All quotes are from Codex
First, I wanted to ask if you think plants and trees were brought aboard the ark as well, and if not what do you think happened to them?
It is obvious, is it not, that the dove went out and found that trees were growing, so I see no reason for uncertainty on this question you asked. It might help if you read the text of scripture first, and carefully
It seems to me that if plants and trees were not included that the flood would have killed off most of them.
There are many ways that seeds and soil and sprigs survived on large mats and in ice. Note that one would expect the survival of trees to proceed at the higher elevations well before the full drainage of waters off of the continents occurred.
Further, salt water, which the water certainly would have been as the entire ocean is salt water, would kill the plants.
Killing them was the point wasn't it?
But regeneration is natural and prolific and hard to stop.
Seeds are designed to survive what the body of plants cannot. The falling fresh water, and the fresh water bound in the ice of the earth was readily releasable and available once land was exposed. Consider how water flows down hill and cleanses as it goes, how that much of the salt content of the ocean was made that way by the washing of salts off the land.
Which by the way proves that the oceans aren't old since, the rate of salination of the ocean today proceeds rapidly, such that, the process of salinization of the ocean waters can't have gone on long with respect to the not well thought out naturalistic view of nature, and its 'excuses' needs for vast epochs of time, so as to try and float even the very least of its many theoretical absurdities.
Most plants cannot live in salt water, and if you salt the ground plants will not grow there.
Ahh...you have pretty well figured that one out.
Note that ocean plants don't do well on land, and so it is with all and every kind of thing on earth, except man and a few of his best friends.
Do you realize that 'argument from incredulity' proves only that some one is unable to either, grasp, or believe a certain thing? Thus, it's not good, nor formidable argument logically, seems to me.
One basic thing you might consider is that, the world grew upon the earth after the flood, and so it should be thought to have landed intact.
If we look at how God kept things in darkness for (what must be) a few days, until he made the sun, or, how he didn't have his garden tilled until he was ready to apply the appropriate amount of water needed to ignite seeds and subsequent growth, we see then, that a place can seem barren and unproductive, until, the correct triggers are provided and further needs as well.
Thus, we learn this lesson every year, and sometimes over decades, in arid, desert, dry climes where things sit waiting for the right initiative events before the explosion of growth and colors etc occurs.
So, the idea that we can't expect a few survivor mechanisms to have been available to kick start regeneration and profilgation over the earth after the flood is not to me, a unimaginable thing.
But, I think the deeper issuse proffered by the "I'm incredulous about how" argument, is that, the notion is that if one can present a question a wise man can't answer then maybe, just maybe the not so wise are correct. Again, I think a little thought will reveal that such a tactic, or belief (if you will) is not related to scientific thought. It is appropriate only for resisting the allowance of other possiblities and conclusions to be yet proven or to remain ever uncertain by man.
This flood, as it receded, would have deposited salt all over the surface of the Earth.
What is interesting about this comment is that, ONLY A FLOOD OF WATER CAN RATIONALLY BE THE CAUSE OF THE SALT DEPOSITS OF THE EARTH being so well spread. There being no salt manufacturing plant anywhere that we know of, much less some naturalistic machine that lifts it and redeposits it in layers. (Such reasoning is appropriate to all sediments). By the way, many error simply in that they discuss the concept of a global flood within the confines of a local view. The old, "I was straining at a gnat (not doing very well at that either) and I swallowed a whole camel at once! If we want to see the evidence of the global flood of Noah's day, then we must look at the globe. Global features are the result of global events and mechanisms. Any way, great and vast sheets of salt exist, and some in multiple layers as under the Mediterannian Sea. Much with great purity that the sky can't produce! Only water is capable of seperation of elementals on large scale as seen globally.
Forgetting that there is no evidence for this in the rock record, it would also serve to sterilize the soil of all plant life and prevent any new plant life from taking hold for a long time after until rainwater washed it back to the oceans.
No evidence of salt layers?
Secondly, in the article I linked to above it states that the water for the flood came from both above the Earth (presumably as rainfall) and beneath the Earth as subterranean pools that were opened up due to volcanic and tectonic activity. I have an issue with both of those, but lets focus on the latter... Water flows down, water that is beneath the ground will not come up unless the space that it currently resides in is filled in with Earth. If that space is filled in with Earth than the Earth above it will also sink (unless more rock magically appears there...)
Water is incompressible and a seam of water deep under vast weights of rock will neither flash to steam nor be unable to hold the weight easily. So, until a pathway to the surface is afforded then the water can't be exhausted and is trapped. and who knew? Someone knew. That's one of the great proofs of the book of Genesis, that there are so many proofs of knowledge not known then but only in recent times. (appropriate to the end time plot of God) So, in the deepest depth of earth drilled on earth, what did we find? Water. And water that can't go up can't have come down, since all the fissures were squeezed shut. And yet, there was water where no water should be according to naturalism thinking. I suspect there may well have been some salt down there as well. But, how did the author of Genesis know that there were fountains of the deep that correspond on a global scale with the recent era discovery of mid-ocean ridges?
This would effectively swap the position of the underground water with the top level of Earth above it, but that would not raise the sea level one inch... if ocean was above this underground water and it was forced up by land filling it's underground cavity then it would occupy the sink hole that occurred when the land sunk down to fill the cavity, which would not affect the sea level. If land was above this underground water then it would form a lake above it in the sinkhole produced by the land that caved into the underground cavity to force it up in the first place.
The sinkhole notion you refer to is more obviously to be thought of as, the new ocean basins required for removing the flood of waters from off the continents. And you simply haven't allowed for the natural creation of those basins due to water weight to occur with a delay in time. However, it is well known that many structures bear stress for lengths of time and then, collapse occurs.
Does anyone have any plausible idea how water supposedly came up out of the ground and actually raised the sea level at all? I don't think it is possible.
The cause is PRESSURE. As I referred to above. The idea that God put a water seam deep in the rock of the earth is the thing naturalism adherents will have trouble accepting. And that's ok. God isn't utterly scientifically understandable. However, the thing about God is that his works prove he did them because, although they are inconceivable and impossible according all men, on the basis of natural laws, nevertheless, there it is. That is, in the context of the narrative of the global flood of Noah and the reasons for its cause, we can easily accept that the almighty and wise God of Genesis is one that in following his own teaching (count the cost before you build it) laid the foundations of the earth to allow for judgment by water. But, here's the thing, NO MAN HAS DRILLED DOWN BELOW THE EXISTENCE OF WATER. And there is no mechanism allowing surface waters to drift there. Furthermore, all volcanic vents prove that water lies deep in the crust of the earth where contact with magmas must occur. Indeed, I would suppose that it is the vast and explosive power of water flashing to steam that is the normative cause of volcanic eruption that releases the magmas through vertical pathways evacuated by steam pressure. Nevertheless, water is a large part of the outgassing of the earth. How can water be found down were naturalists suppose only super heated layers of rock, to the point of magma, exists? It can only be if water is there but no escape path is available. But, that means that the water couldn't have arrived there from above since no path up for superheated steam means there must also be no path down. Natural sciences never can be explained without God.
This topic is locked
