Naturalists create such a fuss over creationist theories about ancient geological history, often concluding they are contradictory and illogical. Granted every proposed model for creation or for the Genesis Flood by a creationist scientist cannot be true, because some of their models would contradict that of their own Christian colleagues. We are all trying to put meat on the bones of Genesis, and everything that is suggested doesn’t fit properly for all circumstances. Yet, this is to be expected, if we are seeking the truth about a singularity in the past that cannot be repeated today. The very same would be true of models presented by naturalist scientists. Everything they put forth cannot be true concerning the beginning of the universe, because some of their models contradict other naturalist models. Even the Big Bang theory is not universally accepted among scientists who don’t believe in God.
So, what about all the fuss over the waters of the Noahic Flood, where did it come from and where did it go? I already wrote a blog-post about the origin of the waters, so in this posting I intend to place more emphasis upon where the flood water went after it covered all the mountains (high hills)[1] of the earth.
Actually, evolutionists, themselves, provide a very reasonable model for where the flood waters went. Of course the time factor would be different in a creationist/Genesis Flood model, but such differences in worldview would be expected. Both creationists and evolutionists agree that, at one time in our ancient history, all the present continents were connected in one giant continent, the southern part of which some call Gondwana. How large this great continent was, we cannot say. Did it include only the existing continents, or was there even more landmass in existence at that time? One can only imagine, but there is evidence it may have been larger.[2] In any event, geologist, Dr. Terence McCarthy, and paleontologist, Dr. Bruce Rubridge, offer us a hint of how things may have occurred as the African continent emerged from the flood waters in their recent book, which speaks of the birth of the Indian and Atlantic oceans:
The break-up of Gondwana began with the opening of the Indian Ocean along the African east coast, heralded by the eruption of basalts and rhyolites of the Lebombo region… Some 120 million years ago, South America began to detach from Africa, opening rifts along the southern African west coast. This thinned the continental crust: the start of the Atlantic Ocean.[3]
As I claimed above, creationists would dispute the 120 million year timeframe, which corresponds to the naturalist’s theory of uniformitarianism, but there can be little doubt that McCarthy and Rubridge describe a very plausible argument for where the waters of the Genesis flood went.
About 70 % of the earth’s surface is presently covered by water, but this may have been a lot less in the pre-flood world.[4] Much of the present water may have come from under the earth’s crust. Nevertheless, the deep oceans of today hold the waters of the Noahic Flood of thousands of years ago. If the high mountains of today, like Mt. Everest, were shaved off (so people could actually live on and farm the **mountains**) and the deep crevices of the ocean floor were smoothed out, the oceans would again overflow their banks and cover the earth to about the depth described in Genesis 7; and if one smoothed all the dry land to sea level and also smoothed out the ocean floor, the entire globe would be covered by water up to nearly two miles above what was once dry land.
The problem is, the critics like to begin with a post-flood world, using post-flood topography, and ask: where did all the **additional** water come from to flood the entire earth, and where did all this **additional** water go? The answer to these questions lies in the operation of tectonics and hydraulics. If the earth’s crust from beneath the ocean floor pushes upward, the water must go somewhere. It flooded the ancient Pangaea world. Afterward, the ocean floor deepened, driving landmass higher on the large continent and eventually breaking it up over the next few centuries into smaller continents. The flood waters flowed off the huge continent into the deepening valley of the ocean floor. Eventually, the continent broke up over the next few centuries into what we find today. Some landmass was certainly lost to a larger and deeper ocean floor.
[1] In the pre-flood world there were no mountains like Mt. Everest or Mt. McKinley. The Lord made the earth to dwell in (Isaiah 45:18) even the mountains, like Mt. Zion, were meant to dwell upon, or at least could be farmed etc.
[3] Terence McCarthy and Bruce Rubidge, The Story of Earth and Life: A Southern African Perspective, Struik Publishers, Cape Town, p. 245-6, 2005.
[4] See Huge ‘Ocean’ Discovered Inside Earth; also Lou Bergeron, “Deep Waters,” New Scientist, vol. 155, pages 22–26, August 30, 1997.
Smoodock's Blog 
6 responses to “Where Did All the Water Go?”
While it is true that God does from time to time tell his prophets to do something weird rather than what is expedient (but not always), why would the Ark be a testimony of God’s judgment, unless it were a global event? People could wonder about Noah’s activity, but, instead of repenting, simply move out of the area as a ‘just in case’ maneuver.
Why do you believe the (local) flood occurred in the Middle-east? No cities are mentioned in Genesis 6-9, and the topography before the flood was much different from that after the flood, as implied by Peter (2Peter 3:5-11). He speaks of the world that then was being overflowed with water, and in contrast mentions heavens and earth which now are—and the whole of which is reserved for future judgment. Now, if the flood was local, why would Peter refer to it as a sign for a global judgment at the return of Christ (2Peter 3:10)? Now, you may try to use Sodom (2Peter 2:6) as an example of a single city where everyone was destroyed but Lot and his two daughters, but Peter isn’t using the same analogy in chapter 3. He is comparing a world that was destroyed with a world that would be destroyed, saying we (God’s people) should not become too attached. There seems to be a one to one comparison. One world is seen as a type of another. If the ancient world was merely a locality, then why wouldn’t we believe that Jesus, at his 2nd coming would merely judge a specific locality rather than the whole human race?
What would you call **hyper-evolution**? Do I believe that a dog, wolf and coyote are of the same biblical **kind**? Yes, I do. Do I believe a dog and banana have a common ancestor? No, I do not. The Ark was large enough for the job.
