In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood-The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview.

[Wuwei]

Perhaps you did not understand. There has never been a new star observed where there wasn't one before. In all of the universe, there has not been a single one. Even when we look billions of years into the past, we cannot see a new star that wasn't there before. And that area of space is close to the beginning of the big bang. There should be all kinds of new stars being detected, yet we find none.

See WinterBorn's post #10 above. A new star was seen being born in this milky way.

Of course we can't see as star that wasn't there before. As I said the process is too slow.

We can barely see some individual stars in the nearby Andromeda galaxy, but to see stellar evolution outside our galaxy is not possible let alone in a galaxy a few billions of years away. There is very little light to see the galaxy let alone a star in it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hey, Georgie. The cretinists at the ICR, AIG, CRC and a half-dozen other fundy-run shill organizations absolutely insist on the Flood of Noah" being global (meaning ALL the world, to your limited deference). To them, your claim that it was local makes you the infidel.

Shocking. When you're obviously nothing more than a nescient schmuck.

Hell, I'm just taking what they claim and agreeing it to death.

Viz:

First- the global flood supposedly (Scripturally) covered the planet, (see that, George? If so, why are you still being so stupid?) and Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall. The diameter of the earth at the equator, on the other hand, is 12,756.8 km. All we have to do is calculate the volume of water to fill a sphere with a radius of the Earth + Mount Everest; then we subtract the volume of a sphere with a radius of the Earth. Now, I know this won't yield a perfect result, because the Earth isn't a perfect sphere, but it will serve to give a general idea about the amounts involved.

So, here are the calculations:

First, Everest

V= 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6387.248 km cubed
= 1.09151 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.09151x102 km3)

Now, the Earth at sea level

V = 4/3 * pi * r cubed
= 4/3 * pi * 6378.4 km cubed
= 1.08698 x 10 to the 12 cubic kilometres (1.08698x1012 km3)

The difference between these two figures is the amount of water needed to just cover the Earth:
4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres

This is one helluva lot of water.

For those who think it might come from the polar ice caps, please don't forget that water is more dense than ice, and thus that the volume of ice present in those ice caps would have to be more than the volume of water necessary.

Some interesting physical effects of all that water, too. How much weight do you think that is? Well, water at STP weighs in at 1 gram/cubic centimetre (by definition)...so,

4.252x1009 km3 of water,
X 106 (= cubic meters),
X 106 (= cubic centimetres),
X 1 g/cm3 (= grams),
X 10-3 (= kilograms),
(turn the crank)
equals 4.525E+21 kg.

Ever wonder what the effects of that much weight would be? Well, many times in the near past (i.e., the Pleistocene), continental ice sheets covered many of the northern states and most all of Canada. For the sake of argument, let's call the area covered by the Wisconsinian advance (the latest and greatest) was 10,000,000,000 (ten million) km2, by an average thickness of 1 km of ice (a good estimate...it was thicker in some areas [the zones of accumulation] and much thinner elsewhere [at the ablating edges]). Now, 1.00x1007 km2 X 1 km thickness equals 1.00E+07 km3 of ice.
Now, remember earlier that we noted that it would take 4.525x1009 km3 of water for the flood? Well, looking at the Wisconsinian glaciation, all that ice (which is frozen water, remember?) would be precisely 0.222% [...do the math](that's zero decimal two hundred twenty two thousandths) percent of the water needed for the flood.

Well, the Wisconsinian glacial stade ended about 25,000 YBP (years before present), as compared for the approximately supposedly 4,000 YBP flood event.

Due to these late Pleistocene glaciations (some 21,000 years preceding the supposed flood), the mass of the ice has actually depressed the crust of the Earth. That crust, now that the ice is gone, is slowly rising (called glacial rebound); and this rebound can be measured, in places (like northern Wisconsin), in centimetres/year. Sea level was also lowered some 10's of meters due to the very finite amount of water in the Earth's hydrosphere being locked up in glacial ice sheets (geologists call this glacioeustacy).

Now, glacial rebound can only be measured, obviously, in glaciated terranes, i.e., the Sahara is not rebounding as it was not glaciated during the Pleistocene. This lack of rebound is noted by laser ranged interferometery and satellite geodesy [so there], as well as by geomorphology. Glacial striae on bedrock, eskers, tills, moraines, rouche moutenees, drumlins, kame and kettle topography, fjords, deranged fluvial drainage and erratic blocks all betray a glacier's passage. Needless to say, these geomorphological expressions are not found everywhere on Earth (for instance, like the Sahara). Therefore, although extensive, the glaciers were a local (not global) is scale. Yet, at only 0.222% the size of the supposed flood, they have had a PROFOUND and EASILY recognisable and measurable effects on the lands.

Yet, the supposed flood of Noah, supposedly global in extent, supposedly much more recent, and supposedly orders of magnitude larger in scale; has exactly zero measurable effects and zero evidence for it's occurrence.

