Noah's Flood

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

Yes, I know there is a large body of people that believe it including some that refer to themselves as "scientists"   I have read some sites regarding this and I feel like I am checking my brain at the door when I visit those sites.  Same feeling I have when visiting websites regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories, moon landing hoax theories, etc.

There are also many that believe in hollow Earth and Flat Earth.  There were also a lot of people that voted for Trump or Hillary..   Doesn't make either of them right as well.  Two idiots are not smarter than one idiot (I am not calling you an idiot). 

Many want to see the scriptures as the perfect word of God.  I don't know if it is to my credit or detriment, but I don't.  I view them as books that need to be studies and prayed about and are mostly right.  It is easier to just turn a blind eye to science and believe everything.  I can't do that.

I dont turn a blind eye to science. When I was studying the flood and geology years ago I went and studied all sides with an open mind. The conclusions I came to is that uniformatarianism is just not the answer in geology to explain tge strata layers. In fact it fails so miserably that pretty much anything else is acceptable. I dont think people have really meshed out tge probl3m with the vast strata layers that cover the better part of continents. There is no process on the earth today that is replicating this process.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

A couple of things - First it is my personal belief that the greatest understandings of the plan of salvation will be given to the saints through the process of current revelation and according to covenants provided at the temples of G-d through the ordinances of the priesthood. 

Second - I hope you realize the necessity of multiple witnesses as promised by G-d (for those that seek him and his witness of his work – See Genesis 41:32) so that grammatical misdirection will not mislead disciples seeking understanding.  Do you ever seek empirical evidence in such endeavors of learning?

 

The Traveler

I think the nail in tge coffin for me is the multiple accounts in scripture testifying of the need to sanctify the earth before life comes out of it.

[Guest Scott]

 

Quote

You mocked me making light of my personal revelations. 

I was questioning you, rather than mocking you.  If you took it as mocking, I apologize.   

I didn't want to come out and say it, but a lot of what you said seems to be lifted off a website I am familiar with, which was the only reason I put "vision" in quotation.  I apologize. I didn't want to accuse you of lifting some of your information off a website because I don't know.   Let's just move on from that.

Can you answer the question?  Please?

Here it is again.  No, I am not mocking you; I'm just waiting for an answer.

Rivers from the Tibetan Plateau cut through the Himalaya.  This is because the Tibetan Plateau and accompanying mountain ranges riding from the central areas are older than the Himalaya.

Water does not flow uphill and yet rivers cut through the Himalaya. The reason for this is because the rivers coming from the Tibetan Plateau existed before the Himalaya did.   Since water does not flow uphill, the Himalaya had to rise at a slow enough rate that the rivers could cut through the mountains at a greater rate than the mountains were rising.    If the mountains rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, the rivers would simply be diverted around the mountains, not cut through them. 

Closer to home, the same situation is true in Utah and along the Wasatch Front.    The Uinta Mountains are older than the Wasatch.   This is known because the Provo and Weber Rivers which originate in the Uinta Mountains cut through the Wasatch.   Although geologically a young mountain range, the Wasatch had to rise slow enough that the rivers could cut through the mountain at a faster rate than the mountains were rising.  The Provo and Weber Rivers existed before the Wasatch (otherwise they wouldn't cut all the way through them).   If the Wasatch rose at a high rate of speed as you are claiming, why weren't the rivers forced around them?   Water does not flow uphill.

Here's what you said that prompted the question:

Then, nearing the end of the flood the ocean floor in some areas were upthrusted tens of thousands of feet while in other areas great trenches we're formed still under water. This explains it.

If what you say is true, that it should be a simple manner to answer the question and to let me understand how your answer "explains it".

You keep saying that "it's easy to explain"; "there is no problem"; it's easy to see ___", etc.

If it's easy for you, can you please explain in the simplest form possible the answer to the question above?

