@noetic:

Thanks.

OLAADEGBU:

What do you mean by the pre-adamic era? Do you mean other human beings and fallen angels?

Could you please answer the following questions as you consider the above:

* When did God create the angels and spirit beings?

* When did God create the angel that became Satan?

I've tried to discuss these with modupe01 in another thread in light of a creation that is not mentioned in Genesis: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-346528.96.html#msg5007791

The one thing that YEC/YUC have not been clear enough is this same question, besides several others. What they often do is offer glib excuses here and there and keep their fingers crossed that the question would never be brought up again. Could you do better than that, or should we hope it would go down the same line of excuses? Thanks.

OLAADEGBU:

This is ridiculous, what alternative interpretation do you want to give to Genesis 7:19-22 that is plain for everyone to see except you want to turn it to fit your own dogma.

@OLAADEGBU,

You assume that believers who are not YEC/YUC are 'false teachers, spiritual rebels', and ridiculous, while you are nearer the throne of grace than anyone else to even consider what is being said. No bother. Let's have a go at it since you're super-spiritual.

First, going back your previous post #109, since my previous reply in #116 was brief.

OLAADEGBU:

It will be sincere and consistent of you if you admit that you don't believe the words of God if not you will believe the inspired word of God that said that Noah's Flood was global and catastrophic.

As earlier, I maintain my solid belief in the Biblical declaration that there was a Noahic flood; but even so, I also believe that such a narrative be understood within the context of its deixis - which is reference to 'the personal, temporal or locational characteristics of a situation'. Theologians are no strangers to the deixis of Biblical documents as well other ancient writings. That's a point I'd be glad to expatiate on if need be - just ask.

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, people who did not happen to be living in the vicinity would not be affected by it. They would have escaped God's judgment on sin.[/li][/list]

Please let's not get confused with your sweeping generalizations. If the flood was "God's judgement on sin" as you supposed, you should be asking yourself why sin was not eradicated at the time of Noah's flood but has survived down through history to this day! Is it not remarkable that Noah and his family fell into sin the very moment they came out of the Ark?

[list][li]If this had happened, what did Christ mean when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37-39)? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.[/li][/list]

My dear friend, you should look at the reference to the 'locational characteristics of a situation' - the deixis of the Genesis narrative and its application in Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:37-39. It is inconceivable that He was looking at a global catastrophy when He declared that the flood came and 'took them all away', and we could discuss this if you may, and try to expound upon the meaning of 'all flesh'.

[list]
[li]If the Flood was local, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.[/li]
[/list]

Not necessarily, because since after the Noahic flood there have been numerous floods, tidal waves and tsunamis, etc. that have wiped out whole generations and communities in various places without affecting the whole world. Please go through the history of environmental disasters in various parts of the world and see the examples of these things:

1. China, 1887: Yellow River floods devastated the area of the Qinghai Province
killing between 900,000-2,000,000 people.

2. China, 1931: Yellow River floods between July to November of that year result
in deaths of up to 4 million people.

3. Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 result in deaths of almost 500,000 people.

4. China, 1935: it is believed that another Yellow River flood had such impact that
it "caused 27 counties inundated and 3.4 million victims".
(see here for a list of some flood disasters)

Even in the science of tracking floods, evidence reveals that some of these floods cover areas that span several countries at the same time, as the one in this link from NASA Earth Observatory that shows flooding covering parts of Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay in that same occurence of a flood.

So here, you could at least see that you really have no clue how far reaching a local flood flood can be, talkless of the far reaching consequences of a global catastrophy. If you understand environmental dynamics, a global catastrophe would quite simply mean you would not be here today. More than that, the word 'flood' is often taken for granted by many people who do not realize that they can be caused by various environmental factors and not only by rainfall. It's good that you even mentioned 'volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis', but we shall see just what it is you're yapping on about.

OLAADEGBU:
Noah's Flood washes away millions of years.

How does it do that exactly?

The evidence in Genesis 6-9 for a global catastrophic flood is overwhelming.

Where is the evidence in real life for a global catastrophic flood besides just reading Genesis 6-9?

For example, the Flood was intended to destroy not only all sinful people but also all land animals and birds and the surface of the earth, which only a global flood could accomplish.

Glad that you mentioned the above, and that's something I really would like to address. The Noahic flood did not wipe out 'all flesh' of land animals worldwide which were outside the Ark. I know this might shock you, but you don't need to be.

However, let's keep simply to the point of the extent of the flood - global or local? If it was global, it would need that much water to rise above every known peak of hills and mountains to cover them. Whereas, if it was local, it would only rise in terms of the narrator's local event to cover as far as he could see in that region. Which is it?

First, note the deliberate local language of the narrative. Genesis 7:19 says that 'the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered'. And by how much did the waters rise for this presumed 'global' flood? Verse 20 gives the answer as this: 'Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered'.

Please, what is 15 cubits if not a mere 6.94 meters by SI unit conversion? Tell me, the waters rose a mere 6.94 meters and covered ALL the hills and mountains seen anywhere on earth, right? That's interesting, considering the summits and peaks of such landmarks above sea level (asl) in various locations around the world:

       *   Everest            (8,848m),     Nepal;  Asia
       *   McKinley           (6,194m),     Alaska;   North America
       *   Aconcagua       (6,962m),     Argentina; South America
       *   Elbrus               (5,642m),    Russia;  Europe
       *   Kilimanjaro         (5,895m),   Tanzania;  Africa
       *   Vinson Massif     (4,897m),   Antarctica


So, OLAADEGBU, it takes just 6.9m of a 'global flood'  to cover such summits as Everest (8, 848m) and Vinson Massif (4,897m), yes?  Please show me how you worked this out - that would be brilliant to watch!

You would even notice that the Ark (which was 30 cubits, Gen. 6:15) was twice the height of the flood (which was 15 cubits, Gen. 7:20) - in other words, the Ark was already taller than ALL the hills and mountains (including Everest) before the floods arrived! You would have to reconcile the 'magic' in these dimensions and show me how a mere 15 cubit of water would cover the top of a mountain range with a summit of 19,119 cubit!


Now, some theologians try to cover up for this mystery by arguing that the fifteen cubits was not from the ground, but rather above the top of the mountains. For instance, one of my friends (a theology student) quotes the Douay Rheims 1899 Bible on Gen. 7:20 - "The water was fifteen cubits higher than the mountains which it covered" or the God's Word (GW) paraphrased version - "It rose 23 feet above the mountaintops."

The problem with that is just one question: which of the mountain peak was being used to measure this displacement? If we used the Vinson Massif, it would mean that the waters rose to at least 10791 cubits, that is -

       10776 cubits of the Massif
   +       15 cubits of the flood
   =                   10791 cubits.

That would leave us with a greater problem - it means that Mount Everest would still not be submerged! There would still need to be about 8328 cubits of the height of Everest to be submerged!

Either way you look at it, the flood was NOT global - and to cheat that it was global would require you to sort out how 15 cubits of flood rising covers a mountain peak that is over 1200 times its height! Please don't duck it with glib excuses tailor-made from YEC/YUC websites.