Golly, Wally. I wonder why that may be...?

Further, Mount Everest extends through 2/3 of the Earth's atmosphere. Since two forms of matter can't occupy the same space, we have an additional problem with the atmosphere. Its current boundary marks the point at which gasses of the atmosphere can escape the Earth's gravitational field. Even allowing for partial dissolving of the atmosphere into our huge ocean, we'd lose the vast majority of our atmosphere as it is raised some 5.155 km higher by the rising flood waters; and it boils off into space.

Yet, we still have a quite thick and nicely breathable atmosphere. In fact, ice cores from Antarctica (as well as deep-sea sediment cores) which can be geochemically tested for paleoatmospheric constituents and relative gas ratios; and these records extend well back into the Pleistocene, far more than the supposed 4,000 YBP flood event. Strange that this major loss of atmosphere, atmospheric fractionation (lighter gasses (oxygen, nitrogen, fluorine, neon, etc.) would have boiled off first in the flood-water rising scenario, enriching what remained with heavier gasses (argon, krypton, xenon, radon, etc.)), and massive extinctions from such global upheavals are totally unevidenced in these cores.

Even further, let us take a realistic and dispassionate look at the other claims relating to global flooding and other such biblical nonsense.

Particularly, in order to flood the Earth to the Genesis requisite depth of 10 cubits (~15' or 5 m.) above the summit of Mt. Ararat (16,900' or 5,151 m AMSL), it would obviously require a water depth of 16,915' (5,155.7 m), or over three miles above mean sea level. In order to accomplish this little task, it would require the previously noted additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water to flood the Earth to this depth. The Earth's present hydrosphere (the sum total of all waters in, on and above the Earth) totals only 1.37 x 109 km3. Where would this additional 4.525 x 109 km3 of water come from? It cannot come from water vapour (i.e., clouds) because the atmospheric pressure would be 840 times greater than standard pressure of the atmosphere today. Further, the latent heat released when the vapour condenses into liquid water would be enough to raise the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere to approximately 3,570 C (6,460 F).

Someone, who shall properly remain anonymous, suggested that all the water needed to flood the Earth existed as liquid water surrounding the globe (i.e., a "vapour canopy"). This, of course, it staggeringly stupid. What is keeping that much water from falling to the Earth? There is a little property called gravity that would cause it to fall.

Let's look into that from a physical standpoint. To flood the Earth, we have already seen that it would require 4.252 x 109 km3 of water with a mass of 4.525 x 1021 kg. When this amount of water is floating about the Earth's surface, it stored an enormous amount of potential energy, which is converted to kinetic energy when it falls, which, in turn, is converted to heat upon impact with the Earth. The amount of heat released is immense:

Potential energy: E=M*g*H, where
M = mass of water,
g = gravitational constant and,
H = height of water above surface.

Now, going with the Genesis version of the Noachian Deluge as lasting 40 days and nights, the amount of mass falling to Earth each day is 4.525 x 1021 kg/40 24 hr. periods. This equals 1.10675 x 1020 kilograms daily. Using H as 10 miles (16,000 meters), the energy released each day is 1.73584 x 1025 joules. The amount of energy the Earth would have to radiate per m2/sec is energy divided by surface area of the Earth times number of seconds in one day. That is: e = 1.735384 x 1025/(4*3.14159* ((6386)2*86,400)) = 391,935.0958 j/m2/s.
Currently, the Earth radiates energy at the rate of approximately 215 joules/m2/sec and the average temperature is 280 K. Using the Stefan- Boltzman 4'th power law to calculate the increase in temperature:

E (increase)/E (normal) = T (increase)/T4 (normal)

E (normal) = 215
E (increase) = 391,935.0958
T (normal) = 280.



Turn the crank, and T (increase) equals 1800 K.


The temperature would thusly rise 1800 K, or 1,526.84 C (that's 2,780.33 F...lead melts at 880 F...ed note). It would be highly unlikely that anything short of fused quartz would survive such an onslaught. Also, the water level would have to rise at an average rate of 5.5 inches/min; and in 13 minutes would be in excess of 6' deep.
Finally, at 1800 K water would not exist as liquid.

It is quite clear that a Biblical Flood is and was quite impossible. Only fools and those shackled by dogma would insist otherwise.

Dr. Marty Leipzig looks at the mathematics of 'Noah's Flood.'

It is sad how stupid the fucking OP is!

 

[RWNJ]

Perhaps you did not understand. There has never been a new star observed where there wasn't one before. In all of the universe, there has not been a single one. Even when we look billions of years into the past, we cannot see a new star that wasn't there before. And that area of space is close to the beginning of the big bang. There should be all kinds of new stars being detected, yet we find none.

See WinterBorn's post #10 above. A new star was seen being born in this milky way.

Of course we can't see as star that wasn't there before. As I said the process is too slow.

