30,000 feet of water?????

[blü 2]

Not, if understood correctly how it happened.

The earth is a sphere.
The mean radius of the earth from center to mean sea level is about 3960 miles.
The radius of the earth from center to the top of Mt Everest iadds another 5.5 miles. say 3966 miles.
When you do your sums, you'll find that in order to raise the mean sea level that 5.5 miles so that it covers the top of Mt Everest, and allowing for the volume of land already above mean sea level, you'll need more than 1.1 billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth.

Where is it?

And such a flood would necessarily have left a geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor, but there's no such thing there. Where is it?

And if all land animals bar a boatload were destroyed, there MUST be a genetic bottleneck detectable in the DNA of all species of land animal, all those bottlenecks dating to the date of the geological flood layer. Where are they?

2) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material mixed up in the flood sediments.

Hundreds of millions of years of vegetable matter, in the main.

4) Great glaciers, the result of cooling climate after the long rainy and cloudy period and death of everything on dry land.

What authority do you rely on for that claim? Or did you make it up?

5) The stories of it, in many cultures.

They're all different. One hypothesis is that some of them represent the rising of the seas at the end of the last ice age around 11,000 years ago, but that made very little difference to Mesopotamia.

6) The bottleneck in human genome.

Which one? There have been hundreds, maybe thousands of them, spread among the various races of the world.

Even if it is true that the story appeared at that time in Mesopotamia, it does not mean the story didn't exist with the ancestors of Jews before that. And I have no reason to believe Bible God appeared only 2000 years later.

It seems to me that you don't understand what I say. In Biblical point of view other gods exists, but they are not true Gods, which is why it can be said, there is no other God, but there are many things that are called gods.

Sorry, I don't accept baseless claims.

The people who wrote the bible wrote in the bible that the earth is flat, and immovably fixed at the center of creation, and that the sun moon and stars go round it, and that the sky is a hard dome you can walk on and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth.

I've already referred you to this list of bible quotes setting out exactly that position, but here it is again: >Gravitational waves in Newton theory are 4-th order, in Einstein's are 2-nd!!!<. Please read it this time and then we can discuss it.

If you have any bible quotes that say the earth is spherical, and orbits the sun, and display an understanding of gravity and modern cosmology, the concept of heliocentry, gravity, orbits, stars, deep space, galaxies, the expanding universe &c, please set them out in your reply too.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

Here's a link to a place to start so that you can understand the evidence and the reasoning from that evidence ─ >Tectonics - Wikipedia<.

Not having evidence of something, doesn't necessary mean it didn't exist.

Unless we have evidence that X did in fact exist, we have no basis for asserting that it did exist. Simple as that.

if humans have existed over 200,000 years, why no evidence of human culture from all of that time?

Because humans lived largely in the wild ─ including in caves, where evidence of very ancient habitation by humans has been found. These would necessarily have been hunter / fisher / gatherer styles of life. For a review of the earliest known human structures in stone (ie capable of enduring) you may enjoy reading this >10 Oldest Structures in the World (Updated 2024) - Oldest.org<

Note that the god of the bible doesn't appear on the scene till c. 1500 BCE.

 

[dfnj]

I've always been curious about the great flood story in the Bible.
Supposedly God flooded the earth with a rainstorm for 40 days and nights.
That does not jive with me for several reasons.....
Mt. Everest is the highest natural point on earth and over 29,000 feet. The flood supposedly covered the entire earth with enough water to kill everything and everyone including the Nepheliem which were reported to be giants.
That means 30,000 feet just came and went from nowhere. There is not enough water on earth to provide that much rain.
Then the earth was repopulated by only 8 people that were one family ( Noah sons and wives ) which would mean that not only would our current civilization would be based on incest but there would only be one race on the entire planet.( not meant as racism!!!!!!) Apparently this is not true which makes me even more suspicious especially after finding out the holy Bible has been edited as early as 1875 or 1877 AD...this is the first time the words "God" and "Lord" were ever in the bible.

For the record, an omnipotent God has no limitations. So the physics of the water used in the great flood is whatever is required to perform the miracle.

That said, if we are going to get technical about it, the height of the water needed to wipe out all life on the planet is probably way less than 29000 feet. You only need a tsunami amount of water moving in a giant wave circling around the globe a few times.

