The Flood Story

[Tchild2]

Doesn't this all depend on the size of the flood? Some of the localized flood theories allow for some very large floods. This reminds me of a example of the flood from Montana to the Pacific at the end of the last ice age. Scientists couldn't figure out how these small hills formed in eastern washington until they realized that they were caused by a HUGE localized flood that sent an enormous amount of water from the Montana area over to the west to the Pacific. The flood was so big that the hills they were looking at were the equivalent of the little sand ripples we see after a lot of water has run over a sandy area.

That flood was thought to be caused by massive bodies of water from melting and retreating glaciers damned by ice for perhaps hundreds of years then breaking through, not rainfall.

Genesis also says that the water only rose 15 cubits (i.e., 22 feet) in the flood. I have heard the explanation that this refers to how high the flood rose above mount Everest. However, I don't think this explanation jives with the way it is described in Genesis. Also, my understanding is the reference to mountains should have been translated as "hills" instead. How does this jive with a worldwide flood?

No matter how deep the water, there would be overwhelming geological evidence of such a uniform watery covering over the earth. The diluted brine would be found at ever place on earth at the same place in the sedimentary deposits.

[ryanelwood]

One of its purposes.

Not 100% explained variance

Not 100% explained variance

Not 100% explained variance

100% explained variance?

Another issue for another day, perhaps.

100% explained variance?

Absolutely none?

Enormous? Is this an assumption?

As somebody else brought up, what type of evidence would you expect for a 40 day period of continual rain and who knows how long everything stayed submerged?

Complete lack of evidence?

What is or is not a 100% variance has little to do with my point. But yes there is a complete lack of evidence for a world wide flood, otherwise you would find geologists at major universities that believe in it. Are you disputing that such an event would not have left behind an enormous amount of evidence? If science can tell when massive extinctions happened I assure you a global flood would be the most obvious.

But aside from geological evidence you may want to apply simple common sense to the issue. Less than ten people fitting several million animals onto one boat. These few people then must feed and cleam up a lot of excrement. Somehow they are able to breath even though the water exceeds the top of Mt. Everest. Then when they land, the American Moose must swim to the US, Kangaroo's swim to Australia, Polar Bears and Penguins make there way to the Arctic. Sure you could use some hypothetical imagination to explain it all, but it should only take a few minutes of thought to conclude there was no global flood.

[spinner]

Have you seen the photo of the fossilized human foot found in a 1950's cowboy boot? Apparently it doesn't take millions of years to fossilize. 8 people didn't go around the world collecting animals,God called the animals. Not every one of todays species would have to be represented. Genus level baria would do for most. Hibernation,natural or induced, could deal with the clean-up problem. If we assume that the pre-Noah land was of a different topography than the post-Noah( as the Bible infers ) , then fewer problems arise.

Sea life was not included on the Ark.

Science is always second guessing itself on most topics. How many times have we been told that some food is good or bad for us and then in a couple of years a different study turns the previous conclusion on its head. If science has that much trouble coming to firm conclusions with things that are here and now,where do they get the arrogance to have FIRM conclusions about things that are in the past . No evidence of world wide disaster??? Nonsense.

Take a look at the results of the Mt. St. Helens erruption and its aftermath and see how massive changes can take place in a moment of time and yet leave evidence that would,at first glance,show a very long time frame to accomplish.

You know, everything you've said above is pure speculation. God could have done this and might have done that, but you have no evidence. Then you proceed to the second standard argument which is to cast broad aspersions on science trying to discredit it generally while not addressing the actual scientific problems of a global flood. It's very easy to discount science when it contradicts some abstract belief, but you place total and unquestioning faith in science every day when you drive your car, get on an airplane, microwave a snack, use your computer, etc. Truth is, I'll bet you only question science when it starts contradicting your beliefs.

