Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Enough Room in the Ark?


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#21 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 04:58 PM


The flood itself was a major atmospheric disruption

This I agree with, but I was talking about a post-deluvian atmospheric disruption that would account for more or less water on earth (also in the atmosphere) than there is today. I don't see any support for this anywhere.

I do not feel that more or less water is required than we have today. This is not a point of contention.

I do believe there is plenty of water on the planet to have completely covered every piece of land

Why? As I showed there is only enough water on the planet to raise current sea level by about 60 feet or so. Do you believe that the earth was such that the highest point was 60 feet above current sea level? Or, do you think I am wrong with the amout of water on earth? If the later, why?

I again do not feel you are wrong with the amount of water on earth. I do not think that current sea level is relevant until we use it as a part of our formula but not the sum. Let us observe where current water is stored and how various the quantities. There are five major places that I can think of. 1. The oceans 2. Lakes and streams (surface water above sea level) 3. Atmospheric (clouds, higher altitude vapor) 4. Subterrainian (aquifers, wells etc) 5. Subcontinental (is that the correct word?) beneath the earth's plates.
If we assume that appx 4500 years ago all of these water tanks held the same relative volumes that they do today then I would have a very hard time standing firmly with this position. I personally believe that two of these five "tanks" held the majority of the water pre-flood. Upper atmospheric vapor and sub-continental resivoir. These are the two I believe were referred to when "The windows of heaven were opened" and "The fountains of the great deep were broken up" taken from Gen 7:11.
I do believe that there is overwhelming evidence for these two resevoirs being released into our visible environment and will give examples in a future post. I also believe that these were the cause of tectonic catastrophy and we are now witnessing the entropic results of that initial extreem movement.



currently our atmosphere can not contain 40 days and nights worth of rain at least not globally and incessantly


I am not sure this bears on the discussion. We would be concerned with pre-deluvian atmospheric conditions, not today's. I think the discussion logically revolves around total water content and elevation today, as these are very unlikely to change very much in the past 4500 years or so. Even with the "upheaval" and the concept that plate tectonics didn't operate pre-flood (which I really feel is unlikely as there is zero evidence for this concept and plenty against it), the earth's water content can't have changed that much, as it's a closed system. We'd have to assume massive amounts of water loss into space and again, there is zero evidence for this and plenty against.

It is not necessary to assume anything, but we must logically address points one at a time and be reasonable in our view of both sides, lest we become too proud and "thinking ourselves wise become fools". I have been guilty of this before and hope to remain reasonable and humble in my study and dissection of things greater than I.

I am just trying to get the people who don't believe the Bible is inspired by GOD to look at the science and demand some answers.

Do you believe the Bible is complete and infallable? I only ask because I would dispute this and I think it bears on the discussion. the Bible is incomplete even within its own reference and contradicts itself in several places. That doesn't mean it's not the word of God to Man, but I think some things in the Bible as we know it are untrue. This leaves open the possibility for some of the stories to be incomplete through ancient misunderstanding or later mistranslation. It also allows for later interpretations to be inserted into the text by translators to make stories "fit" into their though paradigm. Do you agree those possibilities exist?

I do believe the Bible is the Word of God and that HE has done a wonderful job of keeping his word through the ages. As far as the Bible being incomplete within it's own reference I agree that there are references that are not in the Bible but they are references given to OUTSIDE material that was not Divinely inspired scripture and certainly appropriate to the reader of the time to verify factual data in order to preserve the actual Word that was given. When an Encyclopedia references material it does not include it, neither does a scientist or writer.
The many contradictions that you refer to need to be addressed one by one because I disagree wholeheartedly and I think for the purposes of this discussion that would be a rabbit trail to take us away from the discussion of the flood. I would cherish the opportunity to take that debate as a new topic after we complete this one.



as always
Peace
  • 0

#22 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 08:15 PM

I'm not sure where you are going with that last post other than to take my previous post point by point. I think we can agree that 1) the earth is a closed system, 2) the sum of water on earth today must be the same as in Noah's time, 3) the distribution of water today is probably different than in Noah's time with relation to how much is in the atmosphere, oceans, sub-terrainian, ice, and sub-lihosphere, 4) the earth probably had mountains at the time of Noah near the size of some mountains today.

Right? I believe we have covered these points and agree on these issues.

