Since the flood is a validation of the YEC timeline, and most OEC, TOE, and athiest, do not believe in a world wide flood. I believe it is a valid debate for creation.

1) Where did the water come from?
2) Where did it go?

Without making this post long, I will list a link to a site I believe explains all of this. And also list calculations on how the water was able to be where it is today, without boiling off.

http://yecheadquarters.org/catalog6.2.html

No offense, but the following section from your link is absolutely wrong:



{edited by The Deacon for tag correction. Content unaltered.}

The boiling point of water is not a linear. Also, water has a critical point, the point at which water can no longer be a liquid no matter the temperature or the pressure. Here is the phase diagram for water. Note that the critical pressure is 218 atm and the critical temp is 374 celcius (705 F), well below the 1834 F given by your website.



You can check out the info on phase diagrams here: http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/phasee...phasediags.html

If what you say is true, then how did that water get down in the mineral that is so hot, and under so much pressure, and stay liquid?

Also, I search on the net and could not actually find where someone actually attempted to see how high they could go with pressure and the boiling point of water. All I kept running into was that graph. And the funny part was, the graph on several websites were different. So it's like, who do you believe?

So what is the highest boiling point of water ever achieved? I could not find where anyone actually tried to find out.

You caught me on that one. Further study shows that there are four phases: solid, liquid, gas, and supercritical fluid. The latter, from what I have read so far, can not really be classified as either a gas nor a liquid, or as one source states "A 'critical point' is where the properties of two phases become indistinguishable from each other". Here is a better phase diagram that fits this discussion:



The mechanism for getting this water into the mantle is thought to be ocean subduction. As one plate slides under the other in the ocean some water is also forced into the mantle. Under certain circumstances, such as temperature, rock composition, and pressure, the water can be incorporated within the rock. This requires pressures not found in the ocean, in the range of 25 Gpa (25 billion pascals) (my source). Your source (from the quote) lists the flood oceans at 1920 atmospheres. There are approx. 100,000 pascals per atmosphere, so that puts 1920 atmospheres at 192 Mpa (million pascals) or 0.192 Gpa. The oceans alone did not exert enough pressure to force water into rocks in the fashion described.

From other readings, some hypothesize that the majority of the water found in the mantle could be a result of the same catastrophe that created the moon. It has been theorized that the moon was created when a large body struck the Earth, throwing off a large, molten globule that resulted in the moon. This same strike could have also pinned vast amounts of water within the earth. Not exactly the type of catastrophy that is consistent with a global flood.

For your flood theory to work you need to figure out a way for the water to get trapped in the mantle in a flood scenario. Runaway subduction seems legit when you start, but creates huge problems because of the energy produced through friction. That is, plates moving that quickly against each other would turn all of the rock into molten lava.

Anyway, I will back off my earlier post a bit. You were right to criticize it. What you need is a mechanism that will SWIFTLY move this water into the mantle. The known mechanisms are either too catastrophic to allow life to continue (even on an ark) or too slow to fit into a global flood year.

Well, the bible does say that the fountains of the deep were "broken up". I don't think you can break water, so it would have to be something solid such as what your speaking of.

Also, has this mechanism you speak of, ever been observed, or is it another theory?

Here are some links that talk about the subduction process, WRT moving water into the mantle:

LINK 1

LINK 2

In general, the process of subduction is reasonably well understood. More questionable is how much water actually gets transported, how deep it goes, how quickly it's recycled back to the surface, etc.

A big problem is we have no way of looking at rocks "in place" within the mantle. We can see rocks which have been brought up to surface, but they have undergone some alteration in the process. Much of what we "know" about the mantle is based on seismic data.

But under this particular process, there is a definite limit to the rate that water could be moved down into the mantle; it's a percentage (maybe 30% or so) of the volume of sediment that is being subducted.

I don't know the volume of sediment that is subducted every year, but given the measured and historical rates of plate movement (on the order of a few inches per year) the rate seems way too low to get rid of the flood waters within anything like the biblical timescale.

And yes, like ALL scientific explanations of a given phenomena/observation, this is a theory.

WRT to getting that water back to surface, that would appear to require volcanism (i.e, the molten rock erupting back at the surface, where the water is liberated). It would take a heck of a lot of volcanoes to bring up enough water to flood the earth.

Guess you did not read the link I left. But I'll bring some information over from it.


Probably one of the biggest arguements about the flood is: Where did all the water come from? Actually, it came from three sources. 1) Water in the form of rain. 2) The water just under the earth's crust. 3) From God.
You see, science thinks that the water came up from there. then went back down, when actually, God created more water for the flood. Besides, did God lose His ability to create after creation?

Genesis 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.

The key phrase in figuring out where the water came from for the flood is: windows of heaven. Now most people, just like myself, just think of this as a storm with clouds that opened and allowed rain to fall. Not so. This was the very first time rain, or any water, had fallen from the sky. This is one of the reasons why Noah was made fun of for building the Ark (rain? What's that? As the people would say). But why did the water have to come through the way of windows of heaven? After doing a word search on this phrase, I found that what comes through the windows of heaven, comes directly from God. And since there are no windows in our sky, this most be a reference to what seperates the physical world from the spiritual.

