Jump to content


Photo

Questions About The Ark


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
9 replies to this topic

#1 Codex

Codex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • New York

Posted 03 May 2012 - 08:52 PM

Hello, I have a few questions about Noah's Ark for you guys that I have wondered about for a long time. I'll only ask a couple at a time so as to not become overwhelmed in multiple discussions :D

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 seems to me that if plants and trees were not included that the flood would have killed off most of them. Most plants are rooted to solid soil, and in the flood the soil would become saturated and the trees and plants would lose their footing and be torn out of the ground, especially if this was a more violent event as described here (volcanic and tectonic activity): http://www.answersin...a-flood-and-ark

Further, salt water, which the water certainly would have been as the entire ocean is salt water, would kill the plants. Most plants cannot live in salt water, and if you salt the ground plants will not grow there. This flood, as it receded, would have deposited salt all over the surface of the Earth. 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.



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...). 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.

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.
  • Calum likes this

#2 Gerson

Gerson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • El salvador

Posted 03 May 2012 - 11:50 PM

Hello, I have a few questions about Noah's Ark for you guys that I have wondered about for a long time. I'll only ask a couple at a time so as to not become overwhelmed in multiple discussions :D

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 seems to me that if plants and trees were not included that the flood would have killed off most of them. Most plants are rooted to solid soil, and in the flood the soil would become saturated and the trees and plants would lose their footing and be torn out of the ground, especially if this was a more violent event as described here (volcanic and tectonic activity): http://www.answersin...a-flood-and-ark

Further, salt water, which the water certainly would have been as the entire ocean is salt water, would kill the plants. Most plants cannot live in salt water, and if you salt the ground plants will not grow there. This flood, as it receded, would have deposited salt all over the surface of the Earth. 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.



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...). 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.

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.

Do you believe Jesus tuned water into wine?

Do you believe Jesus walked on the water?

Do you believe Jesus multiply bread and fishes into thousands from just 7?

Do you believe Jesus healed people just with a command?

Does this makes any sense in the rational world or it has a logical explanation?

of course not but we believe in those miracles, are supernatural act withouth an explanation.

So if you believe in that you must believe in the ark. I know if you think about it it doesnt make any sense like the salt water or fresh water fishes of course for our logical mind its imposible.

the funny thing is you believe in evolution that requires more faith a Bunch of scientist shows you a picture with a man evolving a few bones and the evolution should be true right.

#3 Tubal

Tubal

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Massachusetts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 01:14 AM

Hello, I have a few questions about Noah's Ark for you guys that I have wondered about for a long time. I'll only ask a couple at a time so as to not become overwhelmed in multiple discussions :D

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 seems to me that if plants and trees were not included that the flood would have killed off most of them. Most plants are rooted to solid soil, and in the flood the soil would become saturated and the trees and plants would lose their footing and be torn out of the ground, especially if this was a more violent event as described here (volcanic and tectonic activity): http://www.answersin...a-flood-and-ark

Further, salt water, which the water certainly would have been as the entire ocean is salt water, would kill the plants. Most plants cannot live in salt water, and if you salt the ground plants will not grow there. This flood, as it receded, would have deposited salt all over the surface of the Earth. 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.



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...). 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.

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.


First: Noah could have carried seeds with him or not, it isn't all impossible that seeds survived the flood because they can float.

Second: All dirt contains salts, it is essential to plants and other organisms. The level of salinity that is found in the oceans was not that of the water that covered the earth. The salts were collected by run off after the water began to recede and collect into oceans. No added salts to lands but collected into ocean basins from run off after the flood, making it perfectly safe for plants and animals to thrive. In fact, by the time Noah left the ark there was already vegetation.

God put water under the earth during creation when he separated the water from the dry land. Technically speaking I think he did this to lower the water level to allow there to be dry land. When he wanted to destroy man he simply broke open the water he put down there which was probably under pressure from the mantle below. We find under ground bodies of water all the time, how don't you think this is possible? We even find water under pressure too. Ever heard of a geyser?

Question to you Codex, how weak and pathetic is your god? My God sustains the whole universe by the power of his word. Your god can't even make water come out of the ground..

