Localized Flood

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Because most of the land was surrounded by tall mountains, the animals would not have very much to run to, especially insects. It is also possible that the ark's wooden structure was used for shelter after Noah's whole tribe was destroyed. I also beleive there is a reason God commanded Noah to take seven of every clean animal onto the ark (Genesis 7:2): food.

I've seen enough videos of animals seeking higher ground in flooding and tsunamis and stuff to know that everyone had time to get out of the valley. Hell, the animals would've left before humans would.

I also beleive there is a reason God commanded Noah to take seven of every clean animal onto the ark (Genesis 7:2): food.

I thought eating meat was only a thing after the flood was over? How did they survive if you had to keep the only window and door closed during the storm? Oxygen is life.

For example, it could have been that there was just on kind of bears and all other “species” of bears are offspring of those original bears.

Kind of like how, to a toddler, all quadrupedal mammals are doggies?

 

[1213]

There is aboslutely no evidence of this.

False, the stories in the rest of the world have distinctly different types of floods and narratives except for the Summarian records that Genesis stories came from, ....

But they all indicate of great flood, even if the stories are slightly different. That can be just because people remember things differently, or have lost part of the information.

Sumerian records are probably copied from Jews.

Evidence for the great flood are:
1. Orogenic mountains
2. Vast sediment formations like the Grand Canyon
3. Marine fossils on high mountains
4. Oil and gas fields as result of vast amount of drowned organic material
5. Modern continents as result of the collapse of the original single continent

 

[shunyadragon]

But they all indicate of great flood, even if the stories are slightly different. That can be just because people remember things differently, or have lost part of the information.

The answer again is absolutely no, the flood stories in most other cultures represent very different floods. For example; the Chinese story is actually a very accurate description and datable catastrophic flooding of river valleys. The Japanese written records and Northeastern Native Americans describe tidal wave flooding accurately described in there oral legends.

Sumerian records are probably copied from Jews.

The Sumerian records predate any Hebrew texts by over a thousand years,

Evidence for the great flood are:
1. Orogenic mountains

This is evidence against the world flood.

2. Vast sediment formations like the Grand Canyon

The Grand Canyon is river cut through solid stratified rock layers containing volcanic rock layers, limestone, and metamorphic rock over a period of millions of years. None of the strata were deposited by floods.

3. Marine fossils on high mountains.

The marine fossils in the high mountains are in limestone formations that are folded and faulted and extend into the interior of the mountains. Limestone formations are not deposited in floods.

4. Oil and gas fields as result of vast amount of drowned organic material

The origin of the oil, gas and coal organic materials are well known as to their origin, and hav eno relationship to any flood. I am a geologist and have personal knowledge of these deposits.

5. Modern continents as result of the collapse of the original single continent

The actual evidence of the continents and continental drift is evidence against any flood.

The energy involved with the history of the above would melt the earth if it took place in the short period of time the creationists claim. A clear violation of the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I am a geologist with over fifty years experience and fully understand none of the above represent evidence of a flood.

 

[1213]

…The Sumerian records predate any Hebrew texts by over a thousand years,…

Even if that would be true about the text that we have found, it is possible that we just have not found the oldest scriptures. Hebrews can have had the message transferred orally much longer.

The Grand Canyon is river cut through solid stratified rock layers containing volcanic rock layers, limestone, and metamorphic rock over a period of millions of years. None of the strata were deposited by floods.

Sorry, I don’t believe that.

The origin of the oil, gas and coal organic materials are well known as to their origin, and have no relationship to any flood. I am a geologist and have personal knowledge of these deposits.

What is their origin?

The actual evidence of the continents and continental drift is evidence against any flood.

That is not true. But please explain why you think so?

The energy involved with the history of the above would melt the earth if it took place in the short period of time the creationists claim

There is no good reason to think so.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even if that would be true about the text that we have found, it is possible that we just have not found the oldest scriptures. Hebrews can have had the message transferred orally much longer.

Your arguing from an extreme 'arguing from ignorance.' There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any Hebrew language older than 1000 BCE nor scriptures older than ~700-600 BCE. There are abundant cuneiform tablets from Sumarian, Babylonian. Ugarit and Canaanite cultures far older than any Hebrew writing.

Sorry, I don’t believe that.

Belief is not an issue here, scientific evidence is and you have not offered any that would remotely support your view. I have been to the Grand Canyon and understand the strategraphy. There is continuous limestone, volcanic and other strata all around the canyon disected by erosion not remotely associated with a flood.

What is their origin?

Natural organic materials deposited over millions of years.

That is not true. But please explain why you think so?

Think?!?!? I am geologist and I have been around the world studying the racks. The scientific evidence without a Creationist agenda which has not provided any scientific evidence. The incremental evidence of sea floor spreading, and subduction zones millions of years old.