Malachi 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Being that blessings come straight from God, the windows of heaven phrase can only mean that this is some type of portal in which things from God come through. But was windows of heaven phrase just a replacement word for the word storm? No. Storm is mentioned 19 times in the word of God. And the first time is:

Job 21:18 So from this we can conclude that the first water that fell on the earth did not fall as it comes from a storm, like how it works today. But is there a verse that shows how this could be done?

Isaiah 28:2 Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.

This verse shows that God has the ability to cast water down by His hand. This maybe also why windows of heaven phrase is used. For God's hand had to come through the windows of heaven portal (an opening access between our world and heaven) for God's hand to cast down water. Etc...
You can read the rest from the link from the op.

But what it shows is that God cast the water down to earth to flood it. So it did not come up through this mineral mentioned. But, when the flood waters receded, the extra water went into this meneral.

Why would I believe this was the flood water?
1) It's there.
2) It's enough to flood the world on a global scale.

Finding that much water, and being able to connect to the flood like this, I would have better chances playing the lotto.

So God just magicked in some water? Is this what you want presented as "science"? Do I have to take this on faith?



This seems a little hypocritical to me. "Windows of Heaven" is taken metaphorically, yet YEC's tell us over and over that Genesis is supposed to be interpretted literally. Am I being unfair?



That is the claim, but where is the evidence and where is the mechanism? How does this water enter this mineral? Through run-away subduction? Direct absorbtion due to water pressure? How, and by what evidence?



Sorry, but this is lacking. For instance, I could argue that lightning proves the existence of Zeus. You must first deomonstrate, through evidence, that a global flood occurred. This includes how fossils were sorted and how a flood can create so many layers of different minerals that require long sedimentation times today. Second, you must give evidence as to how all of this water entered mineral reserves within a year.

God does not use magic. God creates by speaking things into existance. Did God quit creating after creation? It seems that you do not like the words: God did it. And I know why. You can't argue or disprove it. And because science has to be always right, this becomes a thorn in it's side. You may choose to remove the power of God through naturalistic means. But I choose to allow God to be God in all His power and glory. All that might make you sick, but on the other end of what you believe, I feel just as sick about that. Not really. And I understand. Even as a believer, it was a long road for me to travel to get to this point. It takes more faith than most can imagine. There are few who get saved and have total faith on the same day. For we have to test God, and God has to test us. Sounds strange, but because God has given man free will, God has to test us to see what is truly in our heart's. This way He knows just how much He can reveal as His knowledge to us. That might be hard for you to understand. So here's a better example:

Think of it as two warring nations that have suddenly signed a peace treaty. Will they have total faith and trust in one another on the first day? Or will it be a gradual process of test and see? And if both sides truly want peace, they with find common ground and build from that point.

That's how a believer's faith is built in God. Before we are saved, we are like two warring nation (in a sense). And when we accept Christ, it becomes a relationship that has to be built on trust and faith.



You can only speculate about how it got there, as much as I can only do the same. So here, we can only guess.

In your opinion, which God would you say has the most evidence for it's existance?

All of these things you say: I must do. But yet I don't see this same you must ever being applied to evolution.

Example: You must fill all gaps in evolution. You must show evidence of all that you claim that has evolved from begining to end. You must create life from lifelessness, and be able to accerate it's growth so we can all observe evolution in progress.

So I must fill the gap or void science cannot?
Or can I theorize how God did it?

Na, it would not support the other theories of science. And that is a must before anything is accepted.

I was wondering if you were going to mention the fourth phase. And I also wonder if water could acheive becoming a metalic, like metallic hydrogen? For even oxygen can become a metallic state. So if we have the two components of water that can reach this metalic phase under pressure, then this may explain how this happened. and how water stays in this mineral without boiling off because it's in a different phase, which different limits on things like boiling would apply.

There are links embedded.

Lab experiments show that, under mantle conditions, water can actually be incorporated INTO the mineral structure, so observations about the properties of free, pure water are not totally applicable to what is going on:

LINK

As to whether water actually exists in the mantle, that is still an open question.

But even if the mantle rocks do contain alot of water (incorporated into the mineral structure) you still have to come up with a mechanism for getting the water down into the mantle, within the time frame of the flood.

As far as I can see, there is no mechanism that could do that.

Of course, you can always argue that god temporarily changed the laws of physics to get the water there. But if you're going to invoke miracles, god could just as easily have made the water disappear, the same way he made it appear from "the windows of heaven" in the first place.

So the presence of water in the mantle can't be used to support, or oppose, the flood story, because as long as miracles are part of the story, they can be used to justify both a wet mantle, and a dry mantle.

I read your link. I saw mostly speculation. It would seem that most that believe in different levels of truth (theory). Often become confused on what is speculation, just to believe all that is said just because a scientist said so. Would you not say that about 50% of that web page is speculation, and no real hard evidence?