Well, at least God spared all the whales and fish from the suffering and death part of the event.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the record, an omnipotent God has no limitations. So the physics of the water used in the great flood is whatever is required to perform the miracle.

That said, if we are going to get technical about it, the height of the water needed to wipe out all life on the planet is probably way less than 29000 feet. You only need a tsunami amount of water moving in a giant wave circling around the globe a few times.

Well, at least God spared all the whales and fish from the suffering and death part of the event.

Except the myth said that the seas rose to the heights of mountains and covered them by a specific depth. That doesn't describe a tsunami. It is still refuted by the simple fact that ice floats.

 

[Audie]

For the record, an omnipotent God has no limitations. So the physics of the water used in the great flood is whatever is required to perform the miracle.

That said, if we are going to get technical about it, the height of the water needed to wipe out all life on the planet is probably way less than 29000 feet. You only need a tsunami amount of water moving in a giant wave circling around the globe a few times.

Well, at least God spared all the whales and fish from the suffering and death part of the event.

Marine life would die because of osmotic shock.

Soil organisms and most plants would die

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For the record, an omnipotent God has no limitations. So the physics of the water used in the great flood is whatever is required to perform the miracle.

Yes, but we have insufficient evidence to believe that such a god exists. If our analysis of the myth is that this could have happened by magic, then there is nothing to discuss. Since we don't see magic in the universe, we shouldn't entertain such a suggestion seriously.

That said, if we are going to get technical about it, the height of the water needed to wipe out all life on the planet is probably way less than 29000 feet. You only need a tsunami amount of water moving in a giant wave circling around the globe a few times.

Agreed again, but as you know, that's not the story. It's about rain and upwelling waters submerging all dry land in 40 days.

1) Modern continents, the parts of the broken single original continent.

That is not evidence of a global flood. A flood would cause some erosion and sedimentation - not the tearing apart of continents.

2) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material mixed up in the flood sediments.

Those didn't come from a global flood. Those came from millions of years of living organisms dying, settling, and being transformed into the form we find them today following millions of years of high pressure and temperature. Furthermore, they are buried below the seafloor crust.

3) Orogenic mountains, the results of flood carrying vast amount of sediments from the lines where the original continent was broken.

You don't understand orogenesis or seafloor lifting. You don't understand how those mountains were formed.

But neither did the ancients, which is why in my opinion, that myth exists. It exists because the ancients found shells and marine fossils on mountaintops, which they could only explain as ancient mountains that had existed since creation being submerged by a flood. Remember, they wrote a story that depicts a cruel and incompetent deity taking vengeance against sinful man, but also taking out most of the rest of terrestrial life in a cruel manner: drowning. The deity we are told was dismayed at its engineering failure but attempted to correct it using the same breeding stock.

Why would you create such a myth? I can think l of only one reason: it was assumed that a good god flooded the earth, which they knew would kill most life, yet life is here, so there must have been an ark to save a few, and if you understand Abrahamism, that means that man needed punishment.

4) Great glaciers, the result of cooling climate after the long rainy and cloudy period and death of everything on dry land.

A few weeks of rainclouds don't change global climate or initiate glaciation.

Sorry, I don't accept baseless claims.

Your theistic worldview is a baseless claim that you have accepted. Your path to believing it is faith, which is how one believes insufficiently evidenced claims including false claims and unfalsifiable claims.

Not having evidence of something, doesn't necessary mean it didn't exist.

Agreed, but that's not a good enough reason to believe that it did or does.

Why it seems people have developed cultural things only about 10,000, years? Why all what happened in this late 10,000 years didn't happen already 190,000 years ago?

Cultural and technological evolution occurs over time and goes back to well before 10,000 years.

Man and his ancestors have been making tools (over 2 million years), using fire (just under 2 million years), and speaking (about a million years more or less) much longer than that.

Eventually, man developed navigation, agriculture, settled into towns and cities, and began writing, but these are all are relatively recent innovations and came on the heels of previous innovation and invention.

By this time, religions had already sprung up. Yours teaches that that was about when the earth was created. You see the rise of these religious cultural traditions as indicating the beginning of humankind, but they're just relatively recent chapters in a long transition from hunter-gatherer days and oral traditions to space travel and instantaneous global telecommunications.

I have no good reason to believe they [tectonic plates] are in motion.

