Re: hypothetical question about Noah's flood

Once again, one might start with the very real example of the recent
tsunami and the damage that resulted from that minor (in terms of Earth
dimensions) movement of a portion of the earth's shell. If that were
multiplied in any rational way to get some sense of what might happen
with surface layers of the Earth collapsing into the voids previously
occupied by "the waters of the deep", I think the whole idea of the
living biosphere surviving in any semblance of what it was before the
collapse would be pretty hard to justify, let along the survival of a
tiny ark. The thermal energy release alone would surely be
mind-boggling. JimA

D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:

> 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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 20:08:14 2005