Jump to content


Photo

Seawater Vs Fresh Water After The Flood.


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

#1 jdixon

jdixon

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Foothill Ranch, CA

Posted 26 April 2008 - 10:00 AM

One area I have rarely seen discussed in any Flood discussion is the ramifications to the freshwater supply after the flood occurred. If the entire Earth was flooded and all land masses were submerged, then all fresh water supplies were mixed with seawater. After the rain stopped and the waters subsided, (where all the water would go is another problem, but lets not get sidetracked) what would remain on the world is salt water. If it rains, the water flows into salt water pools. Every stream, lake, or any other pool of fresh water has been contaminated.

Take two glasses of water, one fresh water and the other is salt water and mix them together. What do you have? Salt water. Add more fresh water, what do you have? Salt water. Now if you add enough fresh water, the salinity of the water would finally be diluted enough to drink, but now you add the element of time. With no fresh water, all the survivors of the flood have nothing to drink. By the time enough fresh water has rained down to dilute the salt water, everyone would have perished.

You also add the problem of growing new crops in a salt water environment. If the entire Earth was covered in water, the all the land would become saturated with salt. In olden times, when armies wanted to wipe out a city, they would salt the earth, because you can't grow crops in land that has too much salt in it. It was called salting the earth. Now, all the land has had salt added to the mix since it was submerged in salt water for over a year.

So, there is no fresh water to drink and no ability to grow new crops. Hmmm, everything dies. However, we are all here today happily drinking fresh water and growing crops in good land. In fact we have been doing that for the past 10,000 years. That causes a teeny, tiny problem with the whole Flood concept.

#2 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 April 2008 - 12:04 PM

Why are you looking for naturalistic problems to divine acts?

The flood was act of God, and I'm sure he was involved in more ways that we can imagine.

Terry

#3 jdixon

jdixon

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Foothill Ranch, CA

Posted 26 April 2008 - 12:46 PM

Why are you looking for naturalistic problems to divine acts?

The flood was act of God, and I'm sure he was involved in more ways that we can imagine.

Terry

View Post


Because that is the only way we can view the world. Besided, it is not a problem. The Flood never occurred.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 April 2008 - 12:48 PM

Because that is the only way we can view the world. Besided, it is not a problem. The Flood never occurred.

View Post


Neither did evolution.

#5 jdixon

jdixon

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Foothill Ranch, CA

Posted 26 April 2008 - 12:53 PM

Interesting response. I never said evolution did occur. I am merely pointing out that the christian viewpoint is not only wrong, it is impossible for it to have occurred.

#6 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 April 2008 - 02:19 PM

Because that is the only way we can view the world. Besided, it is not a problem. The Flood never occurred.

View Post


That's your opinion. Naturalism, i.e materialism, is falsifiable, so to hold that's the only way to explain things is not a tenable position.

I think there is lots of evidence for a global flood. Since it was an act of God, he could have solved the problems you claim as unsolvable however he wished.

You may not like that answer, but that does not mean that it is not possible. God can do anything within his character and integrity, inlcuding paying the price for your sins, and offering you the truth and salvation through Christ, which was much more difficult than providing a fresh water supply after the flood.

Terry

#7 jdixon

jdixon

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Foothill Ranch, CA

Posted 26 April 2008 - 02:41 PM

No, the god of the christian bible cannot do everything. Which is pretty humorous really, since he is suposedly all powerful. His only solutions involve threats of everlasting torture and killing. Pretty sad actually.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 April 2008 - 07:06 PM

No, the god of the christian bible cannot do everything. Which is pretty humorous really, since he is suposedly all powerful. His only solutions involve threats of everlasting torture and killing. Pretty sad actually.

View Post


Sounds like evolution and what Hitler did with the idea of evolution as he tried to apply natural selection. Using stuff like eugenics, which by the way is also supported by Dawkins.

I think it's pretty pathetic that evolution continues to point back at Hitler ideas and the Darwinist are to blind to even see it. :)

Do you know the difference between the two?

1) God punished people for their sin. Which is a choice for us.

2) Hitler killed people just because of hate, dissagreement, racism, etc... There was no choice for them. If you were born wrong race, or retarded, physically habdicapped, or just disagreed. You were exterminated.

#9 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 28 April 2008 - 03:32 AM

I really don't think that fresh-water supply holds as a falsification if the flood legend. After all, conditions immidiately post-flood would very much resemble those on a small island in the ocean, and in such places, life seems to prevail on fresh water from rain and condensation.

If we look at the Bible text, we also see that plant life had apparantly taken foothold in places before the Ark was abandoned (dove returns with oil branch). And, of course, if we are to believe the Ark held provisions enough for the time spent floating, what would keep it from holding provisions for a short time afterwards?

Hans

#10 Curious

Curious

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Midwest

Posted 29 April 2008 - 11:31 AM

Perhaps you're familiar with Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory? Interesting stuff...

According to his theory, the sea water/fresh water issue wouldn't be a problem.

