More evidence of Noah's Flood?

[anthonyjmcgirr]

Scientists have recently come across a discovery that could prove there's a reservoir of water under the earth so massive it could contain all the water currently in the earth's oceans.  Of course the article doesn't point to the biblical flood, but says it's more like how it's imagined in Jules Verne's "Journey to the Center of the Earth."  But if you ask me, it really take away the argument that there's not enough water on the earth to cover the mountains.  It also speaks to the bible saying that water burst forth from within the earth and not just 40 days and nights of rain.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2579584/The-vast-reservoir-hidden-Earths-crust-holds-water-ALL-oceans.html

[gray wolf]

I always wondered what happened to all that water

[anthonyjmcgirr]

The bible says it retreated, so it probably went back to where it came from. 

[Tristen]

There has never been a problem with the amount of water. According to most creationist models, the global flood caused massive geological upheaval on the surface of the earth; forming high mountain ranges and deep ocean basins. Given the current amount of water in the oceans, the suface of the earth would be several km under water if the surface of the earth was evenly distributed.

 

But yes - finding such large amounts of sub-terrainian water would be consistent with the Biblical claim that water disseminated from "fountains of the great deep" (Gen 7:11).

[a-seeker]

How does Science deal with the problem of loads of water over our heads (not clouds)?

 

clb

[jerryR34]

Too bad there isn't a uniform layer of sediment over the entire earth...not to mention either the energy of the water coming from under the surface of the earth or pouring down on it would have destroyed everything and all species/kinds of animal fossils are not mixed...  Now, if you want to claim supernatural agents then maybe you should stop talking scientific evidence.  This is why this sub-forum is called "science vs faith". 

[Tristen]

Too bad there isn't a uniform layer of sediment over the entire earth...not to mention either the energy of the water coming from under the surface of the earth or pouring down on it would have destroyed everything and all species/kinds of animal fossils are not mixed...  Now, if you want to claim supernatural agents then maybe you should stop talking scientific evidence.  This is why this sub-forum is called "science vs faith". 

 

 

Creationist flood models do not require a single, uniform sedimentary layer or a uniformly mixed fossil record.

 

 

A single uniform sedimentary layer is only necessary if the secular assumption of universal superposition is applied to the creationist flood model. This assumption has long been scientifically demonstrated to be unnecessary for any model.

 

see:

Berthault G (1986). “Experiments on lamination of sediments, resulting from a periodic graded-bedding subsequent to deposition—a contribution to the explanation of lamination of various sediments and sedimentary rocks”, Compte Rendus Acadèmie des Sciences, Paris, Vol. 303.

&

Julien PY (1993). “Experiments on stratification of heterogeneous sand mixtures”, Bulletin of the Geological Society of France, Vol. 164.

 

 

From a creationist perspective, the fossil succession is easily explained through burial by the order of deposition, the vertical habitat, and motility of organisms.

All aquatic habitats have fauna/flora zones. When catastrophic flooding occurs on a large scale, we observe that sedimentary burial is by habitat. We expect that the same would be true in the context of a global flood; with the bottom dwellers of the oceans buried first and the phytoplankton last. This would also include mammals in the higher layers since the upper surface is their habitat. On land, it is reasonable to assume that during a global flood, the most mobile creatures would be buried last (and that there would be an abundance of fossil remains of animal activity; i.e. running, swimming, eating, copulating, drowning etc.). This explanation (albeit a basic summary) is consistent with the observed record of fossil succession.

 

Furthermore (and contrary to what secular propaganda would have you believe), the fossil record is under constant revision. Fossils found “out of place” are a perpetual nuisance to the Common Ancestry paradigm; causing significant range extensions, and even some unsolved yet “highly intriguing geological problem”

(Stainforth RM (1966). “Occurrence of Pollen and Spores in the Roraima Formation of Venezuela and British Guiana”, Nature, Vol. 210).

Edited March 17, 2014 by Tristen

[enoob57]

I always wondered what happened to all that water

Interesting this faith of yours... you believe He can speak it into exist -but- not out

[Guest shiloh357]

The massive oceans we see are the result and remnant of the flood waters.  We tend to read our present experience into the past.  We assume that the amount the of land we see today is what was in existence before the flood.  There was most likely much, much more dry land prior to the flood and that the massive oceans we see today probably didn't exist prior to the flood. We assume that our present conditions have always been, and that assumption may be false.

 

But unbelief by both Christians and nonChrisitans alike in the Bible's claim of a massive flood as described has forced people to find other explanations for why we are finding man-made structures deep in the oceans floor.  If we believed the Bible people would not be forced to resort to the stupidity of some who suggest that man must have had extra-terrestrial assistance in builidng those underwater structures.

 

As for fossils.   The reason we generally don't find fossils of animals that died say two or three hundred years ago is that animals decay or our eaten by scavengers prior to decaying.  

 

Fossilization doesn't take place over millions of years.  Fossils are the product of a massive and rapid deposition of sediment.  The mere existence of fossils are testimony to a massive catastrophe that killed and preserved animals instantly.  We have fossils of fish in the process of eating other fish, but were suddenly buried instantly in sediment and preserving a snapshot in time.   The way it is presented  by modern science, the layers of sediment were layed down slowly over millions of years, but that doesn't make sense because animals  generally decay long before they would be covered by a slow deposition.  Yet we find so much soft tissue preserved in the fossil record.

 

Plant fossils are the same way.  Plant's don't fossilize, they decay unless they were buried rapidly and preserved under huge layers of sediment.   That would speak to the massive flood event and a flood event would be a reasonable explanation for such.

[ARGOSY]

Too bad there isn't a uniform layer of sediment over the entire earth...not to mention either the energy of the water coming from under the surface of the earth or pouring down on it would have destroyed everything and all species/kinds of animal fossils are not mixed...  Now, if you want to claim supernatural agents then maybe you should stop talking scientific evidence.  This is why this sub-forum is called "science vs faith".

I personally don't like the name of this sub-forum. How about science and faith against evolution? That would make more sense.

I am a believer in a world-wide flood, but I believe the argument that most of the fossilization from paleozoic through to cenozoic was caused by one flood has many flaws, as you pointed out.

I prefer to believe in a flood at the late paleozoic/early mesozoic boundary and there is extensive geologic evidence for extensive flooding during that period.