How Long Did the Flood Last?

Short answer: One year and 10 days.

Bible Reference: Genesis 7 & 8

The Bible says that Noah was 600 years old when the flood waters came upon the earth. God commanded Noah to bring his family and all the animals aboard the Ark and seven days later, it began to rain and God shut the door to the Ark. The Bible says that it all began “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” [Genesis 7:11]

It then began to rain for 40 days and nights. As the waters rose, the Ark was borne upon the waters with it. The waters covered all of the mountains by a depth of 15 cubits [about 22 feet 6 inches; the Ark itself was 30 cubits high, or 45 feet tall.]

After it rained that 40 days and nights, the waters prevailed on the earth for another 150 days [5 months] and everything that wasn’t aboard the Ark died. God made a might wind to pass over the earth and the waters began to recede. In fact, the Bible says that at the end of the 150 days of nothing but water, the Ark grounded itself on Mount Ararat. It was the 17th day of the 7th month of that year.

The waters continued to recede for a little over 2 months more, until on the 1st day of the 10th month, the tops of the mountains were exposed.

40 days after the tops of the mountains were seen, Noah sent forth a raven and a dove to see if the flood waters were abated. The dove returned to him, unable to find land, so he waited a week and sent it out again. This time, it came back with an olive leaf in its mouth. He waited yet one more week and sent it out one last time, but it did not return.

In the 601st year, 1st month and 1st day [on Noah’s birthday in other words], he looked and saw that the “face of the ground” was dry. But apparently not yet firm. On the 2nd month and 27th day, the ground was dry and God commanded Noah and those aboard the Ark to leave it.

So if we calculate the time that passed between the point where God shut the door of the Ark until God commanded them to leave it:

Year 601 Month 2 Day 27 [End date]

– Year 600 Month 2 Day 17 [Begin Date]

= 1 Year 0 Months 10 Days

75 Responses to How Long Did the Flood Last?

  1. Pingback: Most Popular Posts of 2010 |

  2. shefly says:

    Wow thnx

    • Cecil Raw says:

      The 7 days that God waited after Noah initially entered the ark often gets lost in calculation
      Gen. 7:4 Noah’s age when they entered the ark – 600 yrs / second month / 10th day
      Gen. 7:11 Noah’s age when flood started – 600 yrs / second month / 17th day
      Gen. 8:14 Noah’s age when they exited the ark – 601 yrs / second month / 27th day
      Total time on the Ark with the animals and his family would be 1 yr & 17 days
      Total time from the time the flood started to the time they exited would 1 yr & 10 days

  3. Hello I need to know the date the flood ended for a school project. I was wondering if y’all could help. Please help me I need the answer by 02.05.13 my e-mail is This is Alexandria

    • Tony Breeden says:

      Alexandria Day,

      There are two possible ways to calculate a date for the Flood. David Wright subtracts the accumulated dates of the Genesis genealogies [1656 years from Adam to the Flood] from the calculated date of creation [using Ussher’s calculated date of 4004 BC] to get the year 2348 BC. On the other hand, John Ashton and David Down calculate the date from the present using a revised Egyptian chronology which adjusts Manatheo’s inflated dates with Biblical and archaeological data, resulting in 2302 BC for the year of the Flood [Arphaxad being born to Shem 2 years later in 2300].

      More information is available on the latter method in Unwrapping the Pharaohs by John Ashton and David Down

      [see especially Chapter 28 and chart following]. More details concerning the former top-down approach is available at

      Hope that helps.

  4. Roy Guiffreda Sr. says:

    God told Noah to build the ark when he was 500 years old He was 600 years old when he finish it andthe rest is history the rain came for forty days and forty nights so 99years to built 1year and2 mounts Noah was 601years old

  5. marcia says:

    hello i go to sunday school i am ten i was wondering u can help me find out the answer for this quetion. what feet was the water. and how many months are in 150 days thank u

    • Tony Breeden says:


      There are 5 months in 150 days.

