Genesis Flood Local Or Global ?

[pelathais]

A note: I have to get ready for an important engagement tonight and I'll be out for a while - trying to "get a life" as they say. I'd like to continue this discussion, so please don't think I'm ignoring you over the next few hours.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Moving under power - whether sail or whatever propulsion does increase the stresses. The proposed literal ark would not have had these stresses and makes the problem for the literalists a bit easier.

However, the open seas themselves do present some terrific forces just with the wave action. None of the large wooden platforms or barges that have been built have ever successfully stood up to the open seas.

I believe that your "rising flood, not necessarily a flowing flood like an over flowing river" scenario would not be an accurate description of the Flood as proposed. We're talking about a global rise in sea level at a rate of several hundred feet per hour - according to Aquila's numbers - where did all this water come from and where did it go?

The answers to that would show a tremendous rate of flow, roil, and churn globally.

I don't necessaril;y believe it was a global flood. "rate and flow"...flowing water is usually when water is rushing downhill, not when a basin is being filled

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by pelathais

So you think the flood was not global?

When you cut-and-paste from other websites would you please include the links and identify what is being quoted and what you own words are?

I did include the link. I do distinguish what is mine and what is not

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding. It is not enough that a ship be built to hold together; it must also be sturdy enough that the changing stresses don't open gaps in its hull. Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long [ Gen. 6:15]. Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?


------

It was not an open sea. It was a rising flood, not necessarily a flowing flood like an over flowing river.

It was temporary.

It was not a moving vessel, like sails or rowing. It was a barge. Do they account for that? It was essentially a glorified platform floating in the water.

This was from the link you gave Pel http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

The separation ----- denotes where I end quote and speak my own words. I thought it was rather intuitive but oh well

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Moving under power - whether sail or whatever propulsion does increase the stresses. The proposed literal ark would not have had these stresses and makes the problem for the literalists a bit easier.

However, the open seas themselves do present some terrific forces just with the wave action. None of the large wooden platforms or barges that have been built have ever successfully stood up to the open seas.

I believe that your "rising flood, not necessarily a flowing flood like an over flowing river" scenario would not be an accurate description of the Flood as proposed. We're talking about a global rise in sea level at a rate of several hundred feet per hour - according to Aquila's numbers - where did all this water come from and where did it go?

The answers to that would show a tremendous rate of flow, roil, and churn globally.

Ummm, bro... in post #22 I had said,

Sea level rose 30,000 feet in 40 days, a 750-foot-per day, or approximately 30-foot-per-hour, rise in sea level.

The point is that according to the Bible, a global flood was merely a steady rising of sea level during steady rains for 40 days and nights. I believe that the best answer is that the water came out from the crust of the earth and retreated there by the hand of God. However, just as Jesus fed the 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes God could also have produced enough water to flood the planet.

The flood as described in the Bible was a rather tranquil and steady rising of the sea.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ummm, bro... in post #22 I had said,

Sea level rose 30,000 feet in 40 days, a 750-foot-per day, or approximately 30-foot-per-hour, rise in sea level.

The point is that according to the Bible, a global flood was merely a steady rising of sea level during steady rains for 40 days and nights. I believe that the best answer is that the water came out from the crust of the earth and retreated there by the hand of God. However, just as Jesus fed the 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes God could also have produced enough water to flood the planet.

The flood as described in the Bible was a rather tranquil and steady rising of the sea.

It would have had to have been for the ark to survive. So why do all young earthers use the flood as a catch all to explain every canyon and mountain on the planet? One one hand, it was gentle enough for the ark to stay afloat yet violent enough to form the grand canyon and all the great mountain ranges of the planet.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't necessaril;y believe it was a global flood. "rate and flow"...flowing water is usually when water is rushing downhill, not when a basin is being filled

Yes, but the only explanation we have for the water's source is the "fountains of the deep" and the "windows of heaven." Thus the incoming water - incoming at a massive rate, would have created created currents and eddies.

Obviously no one knows the exact nature of such an event. Would the time frame be too short for the establishment of the "conveyor" type currents and the global gyres that we see in today's seas?

In any event, the minimum condition would have been something comparable to the open seas of today. Also, that much water coming down would have required storm conditions of an almost unimaginable fury.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This was from the link you gave Pel http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

The separation ----- denotes where I end quote and speak my own words. I thought it was rather intuitive but oh well

That's the link I gave. You provided no link in your post. Not a biggie, but I was concerned about lurkers keeping track of it all.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ummm, bro... in post #22 I had said,

Sea level rose 30,000 feet in 40 days, a 750-foot-per day, or approximately 30-foot-per-hour, rise in sea level.

The point is that according to the Bible, a global flood was merely a steady rising of sea level during steady rains for 40 days and nights. I believe that the best answer is that the water came out from the crust of the earth and retreated there by the hand of God. However, just as Jesus fed the 5,000 with five loaves and two fishes God could also have produced enough water to flood the planet.

The flood as described in the Bible was a rather tranquil and steady rising of the sea.

Thanks, I couldn't remember the exact number and was getting pushed out the door at the time. BTW - did you say that you calculated this yourself or are you citing someone else's figures?

In any event, where did the water come from and where did it go? What were the conditions like around the "nozzles" (sources) and "drains?" It seems that you offer no explanation other than that it was a "rabbit out of a hat" type of event. Certainly God could have done this, but is there any evidence that He did?

Given the absence of natural forces, your explanation clearly makes a break with the standard and most popular flood geologist and "Scientific Creationist" movements. I can respect that and your approach. But I really don't see the event as being described as "tranquil" in any means.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

It would have had to have been for the ark to survive. So why do all young earthers use the flood as a catch all to explain every canyon and mountain on the planet? One one hand, it was gentle enough for the ark to stay afloat yet violent enough to form the grand canyon and all the great mountain ranges of the planet.

I don't think Chris's model makes those assertions. But I just don't see the event as "tranquil" in the least. The weight of the water alone would have deformed the surface of the entire planet's continental surfaces. The last ice age weighed down Ohio and that whole region so much that the surface is still slowly springing back up after 10,000 years.

And water is heavier than ice. Water six miles deep is very heavy!