Are there responses to the critiques of the Flood?

Question

I've heard there is not enough water on Earth for a global flood. What is the Creationist's response?

The water canopy would raise atmospheric pressure too high.

And the claim that the earth may have been flater does not explain how, in only a few thousand years, mountain ranges formed.

Answer 1

Not any good responses.

Answer 2

I can speculate right alongside you, if you wish. There are too many unknown variables for me to say with a certainty that it happened this way or that. I mean, how much continental drift has happened since then? How much land mass was already submerged? How much water was upon the earth at that time? Huh? How much water what?
There had to be a lot of food for the large land animals to eat prior to the flood. I favor the idea that earth's climate was in a huge global warming stage. Massive cloud layers trapped the heat from the earth and what sunlight entered had little opportunity to dissipate as heat into space. There couldn't have been any water trapped in polar caps if true. Is this how the waters above the heavens were separated from the waters below the heavens? Had it even previously rained on earth, or was the ground watered by upwelling streams and mists? This would certainly make the first big rainfall an event to be remembered. Perhaps it was a little understood property of physics that gave way to a greater one. Too much speculation already. It would be supportive of the rainbow being set in the sky as a reminder of a promise. And what about oil? How did all that plant and animal matter get deposited in concentrated spots to produce so much? Any idea how many crocoducks it takes to make a pint? Do the concentrations coincide with natural water runoffs? Could it all have been deposited there as the waters receded?
I don't know. I guess I can't prove that it did happen with scientific evidence. All I have is speculation and a bunch of questions. I haven't been convinced otherwise, though. Please enlighten me.
Edit:
Just trying to understand here. That much water would produce too much atmospheric pressure. What would the gravitational balance look like? Would that mass have enough gravitational pull to offset any of the pressure? How much extra weight would that be when distributed across the globe? How much of that would be nullified if it were in sub-orbital space, say moving in a stream of current like the jet stream?

Answer 3

Think of all the underground water. What if all the ice melted? Then all the water contained in the atmosphere precipitated. Also - did the earth have the same shape before the flood, or were many mountains formed by the flood? Level off some of those mountains, and it might affect how the water would cover the earth.
For a more scientific response, you might try the book by Whitcombe and Morris, called "The Flood" or "The Genesis Flood". Many have found it to be very informative and helpful in answering some of those objections.
Of course God could miraculously produce water. It's just that it wouldn't likely be the way He would work.
Some object that so many animals couldn't have fit in the ark. Whitcombe and Morris describe the dimensions of the ark, and point out that the longest train in the world could have fit in it. According to them, there was room to spare. I haven't worked out all the dimensions for myself, but I can see their reasoning. Those kinds of questions haven't disturbed me much, I read the book more to have answers for others. I mean somebody comes up with a mathematical objection that I can't verify myself, if that causes me to be shaken in my faith, I might be pretty naive! Because the maths of objectors can be as biased as the maths of those who would want to prove the flood. So if I were really shaken up by those arguments, I would take it on myself to do some serious calculations.

Answer 4

I think there is plenty of water, but the objection (if I am not mistaken) is that it could not cover the highest mountains as the Bible says it did. The response, according to the Creationist model, is that our present topography is not what it was before the flood but rather a result of it. Before the flood was Pangaea which was split apart from the waters beneath and waters above (called the "vapor canopy"). As geologic plates slipped and collided, they created the deepest parts of the ocean and highest points of our mountains. Similarly, the quick geologic shifts are what encapsulated dinosaurs for fossilization. It is very similar to the standard model, but collapses eons of time into just a few weeks. It doesn't seem so unreasonable once you remove the methodological assumption of uniformitarianism (that the present is the key to the past).

Answer 5

The creationists response it that there is a lot of water under the earth as is mentioned in the flood account.

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Answer 6

One is the proposed "Canopy theory". Some believed the earth may have been covered with a large layer of water directly above the ozone layer and it collapsed. This would have caused the majority of the earth to be a tropical environment. The Bible also says "the fountains of the deep" erupted. There are many underground springs and such still.

Answer 7

The Old Testament is a combination of allegorical stories, historical stories, and wisdom literature. I would say the story of the flood is allegorical (come on, you can't put two of every living creature on a boat, and light could always be refracted into a prism of colours) so it is meaningless for you to try to punch scientific holes in it. There is by the way evidence from other ancient sources that there was a huge flood in the middle east thousands of years ago, so there may very well be a historical basis for the story.

Answer 8

What if the earth was relatively flat?

I think that it would be more than possible if the surface area was spreadout and flatter.

What about the petrified clams in the closed position found on top of Everest? How did clams get there? How do they get petrified in the closed position?


Repost: Do you believe in evolution? If you do, you're willing to buy into pangea, but the flat earth is just too wild for ya', huh?
The bible talks about the mountains forming after the flood.

Answer 9

It can come out of no where. If you say it can't, then where did the Big Bang come from?

And There WON'T BE A GLOBAL FLOODING. i. e. if you put some water into a glass and place and ice cube there, measure it. Pretend it was 5 in. after you put those things in it. after the ice cube melts, it would still be 5 in. same as the earth. if all the ice melts, the water lvl will still be the same.

Answer 10

try the "Canopy" theory.
Theologians believe that the earth had a "ice shield," which protected man from UV light, which aided men to live 800+ years. When it melted, it caused the flood and man now lived up 70-120, considering the "full life."
No one but God would know how thick that shield was.

Answer 11

If there was a drastic up lifting of the seabed in the pacific with a corresponding sinking of the land there would be lots of extra water to flood every thing.