OLAADEGBU:

The Ark's purpose was to save two of every kind of land animal and bird (and 7 of some) to repopulate the earth after the Flood. The Ark was unnecessary if the Flood was only local.

The necessity of the Ark is not predicated upon the extent of the flood being either global or local.

People, animals and birds could have been populated from creatures outside the area after the Flood.

Simple: the abundance of animal species on earth could not fit into the Ark even if they were to go in as one each rather than as two of each specie. If you want to do a check on that, first list out the various animal taxa of everything you know and do the simple maths - you may surprise yourself!

The catastrophic nature of the Flood is seen in the nonstop rain for at least 40 days, which would have produced massive erosion, mud slides, hurricanes, etc. The Hebrew words translated "the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Gen.7:11) clearly point to tectonic rupturing of the earth's surface in many places for 150 days, resulting in volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis. Noah's Flood would produce exactly the kind of complex geological record we see worldwide today. Thousands of feet of sediments clearly deposited by water and later hardened into rock and containing billions of fossils. If the year-long Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then those rocks and fossils cannot represent the history of the earth over millions of years, as evolutionists claim.

Now that you're coming into my terrain - the geosciences - it would be useful to set you gently on some of the assumptions you make that just don't square with environmental facts.

First, please stop cheating with the mention of 'tectonic rupturing' and 'volcanoes' - nothing of the kind was ever mentioned in the Noahic flood event in Genesis, directly or indirectly! The only thing that the narrative covered in those chapters is flood by water - through rain and fountains of the great deep. Nothing said directly or indirectly about magma, lava, tephra, pyroclasts, etc. from volcanoes or such things.

Some volcanoes like the Pinatubo, we understand, have erupted with ash plume reaching a height of 19 km - how many such volcanoes erupted around in world in the Noahic flood? Besides, volcanoes resulting in such cataclysms would leave many a caldera - a large crater caused by the violent explosion of a volcano that collapses into a depression. How many such have you and your YEC/YUC team discovered are connected with a 'global' Noahic flood? The funny thing here is that YEC and YUC apologists are fond of dribbling in stuff into Genesis which are not mentioned there, so that they can save face in the wake of hard evidence that dissolves their myths.

As to the question of 'tectonic rupturing', that is concerned with plate tectonics - a very gradual process of continental plates. If such things occured during the Noahic flood, there would have been several continents resulting from that event. Other features would result, such as the Atlantic Ocean and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge resulting from divergent plate boundaries and creating depths of about 6,000 meters below sea level. An easy-to-understand sequence of diagrams below:









Where are all these mentioned in the Genesis narrative of the Flood? You can't just dribble in stuff to pepper your myth of a 'global' flood in those chapters and make hasty conclusions against the reality right in front of your nose. The flood is local, not global - and if you even want to consider it from the perspective of its 'deixis', I would be glad to show you clear points right there in Genesis that confirm a local flood.

Catastrophe or Cataclysm

"|God| spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly." (2 Peter 2:5, 6)

These two verses speak graphically of two different kinds of terrible physical convulsions, both of which were divine judgments. The volcanic upheaval that sent fire from heaven pouring over the wicked cities of the plains was called an "overthrow" (Greek katastrophe, from which, obviously, we get our English word "catastrophe". Great upheavals such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and hurricanes are rightly called catastrophes.

But such events are only local or regional in extent, and occur relatively often. There was one event, however, which was unique in all history. When God brought the "flood" upon the ungodly antediluvian world, the word used to describe it was the Greek kataklusmos, and this word is never applied in Scripture to any event except the terrible Genesis flood, when "the world that then was, being overflowed |Greek, katakluzo| with water, perished" (2 Peter 3:6). From these Greek words we derive the English word "cataclysm."

There was never any flood like this flood! It covered all the world’s mountains, and everything on the land died, leaving great fossil deposits and great beds of lithified sediments all over the world.

There has been only one worldwide cataclysm in the past, but another is coming--global fire instead of global water. Jesus said, "For as in the days that were before the flood |i.e., kataklusmos| they . . . knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:38, 39). HMM

mavenbox:

@noetic:

Thanks.

u are welcome. ur posts were rich just like olaadegbu's . , . . .my submission is from my own understanding and is as such not a final authority.

viaro:

@OLAADEGBU,

As earlier, I maintain my solid belief in the Biblical declaration that there was a Noahic flood; but even so, I also believe that such a narrative be understood within the context of its deixis - which is reference to 'the personal, temporal or locational characteristics of a situation'. Theologians are no strangers to the deixis of Biblical documents as well other ancient writings. That's a point I'd be glad to expatiate on if need be - just ask.

Please let's not get confused with your sweeping generalizations. If the flood was "God's judgement on sin" as you supposed, you should be asking yourself why sin was not eradicated at the time of Noah's flood but has survived down through history to this day! Is it not remarkable that Noah and his family fell into sin the very moment they came out of the Ark?

I disagree with ur position here and would like for u to educate my ignorance concerning the submissions above.

1. the explicit biblical language that supports a global flood CANNOT be excused on the premise of linguistic deixis. The biblical narrative was clear about a global flood.
if the flood was not global, then it means that biblical chronological analogy of man traced to Adam is not true? who then is the father of all men?
ur assumption that the flood was not global is probably based on the assumption that the entire earth was was as developed as it is now. . no it was not, it was simply a glorified village.

2. God's intent was NEVER to eradicate or expunge sin from the world. This is because sin was NEVER manufactured in the first place. sin is a product of disobedience. disobedience is a rational choice by humans. . . . . .as such we have to pay the consequences of such sin. "The soul that sinneth will die". the purpose of the flood was to punish the souls who sinned. u simply overcome sin by living by the commandments of God.

My dear friend, you should look at the reference to the 'locational characteristics of a situation' - the deixis of the Genesis narrative and its application in Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:37-39. It is inconceivable that He was looking at a global catastrophy when He declared that the flood came and 'took them all away', and we could discuss this if you may, and try to expound upon the meaning of 'all flesh'.

There is nothing in the statement of Jesus that suggests a local flood. . . except u are infering a nihilant meaning here.

So here, you could at least see that you really have no clue how far reaching a local flood flood can be, talkless of the far reaching consequences of a global catastrophy. If you understand environmental dynamics, a global catastrophe would quite simply mean you would not be here today. More than that, the word 'flood' is often taken for granted by many people who do not realize that they can be caused by various environmental factors and not only by rainfall. It's good that you even mentioned 'volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis', but we shall see just what it is you're yapping on about.

ur submission above summarises ur position on the flood IMO.

1. There is NO scientific notion that dismisses the case of a global flood. . all we have are assumptions that hold no credibility since the evidences are not allowed to speak for themselves.

2. The statement in bold is disturbing. That statement limits the ability of God. . .are u a xtian?

noetic15:

I disagree with your position here and would like for u to educate my ignorance concerning the submissions above.

