Page 15 of 19

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 8:27 pm
by Gman
I thought I would copy RTB's view on the local flood... Enjoy.

Noah's Flood: A Bird's-Eye View

By Steve Sarigianis

Ms. Johnson smiles and settles her class for the week's lesson. She opens the Bible on her lap and begins to read the story of Noah's flood. Her first-graders sit cross-legged on the floor, wiggling a little but listening quietly. When she comes to Gen. 8:9, some children lean forward to hear her softened voice: "The dove found no resting place for the sole of her foot, so she returned to [Noah] . . . for the water was on the surface of all the earth."

"The whole Earth?" big-eyed Bobby squeaks.

"Yes," Miss Johnson replies, "The whole Earth." Thus, a Sunday school teacher often settles the question of whether the Genesis Flood was global or regional.

But the question persists. In fact, it continues to arouse great passions within the Christian community. Both biblical inerrancy and scientific credibility are at stake. A quick reading of the English text of Genesis 6-9 gives readers—at least since the time of world exploration—the impression of a global event. However, scientific evidence to the contrary seems clear and compelling. This evidence includes the lack of sufficient quantities of water and the ark's inadequacy to hold every land-dwelling species on Earth. This dilemma produces a painful tension for those who take both Scripture and science seriously.

Following rigorous rules of biblical exegesis (discovering the original intent of text), a thoughtful reader finds that a global flood interpretation is neither as obvious nor as consistent as a superficial reading may suggest. Given a commitment to the veracity of both the Genesis text and the scientific record, a plausible scenario begins to emerge. The case for a regional flood can be divided into four general categories: theological, textual, anthropological, and geological.

A Theological Perspective

Given that Genesis 6-9 tells the story of God's act of judgment against wholesale reprobation and spiritual ruin, scriptural integrity hinges primarily on whether the Flood killed all humanity except for the family of the one man who feared God. In other words, the key theological point is whether or not the Flood was universal in its effect, regardless of its physical extent. The original Hebrew text supports a universal flood impact and allows for a regional locus when viewed in context.

Throughout the Old Testament, God's judgment against sin is shown to be limited by the impact and extent of human wickedness. Usually it falls upon the sinners themselves, their children for several generations, birds and mammals used in their agricultural pursuits, their material possessions, and in extreme cases, their agricultural lands. If human life had not yet spread beyond Mesopotamia, God would have no reason to destroy those distant regions and the animal life there.

Textual Considerations

Genesis 8:9 records that the dove sent out by Noah could find no place to set her feet “because there was water over all the surface of the earth.” Yet four verses prior, in Genesis 8:5, the text says that the flood waters had receded enough so that for Noah the “tops of the mountains became visible.” Correct interpretation here depends on establishing the dove's frame of reference. Likewise, the phrase “under the entire heavens” in Genesis 7:19 must be interpreted from Noah's perspective in Mesopotamia, not from a modern global perspective.

Several examples from other passages of Scripture demonstrate this need for careful interpretation. In 1 Kings 10:24, the reader learns that "the whole world [emphasis added] sought audience with Solomon." Did every tribe from the Americas and the Far East send representatives? Few, if any, would make such an assumption. The most distant visitor mentioned in the biblical text is the queen of Sheba, a region near current Ethiopia (1 Kings 10:1-13). Romans 1:8 describes the faith of the Romans being reported "all over the world," but most readers understand Paul to mean Rome's world—“throughout the Roman Empire”—not every region of the planet.

Further help in interpreting the Flood text comes from Psalm 104. Verses 5-9 describe the recently formed Earth, a period before creation of advanced life, when oceans completely covered the globe. As the continents arose, the water collected in the ocean basins. The events described in these verses perfectly align with known geologic facts and the formation of the first land masses on creation day three (Genesis 1:9-10). The Psalm then goes on to clearly state that water would never again completely cover the planet.

An Anthropological Perspective

Treacherous mountains to the north and east, and inhospitable deserts to the south and west made the well-watered Mesopotamian Plain a difficult place for early humans to leave. Virtually all world history texts designate this area as the “cradle of civilization.”

The most repeated command of God to humanity in Genesis 1-9 is to multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:26, 28; 9:1; and 9:7). God's repeated insistence is indicative of man's consistent rebellion. People apparently resisted God's command to fill the earth so strongly that God directly intervened at Babel (Genesis 11:9) to scatter them. As further evidence for man's failure to expand beyond the Mesopotamian region, all people mentioned in Genesis 1-9 lived in that locale.[1] And it is a large area. Today more than 20 million people live in the modern country of Iraq, which encompasses most of the Mesopotamian Plain.[2]

A Geophysical Perspective

A regional flood interpretation fits the scientific facts about the quantity of water available in Earth's crust and atmosphere. Genesis 7:11-12 indicates that the floodwaters came from Earth's aquifers and atmosphere and eventually (according to Gen. 8:1-5), returned to those places. Physical scientists can calculate that Earth contains only 22% of the water required to cover every mountain on the planet.

Some interpreters have postulated radical geologic changes over the entire Earth during the Genesis flood year as a way to reduce the required quantity of water. However, such monumental rates of plate tectonics and erosion defy all geologic evidence collected over the last 200 years. Additionally, the ark could never have withstood the catastrophic forces generated.