      The water rose to a height of 15 cubits [20-23 feet, depending upon whether you calculate with a short or a long cubit] above the mountains [Genesis 7:20]. Keep in mind that most creationist geologists consider Psalm 104:6-9 to be a description of the Flood. Psalm 104:8 declares, “The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them,” so Flood geologists believe that the mountains we see today are probably higher than the mountains of Noah’s day and that major geological changes took place beneath the flooded world. Because of this disparity between the pre- and post-Flood mountains, we have no way of determining a fixed depth for the Flood, but again we know the relative depth: it covered the mountains by at least 20 feet [which Noah probably determined by noting the Ark’s draught line, or [in simpler terms] how much of the Ark was beneath the water when it floated.]

      Hope that helps. Good question. I may give this one its own article someday ;]

  6. Pingback: Noah's Ark: the scientific version | Dean Burnett | Science |

  7. Pingback: Noah's Ark: the scientific version | Dean Burnett | Digital News Daily CA

  8. Pingback: Noahs Ark, the scientific version | marketspace

  9. Steve B says:

    So, Noah received all of the 8.74 billion species of plants and animals extant today, plus all those extinct(between 1 and 4 billion), into the ark. As well as enough food for all of them for the year, 2 months, and 10 days, while they were all in the ark. How long would that have taken? And then after the great flood, the 10 to 12 billion species would have been dispersed again over the entire earth. How long would that have taken? What about the fresh-water fish in the mixed ocean and fresh water flood waters? And the ocean fish and other creatures in that mix? It would have killed them. Unless…. Something else happened before, during, or after the flood to ameliorate those issues. Unless… the biblical account is not meant to be read as history but as myth.

  10. Jhon says:

    So good

  11. Steve B says:

    hmm I’m glad to see that you have come around to endorse the obvious, well documented, and completely demonstrable fact of the evolution of species. Even if you don’t want to call it that.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      I think you’ve missed the point precisely because evolutionists aren’t always honest about the distinction between observable micro-evolution [speciation, adaptation, mutation, natural selection, etc.] and proposed but unobservable macro-evolution [eg., microbes-to-man evolution]. Theodosius Dobzhansky proposed that evos equate the two terms back when he and others proposed the Neo-Darwin synthesis. Creationists affirm the observable science.

  12. Steve B says:

    Well we could go on and on about this but I am, honestly, gratified to read that you accept the evolution of species. Now all you need is time. A lot of time. And everything else will fall into place.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      Yeah. Time is not the hero of the plot. Macro-evolution is speculation based on an all-natural just-so story. You seem to confuse inference with fact. I rejected pure naturalism precisely because it is self-defeating. Those who affirm pure naturalism [anti-supernaturalism] must also inconsistently affirm that nature can do supernatural things: that everything can come from nothing [or unobservable, unprovable comic book multiverses when the observable sample size of universes is just ONE], that life can come from non-life [when no one has ever observed that] and that a frog can really become a prince if only we give it… a lot of time. At least my worldview is consistent. But I do admire your credulity.

  13. Steve B says:

    Thanks, and the same. Both our worldviews require believing in something that we have no observable basis to believe. I think that my worldview is more intellectually honest because I say, yeah you’re right, we really don’t know where matter came from originally. We really don’t know how life began. We have theories and some people may doggedly tout their theories as absolute fact but most, including myself,admit that we haven’t got it figured all out. We’re working on it. The Bible-literalist is forced to say, “I know” absolutely based on the Bible text as he or she rigidly interprets it. That requires extreme credulity.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      Extreme credulity? This from the guy who gave us the kinds=species straw man oft-repeated by evolutionists at the outset of his comments. I was completely convinced of your all-natural just-so story at one point; have you ever seriously investigated creationism beyond regurgitated misconceptions? Who exactly is credulous here?

      And what can we say of a worldview that requires one to say “We don’t know and may never know but the answer MUST be purely natural because our methodology will only consider all-natural answers”? Science chained to pure naturalism can only give us all-natural answers that may or may not be true and are most certainly false where supernatural agency was involved; unfortunately, science chained to naturalism would never be able to detect when it was wrong and would actually make up false but wholly natural answers to fill in the spaces that should have been explained by supernatural agency.

