How deep would The Flood have to have been to cover Earth?

I just want to point out that there isn't enough water on the planet to completely cover every inch of land

theres no reason to discount the theory of a massive underground resivour of some sort, which would also explain the flaws in carbon dating.




Figure 147: Increasing Amounts of Carbon-14. Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the organic matter being dated was part of a living organism. The assumption (shown in red), which few realize is being made, is that this ratio has always been what it was before the industrial revolution6-about one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms. Willard Libby, who received a Nobel Prize for developing this technique, conducted tests in 1950 which showed more carbon-14 forming than decaying. Therefore, the amount of carbon-14 and the ratio must be increasing. He ignored his test results, because he believed the earth must be more than 20,000 -30,000 years old, in which case the amount of carbon-14 must have had time to reach equilibrium and be constant.3 In 1977, Melvin Cook did similar, but more precise, tests which showed that the ratio was definitely increasing, even faster than Libby�s test indicated.

Today, carbon-14 forms in the upper atmosphere at the rate of 21 pounds a year, but in 5,730 years, half of it decays. Therefore, carbon-14 would normally increase from the time of the creation, as shown by the blue line. Before the flood, the blue line levels off as the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere approaches equilibrium-where the amount forming balances the amount decaying. Earth�s lush forests had so much carbon that the equilibrium level was much lower than today. Those forests, ripped up and buried during the flood, became our coal, oil, and methane deposits.

During the flood, carbon-12 released from the subterranean water chamber diluted the carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans even more. (Carbon-14 could not have formed in this chamber, because it was shielded from the cosmic radiation that produces carbon-14.) If one thought the C-14/C-12 ratio had always been what it is today, he would erroneously conclude that the reduced carbon-14 meant much time had passed. Instead, less carbon-14 was in the organism when it died.



Radiocarbon dates less than 3,500 years old are probably accurate. However, before accepting any radiocarbon date, one should know how the technique works, its limitations, and its assumptions. One limitation is that the radiocarbon technique dates only material that was once part of an animal or plant, such as bones, flesh, or wood. It cannot date rocks directly. To understand the other capabilities and limitations of radiocarbon dating, we must understand how it works and consider the flood.

Most carbon atoms weigh 12 atomic mass units. However, roughly one in a trillion carbon atoms weighs 14 atomic units. This carbon is called carbon-14. It is also called radiocarbon because it is radioactive (but not dangerous). Half of it will decay in about 5,730 years to form nitrogen. Half of the remainder will decay in another 5,730 years, and so on.

Cosmic radiation striking the upper atmosphere converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen each year into radiocarbon (carbon-14). Most carbon-14 quickly combines with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which then spreads throughout the atmosphere. Plants take in carbon dioxide, incorporating in their tissues both carbon-14 (unstable) and normal carbon-12 (stable) in the same proportion as they occur in the atmosphere. Carbon-14 then moves up the various food chains to enter animal tissue-again, in about the same ratio carbon-14 has with carbon-12 in the atmosphere.

When a living thing dies, its radiocarbon loss (decay) is no longer balanced by intake, so its radiocarbon steadily decreases with a half-life of 5,730 years. If we knew the amount of carbon-14 in an organism when it died, we could attempt to date the time of death. The key questions then are: �Has the atmospheric ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 changed in the past, and if so, why and how much?� The assumption usually made, but rarely acknowledged, is that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution1 was always the same-about one in a trillion. Actually, that ratio may have been quite different.

For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available from decaying vegetation to cycle between living things and the atmosphere. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere would increase. If the atmosphere�s ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things living soon after the flood would appear to be one half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. If that ratio quadrupled, organic remains would appear 11,460 (2 x 5,730) years older, etc. Consequently, a �radiocarbon year� would not correspond to an actual year.

Therefore, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general, been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight. As explained in Figure 147, recent measurements show this.3

Radiocarbon dating of vertical sequences of organic-rich layers at 714 locations worldwide has consistently shown a surprising result.4 Radiocarbon ages do not increase steadily with depth, as one might expect. Instead, they increase at an accelerating rate. In other words, the concentration of carbon-14 is unexpectedly low in the lower organic layers. As one moves to higher and higher layers, this concentration increases rapidly, just as we would expect in the centuries after a worldwide flood.

Tree-ring dating allows us to infer how the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 changed in the past. Some types of trees growing at high elevations with a steady supply of moisture will reliably add only one ring each year. In other environments, multiple rings can be added in a year.5 A tree ring�s thickness depends on the tree�s growing conditions, which vary from year to year. Some rings may even show frost or fire damage. By comparing sequences of ring thicknesses in two different trees, a correspondence can sometimes be shown. Trees of the same species that simultaneously grew within a few hundred miles of each other may have similar patterns. Trees of different species or trees growing in different environments have less similar patterns.

