Explain the Flood.

[McCulloch]

There are simulations which explain how the flood in Genesis could have occurred. Many reject the calculations because of the source, rather than the math and simulations themselves. If the math is wrong, that is one thing, but if the math is correct but rejected because it is based on a biblical theory, this is an inconsistent approach to analyzing information.

Are there any simulations which explain how the flood described in the Book of Genesis could have actually occurred? Are any of these simulations consistent with what is known about geology, meteorology, chemistry, physics, biology, archeology, and cosmology?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 25 by theStudent]

Ringwoodite is a rare type of mineral that forms from olivine under very high pressures and temperatures, such as those present in the mantle's transition zone. Laboratory studies have shown that the mineral can contain water, which isn't present as liquid, ice or vapor; instead, it is trapped in the ringwoodite's molecular structure as hydroxide ions (bonded oxygen and hydrogen atoms).

http://www.livescience.com/46292-hidden ... antle.html



There is nothing wrong with speculating, that is what science is about. Ringwoodite is hydrated just not in the way you thought it was. I don't get the need to justify the story though as naturalistically possible. Why not God magicked a flood and then magicked the water away. Then magicked all the animals to different spots. That is far more justifiable than try to make it naturalistically "possible"

I'm not saying that the same waters, below the earth's crust were of the same quality as the ones in the early earth. Neither do I think the scientists are suggesting that either.
However, it is evident that the early earth contained plenty of water below it's crust.
How those waters are now, after thousands of years, is not evidence of how the waters were back then.

From your earlier post.
[Replying to post 29 by theStudent]

the simulation, Brown says, gives the better explanation for all that we see on earth today, including the fossils record, thus verifying the flood account to be accurate. As Mr. Brown put it, 25 major mysteries can be systematically explained by the flood described in the Bible.
Scientists discover an ocean 400 miles beneath our feet that could fill our oceans three times over

There is no liquid water under the earths crust. It is not about being the same quality it is not in liquid form. There is not an ocean down there. The only way water can exist down there is trapped in ringwoodite as a hydroxide ion. You can't just rip open the crust and liquid water comes spraying out. So how it's trapped there now is likely how it's been trapped for millions of years.

Plus this is still very preliminary science posed to figure out how water got here on earth. They could all very well be wrong for all we know. This is just the beginning stages there is still a lot of stuff to figure out.

Such as how did the ringwoodite get hydrated in the first place? and can the hydroxide in them seep to the surface?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 31 by DanieltheDragon]

Are you saying there was no water under the earth's crust centuries ago - in the early earth? I disagree. The Bible says there was. I can't prove it, neither can you.
Where did anyone say that ripping open the earth's crust, causes water to burst forth? I didn't. Neither did I understand Mr. Brown to have said so. Even if he did, the Bible didn't.
Scientists are not saying from this discovery that this is how water got here on earth. From the articles, the say it may be how oceans formed. They still do not have any idea how water originated.

[jfoldbar]

[Replying to post 30 by theStudent]

the title of this thread is "explain the flood".

it is not titled "can anyone disprove the flood"

so that puts the onus on the believers to come up with some kind of explanation to justify why we would believe it. not the disbelievers to prove it could not have happened.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 32 by theStudent]

The Bible says there was. I can't prove it, neither can you.

This post says pink unicorns of flixiflop created the universe in two puffs of a sparkle glitter. I can't prove it and neither can you. Your free to believe whatever floats your boat, for sure. But, why bother with that in the first place. If your answer is well the bible said so, why try and make it naturalistically possible if your just going to throw out the science when it's inconvenient? Just throw it all out and go with magic.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 32 by theStudent]

Where did anyone say that ripping open the earth's crust, causes water to burst forth? I didn't. Neither did I understand Mr. Brown to have said so

Actually Mr. Brown said so multiple times in the first four minutes and this is basically what his idea is all about...

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 32 by theStudent]

Where did anyone say that ripping open the earth's crust, causes water to burst forth? I didn't. Neither did I understand Mr. Brown to have said so

Actually Mr. Brown said so multiple times in the first four minutes and this is basically what his idea is all about...

Before tS goes and asks you to show it to him because he can't see it, the first time in the video is exactly one minute in. Not only does he say it, the video shows water bursting forth from the crust.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 32 by theStudent]

The Bible says there was. I can't prove it, neither can you.

This post says pink unicorns of flixiflop created the universe in two puffs of a sparkle glitter. I can't prove it and neither can you. Your free to believe whatever floats your boat, for sure. But, why bother with that in the first place. If your answer is well the bible said so, why try and make it naturalistically possible if your just going to throw out the science when it's inconvenient? Just throw it all out and go with magic.