That's because you've never learned the reasons others have to say with confidence that they move. You can't offer yourself as a metric for what's reasonable to believe to others educated in such topics if you haven't been educated yourself in the areas you don't believe or understand. Of course you don't believe what you've never learned, and which contradicts what you have chosen to believe by faith.

But that's fine. Nobody depends on anybody else believing the science that contradicts the biblical creation myth. You've gotten this far without that understanding, and there is no reason that that needs to change now or ever.

Also, being a flat earther or somebody who believes that man has never been to the moon are probably harmless beliefs.

It's in other areas that faith-based thought can hurt you as when making decisions about taking vaccines or deciding that an election was rigged and storming a government building.

 

[Hooded_Crow]

I have no good reason to believe they are in motion.

Maybe research why the boundaries of the Eurasian and North American tectonic plates are moving apart, giving rise to Iceland? It's been monitored for years.

 

[Hooded_Crow]

Marine life would die because of osmotic shock.

Yes. Through osmoregulation, marine fish are adapted to a specific salinity in their habitat. A sudden influx of fresh water would rapidly upset that regulation, causing their cells to take in too much water and burst.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no intelligent reason to expect similar flood layer as in a local small flood.

Yes there is.

It left vast amount of evidence:

You cherry picked a brief list of things you claim are evidence without the bother of showing they are evidence of a global flood.

By your logic
1. Wireless internet
2. The works of Mary Shelley
3. Pastrami
4. Tito Jackson
5. Quilting bees

Are also evidence of the global flood. As well as evidence against the reality of the global flood.

1) Modern continents, the parts of the broken single original continent.

There is no evidence of a single continent 5,000 years ago. The evidence indicates that the continents have formed larger masses at least 7 different times over 100's of millions of years with no indication that flooding has anything to do with the process. You have not even tried to support your claim.

2) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material mixed up in the flood sediments.

Existing from other processes acting on the accumulation of formerly living things over millions of years from burial, heat and pressure.

3) Orogenic mountains, the results of flood carrying vast amount of sediments from the lines where the original continent was broken.

So, you know less about orogenic mountains than I do. That is not how they are formed.

4) Great glaciers, the result of cooling climate after the long rainy and cloudy period and death of everything on dry land.

Also less about glaciation. That is not how glaciers are formed. The accumulation of layers of frozen water over time in a climate that stabilizes the formation. In a few thousand years, the ice caps wouldn't have time to reform after being displaced and destroyed by a flood. Ice floats.

5) The stories of it, in many cultures.

Not all cultures have flood stories. There is significant and telling evidence of cultural contamination in the spread of this particular story. Popularity is not rational support of a claim.

By what I know, bottlenecks exists.

No one is claiming the do not. What is noted is that the expected, universal bottleneck that should exist in all living things as a result of the flood is absent.

The problem is only in how they are dated.

And a problem you claim but have not shown. Do you even know how they are found and dated? I suspect not.

I think the existence of bottlenecks are just wrongly dated and support the flood.

Reason hasn't prevented you from thinking wild, empty claims are facts so far, so this is no surprise.

I don't think you must believe it. I think you should understand it happened.

I can't make any sense of this. To me it says "I don't think you should believe it". Instead "you should believe it".

 

[Argentbear]

I have no good reason to believe they are in motion.

its what cases earthquakes and volcanos you know.

and then there is that pesky evidence that the movement and speed of the continents can be measured by GPS

Of course to see evidence you have to be honest enough to actually look.

 

[Valjean]

I don't believe he did , but that's just my opinion and I why I asked if those references could be explained?

Folk tales by people with no understanding of what the Earth is or how it works.

 

[Argentbear]

There is no intelligent reason to expect similar flood layer as in a local small flood.

It left vast amount of evidence:
1) Modern continents, the parts of the broken single original continent.

That is evidence of plate tectonics and has nothing to do with any flood

2) Oil, gas and coal fields, the result of vast amount of sunken organic material mixed up in the flood sediments.

to produce the coal deposits under West Virginia in a single event would require about 25 times the available organic material on the whole planet

3) Orogenic mountains, the results of flood carrying vast amount of sediments from the lines where the original continent was broken.

the Himalayas are Orgenic mountains but they are composed mostly of schist and gneiss and granite none of which are sedimentary

4) Great glaciers, the result of cooling climate after the long rainy and cloudy period and death of everything on dry land.

a sixth grader knows that is not how glaciers form

5) The stories of it, in many cultures.

actually a surprisingly small number of cultures. Some religious oriented individuals have tried to claim that huge numbers of cultures around the world have teh same flood myth but all they did was clam a flood myth for a given society if there was a prominent myth about water. FOr example it is claimed that Australian Aborigines have a global flood myth but the myth told involved a character named Grandfather frog who was greedy and wanted all the water for himslef so he drank all the water in the world. He found his grandchildren dying form lack of water and realizing his greed was hurting those he loved he vomited up the water.