Claims are frequently made that wood growing today can be matched up with some scattered pieces of dead wood so that tree-ring counts can be extended back more than 8,600 years. This may not be correct. These claimed �long chronologies� begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be accurately dated by historical methods.7 This carries the chronology back perhaps 3,500 years. Then the more questionable links are established based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Sometimes �missing� rings are added.8 Each tree ring�s width varies greatly around its circumference. Also, parts of a ring may be dead wood. Standard statistical techniques could establish how well the dozen supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences fit. However, tree-ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data, so others can do these statistical tests.9

Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, a specimen�s carbon-14 atoms can now be actually counted, giving a more precise radiocarbon date with even smaller samples. The standard, but less accurate, radiocarbon dating technique only estimates the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations.

This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen-even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new �accelerator mass spectrometer� technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! 10

Radiocarbon dating of supposedly very ancient bones should provide valuable information. Why is such testing rare? Researchers naturally do not want to waste money on a technique that destroys their specimen and provides no specific age. Therefore, most researchers do not radiocarbon date any organic specimen they think is older than 100,000 years, even if it still contains carbon. All carbon-14 that was once in anything older than 100,000 radiocarbon years would have decayed; its age could not be determined. So, if a bone an evolutionist thinks is a million years old contains any detectable carbon-14, the bone is probably less than 100,000 radiocarbon years. Furthermore, Figure 147, shows why those �radiocarbon years� correspond to a much younger true age.


PREDICTION 36: Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction has now been confirmed.11 (Blind tests are explained on page 81.)



Very precise measurements now show that most fossils-regardless of presumed �geologic age�-have roughly the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. (This includes fossil fuels: coal, oil, and methane.) Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time-less than 100,000 years ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood.12

Radiocarbon dating is becoming increasingly important in interpreting the past. However, one must understand how it works and especially how a flood affected radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years are probably accurate. Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years, which are typical of coal, probably have much younger true dates near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000 years ago.

(note: i dont completely agree with that article, but the main body is sound)

At least 2 inches of water covering the entire surface area of all dry land.

Others have mentioned here already that the flood would have covered then known civilization, but I have annother new idea to add.

What if water levels in general were much lower than they are now (as we have had warming ever since and gradual melting of ice at the poles)? If water levels were much lower than the earth would have had more exposed land aka Atlantis etc. Thus a reasonable increase in water levels could literally flood entire land masses in some low lying areas.

This is all possible with a climate much like we have today on top of it all.

Originally posted by forsakenwayfarer
theres no reason to discount the theory of a massive underground resivour of some sort, which would also explain the flaws in carbon dating.

Actually, there IS reason to discount the theory of a "massive underground reservoir." It couldn't hold enough water. And if you sank the land, it would only fill up the area that sank.

If you sank the WHOLE crust of the earth, you'd see it in some very standard fractures and a completely consistant geologic column.

And the "flaws in carbon dating" pointed out in the article are somewhat bogus. The creationist group assumes that EVERY old date is determined by carbon dating when, in fact, this isn't true.

There's an extensive answer to a lot of that here:
www.talkorigins.org...

(and more all over the nets. TalkOrigins is THE sourcebook for the best arguments on both sides of the issue.)

Originally posted by THENEO
What if water levels in general were much lower than they are now (as we have had warming ever since and gradual melting of ice at the poles)? If water levels were much lower than the earth would have had more exposed land aka Atlantis etc. Thus a reasonable increase in water levels could literally flood entire land masses in some low lying areas.

This is all possible with a climate much like we have today on top of it all.

Nope.

You'd have to have an ice age to "expose Atlantis" (actually, you'd have to have something more than that because the water levels don't sink that low.) That would mean turning the Earth into a ball of ice and snow... and you'd think someone would mention this in the written records of human civilization.

The records (written) of lists of kings and their deeds and various civil documents (grain harvests) in various cultures stretch back to around 4,000 BC. These documents don't support the Bible (stories of the sun standing still, stories of great flood, stories of dispersals of people because no one could understand them) because nobody went back and ordered the writers to make their records match the Bible. We do know that there IS no such mention of any of those events in any other civilization (and you'll note that 4,000 years ago.. when there was a sizeable population according to those records, exceeds the 6,000 year old date for the "creation of the Earth."

And the old records (which noted grain harvests and so forth) would have mentioned the snow and ice.

There is no ancient Egyptian word for snow. Or ice.

Originally posted by RANT
If the highest mountain (Everest) is 29,000 feet above sea level, then for the Bible to be correct 15 cubits are 30,000 feet.

What is that, like 5 miles? Of course, a cubit was probably the commonly referred to 18 inches or whatever, so something's got to give...

And it aint Everest.

I mean if you think about, (if it happened)there should be fish fossils on every mountain top, and literally piles and piles of human and animal bones. Did everything not on the Ark just wait until they were neck deep to figure out something aint right? I'm not bashing here... but why just look for Noah's ark on mountian tops?

Shouldn't there be MILLIONS of dead people all in some cave near a mountain? Billions of insects on Everest? Or shouldn't every lake on the planet be salted? Imean where did Noah eventually find fresh water? More rain?

Sorry...I'm a jerk. But the flood myth really chaps my azz.

I still prefer the Sumerian version: www.historywiz.com...