1. the explicit biblical language that supports a global flood CANNOT be excused on the premise of linguistic deixis. The biblical narrative was clear about a global flood.
if the flood was not global, then it means that biblical chronological analogy of man traced to Adam is not true? who then is the father of all men?
your assumption that the flood was not global is probably based on the assumption that the entire earth was was as developed as it is now. . no it was not, it was simply a glorified village.

2. God's intent was NEVER to eradicate or expunge sin from the world. This is because sin was NEVER manufactured in the first place. sin is a product of disobedience. disobedience is a rational choice by humans. . . . . .as such we have to pay the consequences of such sin. "The soul that sinneth will die". the purpose of the flood was to punish the souls who sinned. u simply overcome sin by living by the commandments of God.
There is nothing in the statement of Jesus that suggests a local flood. . . except u are infering a nihilant meaning here.



your submission above summarises your position on the flood IMO.

1. There is NO scientific notion that dismisses the case of a global flood. . all we have are assumptions that hold no credibility since the evidences are not allowed to speak for themselves.

2. The statement in bold is disturbing. That statement limits the ability of God. . .are u a xtian?

There are numerous scientific notions that dismisses the case for a global flood. One i have already put forward that no Christian is ready to answer is, Where did all the extra water come from?

The average depth of the oceans today is approximately 4km. For water to cover mount Everest of almost 8,900 m or 8.9km, we would need almost twice the quantity of water we have on the earth oceans today. Now the total amount of water on the earth is constant, and hydrological cycle is relatively stable, meaning water from the oceans evaporates and later falls back on earth in the form of rain and snow. The snow sometimes accumulates in the frozen ice caps of Antarctica and arctic. Even if all the snow at the ice caps should melt, it would raise world sea level by less than 5meters. So where did the extra water come from?

Also after flooding the world, where did the extra water disappear to. Since water cannot leave the earths surface, where did the water go.

Also these people do not understand the shear quantities of species on the earths surface. The total number of species of birds known today is about 9,000. The approximate number for insects is over 750,000. And a guess of the total specie of mammals is about 3,500. Snakes number more than 2000. And we have not even added the hundreds of thousands of animals that have gone extinct.
So how is a single ship able to cater for the shear number of animals? Even the titanic was only able to carry 2,340 people.

Then there is the question of how the animals were able to feed and drink water. Maybe extra rats and lizard was brought along to feed the cobras. and extra goats were brought in for the two lions. What of hygiene, how were they able to answer the call of nature.

Then what about the plant? why do you people not provide answers as to how Noah was able to preserve plants, because the flood would also wipe out plants.

OLAADEGBU:

Catastrophe or Cataclysm

"|God| spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly." (2 Peter 2:5, 6)

These two verses speak graphically of two different kinds of terrible physical convulsions, both of which were divine judgments. The volcanic upheaval that sent fire from heaven pouring over the wicked cities of the plains was called an "overthrow" (Greek katastrophe, from which, obviously, we get our English word "catastrophe". Great upheavals such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and hurricanes are rightly called catastrophes.

Excuse me, none of those verses in the Bible ever speaks of "volcanoes", so please stop cheating with all these interpolations of "volcanic upheaveals, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes" - that is simply to pepper falsehood and proclaim it divine. Volcanic activities emanate from the ground and not the other way round of sending fire from heaven. Unless you want to put words into the apostle Peter's mouth and call him an outright, gutless liar - which I'm sure that's not what you intend. So please stop making excuses for your myths as such exercises embarrass the Christian testimony you are trying to demonstrate before the world.

But such events are only local or regional in extent, and occur relatively often. There was one event, however, which was unique in all history. When God brought the "flood" upon the ungodly antediluvian world, the word used to describe it was the Greek kataklusmos, and this word is never applied in Scripture to any event except the terrible Genesis flood, when "the world that then was, being overflowed |Greek, katakluzo| with water, perished" (2 Peter 3:6). From these Greek words we derive the English word "cataclysm."

Glad you quoted that verse (2 Peter 3:6), and please note what it says: "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: ". Again, it quite simply confirms what I stated earlier:

          Please stop cheating with the mention of 'tectonic rupturing' and 'volcanoes' -
          nothing of the kind was ever mentioned in the Noahic flood event in Genesis,
          directly or indirectly! The only thing that the narrative covered in those chapters
          is flood by water - through rain and fountains of the great deep.
          Nothing said directly or indirectly about magma, lava, tephra, pyroclasts, etc.
          from volcanoes or such things.

The 'fountains of the deep' is not a reference to volcanic activity; rather it is understood as a having to do with a great body of water, and not with magma, lava, tephra, or pyroclasts which all are refereneces to volcanoes. Other references to the same fountains of the deep point to water, not volcanoes:

         When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened
         the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree,
         that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he
         appointed the foundations of the earth  ~ Prov. 8:28-29.

         For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city,
         like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep
         upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee  ~  Ezek. 26:19

         The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers
         running round about his plants, and sent out her little rivers unto all the
         trees of the field. ~ Ezek. 31:4

         For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas;
         and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves
         passed over me.  ~  Jonah 2:3

I'm waiting for you to point out where you found such things as volcanic activity in the flood of Genesis to establish your case. Other than flood by water as confirmed in both the OT and NT, we don't read of any references to any volcanoes directly or indirectly in that Noahic event. The glib excuses tailor-made from YEC/YUC websites which you're often posting, I warned earlier, would just not cut it for you. Unless the only thing you guys know how to do is tell more lies to cover your previous ones.

There was never any flood like this flood! It covered all the world’s mountains, and everything on the land died, leaving great fossil deposits and great beds of lithified sediments all over the world.

I'm also waiting for you to show me how 15 cubits of water submerged great summits of mountains like the 10776 cubits of the Massif. It is pouring a cup of water in your bath tub and reporting that your bungalow was drowned in that cup of water. Please bless me by reconciling the gap - for it is clear that Genesis 7:20 gave the height of the rising flood as 15 cubits, nothing anywhere said beyond that measure.

There has been only one worldwide cataclysm in the past, but another is coming--global fire instead of global water. Jesus said, "For as in the days that were before the flood |i.e., kataklusmos| they . . . knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Matthew 24:38, 39). HMM

There has been more than one 'cataclysm' in the past - read your Bible carefully instead of making HMM quotes to be your own scripture. In 2 Peter 3, Peter made reference to two submersions:

        (a)  verse 5: 'the earth standing out of the water and in the water'

        (b)  verse 6: 'the world that then was, being overflowed with water'

These verses are not describing the exact same period, for v.5 occured long before Noah was born, and v.6 is pointing to Noah's time. What I often ask YEC/YUC is what they make of v.5 as to the earth standing out of water and in the water. Not one satisfactory answer has been given other than the usual glib YEC/YUC excuses harvested from HMM, ICR, or Aig.

noetic15:

I disagree with your position here and would like for u to educate my ignorance concerning the submissions above.

your submission above summarises your position on the flood IMO.