The geologic history of Earth is well understood based upon observable tectonic processes, constantly improving radiometric dating techniques, and thousands of deep core samples taken over the entire globe.[3] Geology research findings do not support a global flood interpretation. On the other hand, a regional flood interpretation can be tested and verified.

Even a localized flood of the magnitude demanded by the text and by theological considerations depends on God's direct action. Atmospheric and geologic processes sufficient to bring about the convergence of vast quantities of water at one place, at one time, defy explanation as “coincidental” random occurrences. Although God's intervention is difficult to prove scientifically, certain factors can be tested to show the plausibility of such an interpretation.[4]

One factor is the geography of the Mesopotamian region. More specifically, the region's topography combined with the Flood's extreme meteorological conditions could support the containment of the floodwaters for several months. These floodwaters would have been deep enough to destroy all humanity and associated animals except those on the ark.

Topographers can use digital elevation data to make a shaded relief map (figure 1). Although subjectively appealing, this type of map offers limited help in analysis and measurement.

Image

Figure Shaded Relief Map of the Middle East[5]

A more effective way to analyze topography is to create an elevation layer tint to depict bands of elevation. Using a computer and geographic information system (GIS) software, the band/elevation combinations can be adjusted to make the desired information stand out visually. The widths of the bands also provide a general indication of slope. Elevation layer tints of the Middle East region have been made in the past, but typically from data with elevation posts at only one-kilometer intervals. Although general topography can be seen with one-kilometer data, subtle details in the terrain cannot be discerned (figure 2).

Figure 2 Elevation Layer Tint of the Middle East from 1-Kilometer Data [6]

An elevation layer tint of the Mesopotamian region from 100-meter data (figure 3) created from digital elevation data with an elevation post every 3 arc seconds (~100 meters) yields significant detail.[7] The preparation of the layer tint presented here required importing 204 one-degree cells of data into ArcView GIS software. The next step was to merge the cells into one huge gridded data set covering 892,000 square miles. The data in each cell were then normalized into seven colored bands for ease of viewing and interpretation. Modern political boundaries and vectors representing the two major rivers in the area were added for reference. Finally, modern country names and map annotations were added for clarity. Because of the resolution of the elevation data, intricate topographic details can be seen at 200-, 300-, and 400-meter elevations corresponding to the probable extent of the Genesis Flood.

Figure 3 Elevation Layer Tint of the Mesopotamian Region from 100-Meter Data

Several important deductions can be made from the higher-resolution elevation layer tint (figure 3):

1. The topography of the Mesopotamian region forms a huge U-shaped bowl that stretches 600 miles from the Persian Gulf to the northwest. Steep escarpments that rise quickly from less than 200 meters to 1,000 meters set boundaries for the Mesopotamian Plain on the north and the east. Terrain that rises gradually, but consistently, to heights above 400 meters forms the southern and western boundaries. Elevations above 400 meters fully contain the Mesopotamian Plain except where it meets the sea.

2. The biblical flood account refers to extraordinary geophysical events. Huge underground aquifers (“the springs of the great deep” in Genesis 7:11) suddenly "burst forth." In addition, Genesis 7:12 states that “the floodgates of the heavens” opened, and rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights. In other words, hard rain fell in the region continuously for 40 days. Meteorologically, these factors constitute an unprecedented rain event in a region that averages only 10-20 inches of rainfall per year.[8] No natural explanation exists for a storm so large, intense, or persistent in this region.

A super-storm of this unprecedented magnitude would have produced an enormous surge in the Persian Gulf. During a storm surge, the force of the winds circulating around the storm's low-pressure center pushes water ashore. A large hurricane can cause storm surges 50 miles wide and 25 feet deep.[9] Shallow coastal waters like those in the Persian Gulf only amplify a storm surge (see Figure 1). And, greater storm surges are observed with slow-moving storms. The Genesis super-storm remained stationary for at least five weeks; so the height of the storm surge must have been larger (by some incalculable amount) than any Earth has experienced since that time. A storm surge that reached 200 meters deep certainly would have been sufficient to sustain the destructive flood levels for the length of time Genesis records.

Assuming the Earth's entire human population lived on the Mesopotamian Plain at that time, a flood that reached 200 to 300 meters deep would have destroyed all humanity on the land. The geographical extent of such a flood would have included areas that today belong to Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Syria (see figure 3).

3. The account of the ark's resting place also seems geographically and historically plausible. Genesis 8:4 describes that place as the “mountains of Ararat,” well below the highest probable flood elevation (~400 meters) in what is now north central Iraq. Figure 4 provides a view of the raw elevation data in the layer-tint project prior to normalization. The rugged and steeply ascending mountains of Ararat are clearly visible. On a side note, one may logically assume that no post-Flood society would have left the ark's precut lumber unexploited; searching for the ark most likely represents a fruitless exercise.[10]

Figure 4 Elevation Data in the Mountains of Ararat Region

Although the exact geographical extent of the Genesis Flood may never be known, geologists can say with some assurance that the event described in Scripture makes sense as a localized, but universal—with respect to humans and their animals—catastrophe. This interpretation of the Genesis Flood text fits the facts in evidence. A worldview that carefully and respectfully integrates biblical data with scientific data provides coherent and testable answers to big questions of life—including questions about origins, meaning, morality, and destiny.[11] A regional flood interpretation of Genesis 6-9 provides one of the cornerstones of the truth about human history that ought to be taught in Sunday school.