      Now as an FYI, creationism is a framework just as evolution is a framework. We change our theories within the framework just as you do, even if we do not give up the core tenets of the framework. You are just as rigid about your scientific framework as we are. If you knew more about what you so vigorously objected to, if you knew more about this creationism you find so wrong [rather than simply accepting evolution with credulity; sorry, had to be said], you’d know this.

  14. Steve B says:

    Well one thing I don’t claim to know is who you are and your scope of knowledge/background, as you claim to know about me. You don’t know me but think you do. I think that is a replication of theism, thinking that you know someone who you don’t really know. “Have I actually investigated creationism..?” I have been all my life steeped in it. And in my defense to your argument that I don’t really know creationism, I would add that it is kind of hard to nail down since there are so many different views w/in Christianity and even w/in the creationist camp.
    Recently I’ve been approaching the Bible with a more open mind, with a willingness to ask questions that I felt I was not allowed to ask before, and therefore am more open to more possibilities than rigid literalism. That was the point of my first post: that it could be that the Bible, especially things like the flood account, was never meant to be taken as literal history. It was not written as such and was never understood that way by it’s audience until in the last couple of hundred years when a new framework was imposed on the Bible, one rising from the Enlightenment, that felt like it had to have a hermetically tight literal, infallible, intellectually plausible interpretation of the whole Bible. Anyway, that’s a whole chunk to bite off and chew!

    Now as to your point of comparing worldviews again: sure, many people have absolutely written off theistic/supernatural options, but did you read me doing that? I am only questioning your absolutism basing everything on ancient texts and using the aforementioned matrix. In other words, you are doing the same exact thing you claim that I’m doing: holding doggedly to one presupposition. Which I am not. I am open to possibilities. You are totally denying the possibility of naturalistic answers for what you read as supernatural agency, which is the inverse error of which you accuse me(denying the possibility of supernatural agency, which by the way I don’t). Wow. That was a lot to get in here! I have found this interesting, and even revealing regarding your acceptance of naturalistic evolution since that is one area that most creationists have seemed to avoid in my experience. But I get the feeling that our differing worldviews will not be reconciled. So I would like to get back to my original post again: to clarify your answer: God brought “kinds” of animals to the ark, not all the existing species. Then after the flood, those “kinds” went out and speciated in a rapid form of micro-evolution. OK. I don’t think that is what happened since I don’t think that the text was written to mean that, neither do I think that it adequately explains the current diversity and distribution of species in the world, given the time frame you seemed to indicate. But if that’s your story, and your sticking with it, we really don’t have anywhere else to go! I should have known that before posting… but it has been interesting. Signing off.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      I do hope that you haven’t opened your mind to accepting error. I understand where you’re coming from but beware of tossing out the baby with the bathwater. Peace, Tony

    • I enjoyed this back and forths between you guys.

      One common mistake people make is that they try to ‘limit’ the ability of God, or at least in their understanding. Listen Jesus says “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God” Matthew 22:29, Mark 12:24.

      Indulge me as I share these two scriptures with you.

      1. In First Peter 3:20, the Apostle Peter Collaborates the account of the flood
      2. Listen to Jesus “People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.” Luke 17:27

      It is a fearful thing to fall into the hand of the Almighty God. I beg you to be reconciled with God. God was looking for an excuse to save us (Romans 5: 8 – But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.), we should never scorn the opportunity. Please my friends, be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20).

      How do you read John 5:17? Jesus says “…My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” God can do anything. I know that God made the whole world in 6 days, but I know that He did not physically build the house I live in (though it is now part of the world). I know that God made me, but He chose my parents to bring me into the world through them. Yet, I believe in the 6 day blue-print, my place on earth was clearly marked out.