Furthermore, you say that sea life wasn't included in the ark. But freshwater plants and animals will die if exposed to saltwater and vice versa. Are you going to speculate again about what kept them from dying off? Maybe god just altered their genetic makeup for a year so they could survive during the flood, and then they all reverted back to their pre flood forms, right? Of course it would be silly for me to ask for proof of such a change because god moves in mysterious ways or some such evasion. What about animals that live on the sea-bottom? Mt. Everest is almost over five miles high, how did all of these plants and animals that survive in shallow ocean floors or in lakebeds live when suddenly covered with five miles of water?

[blackstrap]

Was the pre-Noah topograph the same as the post-Noah? Was the atmosphere the same? I have no trouble with a lot of the hard science but when it comes to the scientific speculation then I take what they say with a block of salt. Many assumptions are made when speculating. Both creationists (literalists) and evolutionists make assumptions about the past. There always has to be assumptions about the unobserved. For example,you assume that Mt. Everest was 5 miles high before the flood.A logical assumption based on the current agreed upon dating of the geology. The dating of geology is also based on the assumptions of radiometric decay rates and fossil remains. Fossils have to be millions of years old or evolution is problematic. If the assumptions are flawed then all speculation based on them is flawed. I assume you will state that decay rates are proven but the time lines were established based on the assumption that a particular ratio between parent and daughter elements must represent a particular age .An age that is known to be X million years because thats how old the fossils are in the rock and it is known that the simplest fossils are in the oldest rock.And the simplest fossils are the oldest because,well,that is what the theory states. What would it take to mess up the theory? Just one counterexample or anomaly.They do exist you know. They are all HOAXES because they have to be or else....

[spinner]

Was the pre-Noah topograph the same as the post-Noah? Was the atmosphere the same? I have no trouble with a lot of the hard science but when it comes to the scientific speculation then I take what they say with a block of salt. Many assumptions are made when speculating. Both creationists (literalists) and evolutionists make assumptions about the past. There always has to be assumptions about the unobserved. For example,you assume that Mt. Everest was 5 miles high before the flood.A logical assumption based on the current agreed upon dating of the geology. The dating of geology is also based on the assumptions of radiometric decay rates and fossil remains. Fossils have to be millions of years old or evolution is problematic. If the assumptions are flawed then all speculation based on them is flawed. I assume you will state that decay rates are proven but the time lines were established based on the assumption that a particular ratio between parent and daughter elements must represent a particular age .An age that is known to be X million years because thats how old the fossils are in the rock and it is known that the simplest fossils are in the oldest rock.And the simplest fossils are the oldest because,well,that is what the theory states. What would it take to mess up the theory? Just one counterexample or anomaly.They do exist you know. They are all HOAXES because they have to be or else....

Again I ask how did the fish survive? How did the aquatic plants survive?

I love listening to biblical literalists attempt to discredit those specific slices of science that contradict their beliefs. Everest and other towering peaks only arose in the last 6,000 years or so. Atomic decay happened much more quickly in the past. Aquatic life at the time of the flood had [insert unsupported speculation here] that enabled them to survive the changes in salinity inevitable with a global flood.

The simple fact is that you trust science and its fruits in every aspect of your life, rejecting it only when it contradicts your beliefs, and only to the extent that it contradicts your beliefs, and with no basis other than it contradicts your beliefs.

[Ron Beron]

1. Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; and do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel?

2. Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?

3. Do you sustain the other General Authorities and the local authorities of the Church?

4. Do you live the law of chastity?

5. Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

6. Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?

7. Do you earnestly strive to do your duty in the Church; to attend your sacrament, priesthood, and other meetings; and to obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel?

8. Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

9. Are you a full-tithe payer?

10. Do you keep the Word of Wisdom?

11. Have you ever had a divorce that has not been cleared by appropriate priesthood authorities, where required?

12. If you have ever been divorced or separated, are you presently fulfilling your obligations for the support and maintenance of your family?

13. If you have received your temple endowment -- (a) Do you keep all the covenants that you made in the temple? ( Do you wear the authorized garments both day and night?

14. Has there been any sin or misdeed in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but has not?

15. Do you consider yourself worthy in every way to enter the temple and participate in temple ordinances?

I don't see one single question about The Flood; Where the Garden of Eden may have been; How old the earth is, or a host of other non-gospel

related questions.