We can barely see some individual stars in the nearby Andromeda galaxy, but to see stellar evolution outside our galaxy is not possible let alone in a galaxy a few billions of years away. There is very little light to see the galaxy let alone a star in it.

Correction. They saw what they thought might be a new star. Once again, they have never witnessed the birth of a new star. Because there haven't been any. That's a fact.

 

[LittleNipper]

I looked at you reference and some references cited by it.
I'm sorry there is no compelling evidence that says the earth is a few thousand years old.

I had to laugh when I read this:

So what is the origin of earth’s radioactivity? It is a consequence of the global flood. ​

The author said all the heavy elements were made by the earth from lighter elements. I looked further into the "evidence" cited and found from the original article that it came from high energy plasma experiments that could produce trace quantities of elements, but certainly not the entire earth as the author implies.

There is compelling evidence the earth is around 4 billion years old. The article came nowhere near challenging that.

Then how did the heavier elements form? Let's dig a little deeper.

Nonscientists usually say that heavy elements formed when stars exploded as supernovas, but that is incorrect. It overlooks the special energy requirements for fusion, and the need for a vast production of neutrons.35 (Such a production process has never been observed.) Obviously, gigantic explosions are much more likely to scatter the lighter elements than to force them together, and the powerful electrical forces that oppose the merging of atomic nuclei become even stronger as nuclei become heavier. Finally, as explained in "Star Births? Stellar Evolution?" on page 38, stars would not form after a big bang.

And then there's this.
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

There is no evidence for stellar evolution and how the heaviest elements formed. The emperor has no clothes. Someone should tell him.

The heavier elements can be formed by supernova explosions. Also by massive planets compressing mass.

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

Can be formed or are formed? Has anyone scientifically observed this process and duplicated it? Read the description of the New Earth as presented in Revelation. The surface is flat and there are no oceans. It doesn't however say that lakes do not exist. It does elude that mountains no longer exist. That doesn't mean that there are no hills... And since the original world was "good", I must conclude that this New Earth is a reestablishment/recreation of what GOD originally intended HIS earth to be. So tell me ----how much water is needed to cover a smooth surfaced earth with some modest hills? Who says China has no Flood stories?

I am convinced that Everest (scientifically understood to be a relatively new mountain) was a result of the Flood and not its predecessor.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How do you kill off all besides a handful of people and still have civilization in the history books at the same time with millions of people?

 

[Mr Natural]

How do you kill off all besides a handful of people and still have civilization in the history books at the same time with millions of people?

It’s a mystery.

Now move on and don’t ask those kinds of questions.

 

[RWNJ]

I looked at you reference and some references cited by it.
I'm sorry there is no compelling evidence that says the earth is a few thousand years old.

I had to laugh when I read this:

So what is the origin of earth’s radioactivity? It is a consequence of the global flood. ​

The author said all the heavy elements were made by the earth from lighter elements. I looked further into the "evidence" cited and found from the original article that it came from high energy plasma experiments that could produce trace quantities of elements, but certainly not the entire earth as the author implies.

There is compelling evidence the earth is around 4 billion years old. The article came nowhere near challenging that.

Then how did the heavier elements form? Let's dig a little deeper.

Nonscientists usually say that heavy elements formed when stars exploded as supernovas, but that is incorrect. It overlooks the special energy requirements for fusion, and the need for a vast production of neutrons.35 (Such a production process has never been observed.) Obviously, gigantic explosions are much more likely to scatter the lighter elements than to force them together, and the powerful electrical forces that oppose the merging of atomic nuclei become even stronger as nuclei become heavier. Finally, as explained in "Star Births? Stellar Evolution?" on page 38, stars would not form after a big bang.

And then there's this.
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

There is no evidence for stellar evolution and how the heaviest elements formed. The emperor has no clothes. Someone should tell him.

The heavier elements can be formed by supernova explosions. Also by massive planets compressing mass.

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

Can be formed or are formed? Has anyone scientifically observed this process and duplicated it? Read the description of the New Earth as presented in Revelation. The surface is flat and there are no oceans. It doesn't however say that lakes do not exist. It does elude that mountains no longer exist. That doesn't mean that there are no hills... And since the original world was "good", I must conclude that this New Earth is a reestablishment/recreation of what GOD originally intended HIS earth to be. So tell me ----how much water is needed to cover a smooth surfaced earth with some modest hills? Who says China has no Flood stories?

I am convinced that Everest (scientifically understood to be a relatively new mountain) was a result of the Flood and not its predecessor.

I once read that if you leveled the Earth by filling the ocean trenches and getting rid of the mountains so that the entire surface was flat, the water would be several miles deep around the entire earth.

 

[LittleNipper]

How do you kill off all besides a handful of people and still have civilization in the history books at the same time with millions of people?