 

[Lost Boy]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont turn a blind eye to science. When I was studying the flood and geology years ago I went and studied all sides with an open mind. The conclusions I came to is that uniformatarianism is just not the answer in geology to explain tge strata layers. In fact it fails so miserably that pretty much anything else is acceptable. I dont think people have really meshed out tge probl3m with the vast strata layers that cover the better part of continents. There is no process on the earth today that is replicating this process.

It is not just geology, but animal diversity, etc that just doesn't jibe.  The number of animals noah could have had on the ark was quite limited compared to the diversity that we have today.  There are 60k species of vertebrates, 1.2 million species of invertebrates.  How did Noah take care of all of them?  How did he get them all on the ark?  The ark would have had to be big.  Say it took Noah 5 minutes per species to get them on the ark and in their appropriate location.  That would mean he could load about 300 animals/day.  This would take over 200 days just to load the vertebrates.

What did the lions and tigers and bears eat after they got off the ark?  if they ate any of the species, that species would go extinct.

So much that doesn't make sense.

I think believing in the flood is fine.  However, trying to back up your belief in the flood by using science is not a wise idea.  There have been thousands of good Christian geologists in the past and I would assume all have looked for evidence.  Nada.  A few papers that suggest a localized flood.  That is all.

[person0]

56 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I once dated Jennifer Lopez. Sure, I have no evidence for it. But I guess that doesn't matter. Do you believe me?  

If you were a prophet of God telling me that while acting in your role as a prophet, then I would believe you.  However, for purposes of this discussion, you are not a credible religious authority.  The Church guided by the Lord's prophets is.

42 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I tend to find God's miracles are generally through acts of nature, not that that lessens the power of the miracle, but typically through some natural occurrence.   If the flood were some natural occurrence, then there would be some left over evidence.  But there isn't.  There is evidence of local floods, but not of a global flood.

In the end  though, I doubt that one's salvation will hinge on the belief in the flood.

There are too many spiritual things that lack sufficient evidence for me to be concerned at all with the lack thereof.  I take our leader's word for it.

Someone may have already asked this, but how did Noah get to Turkey if there was no global flood?  If you also disbelieve that Pangaea was the state of the earth prior to the flood, realistically, there is no way such a large population would have traveled there from the American continent.

Edited May 14, 2018 by person0

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, person0 said:

If you were a prophet of God telling me that while acting in your role as a prophet, then I would believe you.

Well I haven't announced my new calling yet, but this seems like the appropriate time...

God gave us reason and intellect for a, well,  reason. He expects us to follow His prophets of course, but He doesn't ask us to check our brains at the door. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by MormonGator

[Lost Boy]

1 minute ago, person0 said:

If you were a prophet of God telling me that while acting in your role as a prophet, then I would believe you.

There are too many spiritual things that lack sufficient evidence for me to be concerned at all with the lack thereof.  I take our leader's word for it.

Someone may have already asked this, but how did Noah get to Turkey if there was no global flood?  If you also disbelieve that Pangaea was the state of the earth prior to the flood, realistically, there is no way such a large population would have traveled there from the American continent.

You can believe in a global flood that defies all scientific analysis and then you limit the ability of an ark to travel from N.A. to the middle east in the coarse of 10 months?

I am not sure any explanation from me would be help you out there.  I can certainly conceive of a local flood and of a ship making it across the Atlantic.  I could even see the wind pushing it there.  A flood deep as the mountains are tall? Where did the water go?  Couldn't have flown into the ocean and the ocean would have been at the same elevation.  It couldn't have just evaporated.  The atmosphere doesn't hold that amount of water.

[person0]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

but He doesn't ask us to check our brains at the door.

He asked all of Israel to check their brains at the door when He had Moses put a serpent on a stick and tell them they would be healed if they looked at it!  Sounds like 100% faith and 0% logic to me.  Of course, the ones who didn't have any 'evidence' that it would work didn't look, and then they died.

[Anddenex]

18 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

You can believe in a global flood that defies all scientific analysis and then you limit the ability of an ark to travel from N.A. to the middle east in the coarse of 10 months

You can believe in a God that created the universe that defies all scientific analysis (ask any Atheist, they will tell you their is absolutely no scientific analysis for a God), but have trouble believing he could create a global flood on the earth he created?