      If anyone wants to know the ways of God, they have to follow the principles of God. You cannot receive a satellite TV with your FM radio. You need a satellite dish and a satellite receiver to do so. If you try with your old short wave radio and is unsuccessful, it does not mean that there is no satellite TV. You just don’t have the right tools. Faith is the right tool to receive from the Supernatural.

      A dear friend of mine (Daniel) read the bible and believed that what Jesus says concerning him in the bible is true (Mark 16:16-18, Luke 1:37). A 9-year old boy who never walked in his life was brought to him. He spoke the word in the name of Jesus and the little boy stood up, leaped and started walking for the first time in his 9 years.

      This is the way to proof the word of God. If He said it and confirms it, what else do you want? Would you rather believe that ‘someone seeded’ life on earth? That requires a lot of faith though. But if you want to believe that, who and where is that ‘someone’ and why would anyone want to seed life on earth unless they have a plan? And who ‘seeded life’ to that someone, unless at the end of the chain there is ‘Someone’ Supernatural whose life is in Himself (eternal/everlasting)?!

      Anyone who does not believe in God always ends up believing in something fair too inferior. I think you are too smart for that.

      Give your life to Jesus today. He was looking for an excuse to save me and you. He gave us Jesus so that if we believe, He will save us. I believe, would you consider him today?

      Say this “Lord Jesus, I want to believe, show me Your way by Yourself. Make yourself real to me. Amen.”

      If you said this simple but power prayer by faith, secretly, watch what happens openly. You are on your way to heaven. But if you did not, I still hope you will someday…I hope to see you in heaven.

      If and when you get to heaven, please ask of the guy who wrote this response…I’ll like to catch up with you. God bless you real good.

  15. mary says:

    Most enjoyable reading of you guys conversation. Im All for the BIBLE!!! Thanks Guys, its been on my mind, and NO I have not yet seen the new movie…..

  16. Tifina Casualao says:

    this is fake, in the bible and what i learnt at school says that the storm/flood only lasted 40 days. the 41st day was when God made the land dry again and everyone was safe including the animals. where did you get this information and why did you say it because it is FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. Pingback: Eric Hovind Offers Fake Apology After Using Flood Site for Pro-Creationism Video

  18. BillyBee says:

    *Genesis 1:31 – “…and God saw everything…And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.” Genesis 7:12 – “And it rained upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” **My question is: By what “calendar” were these “biblical days and nights” defined? *Were these days in Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 7:12 (24)-hours long as we, now, calculate by the calendar of today – which I think is the Julienne calendar?

    • Tony Breeden says:

      If either the nights were much longer than they are today, life would have ceased to exist. Plants need that sunlight. We have no reason to presume the days of Genesis were any different than we reckon a day now.

  19. allen993 says:

    I Believe That The Flood Lasted About Forty Days And Forty Nights Until The Water Covered The Whole Earth And It Takes Many Days Until The Flood Finally Receded From The Earth!

  20. jared plug says:

    The flood started on the 27th day of the second month and ended on the 17th day on the second month so. Genesis 8:13,14. the flood lasted just over a year.

  21. H. - U. Friedrich says:

    Steve B. said: “hmm I’m glad to see that you have come around to endorse the obvious, well documented, and completely demonstrable fact of the evolution of species.”

    But just one day later he thinks this: “Both our worldviews require believing in something that we have no observable basis to believe.”

    How can anything be “completely demonstratable; well documented” without having any “observable basis to believe”?

    Are these the Evolutionists, who want to tell the world what happened Millions of years ago, while they appearantly can’t remember what they
    said just yesterday?

    • Steve B says:

      Well H., read carefully and use your evolution-given brain: that one’s worldview requires believing something that we have no observable basis does not mean that EVERYTHING one holds as true is based on subjective belief. Facts, like evolution, does not require belief, since it is obvious, well-documented, and demonstrable.

      • Tony Breeden says:

        So you’ve seen everything come from nothing [or comic book multiverses]? You’ve seen life emerge from non-life? You’ve seen one kind of creature become an entirely different type of creature [not merely a moth becoming a different species of moth]? I think you require more faith than your credulity has let you realize!

