Where's the water?

[Madad21]

[sharedmedia=gallery:images:464]

 

[lforrest]

There appears to be patterns with miracles being filled in certain ways, One such pattern involves the increase of quantity of matter, such as with lamp oil, wine, fish, bread in the bible. And I have heard of a miracle involving the spontaneous filling of a petrol tank.

So why not a miraculous generation of rain water?

 

[Madad21]

And I have heard of a miracle involving the spontaneous filling of a petrol tank.

LOL, really? share! that would be freaken awesome, I havent had a full tank in any of my cars since early 2000.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

If this water was "someplace else" and the "settled" to its current state, that raises two obvious questions. Where was it before, and why hadn't the water that was already on the earth previously "settled" to that point?

Um... River... depite the fact that the above argument is completely daft... I haven't seen anyone in this thread claim that the water found in any part of the earth has been positively identified as the the water used in the flood. It is simply a reponse to an argument commonly used by people who want to discredit the Bible. YOU, on the other hand, are the one who seems to be making the claim that the water referred to in the article is "at it's lowest point" and therefore has ALWAYS been at it's present lowest point:

"You can't use water that's already at it's lowest point to flood a surface that's 400 miles above."

Just outside of Sydney where I grew up there is a place called the "Blow Hole". Water from the ocean is blown up through the hole and then runs back down into the hole.

I think that pretty much disproves your point.

 

[Madad21]

All this science talk makes me want to get out my pitch fork and burn me some witches!!!

 

[aspen]

I am not a scientist and never claimed to be one, but wouldn't an atmospheric canopy of water large enough to flood the Earth cause a huge amount of pressure on the life on the surface of the planet? One of the reasons we cannot survive on other planet is because of the atmospheric pressure. I would also think that the heat stored in all that water in the atmosphere would cook every living thing on the planet and cause terrible storms. Am I way off base here?

 

[ajdiamond]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
All material is just energy in different vibrations, different forms.
All the energy that existed in the beginning, exists now. No more, no less.
The form energy takes constantly changes.
The water is here, in various forms.

 

[RANDOR]

La la la lalalalala........just singin in the shower...............oh?...River Jordan.....have ya heard of the Jordan River?
That was a nice shower.......I think I could of flooded my driveway with that water.....and then again maybe not.

 

[aspen]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
All material is just energy in different vibrations, different forms.
All the energy that existed in the beginning, exists now. No more, no less.
The form energy takes constantly changes.
The water is here, in various forms.

But, I think energy can be concentrated unequally. Jupiter and Venus have more concentrated energy than Earth; mars lost most of it's atmosphere when it lost it's magnetism.

 

[Nomad]

Think of it this way....if you have a rock sitting on a plate with water on it, you can't completely cover the rock using only the water that's on the plate. That water is already at its lowest point. You can try and move it up over the rock, but the water will just run right back down to its lowest point. IOW, there's not enough water on the plate to completely cover the rock. It's just like the earth. If there was enough water to flood the earth, it would be flooded. The reason we have "dry land" is because there's not enough water to cover it. As soon as some of that water is moved onto the land (like with storms), it immediately runs back to its lowest point.

This assumes that there were no catastrophic plate tectonics involved in at least part of the flood's mechanism. It assumes that the ocean's basins were exactly the same as they are today. That cannot be assumed based on the flood account found in Genesis.

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Gen 7:12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

During the flood we have water on the earth, water above the earth and water from under the earth all converging on the earth's surface. The "bursting forth" of "all the fountains of the great deep" would have been catastrophic to the point of reshaping the whole earth. Reshape the ocean basins and there is more than enough water for a global flood as described in Genesis.

If we even out the ocean basins and flatten out the mountains, there is enough water to cover the entire earth by about 1.7 miles (2.7 km) - Ken Ham and Tim Lovett https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/was-there-really-a-noahs-ark-flood/

 

[Secondhand Lion]

I am not a scientist and never claimed to be one, but wouldn't an atmospheric canopy of water large enough to flood the Earth cause a huge amount of pressure on the life on the surface of the planet? One of the reasons we cannot survive on other planet is because of the atmospheric pressure. I would also think that the heat stored in all that water in the atmosphere would cook every living thing on the planet and cause terrible storms. Am I way off base here?

Sorry aspen....I can not help with this question, but it is one that has intrigued me for a long time also. The bible does say the water came from above and below, but effects of extra atmospheres has aroused more than a little curiosity in me. Sadly, I can not find any direct answers.

I was just floating a theory about the water currently here.