Steve Sarigianis is a research engineer and retired U.S. Army officer with a master of science degree in Geography from Penn State. He has extensive experience in the field of military mapping and has taught geography and astronomy at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

Sidebar: Water-level Math (by Hugh Ross)

The Genesis text does not specify the exact depth of the floodwaters. It states only that the ark floated up on the waters and that the nearby hills were so inundated that from Noah's perspective the whole face of Earth was covered with water. That is, from one horizon to the other, all Noah could see was water.

An ark 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high, loaded with animals and supplies, probably needed a draft of at least 20 feet. If Noah stood on top of the ark, his eye level would have been approximately 30 feet above the waters (refraction corrections included). The water level horizon for him would have been about 8 miles away. Any hill more distant than about 15 miles, sticking up even a hundred feet or more above the water, would have been invisible. Hills higher than 500 feet and 1,000 feet above water level would have been beyond the possible view of Noah if they were more than 28 and 38 miles distant, respectively.

Are there any regions in Mesopotamia where, if the Tigris and/or Euphrates Rivers overflowed their banks by a depth of 20 feet or so, water would extend to 28 or 38 miles on either side? Yes. Such regions exist in both southern and middle Mesopotamia. It would be difficult, though not impossible, to imagine how so little water could wipe out all humans and all the birds and mammals associated with them. Fifty feet, a hundred feet, or a few hundred feet depth of water would provide a more realistic scenario.

The rate at which a 50-foot, 100-foot, or higher surge of water above the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers would flow out to the Persian Gulf depends upon the slope of the land. From 400 miles northwest of Ur to Ur (the location of the Persian shore at the time of Noah), the Euphrates and Tigris rivers drop just 300 feet in elevation. This drop provides a grade of only about 0.01 percent. With that gentle a slope, the Flood waters would have moved very slowly out to the Persian Gulf. Moreover, for several months after the rain stopped, any water that exited to the Gulf would have been replaced with runoff from springs and melting snow on the distant mountains that surround the Mesopotamian Plain.

Genesis 8:1 states that God removed the floodwaters by sending a wind. Given the gentle slope of the land, evaporation plays a more significant role than gravity in removing the water. Such a scenario is consistent with the worst floods that have struck the Mississippi Valley, for example. The water rose 50 feet above the banks in those Mississippi floods and then it seemed to stand still.1 Residents of the region noticed little discernable movement. They had to wait for the waters to dry up.

Just how effective is evaporation for removing flood waters? During a typical Southern California summer the swimming pools lose an average of one inch of water per day to evaporation. Lower humidity, higher heat, and a strong wind can triple or quadruple that rate. Over the 335 days during which Noah's Flood receded, that would add up to 84-112 feet of evaporation. If gravity had removed about half that much water, the total water depth removed would have been 126-168 feet. That is easily enough water to account for Noah's seeing nothing but water for as far as his eyes could see. That is easily enough water to destroy all of Noah's contemporaries and their animals outside the ark. And, that is easily enough water to carry the ark to the foothills of Ararat.

Source: //www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2002issue ... oahs_flood

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:24 pm
by WWJnotD
Gman wrote:A quick reading of the English text of Genesis 6-9 gives readers—at least since the time of world exploration—the impression of a global event. However, scientific evidence to the contrary seems clear and compelling. This evidence includes the lack of sufficient quantities of water and the ark's inadequacy to hold every land-dwelling species on Earth. This dilemma produces a painful tension for those who take both Scripture and science seriously.
In reference to the 'Ark's inadequancy to hold every land dwelling species on Earth', it's not really a problem since the Bible doesn't mention every species was put on the ark but every 'Kind' of animal through which subsequent species derive i.e. the cat kind. Creationists who believe in a global flood don't say that every species was put on the ark. Since species are derived from the 'kinds' of animals created, all you have to do its put every 'kind' of animal on the ark and then after the flood natural selection can work creating new species.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:00 pm
by Himantolophus
Gman: nice post... at least we are on the same page with this flood thing :)
In reference to the 'Ark's inadequancy to hold every land dwelling species on Earth', it's not really a problem since the Bible doesn't mention every species was put on the ark but every 'Kind' of animal through which subsequent species derive i.e. the cat kind. Creationists who believe in a global flood don't say that every species was put on the ark. Since species are derived from the 'kinds' of animals created, all you have to do its put every 'kind' of animal on the ark and then after the flood natural selection can work creating new species.
The "kind" thing is a difficult thing to defend since even creationists have various definitions for the word. Some say species are "kinds", some say genera, some say families, some say orders. Obviously the broader you make the definition, the easier it is to fit the animals. But the second problem is once the animals get off, what is the mechanism by which the "kinds" turn into the species we see today? Creationists find evolution "taboo" but this is exactly what you are insinuating when you mention "natural selection". This speciation through nat. selection is evolution, you just don't want to use that word. Evolution is the "changing of gene frequencies in a population over time through natural selection". Even this "degenerating" that YEC's talk about is basically evolution. No matter if you are adding, changing, or removing genes, it is still considered evolution. If you can accept evolution after the flood (which assumes that the current global diversity was evolved from "a cat" to "all cats" in 2000 years), then I don't see a problem with evolution over much longer timescales...