Well, we are all related to Adam and Eve. How large was the population when the Flood happened? We do not know. What was the population of the earth when the Black Death killed 2/3 of the population of Europe? --- yet look how fast we repopulated! You must understand that most pagan monarchies promoted a belief that they were very ancient and related to the "gods". So, I'm not so sure that everything the ancient royal writings have to say are entirely valid.

 

[LittleNipper]

I looked at you reference and some references cited by it.
I'm sorry there is no compelling evidence that says the earth is a few thousand years old.

I had to laugh when I read this:

So what is the origin of earth’s radioactivity? It is a consequence of the global flood. ​

The author said all the heavy elements were made by the earth from lighter elements. I looked further into the "evidence" cited and found from the original article that it came from high energy plasma experiments that could produce trace quantities of elements, but certainly not the entire earth as the author implies.

There is compelling evidence the earth is around 4 billion years old. The article came nowhere near challenging that.

Then how did the heavier elements form? Let's dig a little deeper.

Nonscientists usually say that heavy elements formed when stars exploded as supernovas, but that is incorrect. It overlooks the special energy requirements for fusion, and the need for a vast production of neutrons.35 (Such a production process has never been observed.) Obviously, gigantic explosions are much more likely to scatter the lighter elements than to force them together, and the powerful electrical forces that oppose the merging of atomic nuclei become even stronger as nuclei become heavier. Finally, as explained in "Star Births? Stellar Evolution?" on page 38, stars would not form after a big bang.

And then there's this.
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

There is no evidence for stellar evolution and how the heaviest elements formed. The emperor has no clothes. Someone should tell him.

The heavier elements can be formed by supernova explosions. Also by massive planets compressing mass.

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

Can be formed or are formed? Has anyone scientifically observed this process and duplicated it? Read the description of the New Earth as presented in Revelation. The surface is flat and there are no oceans. It doesn't however say that lakes do not exist. It does elude that mountains no longer exist. That doesn't mean that there are no hills... And since the original world was "good", I must conclude that this New Earth is a reestablishment/recreation of what GOD originally intended HIS earth to be. So tell me ----how much water is needed to cover a smooth surfaced earth with some modest hills? Who says China has no Flood stories?

I am convinced that Everest (scientifically understood to be a relatively new mountain) was a result of the Flood and not its predecessor.

I once read that if you leveled the Earth by filling the ocean trenches and getting rid of the mountains so that the entire surface was flat, the water would be several miles deep around the entire earth.

And everyone knows that all the water needed to be was deeper than the tallest person to eventually drown him!

 

[WinterBorn]

The heavier elements can be formed by supernova explosions. Also by massive planets compressing mass.

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

I agree that those are standard explanations, but I have not heard that massive planets can create heavier elements. Do you have a reference?

He may be wrong about that. I don't know enough to make an informed decision. However he did raise some valid questions about star formation, which scientists credit for heavy elements. Like how gravity cannot overcome the electrical charge and angular momentum of a dust cloud and form a star. I'm also waiting for someone to explain why we haven't seen one new star in the entire galaxy for over 50 years. Not a single one.

Post #10 linked an article about astronomers witnessing the birth of a star. As I said, your information is inaccurate.

 

[Votto]

I believe the oceans were heated up by volcanic activity.

I believe Darwin done it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here's another question. From our observations of space, about one star, visible from earth, dies each year. If stars were evolving, shouldn't we also see stars being born? Going back to the 1960's we have photos of the night sky. We have not witnessed one single new star being formed. Almost 50 years, and not one single star born. Explain that.

It is well known that stars no longer form in older galaxies such as the milky way. The material has already coalesced as much as it will. However there are younger galaxies which spectral data show that stellar genesis is running rampant.

We will probably never see a new star being formed because the process is millions of years. Stellar destruction is a matter of weeks or shorter.

Perhaps you did not understand. There has never been a new star observed where there wasn't one before. In all of the universe, there has not been a single one. Even when we look billions of years into the past, we cannot see a new star that wasn't there before. And that area of space is close to the beginning of the big bang. There should be all kinds of new stars being detected, yet we find none.

YOu keep saying that. But there is a link I posted to one being witnessed by astronomers.

Oh wait, RWNJ must have me on ignore. Not for being rude or hostile. But because I have destroyed so many of his arguments.

Ok, let him keep going. lol

 

[WinterBorn]

I looked at you reference and some references cited by it.
I'm sorry there is no compelling evidence that says the earth is a few thousand years old.

I had to laugh when I read this:

So what is the origin of earth’s radioactivity? It is a consequence of the global flood. ​

The author said all the heavy elements were made by the earth from lighter elements. I looked further into the "evidence" cited and found from the original article that it came from high energy plasma experiments that could produce trace quantities of elements, but certainly not the entire earth as the author implies.

There is compelling evidence the earth is around 4 billion years old. The article came nowhere near challenging that.

Then how did the heavier elements form? Let's dig a little deeper.