There is continuous sedimentary strata and volcanics going back millions of years without interruption in many places on the earth, and many limestone strata with no possible flood deposition. The marine fossils in the mountains are in limestone formations.

The coal formations in the world are in strata with sandstone shale coal sequence with patterns of river systems and swamps in the coal formations and many fossils and tracks of amphibians with absolutely no sign of a flood, and these formations have been dissected river systems millions of years old. There are surfaces in the formations showing dried soil surface cracks, soil formation, forests with stumps and root systems in the soil where they grew. These formations are repeated for over a thousand feet with limestone in places.

There are continuous coral formations around eroded volcanoes in the Pacific older than any possible world flood.

There are absolutely no catastrophic flood deposits that could possibly associated with a world flood. The surface of the continents is dominantly naturally gradually eroded with river valleys and wind blown deposits, just like is found in the rock strata of the world.

All these and more evidence of the rocks of the earth describes an earth billions of years old and no sign of a world flood.

There is no good reason to think so.

No reason?!?!?! This simple Newtonian physics and the Laws of Thermodynamics. A high school level of physics and math would be all that would be needed to demonstrate this.

 

[1213]

Your arguing from an extreme 'arguing from ignorance.' There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any Hebrew language older than 1000 BCE nor scriptures older than ~700-600 BCE. There are abundant cuneiform tablets from Sumarian, Babylonian. Ugarit and Canaanite cultures far older than any Hebrew writing.

I think we have no real evidence that they are older. Also, absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. It is possible that Jews or their ancestors, like Noah existed before Sumerians or Babylonians.

Natural organic materials deposited over millions of years.

I don’t believe that would form oil fields in long time period.

Think?!?!? I am geologist and I have been around the world studying the racks. The scientific evidence without a Creationist agenda which has not provided any scientific evidence. The incremental evidence of sea floor spreading, and subduction zones millions of years old.

Sea floor spreading and subduction zones are just results of the collapse of original continent in the great flood event.

There is continuous sedimentary strata and volcanics going back millions of years without interruption in many places on the earth, and many limestone strata with no possible flood deposition. The marine fossils in the mountains are in limestone formations.

I believe there is strata, but I don’t believe you have the correct age for them.

There are continuous coral formations around eroded volcanoes in the Pacific older than any possible world flood.

But you can’t prove their age.

No reason?!?!?! This simple Newtonian physics and the Laws of Thermodynamics. A high school level of physics and math would be all that would be needed to demonstrate this.

Nothing of it can prove the great flood impossible, in the way that is described here:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

But if it is easy and basic, perhaps you could try.

 

[tayla]

The seaworthiness of Noah's ark

The Bible is fiction. The account of Noah's flood is fiction, although it may be based on memories of a local flood.

 

[Valjean]

I believe the flood covered whole earth. Also because many nations all over the world have similar ideas of great flood. And as Bible tells, earth means dry land.

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood, and such a flood would have left mounds of evidence. Moreover, there is no conceivable way such a flood could possibly happen -- for a thousand reasons.

In the beginning there was just one continent, as that Genesis 1:10 points out. When the flood came, the “fountains of great deep” were bust open. The great deep was under that one continent. And so, when the fountains of great deep burst open, it seems to mean the original continent was broken and sunk.

When do you think this flood happened? How long do you think people have been here on Earth?

In the short time humans have existed, the continents haven't significantly changed configurations.
[/quote]I think the animals are not a problem. Nowadays species are counted differently. For example, it could have been that there was just on kind of bears and all other “species” of bears are offspring of those original bears. Similarly, as humans are offspring of the 8, but still we have more than 8 different looking people today. It is possible that certain variation happens in within species.[/quote] Even if only two individuals from each biological family were packed aboard, there wouldn't have been enough room, much less room for provisions.

I estimate ark was like in these plans:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/Noahs_Ark.html

You imagine the ark was like that. Good luck finding a modern engineer or shipwright who would consider such a wooden ship possible.

And there was about 4200 animals in the ark, which are the ancestors of all modern land animals. And when they went into the ark, they could have been not yet fully grown, which would have made it easier.

When in human history did so few "types" of animal ever exist? How would they have evolved so fast into the many species we see today?

 

[Valjean]

I think we have no real evidence that they are older. Also, absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. It is possible that Jews or their ancestors, like Noah existed before Sumerians or Babylonians.

Yes we do.
What evidence do you have that any of this took place? An ancient anthology of folklore is hardly evidence.

Sea floor spreading and subduction zones are just results of the collapse of original continent in the great flood event.

Where did you come up with such a bizarre and unsupported idea?

I believe there is strata, but I don’t believe you have the correct age for them.

Why not? There's abundant confirmatory evidence from many different disciplines.

But you can’t prove their age.