Don't mess with the God Ea. He don't play.

[Edited on 30-12-2003 by RANT]

The people had no time to wait for the waters to flood over their heads to notice something was wrong. There was a surprise in the coming when the event occurred. The springs of the vast watery deep being broken open was an interpretation described by Noah of what he was seeing coming upon and around the ark. Notice the biblical account mentions the breaking of the springs before the floodgates of the heavens opened. The peoples were washed out and under by great waves of ocean and land. A great meteor hit on the opposite side of the earth and produced tsunamis.

Originally posted by lostinspaceThe peoples were washed out and under by great waves of ocean and land. A great meteor hit on the opposite side of the earth and produced tsunamis.

What about the coral? Coral dies in deep and/or fresh water. We have lots of coral formations older than 6,000 years.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by THENEO
What if water levels in general were much lower than they are now (as we have had warming ever since and gradual melting of ice at the poles)? If water levels were much lower than the earth would have had more exposed land aka Atlantis etc. Thus a reasonable increase in water levels could literally flood entire land masses in some low lying areas.

This is all possible with a climate much like we have today on top of it all.

Nope.

You'd have to have an ice age to "expose Atlantis" (actually, you'd have to have something more than that because the water levels don't sink that low.) That would mean turning the Earth into a ball of ice and snow... and you'd think someone would mention this in the written records of human civilization.

The records (written) of lists of kings and their deeds and various civil documents (grain harvests) in various cultures stretch back to around 4,000 BC. These documents don't support the Bible (stories of the sun standing still, stories of great flood, stories of dispersals of people because no one could understand them) because nobody went back and ordered the writers to make their records match the Bible. We do know that there IS no such mention of any of those events in any other civilization (and you'll note that 4,000 years ago.. when there was a sizeable population according to those records, exceeds the 6,000 year old date for the "creation of the Earth."

And the old records (which noted grain harvests and so forth) would have mentioned the snow and ice.

There is no ancient Egyptian word for snow. Or ice.

You did not understand what I said. The belief is that ice levels were much higher at the poles thousands of years ago, this tying up a lot of the world's present water supply thus the water table was much lower. This would have resulted in a lot more land mass on earth and even continents that do not exist now but would have at that time. Thus, any events that would have caused the water level to rise would have caused massive flooding in certain areas or over much of the world and particularily if certain land masses were not much higher than sea level at that time.

[Edited on 9-1-2004 by THENEO]

IMHO... this is a classic example of the Tail wagging Dog.

way back in the paleolithic up to neolithic , stone age,
the traveling hunters came across these sea shells & such up in the mountains...taking these relics back to the shamans & elders

they explained that the world was flooded by vengeful gods

as the humans spread & their numbers grew...so did the need for greater explainations, amplifications about the flood time...by the priestly class (that supplanted the family-clan-tribal shamans/medicine man&womans)

so, the universal flood...is 'universal' only because the various hunters in a variety of regions & lands, found these sea relics in improbable mountain areas...and a common 'enlightened answer' was::
A FLOOD BY ANGRY GOD....(or Goddess)

the Sumerians, Babylonian & Hebrew Patriarchs...created their own EMBELLISHMENTS, (to further their own ends, solidifing the turnover of culture from a Matriarchial society into the Patriachial society)
around 10-8000 BCE...

so, you-we are busily trying to fill in & rectify all the goofs/gaffes in the convoluted history of a flood myth...

ah, time for a 2nd cup of grog....

~*~ AUM

Damn it, god said he flooded the world, the whole world. He didn't say most of it or part of it, all of it, Everest included. So for this to have happened, well, there isn't enough water on this planet for it to have happened. Also, when salt and fresh water mixes, the salt and fresh water fish die, so unless Noah had a huge aquarium on the ark, there should be no fish.

So for all you christians going "well, he didn't mean the whole world, he just said it and it was written in the bible, but he didn't really do that" to explain your bull# that can be proven false by science.

Anyways, Noah didn't happen, science proves it didn't. Of course, science proved world was round but thousands were killed for saying it.

Jezbel, i remeber reading somewhere, that they had found a, i think its call a stiled level (which is mud and s#%t )of a couple of metres where they believe the flood occured, they reckon the story is probly true but it looks like a isolated event that occured in that area only, so maybe the mountains in that area wasnt very high, everyone has to remeber that the old testement is the story of a particluar group of people ie: the jews so just because its one of their stories does nt mean it applys to the whole of the world, just to their own view of the world at that time, what you think?

did the flood actually cover the whole earth from below sea level to the top of mountains. until all that remain on the floods surface was an ark? would the glaciers have an effect on this?And volcanoes? i have many questions.

The world then was was different than now. There was waters above...a canopy of water encircled the earth, open at the poles. Which made the earth like a greenhouse...probably why after the flood God said they could eat meat...there wouldn't be necessary nutrients, proteins, amino acids, etc in the food with the canopy gone.
When looking out at the pole they could probably see Saturn, hence Saturn worship and the god Cronus after the flood they could see the sun and the sun god defeats the saturn god