The topic doesn't have to be in a science section at all.
If it's about the biblical flood then it can be in the religion section.
You could ask Sherman or JR to move it to Religion.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
If it's about the biblical flood then it can be in the religion section.
You could ask Sherman or JR to move it to Religion.
Where did the water go?
That's a good question to ponder even though we may never know for sure since it was a one time event that would never be able to repeat.
In other words, the earth would never be able to be engulfed with water again.
It seems a bit obvious that extra water (than the earth already held) had to come from somewhere else in order to engulf the whole earth.
And that water had to remove to somewhere else in order for the whole earth to no longer be engulfed.
The water has not gone anywhere. It is still here and has been here since the days of Noah.
How Much Water is There on Earth? | U.S. Geological Survey
The Earth is a watery place. But just how much water exists on, in, and above our planet? Read on to find out.
How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?
All Earth's water, liquid fresh water, and water in lakes and rivers
Sources/Usage: Public Domain. Visit Media to see details.
Spheres showing
1) All water (largest sphere over western U.S., 860 miles (1,385 kilometers) in diameter)(2) Fresh liquid water in the ground, lakes, swamps, and rivers (mid-sized sphere over Kentucky, 169.5 miles (272.8 kilometers) in diameter), and (3) Fresh-water lakes and rivers (smallest sphere over Georgia, 34.9 miles i(56.2 kilometers) n diameter).Credit: Howard Perlman, USGS; globe illustration by Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (©); and Adam Nieman.
The Earth is a watery place. But just how much water exists on, in, and above our planet? About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water.
No, there doesn't have to be extra water in the way you are thinking. Understand that the world was flatter before the flood. And the water washed over the earth for about a year, constantly, more than the earth "sat" in water. And after the flood the world's crust had been 'roughed up a bit' leaving some areas higher and others lower than before the flood.
Now, you can say there is extra water if you are talking about the amount of water on the surface of the earth before the flood compared to the amount on the surface after the flood. But that is only because the water that was under the surface was moved to the surface.
Right Divider
Body part
The water is here, except for the small portion that was launched into space.
The earth held about half of the water under the crust.
That's simply not true.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Dr. Walt Brown explains it all very thoroughly in In the Beginning: https://hpt.rsr.org/onlinebook
Please read the book.
Last edited:
Based on what??? How could anyone possibly know that???
Assumption.
It could have been that way, or it could of been some other way.
We just don't know.
I probably won't get around to reading the book any time soon.
I've watched the video you posted, and also others of Dr. Brown's theory. And it says right up front that it is based on assumption.
So I take it as just one more theory of how things might have happened.
We don't know that for sure.
If all the water came from below the surface of the earth by natural means of the earth buckling and splitting in areas, then that would seem to indicate that it could happen again.
But we know that it can not happen again.
The flood happened just as God said it happened. Just because there are so many things humans don't know does not change that fact.
Mary Contrary 999
Active member
Where does the water go when you flush a toilet. I don't know and I don't care
Because the tectonic plates had neither buckled nor run into each other. That's the two cases that make the high mountains.
Thus the term "Hydroplate THEORY".
Of course its a theory, just as Plate Techtonics is a theory. Virtually all of geology is based on one theory or another of the Earth's origins. The Hydroplate Theory is easily the best theory that has been proposed to date because it is not only consistent with both what is observed in nature and with a biblical world view but also makes testable predictions without the need for ad-hoc rescue devises that every other origins theory I know of employs at the drop of a hat.
Clete
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, assumption based on solid evidence.
Assumption.
Yes, we do know a lot ... based on solid evidence.
That's your choice.
No kidding. Is there a problem with his assumptions?
Any theory about what happened in the distant past will have some assumptions. That does not mean that we just throw it out as invalid.
I believe that the theory is quite compelling. You seem to think that we just can't really know much of anything.
The Bible gives a clear indication that half of the water was above the crust that was spread out, and the other half was below it:
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”Thus 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. - Genesis 1:6-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:6-7&version=NKJV
For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. - 2 Peter 3:5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:5-6&version=NKJV
Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it: - Isaiah 42:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah42:5&version=NKJV
As the others have said, the assumptions are not just random assumptions based on nothing at all. They're based on evidence.
What marke said aside, much of the water is still on the earth, while the rest of it was ejected into space.
Why? If the mechanism that drove the fountains of the great deep was gravity pulling on a supercritical fluid that was forced out of (relatively narrow) cracks in the crust, and then most of that supercritical water was expelled from below the crust of the earth, and now sits on top of it, what makes you think that all the pressure that had been relieved would enable such a thing to happen again?
