Re: hypothetical question about Noah's flood

Sheila,
You're still talking about 1/4,500,000,000 instead of 1/6000. As for
tearing things up, one of the flood geologists has claimed that the great
deep was a layer of mostly water under the entire original earth. Its
collapse would reduce the diameter of the earth and therefore alter the
surface under the universal water. You can't mix the standard geological
chronology with flood geology/recent creation chronology and ask an
intelligent question of their interaction. There is TOTAL
incompatibility.
Dave

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Sheila Wilson
<sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net> writes:
I agree with all the implications and ramifications that you have given.
Focusing on the hypothetical question, however, how much of the
primordial land (using your term) would have been torn up given an old
earth scenario. In other words, if we had a global flood today on our
4.5 billion year old earth, how much different would the topography look?
 In Genesis, the waters flooded for forty days. Would that have been
enough time and power to significantly erode existing rock? Or would the
waters rise so quickly that very little erosion would occur?

I believe these questions are important in understanding what a
geologically instantaneous global flood would do. Many of us agree that
a global flood never happened. Others believe that it did. If it did,
how much different would the earth's surface look before vs. after.
Could we have a global flood without cataclysmic plate shifting, as
suggested by Humphreys, Ham, and others? How could cataclysmic plate
shifting possibly cause a global flood. I don't believe that it can. I
don't think the laws of physics would allow that type of plate shifting,
nor do I think the earth has the potential energy to cause it. Even if
it could, I don't think the atmosphere, much less a boat of any size,
could possibly survive the turbulence created by plate shifting of that
magnitude.

Venus appears to undergo periodic resurfacing caused by global,
cataclysmic volcanic events. The resurfacing is probably a function of
cooling and the lack of plate tectonics. Even with that level of
deformation, the planet itself appears to remain stable in orbit,
rotation, and tilt. How could a flood possibly cause the earth's axis to
tilt? I don't think it can.

Also, given the geologically instantaneous event and the depth of the
water, would enough sediment be created to fill the basins of Wyoming?
The depth of sediment there can be measured in miles, not feet. I think
the speed at which the proposed global flood occurred would not generate
the sediment volume required. A global flood would probably just resort
existing sediment more than erode existing rock and a lot of the sediment
would end up in the ocean as the water receded.

Sheila

"D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:
Sheila,
I think you are not taking into account the broader requirements of a
global flood less than 6000 years ago. It has to be something that tore
up the primordial land and redeposited it in the strata now encountered.
That the Flood only lasted a year is, from the standpoint of geological
time, virtually nothing. But geological time is absolutely excluded from
consideration by all who hold to a global flood. The deluge was,
according to flood geology, catastrophic and cataclysmic. One thing
possibly suggested as a model is the length of time it took for the
atomic bombs to explode over Nagasaki and Hiroshima relative to the
extended existence of the cities. But it seems inadequate. Even
destruction times duration of the recent tsunami off the Indonesian coast
seems relatively close to zero compared to the destruction required and
yearlong duration of the Flood.

A major problem which we have in analysis is focusing on a single aspect
of a greater problem as if it were the crucial and major factor--tunnel
vision. There are always ramifications galore.
Dave

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:47:57 -0700 (PDT) Sheila Wilson
<sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net> writes:
I understand your position but that wasn't my question. My question was,
if it did occur, what would we see. Purely hypothetical, no debate on
whether or not it happened.

These questions came after reading Chris Sharpe's essay on the age of the
universe and astromony. One significant point that he made was, if the
universe was only 6000 years old, we would not see most the stars because
they are too far away. The light didn't have time to get here. So what
would the earth look like if a global flood did occur? I don't think we
would see any geologic evidence of a global flood as described in
Genesis. In geologic time, it was instantaneous. Of course, volcanoes
are instantaneous and we can see lots of evidence of them. How deep of
sediment layer would we expect?

Any ideas?

Sheila

Sheila McGinty Wilson
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Received on Fri Jul 22 19:48:56 2005