ppp
Well-Known Member
It doesn't freaking matter. If all the ice on the planet were to turn to liquid, there would still be not enough water for a global flood.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Science Necessary...
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Audie
Veteran Member
Thats not the topic.
If there had been such a flood,
the ice would float off.
He's trying to figure why it wouldnt.
lukethethird
unknown member
ppp
Well-Known Member
Some of it probably would float off. Its a continent-sized mass of ice strewn with pockets fractures. The majority would likely stick to the bedrock it sits upon.. Some large chunks would break off. Like the chunks we see falling into the ocean today. But bigger.
Still wouldn't cause a global flood.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Ever the optimist.
Audie
Veteran Member
You are not thinking.
The discussion is not the ice causing a flood.
Of course its not enough ice.
The topic is, IF theres a world wide flood
sufficient to drown the land, all of Greenland and Antarctica would go under.
IF that happened the ice would float off.
Break up drift away. Melt. Gone.
BUT, the ice is still there.
Must I again go through why the ice is not. "Stuck", and to be generous, even if it were "frozen down" the adhesion would not
hold itvagainst the enormous buoyant force?
You do know glaciers move. Stuck down, but moving?
Do you see how polar ice a hundred thousand years old disproves the flood?
ppp
Well-Known Member
I would agree with you if the flood was shallower, but it was flood was 15 cubits over the highest mountain. [Gen 7:19-20] Which means that the water table rose more than 30,000 feet over the course of a month and a half, which geologically, is pretty freaking instantaneous. That is at the very least 5 times as much pressure as the pressure-created ice at the bottom of the pacific in the real world here and now.
I would be interested to see the math on this. Whether the thing would break off and apart from shear force caused by buoyancy, or if it would mostly intact.
Of course this totally ignores fact that the volume of and rapidity of the rain would raise the temp of the planet by several hundred degrees Celsius. So there wouldn't be ice or liquid water. But some sort of steam/plasma amalgam.
PureX
Veteran Member
Well, why should I bother if you aren't going to believe it, anyway?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Twenty-one Reasons Noah's Worldwide Flood Never Happened
1) "The stair-stepped appearance of erosion of sedimentary rocks in the Grand Canyon with sandstones and limestones forming cliffs and shales forming gentle slopes cannot happen if all these rocks were deposited in less than one year. If the Grand Canyon had been carved soon after these rocks were deposited by a worldwide flood, they would not have had time to harden into solid rock and would have been saturated with water. Therefore, the sandstones and limestones would have slumped during the carving of the canyon and would not have formed cliffs."
2) "Salt and gypsum deposits, more than 200 feet thick, occur in the Paradox Formation in Utah just 200 miles north of the Grand Canyon, and these deposits are the same age as the Supai rocks in the Grand Canyon that were supposedly also deposited by Noah’s flood. Similar salt deposits, up to 3,000 feet thick, exist in various places on all continents and in layers of all geologic ages, and these deposits can only be produced by evaporation of sea water. Such evaporation could not have happened in repeated intervals in the midst of the 40 days and 40 nights of raining and during the supposed continuous deposition of sedimentary rocks by a worldwide flood and in which the only drying and evaporation is said to have occurred at the end of the flood. (Collins 2006, 2009, 2012; Hill et al. 2016) 3.
3) "Sand dunes with giant cross bedding occur in the Mesozoic rocks in Zion National Park and are further evidence that desert conditions occurred at the time of the supposed flood. (Senter 2011; Collins 2017)"
There are 3 to get you started.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No it's invisible to me to, and now it's a cult you say? An invisible cult, this is most disconcerting.
Audie
Veteran Member
I would agree with you if the flood was shallower, but it was flood was 15 cubits over the highest mountain. [Gen 7:19-20] Which means that the water table rose more than 30,000 feet over the course of a month and a half, which geologically, is pretty freaking instantaneous. That is at the very least 5 times as much pressure as the pressure-created ice at the bottom of the pacific in the real world here and now.
I would be interested to see the math on this. Whether the thing would break off and apart from shear force caused by buoyancy, or if it would mostly intact.
Of course this totally ignores fact that the volume of and rapidity of the rain would raise the temp of the planet by several hundred degrees Celsius. So there wouldn't be ice or liquid water. But some sort of steam/plasma am9algam.
Lets keep it simple.
Just enough to cover the ice is all i need.
The ice is heavily fractured, lots of crevasses.
The elevation of heighest glacier is under 3000
meters.
It slopes to the sea, rising water would be
breaking the edges as it came up.
For Americans, the thickest ic is 16000
ft thick.
Continuing with British imperial units,
there would be an extra buoyant force of 80,000
lbs per sq ft beyond what needed to float the ice.
Thats awful strong ice glue hold 80,000lbs
per square ft.
Flood antarctica, the ice will be gone.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
No it's invisible to me to, and now it's a cult you say? An invisible cult, this is most disconcerting.
People dont believe they are in cults.
Your sarcasm is totally misplaced
ppp
Well-Known Member
First, uhg! Metric system please. I know I started it, but if we are actually doing calculations, please ignore imperials. [shudder]
Any idea how to calculate the force it takes to dislodge a 1m^3 block of ice from granite? limestone? at 0C?
Audie
Veteran Member
Exe peeze.
Find a Hero of the Flood who will stand under
a cubic meter of
ice frozen to an overhead rock while we hang
thousand kilo weights, one after another to it.
I figure theyd be get religion before the first
one went up.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No it was very carefully placed
. Since this cult seems to be an imaginary one. I think we are also playing pretty fast and loose, with the definition of cult here.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Don't get me wrong. I am thoroughly behind science -- it has delivered. Our lives are less painful, we have greater comfort and convenience, and we live longer directly due to science.
to Religion?
Does Religion have to justify itself to science?
But science doesn't cover every element in life. Science is good for exploring the natural world. It doesn't really apply to topics such as ethics or whether anything or anyone exists outside the material world. The method simply can't empirically research such things.
Audie
Veteran Member
Everybody here understands that.
syo
Well-Known Member
Religion and real science are siblings.
syo
Well-Known Member
Well, both religion and science got corrupted. So... Real to both.