Yes, and you can always accept speculation as truth but never find it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

The lab experiments show that rocks under mantle conditions can hold some water. Since the mantle is big, that could mean there is a lot of water down there.

The researchers also noted that no one knows whether there actually is water in the mantle, because we can't get at rocks in the mantle.

They found that mantle rocks can hold water (the fact); they said there could therefore be a lot of water in the mantle (the speculation).

The speculation will stimulate new research- that's how science works.

BTW, you didn't seem to have a problem with the science when it "supported" your idea of where the flood water could have gone.

Yeah, but you did, and tried to explain it away. Never a possibility, just a no way attitude.

The question remains. Exactly HOW did the flood waters get into the mantle, if in fact there is massive amounts of water in the mantle?

From the link -

This is just bizarre, the rain (presumably) makes the vertical erosion, and the flood receding cuts the canyon! That explanation is just not possible.

How is it possible for vertical erosion to remain present (on columns not yet eroded from the receding waters). If the canyon was cut by the flood you would have huge amounts of horizontal erosion not vertical.

I agree, this seems to be a departure from normal YEC speculations. Most argue that the sediments in Bryce Canyon, like the Grand Canyon, were laid down during the flood. Then, according to YEC's, the canyon was cut by receding flood waters. The above seems to indicate that the sediment was already there before the flood.

Geologically speaking, the stuff in the OP's link about Bryce Canyon and arches is a joke.

The vertical "lines" in the Bryce Canyon rocks are joints (cracks in the rock). They will be there as long as the rocks are. No amount of rainfall will get rid of them.

WRT the arches- the intersting thing is that the arches in Arches National Park (that's where the arch photo in the link was taken) form in the Entrada Sandstone.

The Entrada Sandstone is quite extensive, and is also found in the Grand Canyon, in about the middle of the section- with hundreds/thousands of feet of rock above it.

So (if the Grand Canyon rocks were laid down by the flood) the flood would first would have had to deposit the sediments of the Entrada Sandstone, then later on eroded the arches. But the arches could only be formed if the original sediments had already been compacted and cemented into solid rock.

So the sediments had to be deposited, compacted, then cemented into rock. Then the receeding flood waters had to cut away all that rock -anywhere from a hundred feet (the height of some arches) to thousands of feet- over an area of hundreds of square miles.

All within the course of less than a year!

Yet with all that violent erosion going on, it managed to leave behind those delicate arches.

Many YEC sites are full of this type of geological nonsense. It makes it hard for me to take ANYTHING in them seriously.

No, I didn't try to "explain it away". I merely pointed out what the facts were, and what the speculation was.

You are still welcome to provide a mechanism for getting water into the mantle, within the flood year.

So, would you say that since what you disagree with is speculation, that your evidence is absolute truth? Or a theory?

Theory requires Speculation. And if not, there is only one alternative. Because only truth changes speculation. For I have yet to see any scientific step where a theory stops being a theory. Which means it will always contain speculation of one form or another. To even have speculated mechanisms.

Let's step back for a second. Scientific theories REQUIRE that the mechanisms be emprically testable. Already we have run into a problem. The source for the flood waters, according the the source in the OP, is claimed to be supernatural in origin. You can not empirically test supernatural events. At this point this argument has lost all scientific merit and has ventured into regions indistinguishable from fantasy. I could, with as much evidenciary backing, claim that Noah's third wish after catching a leprechaun was for the earth to be one big swimming pool. I am not trying to belittle your faith, only showing that it is by faith alone that these claims are being made.



Completely true. Theories require that we speculate as to the end products of the theorized mechanism. Both the mechanism and the end products must be emprically testable. God magicking in water is not testable.



And those speculations must have outcomes that can be tested. This makes the speculations potentially falsifiable and testable.

More from the article, this is rather a new interpretation I have not heard of before regarding the initial creation of the Earth, specifically addressing the water.



From what I can infer the Author is interpreting the creation event, thusly:

Earth covered in water,
Some water is gathered into an ice arch, thus exposing the land,
The Noachian flood is the resulting collapse (in part) of the ice arch.

Have I got that right? An ice arch (presumably from north to south pole extending into space)?

Belittle you do, and that is what is intended, for I know you could have thought of a better way to explain this. And as far as fantasy goes, I don't see science comming up with a direct way that all that water got down there and stayed there. You might think that saying it took billions of years might give the excuse for it to work. And science always cops out on this issue of time. But I also know that science says that volcanos were more active in past times. So with all the activity, how did more water go down, than came up, during every erruption? Also, pressure is required for the phase change needed for the water to go into the mantle. Where did that pressure come from?
Science guessing how all that water got down there without looking at all the facts is the same as your complaint of faith being our only bases for how it was done from our end.

Here again, you will use the time excuse. I look at the time excuse (time did it) in the same way you look at the faith issue (God did it).

So, I'm wondering where and how science tested how the water got there. Any ideas?

I am sorry if you took offense. I was thinking about that post later in the day and came to realization that I shouldn't have been that harsh. My apologies.

