the Earth before the Flood”.

1) When was the Earth formed?
2) When did the flood occur?
3) When did humans first occupy the Earth?
4) Did dinosaurs exist until the time of the flood?
5) What is the evidence to indicate that:

• The atmosphere was very different than it is now? When?
• The temperature was more uniform and more tropical? When?
• The Earth was covered by “some sort of water canopy”?
• It did not rain?
• Major mountain ranges did not exist?
• Mountains were smaller?
• Oceans did not exist pre-flood?
• Water was in chambers ten miles below the surface