@noetic15, it's alright to disagree with my position; afterall, even Scripture recognizes that believers can disagree on a number of issues having to do with interpretations of certain texts to understand our world and experiences (see Php. 3:15 - 'f in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.')

So, when I state my position on these things, what would make for more cogency is for my fellow discussants to look at what was said, examine my questions and objections, consider the case set forth in my defence, and show me where wrong inferences were made. That is what I have done with posts by OLAADEGBU, modupe01, and a few others on this question of YEC/YUC.

Indeed, I would have loved to show you the deixis of the Genesis narrative, but of what use would that be since you have already written it off as impossible? It certainly would be a waste of time - both yours, mine and our readers - if I were to take up that point at anytime for your consideration. That was why I left it there in brief and invited OLAADEGBU about it this way: "Theologians are no strangers to the deixis of Biblical documents as well other ancient writings. That's a point I'd be glad to expatiate on if need be - just ask." Since he prefers posting obvious lies about volcanoes from HMM instead of using his own God-given intelligence, I concluded it would be a waste of time as well to pound the deixis of Genesis at his door.

1. There is NO scientific notion that dismisses the case of a global flood. . all we have are assumptions that hold no credibility since the evidences are not allowed to speak for themselves.

There are a few replies that address these objections from people who know far more than I do, and we have seen their well-articulated points in various threads. What amazes me is the excuses coming from many fundamentalist Christians who are too concerned with their traditional views than anything else.

2. The statement in bold is disturbing. That statement limits the ability of God. . .are u a xtian?

Yes, I am a Christian, but not one who likes to put words in God's mouth and make statements on His behalf that He did not commission me to do.

I've given hints as to why a global catastrophe would mean that you would not be here today: environmental dynamics. The way YEC/YUC argue a cataclysmic global flood for Noah is amazingly (and brazenly) shallow! A combination of tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanoes happening simultaneously around the world for several days with such fluidity of a global flood would wipe out even those in the Ark! Noah's ark would simply be match sticks in such an environment. Anyone who understands even a little of environmental dynamics would have no problems understanding why you, noetic, would not have been here today.

noetic15:


1. There is NO scientific notion that dismisses the case of a global flood. . all we have are assumptions that hold no credibility since the evidences are not allowed to speak for themselves.

This statement is FALSE. Do you know what Hydrodynamic sorting is? Hydrodynamic sorting proves hands down that the Noah's food NEVER occurred. Unless you wish to change the law of gravity, if you mix fossils and sediments with water, certain things have to happen. Lots of geological evidence regarding hydrodynamic sorting proves that a global flood did not occur.

wirinet:

There are numerous scientific notions that dismisses the case for a global flood

I would love to be educated. . . . why not list them out.

. One i have already put forward that no Christian is ready to answer is, Where did all the extra water come from?

The average depth of the oceans today is approximately 4km. For water to cover mount Everest of almost 8,900 m or 8.9km, we would need almost twice the quantity of water we have on the earth oceans today. Now the total amount of water on the earth is constant, and hydrological cycle is relatively stable, meaning water from the oceans evaporates and later falls back on earth in the form of rain and snow. The snow sometimes accumulates in the frozen ice caps of Antarctica and arctic. Even if all the snow at the ice caps should melt, it would raise world sea level by less than 5meters. So where did the extra water come from?

ur question is based on the premise that there was a need for extra sea water. . . no there was none.

We understand by scientific injunction that rain falls by water held in the atmosphere by means of precipitation. We also know that rain is created by a process called seeding.
Rainfall is also HEAVILY dependent on the temperature prevalent at the said season. Given the three notions above. . . . .the possibility of a flood filling the earth is amazingly alarming.

Also when u consider that seeding is a new technology used in advanced countries. . . . it begins to highlight the limitless possible sources of rainfall our limited understanding cannot gasp.

Also after flooding the world, where did the extra water disappear to. Since water cannot leave the earths surface, where did the water go.

and why is it impossible for the biblical account of the water drying up to be impossible?

Also these people do not understand the shear quantities of species on the earths surface. The total number of species of birds known today is about 9,000. The approximate number for insects is over 750,000. And a guess of the total specie of mammals is about 3,500. Snakes number more than 2000. And we have not even added the hundreds of thousands of animals that have gone extinct.
So how is a single ship able to cater for the shear number of animals? Even the titanic was only able to carry 2,340 people.

did u bother to check the size as stated by the bible?

Then there is the question of how the animals were able to feed and drink water. Maybe extra rats and lizard was brought along to feed the cobras. and extra goats were brought in for the two lions. What of hygiene, how were they able to answer the call of nature.

Then what about the plant? why do you people not provide answers as to how Noah was able to preserve plants, because the flood would also wipe out plants.

please read the biblical account before making submissions. . . . the bird that was let out eventually found a tree to rest on. . .implying that plants survived the flood.

toneyb:

This statement is FALSE. Do you know what Hydrodynamic sorting is? Hydrodynamic sorting proves hands down that the Noah's food NEVER occurred. Unless you wish to change the law of gravity, if you mix fossils and sediments with water, certain things have to happen. Lots of geological evidence regarding hydrodynamic sorting proves that a global flood did not occur.

with due respect and no offence intended, . . . ur submissions are meaningless unless u explain how the concept of hydrodynamic sorting dismisses the case of a global flood.
I could as well say that . . .have u read the book of Genesis, the book establishes the case of a global flood.

viaro:

@noetic15, it's alright to disagree with my position; afterall, even Scripture recognizes that believers can disagree on a number of issues having to do with interpretations of certain texts to understand our world and experiences (see Php. 3:15 - 'f in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.')

So, when I state my position on these things, what would make for more cogency is for my fellow discussants to look at what was said, examine my questions and objections, consider the case set forth in my defence, and show me where wrong inferences were made. That is what I have done with posts by OLAADEGBU, modupe01, and a few others on this question of YEC/YUC.

Indeed, I would have loved to show you the deixis of the Genesis narrative, but of what use would that be since you have already written it off as impossible? It certainly would be a waste of time - both yours, mine and our readers - if I were to take up that point at anytime for your consideration. That was why I left it there in brief and invited OLAADEGBU about it this way: "Theologians are no strangers to the deixis of Biblical documents as well other ancient writings. That's a point I'd be glad to expatiate on if need be - just ask." Since he prefers posting obvious lies about volcanoes from HMM instead of using his own God-given intelligence, I concluded it would be a waste of time as well to pound the deixis of Genesis at his door.

point noted.

Yes, I am a Christian, but not one who likes to put words in God's mouth and make statements on His behalf that He did not commission me to do.

I've given hints as to why a global catastrophe would mean that you would not be here today: environmental dynamics. The way YEC/YUC argue a cataclysmic global flood for Noah is amazingly (and brazenly) shallow! A combination of tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanoes happening simultaneously around the world for several days with such fluidity of a global flood would wipe out even those in the Ark! Noah's ark would simply be match sticks in such an environment. Anyone who understands even a little of environmental dynamics would have no problems understanding why you, noetic, would not have been here today.