#4 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 05 May 2012 - 11:42 AM

Hello, I have a few questions about Noah's Ark for you guys that I have wondered about for a long time. I'll only ask a couple at a time so as to not become overwhelmed in multiple discussions :D

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 seems to me that if plants and trees were not included that the flood would have killed off most of them. Most plants are rooted to solid soil, and in the flood the soil would become saturated and the trees and plants would lose their footing and be torn out of the ground, especially if this was a more violent event as described here (volcanic and tectonic activity): http://www.answersin...a-flood-and-ark

Further, salt water, which the water certainly would have been as the entire ocean is salt water, would kill the plants. Most plants cannot live in salt water, and if you salt the ground plants will not grow there. This flood, as it receded, would have deposited salt all over the surface of the Earth. 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.


Yes, we see fossilized trees (polystrate fossils) that suggest that trees were catastrophically torn from their habitat and burried rapidly in many different locations. Perhaps some fully grown plants survived the flood, I don't know, but seeds would more likely have survived easier. There is evidence that salt water and fresh water can remain separate when combined due to different densities, so seeds that float would probably be sitting in the rain water, not any salt water. Water contained within the earth would also likely be fresh water as well, so there would be relatively little if any salt water from the start of the flood. Evidence suggests that the ocean did not become salty (or majorly salty) until Noah's flood: see more here


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...). 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.

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.


This is just a semantic game. The sea level would not rise in the examples given, but the sea level would rise relative to the land. Your argument shows no real attempt to understand the Christian position, which is the downfall of most people attempting to "refute" its positions.

#5 dannyboy

dannyboy

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Wales

Posted 11 May 2012 - 07:55 AM

Do you believe Jesus tuned water into wine?

Do you believe Jesus walked on the water?

Do you believe Jesus multiply bread and fishes into thousands from just 7?

Do you believe Jesus healed people just with a command?

Does this makes any sense in the rational world or it has a logical explanation?

of course not but we believe in those miracles, are supernatural act withouth an explanation.

So if you believe in that you must believe in the ark. I know if you think about it it doesnt make any sense like the salt water or fresh water fishes of course for our logical mind its imposible.

the funny thing is you believe in evolution that requires more faith a Bunch of scientist shows you a picture with a man evolving a few bones and the evolution should be true right.


with respect, that says alot about your standard of evidence. Can you find one geologist or biologist who isnt religious but believes the world is 6000 years old and was covered in water, and all modern biology came from a boat? I cant even begin to explain why what you believe is so wrong.

..you could believe in everything the bible tells you. Jesus was a real person. Noah was not.

#6 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 11 May 2012 - 11:16 AM

Can you find one geologist or biologist who isnt religious but believes the world is 6000 years old and was covered in water, and all modern biology came from a boat?


This is a common falacy entertained by atheists who don't invest the time and effort it takes to consider the blatent and ridiculous flaws in their own reasoning. You assume of course that someone who "isn't religious" bases his beliefs on something that is free from religious motivation. However, you have no possible means to determine whether or not the decision of even one of these geologists or biologists to alienate themselves from religion is based on scientific research or on philosophic or religious grounds.

For example, why on earth would anyone opt to reject the idea that the world is older that 6000 years old (which cannot and has not been disproven) and that modern biology came from a boat (also never disproven) and yet somehow ACCEPT the idea that something so incredible complex as a living cell simply splashed itself together in a pond without the slightest intervention of a designer? The chances against something like that happening is ASTRONOMICAL!

But surely, you are very comfortable with the idea that something like that is much more likely to occur than someone as smart as a geologist or biologist being wrong!

#7 joman

joman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Southern Indiana

Posted 16 May 2012 - 11:08 AM

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.
  • Salsa likes this

#8 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 21 July 2012 - 09:14 AM

with respect, that says alot about your standard of evidence.


Without respect, he wasn't really giving evidence. He just demonstrated that one can believe in things, that seem to be unusual or not explainable with common experience.

Can you find one geologist or biologist who isnt religious but believes the world is 6000 years old and was covered in water, and all modern biology came from a boat? I cant even begin to explain why what you believe is so wrong.

Does what people believe anyhow change how it really was? No, not really. But anyway, even if you aren't religious (in fact the people you mentioned are, just not in the YEC way) in the way stipulated. You can still come to specific conclusions, by just looking at the evidence with an open mind:
- That the earth isn't really that old as often proposed by present main stream academics.
- That the earth was indeed covered by water for which sediment layers, rocks and fossils are evidence.
- That there was really an ancestors of humans that survived a flood with animals on board. To which lot's of ancient literature and legend bears witness. A Noah figure isn't limited to ancient Mid-Eastern people. Indo Europeans do have him general, too. And in case of ancient Germanic kings, they actually trace there forefather to a person by that name.