So Yes, if a person can honestly answer those questions. I would consider them a member in good standing.

Wow, Sometimes, I can really agree with you when we get away from the political trash. In addition, why are we worried over the literary ramblings of the ancients that have minimal impact on the matters of today? The Flood story whether true or not is a process story that details the dealings of God with His children whether through the Mesopotamians or the Hebrews. It is an account of something that happened anciently whose details are lost in the obscurity of the past. Understanding the mission of Jesus and of his prophet, Joseph, et al, is of primary importance today.

[blackstrap]

Again,what would it take to make you question the great ages FACTS? Are you so invested that no amount of contrary evidence will sway you? Nice,another" global warming is all mans fault and every scientist agrees " kind of thinker. I at least am willing to suspend judgement and entertain other ideas, even if they eventually prove untenable. I know it is easy to say that "God did it and we don't know how " It is also easy to say " Nature did it and we are sure we know maybe how it could have done it given enough time and luck " Maybe science could actually test what happens when floods disturb massive areas.How does the soil redeposit? What settles out first? Are the results repeatable? What factors can change the results? I'm sure much work has already been done. This is what I call Hard science. It is the kind of science used to find oil deposits regardless of how old the rocks are.

[Ron Beron]

In order for a global flood to have occurred scientifically the following would also had to have happened:

a. Water would have had to cover the earth including Everest equally 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometers of water. There simply isn't this much water on, in or above the earth.

b. The weight of the excess water would have equaled 4.525E+21 kg or millions of tons of water.

c. The kinetic energy of the rain would have raised the temperature of the earth terribly

E (normal) = 215

E (increase) = 391,935.0958

T (normal) = 280.

or 1800 kelvins or 2780.6

[spinner]

Again,what would it take to make you question the great ages FACTS? Are you so invested that no amount of contrary evidence will sway you? Nice,another" global warming is all mans fault and every scientist agrees " kind of thinker. I at least am willing to suspend judgement and entertain other ideas, even if they eventually prove untenable. I know it is easy to say that "God did it and we don't know how " It is also easy to say " Nature did it and we are sure we know maybe how it could have done it given enough time and luck " Maybe science could actually test what happens when floods disturb massive areas.How does the soil redeposit? What settles out first? Are the results repeatable? What factors can change the results? I'm sure much work has already been done. This is what I call Hard science. It is the kind of science used to find oil deposits regardless of how old the rocks are.

I note that you have yet again ignored the question of what happened to aquatic life during the flood.

The truth is that to reconcile the flood, you have to be willing to overlook mountains of evidence in numerous fields of science and other endeavors. Geology, physics, meteorology, zoology, agronomy, archeaology, history, evolutionary science and biology all provide solid evidence that a flood never occurred. Common sense should be an even stronger contrary indicator.

You accuse me of not having an open mind, well, to quote Harold Stone: "I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out."

[Tramper]

Professor Parry's article is a little scary...

"Further, it neglects a God who can speak and have the dust of the earth obey, who can move mountains at will, and who can divide the Red Sea. As Latter-day Saints, we have scriptural evidence that God has intervened in the affairs of the earth and modified the landscape on numerous occasions. Among other things, he changed the earthâ??s environment after the Fall, he gave Enoch power to move mountains and rivers before the Deluge, he caused the Flood, and he was the cause of the catastrophic events in America at the Saviorâ??s death.

For Latter-day Saints, the Flood is a matter of faith and belief. We believe in many events that today we cannot scientifically explain. "

As I understand Professor Parry a Church member doesn't need to defend anything because an almighty God can do whatever he pleases. He can even fool sincere scientists. God demand you to believe in things that are not supported by facts. Parryâ??s God doesnâ??t want the people to think or investigate for themselves. Almost always when I bring something of this kind up in my ward during the Sunday School I receive these kinds of reactions. Not seldom followed by a superior cold laughter from other members. Why is this? Have anyone of you met these annoyed reactions when you have asked rather obvious and well grounded questions?

