Genesis Flood Local Or Global ?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Your assuming several things including the highest points of elevation at that time.

If the elevation was lower wouldn't it more readily run off into the surrounding ocean in less than a day? We would have to have significant variation and elevation to trap the waters long enough for them to be upon the earth for more than 150 days. I think the more we try to rewrite the terrain the more problems we create.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I don't quite follow what you're saying there, Big Dan Teague.

Do geologists agree that the region was redesigned by a massive flood?

Yes, I pointed that out - it's still "ongoing." However, Ballard was offering an etiology - or origin event for the flood stories and was not as concerned as you and I about harmonizing the observed real world events with the Bible's testimony.

I don't doubt that Ballard is onto something big, I just don't believe it's the flood described in the Bible.

For the Black Sea all we need to do is bust open the Dardanelles and/or the Bospurus and the whole vast valley floods. Of course we're still stuck with the water being in that valley after the flood (like it is now); but you're stuck with a bigger problem: Where did your water come from to begin with and where did it go? Ballard at least has the simple force of gravity to explain his flood.

Did this flood fill the region for the ark to drift on it for over 150 days? If not, it doesn't float.

"Tranquil." That's why I thought of "bath" instead of a "flood." Usually when a scientist or other theorist presents a novel idea they will offer some points that would falsify their theory. For example Darwin's famous statement that "transitional forms" would be found to support his hypothesis on natural selection. As the forms were found they added more weight to Darwin's case. If they had never been found then he would not have had much prestige.

Einstein said that for General Relativity to be true you should be able to witness the effects of the sun's gravity pulling on the light from background stars during a full eclipse. If you didn't see this effect, he said, his whole theory was in shambles - but it proved to be correct.

Since you offer no evidence to support your hypothesis - how about some form of falsifiablity? What conditions might we find - besides the glaring lack of water - that would tend to falsify your hypothesis if they were to be observed? Basically, can you make a prediction based upon your theory? Something like; "If this were the case, then we should expect to find ancient barometers with the tops blown off of them."

If I were a geologist (I only dabble in geology) I'm sure that I could. My point is that I don't think we'd have much evidence for a global flood even if there was one.

[pelathais]

You're still demanding a literal fulfillment whereas I'm content to have the truth of an inspired story.

You want to have a "flood" with no evidence that it ever occurred.

I have a world filled with evidence of what did happen (no global inundation in the last 3.5 billion years) and a dramatic cultural event so stark that it is recorded in our genetic material.

It's not necessary to play make believe with the Bible. We can accept it on its own terms and allow it to tell us an incredible story of hope and redemption. By insisting upon our own traditions and cherished beliefs about the Bible, we rob ourselves and others of the truth that it has to reveal.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You're still demanding a literal fulfillment whereas I'm content to have the truth of an inspired story.

You want to have a "flood" with no evidence that it ever occurred.

I have a world filled with evidence of what did happen (no global inundation in the last 3.5 billion years) and a dramatic cultural event so stark that it is recorded in our genetic material.

It's not necessary to play make believe with the Bible. We can accept it on its own terms and allow it to tell us an incredible story of hope and redemption. By insisting upon our own traditions and cherished beliefs about the Bible, we rob ourselves and others of the truth that it has to reveal.

Let's try to look at it point by point. I'll ask a question. You provide an answer...

How did a localized flood maintain such a depth for well over 150 days (five months)?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Let's try to look at it point by point. I'll ask a question. You provide an answer...

How did a localized flood maintain such a depth for well over 150 days (five months)?

What local flood are you talking about? I had this one in the basement once that lasted almost a week while we were out of town.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

What local flood are you talking about? I had this one in the basement once that lasted almost a week while we were out of town.

I thought we both agreed that Ballard's Black Sea "flood" has lasted way more than 150 days.

[Aquila]

How long did Ballard's flood last?

[Jason B]

and the colorado river formed the Grand Canyon

[Jason B]

global flood-no question
six literal day creation

[RandyWayne]

I am amazed at the catastrophic asteroid collisions that have struck the Earth over its lifespan.
There are three very well known ones: One crator is off the Northern coast of South America, another is North East Canada and yet another off of Australia. Each one of these would have caused mass extinction.
So for all of you young-Earther's, when did they take place?