By what I know, bottlenecks exists. The problem is only in how they are dated. I think the existence of bottlenecks are just wrongly dated and support the flood.

I don't think you must believe it. I think you should understand it happened.

 

[1213]

We know how mountains grew

i think that is a silly belief that shows one doesn't understand the weight of the mountains.

... and what observation could possibly refute it?

1) Not having different continents
2) Not having gas, oli and coal fields
3) not having marine fossils on high mountain areas
4) Not having vast sediment formations.

 

[1213]

The earth is a sphere.
The mean radius of the earth from center to mean sea level is about 3960 miles.
The radius of the earth from center to the top of Mt Everest iadds another 5.5 miles. say 3966 miles.
When you do your sums, you'll find that in order to raise the mean sea level that 5.5 miles so that it covers the top of Mt Everest, and allowing for the volume of land already above mean sea level, you'll need more than 1.1 billion cubic miles of water over and above the water presently on the earth.

Yes, that is if you don't understand the situation before the flood.

And such a flood would necessarily have left a geological flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor, but there's no such thing there. Where is it?

If you would understand how it happened, you would understand that such a flood would not cause same traces as a local small flood.

And if all land animals bar a boatload were destroyed, there MUST be a genetic bottleneck detectable in the DNA of all species of land animal,

Not necessary. If things were created as told in the Bible and things had not yet degenerated as much as nowadays, there would not necessary be any noticeable bottleneck.

Hundreds of millions of years of vegetable matter, in the main.

I don't see how you can believe that.

What authority do you rely on for that claim? Or did you make it up?

Isn't it logical result of the event, if it truly happened?

Which one? There have been hundreds, maybe thousands of them, spread among the various races of the world.

If there is so many, it seems not having one is more like a bottleneck.

The people who wrote the bible wrote in the bible that the earth is flat,

That is not true.

If you have any bible quotes that say the earth is spherical, and orbits the sun, and display an understanding of gravity and modern cosmology, the concept of heliocentry, gravity, orbits, stars, deep space, galaxies, the expanding universe &c, please set them out in your reply too.

I am not convinced that the modern claims are true.

Note that the god of the bible doesn't appear on the scene till c. 1500 BCE.

I note that you don't really know when He appeared.

 

[1213]

That is evidence of plate tectonics and has nothing to do with any flood

Only if you believe so. I don't.

to produce the coal deposits under West Virginia in a single event would require about 25 times the available organic material on the whole planet

How do you know? And how do you think they were formed? I think it is possible that not all coal deposits are the result of the flood.

the Himalayas are Orgenic mountains but they are composed mostly of schist and gneiss and granite none of which are sedimentary

I think it may be possible that those could also be formed in the flood event. But, I also think that it is possible that Himalaya is one of the "pillars of the earth". It may have been supporting the original continent. And when the original continent collapsed, the pillar remained and is now a mountain area. Same can be with all major mountain areas.

...Some religious oriented individuals have tried to claim that huge numbers of cultures around the world have teh same flood myth...

I wouldn't say they have the same, But, by what I know there are lot of flood myths.

List of flood myths - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

i think that is a silly belief that shows one doesn't understand the weight of the mountains.

1) Not having different continents
2) Not having gas, oli and coal fields
3) not having marine fossils on high mountain areas
4) Not having vast sediment formations.

No,please you need to do better.. You don't even know how you screwed up. Tests cannot be of facts that you already know the answer to. Even worse for you all of those are better explained by geology. You just admitted that you were wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if you believe so. I don't.

Wrong again. We need to go over the concept of evidence again. It is only evidence for plate tectonics. You failed abysmally.

How do you know? And how do you think they were formed? I think it is possible that not all coal deposits are the result of the flood.

Because he understands the concept of evidence.