Nonscientists usually say that heavy elements formed when stars exploded as supernovas, but that is incorrect. It overlooks the special energy requirements for fusion, and the need for a vast production of neutrons.35 (Such a production process has never been observed.) Obviously, gigantic explosions are much more likely to scatter the lighter elements than to force them together, and the powerful electrical forces that oppose the merging of atomic nuclei become even stronger as nuclei become heavier. Finally, as explained in "Star Births? Stellar Evolution?" on page 38, stars would not form after a big bang.

And then there's this.
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

There is no evidence for stellar evolution and how the heaviest elements formed. The emperor has no clothes. Someone should tell him.

The heavier elements can be formed by supernova explosions. Also by massive planets compressing mass.

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

Can be formed or are formed? Has anyone scientifically observed this process and duplicated it? Read the description of the New Earth as presented in Revelation. The surface is flat and there are no oceans. It doesn't however say that lakes do not exist. It does elude that mountains no longer exist. That doesn't mean that there are no hills... And since the original world was "good", I must conclude that this New Earth is a reestablishment/recreation of what GOD originally intended HIS earth to be. So tell me ----how much water is needed to cover a smooth surfaced earth with some modest hills? Who says China has no Flood stories?

I am convinced that Everest (scientifically understood to be a relatively new mountain) was a result of the Flood and not its predecessor.

I once read that if you leveled the Earth by filling the ocean trenches and getting rid of the mountains so that the entire surface was flat, the water would be several miles deep around the entire earth.

And everyone knows that all the water needed to be was deeper than the tallest person to eventually drown him!

Only if the earth was flat. People, even primitive people, have sense enough to go to higher ground. And there are records of people living are fairly high elevations.

 

[Wuwei]

Correction. They saw what they thought might be a new star. Once again, they have never witnessed the birth of a new star. Because there haven't been any. That's a fact.

If you don't want to believe science found a proto-star so be it. I told you several times that its a very slow process, and you will never ever find a spot in space where a star simply pops up in your lifetime nor anyone else's lifetime. Why don't you understand that.

 

[LittleNipper]

Correction. They saw what they thought might be a new star. Once again, they have never witnessed the birth of a new star. Because there haven't been any. That's a fact.

If you don't want to believe science found a proto-star so be it. I told you several times that its a very slow process, and you will never ever find a spot in space where a star simply pops up in your lifetime nor anyone else's lifetime. Why don't you understand that.

Sometimes astronomers can see into nebulas. The birth of a star is a process that takes million of years according all non-creationist scientists. So until it becomes what it's purported to be, it's still only an educated GUESS! A Creationist's GUESS is just as valid under such circumstances!

 

[LittleNipper]

Then how did the heavier elements form? Let's dig a little deeper.

Nonscientists usually say that heavy elements formed when stars exploded as supernovas, but that is incorrect. It overlooks the special energy requirements for fusion, and the need for a vast production of neutrons.35 (Such a production process has never been observed.) Obviously, gigantic explosions are much more likely to scatter the lighter elements than to force them together, and the powerful electrical forces that oppose the merging of atomic nuclei become even stronger as nuclei become heavier. Finally, as explained in "Star Births? Stellar Evolution?" on page 38, stars would not form after a big bang.

And then there's this.
Star Births? Stellar Evolution? In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 61. Star Births? Stellar Evolution?

There is no evidence for stellar evolution and how the heaviest elements formed. The emperor has no clothes. Someone should tell him.

The heavier elements can be formed by supernova explosions. Also by massive planets compressing mass.

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

Can be formed or are formed? Has anyone scientifically observed this process and duplicated it? Read the description of the New Earth as presented in Revelation. The surface is flat and there are no oceans. It doesn't however say that lakes do not exist. It does elude that mountains no longer exist. That doesn't mean that there are no hills... And since the original world was "good", I must conclude that this New Earth is a reestablishment/recreation of what GOD originally intended HIS earth to be. So tell me ----how much water is needed to cover a smooth surfaced earth with some modest hills? Who says China has no Flood stories?

I am convinced that Everest (scientifically understood to be a relatively new mountain) was a result of the Flood and not its predecessor.

I once read that if you leveled the Earth by filling the ocean trenches and getting rid of the mountains so that the entire surface was flat, the water would be several miles deep around the entire earth.

And everyone knows that all the water needed to be was deeper than the tallest person to eventually drown him!

Only if the earth was flat. People, even primitive people, have sense enough to go to higher ground. And there are records of people living are fairly high elevations.

Yes, and all those records are no older than about 4000 years ago. The Flood happened before that time!.

 

[WinterBorn]

The heavier elements can be formed by supernova explosions. Also by massive planets compressing mass.

As for the global flood, there is not enough water to cover the planet. Even if you melted the ice on both poles.

Also, there are records of civilizations in China and that region as far back as 4,000 years ago. You'd think they would have noticed a global flood.