What I am trying to get at is that the global flood, as presented thus far, is an article of faith.



Actually, one of the early hypotheses is that the collision that created the moon also submerged large amounts of water in the mantle. It would seem that even science is hypothesizing a catastrophic origin for this water. The slow subduction of water carrying sediments is hypothesized as maintaining the water content instead of building it up. Of course, these are very early hypotheses and it is not clear how to test them. Also, it has not been shown that water in the mantle is a fact. Science is simply saying that it COULD HAVE happened this way, but science really doesn't know. There are many things that science simply doesn't understand yet, but they seem to stay away from the mistake of playing God of the Gaps, inserting God where our knowledge is poor.



Yes, where did it come from if this were indeed the flood waters? You are the one claiming that the water in the mantle is the flood waters. You have yet to explain how the flood waters got there. Science and I are saying "I don't know".





This is a recent discovery. From my readings, geologists are in the early stages of trying to figure it out. How would one test for the creationist theory, that this water is from a global flood 4,000 years ago?

Sorry I have not gotten back to this subject. But I've had to have some minor surgery, and the pain pills they have me on makes it hard to think. Sometimes even double vision. So I'll be modding off and on for a few days, but won't be doing much posting.

Hopefully things will be back to normal next week.

Admin3

Best wishes. Get better soon.

Clams, oysters, fossilized, closed on Mt. Everest, remember? And by the way, I DON'T say the flood waters are in the mantle. The flood waters are in the oceans. About half of the oceans used to be flood waters I think. I can't remember the number right now, but if you flatten out the mts. and bring up the valleys, just level everything off, there's enough water in the oceans right now to flood the earth 2 miles deep in water. I think it was 2 miles, but that's the number I said I couldn't remember. But I think that's right.

Using a perfectly spherical globe one could flood the planet with a very little water indeed.

I cannot see a reason why God, who has created a lot of water couldn't take the water back again (possibly for reusing after the Judgement day? I understand the world would be rather barren and tortured after that, so a little extra water could come in hand. Just theorizing, of course. Not that he couldn't create the water again).

However, the suggestion that perhaps, when created supernaturally, something could removed using the same means, was received with somewhat unnecessary irritation. Flooding the Earth was not part of the original design, yes, no? Even when God could probably see where the humans were heading? So, it would be natural to remove the excess and not sweep it "under a rug" (or a plate, in this case).

Many remarks have been made how God's actions cannot and shouldn't be explained by science. Why should we suddenly start looking for such explanations on this topic?

Actually, now that I think about it, if God truly were a good (land)lord, then he would probably have set everything back in order after the flood. Therefore, we could conclude that the many tales of floods all over the world and yet not a single mark or disorder left anywhere would show a supernatural intervention most elegantly. Really, why isn't that argument used more often?

"Flooding the Earth was not part of the original design, yes, no?"

Not sure what you really mean by that. The earth was flooded to start out with before the dry land appeared. Please explain.

"Actually, now that I think about it, if God truly were a good (land)lord, then he would probably have set everything back in order after the flood. Therefore, we could conclude that the many tales of floods all over the world and yet not a single mark or disorder left anywhere would show a supernatural intervention most elegantly. Really, why isn't that argument used more often? "

What are you talking about?! People can't conclude that there was a flood from tales all over the world AND the evidence of it as it is! If there were no evidence of it, even more people would dismiss the flood legends as simply that, legends.

I mean that if God existed and had created the world, dry land and people to inhabit it, hopefully he would have done it withoud thinking: "Hmmm, I probably should create a mechanism for getting rid of the water I'm going to use to kill them with later, too. And perhaps a way to properly cover the corpses? Yes, a splendid idea!" Because that would not have been very nice of the Good God, see. That would actually have been rather un-omnibenevolent. Therefore, although God is omniscient, one can hope he never looked forward to flooding the world and didn't make it an essential part of his plan.



But is it really important to prove that the flood did exist? God has given his word such a thing will not happen again. God has given the Bible, the unerring book, to tell people what happened. God has designed a plan to save people from damnation even if they will not believe a single other thing but Christ the Saviour and his Son. Why on Earth would you want any other proof?

""Hmmm, I probably should create a mechanism for getting rid of the water I'm going to use to kill them with later, too. And perhaps a way to properly cover the corpses? Yes, a splendid idea!" Because that would not have been very nice of the Good God, see. That would actually have been rather un-omnibenevolent. Therefore, although God is omniscient, one can hope he never looked forward to flooding the world and didn't make it an essential part of his plan."

You misunderstand God I think. God does not have to "look forward to" anything. God is not bound by time. The reason this is so hard for any human to comprehend is because we are bound by time. God simply is. He had the whole thing planned out forever, his plan has always been. If I keep talking about God and time my brain is going to slump in on itself again because it's impossible to understand. God already knows what you're going to do for the rest of your life, every decision you will make, every sin, etc. Perhaps he therefore already has the book of life written up? I'm not really sure what the point is in this aspect of our conversation. Yes, flooding the earth was part of the original design. At least for God it was, not for humans.