That being said, the total amount of water available on the surface, atmosphere and in sub-terrainian locations today would raise current sea level by no more than 65 feet. Even if the water were in different distributions, the sum is the same and this is an assumption that ALL water on the earth was pulled to the surface and taken out of the atmosphere to the surface. Today, 98% of water is in the oceans. 1.6 % is in the ice. The atmosphere accounts for a very small percentage (less than .1%). The lithospheric water tables hold less than .4% of the earth's water. This includes subterranian water and the small amount of water that is contained between the lithosphere and pyrosphere. Even if the water from the atmosphere and ice caps were underground at the time of Noah, we are still only talking about a sum of 65 feet or so in ocean level rise without the water being in the atmosphere. We know that some of the water entered the atmosphere because it was raining.

The only way to assume that the change in sea level at Noah's time was greater than this is to assume that a significant part of the oceans were contained in subterranian aquifers and under the 4 miles of lithosphere. This would merely be an assumption based on nothing other than making the story "work" because there is no evidence for so much water being contained in the ground. IF you do assume this, then how much was there? IF the highest mountain at Noah's time was even a paltry 5000 feet, you would have to assume that 1/3 of the current ocean water was stuck underground at the time of Noah and was all released to the surface in a period of 40 days. Where is the evidence for such an event?
  • 0

#23 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 08:25 PM

In thinking about this I realized that I could be wrong in the depth of the seas compared to the elevation of the mountains. Assuming a pangea formation of the contenents at the time of Noah, and using the currently accepted model for how the plates form up in that formation, the Pacific Ocean would have been the only ocean. I'll look up what the formation was compared to where Noah likely was and maybe that will illuminate this discussion.
  • 0

#24 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 13 November 2007 - 08:28 PM

From the Epic of Gilgamesh

I [Utnapishtim] released a dove from the boat,
It flew off, but circled around and returned,
For it could find no perch.
I then released a swallow from the boat,
It flew off, but circled around and returned,
For it could find no perch.
I then released a raven from the boat,
It flew off, and the waters had receded:
It eats, it scratches the ground, but it does not circle around and return.
I then sent out all the living things in every direction and sacrificed a sheep on that very spot.


  • 0

#25 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 15 November 2007 - 05:53 AM

Hello again, sorry it's been a couple of days since my last post.
Let me start with a few verses from Psalms and a quote from second Peter before I go into the sea level thing.

Psalm 104 vv5-9
Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the water stood above the mountains.
At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over: that they turn not again to cover the earth.

II Peter 3 vv 3-7
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgement and perdition of ungodly men.

I quote these passages before continuing because I think they say much about what we see today, both scientifically and socially. I promised in an earlier post that I would give scientific examples of why I believe what I do so here goes. You wanted to know what evidence there is for a different sea level than we have today considering that the amounts of water are likely no different.

From the book I cited earlier The Genesis Flood 42nd printing 1998
p124
More water in present Oceans
There is, also, much evidence that sea level was once much lower relative to the land surfaces than it is at present, implying that the amount of water in the ocean was much smaller, or that some parts of the sea bottom have dropped, or both. In the past decade have been discovered great numbers of "seamounts," which are nothing but drowned islands out in the middle of the ocean. These are flat-topped, and therefore non-volcanic in formation, and are now in many cases more than 1,000 fathoms below the surface. Yet they give abundant evidence of having once been above the surface. Dr. Edwin L. Hamilton, the marine geologist, says concerning them:
"They are fossil landforms preserved in the depths of the sea, where they are disturbed only by light currents and the slow rain of pelagic material from the waters above."
"The last Geographic Frontier: The Sea Floor," Scientific monthly, Vol 85, December 1957, p. 303

The section of the book continues to describe "Submarine canyons" that indicate that the ocean level was once much lower relative to current seacoasts. These are common geologic forms found on continental shelves where rivers current or ancient poured into the sea. The thing that is amazing is that the erosion of the canyon banks is very similar if not identical to above surface erosion of stream and river beds. The following quote is from Wm. D Thornbury: "Principles of Geomorphology", (New York, Wiley, 1954), p472
The difficulties encountered in explaining the lowering of sea level necessary for the canyons to have been cut by streams seems insurmountable....If Tolstoy's conclusion that Hudson Canyon extends down to a depth of 15,000 feet is correct, the magnitude of lowering of sea level to permit subaerial canyon cutting seems beyond any possibility of realization.

Because of these and other evidences Dr. K.K. Landes, Head of the Geology Department at Michigan University in 1959 was quoted as saying, "Can we as seekers after truth, shut our eyes any longer to the obvious fact that large areas of sea floor have sunk vertical distances measured in miles?"