Can be formed or are formed? Has anyone scientifically observed this process and duplicated it? Read the description of the New Earth as presented in Revelation. The surface is flat and there are no oceans. It doesn't however say that lakes do not exist. It does elude that mountains no longer exist. That doesn't mean that there are no hills... And since the original world was "good", I must conclude that this New Earth is a reestablishment/recreation of what GOD originally intended HIS earth to be. So tell me ----how much water is needed to cover a smooth surfaced earth with some modest hills? Who says China has no Flood stories?

I am convinced that Everest (scientifically understood to be a relatively new mountain) was a result of the Flood and not its predecessor.

I once read that if you leveled the Earth by filling the ocean trenches and getting rid of the mountains so that the entire surface was flat, the water would be several miles deep around the entire earth.

And everyone knows that all the water needed to be was deeper than the tallest person to eventually drown him!

Only if the earth was flat. People, even primitive people, have sense enough to go to higher ground. And there are records of people living are fairly high elevations.

Yes, and all those records are no older than about 4000 years ago. The Flood happened before that time!.

So the Asians built a boat too?

 

[LittleNipper]

Can be formed or are formed? Has anyone scientifically observed this process and duplicated it? Read the description of the New Earth as presented in Revelation. The surface is flat and there are no oceans. It doesn't however say that lakes do not exist. It does elude that mountains no longer exist. That doesn't mean that there are no hills... And since the original world was "good", I must conclude that this New Earth is a reestablishment/recreation of what GOD originally intended HIS earth to be. So tell me ----how much water is needed to cover a smooth surfaced earth with some modest hills? Who says China has no Flood stories?

I am convinced that Everest (scientifically understood to be a relatively new mountain) was a result of the Flood and not its predecessor.

I once read that if you leveled the Earth by filling the ocean trenches and getting rid of the mountains so that the entire surface was flat, the water would be several miles deep around the entire earth.

And everyone knows that all the water needed to be was deeper than the tallest person to eventually drown him!

Only if the earth was flat. People, even primitive people, have sense enough to go to higher ground. And there are records of people living are fairly high elevations.

Yes, and all those records are no older than about 4000 years ago. The Flood happened before that time!.

So the Asians built a boat too?

The Chinese have memories of the Flood:

Noah's Flood
We first read about Noah in Genesis 5, found at the end of a genealogical list beginning with Adam, following the lineage of his son Seth. Noah is our English translation of the Hebrew No'akh. In the Chinese, He is called Nuòyà. The phonetic similarity between the Hebrew and Chinese is not the result of translation, as is the case with English. Noah's name was in use among the ancient Chinese people. They knew of this man before the Hebrew Scriptures were written.

​

Noah
As we look at the etymology of Noah's name, we find that he is the SECOND APPROVED. There are only two men of whom it is had been said in Scripture, he "walked with God." The first to receive such approval from the Lord was Noah's great-grandfather Enoch, of whom it is said,

Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him. (Genesis 5:24, NKJV)


One chapter later, we find that

Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:8-9, NKJV)


Enoch's walk with God was so close that he did not see death - God simply took him to be with Him. Noah's walk with God distinguished him the all his contemporaries. They would be destroyed in the flood; he found grace and salvation from God.

Not only does the word nuò mean approved, but it is also used for promise. As true as it is that Noah was the second approved, we find in the Genesis record that he was also the second promise. The first promise found in the Scriptures is Genesis 3:15, where we are told that the seed of the woman would conquer the seed of the serpent. The next promise, the second promise, is in the giving of Noah's name. We read,

Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. And he called his name Noah, saying, 'This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed.' (Genesis 5:28-29, NKJV)

​

There are over 15 words that could be used in the Chinese language to convey the idea of a promise. That the ancient Chinese used nuò is significant. The etymology reveals WORDS spoken about a MAN through whom the WEEDS curse would be removed, and LIFE would be restored to the EARTH. Notice, that is the very thing Lamech said in Genesis 5:28-29 when he named Noah. This promise would be fulfilled in Noah, for after the flood, when he and his family had exited the ark, we read:

...Noah built an altar to the LORD ...and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma. Then the LORD said in His heart, 'I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.(Genesis 8:20-21, NKJV)


In this text, not only does the LORD say that He will not again destroy all flesh with a flood again, but He also indicates that He will no longer curse the ground for man's sake. This is not a statement about the flood, but about the weed curse which resulted from Adam's sin in the garden (Genesis 3:17-19). It was in the days of Noah, when he came forth from the ark that the weed curse was no more.