On a side note, a global flood does not "defy" all scientific analysis. It defies the limited knowledge of what can be accomplished through scientific analysis if you don't have all the facts, and are continually making assumptions already discussed. Also, if the flood was only local, 10 months of travel wouldn't have been necessary to find another land mass above water. It doesn't take a year to travel from the American continent to find a mountain and land (multiple land masses, as you point out Australia and kangaroos) that was never under water, according to local flood theory.

[Anddenex]

39 minutes ago, person0 said:

 If you also disbelieve that Pangaea was the state of the earth prior to the flood, realistically, there is no way such a large population would have traveled there from the American continent.

Here is another point, if Noah landed near Mount Ararat, which is a mountain many miles inland (the closest I could find is around 250 miles from sea to Mount Ararat). If the flood was only local, how did an Ark travel more than 200 miles inland and land next to a mountain if the flood was only local to American continent where he would have built the Ark (at least what we call the American continent)?

"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat."

That is many miles inland for an Ark to be able to "rest" on the mountains of Ararat if the flood was only local.  This gives further insight regarding the magnitude of a flood, especially if a person doesn't accept Pangea.

[Lost Boy]

20 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

You can believe in a God that created the universe that defies all scientific analysis (ask any Atheist, they will tell you their is absolutely no scientific analysis for a God), but have trouble believing he could create a global flood on the earth he created?

On a side note, a global flood does not "defy" all scientific analysis. It defies the limited knowledge of what can be accomplished through scientific analysis if you don't have all the facts, and are continually making assumptions already discussed. Also, if the flood was only local, 10 months of travel wouldn't have been necessary to find another land mass above water. It doesn't take a year to travel from the American continent to find a mountain and land (multiple land masses, as you point out Australia and kangaroos) that was never under water, according to local flood theory.

According to current scientific understanding, the universe is over 13 billion years old.  The Earth is over 4 billion years old.  Evidence that we can see from Earth points toward a creation that took a long time.  And I can certainly accept God creating the Earth this way.  News alert!!!!  I don't believe the Earth was created in 6 days either.....    Lost Boy is probably going to hell now.   Just rejected the bible story of Noah and the Creation.

Certainly it doesn't take a modern mariner 10 months to cross the Atlantic, but if you are on an ark being blown to and fro in the middle of the Atlantic, it is easy to think that God could keep them out there that long.

And you say the flood does not defy scientific analysis..  go ahead and give me the science that it is not defying.

 

[Lost Boy]

18 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Here is another point, if Noah landed near Mount Ararat, which is a mountain many miles inland (the closest I could find is around 250 miles from sea to Mount Ararat). If the flood was only local, how did an Ark travel more than 200 miles inland and land next to a mountain if the flood was only local to American continent where he would have built the Ark (at least what we call the American continent)?

"And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat."

That is many miles inland for an Ark to be able to "rest" on the mountains of Ararat if the flood was only local.  This gives further insight regarding the magnitude of a flood, especially if a person doesn't accept Pangea.

You have no idea if the Mount Ararat that Noah landed on is the same as the one in Turkey.  Genesis was written a thousand years after Noah was supposed to have lived.  Moses was the one that wrote Genesis.   And Moses lived a 1000 years after Noah.  I think there is a good possibility that the Mount Ararat that was mentioned may not be the same mountain we know today. 

[Anddenex]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

You have no idea if the Mount Ararat that Noah landed on is the same as the one in Turkey.  Genesis was written a thousand years after Noah was supposed to have lived.  Moses was the one that wrote Genesis.   And Moses lived a 1000 years after Noah.  I think there is a good possibility that the Mount Ararat that was mentioned may not be the same mountain we know today. 

