Global Flood

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Chem
Apprentice
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:49 am
Location: Ireland

Global Flood

Post #1

Post by Chem »

This is my first post so forgive me if it sounds unusual. I have viewed a lot of the postings in this forum and have some questions with regards to the idea of a global flood.

Firstly, as I understand YEC's claim that the flood water came from the ground, to cover the whole world. A quick calculation based on the radius of the Earth being ~6.378 e6 m (6378 Km) and the height of Mount Ararat being ~5200 m, this would suggest a volume of 3.4 e18 m3 of water to cover the Earth to the height of Mount Ararat. Of course this does not take into account the presence of higher mountains or low lying areas that would require less water. this would wiegh in the region of 3.4 e21 kg or about 0.06% of the estimated weight of Earth.

Apart from the problem of storing and getting rid of such an amount of water, the questions I have are:
1. Was the water fresh or salty? I presume salty if derived from the Earth and this leads onto a second question:
2. How did fresh water fish survive if the water was salty (if not then how would salt water fish survive in a reduced salt environment?)
3. Furthermore if such huge amounts of water were present then what about greenhouse effect that water vapour and huge release of carbon dioxide would generate? (I understand that some of the carbon genertade would be sequestered by the water and some would be used to generate sedimentary rocks).

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #21

Post by QED »

otseng wrote:
QED wrote:
I hope someone who takes the literal interpretation of genesis responds to this topic soon.

I hope my post here answered your question. I only assume that you missed my post since I collated all my responses into one post. Or is it because I'm not regarded as one who takes a literal interpretation? :-k
This puzzled me until I looked at the timing of our posts :D If you do take the literal interpretation then what do you make of the recommendations in Answers in Genesis? Is it reasonable for anyone to continue using arguments discredited by an organization dedicated to upholding the authority of the bible from the very first verse?

Post Reply