Wickedness
As noted above in Genesis 6:8-9, Noah distinguished himself from the people of his generation. He showed himself to be righteous, while his contemporaries were wicked. We saw this distinction between the sons of Adam, Cain and Abel. Noah followed in the way of Abel, while the rest of his generation followed the violence of Cain (see Cain & Abel article). The people around Noah were described in this way:

...the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.(Genesis 6:5, 11, NKJV)



The word è dé is WICKEDNESS in the Chinese. It literally means BAD MORALS or EVIL ETHICS. The left side of the word reveals a SECOND HEART or MIND, as men turned from the heart/mind God had given them to do wickedly. On the right side of the character, we see radical 60, which may be rendered as a step with the left foot. However, as we look at it, we see the base is a person, with perhaps an abbreviated person overhead, perhaps indicating a PLURALITY OF PEOPLE. As we continue to look at the components, we find the words COMPLETE, NET, ONE and again, HEART. What the image seems to describe is not the ethics of a single individual, but of the whole world, revealing that all the people were netted (or caught) in the same heart or mind.

Repent
Due to the wickedness of man, God was sorry that He had made man. We read:

...the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. (Genesis 6:6, NKJV)

​

The KJV says ...it repented the LORD..." Chàn is a Chinese word for REPENT which appears to picture the LORD's sorrow about man. In this word, we see the sorrow of God's HEART from the BEGINNING of man's EVIL. The universal nature of this evil is evident by the horizontal lines above and below evil, indicating the evil which is between heaven and earth. Finally, on the very right of the image for REPENT, we see God's determined response to man's wickedness. It would result in punishment, here pictured with a KNIFE or LANCE.

​

Another word for REPENT reveals what God intended to do because of man's wickedness. The word huishows the words HEART and EVERYTHING. What was on God's heart about everything? The etymology of EVERYTHING is literally, NOT ONE LIFE. God intended to destroy everything! The Genesis record agrees, for it says that God would

...destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air ... everything that is on the earth shall die. (Genesis 6:7, 17, NKJV)

​

Corrupt
All flesh had become CORRUPT. The Chinese word fu huà speaks of this corruption. The right side of the character acknowledges that a CHANGE had taken place. On the left, we see that all FLESH were HANDED OVER to the corruption - it COVERED all. This is also observed by the Genesis writer:

The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. So God looked upon the earth, and indeed it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. (Genesis 6:11-12, NKJV)

​

Destroy
As noted above in Genesis 6:7, 17, God determined to "destroy" all flesh. To accomplish this, He would use "floodwaters." A Chinese word for DESTROY is ju, which fitly pictures the destruction God would bring. The image identifies the source of the destruction as WATER MOREOVER! God would use a flood to destroy all flesh.

​

Flood
Hóng, meaning FLOOD, reveals the extent of the flood. It was not a localized flood; God would bring TOTAL WATER upon the land. The word for TOTAL here is significant also. It is a record of what would be left after the flood was finished. There would remain EIGHT TOGETHER upon the EARTH. Only Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their wives would survive.

​

Drown
The rest of mankind would DROWN (yan). The etymology of this word does not reveal just a few people overcome by floodwaters. The WATER would COVER or TRAP all. This is evident when we look at the word for COVER/TRAP, for it speaks of ALL TOGETHER. The population of the post-flood world would be just the eight people mentioned above, who were not covered or trapped by the floodwaters.

Ark
God commanded Noah to make an ark. We read,

Make yourself an ark ... I will establish My covenant with you, and you shall go into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons wives with you. (Genesis 6:14, 18, NKJV)

​

The word for ARK in Chinese is fangzhou. This is a combination of two words, fang which means RECTANGLE and zhoumeaning BOAT. That is basically what the ark was; a rectangular boat. There was nothing fancy about its construction, it was essentially a huge floating box. It is interesting to note that the word fang can also mean UPRIGHT or HONEST, which describes the character of those who were permitted onboard.

​

Ship | Vessel
This boat which Noah constructed was massive. It was a three-level vessel, with over 100,000 square feet of floor space. It would be rightly called a SHIP (chuán). This word pictures EIGHT PEOPLE on a BOAT. What ship has only eight people onboard? Cruiseliners are built to carry thousands of people and have dozens of personnel onboard. Freighters, though not built to carry passengers, still have dozens of crew members. Surely this pictures the ark Noah was commanded to build. God said that eight people would be saved in the ark. The apostle Peter, comparing the physical salvation of Noah and his family with our salvation in Christ wrote:

...the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is an antitype which now saves us - baptism... (1 Peter 3:20-21, NKJV)


Torrent of Rain
Once the ark was built, God told Noah,

...after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made ... on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.(Genesis 7:4, 11-12, NKJV)

​

The waters of the flood did not come as a light sprinkle, but as a TORRENT OF RAIN (pèi). This word describes RAIN that was ABUNDANT, FULL or SUDDEN. The image pictures not only the rain coming from above, but water from below, even as the Genesis record indicated that the fountains of the deep also opened. The water that was upon the earth was COMPLETELY WIDE (ie. it covered the entire earth).