Duh.
Right Divider
Body part
What seems to indicate this?
How do we know that it cannot happen again?
Two reasons:
- We know because God said that He would not do it again. Gen 9:8-17
- But also, the physical properties of the earth (due to all of the events of the flood) will not allow it to happen again. There is no longer a huge highly pressurized "deep" with a containing crust above it.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Genesis 7:19 " And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."
The Flood covered the highest mountains and it doesn't make sense that a mountain was only 15 cubits high, so I take this to mean the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. Mt. Everest is like 9km high. And if we take the world's ocean and make the earth's surface completely flat it would be 2km deep all around the earth. So if all the water from the Flood is still here in the ocean, it couldn't have risen to 9km high, but only at most 2km high, with a perfectly flat surface, so since 15 cubits is a negligible fraction of a km, then the highest mountains then must have been only about 2km high.
At least, if I'm thinking clearly lol.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
When you look at a map of the sea floor it definitely looks like . . . something happened down there. I mean it looks like lots of things might have happened down there, but it's interesting that one of the things that it looks like, in some places, like around the 'ring of fire' in the Pacific, is 'deflated'. Like there was at one point like a water bed that broke open and now what used to be the top of the bed is under the sea and there are places where it looks like it tore open (the 'trenches') and out of which all the water escaped from.
It's also interesting that geological historians or historical geologists everybody believes in multiple mass extinction events, and in multiple massive floods. Rather than believe in just one mass extinction event and one massive flood and that they are both the same one event, they believe in multiple mass extinctions and multiple gigantic floods that occurred over the last like billion years, instead of just believing there's one global event that happened like within the last 6,000 years.
We couldn't see the ocean floor like this until space satellites. That means when people were pondering the Flood account in the Bible, all they could ever see was the sea, but not the sea floor. They didn't have access to that data until we rocketed up satellites with special cameras that could see through the water to the abyssal plains, the mid-ocean ridges, trenches, and the like. I mean we had sonar, but we couldn't see the whole world's seabed until the space age.
And one more thing about the Flood, is that we're inquiring here about a natural event, not a miracle. While the Bible records the Flood, the Flood itself was not supernatural or miraculous. The earth was, if the Flood really happened, 'set up' for a flood. It was possible to happen once, and naturally.
And I still want to know if anyone has ever been able to determine whether large scale atmospheric rainbows were possible before the earth was covered 70% in water. Because that would be interesting one way or another to know.
It's also interesting that geological historians or historical geologists everybody believes in multiple mass extinction events, and in multiple massive floods. Rather than believe in just one mass extinction event and one massive flood and that they are both the same one event, they believe in multiple mass extinctions and multiple gigantic floods that occurred over the last like billion years, instead of just believing there's one global event that happened like within the last 6,000 years.
We couldn't see the ocean floor like this until space satellites. That means when people were pondering the Flood account in the Bible, all they could ever see was the sea, but not the sea floor. They didn't have access to that data until we rocketed up satellites with special cameras that could see through the water to the abyssal plains, the mid-ocean ridges, trenches, and the like. I mean we had sonar, but we couldn't see the whole world's seabed until the space age.
And one more thing about the Flood, is that we're inquiring here about a natural event, not a miracle. While the Bible records the Flood, the Flood itself was not supernatural or miraculous. The earth was, if the Flood really happened, 'set up' for a flood. It was possible to happen once, and naturally.
And I still want to know if anyone has ever been able to determine whether large scale atmospheric rainbows were possible before the earth was covered 70% in water. Because that would be interesting one way or another to know.
Thanks.
It could be that it did happened that way, but we just don't know for sure.
I don't find it necessary to align laws of nature to the biblical flood, as it could have been a completely supernatural event apart from what we view as a natural phenomenon.
(Not saying you do find it necessary, just stating a general observation.)
But it is interesting to consider all the possibilities.
I don't completely discard the canopy theory (at least in part).
Mainly because of the vast age differences before and after the flood, and that scripture seems to indicate the flood waters came from below and above.
Right Divider
Body part
It's the best explanation based on what we do know.
Assumption. Why can't it be explained based on the Biblical starting point and then the laws of physics?
Why not? It has far too many problems.
The waters "above" were not held up over the sky. They were ejected from below the earth. Most of which fell back down to earth. Some left earth along with other materials. Those formed comets, asteroids, meteors and TNO's.