Daniel C. Peterson recently mocked around with Hitchens in FARMS Review. DCP found some minor errors in Hitchens book that really didn't have significance for the conclusions drawn in the book. Professor Parry is in gross error and he doesn't get any criticism from DCP at all. Who is the real threat? Hitchens or Parry?

[Rob Osborn]

In order for a global flood to have occurred scientifically the following would also had to have happened:

a. Water would have had to cover the earth including Everest equally 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometers of water. There simply isn't this much water on, in or above the earth.

b. The weight of the excess water would have equaled 4.525E+21 kg or millions of tons of water.

c. The kinetic energy of the rain would have raised the temperature of the earth terribly

E (normal) = 215

E (increase) = 391,935.0958

T (normal) = 280.

or 1800 kelvins or 2780.6

[Tramper]

This always gets me as the biggest argument against the flood! Everyone believing in the flood (like myself) knows that Mt. Everest was not yet upthrust from the earth while the flood was taking place. In fact, global flood believers and researchers know that the major mountain chains in the which Mt. Everest is part of, were indeed upthrust after the flood. They were then fragmented and exposed showing their varied layers of watery laid sediment.

Weak argument!

Splendid! What we see is not for real. Science is more or less a tool for the Devil and his army of loyal scientists. In fact there is no need to study biology, geography etc at all. By so doing we are at risk to reach wrong conclusions and thereby jeopardize our own salvation.

[blackstrap]

Science for the last 100 years has assumed great age because of the theory of evolution.This has colored all of their speculative conclusions. Before that ,most scientists assumed young age ,and that colored their conclusions. I do not accept that great age is the only possibility and see evidence to substantiate a younger earth and universe. That colors my thinking. Example. One of Saturn's moons,Enceladus,was inspected by Cassini in a flyby on Mar 12. Results show, among many things,an enormous outflow of energy from the moons interior. Given the uniformitarian view,"scientists " are unsure how that amount of energy would be still flowing after billions of years,and yet,there it is. Science has postulated the presence of Dark Matter throughout the universe to account for the lack of matter required to hold galaxies together after billions of years. And you are enamoured with water problems based on the FACT that the land was that same pre-Noah and Post - Noah. Well,so be it,Spinner. We disagree. I expect that in another 100 years we will both be reeducated,....or not.

[YH8]

Do you have any evidence outside of scriptural passages of a worldwide flood?

I am not aware of any, per se. However, I would imagine there are scientists out there that have interpreted some data that would be consistent with a worldwide flood. Whether or not we should accept their interpretation is another issue.

The bottom line, for me, is I'm not sure where I stand on the issue of the nature of The Flood. (BTW, "flood myths" are one of those things that many "religions" have in common other than the word "God."

My basic point in this type of discussion and others like it is that while science (empiricism) is great, it is not/may not be all that it is cracked up to be. Which point, indeed reality, is very difficult for strident Atheists to handle as it questions, indeed strikes at the heart of their god, that is, the God of Empiricism.

[YH8]

What is or is not a 100% variance has little to do with my point.

Maybe you should incorporate it into your thinking.

But yes there is a complete lack of evidence for a world wide flood,

You really should refrain from using the word "complete." It is not a very scientific word.

otherwise you would find geologists at major universities that believe in it.

Sounds like you place a lot of faith in Ivory Towers. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. But, just like blind faith in religion is not helpful, well, you get the picture (I hope).

Are you disputing that such an event would not have left behind an enormous amount of evidence?

Evidence? No

Massive amounts? I don't know. How massive would you expect from 40 days of rain and an unkown period of 100% submersion?

If science can tell when massive extinctions happened I assure you a global flood would be the most obvious.

Your assurances are not very helpful.

But aside from geological evidence you may want to apply simple common sense to the issue.

Because I don't buy the tenents of Atheism and/or this particular topic hook, line, and sinker, I don't have any common sense?

Sure you could use some hypothetical imagination to explain it all, but it should only take a few minutes of thought to conclude there was no global flood.