Eh eh....see what I did there? floating...a theory......currently here....get it....get it.....aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhahaahahhahahahahahahahaha

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I am not a scientist and never claimed to be one, but wouldn't an atmospheric canopy of water large enough to flood the Earth cause a huge amount of pressure on the life on the surface of the planet? One of the reasons we cannot survive on other planet is because of the atmospheric pressure. I would also think that the heat stored in all that water in the atmosphere would cook every living thing on the planet and cause terrible storms. Am I way off base here?

aspen, there are many, many reasons why we wouldn't survive on "other planets". We live in such an incredibly balanced environment that atheists need to conjure up multiple universes in order to explain it all away. So why do you presuppose that God would not been able to created a water canopy around the earth that was balanced enough to enabled live on earth?

That's silly. You have no idea what the thickness of such a canopy would be, and neither do you know the distance it would have had from the earth, so why "on earth" appeal to the conditions that apply on other planets??? Even small variations in these parameters would have had considerable consequences on the physics involved. No one has ever been able to prove, OR disprove the existance of a water canopy. If you think they have then provide the references.

Think about it. If a canopy surrounded the earth, then it just might have reduced the amount of radiation that hit the planet.

But gee.. that would mean that ALL the radiometric dating of living material before the flood would render much older dates that uniformitarianistic assumtions lead us to believe that they are... but we can't have that, now can we?

 

[aspen]

aspen, there are many, many reasons why we wouldn't survive on "other planets". We live in such an incredibly balanced environment that atheists need to conjure up multiple universes in order to explain it all away. So why do you presuppose that God would not been able to created a water canopy around the earth that was balanced enough to enabled live on earth?

That's silly. You have no idea what the thickness of such a canopy would be, and neither do you know the distance it would have had from the earth, so why "on earth" appeal to the conditions that apply on other planets??? Even small variations in these parameters would have had considerable consequences on the physics involved. No one has ever been able to prove, OR disprove the existance of a water canopy. If you think they have then provide the references.

Think about it. If a canopy surrounded the earth, then it just might have reduced the amount of radiation that hit the planet.

But gee.. that would mean that ALL the radiometric dating of living material before the flood would render much older dates that uniformitarianistic assumtions lead us to believe that they are... but we can't have that, now can we?

UD

"There are many reasons why we cannot survive on other planets" Yep and one of the reasons is because of the atmospheric pressure. There are many reasons why we cannot survive naked in Antartica; making the statement does not dismiss any of the reasons.

"We live in an incredibly balanced environment that atheists need to conjure up multiple universes to explain it all away". Irrelevant. I am not an atheist, nor have a mentioned anything about multiple universes. Finally, no one needs to talk about multiple universes to question the canopy of water idea.

"So why do you presuppose that God would not be able to create a water canopy around the Earth that was balance enough to support life on Earth". I didn't presuppose anything. I asked a question. Why are you presupposing that I am questioning God's sovereignty when in fact, I am asking a question about the workability of a human theory? The Bible says nothing about a water canopy. It is a human theory to try legitimize the flood story by dressing it up in scientific terms. Finally, I am mystified that you can talk about a balance environment AND a completely unbalanced idea like the canopy idea in the same paragraph. It is like a kid taking about hoe honest adults are AND using the true of Santa Claus to prove it.

"You have no idea what the thickness of such a canopy would be, and neither do you know what distance it would have had from the Earth......so why compare to other planets". Um because the laws of the universe apply to every part of the universe. Scientists can calculate the amount of water the atmosphere would have to contain to cover the whole Earth - it is not a mysterious number. I am just wondering if that amount would increase the atmospheric pressure enough to crush life on Earth. That is why I asked my questions.

"No one has ever been about to prove or disprove the existence of a water canopy". No one has been able to disprove the existence of any made up idea, UD. However, based on what we know about science, I am pretty sure that the water canopy idea is not possible - and if it were possible, no life could exist on Eart under the pressure. We cannot even travel a mile under the ocean without being crushed, without being inside a diving submarine.

What does radiation have to do with atmospheric pressure? It is like claiming that the Donnor party could not have starved because they had plenty of snow surrounding them to melt to make water to drink.

Um actually, no. Carbon would still decay at the same rate regardless of the amount of radiation present. Sugar dissolves into water at the same rate no matter how much water is present - it may be more diluted, but it doesn't change how fast it dissolves.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I am not a scientist and never claimed to be one, but wouldn't an atmospheric canopy of water large enough to flood the Earth cause a huge amount of pressure on the life on the surface of the planet? One of the reasons we cannot survive on other planet is because of the atmospheric pressure. I would also think that the heat stored in all that water in the atmosphere would cook every living thing on the planet and cause terrible storms. Am I way off base here?

