The flood (again)

[Zzyzx]

.
In a current thread someone said:

Would you like to have a debate on the deluge or Jesus' resurrection?

As people join the Forum they maybe unaware that some topics have been debated many, many times. Perhaps they think they have 'killer arguments' that are compelling.

Question for debate: Was the Earth flooded 'to the tops of mountains' as described in Genesis?

[Tcg]

I can only hope you can live with your grief. In the mean time feel free to re-read what I have posted on the topic I'm sure you'll find they have the information you are seeking.

I have read what you have posted:

You've not provided estimates either.

Okay, my estimate is as follows...

Your estimate of how much elephants eat in a day is on the low end:
X2 elephants 60,000 sq ft of storage space

At this point, it seems that you think the only animals on the ark were two elephants.


Tcg

[Willum]

What YOU personally believe to be true is of no significance.

That is mere personal opinion. It is significant to me and it is significant to many I know, not least those who have read my posts and expressed appreciation for them. Unless you wish to prove my peronal opinions and beliefs insignificant to everyone on earth, I suggest you are merely expressing your "belief" (read: opinion) on the subject , which you are entitled of course to share are long as you are not proposing that opinion as TRUTH or FACT.

Your OPINION in the "significance" of a religious belief is entirely subjective, a fact which you might like to keep in mind the next time you choose to comment on them

Beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, are the subject of debate in this Forum.

Have a nice day,


JW

So lots of people with different religions have opinions their's are right and Christians (et&al) are fairytales.
Your opinion is noted.
And as, your (pl) opinions seem to be the only reason, this side of the 20th century to have a Christianic belief, the impartial observer knows how it should regard these opinion.

Go well.

[Goat]

...
Question for debate: Was the Earth flooded 'to the tops of mountains' as described in Genesis?

I believe so, because there is vast amount of evidence for it:
1. All the stories in different cultures.
2. Marine fossils on high mountains.
3. Gas and oil fields, result of vast amount of drowned organic material.
4. Modern continents. (http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html)
5. Old coast lines in high places.

Well, the stories are all different, and they are all from cultures that live on rivers.

As for marine fossils on mountain tops, the explanation for that is 'plate tectonics ', which has been verified. In fact, with our current technology, we can measure how much a mountain can rise or fall due to an earthquake. We have shown that mount Everest is rising at the rate of .1 inch per year, and one earthquake make it rise an inch all at once https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... arthquake/

So, there is certainly a better explanation for number 2.

As for the gas/oil fields, having algae and plankton seep, and then rot in porous rock is shown to create oil over millions of years. No need for a global flood there, but just natural processes over time.

You will have to explain why number 4

but plate tectonics, which has been empirically shown to be true explains 5

[1213]

Well, the stories are all different, and they are all from cultures that live on rivers.

Interesting claim. There is really lot of those stories, and at least the Greek version speaks also about sea

“…and the rivers and seas rose to cover the earth,…”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Greek

And the common idea is that almost everything was drowned. But, I also understand that they are just stories that can easily be inored.

…As for marine fossils on mountain tops, the explanation for that is 'plate tectonics ', which has been verified. In fact, with our current technology, we can measure how much a mountain can rise or fall due to an earthquake. We have shown that mount Everest is rising at the rate of .1 inch per year, and one earthquake make it rise an inch all at once https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... arthquake/

So, there is certainly a better explanation for number 2.

And how is it known that it is the land that rises and not the water level that sinks?

As for the gas/oil fields, having algae and plankton seep, and then rot in porous rock is shown to create oil over millions of years. No need for a global flood there, but just natural processes over time…

Sorry, I don’t believe that it would happen without the flood event, especially in millions of years.

You will have to explain why number 4 …

Bible tells that in the beginning there was only one continent. When the flood came, the original continent was broken. Below the continent there was vast water storage(s). Parts of the continent sunk and so the current continents were formed (at the same time many orogenic mountains were formed).

[1213]

…I say this, because without you having a Bible, the idea of plate techtonics being false would not come up. It would be up there with the rest of known (best we can know at the time) science. It is your ancient religious beliefs that have you at odds with known science.

It may be that without Bible, I would be brainwashed to believe pseudoscientific rubbish. However, the theory of plate tectonics is not scientific, because it really can’t show why things would not level because of the weight of the material. The theory explains that the thinner continent goes down, and the heavier thicker continent rises. it is just against reason and basic laws of physics. And I don’t think it would be believed, if anti-Christianism would not require it.

[Zzyzx]

Bible tells that in the beginning there was only one continent.

Exactly where does the Bible state there was only one continent? Kindly quote passages that make that statement.

Also, kindly identify the person / people who could make that claim from personal knowledge (not hearsay) – and identify their source of information.

…I say this, because without you having a Bible, the idea of plate techtonics being false would not come up. It would be up there with the rest of known (best we can know at the time) science. It is your ancient religious beliefs that have you at odds with known science.

It may be that without Bible, I would be brainwashed to believe pseudoscientific rubbish. However, the theory of plate tectonics is not scientific, because it really can’t show why things would not level because of the weight of the material.