"But is it really important to prove that the flood did exist?"

If one shows evidence from around the world of it, and give biblical support, yes I'm sure there are many many people who will see that as evidence of God's word being true. Every person thinks a little differently, and every person needs something different to bring them to God, sometimes it will just be God revealing himself to them, sometimes it will be evidence.

"God has given his word such a thing will not happen again. God has given the Bible, the unerring book, to tell people what happened. God has designed a plan to save people from damnation even if they will not believe a single other thing but Christ the Saviour and his Son."

Yes he has, you are correct.

Why on Earth would you want any other proof?"

I'm reading your label there that says "agnostic."

I was a bit careless in my wording. I meant "look forward to" as in "hope for" not "expect". You're of course right in saying that an omniscient transtemporal being would be able to know everything happening in all time (our past(present/future) and would be able to prepare for things in time ( ). Note that we as time-restricted beings could not tell the difference between "the original design" and "the design created after complications arose". So, I suppose that the flooding could very well have been in the original plan and the transtemporal God would quite certainly already have the book of life written and closed. Interesting line of thought, that: are our souls already serving their sentence/ enjoying their rewards?



Hmmm... certainly some people would be convinced of the God's word being true after the flood would be proven. Christians, for example . And the Hellenic Reconstructionists might be rather pleased too . But those, who would convert to Christianity merely because of this, those I would be tempted to accuse of intellectual laziness. Accept an explanation simply because it is written somewhere (here I'm refering to the many articles that would certainly be published when the great flood would be proven)? Hmmm.

As the flood stories are not unique to the Bible, one could certainly make a case of the Israelite simply writing down what they had heard and trying to give it an (to them) reasonable explanation. So invoking God or the truth of his Word is not really a necessity here. Accepting it as proof without having any previous convictions about Christianity seems unthinking.



I read your label that said "Christian" . Anyways, me being agnostic does not mean I doubt everything written in the Bible, just whether there was such a divine involvement in the events as suggested. I have little problem with believing that the Israelites were a warlike tribe with many enemies or that some calamity from heaven (meteorites) fell on the funloving cities of Sodom and Gomorra. The worldwide flood and the Ark however... hem.

But even if they were proven to have existed in some form, you do realize that it would be somewhat silly to base one's religious beliefs on one little fact being true or not? (though the claim of the Bible being all truth and nothing else does leave it a bit vulnerable to phrases like "Verse so-and-so is wrong. So there. Ha-ha!") So it would not change much in my or many others' beliefs. The one and only question that really needs answering in regards to religious matters, the one question whose answer would mean or change anything, is: does god exist?

And my worldview label tells you exactly how easy I think proving that would be.

Well, It says that God set His bow in the clouds as a convenant:
Genesis 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.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
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.



God put the water in a place where it could never be retreived: http://www.ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html
This was done in such a way, that God could show that He did it. How else could that water get there in such massive quanities? So God created more water so the earth could be flooded, then stuck that water in that mineral to show where it went.



I would have to disagree. The water being in that mineral also means it was at one time, not in the mineral. Which proves the earth was flooded, to the tallest mountain regardless of where the water came from.

Actually, this raises another question. How did our planet end up with so much water, when other planets don't have much?

Is God's word better than legends?

First off, why did God flood the earth?
Genesis 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.
6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
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.
8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

So it was by the choices man had made that brought the flood. It was not so much that they had turned their backs to God, but they had become wicked, and wanted only evil, and never thought of anything good.

What, Admin3, all those replies and not a single mention of my last post!



OK, onwards with responding to your posts.



I must say I was quite doubtful about the perfect omnipotent God being very anxious to prove himself - after all, the point of "having faith" is believing, loving the deity without certain proof of its existence. But, when reading about the Israelites in Egypt I found these lines:
Ex. 11:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.
Ex. 11:10 And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and he LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

So, I suppose if God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh to show his powers and leave clear signs of his might, he could also forego the magical cleaning and hide all the excess water in the minerals to leave yet another proof of his deeds.

About the water at one time not being in the minerals: I don't know the English terms here, but there is a problem with houses built of certain type of stonelike material: at first they tend to be rather humid as the water in the material slowly evaporates, the water that was in it when the material formed/petrified. So it is not necessary to conclude that there was a time when the said minerals did not contain water, though the article suggests that there is a constant process of reinserting the water to the minerals in action.


Actually, do we know that other planets don't have as much water as ours does? After all, if the theory is right then most of our water is hidden deep in the planet, in some strange minerals. Are you quite sure that other planets couldn't have hidden their water similarly? (or very differently, for that matter, as Jupiter for example is not very like our little Earth).