​

Dove
After the flood had ended and the waters began to recede, a DOVE (ge) was sent by Noah to see if there was any vegetation on the earth yet. He sent her out three times. The first time, she brought back nothing; the second time, she brought back an olive leaf; and the third time, she did not return (Genesis 8:8-12). The left side of this character pictures a MAN, the EARTH, and a MOUTH, and the right side of the image shows a BIRD. It is possible this character was developed to tell of the DOVE which was sent out by the MAN to seek food upon the EARTH. She bore evidence of the food with the olive leaf in her MOUTH.

Sacrifice
When the time came for Noah and his family to exit the ark, what do you suppose would be the first thing they would do? The Genesis record tells us,

...Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a soothing aroma... (Genesis 8:20-21, NKJV)

​

The first thing he did was make SACRIFICE (jì). This word for sacrifice seems to infer that the offering had not been offered for some time, as the three components of the word are FLESH AGAIN as God had COMMANDED. Over a year had passed since Noah had last been able to make sacrifice to God.

Rainbow
After Noah made sacrifice to the LORD, He promised two things: 1) He would not curse the ground again (the weeds curse was lifted), and 2) He would not destroy the earth by a flood again. As a sign of this second promise, the LORD said to Noah,

It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud; and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:14-15, NKJV)

​

The rainbow signifies the end of the rain, as God sees the token of His covenant with all flesh and brings an end to the rain. The word ní(RAINBOW) literally refers to the FINAL PART of the RAIN.



by William J. Stewart

 

[westwall]

This is very interesting. It raises many questions about why the earth is the way it is. Questions that have baffled scientist for many years. But there is another theory that explains them.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to produce heavy evaporation. How could warm oceans exist with cold atmospheric temperatures?

It only raises questions if you ignore the very real scientific observations that have been made over the millenia. I do believe in the theory of a global flood. But I base that on human behavior. Thousands of years ago, before the end of the last Ice Age, mankind lived where he lives now, along the ocean coast line, clustered around the mouths of rivers.

As the continental ice sheets melted, the ocean levels rose. We estimate that the ocean levels rose by a couple of hundred feet. There is evidence of villages along the continental shelf in the Black Sea, hundreds of feet under the current water level to support that theory. To a primitive person, suddenly having the ocean raise up and clam your home and then keep going would certainly have been a biblical level disaster. And worldwide there are stories of a great flood.

As far as the creation of the elements go's, there is no support for the claims that they were created in the flood. There just isn't. if it were possible they could recreate them now, and they can't. On the other hand, we can recreate the base elements in atom smashers and that supports the theory of stellar creation.

My personal belief is that the Universe is actually older than current science suggests, but that is a personal belief, I have no evidence to support it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is very interesting. It raises many questions about why the earth is the way it is. Questions that have baffled scientist for many years. But there is another theory that explains them.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Ice Age. An ice age implies extreme snowfall which, in turn, requires cold temperatures and heavy precipitation. Heavy precipitation can occur only if oceans are warm enough to produce heavy evaporation. How could warm oceans exist with cold atmospheric temperatures?

It only raises questions if you ignore the very real scientific observations that have been made over the millenia. I do believe in the theory of a global flood. But I base that on human behavior. Thousands of years ago, before the end of the last Ice Age, mankind lived where he lives now, along the ocean coast line, clustered around the mouths of rivers.

As the continental ice sheets melted, the ocean levels rose. We estimate that the ocean levels rose by a couple of hundred feet. There is evidence of villages along the continental shelf in the Black Sea, hundreds of feet under the current water level to support that theory. To a primitive person, suddenly having the ocean raise up and clam your home and then keep going would certainly have been a biblical level disaster. And worldwide there are stories of a great flood.

As far as the creation of the elements go's, there is no support for the claims that they were created in the flood. There just isn't. if it were possible they could recreate them now, and they can't. On the other hand, we can recreate the base elements in atom smashers and that supports the theory of stellar creation.

My personal belief is that the Universe is actually older than current science suggests, but that is a personal belief, I have no evidence to support it.

Okay, interesting, but I have a little problem with comparing this to Noah's flood. The rate of this flooding would not have resulted in an advancement of the coastline even as fast as a slow walking speed. You could walk in any direction away from the lake and find land. There was no need to "rush" anywhere, much less aboard a boat to escape. In fact, a person would only see a couple of feet of rise in his own lifetime. And if you weren't down there measuring the high tide every day... you would likely not even notice the rise in your lifetime.

How does such a thing turn into a "catastrophic flood story"? Simple: It doesn't. Hell, we can't even convince people of evolution today, despite the mountains of evidence, because they can't "see it happening".

People want to mention Chinese flood tales, Sumerian flood tales, craters in the ocean, etc, all happening at different times, and then they try to "snap-fit" them to the flood story. NO, it's much simpler just to assume the flood myth is just that: a myth. It, just like the other Christian myths, is just an amalgam of and fresh take on older myths. Yes, there was a flood that one time. It's a recurring theme, like earthquakes, plagues, locusts, etc.