And yet you were the one using Math "16,000 ft" which is the known Mount Ararat for your scientific explanation

Edited May 14, 2018 by Anddenex

[Guest Scott]

Quote

Here is another point, if Noah landed near Mount Ararat, which is a mountain many miles inland (the closest I could find is around 250 miles from sea to Mount Ararat)

No one today knows where the "Mountains of Ararat" spoken of in the Old Testament were located.

The current location for Mount Ararat and the Mountains of Ararat wasn't chosen until thousands of years later and after Christianity existed.  It was around 400 AD that the current Mount Ararat was chosen by a Greek Priest known as Jerome.  Jerome based his idea of where the mountains of Ararat from the writings of Josephus, though Josephus's writings by his own admission were only estimated times and locations.

[Anddenex]

12 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

According to current scientific understanding, the universe is over 13 billion years old.  The Earth is over 4 billion years old.  Evidence that we can see from Earth points toward a creation that took a long time.  And I can certainly accept God creating the Earth this way.  News alert!!!!  I don't believe the Earth was created in 6 days either.....    Lost Boy is probably going to hell now.   Just rejected the bible story of Noah and the Creation.

Certainly it doesn't take a modern mariner 10 months to cross the Atlantic, but if you are on an ark being blown to and fro in the middle of the Atlantic, it is easy to think that God could keep them out there that long.

And you say the flood does not defy scientific analysis..  go ahead and give me the science that it is not defying.

And yet all scientific analysis defies a God created the universe and this earth, as (per your use of the word) there is no proof a God created it. News alert I don't believe in 6 days creation either, but I am open to God being able to command the elements and them obeying as quickly as necessary. Well, if you prophecy yourself to hell, not sure how to argue against that.

No, a modern mariner definitely not. Let's though review local flood theory. If only a local flood this means it would have covered only the American continent (if that), what we now call the US. This leaves Cananada and Alaska open. This leaves South American open (unless of course when you say "local" flood was actually all of North and South America, but from what you are providing this wouldn't be such the case).  How long in a Ark would it take to get from America to Canada or to South America (Mexico region)? They somehow didn't spot this land? Let's look at all the lands before you even get to Turkey? Africa is much closer and more likely a landing place than Turkey (if local flood). Europe is a more likely landing place also. But to get to Turkey you would have passed Africa, Europe or lets say they traveled the other way and would have had to pass Russia, China, Thailand, India. Whole lot of other continents to pass by (somehow) if there was no flood in Russia, China, India, Africa, etc....

No the flood does not defy "scientific analysis" when you have all the facts. Currently, the limited knowledge we have defies it, not science itself. It is the "natural man" that keeps purporting their limited knowledge as fact that it never occurred or could have occurred. Let's use you as an example. You were previously using Ararat as your scientific analysis using the elevation of Mount Ararat as we now know it (16,000 ft), in relation to 12,000 ft of average water depth. Then when pointed out Mount Ararat is more than 200 miles inland you say, well how do you know that is the same Ararat? Well, if not the same, what other mountain range would you refer to in Turkey? The next tallest mountain in Turkey is roughly 13,250 ft. You just proved my point of limited knowledge that affects what science can specify as analysis. If you don't have the right facts, how is your scientific analysis trust worthy?

 

 

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Scott said:

Then answer the question above.   The fact that water flows downhill is directly observable.  

Here is the question.   Answer it.
 

 

 

I'm not a geologist or hydrologist, but a historian.  However, in my observation, yes, water CAN flow uphill. Water flows through the course of least resistance.  Gravity is just part of the resistance equation.  The Force behind the water is another part of that equation.  If the water is flowing with enough force, and the channel is the least resistant, then it is possible for water to flow uphill.  Normally it's flowed downhill far further than it will flow uphill though. 

We see this ideology in many water fountains in church (and other) buildings.  We see this in home plumbing in many homes.  I have NO idea about the water courses through the mountains, and really do not care (TBH, then I'm not arguing that there is physical evidence for a flood either...) but how the water flows is not just a simple equation of which route is downhill the most, but also that of least resistance.  If there is less resistance to it going uphill (which is dependent on the course through the ground, gravity, the force driving behind the water, and other factors) is less than it going downhill, then that water is going to go uphill or spout upwards.