This basically sums it up. Science is great except when it disagrees with my favorite holy book. Science is really great when it can be twisted and/or used out of context to support what JWs believe. Science that goes against whatever the JWs claim as truth is obviously not science.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 30 by theStudent]

the title of this thread is "explain the flood".

it is not titled "can anyone disprove the flood"

so that puts the onus on the believers to come up with some kind of explanation to justify why we would believe it. not the disbelievers to prove it could not have happened.

the title of this thread is "explain the flood".

Agreed.

it is not titled "can anyone disprove the flood"

Agreed.

so that puts the onus on the believers to come up with some kind of explanation to justify why we would believe it. not the disbelievers to prove it could not have happened.

From what I got from the OP, there were two questions:

1. Are there any simulations which explain how the flood described in the Book of Genesis could have actually occurred?
2. Are any of these simulations consistent with what is known about geology, meteorology, chemistry, physics, biology, archeology, and cosmology?

A user attempted to address both questions in Post 11.

Challenges to that post were made, which the the user responded to.
That I understand is what a debate is. There is a back and forth dialogue between the debaters - where one presents his side, the other challenges, or presents an argument against it.
Since this is a debate forum, no one is required to say what the other thinks they should say, nor explain anything until it meets the satisfaction of the other.

If you disagree with anything I say, and want to challenge it, feel free to do so.
If you are on these forums just to ask questions, and demand answers, leave me out of that one bud.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 32 by theStudent]

The Bible says there was. I can't prove it, neither can you.

This post says pink unicorns of flixiflop created the universe in two puffs of a sparkle glitter. I can't prove it and neither can you. Your free to believe whatever floats your boat, for sure. But, why bother with that in the first place. If your answer is well the bible said so, why try and make it naturalistically possible if your just going to throw out the science when it's inconvenient? Just throw it all out and go with magic.

This is not reasonable, considering.
You asked for a any simulations which explain how the flood described in the Book of Genesis could have actually occurred.
I provided one.

You tried to show that it disagrees with science, and yet you have not shown that.
Mr. Brown theorized that there was water under the earth's crust. You have no way of proving there wasn't... Or am I mistaken? I am all ears, if you can.
I showed you one article, out of many, where Geologists have found a vast body of water deep below earth's surface and say it is evidence that oceans came from water inside the planet that seeped to the surface
The article says

Geologists have long mused about the origin of earth’s seas. Did water, for example, arrive from somewhere else — like on icy comets that struck the planet? Or did water come from somewhere within?

The recent discovery of a subterranean sea, deep inside earth, has scientists excited about the latter possibility.

Like something out of early 19th century playwright Jules Verne’s novel, Journey to the Center of the Earth — in which characters stumble across a massive underground basin — a team of geologists led by Steven Jacobsen from Northwestern University have found a vast body of water, three times the size of any ocean, located near earth’s core. It’s possible that water from this enormous reservoir oozed to the surface.

“It’s good evidence earth’s water came from within,� Jacobsen told NewScientist.

Jacobsen and his team used seismometers in their find, studying the speed of seismic waves to determine what lies beneath the surface. The waves slowed down upon reaching a layer of blue rock called ringwoodite, indicating that they were passing through water as well as rock. The depth of the phenomenon — 700 km below the mantle, which is the layer of hot rock underneath the surface — is also the perfect temperature and pressure for water to ooze out of the ringwoodite “almost as if it’s sweating,� Jacobsen says.

The discovery has only revealed ringwoodite beneath the continental U.S. however, so further experiments will need to be conducted to determine where else on the planet it can be found.

So scientists theorize that it is possible that this body of water deep in the earth's crust slowly oozed out of rock over billions of years , till the oceans were filled... [and then it stopped. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it had a mind of its own - go figure. I suppose you all have a clear explanation for how mountains formed.]

Mr. Brown theorizes that the waters burst forth, due to a build up of pressure. How is this unscientific?
Over thousands of years

• The Bible says that there is water below the earth, which was used in th flood. (Genesis 2:6; 7:11)
• The Bible says that God restrained the waters after the flood. (Genesis 8:2)
• The Bible says that the floodwaters, as they receded they drastically affected earth's geological structure. (Psalm 104:5-11)
• The Bible says that God seperated the seas from land. He bounded the oceans. (Genesis 1:9, 10; Proverbs 8:29; Job 38:11; Jeremiah 5:22)

I see nothing unscientific about the flood account, nor the Genesis account, for that matter. It agrees entirely with geology.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 32 by theStudent]

Where did anyone say that ripping open the earth's crust, causes water to burst forth? I didn't. Neither did I understand Mr. Brown to have said so

Actually Mr. Brown said so multiple times in the first four minutes and this is basically what his idea is all about...

Did we listen to the same video?
Mr. Brown said there was a pressure build up, and the waters burst forth.
Just pealing away the crust, did not result in the water escaping.