  22. Steve B says:

    Tony: I could try to explain evolutionary biology to you, but plenty has been written and proven through everything from fossils to DNA to the distribution of species throughout the globe. And more. I am heartened that you seem to be willing to accept a moth “merely” becoming a different species of moth. That is biological evolution, right there. All you need to catch on to big picture(macro) is, more time!

  23. H. - U. Friedrich says:

    Steve B: Your reply is a case-study and exemplary for Evolutionary-Theorists like you, who try to replace a lack of knowledge and logic with a dismissive attitude. Fail. Go back and start at the basics. You wrote: “does not mean that EVERYTHING one holds as true is based on subjective belief.” but then claimed your system of belief would be: “completely demonstratable”!

    “Completely” but “not Everything”?? Which way would you like to present your ideas: as “completely demonstratable”, or maybe just as “not quite observable” and hence “requiring belief”?

    Your patronising “read carefully” and “use your brain” is just involuntarily comical in the context, and demonstrates your helplessness.

    PS.: You have not answered my question: “How can anything be “completely demonstratable” without any “observable basis to believe”? Maybe thats too difficult for you, so in simple terms: How can you demonstrate and document a proven fact of something which is not observable or repeatable?

  24. Steve B says:

    Well, to cut through your making an alphabet soup out of my words, it is simple enough to explain that evolution IS observable, scientifically.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      The only part of biology that is observable is the part that both creationists and evolutionists agree on. Common descent [molecules-to-man] evolution is an assumption based on the premise of pure naturalism

  25. Pingback: A Snail’s Tale: Debunking a Global Flood | Bad Science Debunked

  26. Chris says:

    I am struggling with a couple of things. If god made the animals, why did Noah need to save them? 2) if god knows all, then he rightfully made the serpent knowing Adam and Eve would sin?

    • Tony Breeden says:

      1. Adam was given dominion over all creation. When He fell, his kingdom fell with him. When God decided to destroy the Earth for man’s sin, he could have decided to simply destroy everything. He didn’t, meaning the Dominion mandate was still in effect, making it man’s responsibility to care for the animals. Thus, God tasked Noah with saving the animals aboard the Ark.
      2. Free will involves real choice. Foreknowledge of an event isn’t the same thing as causing something to happen. If Adam & Eve were prevented by God from making the bad choice they made based on His foreknowledge, free will would not truly exist. God knew that their very real choice would end badly so He made provision for their salvation from the foundation of the world.

  27. kurakpio Matthew Anthony says:

    if Noah build the ark for such long time of period, which kind of wood did he use and which last for that 100years+?
    how was it posible for the animals to stay for that long with out getting their different types of food?

  28. mary says:

    I believe when the flood ended Noah was 601 years and 6 days old, so the flood lasted one year. Somewhere around that time table. Of course, they calculated “time” differently back then, they actually counted backwards, in BCE … and then became Common or Christine Era counting time AD 1,2,3,4. etc. Oh, and GOD gave Noah, GOPHER Wood. Cast the animals into a deep slumber, where they probably rose every once in a while to eat – GOD forBode, pro-creation during this time of flood, even for Noah and His Wife …. so they would not run out of food by “multiplying”

  29. Creationists claim that evolution is completely false, and yet here they support the story with theory of evolution, Also Mary, people would not have counted backwards, they don’t no that at some point in future where year will be counted forward so we should count backward. Also if flood waters covered the earth for nearly a year, how did all the plants and trees survived, how much of food stock did Noah had on the ark.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      I think you’re confused. Creationists reject the Grand Theory of Evolution because it’s rooted in pure naturalism. We reject the claims of microbes-to-man evolution because they aren’t observable, testable, repeatable or falsifiable and they contradict the supernatural revelation of the Bible. On the other hand, creationists affirm speciation, adaptation and other changes within a created kind because they are observable. See the following article on our site for more:

      • Steve B says:

        Wow. Your criteria is “observable, testable, repeatable or falsifiable(?)”. So have you got that all lined up for your “7 – 24-hr – day creation”? And if you affirm “speciation, adaptation, and other changes” all you need is more time!