We can't prove the Sun and planets don't orbit the Earth, either, but we have a lot of evidence to the contrary.
We know how fast coral formations grow. Extract a core and you can see -- and date -- the "rings" just like tree rings.
A worldwide flood would leave lots of evidence of dozens of different kinds.

Nothing of it can prove the great flood impossible, in the way that is described here:
http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html

Apparently you aren't aware of all the evidence against the flood. I could give you some links, but I don't think you'd take the time to review them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While I am not nearly as sure about the indent being Noah's Ark as the people in the article are, I still believe there is a chance. It being the same length as the ark and carbon dating showing it to be approximately the same age as we would predict the ark to be are valuable points.

`What "carbon dating"? From my understanding it is an anticline, a natural rock formation and it could not have been carbon dated since it is far too old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But they all indicate of great flood, even if the stories are slightly different. That can be just because people remember things differently, or have lost part of the information.

Sumerian records are probably copied from Jews.

Evidence for the great flood are:
1. Orogenic mountains
2. Vast sediment formations like the Grand Canyon
3. Marine fossils on high mountains
4. Oil and gas fields as result of vast amount of drowned organic material
5. Modern continents as result of the collapse of the original single continent

Sorry, but you have a confused concept of evidence. None of those are evidence for the flood. In fact they are all evidence against it.

To have evidence of this nature you first need a testable hypothesis. What is your testable hypothesis?

 

[1213]

Sorry, but you have a confused concept of evidence. None of those are evidence for the flood. In fact they are all evidence against it.

To have evidence of this nature you first need a testable hypothesis. What is your testable hypothesis?

What the Bible tells, is the hypothesis, and in short it is:

1. There was single continent at the beginning that was on top of vast water storage that was called the depth.

2. When the flood came, it happened because the original continent was broken and sunk.

3. The broken parts formed the current continents. In their edges, land was compressed and moved so that for example orogenic mountains were formed.

4. Because the water before the collapse was under the earth in compression and in warm conditions, lot of it was vaporized when the water was released. That vapor caused the long rain.

5. Because of the rain and because of death, earth got colder. That resulted to ice age and vast amounts of water was collected to glaciers.

6. When the water was collected to ice, the level of water begun to decrease. Other reason for decreasing was that the sunken earth has been compressed more, causing the water to follow so that dry land has appeared in other places.

Are you a disciple of Jesus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What the Bible tells, is the hypothesis, and in short it is:

1. There was single continent at the beginning that was on top of vast water storage that was called the depth.

And we know that is wrong. Perhaps you would like to learn why.

2. When the flood came, it happened because the original continent was broken and sunk.

And we know that is wrong.

3. The broken parts formed the current continents. In their edges, land was compressed and moved so that for example orogenic mountains were formed.

And we know that is wrong.

4. Because the water before the collapse was under the earth in compression and in warm conditions, lot of it was vaporized when the water was released. That vapor caused the long rain.

And we know that it would have been far worse than that. The water would have cooked Noah and family.

5. Because of the rain and because of death, earth got colder. That resulted to ice age and vast amounts of water was collected to glaciers.

And we know that is wrong.

6. When the water was collected to ice, the level of water begun to decrease. Other reason for decreasing was that the sunken earth has been compressed more, causing the water to follow so that dry land has appeared in other places.

Are you a disciple of Jesus?

Wow, more nonsense. All of this was known to be wrong over 200 years ago. Once again, would you like to know how we know that is not the case?

And all of this is off topic for this thread since the OP is dealing with the belief of a local flood.

 

[Valjean]

What the Bible tells, is the hypothesis, and in short it is:

I don't recall any such geological information in the Bible. Where are you seeing this?

1. There was single continent at the beginning that was on top of vast water storage that was called the depth.

A floating continent?

2. When the flood came, it happened because the original continent was broken and sunk.

What evidence do we have for this "depth?"
The last time Earth had a single land mass was >175 million years ago. Is this really the period you're talking about? Pangaea - Wikipedia
At this time the Earth was inhabited by dinosaurs, not people.

3. The broken parts formed the current continents. In their edges, land was compressed and moved so that for example orogenic mountains were formed.

The continents took 175 million years to reach their current configurations. Again, settled humans began appearing only ~10,000 years ago.

4. Because the water before the collapse was under the earth in compression and in warm conditions, lot of it was vaporized when the water was released. That vapor caused the long rain.

The Bible says this? How is this geologically or chemically possible? This much superheated water would have baked the planet.

5. Because of the rain and because of death, earth got colder. That resulted to ice age and vast amounts of water was collected to glaciers.

Not following your thinking here. How would this have cooled the earth? Why is there no evidence of this 175 million year old ice age?

6. When the water was collected to ice, the level of water begun to decrease. Other reason for decreasing was that the sunken earth has been compressed more, causing the water to follow so that dry land has appeared in other places.

