Fourth of Six

Listen Up! There will be a test!

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Mountains under the ice

Experts have mapped the mountains under the Antarctic ice cap and determined that they are as large as the Alps.
"The surprising thing was that not only is this mountain range the size of the Alps, but it looks quite similar to the (European) Alps, with high peaks and valleys," said Fausto Ferraccioli, a geophysicist at the British Antarctic Survey who took part in the research.
He told Reuters that the mountains would probably have been ground down almost flat if the ice sheet had formed slowly. But the presence of jagged peaks might mean the ice formed quickly, burying a landscape under up to 4 km (2.5 miles) of ice."[emphasis mine]

How much ice is that?

"Antarctica, bigger than the United States...contains enough of it to raise world sea levels by about 57 metres (187 feet) if it ever all melted."

Does this mean that there could have been a world-wide flood at some point? That the earth could have been much warmer, and rapidly cooled? That there was some kind of event which caused all this to happen suddenly?

What if "the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights."? Genesis 7:11-12

Labels: , , , ,


At 10:03 AM, Blogger Bobmo said...

Here's a satellite photo of Mt. Everest from the NASA Earth Observatory. Notice the reference in the accompanying text to the existence of marine fossils on the top of the worlds highest mountains.

Notice also that NASA attributes this phenomenon to plate tectonics. Of course. How else could they have gotten there?

Here's the reference in the fifth paragraph: "The presence of limestone and ocean marine fossils at the top of these mountains is one of the key pieces of evidence cited that advanced the idea of plate tectonics..."

At 6:56 PM, Blogger Becky said...

I thought the Flood caused plate tectonics.

At 12:01 PM, Blogger Bobmo said...

Good point. So, either way, they were caused by the flood. But if you assume that a world-wide flood is impossible, you are forced to come up with an alternative explanation.

At 9:31 PM, Blogger Dedwarmo said...

The Earth is already pretty smooth. Smooth it out a little more and watch those coastlines recede until they vanish.

If the earth started out as a molten sphere, I would imagine that as the crust cooled it would have been smoothest at first and became more wrinkled the cooler it became. Scientists have theories about how there came to be so much water on the earth. Maybe Noah is referring to that event.

Still even if only the Middle East was flooded Noah might have thought the whole earth was covered in water, when in reality he was only a hundred miles from land.

When there are some many possible explanations how can someone be so dogmatic about their favorite explanation?

At 11:00 PM, Blogger Becky said...

Noah's flood lasted over a year. He could have circumnavigated the globe in that amount of time. Certainly a local flood would have receded long before then. Or Noah was an idiot to miss sighting land and sail around in circles for a year!

At 2:33 PM, Blogger Bobmo said...

In addition to the length of the flood, there are other arguments for a global flood:

1) If it were local, Noah would have had plenty of time to escape. I seem to recall he had a few years' warning.

2) With a local flood, there would be no need for an Ark in which to protect the various kinds of animals. The purpose of the flood was “to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.” (Genesis 7:3) Most animals could have easily migrated away from the flood area.

3) A local flood would not have covered the "high hills" and "mountains," since water seeks its own level. “And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” (Genesis 7:19–20)

4) The Rainbow Covenant would have meant that God promised never again to send a local flood.

At 9:43 AM, Blogger Dedwarmo said...

According to one Bible timeline I saw the flood occurred at around 2348 B.C. and Moses was born about 1646 B.C. That's about 700 years. There are some who believe that Genesis wasn't written down until 1000 - 500 B.C. That's a long time for the facts surrounding the flood to have been embellished. Of course, I can't say for sure that it didn't happen as Genesis describes. I just know how easy it is for errors to creep into stories that are passed along for a long time.

At 9:45 AM, Blogger Dedwarmo said...

I'm assuming Moses wrote the book of Genesis.

At 11:53 AM, Blogger Bobmo said...

The flood account in the Bible has a lot going for it. It is internally consistent and compatible with many scientific discoveries (marine fossils on mountain tops, marine fossils found on every continent, limestone deposits (marine source) on mountains and in deserts, etc. The Sahara desert was under water at one time.

Plus, Jesus Himself treated the account as factual.


Post a Comment

<< Home