I would go through ur submissions as soon as I am able to . . , , and will let u know why I agree/disagree with ur position on these.

wirinet:

There are numerous scientific notions that dismisses the case for a global flood. One i have already put forward that no Christian is ready to answer is, Where did all the extra water come from?

You apparently have not considered all the water locked up as ice in the north and south poles, glaciers, etc.

A partial melting alone, of Iceland, Greenland, or antartica is sufficient to produce more water than you can possibly imagine.

Deep Sight:

wirinet link=topic=363748.msg5103417#msg5103417 date=1260702353:

There are numerous scientific notions that dismisses the case for a global flood. One i have already put forward that no Christian is ready to answer is, Where did all the extra water come from?

You apparently have not considered all the water locked up as ice in the north and south poles, glaciers, etc.

A partial melting alone, of Iceland, Greenland, or antartica is sufficient to produce more water than you can possibly imagine.

Lol, I don't think that the icecaps and glaciers of the polar regions answer the question at all. Let's remember one thing here: the argument here is the notion of a Noahic global flood, not just any flood howsoever defined differently.

One has to read the Genesis narratives about the Flood to understand what is being argued. Whatever conclusions anyone might come to, there's no denying the facts that -

          *   the account does not mention anything about volcanoes, tectonic ruptures,
               and all the other inuendoes that YEC/YUC claim to pepper the argument for
               a global flood.

          *   15 cubits of flood height (Gen. 17:20) just cannot cover the summits and
               peaks of mountains which are thousands of times higher than that
               measurement - not even if anyone cuts corners and explains it by the way
               NIV renders the verse (see the NIV note on that verse)

         *    nowhere does the Bible speak about a freezing of the waters into icecaps
               of glaciers as explaning where all that water must have disappeared to -
               rather, the Biblical explanations for the run-off of the flood are found in
               such verses as Genesis 8:3, 5, &  13 -
                "the waters returned from off the earth continually"
                "the waters decreased continually"
                "the waters were dried up from off the earth"
               Question: returned to where? decreased to where?

         *    the description of the flood is said to be one that completely submerged
               all the mountains and the hills - by 'global', YEC/YUC believe it was worldwide;
               therefore, the sheer volume of water for this global phenomena cannot be
               explained simply as water that "dried up" or a run-off of the flood as
               'returned/decreased continually'; nor can it be explained by icecaps and
               glaciers.

         *    Even if we allow for glaciers, that is still a paultry volume of water to have
               completely submerged the entire earth to a height of over 8 kilometers all
               around the world - where did all that water (over 8 km worldwide) just
               disappear to?

It is not as if there could not have been a Noahic flood; and it is not only the Bible that describes a flood which is considered global in extent. I believe the flood was local, even in the language of the narrator in the Genesis account.

There is no evidence whatsoever for a global flood. Viaro has done a good job of explaining the dynamics. Floods are very hard to miss in geological records. The flood was obviously local. There is strong evidence for an extensive flood in the mesopotamia basin.

What about Noah's age? Was he really 600?

noetic15:

I would love to be educated. . . . why not list them out.

your question is based on the premise that there was a need for extra sea water. . . no there was none.

How can the total volume of water on the earth's surface triple without the need for extra water coming in?

noetic15:

We understand by scientific injunction that rain falls by water held in the atmosphere by means of precipitation. We also know that rain is created by a process called seeding.
Rainfall is also HEAVILY dependent on the temperature prevalent at the said season. Given the three notions above. . . . .the possibility of a flood filling the earth is amazingly alarming.

What has seeding have to do with the total volume of water (ice, liquid and gaseous) on the earth's surface. As i stated earlier the total quantity of water on earth is constant.

noetic15:

Also when u consider that seeding is a new technology used in advanced countries. . . . it begins to highlight the limitless possible sources of rainfall our limited understanding cannot gasp.
and why is it impossible for the biblical account of the water drying up to be impossible?

Seeding is used to condense water vapour in the atmosphere into liquid water( rain), it does not manufacture water from its constituent elements.

noetic15:

did u bother to check the size as stated by the bible?

Please can you educate me on the exact size of the ship?

noetic15:

please read the biblical account before making submissions. . . . the bird that was let out eventually found a tree to rest on. . .implying that plants survived the flood.

I want you to explain how plants could survive being submerged in water for so long.

Deep Sight:

You apparently have not considered all the water locked up as ice in the north and south poles, glaciers, etc.

A partial melting alone, of Iceland, Greenland, or antartica is sufficient to produce more water than you can possibly imagine.

Deep Sight you understanding of science is a far cry from your grasp of law. Also reread my post above concerning the ice caps. The total melting of all the ice on the earth's surface would raise world sea level by 61 metres see http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm ( sorry, i mistakenly said less than 5m). That is still a far cry from 8,900m required to cover mount Everest.
Also are you telling me you believe the " Noah's global flood hypothesis".

wirinet:


Deep Sight you understanding of science is a far cry from your grasp of law. Also reread my post above concerning the ice caps. The total melting of all the ice on the earth's surface would raise world sea level by 61 metres see http://www.howstuffworks.com/question473.htm ( sorry, i mistakenly said less than 5m). That is still a far cry from 8,900m required to cover mount Everest.
Also are you telling me you believe the " Noah's global flood hypothesis".

No i neither believe nor am interested in any flood at all. I was just throwing in a suggestion about the potential volume of ice in the world. . .

Now i can fault you on one ground at least. You make a calculation of the ice in the world today.

How do you know what amount of ice was stored up 5000 years ago. . . can you say with certainty that you know EXACTLY what the earth's water cycle was like 5000 years ago?

Address that!

Cheers. . .

Gen 7:20  The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

Those who use this verse to argue against the possibility of a global flood make an unsubstantiated assumption: that mountains like Everest existed in Noah's time. A examination of the shapes of the continents would show that they fit together like pieces of a jigsaw, evidence that all the land was once in one place as recorded in Gen 1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
As such the topography of the earth would have been markedly different from today. At some time in the past the continents split apart: Gen 10:25  To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. The Himalayan range, of which Everest is a part is formed by the Indian Subcontinent pushing into the Eurasian land mass.

The account in Genesis makes it clear that the flood was global.

aletheia:

Gen 7:20  The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

Those who use this verse to argue against the possibility of a global flood make an unsubstantiated assumption: that mountains like Everest existed in Noah's time. A examination of the shapes of the continents would show that they fit together like pieces of a jigsaw, evidence that all the land was once in one place as recorded in Gen 1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
As such the topography of the earth would have been markedly different from today. At some time in the past the continents split apart: Gen 10:25  To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan. The Himalayan range, of which Everest is a part is formed by the Indian Subcontinent pushing into the Eurasian land mass.

The account in Genesis makes it clear that the flood was global.

God bless you.  Only if folks read their Bibles.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered (Genesis 7:19–20).