[Guest Scott]

Here is a question I have.   

Did Noah take fish and aquatic life on the ark?

Most salt water fish and life can't live in fresh water.   Most fresh water fish can't live in salt water.   A lot of brine shrimp and similar species can't live in either because they need a higher salt and mineral content.   Some life lives only in water that is near boiling in temperature.  

If the flood was world wife, Noah would have had to have taken all the sea, lake, and river life onto the ark as well, correct?   If so, how did he call to the sea, river, and lake life to enter the ark?    Did the life living in lakes or rivers crawl on land to enter the ark?

If the answer is no, Noah didn't take fish and aquatic life onto the ark; then if the flood was world wide were the flood waters fresh water, salt water, mineral saturated, near boiling hot, or all of or none of the above?

Did the fresh water stay separate from the salt water and the water saturated with minerals?    Did part of the water remain near boiling?    Did the water just happen to stay like that in several locations without mixing, or were the flood waters a homogeneous mixture of all the above that would have wiped out almost all water life on earth?

Just curious.

 

Quote

but how the water flows is not just a simple equation of which route is downhill the most, but also that of least resistance

True, but if a mountain range rose quickly, the path of least resistance would be to simply divert and flow around a mountain range, rather than cut through it, correct? 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Scott

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, person0 said:

There are no scientists attempting this at BYU, but there are plenty of professors who do believe and who have believed in a global flood.  Here is a lengthy article from one former professor.

I'm one that believes in a global flood, but I also do not see any scientific evidence to support this idea currently, personally speaking. 

I think some day we will have a better understanding of how the flood occurred, but that day may not be until the Millennium or later.

Edited May 14, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

16 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here is a question I have.   

Trure, but if a mountain range rose quickly, the path of least resistance would be to simply divert and flow around a mountain range, rather than cut through it, correct? 

 

Not necessarily.  There is no law that water has to flow downhill, water follows the path of least resistance.  If the force behind it is forcing it in a channel upwards, it is going to flow upwards. 

For example, build a 2 foot hill in your backyard (which your wife probably will kill you for...or at least mine would, the backyard is her garden of flowers and she would be very irate if I did this), and turn your hose on full.  Put it at the base of that little hill/pile of dirt.  Most likely it will spout in the direction the hose is pointed, even if it is directly up that little hill of dirt you made.  Eventually it will lose that force and then the path of least resistance will be downwards, but because of the force behind it coming out of the hose, the path at first will be upwards.

Water does not necessarily have to go downhill, it goes via the path of least resistance.  Sometimes that is downhill (actually, most of the time), sometimes it is simply outwards (and to a degree upwards, such as when the Mississippi river overflows it's banks and the water rises and floods everything around it), and sometimes it actually is uphill.

If a mountain range rose in front of it (which, scientifically, I do not know of any mountain ranges that rose instantly over night, but supposing one did), the water would flow in the direction which there was less resistance to it's flow.  If that is through part of the mountain range where it goes upwards and then down the other side or to another portion (because normally if it DOES flow uphill for a while, I imagine it will also come down, as with gravity, whatever goes up, has to come down), then that is how it will flow.  If it is around the mountain range, then it will flow around the mountain range. 

However, flowing up or around is NOT a matter of age...it could flow uphill tomorrow and forever if the conditions stay the same...or it could flow around forever...it's not a matter of age but of conditions.  Water flows in the path of least resistance from what I understand.

Again, I'm not a geologist or hydrologist, I'm a historian and so the study of water science is NOT something I study.  However, from what I see, there is no law that water always has to flow downhill...in fact a lot of our modern plumbing is based on other principles.  The idea is that water has to follow the laws of physics and those rules will indicate that water can go against the flow of gravity because gravity is only ONE aspect of what direction and how water will flow.  It is also dependent on the channel it flows through, the force behind the water and other factors.  Normally, this is downhill in nature, but apparently from your post, this is not always so.