Religion is not as simplistic as apparently you would like to think.

[lwyatt]

What is or is not a 100% variance has little to do with my point. But yes there is a complete lack of evidence for a world wide flood, otherwise you would find geologists at major universities that believe in it. Are you disputing that such an event would not have left behind an enormous amount of evidence? If science can tell when massive extinctions happened I assure you a global flood would be the most obvious.

By eveidence, you mean something along the lines of a flood story in EVERY major culture found around the world? I think that it has been pretty well established that there is a grain of truth to every fable or myth. Or am I wrong?

But aside from geological evidence you may want to apply simple common sense to the issue. Less than ten people fitting several million animals onto one boat. These few people then must feed and cleam up a lot of excrement. Somehow they are able to breath even though the water exceeds the top of Mt. Everest. Then when they land, the American Moose must swim to the US, Kangaroo's swim to Australia, Polar Bears and Penguins make there way to the Arctic. Sure you could use some hypothetical imagination to explain it all, but it should only take a few minutes of thought to conclude there was no global flood.

This sounds extremely similar to the arguments that used to be made about how lions were never in the area of Israel, the city of Jericho never actually existed, whether the bibilical Moses actually existed or not, and ancient writtings were never kept on metallic plates. All of which (expect I think the Moses question) has been answered academincally.

I am going to quote one of my favorite atheists in the world by saying that the absence of proof IS NOT proof of absence. Just becasue we currently do not have the physical proof does not mean it doesn't exist, or didn't happen. I find it highly amusing that whenever something along these lines has been said in the past, that something eventually comes along to disprove that statement. I think I will hold final judgement till ALL the facts are in.

I think that in conclusion there is somethign else to be considered. Even Darwin himself said that he didn't have all the answers.

[katherine the great]

This always gets me as the biggest argument against the flood! Everyone believing in the flood (like myself) knows that Mt. Everest was not yet upthrust from the earth while the flood was taking place. In fact, global flood believers and researchers know that the major mountain chains in the which Mt. Everest is part of, were indeed upthrust after the flood. They were then fragmented and exposed showing their varied layers of watery laid sediment.

Weak argument!

Where on earth do you get your information? Mt. Everest was formed when the Indian subcontinent smashed into the Eurasian continent over 50 million years ago. It was traveling at the record breaking speed of 20 centimeters per year. (which was actually much faster than most plates move.) It's still growing a couple of inches every year.

[ryanelwood]

By eveidence, you mean something along the lines of a flood story in EVERY major culture found around the world? I think that it has been pretty well established that there is a grain of truth to every fable or myth. Or am I wrong?

This sounds extremely similar to the arguments that used to be made about how lions were never in the area of Israel, the city of Jericho never actually existed, whether the bibilical Moses actually existed or not, and ancient writtings were never kept on metallic plates. All of which (expect I think the Moses question) has been answered academincally.

I am going to quote one of my favorite atheists in the world by saying that the absence of proof IS NOT proof of absence. Just becasue we currently do not have the physical proof does not mean it doesn't exist, or didn't happen. I find it highly amusing that whenever something along these lines has been said in the past, that something eventually comes along to disprove that statement. I think I will hold final judgement till ALL the facts are in.

I think that in conclusion there is somethign else to be considered. Even Darwin himself said that he didn't have all the answers.

The "absence of proog is not proof of abnsence" is not helpful in this situation. It is not just that there is absence of evidence, but contrary evidence. Yes there are SOME, not EVERY, cultures that have floody myths. However, it is believed by some scholars that some of these stories were actually borrowed by the biblical writers since the writings of Gilgamesh about the story predate the Bible. We know there were civilizations around at the time of 5,000 years ago. How can we do archaeological digs on civilizations that predate the flood? Would not have the water mixed it all up. Utah has been inhabited for 12,000 years, it is incredible we can do any research on them since they should have been swept away. In fact, since American Indians have been here for 20,000 years or more, I would expect that they should have some ark story since they survived. An why are there not hight water marks on the pyramids since they also predate the flood? I could go on and on. Just ask yourself why no geologist at any accredited University worlwide, believes in a global flood. There has got to be a reason don't you think? It is sort of like no astronomer still believing that the world is being held up by Atlas, there is is sound reasons the story of Atlas and the global flood are rejected.