Yes . The wording of the verses suggests that God was not terribly happy about the way his creation turned out, but I've always read it as if he hadn't been terribly happy with having to destroy everything as well. And the "And God saw" and "And it repented the LORD" parts suggest a certain hope that perhaps his creation would not turn out so wicked (being omniscient he would know all the possible paths life could take)(being transtemporal he would sadly know all the paths life would take). That was the basis of my claim "the flood was not a part of the original design", but the claim has been overthrown in many ways, so I concede that biblically, the God did create the universe and all life with the certain intention of destroying all but a few select individuals of the beforementioned life and, besides describing it in a document, left clear signs of the event all over the planet. I must admit I don't quite understand why anyone would want to convince anyone of such things about their God, but if it is the truth for you, then I'm willing to accept it as such. (Not to say I wouldn't still want to hear the arguments you use to support your views)

It was late, and I did not read it.

nin said:


The more research I do, the less I trust science. It is not so much what science is, it is what those who work with it have done to it. I find more and more that science is turning towards a bias game that only allows a non-creation issue to be persued. And allows creation issues to be mocked, because they have no old earth value, or evolution value. So it's the mindset that if we can't use it, nobady can. Don't believe me?

To take this subject to another creation, so called lie. Which coinsides with what is done with the flood, as far as science is concerned. Is our decaying magnetic field. If this issue is used for creation, here's what you find.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env116.htm

Actually, that link also exposes why the pole flip thing even came up. And notice how that even the person does not mention creation, because this was mentioned as a measurement for the earth's age, it was automatically assumed. Bias. But I think it's funny that this scientist let the cat out of the bag about what polar flips are being used for. To debunk the creation magnetic decay, to measure the age of the earth.

And it is attitudes like this that never let anything about creation to be ever reseached scientifically.

Another example:
Noah's ark. Was it found? Why does science leave this issue in actual limbo? I can guaruntee if the missing link where found on that mountain, there would be no expense spared in bringing it down. They would even risk their life to get at it. But a boat sets on a muntain, and all they can do is discredit people who say it's evidence for Noah's flood? Sounds very scientific. But it's the norm where science is concerned when it comes to anything about God.

Creationist:So why don't they bring down that boat?
Evolutionist: O, it's to dangerous .
Creationist: Hey the missing link is setting right next to it.
Evolutionist: We'll get a billion dollar grant and get back to you on this . But the boat stays.

The truth you search for, is the only truth you will find.

well, the YEC's are about the only ones who use Earth's magnetic field's fluctuations to measure Earth's age (or its similarity to the possible age derived from the Bible). So I don't think it need a terribly big stretch of imagination to tie that question with creationism, perhaps the asker having heard about the arugument being used and wanting to know if there's any truth to it.



I could have sworn by the answer that the polar flip theory was used to explain the decreasing of the magnetic field and the magnetism of certain rock formations. And that debunking Creationist time measurements was only a side effect. But you seem to suggest that when the Creationists first used the argument, scientists all rushed to action to find something, anything to debunk it -

Well, since small-scale persecution is sort of fun (all groups - Goths, enviromentalists, numismatics, whatever - spend some of their time discussing how the others hate/don't understand them), I can't really object to your "scientists spent all their time thinking and worring about creationists" attitude - if it pleases you... . As long as you remember it's not necessarily a very objective view .



Well, what you see as an hindrance, I see as an opportunity. Why don't you organize an expedition to the alleged location of the Ark? No need to wait for others to act, conclusive proof of an important biblical story - it would be much more beneficial to your cause than simply talking about the problem. Collecting money is not terribly difficult for churches, there can't be a lack of enthusiasts, Christian scientists would be delighted to study such an important relic. I think if you started organizing it now, you might have conclusive results by same time next year. It would take some of your personal time and resources to get the preparations rolling, but your fellow Christians would probably be delighted to help out. (If you decide to take this up, keep us updated)

Quite true .

Nice dodge. But I expected it. Your assumptions, just like the answer on that page, more proves the point I was trying to make. The mindset is always the same where creationist are concerned.



Almost. You can't go past 20-30 thousand years into the past without it being so strong, life could not exist.



We are all entitled to our own views. Problem is, science seems to think it's view is the only one allowed. Which would explain the reason your here, would it not?



And would you accept my findings? I think not. I have yet to see one creationist evidence accepted by atheisted science. Can you name one that was, that supported God or HIs creation? My point made.



Glad we can agree on something.

Pity I have a plane to catch. But I will reply in depth as soon as possible, I promise . Ciao!

Question for the YEC's: If all the water from the Flood was stored in minerals, why then is this not visible on seismic measurements? Same goes for a layer of liquid water in the crust. If there was such a layer, it should inhibit transverse waves to pass through this layer. Why doesn't this happen?

New to the thread but I'll jump in here. I scanned up to this point but it appears this has not yet been addressed. Biblically, the enviroment before the flood was perfect. No death, no disease. We need an explanation for a perfect enviroment before the flood and an enviroment after the flood which causes shortened life spans. So:
The Earth was created with an encompassing water canopy, similar though not near as thick as Venus. This is where a major portion of the water for the flood came. This canopy provided solar protection and a temperate world-wide enviroment. This canopy was dumped during the flood and the solar radiation it protected us from caused shorter life spans. Methusula is the oldest recorded man in the Bible at near 1000 years. Immediately following the flood the Bible records life spans getting shorter.