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:56 pm
by Gman
Thanks Himantolophus... Excellent point, now why didn't I think of that?
WWJnotD wrote:In reference to the 'Ark's inadequancy to hold every land dwelling species on Earth', it's not really a problem since the Bible doesn't mention every species was put on the ark but every 'Kind' of animal through which subsequent species derive i.e. the cat kind. Creationists who believe in a global flood don't say that every species was put on the ark. Since species are derived from the 'kinds' of animals created, all you have to do its put every 'kind' of animal on the ark and then after the flood natural selection can work creating new species.
It is still a problem because even if we break down "kinds" of animals we still get staggering large numbers of animals that would have to fit into the ark..

Quote: "Robert D. Barnes lists the number of living species for each phylum, ranging from the sole member of Placozoa to the 923,000 in Arthropoda (pp. 12, 85-88). Using his figures, we arrive at a total of 1,177,920 species.

In addition, there are many animals that are as yet unknown.

All of those creatures were known at one time, for Adam gave them all names (Genesis 2:19-20), and, since they exist today, they must have been on the ark. But we shall be extremely generous to the YEC creationists and add only 500,000 undiscovered species to our figure of 1,177,920—thus giving a mere 1,677,920 species with which Noah had to contend.

Of course, we can't forget that Genesis 7:2-3 (particularly in the Revised Standard Version) makes it clear that only unclean animals come in single pairs, male and female; the clean animals and birds come in seven pairs, male and female. That means fourteen of each clean animal and each bird. But since figures for the number of clean animals are hard to find, we will have to let creationists off the hook and ignore them. Birds are another story. There are 8,590 species of birds. Since they have already been calculated into our figure of 1,877,920 species or 3,755,840 individual animals on the ark, we need only six more pairs of each species of bird to make it come out to seven pairs. That brings our count up to a grand total of 3,858,920 animals aboard the ark—two of each species, except birds which number fourteen each."

Source: Here

On top of this YEC'ers are claiming that dinosaurs were also put on the ark as well which brings up the total even more...

Often I hear that it is a problem to feed all these animals, but also what are all these animals going to drink? The global floodwaters would have been infested with salt and other harmful minerals from the ocean bottom.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:29 pm
by Forum Monk
The Local Flood Theory (shortened to LFT in this post), has no problem ridiculing the "absurd" science of the global flood while ignoring the huge shortcomings of their own proposal. Not only is the science for the local flood weak and highly speculative, but the required reinterpretation of scriptures far exceeds exchanging the word "region" for "world" and "hills" for "mountains".

For example, the reason for the ark becomes diminished in the LFT proposal. People could have easily walked away from the flood and sought refuge on higher ground. God could have told Noah to take his family and flee as he did Lot in Sodom or He could have parted the waters and had Noah walk through the flood to safety. Also, there would have been no need to save the animals as many of them could simply have migrated away, flown or swam to higher ground. To overcome this, LFT must go beyond the simple message of Genesis and devise a speculative argument of discipline and faith and the need to obey God when Noah had already found favor with God for his righteousness, which Christians already know is acheived by faith.

LFT claims the water rose high enough to cover the local hills and from Noah's perspective, it appeared the whole earth was underwater but we are told in Genesis, that the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. This is the southern range of the Caucasus in eastern Turkey, adjacent to Georgia and Azerbaijan. If the flood originated in the relatively low ground of the Mesopotamian valley formed by the Tigris and Euphrates, how did the Ark end up at a much higher elevation hundred of kilometers away? The flood would have needed to innundate the escarpments west of Mesopotamia and flow into the arabaian desert region. Or the flood was some other location, or the Mountains of Ararat must have some other interpretation. These inconsistencies are typically ignored by LFT.

Since the problem of producing enough water to cover a sizeable area in a relatively short time is problematic for LFT, the theory adopts the biblical claims that water erupted from underground sources and yet scoff when global flood theorists make similar claims. It is unlikely such a flood could be produced by rain alone and it is even more unlikely that such a flood could have remained at dangerously deep levels for nearly a year. Again the Mesopotamian scenario (as an expample) drains toward the Persian Gulf far south from the Ark eventually landed.

LFT usually acknowledges that all human beings were destroyed except Noah's family. This of course, means that everyone had to have lived in the local region that was flooded and none could have escaped. This is highly problematic, scientifically. Population studies show that the number of human beings, given Biblical statistics of life spans and numbers of children, could have been about 10 billion individuals. So either, the lifespan information in the Bible is wrong or people lived a highly congested lifestyle. Actually scientific evidence shows the population of early man was scattered from Africa to Europe to throughout Asia. To overcome this, either the Bible needs reinterpreted once again, or the modern science of archaeology, paleontology and anthropology needs to be realigned to fit the LFT proposal.

I could go on and on but I think the point is made. LFT can not have it both ways and cherry pick which scientific proposals and scriptures it wants to accept while allegorizing or ignoring the remainder. If the story of Noah relates a local flood, then other people survived, animals survived, the ark would not have been necessary, and probably did not land in the southern Caucasus, since drainage would have been away from that region. In addition, such long lasting, flash floods have not been observed at any other time or place in recorded history of mankind, especially in those regions.

I personally do not accept either LFT or global theories based on any kind of scientific explanations currently proposed. The science of GFT is very speculative and unsupported by modern observation even if it adheres to the strictest interpretation of the Bible, while the LFT is problematic because it attempts to harmonize modern scientific observation with scripture to the harm of both. I think both camps need to reevaluate their respective positions.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:36 pm
by frankbaginski
The local flood theory has many problems with scripture that cannot be reconciled. You would have to allegorize a massive amount of scripture. Just where do you stop when you start to do this.

