Apologetic defense of the flood tale – continued

[Zzyzx]

.
In a current thread someone appears to be attempting to defend the biblical flood tale as a truthful and accurate account of an event that really happened in the real world (or is attempting to score ‘points’?). viewtopic.php?p=970373#970373

Rather than further trash tat thread, I replied to significant parts of a post there and move the remainder here.

Let’s keep in mind that this is the biblical description of the flood:

Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep . 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind.

Bold added to emphasize ALL mountains covered worldwide (unless there were some that ‘God’ didn’t know about).

Rather than reply point-by-point, here is the basic of what we are dealing with in a worldwide flood.

Neglecting to respond to a point made is an explicit acceptance of that point.

Perhaps in your opinion – but not in reasoned debate.

It's not just my opinion. If you can't or won't address or refute a point, the bottom line is you don't score the point; I do.

OH? Scoring points? High school debate club?

Do fifty foot waves flood the Earth ‘to the tops of mountains’?

Straw man argument. I never claimed 50' waves flood the tops of mountains. I pointed out that it doesn't take much to create a 50' wave, and the biblical descriptions indicate seismic activity that would create the necessary conditions for significantly larger waves. This is not only possible, but plausible.

Kindly cite biblical passages that are descriptions indicate seismic activity.

Waves ‘from earthquakes, etc’ are known as tsunami.

Can tsunami cover continents ‘to the tops of mountains’?

More straw.

Did you bring up waves and tsunami?

Do they meet the conditions described in Genesis?

They don't come close to the conditions described in Genesis.

Thank you

The conditions described in Genesis are considerably greater. More importantly, they are descriptions which match what we observe today.

What we observe today is that floods occur in lowlands, river valleys, and coastal areas – NOT flooding mountains. Were conditions different ‘long ago and far away’?

When we see seismic activity, it is accompanied with large waves. When we see driving rain, we see rainwater piling up and creating flash flooding.

Does that address the Genesis flood?

There's a guy on YouTube who shows how to win a bet that he can drop the level of the pool he's standing in by an inch in five minutes.

NO. Really?

Does that provide evidence that the Earth was flooded?

Yes, and I provided the reasons why. Are you going to address and refute those reasons, or let yet another point slip away?

Kindly explain to readers how the YouTube reference provides evidence that the Earth was flooded ‘to the tops of mountains’

Were waves the source of the Genesis flood?

Waves would have been created from seismic activity.

What seismic activity was associated with the biblical flood account? Reference? Citation?

The fountains erupting from deep within the earth would have not only caused water to gush, but also created waves.

Kindly explain and describe ‘fountains of the deep’. What does that mean? What Earth processes are involved? Are said ‘fountains’ factual or mythological? Evidence?

Have I stated that ‘it is impossible for a worldwide flood to have occurred’? If you think so, kindly quote verbatim with URL. Then perhsps read about straw-man logical blunders.

I stand corrected. Great! Now that you're position is clear, and we see that your position is that it is possible for a worldwide flood to have occured,

Correction: I have NOT stated that a world wide flood occurrence was possible or impossible. Kindly stop misquoting and reply to what I actually state.

I ask for verifiable evidence that a worldwide flood occurred as described in Genesis.

we can refine our discussion somewhat. Your previous comments suggesting that mountains couldn't be covered with water threw me off. Thanks for the clarification.

Kindly demonstrate mountains being covered by flood water.

Are you ever going to address or refute this point? Again, I hasten to remind you that refusing to address this point scores yet another one for yours truly.

Feel free to award yourself whatever brownie points you wish. A pile of them plus a few dollars might buy a cup of coffee somewhere.

Readers will decide for themselves who is ‘shooting blanks’

So far, you're not hitting me with anything to even respond with other than to point out that you're not addressing my arguments at all.

Again, readers will decide

Is this to say that the Earth was flooded with sea water? What happened to the rain tale?

Is there some reason why you might believe rain water and sea water are mutually exclusive propositions when it comes to flooding? Is there some reason why rain water couldn't mix with sea water? Is sea water a relatively recent introduction to this planet?

Did the Genesis tale mention rain? Did it mention sea water?

The Earth’s surface area is approximately 196,900,000 square miles, with 29.2% land. Thus, 140,000,000 square miles of ocean (70.8%) would need to be raised 2500 feet (about half a mile).

I don't think so. You're not including the rain and the 'fountains of the deep', remember? When you factor that in, your calculations need to be adjusted.

Kindly supply adjusted calculations – and show readers your work and cite references

it would only have to move over the surface of the earth.

Is this to say that water would only have to be on continental / land surfaces?

No, I'm pointing out that for a flood to be effective, it must at the very least move over land. It is not required to sit motionless on land. Nor am I suggesting that it be only on land.

Excellent. Now can you account for the Genesis account of flooding ‘to the tops of mountains’?

Water just piles up on continents high enough to cover mountains

No, you're not following what I'm posting.

Are you following what you are posting?

I'm posting just the opposite of what you're assuming. Water doesn't have to continuously pile up in order to flood. It simply has to move over the surface. As water moves over the surface it carries anything or anyone who gets in its way. As these object, people, etc. violently collide into each other, they die which is the purpose of the flood, right?

The Genesis account clearly says that the Earth was flooded ‘to the tops of mountains’. Do you wish to change that now?

Tell us how fast rain can come down sometimes.

It can come down faster than it can disperse.

Care to make a stab at actually answering the question? Rates? Records? Actual information rather than fluff?

In other words, it comes down faster than what has already fallen can get out of the way so it piles up causing flash flooding, and that flash flooding usually flows from higher elevations to lower ones.

Perhaps we are making progress. Yes, water tends to flow downhill. That being the case, it leaves higher areas and fills low areas.

What is required for high areas to be flooded?

Does snow atop Everest and other mountains meet the biblical account of a worldwide flood ‘to the tops of mountains’? Nope

Why not?

The biblical account says flooded. Would it be snow covered if underwater?

Are you suggesting that Mt.Everest didn't have any snow because the bible doesn't state it did? Do the biblical authors have to mention Mt. Everest by name?

Simplifying: Was Mt. Everest covered with flood water – meeting the Genesis account of flooding ‘to the tops of mountains’?

It is just another attempt to ‘explain’ or ‘excuse’ a myth enough to make it seem plausible.

If it isn't plausible, is it impossible? You've already denied it is impossible which means you accept that it is possible,

You stand corrected AGAIN – I have NOT ‘denied it is impossible’.

but now you're claiming that even though it is possible, it isn't likely?

Again, I have taken NO position regarding that possibility (or lack).

So far, it would appear that your biggest reason is that Mt. Everest must have been as tall as it is now, therefore it isn't plausible.

Correction: I state that Mt. Everest is 29,029 feet in elevation. If someone wishes to claim that it was lower at some specific time in the past, they have the burden (in reasoned debate) of providing evidence to support their contention.

Yet we know that violent and abrupt seismic events are what cause mountains to attain these elevations. For some reason which you have yet to present, over a thousand feet of material that was once the top of a mountain is ejected in a day has no bearing on the time it takes for a mountain to attain higher elevations.

Kindly explain to readers how ejection of material is evidence of ‘the time it takes for a mountain to attain higher elevations’

In both cases, it is seismic activity violently and abruptly moving massive amounts of material

Refer to discussion of formation of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest in the original thread viewtopic.php?p=970373#970373