Basically as Christians there are some important issues that first need to be addressed.

With regards to Noah's flood you don't have to justify Gods word. If you are basing your information from scripture and you can piece it together theoretically then you are equally right to do so.

Evolutionists can call their theories science all they want, personally I wouldn't, but hey!, they are entitled to their opinion as well. I don't think anyone who objects to the flood waters carving out the Grand Canyon have any more knowledge in fluid dynamics than you or I, so if it doesn't make sense to them then they again have abided by someone elses interpretation of the cause of it's existence.

Although it completely eludes evolutionists as to how the waters enter the Grand Canyon at 2800 feet ASL, then miraculously by their own timeline account of millions of years, the river had to flow uphill another 6500 feet or so in order to carve out the top of the Kaibab uplift.

The peak of the Kaibab uplift 275 miles west of where the river enters the canyon is over 8000 feet above sea level.

That alone kills any feasable theory that the Colorado river formed the Grand Canyon over millions of years. I live next to a river that is estimated to be over 200 million years old The St, Lawrence river, one of Canadas largest rivers (I think it is the largest) but yet I can walk along side the river without even twisting my ankle on it's shores for hundreds of miles...why hasn't it carved itself into a huge canyon?

A quick few corrections, people did die prior to the flood they just lived longer, remember, death reigned after Adam & Eve were ejected from the garden.

Gods punishment of mankind through the flood had more to do with preserving the bloodline of mankind than it did with reasons of sin. In order to understand this you really have to take a leap of faith and things will really start to take a twist, especially seeing that it calls on reading from the Torah and the Book of Jasher.

Man this post is gonna get huge, get ready for a humdinger here folks.

The following verses give a vague description as to why God needed to wipe out mankind but I think verse 12 pretty much states that all "flesh" has become corrupted.

Genesis 6:12 KJV



Twice in the Bible there were references to the book of Jasher, Jasher was not a man but translated as book of the "upright" or "Righteous" it was discovered in the 15th century and there was alot of controversy around it but becasue of the two references from the bible.

Biblical reference for Jasher:

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. (Joshua 10:13)

(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.- ­ 2 Samuel 1:18.

The references of Jasher lead me to track down the actual book of Jasher to see the account of the flood in order to establish consistency. What I found was incredibly interesting in the way that the two differ in their explanation or reason for Gods punishment.

Jasher 4:18



Interesting, they took the woman by "force" and "taught the mixture of animals"...hmm genetics?...DNA?, after all God did make woman from a piece of Adams rib right?

The King James Version reads as follows:

Genesis 6: 4-12



In Jasher 4:18 we can see that there is an indication that somehow there was some type of crossbreeding going on in order to provoke the Lord. Who were the Giants in the earth in those days anyways?

When we find the same passage in the Torah or the Pentateuch, the Giants are referred to as the Nephilim.

The Torah, Genesis 6,4:



Genesis 6:4 teaches us that the Sons of God mated with the daughters of men and they bare children to them and that their off-spring became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Not only did human woman give birth to these Nephilim, half human-half angel, the off-spring inherited their strength and knowledge. The angels that fell with Lucifer would have had a higher level of intelligence and possibly strength and size, after all they did work between God and Man.

This next part is an explanation for those who think the bible says that Angels cannot mate with human woman, this is clarified in the following.

Mathew 22:28



I'm still not sure how one can derive from this passage (Mathew 22:28) that the fallen ones were not capable of mating with human woman? as usual, most take a verse out of its context in order to fit their theory which breaks one of the main rules of scriptural interpretation.

Always double check verses leading up to and following one verse, especially when someone is attempting to subject a verse to "private interpretation". More often than not, you will find their interpretation to be in gross error. As in comparing the one verse above with the 3 verses below, when including verses 29 and 30 with verse 28, you will get the literal meaning of verse 28.

Mathew 22:28-30



Now we have the "full" context for the meaning. In the resurrection they neither marry or are given in marriage but are as the angels of God in heaven.

In verse 30 Jesus was literally answering the question of resurrection for verse 28, he is asked of the resurrection and explains how things are in heaven as opposed to being on earth after the resurrection.

In the resurrection we will no longer be of flesh. The Sons of God were cast down to earth with Lucifer and were no longer A-sexual or genderless as they would be in heaven, they were of flesh and quite capable of mating with humans, being turned to flesh was part of their punishment for following Lucifer and disobeying God.

After the fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, Gods punishment of Lucifer was the beginning of the Prophecy of the coming Messiah. In short, the corruption of all flesh was Lucifers attempt to change the outcome of Christs inevitable inheritance of the Kingdom of God.

God brought the flood waters upon the earth to cleanse it of the corrupted flesh, to preserve the bloodline that would bring forth our saviour.

Noah was a righteous man who kept his children from sin and therefore his family were spared in order to carry on the bloodline which had not been corrupted, which eventually would lead to the lineage of David and ultimately to the virgin birth, Mary.

I believe that the Pyramids around the world as well as Stonehenge are all linked from pre-flood to post flood. There are no records to prove that the Egyptians actually constructed the Great Pyramid or the Sphinx at Gizza as well as not knowing for sure who built Stonehenge.