What possible scenario could account for the disappearance of enough water to cover the whole Earth?

 

[Looncall]

What the Bible tells, is the hypothesis, and in short it is:

1. There was single continent at the beginning that was on top of vast water storage that was called the depth.

2. When the flood came, it happened because the original continent was broken and sunk.

3. The broken parts formed the current continents. In their edges, land was compressed and moved so that for example orogenic mountains were formed.

4. Because the water before the collapse was under the earth in compression and in warm conditions, lot of it was vaporized when the water was released. That vapor caused the long rain.

5. Because of the rain and because of death, earth got colder. That resulted to ice age and vast amounts of water was collected to glaciers.

6. When the water was collected to ice, the level of water begun to decrease. Other reason for decreasing was that the sunken earth has been compressed more, causing the water to follow so that dry land has appeared in other places.

Are you a disciple of Jesus?

I wonder where you are getting this guff.

I hope that you are aware that there are professional liars who are promoting creationist nonsense for personal and political gain. You might find it useful to check out the "Wedge Document".

Are you sure that you have not been conned by scoundrels?

 

[Muffled]

I believe they are multiple reasons to believe in a localized flood, including:

• The seaworthiness of Noah's ark (Noah’s Ark and Naval Architecture — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY). There are not many feasible ways that Moses (the supposed author of Genesis) was an expert when it comes to seaworthy vessels.
• An imprint, roughly the size of Noah's ark, found on Mount Ararat, Turkey. (Evidence ‘one step closer’ to Noah’s Ark final resting place | SUGA Magazine Online).
• Flood myths from many different cultures (Flood myth | mythology).

A localized flood would also mean that the ark would have to carry significantly less species of animals, predators from the ark would be able to eat animals from other regions, and the inhabitants of the ark would not have to survive entirely by themselves after landing.

Random Viewer: But IsaiahX, the bible says that the waters covered the whole earth!

Me: The Hebrew word translated world (אֶרֶץ) means land or country (Strong's Hebrew: 776. אָ֫רֶץ (erets) -- earth, land) If someone says that one farmed the land, for instance, they usually don't mean that they planted on every location around the globe, including Antartica and separate continents. They just mean the immediate area, at least most of the time.

I believe that is not likely the boat did not have a sail or keel s it had to float with the current and wind patterns. My guess is that it landed somewhere in the mountains of what is now Iran. Wind would push it from the west to the east. Currents would push it from north to south.

 

[Muffled]

What would it mean if the myth was merely an exaggeration/embellishment of a real-world event rather than a complete fabrication? Scripture would still need to be taken with a handful of salt at best either way.

I believe people who take the Bible with a handful of salt should remember that Christians are the salt of the earth.

 

[Thief]

I believe they are multiple reasons to believe in a localized flood, including:

• The seaworthiness of Noah's ark (Noah’s Ark and Naval Architecture — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY). There are not many feasible ways that Moses (the supposed author of Genesis) was an expert when it comes to seaworthy vessels.
• An imprint, roughly the size of Noah's ark, found on Mount Ararat, Turkey. (Evidence ‘one step closer’ to Noah’s Ark final resting place | SUGA Magazine Online).
• Flood myths from many different cultures (Flood myth | mythology).

A localized flood would also mean that the ark would have to carry significantly less species of animals, predators from the ark would be able to eat animals from other regions, and the inhabitants of the ark would not have to survive entirely by themselves after landing.

Random Viewer: But IsaiahX, the bible says that the waters covered the whole earth!

Me: The Hebrew word translated world (אֶרֶץ) means land or country (Strong's Hebrew: 776. אָ֫רֶץ (erets) -- earth, land) If someone says that one farmed the land, for instance, they usually don't mean that they planted on every location around the globe, including Antartica and separate continents. They just mean the immediate area, at least most of the time.

currently...even among my immediate family.....
the politically correct term has become.....climate change
and my immediates insist....the earth does this thing every so many eons

well ok......let's go with that
in the time of Noah......the trend floods the land and everyone not floating......dies
farmers die....their fields are flooded
hunters die.....the game becomes few and far between
gathering ....becomes difficult and exhaustive

if a flood was only 40 days deep
most of us would be hard pressed to continue

 

[Muffled]

And given the previous story of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the fact that the size and shape of the boat have changed as the story was retold, the original event need not have been that large. How about a guy that saved some of his animals when the local area flooded?

I believe the Gilgamesh flood to be a later flood. 2700 BCE. The Biblical flood comes in around 3800 BCE.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe the Gilgamesh flood to be a later flood. 2700 BCE. The Biblical flood comes in around 3800 BCE.

1. That doesn't exactly work with Biblical chronology.

2. It is clear for a number of reasons that the authors of the Bible picked up the myth during the Babylonian captivity and adapted it to their own ends.