Describing what the Biblical Flood would be like.

Sigh. Wrong.The velocity is generated by the water rushing to fill in an area in which there was not water. It is not caused strictly by the water level rising in the ocean, but from a combination of water falling from the sky, and presumably rushing towards the sea, some water coming from the "fountains of the deep" which may or may not be on land or ocean, and the rising of the sea level from a combination of the two. That leaves plenty of opportunity to generate velocity. There is not enough detail in the description in the Bible to set that velocity at either a high or a low level. All we know is that the water levels themselves rose gently. But of course you know better.Whether the flood waters did or did not carve features such as the grand canyon due to the flow of the flood waters is neither confirmed or denied by the text. Both you and Faith are just guessing.Even if the Flood was strictly a matter of water rising in level at one inch per minute due to water added only to the ocean, it is still possible that such an increase could result in enormous velocities of water across dry land. To calculate the velocity would involve something like this: Area of land * rate of increase in water level gives the volumetric flow rate. Divide the volumetric flow rate by the perimeter times the unit of height measurement for the height to generate a velocity number. Note that the rate of increase in water level is only one of the factors to be considered, and that the calculation given assumes a completely flat earth. The Bible says that there were high mountains at the time. Presumably Moses knew what a high mountain was when he wrote Genesis well after the time of the Flood or the "division of the earth" at Peleg, right? But of course you know better.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi Pressie Yes Really.Meteorologist Alfred Wegener wrote, The Origin of Continents and Oceans in 1915. This was the beginning of the debate of plate tectonic's.There was no one before that who made any notes about what the movement of the plates was.So there can only be an assumption that they have always been the same.If you disagree please explain your reasoning.God Bless,

Hi NoNukwa Moses did not translate the Hebrew into English and I doubt if he actually knew what the layout of the early earth was. He did know what it was like in his days but the single land mass had been divided in the days of Peleg which was at least 100 years after the flood.The Hebrew word translated mountains is also translated hills. The Grand Canyon did not exist until at least 100 years after the flood, as the earth was not divided yet. How much the velocity could have been would be determined by the elevation and size of the land which is unknown. We only know what it looks like now anything else is an assumption on our part. I don't understand this statement.I am the one trying to explain that the rising water would do little damage. In fact long before Peleg was born there would have been no trace of the flood. But after the earth was divided in the days of Peleg there would have been no possible way of seeing any evidence of the flood. You could probably find places that there had been a flood in the past in many places but you would not be able to see a flood layer all over the earth.God Bless,

1) I described my position in detail. In essence it is that a gentle rising of levels may cause extensive damage. I don't have anything more to add to it.2) You have already admitted that your "explaining" includes making assumptions that are not contained or indicated by the Biblical text. Those assumptions are for the sole purpose of coming up with the conclusion that rising water did little damage. But the Bible itself does not tell us that the rising water did little damage. Accordingly, what you call an explanation is simply an exposition on your personal take regarding the flood. If you have some textual support for your position, I'd be interested in seeing that.ABE: Says ICANT, the authority on the pre Peleg geography. Was any of the landmass currently known as Africa a part of the initial landmass? How about the continent now known as North America. Was any part of that a portion of the initial landmass? How the heck would you even know that? You make up stuff just as freely as does Faith.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The subject of Plate Tectonics has never been an assumption. Therefore I'm not to sure why you write about it here. Trying to change the subject, I guess?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

So you are saying that humans were around 175 million years ago? Because that's the most recent time there was a single land mass.(And don't tell me you disagree with dating "assumptions." I created a whole new thread on that subject--which you've ignored.)

Nobody wrote about gravity before gravity was discovered. Yet it seems to be a reasonable assumption that gravity has always behaved in the same way.The default position would be that the plates have always moved in a similar way to the way they move now. You would need some concrete reason to assume otherwise.Edited by ringo, : Speling.

Hi NoNukes It did not seem like detail to me. It sounded more like an assertion.You said the erosion would take place because of the water rushing to where there was no water. That is not much detail when you don't even know the shape of the land mass or the elevation of the land mass. But it does. Genesis chapter 8 tells us that not long after it stopped raining that a dove was sent out from the ark and came back with an olive leaf.It don't sound like much damage was done to the earth.
It wasn't long before Noah was farming.So where is all the damage you were alluding too? Sorry NoNukes I just believe the Bible. All I know is there was a dry land mass that was protruding out of the water that was gathered in one place.How big it was or how high above sea level it was protruding there is no way of knowing.Assumption
I would assume that all the continental plates were there is some form. How much of any of them that was protruding out of the water at the time of the flood is unknown.So what are you ranting about that I have made up?God Bless,

Hi PressieAs to their existence there is no question.But to believe they have always moved at the same rate of speed is an assumption. In fact there are plates moving at different speeds. Some at 1" per year and other at 3' to 4".

Hi CoyoteYour 175 million years ago is based on your assumption that the plates have maintained the same rate of speed .God Bless,

Hi ringo Key word: REASONABLE ASSUMPTION Key word: REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONSo both were based on an assumption.God Bless,

ICANT, you seem to be making the standard creationist mistake of equating "assumption" with "wild-ass guess and almost certainly wrong."Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean the assumptions are wrong. You have to come up with some reason to support your conclusion that the assumptions are wrong.Also, you previously stated that scientific dating was wrong because "assumptions." I started a whole new thread for you to back up your claims, but you haven't done so.Perhaps its easier for you to just cry, "Assumptions!" than it is to actually show how they're wrong?

What would the Biblical Flood be like?Based on what is written, what MUST be seen?

REASONABLE assumption - i.e. an assumption based on reason.You have no reason to assume that the tectonic plates moves at a fundamentally different rate at some time in the past. That would be an UNreasonable assumption.

Hi Coyote Refresh my memory of where I said that.I did say I would disagree with your dating of the time that the land mass was in one place. Which would be due to the assumption that the plates have always moved at the same pace.So you misread my statement and jumped to conclusions. I do not argue the age of the universe or earth as I believe it is older than you do. So forget all your YEC arguments.But the reason the plates are moving at the speed they are today is because the earth was divided in the days of Peleg in a nano second. They just haven't come to a complete stop yet. An assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.Just because you accept certain assumptions does not make them true.My assumptions have just as much evidence as your assumptions.God Bless,