These are a couple of things to investigate regarding oceanic topography and the evidence that exists for a drastic change in sea level and what we now have both above and below the waters.

If we look earnestly at coal formations (deposits) oil reserves and mass fossil graveyards it is apparent that all of these evidences were organic material laid down though hydrologic transportation and buried by sediments in order to become what they are today. The time required to form coal (laboratory tests have proven it to be less than one year under pressure and heat that is reasonable not extreme) and oil wich we have examples of it currently being formed and releasing to the surface from vegetative mats beneath the ocean. Alongside this we read Peter's warning about the current Uniformitarian position taken by most scientists. It has to be sobering if we are men of reason.
I will continue to take a literal translation of the Bible and see the evidence in the light of truth. The data that Scientists gather in all fields is very useful. I do not agree with the timelines laid down because they are never necessary to logically assemble the data and see that the Word is valid today as in the day it was written.


Lastly, the Gilgamesh Epic.
Time does not permit me to go too deeply into this but I will take a few moments because I think it needs to be discussed.
There are many points of agreement and many points of contention in these two records of the flood. I believe that the gilgamesh epic either came from the sumerians who had many versions and the Babylonians took the most accurate one to copy. Or the Babylonians got their version from their Amorite ancestors who were more likely to have closer ties to Abrahams ancestors than the Sumerians did. Either way we have the gilgamesh epic which is the oral traditions of men compared to The biblical account that holds up under close scrutiny on all scientific points. By the way the Gilgamesh ark was a 120X120X120 cube, not very likely to remain upright in heavy seas, talk about seasick.
Regardless, it is a wonderful proof considering almost every culture around the globe has a flood tradition. I think this in itself supports the infallibility of the Bible's account when compared to any of these stories.

Peace
  • 0

#26 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 15 November 2007 - 08:57 AM

I think your science from the 50's concerning sea floor canyons is bad. They know now that those are formed by under water rivers of cold heavy water. That given, and throwing out the modern evidence on dating and contenental shift, I agree that the ocean to land ratio was probably different when there was a pangea contenent and there is probably enough water to account for a complete submersion of the earth. So take that along with an ark that was roughly the size of 1 1/2 football fields and 3 stories tall, I'd say that the story could be true as written, if you allow for micro evolution accouting for changes in species later on. (For example, just bring 2 dogs and later on we get wolves, coyotes, all the dog breeds, etc.)

Also, you have to distrust modern archeological evidence as to the migratory patterns of early man, and you have to assume that all of the races came from Noah. I can see the black skinned races descended from Ham (who married a Canaanite) and the asians are the inhabitants of the "isles of the Gentiles" through Japheth. That would mean the white races through Shem. I suppose you could make an argument (outside of DNA testing) that all races come from those three races. (Personally I think race is irrelevant anyway, but people have always divided themselves into peoples and they had to have come from somewhere.)

So there we have it. Noah as a literal truth.
  • 0

#27 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 08:58 PM

Good day,

Let me start with a public statement of thanks for your patience and thoughtful responses in this discussion. That being said I will try to briefly summarize up to this point.

We began with the premise of the entire math problem being suspect because we could not know what size Noah's cubit was. I think we both agree that it was Moses' cubit that really mattered and had the book of Genesis been written by Noah then the measurements may have been very different because they would have been multiples of a different base measure.

Because of the cubit question we briefly discussed the feasability of the ark supporting its own weight but that became moot when we found agreement on the base measure.

We briefly touched on the shape of the ark. This has been long debated by many. We agreed that God would know how to build it and it is only relevant for this discussion in that the shape would affect the internal volume and surface area of each deck. This we won't know dogmatically until the ark is found, photographed, measured etc. I personally choose to go with the barge because it maximizes the internal area, minimizes the draft, and simplifies the order to build rooms within. Again, that is my opinion and it is more than ok to disagree with me on this.

The majority of our discussion has regarded sea level; past and present, topography, volume of water in our closed system and realistic expectation of the ability for all of the land surface to be covered in water, especially for the year long experience described in the biblical account. We seem to agree that it is possible and considering geologic indicators everything was under water at some time but the real question is, when?

