Jump to content


Photo

Seawater Vs Fresh Water After The Flood.


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

#21 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 12 May 2008 - 12:39 PM

Where does fresh water come from after the flood?

During the hydrologic cycle, only water evaporates. Not the salt. So over a period of time, the fresh water run off fills our lakes, rivers, streams etc...

This run off is not only from rain, but melting snow as well.

If salt evaporated with the water, and rained back down upon the earth. It would eventually kill most all the plants. And there would be no fresh water to drink for the animals, so they would die also.

So it was the hydrologic cycle that made the fresh water. Which by the way, before the flood did not exist because there was no rain.

View Post



Yet with the recession of the flood waters, the lakes would remain filled with salt water and be undrinkable even with the addition of more fresh water. Since evaporation doesn't dry up a lake, then the lakes today should not be fresh water but salt water.

#22 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 03 June 2008 - 07:32 AM

Yet with the recession of the flood waters, the lakes would remain filled with salt water and be undrinkable even with the addition of more fresh water.  Since evaporation doesn't dry up a lake, then the lakes today should not be fresh water but salt water.

View Post


This assumes that the seas were as large as they are today, and that they were always salty. Is there some definitive proof, in a materialistic science kind of way, that the original ocean was salty?

From the flood theory point of view, based on the limited information in the Bible we don't know how big the seas were or whether they were salty. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking that there wouldn't have been enough time to accumulate much salt.

And remember, the flood did not consist merely of existing surface water running uncontrolled as in present day local floods. It was a huge amount of water never before seen on the earth coming from great openings in the earth's surface, and a falling down of the atmospheric canopy. There was enough of this fresh water to cover the entire earth above the tops of the highest mountain. Compared to what might have been a very small ocean that amount of water would have diluted any saltiness to a negligible amount.

Points to ponder.

Dave

#23 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 June 2008 - 09:12 AM

like i said before dave that there are lots of underground salt mines under the earth so the seas could have even been MORE saltier than they are now.

just something to think about

#24 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 03 June 2008 - 12:21 PM

like i said before dave that there are lots of underground salt mines under the  earth so the seas could have even been MORE saltier than they are now.

just something to think about

View Post


That's a good point, assuming that those salt deposits are attributed to ancient oceans and not to some other phenomena.

However, that's what's interesting about allowing more than just materialistic-naturalistic presuppositions in scientific endeavors. After all, God created the earth and everything on and in it. He might have planted pure salt deposits upon creation in order to benefit mankind at some future date.

I'm wondering if someone with a materialistic-only worldview could chime in here and tell us about the saltiness of ancient oceans and their relationship to the underground salt deposits.

Dave

#25 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 04 June 2008 - 07:44 AM

Obviously, we can't know for sure, but the salt levels appear to be in a rough equilibrium, so ancient levels were probably not that much different. Some think that the salt level in present-day land animals reflects the salt level in the ancient ocean.

Underground (and open) salt deposits appear to come from dried-out brine. For instance, wait long enough, and the Dead Sea will become a salt deposit.

Some present-day oceans, like the Mediterranean, have all the signs of having been dried out during an earlier era. And correspondingly, it is full of salt deposits.

Hans

#26 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 31 October 2008 - 12:03 AM

Actually,saltwater is more dense than freshwater so the freshwater floats on top.All you need is a steady output to compensate for dillution.I saw an underwater cave that has a constant flow of freshwater and it has a river of freshwater floating on top of the saltwatwer.Sailors have reported drinking freshwater 200 miles out to sea from the amazon river,the fountains of the great deep bursting forth may have had enough force to keep freshwater rivers circling the entire earth for a year.

Much of our freshwater comes from under ground springs and the great lakes are glacial melt waters,Water freezes but salt does'nt,resulting in massive freshwater lakes.

#27 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 10 November 2008 - 11:54 AM

Genesis 2: 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

View Post



Chapter 2:5 in my bible (New American Standard Bible) says:

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, (B)for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

This contradicts what you have written as you indicate that there were plants but my bible indicates there were none. The version of the text that appears in my bible also appears in the Torah.

#28 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 11 November 2008 - 08:33 PM

Chapter 2:5 in my bible (New American Standard Bible) says:

Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, (B)for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

This contradicts what you have written as you indicate that there were plants but my bible indicates there were none.  The version of the text that appears in my bible also appears in the Torah.

View Post


Not so fast, maybe you need to read back a little to Genesis 1:29 And God said, " See I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth and every tree whose fruit yields seed: to you it shall be food" and it was so.

Or Genesis 2: 8-9 The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

So the Bible is very clear that plants existed before the Flood, so whatever your trying to say isn't very clear, or at least I'm not understanding you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users