Many Christians today who claim that the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood believe this because they have accepted the widely believed evolutionary history of the earth, which interpretes fossil layers as the history of the sequential appearance of life over millions of years.

Scientists once understood the fossils, which are buried in water-carried sediments of mud and sand, to be mostly the result of the great Flood.  Those who now accept millions of years of gradual accumulation of fossils have, in their way of thinking, explained away the evidence for the global Flood.  Hence, many compromising Christians insist on a local flood.

Secularists deny the possibility of a worldwide Flood at all.  If they would think from a biblical perspective, however, they would see the abundant evidence for the global Flood.  They will have to believe it first before they can see it.

Those who accept the evolutionary timeframe, with its fossil accumulation, also rob the Fall of Adam of its serious consequences.  They put the fossils, which testify of disease, suffering, and death, before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering into the world.  In doing this, they also undermine the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ.  Such a scenario also robs all meaning from God’s description of His finished creation as "very good."

As I said earlier, if the Flood only affected the area of Mesopotamia, as some here claim, why did Noah have to build an Ark?  He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped.  No one has told me why.  And most importantly, if the Flood were local, people not living in the vicinity of the Flood would not have been affected by it.  They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.

For those who count the Words of Jesus to mean anything, He certainly believed that the Flood killed every person not on the Ark.  What else could Christ mean when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37–39)?

In 2 Peter 3, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah’s Flood.  A partial judgment in Noah’s day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come.  This was not referring to any pre-adamic Flood that they (Long agers) calls "the Lucifer's Flood".

If the Flood were only local, how could the waters rise to 20 feet (6 m) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level; it could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.

Even what is now Mt. Everest was once covered with water and uplifted afterward.  Before the Flood, the mountains were not so high.  The mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated up-exertion.  And in support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt. Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.  For more details on this click Here.

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) ( www.wku.edu/~smithch/S728-3.htm ).  Also important to note is that, with the leveling out of the oceans and mountains, the Ark would not have been riding at the height of the current Mt. Everest, thus no need for such things as oxygen masks either.

There’s more and I repeat, if the Flood were a local flood, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.  God put a rainbow in the sky as a covenant between God and man and the animals that He would never repeat such an event.  There have been huge local floods in recent times (e.g., in Bangladesh); but never has there been another global Flood that killed all life on the land.

aletheia:
The account in Genesis makes it clear that the flood was global.

Not so fast, because you seem to have jumbled ideas together from various verses here and there to draw that conclusion. So let's have a look:

Gen 7:20 The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered.

Those who use this verse to argue against the possibility of a global flood make an unsubstantiated assumption: that mountains like Everest existed in Noah's time.

Please show me how it is that Everest only emerged after Noah's flood - just show me and we can rest the case.

If you care to know, Everest and several other mountains of great summits are older than 6,000 years old - because plate tectonics reveal that the folding and faulting of the earth's crust to form continental plates and various landforms is a gradual process rather than a cataclysmic, apocalyptic occurence. These processes are still going on today, and many sources from such studies believe Everest to be about 60 million years old. This is after careful consideration of the process of its formation.

Yet, it is not only Everest that is dated this way from considerations of the process of mountain formations. Take a look at the careful description of the Rocky mountains of North America and see how information about it is carefully laid out in Wikipedia. These landforms were not formed within a year, as is generally believed by YEC/YUC apologists who have nothing to present as evidence than paper-thin noise making.

A examination of the shapes of the continents would show that they fit together like pieces of a jigsaw, evidence that all the land was once in one place as recorded in Gen 1:9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

The geosciencific theory of Pangea does not lend support to Genesis 1:9 which speaks only about dry land appearing from a deluge. That verse does not speak about a supercontinent, or it would indeed have indicated their divisions into Laurasia and Gondwanaland. There's nothing to indicate this at all in Genesis, and it is a very poor guess you attempted there.

As such the topography of the earth would have been markedly different from today.

True, for we know that the topography of many places change within short or long periods of time - but that is especially as affected by other environmental factors.



satellite images of Acheh before and after a tsunami

At some time in the past the continents split apart: Gen 10:25 To Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

This is a laugh! My dear friend, Genesis 10:25 is not reference to continental splits - you would have to do better than that and show us how many continents were formed if that were the case. Not only so, please show us the impact of such a continental split during someone's lifetime.

The Himalayan range, of which Everest is a part is formed by the Indian Subcontinent pushing into the Eurasian land mass.

How old is that landmass?

viaro:

Not so fast, because you seem to have jumbled ideas together from various verses here and there to draw that conclusion. So let's have a look:

1. I was addressing the specific point about mountains such as Everest. That the flood is global is clearly indicated in the scriptures.

viaro:


Please show me how it is that Everest only emerged after Noah's flood - just show me and we can rest the case.

If you care to know, Everest and several other mountains of great summits are older than 6,000 years old - because plate tectonics reveal that the folding and faulting of the earth's crust to form continental plates and various landforms is a gradual process rather than a cataclysmic, apocalyptic occurence. These processes are still going on today, and many sources from such studies believe Everest to be about 60 million years old. This is after careful consideration of the process of its formation.

Yet, it is not only Everest that is dated this way from considerations of the process of mountain formations. Take a look at the careful description of the Rocky mountains of North America and see how information about it is carefully laid out in Wikipedia. These landforms were not formed within a year, as is generally believed by YEC/YUC apologists who have nothing to present as evidence than paper-thin noise making.
The geosciencific theory of Pangea does not lend support to Genesis 1:9 which speaks only about dry land appearing from a deluge. That verse does not speak about a supercontinent, or it would indeed have indicated their divisions into Laurasia and Gondwanaland. There's nothing to indicate this at all in Genesis, and it is a very poor guess you attempted there.

2. Plate tectonics is the theory developed in the early 20th century by man to explain why the continents are where they are today after noticing that the continents all fitted together like pieces of a jigsaw. Before then the view was that the continents were formed in their present locations by a process of uplift. Clearly then the bible was way ahead of "modern" science when it indicated all the land was in one place in Gen 1:9-10. I wonder how "primitive, superstitious" men who wrote the bible could have known that? BTW Gen 1:9 does not speak about the dry land appearing from the deluge. Are we reading from the same bible? "Pangea" & "Supercontinent" are man-made terms describing what is revealed in Gen 1: 9-10.

viaro:

This is a laugh! My dear friend, Genesis 10:25 is not reference to continental splits - you would have to do better than that and show us how many continents were formed if that were the case. Not only so, please show us the impact of such a continental split during someone's lifetime.

How old is that landmass?

3. What makes you think Genesis 10:25 does not refer to "continental split". The Hebrew word translated "earth" erets is quite specific and is the same word used in Gen 1:10: "And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good." The word palag is from a primitive root meaning to split; and is thus translated divided.
Stop introducing red herrings: the verse does not indicate the number of continents formed neither it's impact on the lives of those alive then, so I cannot answer those questions. However it was a memorable and noteworthy event, hence the name Peleg from the verb palag.
4. As for Everest occuring after Noah? Peleg was a descendant of Noah. "Elementary, my dear Watson."