The "when" question is what usually causes the most disagreement with anyone who seriously looks at the evidence for a global flood. I personally have heard arguments that range from the 4500 year time frame that I adopt, to millions of years that many modern scientists choose to accept. We can go back and forth on that debate until the Lord returns but most people enter into any debate with their pre-formed beliefs and seldom will any interpretation of evidence, except their own, suffice. I am not saying this is the case with you or I, just making a general stereotypical and biased statement

You stated that you thought my science from the 50's was bad and I will give you that I can not say that I was there to see the canyons formed. I do know that the heavy water argument was presented almost as quickly as the above water rapid erosion theory was made public. I accept whole-heartedly that any erosion happening to those canyons at present is happening because of water currents. I will, however, hold at present to the belief that the majority of the erosion happened VERY rapidly and then continued in a much slower process later. This is how I generally view almost all major erosive evidence we see today, whether it be waterfalls, canyons, river deltas, etc...

Lastly,
Everyone in any scientific field develops a bias at some point in their life. Geologists take on a young or old planet opinion and then interperet the evidence through that lens. Biologists accept macroevolution or creation and then likewise interperet data according to their personally held belief structure. I think you and I agree (correct me if I'm wrong) that science and faith do not have to be mutually exclusive, but scientists are human and humans are prejudiced. I personally believe that the Word of God is reliable and therefore I look at the evidence to see if it lines up with the biblical account. If it does not I do not try to change the evidence, I simply start looking to see if I am in error in the interpretation of the data. Could I personally be misinterpreting the Word? or could I be misinterpreting the evidence. Either way the error is always on me, the student, but never God the creator.

Peace,

Happy Thanksgiving,

HPT
  • 0

#28 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 20 November 2007 - 10:23 PM

I will, however, hold at present to the belief that the majority of the erosion happened VERY rapidly and then continued in a much slower process later. This is how I generally view almost all major erosive evidence we see today, whether it be waterfalls, canyons, river deltas, etc...

I understand why you would hold to this view if you date the earth less than 8000 years old. The science, though, is pretty convincing that the earth is much older and that erosive processes over a longer period of time created many of the features of the earth. In fact, the evidence they do have for sudden catostrophic water events (such as the great deluge of the great basin area of the United States) creates visably different effects compared to longer erosive processes. I think that dating the earth to less than 10,000 years is a misreading of a mistranslation of the Bible.

Also, the idea that contenental drift is an entropic effect of a major catostrophic event is tenuous at best, in my opinion. I think that we would see some measurable slowdown in drift if that was the case. Entropic events of that sort are usually subject to the inverse square rule. After the initial "catastrophe" the slowdown accelerates toward zero. This just isn't the case with drift. We have a sustainable, measurable effect for over a century, which is a significant time period if you think the earth is only a few millennia old. Something I think that could be much more feasable is a sudden catostrophic release of water from the lithosphere, causing a subsequent "settling" of the crust of the earth - which would in turn cause raising and lowering of different parts of the crust. This also would fit a timeline of the flood and the earth being divided later (as in the time of Peleg). I don't think it's necessary for contental drift to be still prior to the flood. After all, what caused the mountains and hills of Noah's time?

Everyone in any scientific field develops a bias at some point in their life. Geologists take on a young or old planet opinion and then interperet the evidence through that lens.

I think this is a broad overgeneralization. I know men of faith who are also men of science. They take very seriously the scientist's role in observing data, and then interpreting it. Some of them struggle with the dichotomy in their personal belief systems. Others do not. I think most scientists, though, struggle to find "truth" and not to fit their science to an agenda. In fact, I find it's usually conservative religious groups who try to fit the science to an agenda. In either event, I think it's bogus and sad to try to do so. I think that God is not dependant upon what we choose to believe, and that science (pure science) merely tries to explain the processes by which Our Father works.

I personally believe that the Word of God is reliable and therefore I look at the evidence to see if it lines up with the biblical account.

I agree with this to a point. The Word is twofold in my opinion. And, to be honest, I feel strongly that this opinion is borne up by all of the evidence that we have available. I believe scripture is divided into a gospel, and a history. The history is as fallable as the men who wrote it. Consider the two versions of the death of Judas the Betrayer. They cannot both be correct. One is wrong. There is no rational dispute to this. The fallable parts are even more confusing and twisted by translation and the insertions and deletions of men who would gain power over others. If you look at the history of Christianity, you can't deny that men have used the Word to their own benefit and that scripture has been changed and promulgated to aid the unworthy and evil. But, this has nothing to do with the Gospel. When confronted with eternal salvation, who cares how Judas died? Do you see my point? I think that Jesus told us clearly how to discern the two. See John 14:26 and 7:16-17. The Bible is a mix of fallable history of man and a non-fallable Gospel of peace and love.

Either way the error is always on me, the student, but never God the creator.