      • Tony Breeden says:

        Are you misunderstanding me on purpose?

      • Lynn Salton says:

        If Noah took the various clean and unclean animals onto the Ark and they floated around for over a year… what happened to all the plants that were submerged under salt water for a year?  The Bible seems to suggest that when the water subsided the flora was unaffected, but it would take at least a year for the first crop to grow and it still doesn’t explain where the seeds would have come from.  Trees would take years to grow before they could provide fruit and nuts.  There is no explanation as to where the root stock or seeds would come from as the earth had been flooded for a year, permanently killing-off all of the flora Noah’s fauna would need to survive.  Seems rather cruel to save the animals two-by-two (or more) just to watch them starve to death when the waters receded.  It seems a localized flood is far more likely.

  30. Steve Brauning says:

    No, I understand that you are very selective on applying your scientific criteria.

  31. Vic says:

    Why did it take God 40 days to cover the earth in water? If God created everything in seven days, He could have flooded it much faster. Why 40 days?

    • Tony Breeden says:

      The Bible doesn’t say it took 40 days to cover the earth; it says it rained for that period AND that the fountains of the deep were opened up. The flood kept rising for some time, as I noted in the article you just commented on.

      As to why God took his time when He could’ve went faster, I would ask you to keep in mind that just because God can do anything that is consistent with His revealed nature doesn’t mean He has to. Nowhere is maximum efficiency demanded by omnipotence. In fact, we see in the Creation Week that God sits back [so to speak] at the end of each day to appreciate His handiwork as any creator or craftsman would.

      Of course, the reason it took so long is because God apparently opted to use natural processes [He’s allowed] which necessarily take longer than the standard miracle. If you want to know why He used natural processes for the Flood rather than supernatural means… It isn’t recorded in the Bible, but I intended to ask Him on the other side ;]

      • Meagan says:

        I personally think God used the natural processes to create the atmospheric condition we know today… there is a pointed verse which says rain did not occur before the flood. I think it’s cool to think of the atmosphere cells creating as God enacts the future of his creation… also like to think of evolution as God loving and providing for His creation… any who, nice article :) And thanks for taking the time to answer us all back :)

      • Tony Breeden says:

        There’s actually no verse that says it never rained before the flood.

      • Lynn Salton says:

        If he used “natural forces”… what are the mythical Fountains of the Deep?

      • Tony Breeden says:

        Why do you presume they were mythical. The theory of catastrophic Plate tectonics offers one non-mythical identification of the fountains of the great deep.

        From Answers in Genesis [“A Catastrophic Breakup”]:

        “The catastrophic plate tectonics model of Austin et al. described in this article begins with a pre-Flood supercontinent surrounded by cold ocean-floor rocks that were denser (heavier) per unit volume than the warm mantle rock beneath.7 To initiate motion, this model requires a sudden trigger large enough to “crack” the ocean floor adjacent to the supercontinent, so that zones of cold, heavy ocean-floor rock start sinking into the upper mantle.

        In this model (Figures 3 and 4), as the ocean floor (in the areas of the ocean trenches) sinks into the mantle, it drags the rest of the ocean floor with it, in a conveyor-belt-like fashion. The sinking slabs of cold ocean floor produce stress in the surrounding hot mantle rock. These stresses, in turn, cause the rock to become hotter and more deformable, allowing ocean slabs to sink even faster. The ultimate result is a runaway process that causes the entire pre-Flood ocean floor to sink to the bottom of the mantle in a matter of a few weeks. As the slabs sink (at rates of feet-per-second) down to the mantle/core boundary, enormous amounts of energy are released.8

        The rapidly sinking ocean-floor slabs cause large-scale convection currents, producing a circular flow throughout the mantle. The hot mantle rock displaced by these subducting slabs wells up to the mid-ocean rift zones where it melts and forms new ocean floor. Here, the liquid rock vaporizes huge volumes of ocean water to produce a linear curtain of supersonic steam jets along the entire 43,500 mi (70,000 km) of the seafloor rift zones. Perhaps this is what is meant by the “fountains of the great deep” in Genesis 7:11. These supersonic steam jets capture large amounts of water as they “shoot” up through the ocean into the atmosphere. Water is catapulted high above the earth and then falls back to the surface as intense global rain, which is perhaps the source for the “floodgates of heaven” in Genesis 7:11.”