Just a few things I would like to add. In the YEC model mountain building occured post flood so mountains were not as big as they are today. The plates moved vertical and the flood lasted a year.

As it states in Job:

Job 38:8 Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it broke forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?
Job 38:9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it,
Job 38:10 And broke up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

So when God made the flood He also possibly stayed the waves. I would think this would be quite simple for the creator of the universe.

The ark came to rest on a mountain in current Iran. I believe this because they traveled west to get to Babylon.

Has anyone seen a map of the oceans showing the continental shelves? I know we all have. If you look at the map you don't see extremely large deltas by the river mouths. What you do see is almost a uniform deposit of sediments around the edges of the continents. Almost as if there was a sheet of water the size of the continents dumping sediment off every edge. I see this and see a flood. I am sure that modern geologist have their own take but I will stick to mine.

The population of the earth would have been in the billions in the flood. In a YEC model the flood happened 2226 years or so after the creation. With their long lifes and extended child bearing years we would expect an explosion of mankind. After the flood we would have 5561 years to todays date. Life expectancy went down and child bearing years went down as well. Some simple calculations show that we can get to our current population from 8 people in this time. This is not proof but supporting evidence.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:57 pm
by Gman
Forum Monk wrote:The Local Flood Theory (shortened to LFT in this post), has no problem ridiculing the "absurd" science of the global flood while ignoring the huge shortcomings of their own proposal. Not only is the science for the local flood weak and highly speculative, but the required reinterpretation of scriptures far exceeds exchanging the word "region" for "world" and "hills" for "mountains".
We've been over this…. There is no required reinterpretation of scripture. You simply have to read it in the Hebrew or Greek language, the original language it was written in. The Bible was not written in English to begin with. I'll tackle the "weak" science accusation at the bottom.
Forum Monk wrote:For example, the reason for the ark becomes diminished in the LFT proposal. People could have easily walked away from the flood and sought refuge on higher ground. God could have told Noah to take his family and flee as he did Lot in Sodom or He could have parted the waters and had Noah walk through the flood to safety. Also, there would have been no need to save the animals as many of them could simply have migrated away, flown or swam to higher ground. To overcome this, LFT must go beyond the simple message of Genesis and devise a speculative argument of discipline and faith and the need to obey God when Noah had already found favor with God for his righteousness,
That was already addressed here… http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html
Rich wrote: “If the Genesis flood were local, why didn't God just sent Noah and his family packing. Once they were out of the Mesopotamian flood plain, God could have judged the unrighteous without making Noah go to all the trouble of building a huge ark. It is true that God could have done this, although there are some good biblical reasons why He chose not to do so. Why did God make the Israelites march around Jericho for seven days prior to the wall falling down? Why did God make the Israelite look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of snake bite in the wilderness? Why did Jesus make the blind man go to the Pool of Siloam to heal his blindness? Were any of these things actually required for God to do His work? No! God could have just wiped out all the evil people in the world, as He did later to the all the Egyptians' first-born. Maybe God had good reasons for Noah to build the ark? God has a purpose for each person of faith to join Him in preaching His message. God's plan will be accomplished regardless of our participation in it. However, God gives obedient humans the privilege of participating in God's plans. Likewise, God had a plan for Noah, part of which was for him and his sons to demonstrate their commitment and perseverance to the Lord.

One will notice in the judgments that God renders, He almost always gives a warning to those who are being judged. For example, God sent angels to Sodom before it was to be destroyed,15 sent Jonah to Nineveh to warn them of the judgment to come,16 and will send two prophets to warn the people of the earth of the final judgment.17 The building of the ark was a great testimony of the coming judgment, since it was preached for 100 years during the building of the ark. The New Testament states this idea directly, since it says that Noah was a "preacher of righteousness": For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; (2 Peter 2:4-5).

If God had told Noah to just migrate away from the flood area, the people would not have been warned of the impending judgment. Ultimately, they were without excuse in their rebellion against God, since the impending judgment was proclaimed to them for 100 years before it happened. Likewise, God will send two preachers for 1260 days prior to the ultimate judgment of God.17 Those who get on God's ark (Jesus Christ) will be saved from the judgment and pass from death to eternal life.
Forum Monk wrote:which Christians already know is acheived by faith.
Faith based on what? Getting 3,858,920 animals to fit aboard the ark? That is forcing faith to fit. This is turning the Bible into fables…
Forum Monk wrote:LFT claims the water rose high enough to cover the local hills and from Noah's perspective, it appeared the whole earth was underwater but we are told in Genesis, that the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. This is the southern range of the Caucasus in eastern Turkey, adjacent to Georgia and Azerbaijan. If the flood originated in the relatively low ground of the Mesopotamian valley formed by the Tigris and Euphrates, how did the Ark end up at a much higher elevation hundred of kilometers away? The flood would have needed to innundate the escarpments west of Mesopotamia and flow into the arabaian desert region. Or the flood was some other location, or the Mountains of Ararat must have some other interpretation. These inconsistencies are typically ignored by LFT.
Ignored by whom? Look a few post up… Here it is again.
Hugh Ross wrote:1. The topography of the Mesopotamian region forms a huge U-shaped bowl that stretches 600 miles from the Persian Gulf to the northwest. Steep escarpments that rise quickly from less than 200 meters to 1,000 meters set boundaries for the Mesopotamian Plain on the north and the east. Terrain that rises gradually, but consistently, to heights above 400 meters forms the southern and western boundaries. Elevations above 400 meters fully contain the Mesopotamian Plain except where it meets the sea.

