Coral reefs present a problem for creationists, since we know that coral reefs only grow by several millimeters per year, and that for something like the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Northern Australia, a minimum age of several hundred *thousand* years is necessary to accommodate for that incredibly slow depositional rate per year.

The age of Funafuti Atoll goes back to before the LGM at the very least, as attested by this article:
[url]
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ro ... 35dd79.pdf[/url]

With such incredibly slow depositional rates in mind, and how a global flood would surely be a wrecking ball of geology, how do creationists expect us to believe that these coral reefs, which need not so turbulent waters to grow in (and if we know anything about floods, they're anything *but* turbulent), formed in the Great Noachian Deluge of yore?

Creationists may get around this by saying that God would have coral reefs grow several growth rings in a year, but that would be needlessly deceptive, and Occam's Razor helps dispatch that claim easily, since it's more parsimonious to assume a minimum age of thousands of years for any given coral reef given incredibly slow depositional rates than it is to assume that God put coral reef growth rates on turbo driver, so that we somehow have *several* growth rings per year.

Funnily enough we have actually put this claim to the test, and as usual it was easily falsified, since for some unfathomable reason any actual predictions creationists make always get disproven for some reason or another. One coral reef grew by an entire *foot* for one year alone, and according to creationist predictions this coral reef would have at least several growth rings, instead what we find is that this coral reef had one *giant* growth ring to account for that foot of growth in a single year, rather than being divvied up into multiple different growth rings, as seen in this paper:

https://peerj.com/articles/1313.pdf?utm_source=Mote+Marine+Laboratory+and+Aquarium+News+for+Media+Only&utm_campaign=e1f25321a2-2015+End-of-year+press+release&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_82d7546332-e1f25321a2-278735865

The earth being entirely covered by water, itself, poses a problem for creationists, without needing to go into the existence of coral reefs. (Or records of civilisations thriving during the supposed deluge)

Add it to the list of magic needed to make The Great Flud not a fantasy folklore story made up by understandably ignorant Bronze Age goat-herders.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The earth being entirely covered by water, itself, poses a problem for creationists, without needing to go into the existence of coral reefs. (Or records of civilisations thriving during the supposed deluge)

I mean one would need more than four to five times the amount of water that exists on Earth in order to cover Mount Everest, and that begs the question, where did all that water go?

Oxyaena wrote:Coral reefs present a problem for creationists...

No rational argument presents a problem for anyone who seriously believes that the great flood really did happen as described in Genesis 6:9–9:17.

Global flood did happen after snowball Earth and God/Bible holds free and fast with the times, thousand years is a day to the Lord etc. Could say coincidence but I read Erik Van Daniken when I was a kid not The Bible....so aliens. God is a engineer like in the movies.

aufbahrung wrote:Global flood did happen after snowball Earth...

Source?

aufbahrung wrote:Global flood did happen after snowball Earth and God/Bible holds free and fast with the times, thousand years is a day to the Lord etc.

If all the ice on earth had melted, vaporised and rained down with sufficient speed to cause a flood, it would only be enough to raise sea levels by approximately 80 metres globally. Not even the snowball earth hypothesis can account for the appearance of sufficient water to flood the highest mountains, and of course one would have to resort to more absurd explanations in regard to how such massive amounts would have disappeared.

Not that fundies have not tried. See flood geology for a laugh. As I wrote above, no rational argument presents a problem for anyone who seriously believes that the great flood really did happen as described in Genesis 6:9–9:17.

Good point. That's gonna give me food for thought all day. Know there's water in those clouds up in space. More than enough to achieve total submergence if the solar system passed through one of them.

aufbahrung wrote:Good point. That's gonna give me food for thought all day. Know there's water in those clouds up in space. More than enough to achieve total submergence if the solar system passed through one of them.

Know what? I suppose you don't know that 74% of our solar system consists of hydrogen, 24% of it is helium and that 1% is oxygen. The water clouds in space are a figment of your imagination.

Hermit wrote:

aufbahrung wrote:Good point. That's gonna give me food for thought all day. Know there's water in those clouds up in space. More than enough to achieve total submergence if the solar system passed through one of them.

Know what? I suppose you don't know that 74% of our solar system consists of hydrogen, 24% of it is helium and that 1% is oxygen. The water clouds in space are a figment of your imagination.