        -Hope that helps.

      • Lynn says:

        According to The Bible Noah’s Ark survived flooding… what you described would create steam, not water and when that steam condensed you would have exactly the same amount of water as you started with NOT more water. Furthermore, all of your talk of sinking ocean floors would create the opposite of rising water.

      • Tony Breeden says:

        I never said the Flood created more water. Creationists believe that there is probably exactly the same amount fo water on the Earth now as there was prior to the Flood: Where Did the Flood Waters Go?

  32. Vic says:

    Thank you.

  33. ccbermudez says:

    awesome thanks for the help guys.

  34. J says:

    Thank you! Great information!

  35. Joel Jacob Jose says:

    How did water start to decrease? The Earth was completely surrounded with water. That means, the underground water holding capacity of earth was filled completely, that it cannot hold anymore water. That’s why water started to rise and came up to the surface.
    If the answer is evaporation, then how coud such a huge crore tonnes of litre of water csn be taken by the Sun.

  36. lynn says:

    So in order for your version to work, reality must be altered to satisfy your conditions. The earth must have been flatter and the oceans must have been shallower? The Pacific Ocean sank 36,000+ feet, the Himalayas popped-up 29,000+ feet, the continents drifted thousands of miles apart and this has all occurred in the last 4000 years? If you have to alter reality or introduce the supernatural to make your theory work, it’s probably not what really happened.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      While creationists believe that these geographical changes occurred during the year long Flood, it says much about your own presumptions that the supernatural must be ruled out a priori. All that science chained to pure naturalism can do is give us all-natural answers that may or may not be true, and are certainly false where the supernatural was involved. Your assumption that the natural answer must be correct ignores the fact that naturalism is self-refuting in that it must affirm that nature can do supernatural things that we’ve never observed in nature [e.g, everything can come from nothing, life can come from non-life, a frog can really become a prince after all if we just give it enough time and drift. etc.].

  37. Lynn says:

    A tricky bit of circular logic. Science is not chained to nature, science is the pursuit of knowledge (truths) based on observation and testable explanations and predictions. Science doesn’t require the supernatural as a “wild card” to fill-in theoretical gaps. At no point is naturalism self-refuting because it makes no claim that supernatural things occur.
    Furthermore, creationist apologists claiming the supernatural as a plausible theory simply reduce the Bible to the literary equivalent of a comic book hero like Superman or a magical Harry Potter… which then reduces biblical stories to mid-eastern versions of Aesop’s Fables.
    By the way…
    The singularity of a black hole is a very real, observable and testable example of something AND nothing. While Steven Hawking et al work out the physics, it’s not hard to understand how something can come from nothing. A singularity creating a “Big Bang” does not require a supernatural (made-up / magical / mystical / fictional) explanation.
    At no time has anyone claimed a frog can evolve into a prince. That is an intentional and frivolous misrepresentation of evolution.

    • Tony Breeden says:

      “A tricky bit of circular logic. Science is not chained to nature, science is the pursuit of knowledge (truths) based on observation and testable explanations and predictions. Science doesn’t require the supernatural as a “wild card” to fill-in theoretical gaps.”