2. The biblical flood account refers to extraordinary geophysical events. Huge underground aquifers (“the springs of the great deep” in Genesis 7:11) suddenly "burst forth." In addition, Genesis 7:12 states that “the floodgates of the heavens” opened, and rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights. In other words, hard rain fell in the region continuously for 40 days. Meteorologically, these factors constitute an unprecedented rain event in a region that averages only 10-20 inches of rainfall per year.[8] No natural explanation exists for a storm so large, intense, or persistent in this region.

A super-storm of this unprecedented magnitude would have produced an enormous surge in the Persian Gulf. During a storm surge, the force of the winds circulating around the storm's low-pressure center pushes water ashore. A large hurricane can cause storm surges 50 miles wide and 25 feet deep.[9] Shallow coastal waters like those in the Persian Gulf only amplify a storm surge (see Figure 1). And, greater storm surges are observed with slow-moving storms. The Genesis super-storm remained stationary for at least five weeks; so the height of the storm surge must have been larger (by some incalculable amount) than any Earth has experienced since that time. A storm surge that reached 200 meters deep certainly would have been sufficient to sustain the destructive flood levels for the length of time Genesis records.

Assuming the Earth's entire human population lived on the Mesopotamian Plain at that time, a flood that reached 200 to 300 meters deep would have destroyed all humanity on the land. The geographical extent of such a flood would have included areas that today belong to Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Syria (see figure 3).

3. The account of the ark's resting place also seems geographically and historically plausible. Genesis 8:4 describes that place as the “mountains of Ararat,” well below the highest probable flood elevation (~400 meters) in what is now north central Iraq. Figure 4 provides a view of the raw elevation data in the layer-tint project prior to normalization. The rugged and steeply ascending mountains of Ararat are clearly visible. On a side note, one may logically assume that no post-Flood society would have left the ark's precut lumber unexploited; searching for the ark most likely represents a fruitless exercise.[10]
Forum Monk wrote:Since the problem of producing enough water to cover a sizeable area in a relatively short time is problematic for LFT, the theory adopts the biblical claims that water erupted from underground sources and yet scoff when global flood theorists make similar claims. It is unlikely such a flood could be produced by rain alone and it is even more unlikely that such a flood could have remained at dangerously deep levels for nearly a year.
Not really... Already addressed…

Like William Ryan and Walter Pitman and their interpretation of the breach of ice water into the Black Sea at the Bosphorus, also known as the Istanbul Strait in Turkey, Dr. Zarins believes that the strait of Hormuz (at the beginning of the Persian gulf) was breached by the flood waters of the European glacier ice melt.

This large amount of water, along with the rain, could have cascaded into the Mesopotamian flood plains wiping out all the inhabitants. Is the garden of eden and part of the local flood zone currently under the Persian gulf? Perhaps, we just don't have enough information yet..
Forum Monk wrote:Again the Mesopotamian scenario (as an expample) drains toward the Persian Gulf far south from the Ark eventually landed.
Already addressed….
Sidebar: Water-level Math (by Hugh Ross) wrote:
The Genesis text does not specify the exact depth of the floodwaters. It states only that the ark floated up on the waters and that the nearby hills were so inundated that from Noah's perspective the whole face of Earth was covered with water. That is, from one horizon to the other, all Noah could see was water.

An ark 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high, loaded with animals and supplies, probably needed a draft of at least 20 feet. If Noah stood on top of the ark, his eye level would have been approximately 30 feet above the waters (refraction corrections included). The water level horizon for him would have been about 8 miles away. Any hill more distant than about 15 miles, sticking up even a hundred feet or more above the water, would have been invisible. Hills higher than 500 feet and 1,000 feet above water level would have been beyond the possible view of Noah if they were more than 28 and 38 miles distant, respectively.

Are there any regions in Mesopotamia where, if the Tigris and/or Euphrates Rivers overflowed their banks by a depth of 20 feet or so, water would extend to 28 or 38 miles on either side? Yes. Such regions exist in both southern and middle Mesopotamia. It would be difficult, though not impossible, to imagine how so little water could wipe out all humans and all the birds and mammals associated with them. Fifty feet, a hundred feet, or a few hundred feet depth of water would provide a more realistic scenario.

The rate at which a 50-foot, 100-foot, or higher surge of water above the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers would flow out to the Persian Gulf depends upon the slope of the land. From 400 miles northwest of Ur to Ur (the location of the Persian shore at the time of Noah), the Euphrates and Tigris rivers drop just 300 feet in elevation. This drop provides a grade of only about 0.01 percent. With that gentle a slope, the Flood waters would have moved very slowly out to the Persian Gulf. Moreover, for several months after the rain stopped, any water that exited to the Gulf would have been replaced with runoff from springs and melting snow on the distant mountains that surround the Mesopotamian Plain.

Genesis 8:1 states that God removed the floodwaters by sending a wind. Given the gentle slope of the land, evaporation plays a more significant role than gravity in removing the water. Such a scenario is consistent with the worst floods that have struck the Mississippi Valley, for example. The water rose 50 feet above the banks in those Mississippi floods and then it seemed to stand still.1 Residents of the region noticed little discernable movement. They had to wait for the waters to dry up.