.you could believe in everything the bible tells you. Jesus was a real person. Noah was not.

Yes one can. And why would you think Jesus was real, but Noah wasn't? I just pointed to convergent evidence from mutually independent sources that don't have a versted interest in the biblical account nor are anyhow primed by information, but still bear testimony for the historical existence of a Noah figure.

#9 Reptoman

Reptoman

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 02 August 2012 - 04:57 AM

Dear Codex---
I am new on this site and not familiar with all the players personalities, I take at face value your question, that your honestly seeking an answer. there are answers to these questions. I apologize for some of the arrogant remarks someone made to you.

Apparently the Garden of Eden was fed by some sort of a spring type arrangement which went into 4 rivers, and in the middle east this is also not unknown even today, some believe that Noah's water (from the ground) may have come from such spring and volcanic activity. Many believe just prior to the flood there was huge volcanic activity which was also causing splitting in the ground and releasing these water born pockets that were under pressure, like digging an oil well.

With respect to salt water--the pre-flood fauna was absolutely huge, there have been speculations as to what amount of salt content was in the ocean, but respectfully thousands and thousand sof living fish fossils including the coelacanth makes one believe the ocean was very similar in salt content that it is today pre-flood. So like you I question the ability of the majority of fish from todays diversity to have survived a flood that can lay down thousands of feet of sediment as well as from coal (for some) and the biblical narrative says everything was killed.

But we know whales did not get wiped out, but presumably certian dino type animals did? So its a hard call to just assume as some above that there is a plausible answer to your question. SInce one of the individuals above was very sure of his position, I also want to ask him of the 11,000,000 species of amazonian insects were on the Ark or because they are not nephesh breathers, left off the ARk and how did they survive?

So I lean heavily towards a young earth position... But it is clear to me, and this is where I deviate from certain YeC views, is that I am drawn to the Local huge flood and not the wwFlood as an answer and I believe this is supported by the biblical narrative. Some YECs are very adamant in there expression of having the "truth", but many of their ideas are indeed theoretical, and some are not in the biblical narrative.

Many people across the board of Chrisitndom do not read scriputre or their hermenutics are not he same. I do not concur with the old earthers, not because its not possible, but I think GOD is so beyond that idea of it says that what God is hasn't even entered the mind of man, so we have no conception as finite to an infinite being such as He---my point is that HE could easily have spoken the earth into exsitance and in my opinion did in 6/24 hour days. But I respect the fact that others have a differnt view. I hope this helps. I think as a newbee that we should all treat each other with resepct with our words.....Challenging someones level of faith I think is kind of an arrogant ploy that misses the point????
  • Minnemooseus likes this

#10 NewPath

NewPath

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Durban, SA

Posted 06 August 2012 - 11:54 PM

Apparently the Garden of Eden was fed by some sort of a spring type arrangement which went into 4 rivers, and in the middle east this is also not unknown even today, some believe that Noah's water (from the ground) may have come from such spring and volcanic activity. Many believe just prior to the flood there was huge volcanic activity which was also causing splitting in the ground and releasing these water born pockets that were under pressure, like digging an oil well.


Does the bible actually state that the "springs" were of water?

I have been considering that the fountains of the great deep were fountains of lava that burst forth. These lava flows were massive.
The land mass was smaller and had a lower profile than today (less mountainous) and so did not require as much water. Its possible that only a small portion of the worlds landmass was originally above sea level, let's call that small island "the Garden of Eden". As the world iced up, with two huge ice caps and massive glaciation during the pre-flood area, the landmass grew, but very low lying. During this entire time, the water vapour in the air was extensive, being assisted by the strong magnetic field which assists in the suspension of water vapour.

Before the flood there was a magnetic reversal, causing reduction in water vapour suspension AND a lack of protection from solar winds. This solar wind has two effects:
1) Stirs up volcanic activity by increasing energy levels below the crust
2) Seeds the air with carbon which increases rainfall

The greatest volcanic activity the earth has ever known, the Siberian Traps, occurred during the magnetic reversal and caused the following:
1) The heat generated melted the ice caps
2) Melted the massive glaciation
3) Seeded the entire planet's atmosphere with volcanic dust causing rainfalls
4) All volcanic activity generates torrential downpours

And so we had the lava fountains of the great deep pouring forth, together with rain caused by lowered suspension, air seeding by carbon and dust, and volcanic activity, together with ice melting, causing the worldwide flood.

No need for water springs, its lava springs that caused the worldwide flood.
  • JayShel likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users