I think it may be possible that those could also be formed in the flood event. But, I also think that it is possible that Himalaya is one of the "pillars of the earth". It may have been supporting the original continent. And when the original continent collapsed, the pillar remained and is now a mountain area. Same can be with all major mountain areas.

And you are being rather childish at best right now. You have no evidence for that. You refused to put your idea in the form of a testable hypothesis.

I wouldn't say they have the same, But, by what I know there are lot of flood myths.

And you believe one of them, claiming that God is a liar in the process.

List of flood myths - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did you not see that your myth was one of them?

 

[Argentbear]

Only if you believe so. I don't.

your beliefs don't change the evidence

How do you know? And how do you think they were formed? I think it is possible that not all coal deposits are the result of the flood.

Simple math. We know how much carbon is in a square meter of a fossil fuel like coal or oil. we know how much carbon is available in a square meter of living biological matter and even using the maximum amount of that carbon content everywhere in the world there would not be enough to produce the coal or oil seen even in a single specific location much less all of the deposits of fossil fuels. To get the end result of the amount of carbon contained in a given area of a fossil fuel bed would take more living bio mater than the earth can produce at a single time.

I think it may be possible that those could also be formed in the flood event. But, I also think that it is possible that Himalaya is one of the "pillars of the earth". It may have been supporting the original continent. And when the original continent collapsed, the pillar remained and is now a mountain area. Same can be with all major mountain areas.

yet you also claimed that "Orogenic mountains are the results of flood carrying vast amount of sediments from the lines where the original continent was broken."

So which is it?

I wouldn't say they have the same, But, by what I know there are lot of flood myths.

List of flood myths - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and I mentioned one of these myths showing that just because a myth mentions water doesn't make it about a global flood or any flood.

It is also worth noting that number of cultures included on this list of flood myths account for less than 5% of all known cultures so no, not a lot of flood myths.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, that is if you don't understand the situation before the flood.

The bible makes no particular distinction between the landform before and after the Flood.

Nor, as far as I'm aware, does the geology of the Semitic lands support the notion of any uniquely mountain-covering flood in the last ten thousand years.

So where's your evidence?

If you would understand how it happened, you would understand that such a flood would not cause same traces as a local small flood.

There would still be the missing 1.1 billion cubic miles of water.
There would still be the missing universal flood layer.
There would still be the missing genetic bottleneck in every species of land animal.
There would still be the absence of any evidence whatsoever of all the other necessary consequences of such a flood.

Which is to say, there is no basis, no place to stand, when it comes to asserting a Genesis flood. It didn't happen and the evidence that it didn't happen is overwhelmingly overwhelming.

I am not convinced that the modern claims are true.

You have no basis for believing there really was a Genesis flood, and 100% of the real evidence is against you.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, that is if you don't understand the situation before the flood.

If you would understand how it happened, you would understand that such a flood would not cause same traces as a local small flood.

Not necessary. If things were created as told in the Bible and things had not yet degenerated as much as nowadays, there would not necessary be any noticeable bottleneck.

I don't see how you can believe that.

Isn't it logical result of the event, if it truly happened?

If there is so many, it seems not having one is more like a bottleneck.

That is not true.

I am not convinced that the modern claims are true.

I note that you don't really know when He appeared.

How Aron Ra Disproves Noah's flood

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

www.youtube.com

 

[1213]

The bible makes no particular distinction between the landform before and after the Flood.

Bible tells there was one area of dry land, which can be understood as single continent. Bible also tells under the dry land there was great deep, lot of water. Bible also tells "fountains of great deep burst open", which can be understood that the original continent was broken and the water below escaped, causing the vast flood. Bible also tells there was pillars of earth (earth means dry land in the Bible). Those pillars are likely nowadays seen where the vast mountains are. They tell something about where the top of the original continent once was, before it was broken and sunk. It tells also something about how much water there was below the original continent.

So where's your evidence?

I think I already answered to that.

There would still be the missing 1.1 billion cubic miles of water.

Only if you imagine the event wrongly.

There would still be the missing universal flood layer.

No good reason to assume universal layer, when earth is not uniform/homogeneous.

There would still be the missing genetic bottleneck in every species of land animal.

There is no good reason to think there should be such a bottleneck. Also, if there would be, humans can't really know it, if there is no comparison to what was before the flood.

It didn't happen and the evidence that it didn't happen is overwhelmingly overwhelming.

Not true.

the real evidence is against you.