Just how effective is evaporation for removing flood waters? During a typical Southern California summer the swimming pools lose an average of one inch of water per day to evaporation. Lower humidity, higher heat, and a strong wind can triple or quadruple that rate. Over the 335 days during which Noah's Flood receded, that would add up to 84-112 feet of evaporation. If gravity had removed about half that much water, the total water depth removed would have been 126-168 feet. That is easily enough water to account for Noah's seeing nothing but water for as far as his eyes could see. That is easily enough water to destroy all of Noah's contemporaries and their animals outside the ark. And, that is easily enough water to carry the ark to the foothills of Ararat.
Forum Monk wrote:LFT usually acknowledges that all human beings were destroyed except Noah's family. This of course, means that everyone had to have lived in the local region that was flooded and none could have escaped. This is highly problematic, scientifically. Population studies show that the number of human beings, given Biblical statistics of life spans and numbers of children, could have been about 10 billion individuals. So either, the lifespan information in the Bible is wrong or people lived a highly congested lifestyle.
Nope… Now let's not deviate from the Bible. We haven't yet this whole process according to the Hebrew Bible. We also need to take into account that there was a lot of violence and bloodshed in the earth those days too that probably kept the populations down..

Genesis 6:13 So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

Further backed up in the Book of Jubilees: Chapter 5, verse 2.

2. "all of them corrupted their ways and their orders, and they began to devour each other."

And the Book of Enoch, Chapter 7, verse 4, 5.

4. The giants turned against them and devoured mankind.
5. And they began to sin against birds, and beast, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood.
Forum Monk wrote: Actually scientific evidence shows the population of early man was scattered from Africa to Europe to throughout Asia. To overcome this, either the Bible needs reinterpreted once again, or the modern science of archaeology, paleontology and anthropology needs to be realigned to fit the LFT proposal.
Huh?? Both the local AND the global flood accounts claim that man came from Noah's decedents from the middle east (including the Garden of Eden). Are you claiming that the global flood advocates believe that Mt Ararat was in Africa now? I have never heard of this before….
Forum Monk wrote: I could go on and on but I think the point is made. LFT cannot have it both ways and cherry pick which scientific proposals and scriptures it wants to accept while allegorizing or ignoring the remainder.
Who is cherry picking here? Both accounts claim that Noah descended out of the middle east. Not Africa....
Forum Monk wrote: If the story of Noah relates a local flood, then other people survived, animals survived, the ark would not have been necessary, and probably did not land in the southern Caucasus, since drainage would have been away from that region.
Ok, but that was already addressed above...
Forum Monk wrote:In addition, such long lasting, flash floods have not been observed at any other time or place in recorded history of mankind, especially in those regions.
Not according to the data found around 3000 BC...

Per Fortigurn: "There is abundant evidence of a major flood in the Tigris-Euphrates valley ca. 2800 BC (Asimov 1991:34).

"At Ur there is a ten-foot deposit of sand and silt. Immediately below the flood deposit, the strata contain a characteristic form of pottery that enables comparison with that found at other sites. The pottery is dated to around 3000 BC.

Above the flood deposit there is evidence of human activity being resumed along lines similar to that of the civilization that existed before." (Emphasis mine)(Officer and Page 1993:73)"
Forum Monk wrote: I personally do not accept either LFT or global theories based on any kind of scientific explanations currently proposed. The science of GFT is very speculative and unsupported by modern observation even if it adheres to the strictest interpretation of the Bible,
You mean the strictest interpretation of the “English” Bible. Sorry, I had to add that in… :)
Forum Monk wrote: while the LFT is problematic because it attempts to harmonize modern scientific observation with scripture to the harm of both. I think both camps need to reevaluate their respective positions.
Well both may face some problems, but scripturally speaking and scientifically speaking the local flood is still more plausible than the global flood will ever be.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:12 am
by frankbaginski
Push all of the science stuff aside for a minute. Now it had never rained on the earth since it was created. People would not know about a flood or rain. Noah was building a large ship where there was no water. He was gathering animals from around the world. So the story of the ship would be common knowledge among the people. Ask yourself the question, why did Noah build the ark? If there were no people of faith would God force someone to build the ship? This whole event is a demonstration of faith. That thing which is the most important aspect of life. Why God chose to flood the world and use this particular method is beyond me but He did. Those who had faith were saved, those who had no faith perished. This is a repeating message over and over. The world wide flood was a demonstration that you cannot escape judgement.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:37 am
by Himantolophus
In my opinion, if Noah built a ship and survived a local flood with his animals, and God promised never to do it again, it takes nothing from the purpose and meaning of the story. The lesson we get from it is the same. It really doesn't matter how big of a scale it was.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:00 pm
by Kurieuo
frankbaginski wrote:Push all of the science stuff aside for a minute. Now it had never rained on the earth since it was created.
Where does Scripture say it never rained on the earth? I think you're injecting your own theology into what Scripture does not say there. I would prefer accepted science to an unfounded interpretation of Scripture.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:05 pm
by Kurieuo
frankbaginski wrote:Noah was building a large ship where there was no water. He was gathering animals from around the world. So the story of the ship would be common knowledge among the people. Ask yourself the question, why did Noah build the ark? If there were no people of faith would God force someone to build the ship? This whole event is a demonstration of faith.
It was a demonstration of faith and I would certainly agree there. I am not sure what you mean by "whole event" being a demonstration of faith for there is more at play than simply Noah's faith. Noah's being saved by faith in God is however an interesting foreshadow that it is by faith in Christ we are saved.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:08 pm
by Kurieuo
frankbaginski wrote:The world wide flood was a demonstration that you cannot escape judgement.
And whether you believe in a local or global flood, in each people believe the flood was world wide in extent and that no one would have escaped judgement unless God allowed them to.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:15 pm
by frankbaginski
Kurieuo,