The earth is not as old "scientists" would have us believe.

@ OLAADEGBU

In 2 Peter 3, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah’s Flood. A partial judgment in Noah’s day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come. This was not referring to any pre-adamic Flood that they called Lucifer Flood.

where did u get the idea of a pre-adamic flood or a lucifer flood from?

Helllooooo?!?! Was Noah 600 years old when he saved all the world's species from extermination?

wirinet:

How can the total volume of water on the earth's surface triple without the need for extra water coming in?
What has seeding have to do with the total volume of water (ice, liquid and gaseous) on the earth's surface. As i stated earlier the total quantity of water on earth is constant.
Seeding is used to condense water vapour in the atmosphere into liquid water( rain), it does not manufacture water from its constituent elements.

1. You have not established why the flood would require extra water. your submission is based on the assumption that 1.36 million-trillion of water as found on the earth is not sufficient to cause a global flood based on the present state of the earth. your assertion and assumption is false. First we know from biblical submissions that the earth at the time of noah was a glorified village without the development it presently has. Given the state of the earth at time of noah there was enough water to flood the entire earth.

2. u ignored the point made by citing seeding. The seeding technique that manipulates rainfall is a testimony to the other limitless techniques yet unknown that can manipulate rainfall.

3. if u claim that there was a global flood. . .where was the boundary of the flood? how was it determined?

Please can you educate me on the exact size of the ship?

Good u asked. . ,  .  Genesis 6:14-16
14Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

15And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

16A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

I want you to explain how plants could survive being submerged in water for so long.

what stops plants from surviving?

aletheia:

1. I was addressing the specific point about mountains such as Everest. That the flood is global is clearly indicated in the scriptures.

The flood is not global - and that is clear when one carefully studies the verses and asks relevant questions, rather than hold on to traditional interpretations that continually present problems for YEC/YUCs.

2. Plate tectonics is the theory developed in the early 20th century by man to explain why the continents are where they are today after noticing that the continents all fitted together like pieces of a jigsaw. Before then the view was that the continents were formed in their present locations by a process of uplift. Clearly then the bible was way ahead of "modern" science when it indicated all the land was in one place in Gen 1:9-10.

I have 3 things to say to you:

(a) since plate tectonics was invented by man to explain the position and movements of the continents, YEC/YUCs should not be using what was invented by man - they should stick to their curriculum harvested from AiG, HMM and ICR. Unfortunately, while you are here compalining, look through OLAADEGBU's posts and see how tenously he has attempted to dribble in volcanoes, tectonic ruptures, etc to pepper his weak attempts to explain the inconsistencies of his YEC theories.

(b) the Bible was not way ahead of modern science - on the contrary, modern science has left tradionalists far behind as to retire the ideas of YEC as antic and musuem artifacts!

(c)  you are only assuming that Genesis 1:9-10 teaches that the land was in one place - that is not what those verses teach, please. The appearance of dry land has nothing to do with continents forming from Pangea through Laurasia and Gwandanaland. nada, nothing, zilch.

I wonder how "primitive, superstitious" men who wrote the bible could have known that?

Simple: because they were not describing what YEC is putting into their mouths! Those 'primitive' men were not describing any plate tectonic and continetal drifts, or the mountain peaks of Everest in the Himalayas.

BTW Gen 1:9 does not speak about the dry land appearing from the deluge. Are we reading from the same bible?

We are reading the same Bible, this is what Genesis 1:9 says: "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."

Call it 'deluge' or 'alluvion', they are the same concepts expressed; and Peter the apostle makes clear that the earth was submerged in water before Noah's time: "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water" - 2 Peter 3:5.  Did you care to read that verse in your own Bible? Huh?

"Pangea" & "Supercontinent" are man-made terms describing what is revealed in Gen 1: 9-10.

No bother - Genesis 1:9 does not describe either Pangea or a supercontinent.

3. What makes you think Genesis 10:25 does not refer to "continental split". The Hebrew word translated "earth" erets is quite specific and is the same word used in Gen 1:10: "And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good." The word palag is from a primitive root meaning to split; and is thus translated divided.

Don't you see how you're contradicting yourself? Let me guess: the continental split - when did it occur:

         ~ in Genesis 1:9-10?

         ~ in Genesis 10:25?

Either answer is not the same as the other - they are NOT the same; and we cannot dribble in ideas that those verses never speak of. If the earth split in Genesis 10, what exactly was the nature of these splits? Does it refer to continental formations? How? Into how many continents?

Stop introducing red herrings: the verse does not indicate the number of continents formed neither it's impact on the lives of those alive then, so I cannot answer those questions.

The reason you cannot answer is because you were dribbling in what was not there in the first place. Where the Bible speaks about such an event of physical landmasses splitting up by any means, it is clear as to its effect - such as in Zech. 14:4 . .

         '. . . and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east
          and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the
          mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.'

Language cannot be clearer, and just there it shows that when landmasses split, effects are noticeable:

            (a)  the specific landmass is mentioned (mount of Olives)
            (b)  what happens - 'cleave in the midst'
            (c)  their relative directional movement noted:
                        'toward the east and towards the west'
            (d)  the effects produced thereby:
                        'there shall be a very great valley'
                        'half of the mountain shall remove toward the north',
                        'and half of it toward the south'

When you're too busy splitting Pangea in Genesis 1 or 10 that those chapters do not mention, it will not surprise me that you would cry red herring where you cannot answer simple questions challenging your assumptions. If I am looking for splitting of landmasses, ut won't be in Genesis where such a thing was not mentioned - I rather would look elsewhere like Zech. 14:4 where even the effects are disclosed.

However it was a memorable and noteworthy event, hence the name Peleg from the verb palag.

hehe. . where are the continents or effects of that 'peleg'?

4. As for Everest occuring after Noah? Peleg was a descendant of Noah. "Elementary, my dear Watson."

HAHAHA!! I cannot laugh. . . no, guffaw!!   I thought I'd heard the last of it. . but no, now it's 'peleg' that formed Everest! What kind of cachinnation did I let myself into tonight?!?  

The earth is not as old "scientists" would have us believe.

No. .  it was created yesterday, according to archbishop Watson!

Krayola:

Helllooooo?!?! Was Noah 600 years old when he saved all the world's species from extermination?

kkrrrrinngg!! >>Your phonecall is not coming through. . . line busy. Please try again later!<<

Now, to you, OLAADEGBU.

OLAADEGBU:

And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered (Genesis 7:19–20).

Many Christians today who claim that the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood believe this because they have accepted the widely believed evolutionary history of the earth, which interpretes fossil layers as the history of the sequential appearance of life over millions of years.

Since discussing this subject with you, there is not once in any of my post I have argued for evolution. This constant reference to "evolution" is a paper-thin excuse for your inability to face up to the question being asked in view of your YEC/YUC make-belief stories. It is the usual games (very embarassing) that YEC apologists often make when they run out of steam - they just point fingers and write everyone and everything off as 'evolution' without a clue what that term means.