But, why would that be so, if the flood were local? I lived through a flood (i.e. the waters crested on a hill before it got to where I lived), but I hardly speak of it. Why would a local flood be so traumatic that so many civilizations retell it in some fashion?
Yet, you can’t show why it would be universal. Certainly if it were local, and if you could show that all mankind resided together in the same local, some of those listening to Noah may not really believe him, but be superstitious enough to move out of the area. All of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, yet we don’t hear of the descendants of Lot warning the world or, even their own civilization that man should live righteously. There are no Lot stories, except in the Bible.
You haven’t shown that the world before the flood was localized. How do you know it was localized and not spread out? You allow for animals being spread throughout the world, but not mankind. Why?
If there are gaps, it wouldn’t surprise me, but I believe it is close. Nevertheless, Abraham represents only the 8th generation after the Flood and already mankind is dispersed. Why wouldn’t mankind be dispersed after 10 generations of longer lived people? Why would population pressures exist in roughly 300 years after the flood, but they weren’t there in over 5 times that amount or roughly 1500 to 1600 years after creation?
I’m happy to kick it around with you. As for me, I was totally debunked a few years ago on a discussion board. I simply didn’t know how to respond. I toyed with an old earth but a young mankind, but I couldn’t put my heart into that. The text just didn’t seem to allow for it. It wasn’t until recently that I discovered why I was debunked. I gave the opposition too much respect. I thought they knew what they were talking about in certain scientific issues. They don’t (I’m speaking of naturalists here).
I believe Dr. John Baumgardner offers some specifics, but I know that from someone trying to debunk his model. He claimed Dr. Baumgardner mentioned 21 joules (if memory serves) concerning his model, but the critic claimed that would be enough to evaporate the oceans. I’m not certain how the remark fits in, however. It was a YouTube program I watched. Nevertheless, since the Flood (if global) is a singularity, what good are anyone’s specifics? Certainly we can and should toy with what could have been, just to see what would come about in our measurements, but how much should we put in cement? Just because we **say** the oceans would evaporate if such and such occurred, does that mean we **know** they would? Scientists **knew** Armstrong would sink into the moon dust when he stepped off the space craft, but the dust was only about 2 inches deep. Scientists **knew** a lot about Saturn until Voyager proved them wrong. What we **think** we know doesn’t always hold true. Some scientists may feel confident making strong statements about what would have had to have occurred IF there were a global flood, but how do we know they are correct? It is not as though they haven’t been wrong—very wrong—before, when predicting what should be or should have been. So, specifics may sound great, but the proof is in the pudding, but we cannot repeat a singularity.
At some point you will have to explain where all the oxygen went if CO2 spread over the entire globe during the Flood. While I don’t doubt there were dangerous gases accumulating in the atmosphere, while the earth was undergoing such change, I have trouble believing that the whole earth had no oxygen to breath. We have been polluting our atmosphere for over two hundred years now, and we are still able to breathe fairly well. We may have an increasing amount of respiratory problems that could be traced to industrial pollution, but we are still alive. Something occurred back in Noah’s day that caused humans to live shorter life-spans, so I don’t doubt there was adverse atmospheric conditions that weakened the human condition, but we are still alive. God has made us wonderfully and capable of enduring many adverse conditions. We have been weakened, but we are not dead.
Can we trust anyone’s **concrete** answers to these questions? Do we know what actually occurred? If we don’t, what good are our calculations even if the math is correct?
Thank you, I am improving in my manner. You couldn’t always have said that about me, sorry to say. :-)
And, I thank you for your manner in our discussion as well. I hardly ever received such grace on the discussion boards, even in their most ‘friendly’ attempts.
Well, “ex-nihilo” is a term I presently hold suspect, so where would that leave us? If you’re referring to Hebrews 11:3 the text concludes the universe was not made of physical stuff (as Plato thought). That said, how many ‘ergs’ of energy did it take for Jesus to walk on the Sea of Galilee or to multiply the loaves and fishes? If a miracle occurred, what does that mean? Does it mean God simply used laws that man hasn’t discovered yet, or does it mean only God can do such a thing? If only God could do such a thing, is he creating? Well, you may say he isn’t creating anything physical. Nevertheless, he is bringing into existence an event that cannot be accounted for by mere physics—or can it, if indeed he is merely operating on a higher law which supersedes known laws of physics, much like the law of aerodynamics is higher and supersedes the law of gravity?
I’m not suggesting more land was formed after the flood, I am suggesting we lost land—a lot of it. We gained more ocean water. No doubt there was still an unimaginable (at least for me) amount of energy to account for, but how was it all done? Do we know? We think we know how it must have occurred, if such a thing were to happen at all, and therefore conclude, mathematically, it couldn’t have happened. I have a deep distrust for models that presume mathematically how God **must** have acted, if he acted at all. I really don’t think we are able to figure out God this way. He wants us to know him, but, I believe we need to first humble ourselves before his word, and then use the laws of nature to support what we believe occurred. It seems to me, many folks like to set up the laws of physics as the model and try to fit God’s word into that sphere. I don’t believe it works that way—just my opinion.
I said:
“I don’t think there is a way of getting around the fact that God did head off some secondary effects in much the same manner as he puts a hedge about each one of us who loves him.”
You replied:
Hence, the single reference “God remembered Noah” (Genesis 8:1), hardly necessary to say, but it is there.
I’m enjoying our discussion, as well, my friend. :-)
Lord bless you.