And this is the essence of it all. I agree wholeheartedly, but don't be too quick to accept blindly the errors of men who came before. The Bible is full of them. We must turn to Him to see where it is right and where it is wrong.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
  • 0

#29 hipowertech

hipowertech

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 19 December 2007 - 10:46 PM

I know this response has been a long time coming, and I am sorry for not MAKING the time.

I won't cut and paste item for item what you wrote but I will take two items that jumped out at me in which I feel merit some discussion. I can't say we agree on all of the MAJORS without you and I sitting down and having coffee, and maybe that will be possible some day.

1st. regarding the example you gave of the differing accounts of the death of Judas being irreconcilable. I disagree. Much like the differing accounts of what was written above Christ's head on the cross. Different accounts can easily be brought into agreement when we realize they do not contradict, but rather give further information (fleshing out) the topic so to speak.
It does not take mental gymnastics to see agreement either, if it did, I would be very hesitant to accept such an explanation. If we consider that the Gospel account of his death says that he hanged himself and the account in Acts says falling headlong he burst open and his bowels spilled out. Graphic as this may be we need not assume that either one is the "means" by which he died but rather a description of events as they happened. There are actually multiple possibilities that allow both accounts to line up. If Judas hanged himself and was left there because no one wanted to soil themselves by touching his corpse until after the feast, then he could have bloated. Then being cut down days later, burst open and the bowels spilled out of the semi-decompsed body. Did he hang himself, botch it, fall, and split open on rocks below? who knows. The nature of his death means little to me compared to the fact that God's word is inerrant in the telling of what actually happened.

regarding the verses that you recommended.
#1
Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

This was said by Jesus in private to the Disciples, who would later be responsible for writing down the Gospel accounts. I think if anything, this verse solidifies my faith in the inerrancy of what the apostles wrote.

#2
Jhn 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
Jhn 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or [whether] I speak of myself.

This is Jesus speaking publically to all who would hear, confirming that we could trust all he said. If we do the will of the Father we will have discernment to realize that all he said can be trusted through the test of application.

Up to this point I have never found an irrefutable conflict in the Word. The Gospels do not contradict and once again I will offer to you in the most loving way I can. "If there is a supposed contradiction that you wish to discuss we will take it one at a time and with prayer and humility find that God's word is trustworthy every time."

Lastly, don't let everything that has happened in history by religious groups be lumped under the title "Christian". There have been horrible atrocities commited in the name of God, but by their very works these people have proven themselves not to be "Christian" in the least.

God Bless,
Peace.
  • 0

#30 Writersblock

Writersblock

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 597 posts

Posted 19 December 2007 - 11:48 PM

Lastly, don't let everything that has happened in history by religious groups be lumped under the title "Christian". There have been horrible atrocities commited in the name of God, but by their very works these people have proven themselves not to be "Christian" in the least.


I agree wholeheartedly. I further expand this to individual acts by "christians." Isaiah 29:13 applies to many "christians" as I see matters today.

1st. regarding the example you gave of the differing accounts of the death of Judas being irreconcilable. I disagree.


I respect your reading but I don't see it as supportable. If the apostoles are going to give details concerning his death and he did indeed get hung and then fell and exploded on the ground, why not say that? Further, there is a discrepancy in what happened to the 30 pieces of silver between Acts and Matt. He CANNOT have cast them away AND used them to buy a plot of land unless you again add your own part to the story that he cast them away and then went back to get them - something else not supportable and easily said by both recorders if that was the case. This seems obvious to me that different men wrote different accounts of the same story. I don't see this as harmful to the Gospel message. Rather I see it as a strength that as far as the Gospel goes, different and independant accounts confirm the same story. I think that small discrepencies are natural when four men are writing about the same events at four different periods in time.

There are other examples of this. How many times did the **** crow in Peter's denial of Christ? What were Jesus' last words just before he died? Does myrrh turn wine into vinegar (if so then why are there references to myrrh-wine being "good wine" in ancient texts [url:d3d54]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabius_Dorsennus[/url] ? If not then what did they give Jesus to drink?

I don't think that a believer needs to make all these inconsistencies "fit" to be able to believe. As I said before, I think that there are flaws in the history of the Bible, though the fault of man and not God.

As another point,

This was said by Jesus in private to the Disciples

Do you believe that the guidance and education of the Holy Spirit is only for the Apostles? My interpretation of the two scriptures that I quoted were that anybody who wants to know Truth can look for the peace of the Spirit as a confirming witness as to the truth of not only the Gospel, but anything in life. I know that has been my own experience and that I am not an Apostle.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users