If nebula can make stars/planets they can make high density concentrations of water/dust.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 78.summary

aufbahrung wrote:

Hermit wrote:

aufbahrung wrote:Good point. That's gonna give me food for thought all day. Know there's water in those clouds up in space. More than enough to achieve total submergence if the solar system passed through one of them.

Know what? I suppose you don't know that 74% of our solar system consists of hydrogen, 24% of it is helium and that 1% is oxygen. The water clouds in space are a figment of your imagination.

If nebula can make stars/planets they can make high density concentrations of water/dust.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 78.summary

Instruments aboard the Infrared Space Observatory have picked up an intense glow from a cloud near the Orion Nebula; the measurement, to be reported in the 20 April Astrophysical Journal Letters, shows it to be the highest concentration of water ever seen outside the solar system.

How do you get from "the highest concentration of water ever seen outside the solar system" to "they can make high density concentrations of water"? Or to a sufficient quantity of water to inundate earth to its highest peaks and somehow do that from a distance of 1,344 light years without leaving any verifiable evidence of having done so?

aufbahrung wrote:

Hermit wrote:

aufbahrung wrote:Good point. That's gonna give me food for thought all day. Know there's water in those clouds up in space. More than enough to achieve total submergence if the solar system passed through one of them.

Know what? I suppose you don't know that 74% of our solar system consists of hydrogen, 24% of it is helium and that 1% is oxygen. The water clouds in space are a figment of your imagination.

If nebula can make stars/planets they can make high density concentrations of water/dust.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 78.summary

Oh. My. God. You’re serious

Hermit wrote:

aufbahrung wrote:

Hermit wrote:

aufbahrung wrote:Good point. That's gonna give me food for thought all day. Know there's water in those clouds up in space. More than enough to achieve total submergence if the solar system passed through one of them.

Know what? I suppose you don't know that 74% of our solar system consists of hydrogen, 24% of it is helium and that 1% is oxygen. The water clouds in space are a figment of your imagination.

If nebula can make stars/planets they can make high density concentrations of water/dust.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 78.summary

Instruments aboard the Infrared Space Observatory have picked up an intense glow from a cloud near the Orion Nebula; the measurement, to be reported in the 20 April Astrophysical Journal Letters, shows it to be the highest concentration of water ever seen outside the solar system.

How do you get from "the highest concentration of water ever seen outside the solar system" to "they can make high density concentrations of water"? Or to a sufficient quantity of water to inundate earth to its highest peaks and somehow do that from a distance of 1,344 light years without leaving any verifiable evidence of having done so?

Not to mention those clouds of water are so dispersed that it'd make little difference to what happens here on the Earth, space is big, really big, something little crank here doesn't get.

Check my sums but I estimate (using internet sources) that if the Earth passed through a light year's worth of the densest nebula (assuming it was all H2O and ignoring the dust fraction) it would collect about 1.4% of the current mass of water on the planet, i.e. 20x1015 kg as a fraction of the 1.4x1018 kg already here, or 20 A68 icebergs added to the ocean. "Total submergence", my arse.

Also, there is no evidence that such a passage has occurred since the Solar system got going.

Even if seeding from space happened, which it didn’t, there is still no mechanism to rid the planet of this water.

RS

Yes, I forgot about getting rid of the stuff at the end of this non-existent "total submergence". My bad.

It’s not just that, newolder, the myriad of physical issues surrounding this myth become exponentially problematic the closer one looks at the issue.

How, for example, would molecular water react to cosmic radiation in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, and would not a great many of these water molecules be split by these high atmosphere energy intense interactions?

It’s not worth rehashing. There was never a global flood. Full stop.

RS

aufbahrung wrote:Good point. That's gonna give me food for thought all day. Know there's water in those clouds up in space. More than enough to achieve total submergence if the solar system passed through one of them.

And then the water went where?

aufbahrung wrote:Global flood did happen after snowball Earth ...

So you don't have a source for this, it was just an off the cuff assertion on your part that just so happens to quite obviously be complete nonsense to the exact same scientifically illiterate degree of typical Creationist claims?

Global flood happening after a snowball Earth would still require there to be sufficient water on the planet in the first place to cover the planet regardless of it being frozen or not. Ice doesn't generate water - it IS water.