Stonehenge would have been mankinds first attempt to understand the changing seasons in order to finally esatblish a seasonal cycle due in fact that the planet had a global uniform temperature, greenhouse affect due to the canopy layer as mentioned in the Bible. This would also explain why they have found tropical vegetation frozen in the Antarctic, the world was once completely covered in vegetation.

The Pyramids and the Sphinx were pre-flood as well as the Nazca evidence of mounatin tops being leveled for pre-historic flight. Mankind was far more advanced pre-flood the knowledge Adam brought forth to his generations came directly from God and we have gotten more ignorant following the aftermath of the flood (Evolution theory is a perfect example of this).

The Sahara Desert is estimated to be around 4400 years old and in 1999 scientists discovered that the desert has formed due to a "Sudden" change in atmosphere, when that canopy collapsed there would have been a drastic change in atmosphere. This is where and when the ice caps would have begun to form which eventually caused the water levels to drop continuosly until while they formed, until the atmosphere stabilized then some of it would begin to melt back re-raising water levels over a couple of hundred years and stranding certain species in areas like Australia and New Zealand allowing them to appear indigenous and or "evolved".

Stonehenge would be approximate to this timeline as well and the Gizza plateau too.

Even the great barrier reef in Australia is estimated to be around 4000 years old.

North of the Mongolian Plateau and the Himilayan mountains show an incredible upheaval of land mass that clearly happened suddenly from some sort of catastrophic event. All kinds of sea floor fossils are found high in these regions which indicate a sudden upheaval, if not I would have to say that these creatures were pretty stupid to hang around while it took milllions of years for the land to inch it's way up to 28,000 feet above sea level.

If we layed it out flat and equally the parallel mountain ranges that coincide with each other on the edges of every continent I could clearly summarize that it wouldn't take much water to flood the entire planet.

One other verse is very key here...it wasn't just the heavens and the fountains of the great deep that broke open, the water continued to rise for months following the rain, this indicates vast amounts of subterranean water chambers that came up between the tectonic plates as they first began to shift due to the sudden change in atmospheric pressure which allowed for free movemnet of the tectonic plates, thus causing the mountain ranges to form and sudden shifts of land mass.

We have proof of this in Chapter 8 verse 2, the term assuaged means rise and fall not back and forth, this would indicate the tectonic plates shifting up and down and the water rising and flowing over the continents for some time following the flood.

Then ultimately the drainage of the land, Noah and his family were in the ark for over a year, totally feasible story with ample global Geological evidence to support it, it just depends on how you want to interpret the "Science" Creationists view or evolutionists.



Genesis 7:24



Then we have a clear account of how the waters running off the earth could have easily formed the canyons.

Genesis 8:2-5


If Evolutionists can theorize that we came from a broth of fungae, then I can theorize the biblical account of the flood to support a YEC view with the same geological evidence they use to support the Old Earth theory.

Peace

Christopher_John a point about river geology:

I’m afraid it does nothing of the sort, uplift is a relatively slow process, there is no physical hindrance to prevent an existing river carving a channel faster than the uplift.







Speed and terrain determine if a river cuts or deposits, a fast moving river will cut it’s way through rock, a slower river will dump it sediment an create river deltas, mud flats etc and will not go deeper in fact it builds land!

Christopher_John a couple of questions.

Who do you think built them if not the Egyptians, their language is found in them, as is their royalty, and possessions.



What is the Biblical canopy reference please, I was under the impression this idea was rather modern.

!! pre historic flight! Are you serious? What evidence do you base this claim upon please.

Christopher_John re the Himalayan's


How sudden are you talking about? And what is causing it?

from
LINK

Genesis 7:11
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

This verse has been interpreted by some to support the collapse of this supposed vapor canopy. It needs to be noted that this theory has been rejected by most creationists because of some serious problems that have yet to be resolved. One such example is the extreme temperature that such a "greenhouse effect" would have created on the earth's surface.

Yes, with vapor you would have this. But, with a crystalline canopy you would not.

Example: When the earth was created, there's not many creationists that would not agree that the earth was a sphere of water. Now, to get to what this means, is you have to read between the lines.

Example: What is a sphere of water, in space with no atmosphere? It is water being exposed to the absolute zero of space. Which means the water would start to freeze. There is a formula for how long it takes for water to freeze once exposed to below freezing temps. It like some many hours per inch, not sure though. The outer part of this water sphere would freeze, much like the pic below, but more solid because of it being exposed to absolute zero.:



So when the water receded the very next day, the earth was surrounded by a globe of ice that works much like the ozone layer does. It was clear, but change to a pinkish color tint due to the exposure to the sun without the protection of an atmosphere.

The canopy also rotated with the earth's spin. This did two things.
1) The spin help hold the weight of the canopy in space, much like how our satellites stay in orbit around our planet.
2) It kept the part that was being exposed to the sun from melting because the rotation was fast enough to throw off heat build up in one area.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.