Since I have not discussed Genesis 7:20 as an topic of evolution, could you kindly drop your excuses and face up to the simple question I asked earlier? ~~ "You would have to reconcile the 'magic' in these dimensions and show me how a mere 15 cubit of water would cover the top of a mountain range with a summit of 19,119 cubit!" Have you even attempted it? No; rather we only read your whining about 'evolution' that helps you to conveniently play these games and dance away from reason.

Scientists once understood the fossils, which are buried in water-carried sediments of mud and sand, to be mostly the result of the great Flood. Those who now accept millions of years of gradual accumulation of fossils have, in their way of thinking, explained away the evidence for the global Flood. Hence, many compromising Christians insist on a local flood.

One doesn't have to be a Darwinist before seeing that 15 cubits of water cannot submerge mountain peaks of 19,119 cubits! Please try again.

Secularists deny the possibility of a worldwide Flood at all. If they would think from a biblical perspective, however, they would see the abundant evidence for the global Flood. Thery will have to first believe it before they can see it.

Secularists often deny the traditional interpretation of YECs because the latter spin 'science' on its head and ask everyone to take teir curriculum from the Bible - yet, not even you have been able to show us how God created your famed 'laws of physics' and 'laws of chemistry' in any page of the Bible! It were better for people like you to stop making noise and start using your reasoning faculty.

Those who accept the evolutionary timeframe, with its fossil accumulation, also rob the Fall of Adam of its serious consequences. They put the fossils, which testify of disease, suffering, and death, before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering into the world. In doing this, they also undermine the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ. Such a scenario also robs all meaning from God’s description of His finished creation as "very good."

I can show you also that you are wrong to assert that Adam and Eve brought death into the world; so again, that has nothing to do with evolutionists who are minding their own business investigating other scientific issues of concern in their field. Statements such as the one you just made there demonstrate you don't know your Bible and have been too busy being a slave to the HMM quotes you often post as first-aid where your assertions are checked up.

As I said earlier, if the Flood only affected the area of Mesopotamia, as some here claim, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped. No one has told me why. And most importantly, if the Flood were local, people not living in the vicinity of the Flood would not have been affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.

Don't lie. I already told you that the Ark was not necessitated by the extent of the flood, whether local or global. And you are also fond of not answering questions put to you, so what are you yapping on about and grumbling like your own question is the best thing since sliced bread?

For those who count the Words of Jesus to mean anything, He certainly believed that the Flood killed every person not on the Ark. What else could Christ mean when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of "all" men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37–39)?

The word "all" is often used in Scripture (both OT and NT) in reference to a particular group of identities and is not meant to be taken to mean something that is wider than the group identities to which it appertains. This is an example of the 'deixis' I earlier hinted upon - look for references to 'locational characteristics of a situation', as is clear from the following example:

[list] The plague of the locust in EGYPT - local or global?

Read Exodus 10:14-15, KJV --
[list][li]And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, and rested in all the coasts of Egypt: very grievous were they; before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such. For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt.[/li][/list]

[/list]
[list]The Bible clear reports that the locust in that plagued covered "the whole earth", according to Exodus 10:15.

Questions:

(a) Could we then argue that the plague of Moses upon Egypt was global as well?

(b) If no, why - afterall, the Bible as the Word of God declares that its extent was THE WHOLE EARTH?

(c) If yes, then do you have any evidence (scientific, philosophic, logical, archeological, or even YEC/YUC) to show a plague of locust that covered all the earth?[/list]

If you compare these two events, you find that they share certain things in common:

* they both depict God's divine temporal judgement on rebellion

* they both speak in language to make the reader suppose it is global

* they both contain Biblical deixis

It's easier for YECs to say that the plague of locust was not global even though it speaks of "the whole earth" - but not so easy for them to see the same deixis in the Genesis flood. You know why? I think for one: they are too busy shouting against evolution that they can't see simple issues right in front of their own eyes - even if God were to come down and show them!

In 2 Peter 3, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah’s Flood.  A partial judgment in Noah’s day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come.  This was not referring to any pre-adamic Flood that they called Lucifer Flood.

A partial judgement in the one case does not equate a partial judgement in the other case. We see several examples again and again in the OT showing types and archetypes of New Testamental realities. A 'partial' example of fire poured out on Sodom and Gomorrha in judgement prefigures what would happen in a wider scale on the ungodly - the same apostle Peter makes that case clear in 2 Peter 2:6.

If the Flood were only local, how could the waters rise to 20 feet (6 m) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)?

I don't know - and that is what I am waiting for you to explain, rather than throwing back the question like you're also perplexed like the rest of us!    Please explain how 20 feet of water can submerge mountain summits that are thousands of times higher than that!

Water seeks its own level; it could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.

Good point, bro - good point. If you don't know already, you just disfigured and discomfitted your YEC/YUC argument for a global flood! Welcome to our world!!

After the interlude, you can shout again - nothing beyond this point makes any sense from you any more. Well done.

Even what is now Mt. Everest was once covered with water and uplifted afterward.

By what - 15 cubic height of Noah's flood, no? Are you serious?

Before the Flood, the mountains were not so high.

Ahh, you're now desperate! No, the 'mountains' could not have been high enough for YEC/YUC to dribble and cut corners for 15 cubits to submerge summits of 19,119 cubits! In fact, the 'mountains' were as flat as a carpet - the type my muslim friends call 'Dahaha'. Hehehe! M-a-n! You're a character!

The mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated up-exertion.  And in support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt. Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.  For more details on this click Here.

It is only AiG (Answers in Genesis) and folks at ICR that make you believe such trash. Send them an email to do a small research about the age of any mountain - they would surprise themselves if they cared enough to attempt it!

Besides, I've appealed to you to stop cheating with plate tectonics - Genesis nowhere mentions any inference for it, directly or indirectly. If you believe so, I asked that you showed it by quoting and discussing the verses. too hard?

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) ( www.wku.edu/~smithch/S728-3.htm ).  Also important to note is that, with the leveling out of the oceans and mountains, the Ark would not have been riding at the height of the current Mt. Everest, thus no need for such things as oxygen masks either.

Everest towers at a peak no less than 8km above sea level; and there's no need to try and level all the mountains so that they can be flat enough for your 2.7km of flood to submerge them. as for the oxygen thingy, I was going to mention it - but you anticipated me. It therefore means that Noah's Ark could not have been cruising at heights above mountain summits all over the world at such altitude, or they would have been long dead before the flood dried out!

There’s more and I repeat, if the Flood were a local flood, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again.

I trashed that and gave examples. Anything new, or you just want to keep repeating these weak excuses?

  God put a rainbow in the sky as a covenant between God and man and the animals that He would never repeat such an event.  There have been huge local floods in recent times (e.g., in Bangladesh); but never has there been another global Flood that killed all life on the land.

That's because Noah's flood was not global - even your own evidence kills your argument.