      I never invoked a God of the gaps approach, so perhaps you ought to read my responses more closely. Actually, I said science is chained to pure naturalism [not nature, as you misquoted]. Science chained to naturalism has no way of determining when the supernatural is called for and simply assumes that natural answers are correct a priori. It does so on faith, for it cannot determine when the supernatural is called for or not; it can only provide all-natural answers that may or may not be true and are certainly false where the supernatural is involved. Of course, since naturalism will not consider the supernatural as an answer and has no way to determine when a supernatural answer should be accepted instead of the natural one, it must needs give wrong but natural answers in cases where the supernatural should have been invoked. The only way to determine whether a supernatural answer was called for is revelation [i.e., the Bible]. Thus it becomes a matter of what your ultimate authority is in interpreting the facts: science chained to naturalism or science informed by supernatural revelation. Before you dismiss the latter approach out of hand, you should know that Bible-affirming scientists founded many of its scientific disciplines in their quest to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”

      “At no point is naturalism self-refuting because it makes no claim that supernatural things occur.”

      I named off at least three cases in which science makes claims that nature acted in ways we never observe nature doing [i.e. everything from nothing, life from non-life, one kind of animal changing into a different kind altogether [viz., whales-to-ungulates, etc.], thus invoking natural miracles or processes beyond what we observe in nature [i.e., the supernatural]. The insistence that all answers must be natural must needs invoke a sort of naturalism of the gaps.

      “Furthermore, creationist apologists claiming the supernatural as a plausible theory simply reduce the Bible to the literary equivalent of a comic book hero like Superman or a magical Harry Potter… which then reduces biblical stories to mid-eastern versions of Aesop’s Fables.”

      Actually, saying that we can’t trust the Bible’s history but we can nonetheless glean moral lessons from it reduces the Bible to something like Aesop’s fables. The only reason you would make this claim about the Bible, comparing the miracles and supernatural acts recorded within its pages to magic or comic book powers, is if you assume that the supernatural doesn’t exist anyway… which means you think that God [a supernatural being] and the Bible [a supernatural revelation] are bunk anyway. Of course, the evidence for the resurrection of Christ and the phenomenon of fulfilled Bible prophecy validate the Bible’s claims to being an authentic supernatural revelation, so we ought to trust its authority over any other.

      “By the way… The singularity of a black hole is a very real, observable and testable example of something AND nothing. While Steven Hawking et al work out the physics, it’s not hard to understand how something can come from nothing. A singularity creating a “Big Bang” does not require a supernatural (made-up / magical / mystical / fictional) explanation.”

      According to a mathematical study by Laura Mersini-Houghton et al, it may be that black holes, event horizons and singularities cannot not exist. When stars much bigger than the sun collapse under their own gravity, they are thought to collapse into singularities and form black holes, throwing off Hawking radiation in the process. Black holes are predicted by Einstein’s theory of gravity, but they conflict with a fundamental law of quantum theory that says that no information can ever disappear from the universe. This is referred to as the loss problem. In the study, researchers attempting to resolve this contradiction found that the stars shed mass too quickly to form an event horizon (i.e., it loses gravity as it loses mass); therefore, if the results of this study are correct, event horizons, black holes and singularities aren’t mathematically possible.

      In any case, Hawking invokes the multiverse to make this universe possible. Essentially, we’re just one of the inevitable outcomes of all possible universes. This ignores the fact that our observable sample size of universes is exactly one. It also ignores the Alice’s Restaurant Problem: a theory that predicts everything really predicts nothing.

      “At no time has anyone claimed a frog can evolve into a prince. That is an intentional and frivolous misrepresentation of evolution.”

      While my remark was tongue-in-cheek, this is exactly what evolutionist claim happened: they believe that an amphibian evolved into a reptile, a reptile into a mammal, etc, until a primate mammal evolved into a human who eventually developed social systems that made a prince possible. So the frog became a prince over about 360 million years. In any case, what we see is that a dog is still a dog and recognizably so, be it a wolf, teacup poodle or an English bulldog. We don’t observe goo-to-you evolution; the dots are only connected in our heads and the Bible says they really shouldn’t be

  38. John basweti says:

    Praise God,to have gone through this wonderful teachings…I ask that Imay get more from you for my growing Church.Thank you,please I ask.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s