During the 1960s when I began studying geology we were taught (“brainwashed”) with the old static continent theories.

However, as new information became available (scientifically), primarily from study of the ocean basins and mid-oceanic ridges, and later from precise satellite measurements, showing that the continents are in motion (at about the same rate as fingernails grow).

When I became a faculty member, I taught the “New” Plate Tectonic model that fit actual observations and measurements. The old (obsolete) geologists on the faculty grumbled a lot; however, within five years they came to realize that their ideas were outdated and that new information must be incorporated – AND they started teaching Plate Tectonics.

The theory explains that the thinner continent goes down, and the heavier thicker continent rises. it is just against reason and basic laws of physics.

Concerning weight of Earth material: are you aware that crustal rock is less dense than mantle rock? Actual measurements show an average specific gravity of Continental Crust: 2.7 to 3.0 Oceanic Crust: 3.0 to 3.3 Mantle (silicates): 3.3 to 5.7. The core material is heavy enough to bring the Earth average up to 5.5.

In geology classes I had students compare densities of samples of crustal vs. mantle rock – and had them calculate the weight of the Earth in grams (a rather straight-forward calculation for anyone competent in math). It is 5,974,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms or 5.972 × 10^27g for anyone interested.

Most of us are aware that ice floats on water – due to a difference in density (0.92 ice vs. 1.0 water). The difference between density of water and ice is LESS than the difference in density of crustal material vs. mantle material.

Study of earthquake waves indicates that the mantle is semi-solid (“plastic” texture) and capable of deformation.

And I don’t think it would be believed, if anti-Christianism would not require it.

I realize that this information is waved away by those who prefer supernatural forces to natural / real world conditions and processes. However, I trust there is a difference in density between people – and I address those capable of evaluating the merits of ideas presented.

Just as the obsolete 'static continent' geologists died out and were replaced by more modern, better informed younger generations, the obsolete science-deniers are dying out and are being replaced by better informed younger generations.

[Tcg]

And I don’t think it would be believed, if anti-Christianism would not require it.

Here are a list of articles from some popular Christian apologetic groups that accept the idea of plate tectonics. Some even use it to support their belief in a global flood:

Plate Tectonics | Answers in Genesis - https://answersingenesis.org/geology/plate-tectonics/

Continental Drift, Plate Tectonics, and the Bible | ICR - https://www.icr.org/article/continental ... nics-bible

What about continental drift? | ChristianAnswers - https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html

Introduction to Catastrophic Plate Tectonics | GLOBAL FLOOD - https://www.globalflood.org/catastrophi ... onics.html

Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood | CMI - https://creation.com/catastrophic-plate ... esis-flood

I certainly don't endorse the claims these groups make, but it is clear that Plate Tectonics is not based on anti-Christianism. Any claim that it is reveals ignorance of it's broad acceptance by Christians.


Tcg

[brunumb]

Bible tells that in the beginning there was only one continent. When the flood came, the original continent was broken.

Please supply the biblical passages that support this claim.

Below the continent there was vast water storage(s). Parts of the continent sunk and so the current continents were formed

The continents do not float on water. The density of water is far too low to support rock. So please explain how the continents broke up and sank. At the same time, please explain how a loaded wooden boat managed to survive the cataclysmic events involved in this massive deluge and continental destruction.

(at the same time many orogenic mountains were formed).

I hope you are not suggesting that they were somehow thrust up in contradiction of your previous argument against such processes. I am curious to hear from you how these mountains are supposed to have formed.

[1213]

Bible tells that in the beginning there was only one continent. When the flood came, the original continent was broken.

Please supply the biblical passages that support this claim.

God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear," and it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:9-10

The continents do not float on water. The density of water is far too low to support rock. So please explain how the continents broke up and sank. At the same time, please explain how a loaded wooden boat managed to survive the cataclysmic events involved in this massive deluge and continental destruction.

Yes, I didn’t claim modern continents float. Bible tells that in the beginning dry land was stretched above waters. So, if earth (=dry land) was stretched, above waters, we can assume that the edges were connected to land below the waters and so there was like bubble below the dry land. And if the water can’t escape, it can support heavy weight, as in hydraulic systems.

To him that stretched out the earth above the waters:
Psalms 136:6

And if the boat, or ark, was not in the edge areas, and because the water probably eased the movements, it was not too violent event.

(at the same time many orogenic mountains were formed).

I hope you are not suggesting that they were somehow thrust up in contradiction of your previous argument against such processes. I am curious to hear from you how these mountains are supposed to have formed.

It would not be a contradiction, because in this case there would be good explanation, what causes the force. If there really was a continent that was broken and collapsed and sunk, the edges probably would have collided and in the edges, there would have been compression and mixed materials that were flushed would have formed different layers. But, I don’t think they would have risen above the point where they originally were. Basically the circumference of earth shrank, and that causes formation of mountains, because the surface area adjusts to that smaller circumference (like example fruit that is dried).

[1213]

Exactly where does the Bible state there was only one continent? Kindly quote passages that make that statement.

God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear," and it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:9-10