#11 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 29 April 2008 - 11:53 PM

Perhaps you're familiar with Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory?  Interesting stuff...

According to his theory, the sea water/fresh water issue wouldn't be a problem.

View Post

Well, I wouldn't know where to begin with that article. To make a short statement about it, and stay polite, I'll say that it contains a lot of what is called 'ad hoc hypotheses' (a hypothesis you make to try to make observations fit your original idea), with very little scientific support.

A somewhat less polite interpretation would be: It's a work of fiction.

Hans

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 April 2008 - 12:48 AM

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.

#13 Guest_kega_*

Guest_kega_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2008 - 02:06 AM

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


when the land moved up and the seawater dryed up then you would get lots of salt deposits on the land like in cheshire. that would stop the water from being fresh straight away as the rivers would have to carry the salt on the very surface back to the sea but this isnt a problem because that would have allowed the fish to adapt gradually and Noah could have caught fresh water rain to surrvive before that

#14 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 30 April 2008 - 02:36 AM

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

That is the way fresh water is made, even today. What is perhaps more interesting, in this context, is really how salt water is made. ;)

..... No rain before the flood? How did plants survive, then??

Hans

#15 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 April 2008 - 03:35 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.

#16 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

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

Posted 30 April 2008 - 03:49 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

Does that apply all the way to the flood?

Hans

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 April 2008 - 04:43 AM

Does that apply all the way to the flood?

Hans

View Post


Yes. Until the event (meteor or polar flip) that occured that messed up the higher barometric pressure atmosphere, rain clouds could not form. High barometric pressure makes the atmosphere hold it's moisture. Low barometric pressure allows it to release the moisture in the form of rain.

#18 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 30 April 2008 - 07:57 AM

Just a few thoughts on this topic.

About the main assumption in the original post: I believe you'd be hard-pressed to prove that the seas were salty before the flood. From a geologic, hydrologic point of view, the seas had not existed long enough for salt to accumulate. Besides that, for the seas to accumulate salt from the land, it would require rainfall, runoff, etc., which did not exist pre-flood, as has been mentioned here earlier.

In the Bible, the first time the word "salt" is used is in Genesis 14, long after the flood.

About the question of what did the flood survivors eat after disembarking the ark: For the first time since the creation, God gave man animal flesh to eat. Presumably, this was to tide them over until they could once again have plants to eat.

About the question of where did the water go after the flood: The waters clearly sank back into the earth, and evaporated into the atmosphere. How can the earth hold that much water? If you look at the earth in relation to a billiard ball, for example, the earth (including the highest mountains) is smoother than the surface of that billiard ball. The amount of water was miniscule compared to the volume of earth below the surface that it would take to absorb it.

About growing crops after the flood: The retreating seas didn't leave behind a salt residue because they didn't begin to accumulate salt until after they formed again after the flood. If anything, the retreating seas would have cleansed the earth of water soluable salty impurities. As the land began drying out, crops would be easily grown.

Dave

#19 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 April 2008 - 11:18 AM

Well, that makes better sense when you think about it. Because like you say, how could plants grow after salty water covered the ground?

I'll have to rework my flood theory. But it's better to go with what works better than what don't.

Thanks dave.


Added:

Your comment got me to pondering several things.

1) First I pondered that the oceans were as you claimed. Fresh water. But some things did not go together.

2) When I put in all the varibles to the ocean being created with salt water, it worked out better. Here's why.

With the oceans being salt water. The rain and the fountains of the deep would be fresh water being added to it. This, over a 40 day period, would gradually dilute the salt in the oceans with about 75% freash water. Which should not affect plants growing back after the flood.

This also would force the sea life to either adapt to fresh water to live in our lakes and streams. Or stay in the salt water while the salt built back up to what we see today.

So the flood actually created a break point for ocean life to adapt to either salt water or fresh. So life (bottom dwellers) was killed by the extreme pressure and sediments that was created by the flood. Some were killed because they could not adapt to fresh or salt water.

Does that make more sense?

#20 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 30 April 2008 - 03:58 PM

With the oceans being salt water. The rain and the fountains of the deep would be fresh water being added to it. This, over a 40 day period, would gradually dilute the salt in the oceans with about 75% freash water. Which should not affect plants growing back after the flood.

This also would force the sea life to either adapt to fresh water to live in our lakes and streams. Or stay in the salt water while the salt built back up to what we see today.

So the flood actually created a break point for ocean life to adapt to either salt water or fresh. So life (bottom dwellers) was killed by the extreme pressure and sediments that was created by the flood. Some were killed because they could not adapt to fresh or salt water.

Does that make more sense?

View Post


Another factor is that because the earth got a total reworking during the flood, nobody really knows how large the seas were, and how much of the earth was actual landmass. So the added fresh water from the flood could have diluted the salty sea water even more than your 75%.

I'm pretty comfortable, however, with my "off the top of my head" theory that the seas were fresh water -- mainly because the Bible doesn't indicate otherwise. I'm not married to the theory, though. Wouldn't take much to change my mind. :rolleyes:

Dave




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users