PLEASE, everyone who is still arguing for a global flood, just apply the same common sense you would to anything else outside your religious tradition.

[cinepro]

Science for the last 100 years has assumed great age because of the theory of evolution.

This is absolutely not true. While early evolutionary theories may have encouraged the formulation of Earth-age theories >6,000 years, modern methods for dating the age of the Earth are totally independent of evolutionary theory.

In addition, why are we worried over the literary ramblings of the ancients that have minimal impact on the matters of today?

Well, the critics aren't the ones that have made the claim. It is a Biblical story that is still taught as literal fact by the Prophets, Apostles and publications of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If it isn't important, then you need to let the Church leaders know so they can stop talking about it, and take out the pictures from the Gospel Art Picture kit and the lessons from the Old Testament study curriculum. As long as the Church leaders think it is a literal story with a valid application to us in the modern day and continue to teach it as such, it will be a valid topic for discussion.

Another reason it holds interest for me is because it is one of the few claims made by the Church that can actually be scientifically investigated.

If you have someone making two kinds of claims (those that can be tested and those that can never be tested), it might be prudent to test the claims that can be, and then judge whether or not that person is a reliable source of information regarding those claims that can't be tested. We might not be able to test whether or not there was a pre-existence, or a resurrection, but we can test whether there was a literal, worldwide flood. And if our leaders were wrong about something simple and basic like whether or not all animal, plant and human life was eradicated with only a floating ark to preserve the species, maybe we should wonder if they have been wrong about the other, untestable things as well.

[lwyatt]

The "absence of proog is not proof of abnsence" is not helpful in this situation. It is not just that there is absence of evidence, but contrary evidence. Yes there are SOME, not EVERY, cultures that have floody myths. However, it is believed by some scholars that some of these stories were actually borrowed by the biblical writers since the writings of Gilgamesh about the story predate the Bible. We know there were civilizations around at the time of 5,000 years ago. How can we do archaeological digs on civilizations that predate the flood? Would not have the water mixed it all up. Utah has been inhabited for 12,000 years, it is incredible we can do any research on them since they should have been swept away. In fact, since American Indians have been here for 20,000 years or more, I would expect that they should have some ark story since they survived. An why are there not hight water marks on the pyramids since they also predate the flood? I could go on and on. Just ask yourself why no geologist at any accredited University worlwide, believes in a global flood. There has got to be a reason don't you think? It is sort of like no astronomer still believing that the world is being held up by Atlas, there is is sound reasons the story of Atlas and the global flood are rejected.

PLEASE, everyone who is still arguing for a global flood, just apply the same common sense you would to anything else outside your religious tradition.

First off, how is the quote by Carl Sagan, not applicable or helpful in this case? Wasn't he one of the epitomes of scientific thought? Did he not say that just because we don't currently know, doesn't mean that we will never know or find? Basically, I belive that you are saying this: "Since current science cannot prove, therefore it must be false."

As in the examples that I gave before, this is similar thinking that led people to ignore or discount other scriptural stories, which where later proven to be true and accurate. Another example of this thinking is that we now, currently, know everything that can be known, and we don't need to learn anything else. Isn't that also kind of thinking limiting as well?

Second, the writtings of the story of Gilgamesh predate the known writtings of the old testatment, that is true. Heck it is even acknowledged by the bible itself. The first five books of the bible (if taken literally) cover what 2 to 4 thousand years worth of VERBAL history? Man, that's a long time to think that everything is going to be passed on perfectly word for word. If you presuppose that there was nothing lost in teh verbal traditions handed down over that extended period of time, and then that there was nothing lost over the last 4,000 years of written (and we know that there has NEVER been any dispute over the translation of the Bible, don't we?) then yes, it is a little hard to swallow. Personally, I think that type of thinking does not allow comon sense to enter into the equation.