Edited May 14, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Lost Boy]

34 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

And yet you were the one using Math "16,000 ft" which is the known Mount Ararat for your scientific explanation

Ok, lets forget about Ararat and get back to the basics of the story.

The story said the water covered the mountains.  No where does it mention a Pangaea, It just says mountains.  The tallest mountain on Earth is Everest at 29,000 ft or so.  The bible doesn't say the mountains shrunk or were modified...  just says the rain rained until it covered the mountains of the Earth.  Doesn't mention continents breaking apart and moving about.  Just rained.  So where did the water come from and where did it go? 

[Grunt]

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

Interesting.  I admit I skimmed it a bit, but didn't see any geologists mentioned there.  Was there a flood?  Many of our former religious leaders thought so?  Were they right?  I don't know.  One thing is for certain, the physical evidence is not there.  One other thing.  The leaders did not really seem to care to venture out on how the flood occurred.

Not finding the physical evidence isn't the same as it not being there.

[Lost Boy]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not necessarily.  There is no law that water has to flow downhill, water follows the path of least resistance.  If the force behind it is forcing it in a channel upwards, it is going to flow upwards. 

For example, build a 2 foot hill in your backyard (which your wife probably will kill you for...or at least mine would, the backyard is her garden of flowers and she would be very irate if I did this), and turn your hose on full.  Put it at the base of that little hill/pile of dirt.  Most likely it will spout in the direction the hose is pointed, even if it is directly up that little hill of dirt you made.  Eventually it will lose that force and then the path of least resistance will be downwards, but because of the force behind it coming out of the hose, the path at first will be upwards.

Water does not necessarily have to go downhill, it goes via the path of least resistance.  Sometimes that is downhill (actually, most of the time), sometimes it is simply outwards (and to a degree upwards, such as when the Mississippi river overflows it's banks and the water rises and floods everything around it), and sometimes it actually is uphill.

If a mountain range rose in front of it (which, scientifically, I do not know of any mountain ranges that rose instantly over night, but supposing one did), the water would flow in the direction which there was less resistance to it's flow.  If that is through part of the mountain range where it goes upwards and then down the other side or to another portion (because normally if it DOES flow uphill for a while, I imagine it will also come down, as with gravity, whatever goes up, has to come down), then that is how it will flow.  If it is around the mountain range, then it will flow around the mountain range. 

However, flowing up or around is NOT a matter of age...it could flow uphill tomorrow and forever if the conditions stay the same...or it could flow around forever...it's not a matter of age but of conditions.  Water flows in the path of least resistance from what I understand.

Again, I'm not a geologist or hydrologist, I'm a historian and so the study of water science is NOT something I study.  However, from what I see, there is no law that water always has to flow downhill...in fact a lot of our modern plumbing is based on other principles.  The idea is that water has to follow the laws of physics and those rules will indicate that water can go against the flow of gravity because gravity is only ONE aspect of what direction and how water will flow.  It is also dependent on the channel it flows through, the force behind the water and other factors.  Normally, this is downhill in nature, but apparently from your post, this is not always so.

You might not want to speculate on hydrology too much.  If a river hits a bend, the water does go up hill a little.  but that is all, it doesn't have the momentum to go any higher.  Certainly not over a mountain.  Water has to flow downhill unless acted upon by some other force.

[Lost Boy]

3 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Not finding the physical evidence isn't the same as it not being there.

Sure, but a global flood should leave evidence globally.  where is it?

[JohnsonJones]

1 minute ago, Lost Boy said:

Ok, lets forget about Ararat and get back to the basics of the story.

The story said the water covered the mountains.  No where does it mention a Pangaea, It just says mountains.  The tallest mountain on Earth is Everest at 29,000 ft or so.  The bible doesn't say the mountains shrunk or were modified...  just says the rain rained until it covered the mountains of the Earth.  Doesn't mention continents breaking apart and moving about.  Just rained.  So where did the water come from and where did it go? 