No reason for water in the sky to increase air pressure down here .... all the metal satellites we have in orbit do not increase our pressure , sky full of clouds (water) do not increase pressure

 

[aspen]

No reason for water in the sky to increase air pressure down here .... all the metal satellites we have in orbit do not increase our pressure , sky full of clouds (water) do not increase pressure

Hey Arnie,

I believe satellites are rotating around the planet in space - if they entered the atmosphere they would be burned up by gravity. Not sure if they are technically in the uppermost atmosphere or not. In any case, they are nothing compared to the trillions of gallons of water it would take to cover the Earth. Also, clouds do contribute to atmospheric pressure - as you know from flying helicopters, atmospheric pressure exists on Earth - it is just not strong enough to snuff out life.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Aspen

We are not told much beyond the fact God separated the waters early in creation .... some to the sea and some up to "the vault in the sky"

We have no idea how he did it or where the water was stored .... some people speculate it was up at the same level our satellites are , it could have caused a lush greenhouse effect .... lots of vegetation and people lived 900 years.

During the Noah flood god opened the "floodgates" of the heavens , so the water was up there somewhere

 

[aspen]

Arnie,

I think it means, "when it rains a lot it is scary and God must be trying to kill us all". Two of the archetypes humanity carry with us is the fear of snakes and uncontrolled water. For example people in Ireland are afraid of snakes - even in ancient times, even though there are no snakes in Ireland. It is apart of the human psyche. Dreaming about floods is a good indicator that you are feeling out of control.

Here is the truth. I really do not care if people want to believe in a literal flood account - that is cool with me. I am just not willing to dress it up in scientific language - or try to frame it with science. If it happened literally it was a miracle, without explanation. It occurred outside of science. One more gripe - I resent it when people attack my Christianity or belief in the sovereignty of God because I do not believe in a literal Flood account. It is making a Millstone out of a molehill, IMO. There is my peace

I do not believe you are doing this Arnie, and I appreciate it.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

I am not against science ... I think science is simply figuring out how creation works

But its is often the scientist who poo-poos a worldwide flood of Noah , yet that same scientist will study marine fossils from the center of the continent and the top of Everest and say .... this was all under water at one time.

The secular global warming mongers tell us if the ice caps melt a lot of land will be flooded.

But a Noahs flood ? ... no way they say !!!!

Weird or what

 

[aspen]

I think science has it's own reasoning for things. The Flood account does not fit in their worldview because it does not follow the scientific rules. I do not believe the flood account is rejected because science is evil or that scientists hate God. They are into studying the predictable and observable or extrapolations based on the observable - the flood account is outside the predictable and observable. To a scientist, the movement of the earths crust explains why there are fossils of sea creatures at the top of mt Everest better than a worldwide flood.

I am not saying you hate science by the way, Arnie; however many people here do. The crazy thing is that the same people who seem to hate science try to describe the flood miracle in scientific terms - it is crazy making to me. If you hate science people, why to you try to lower the flood miracle down to the observable and predictable? Hamm went so far as to create a museum to explain creation and the flood in scientific terms, but according to his own words in the Nye debate, doesn't believe we can find truth through observing creation. That is like a mathematician who tries to formulate love using a mathematic equation, but later admits that math really can't tell us anything anyway.....

 

[Nomad]

Here is the truth. I really do not care if people want to believe in a literal flood account - that is cool with me. I am just not willing to dress it up in scientific language - or try to frame it with science.

That's quite an arrogant statement. You speak like an unbeliever and then complain when your "Christianity" is questioned. There are many credentialed believing scientists out there who would disagree vehemently that there is absolutely no scientific explanation for a literal global flood. There certainly are viable scientific flood models to consider. I presented one previously in this thread.

If it happened literally it was a miracle, without explanation. It occurred outside of science.

The miraculous intervention of God is a possible explanation, but to assert that it's the only one is intellectually dishonest.

One more gripe - I resent it when people attack my Christianity or belief in the sovereignty of God because I do not believe in a literal Flood account. It is making a Millstone out of a molehill, IMO.

The attacks of which you speak are not without warrant. You may in fact be a believer, I'm not questioning that, but you're capitulating to the mostly unbelieving world of so called science. It's not the only game in town, but i know, you don't want to look bad. Good luck with that. The fact that you believe in Christ at all makes you a fool in the eyes of those you're trying to please.

One last thing. The Bible presents a literal global flood without question. Calling into question one portion of Scripture is to call into question all of Scripture. You can't have it both ways. Either all Scripture is inspired as the Apostle Paul says or we don't know if any of it is inspired. Hence the "attacks."