Gen 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.
Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

By "whole event" I was refering to the flood.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:52 am
by WWJnotD
Himantolophus wrote: But the second problem is once the animals get off, what is the mechanism by which the "kinds" turn into the species we see today? Creationists find evolution "taboo" but this is exactly what you are insinuating when you mention "natural selection". This speciation through nat. selection is evolution, you just don't want to use that word. Evolution is the "changing of gene frequencies in a population over time through natural selection". Even this "degenerating" that YEC's talk about is basically evolution. No matter if you are adding, changing, or removing genes, it is still considered evolution. If you can accept evolution after the flood (which assumes that the current global diversity was evolved from "a cat" to "all cats" in 2000 years), then I don't see a problem with evolution over much longer timescales...
#

The mechanism is natural selection. Natural selection isn't a problem for creationists. You say Creationist find evolution taboo? More like they find it to be lacking any really proof. But it depends what evolution your talking about. Creationist have a problem with the Evolution defined by Kerkut as, 'the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.' This type of Evolution is called the GTE (The general theory of evolution) which requires a mechanism for increasing information in genome (necessary for changing molecules into man. Natural selection doesn't do anything to prove the GTE since natural selection doesn't add information but only involves a sort or loss of information that is already present. Also it can't account for how the information got there in the first place. Speciation isn't evolution in a molecules to man (GTE) either, creationists have nothing against speciation, as it doesn't involve in uphill changes in information content require to prove GTE. Also if it were to be Evolution in a molecule to man sense that new species would have to have become a completely different kind. The definition you gave of evolution is basically of definition of what natural selection does. Just by changing gene frequencies you're not going to be able to observe uphill changes required to witness one kind turning into another.

Degeneration isn't remotely evolution in a molecules to man sense and doesn't provide evidence for it as it involves the wrong sort of change. Adding, changing or removing genes isn't something that would prove molecules evolved overtime into humans. Yeah Evolution's root definition is 'change' but the GTE require a certain change that has never been observed in nature and to which there is no known mechanism for.

Re: Local Flood vs Global Flood

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:02 am
by Himantolophus
The mechanism is natural selection. Natural selection isn't a problem for creationists. You say Creationist find evolution taboo? More like they find it to be lacking any really proof. But it depends what evolution your talking about. Creationist have a problem with the Evolution defined by Kerkut as, 'the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.' This type of Evolution is called the GTE (The general theory of evolution) which requires a mechanism for increasing information in genome (necessary for changing molecules into man. Natural selection doesn't do anything to prove the GTE since natural selection doesn't add information but only involves a sort or loss of information that is already present. Also it can't account for how the information got there in the first place. Speciation isn't evolution in a molecules to man (GTE) either, creationists have nothing against speciation, as it doesn't involve in uphill changes in information content require to prove GTE. Also if it were to be Evolution in a molecule to man sense that new species would have to have become a completely different kind. The definition you gave of evolution is basically of definition of what natural selection does. Just by changing gene frequencies you're not going to be able to observe uphill changes required to witness one kind turning into another.

Degeneration isn't remotely evolution in a molecules to man sense and doesn't provide evidence for it as it involves the wrong sort of change. Adding, changing or removing genes isn't something that would prove molecules evolved overtime into humans. Yeah Evolution's root definition is 'change' but the GTE require a certain change that has never been observed in nature and to which there is no known mechanism for.
This looks like a case of "picking and choosing" what you "allow" and what you don't "allow". You allow natural selection, which is one of the major driving forces of evolution, and speciation, which are the results of evolution, and at the same time say that evolution itself doesn't exist. The defintition I gave above for evolution is the textbook definition given for evolution. Your definition changes evolution into a theory of "additive mutations" and "biogenesis". This just happens to be the two problems creationists have with evolution.

If you have no problems with mutations, speciation, and natural selection, you are almost ready to believe in evolution. Yet, you know that no one is alive long enough to actually witness an actual species forming naturally. Species that are only subspecifically distinct (and so almost alike) often have been diverging for thousands of years. If you go to species in the same genus, you go to millions. For families, you have even longer periods of time. I don't see how you need significant additions to the genome to create new species, you can re-arrange genomes, mutate genomes, and delete from genomes and get significant changes. However, I don't see an addition like adding a few new base pairs as impossible by mutation. Over time these minor additions can add up.

Enough with that stuff. I want to hear from the Global Flood people how these kinds "evolved" into the species we see today in the timespan YEC's have to deal with. I also want to hear how the invertebrates, plants, and fishes survived and how this translates into the distribution patterns we see today. I want to hear how God miraculously prevented inbreeding in the creatures that survived the Flood (including Man). I'm sick of people trying to disprove "evolution" when the theories they believe are full of holes and based on flawed interpretations of the evidence and the Bible.