I do not know, but there are MANY stories and myths concerning the flood.

Anything we would say is just total conjecture and even then, less than even a hypothesis...it is simply saying...well...it may have happened this way if I had to take a wild guess, but that's all it is, a total and completely wild guess with nothing to back it up except wild conjecture on my part.

For example, I've floated this idea before, but I really have NO idea how the flood happened, so this is totally just a wild story built off of myth's found from ancient cultures rather than anything concrete or even what I believe happened (Because I don't believe it happened this way).

Combining several myths we have the idea that in olden days, it never rained.  There arose a mist that watered the earth.  The earth itself was supported by the foundations of the earth, and many of these pillars of the earth contained water.  Hence there was a division of the earth and water, with the water being beneath the earth.  One day, these fountains came to the surface of the earth.  There are some myths on how this happened.  Most are in conjunction with a flood myth.

In this idea, there would be no water in our oceans before this event.  The ocean floor would be where people could have been living.  Perhaps that is where MOST people lived during that time period.  If this was so, and the water started pouring, then the water from the land above (what we now call continents) would eventually make their way to these oceans...and that would cause a Great deal of flooding for those on these lands on the ocean floors.  It would literally be a flood with hundreds of feet of water.  While not stories talk about people living on the ocean floor and drowning there are stories of lost continents where people were living and then the land literally got plunged underwater (the most famous in our Western society today is probably Atlantis).

Is this a possibility, still as per science...no...not really.  However, there are myths that could indicate something like this happened.   Do I believe this is how it happened.  Not a chance.

I don't KNOW how it happened at all.  I believe there was a global flood but I have no idea how it happened, however, in whatever way it happened, I think when we understand more about how it happened we will sit back and say...ah...yes...that makes so much sense now.

[Lost Boy]

33 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

And yet all scientific analysis defies a God created the universe and this earth, as (per your use of the word) there is no proof a God created it. News alert I don't believe in 6 days creation either, but I am open to God being able to command the elements and them obeying as quickly as necessary. Well, if you prophecy yourself to hell, not sure how to argue against that.

No, a modern mariner definitely not. Let's though review local flood theory. If only a local flood this means it would have covered only the American continent (if that), what we now call the US. This leaves Cananada and Alaska open. This leaves South American open (unless of course when you say "local" flood was actually all of North and South America, but from what you are providing this wouldn't be such the case).  How long in a Ark would it take to get from America to Canada or to South America (Mexico region)? They somehow didn't spot this land? Let's look at all the lands before you even get to Turkey? Africa is much closer and more likely a landing place than Turkey (if local flood). Europe is a more likely landing place also. But to get to Turkey you would have passed Africa, Europe or lets say they traveled the other way and would have had to pass Russia, China, Thailand, India. Whole lot of other continents to pass by (somehow) if there was no flood in Russia, China, India, Africa, etc....

No the flood does not defy "scientific analysis" when you have all the facts. Currently, the limited knowledge we have defies it, not science itself. It is the "natural man" that keeps purporting their limited knowledge as fact that it never occurred or could have occurred. Let's use you as an example. You were previously using Ararat as your scientific analysis using the elevation of Mount Ararat as we now know it (16,000 ft), in relation to 12,000 ft of average water depth. Then when pointed out Mount Ararat is more than 200 miles inland you say, well how do you know that is the same Ararat? Well, if not the same, what other mountain range would you refer to in Turkey? The next tallest mountain in Turkey is roughly 13,250 ft. You just proved my point of limited knowledge that affects what science can specify as analysis. If you don't have the right facts, how is your scientific analysis trust worthy?

 

 

My whole belief is that God does not leave proof of himself.  We are to have faith.  Proof of his existence is the enemy of faith.  Therefore I don't believe we will ever find proof of his existence. I believe God created the universe in an orderly many obeying the laws of nature that he established.

How can you say it does not defy scientific analysis when you don't know the science you think it follows?