Third, and finally, you say that some, not all, cultures have a flood myth or story? Really? What do you base that off of? Could you please provide some type of documentation that lists which cultures do not? <a href:"http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html">Here</a> is a link that you can use to look up those cultures that you consider only to be some, which do have a flood story or myth. This link will take you to a site that has SOME of the collected flood stories from around the world, and is even broken down by region. I belive that you will find it to be helpful.

[cinepro]

Was the pre-Noah topograph the same as the post-Noah? Was the atmosphere the same?

Yes, the atmosphere before Noah's flood (~2500BC) was about the same as it is today.

I say with all honesty that I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in a local flood has actually read the flood account in Genesis. Every description of the flood is totally incompatible with the idea of a localized flood. From the physical description of the flood, to the covenant God makes with Noah, it is always presented as covering the whole Earth, and it makes no sense if the flood was localized.

For example, regarding the height of the water and mountains and hills, Genesis 7 says this:

17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Even if we want to argue for a localized flood, we have to take into account the highest "hills" that might have been around Noah. Obviously, the claim that the water covered the earth to a depth of 15 cubits must refer to the depth to which the mountains were also covered. If the water only rose overall to a depth of 15 cubits (about 25 feet), then anyone who could find a hill with a height >25' would be OK. And the ark itself would have come to rest in some foothill 25' off the floodplain. Is there a proposed geography for the flood that doesn't somewhere have a visible mountain range exceeding a height of 25'?

The theory of a localized flood is a non-starter. It makes the Genesis account of the flood and the official LDS view totally non-sensical, to the point that the story becomes absolutely irrelevant to anything.

[ryanelwood]

Maybe you should incorporate it into your thinking.

You really should refrain from using the word "complete." It is not a very scientific word.

Sounds like you place a lot of faith in Ivory Towers. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. But, just like blind faith in religion is not helpful, well, you get the picture (I hope).

Evidence? No

Massive amounts? I don't know. How massive would you expect from 40 days of rain and an unkown period of 100% submersion?

Your assurances are not very helpful.

Because I don't buy the tenents of Atheism and/or this particular topic hook, line, and sinker, I don't have any common sense?

Religion is not as simplistic as apparently you would like to think.

The word "complete" is not scientific? So I can't say that there is a "complete" lack of evidence that Atlas is holding the world up or that there is a complete lack of evidence that the world is flat?

If your are saying I put trust into science the answer is yes, there facts and theories are based on EVIDENCE that can be tested. Why does anyone believe in a global flood? Because an ancient Jewish writing of an unknown author said so. Should I trust ancient writings more than I trust modern science that is based on evidence? I guess since Joshua commanded the sun to stand still I should believe the sun moves rather than the earth because I should trust ancient unknown writers more than modern science.

You say you don't "buy the tenents of Atheism and/or this particular topic hook, line, and sinker." What does the tenets of "atheism" have to do with anything? I have not mentioned atheism once.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

Please read Hugh Nibley's take on the flood, before pontificating on whether "I say with all honesty that I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in a local flood has actually read the flood account in Genesis.".

[buraianto]

Even if we want to argue for a localized flood, we have to take into account the highest "hills" that might have been around Noah. Obviously, the claim that the water covered the earth to a depth of 15 cubits must refer to the depth to which the mountains were also covered. If the water only rose overall to a depth of 15 cubits (about 25 feet), then anyone who could find a hill with a height >25' would be OK. And the ark itself would have come to rest in some foothill 25' off the floodplain. Is there a proposed geography for the flood that doesn't somewhere have a visible mountain range exceeding a height of 25'?

Hmm. Interesting. What would the draft of the ark be, considering the size described and some reasonable approximation of its weight?

Edit: Genesis 6:15 -- And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.

[thesometimesaint]

buraianto:

IIRC 15 cubits would come out to about 45 feet. Deep enough even today for a modern ship to travel the Sacramento River.