30,000 feet of water?????

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why are you making false claims?

The evidence all around us tells us that a global flood didn't happen. If God is the architect of all creation, then God himself is the one telling us that the flood didn't happen.

... yet here you are saying that it did happen.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

While some may argue that belief in God lacks scientific basis, it's worth noting that individuals who frequently experience profound moments of joy, fulfillment, or transcendence—often referred to as "peak experiences"—may enjoy better overall health and well-being.

I understand that a god belief is comforting for many. I also understand that many have no need for that kind of comforting and so find no comfort there. I would add that with the lack of god belief, one develops an acceptance that personal consciousness may end with death, there might be no afterlife or protector answering prayers, and one can find community, purpose, spirituality and cultural significance without religion.

You might identify as a nihilist and view belief in the divine as delusional

I identify as a naturalist and an empiricist who considers belief by faith to be a logical error. My word for such belief is unjustified, not delusional.

If we were to assume the universe is entirely devoid of meaning—an indifferent expanse governed solely by the laws of physics, where no arrangement of matter or energy holds more significance than another—this perspective can be profoundly bleak.

Maybe, but one needn't feel that way. I don't.

It also isn't meaningful to me that the universe might be conscious, might have a purpose unknown to us, or that there might be a god. None of that impacts daily existence even if true and even if it could be known to be true.

Is that attitude what you meant by nihilist? If so, there's another word that I find more descriptive:

"An apatheist is someone who is not interested in accepting or rejecting any claims that gods do exist or do not exist. The existence of a god or gods is not rejected, but may be designated irrelevant. One of the first recorded apatheists was arguably Denis Diderot (1713–1784), who wrote: "It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God.""

A god belief or a religion to a person comfortable without both is like glasses to someone who sees well without them. He doesn't begrudge the other fellow having a need that he doesn't have and fulfilling it, but he's glad not to have that need himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

That is false. You have been given very good reasons. And seriously if you are not willing to accept science why do you avail yourself of its fruits?

Not really, because at the point situation was not the same as now. After the flood, things below the water have been compressed so that it looks like mountains are higher. In other words, ocean floors have gone down so that it looks like more water would have been necessary.

You would have to both prove that and show how things like even gravity would be different. By arguing the way that you argue you continually claim that God is a liar. All of the evidence shows that the laws of nature have not changed over time.

That shows you still don't understand how and what happened in that flood event. It was not like some small river flood. It was a massive event that formed many different layers, in different phases of the flood. And, because earth is not homogeneous, it would be impossible to form uniform global flood layer. It is ignorant and irrational to even assume such would be the result.

Now you are using a strawman argument. No one has said that the results would be the same everywhere. The problem is that most sedimentary deposits cannot be deposited by a flood because the laws of science do not change. There would be one "flood layer" That means a layer of sediments that could not have been deposited over long periods of time and we do not have that. Even creation "scientists" fail when they try to come up with a working model. At best they can only lie.

there is no good reason to assume there should be such a bottleneck. And also, I don't think humans would have any way to notice it, even if there would be, because humans have nothing to compare before and after the flood.

I see that you are not familiar with the flood myth. The flood myth tells us that there would be such a bottleneck. For most animals Noah was allowed to take only one pair. And even for kosher animals he could only take 14 at the most (the myth is unclear if it is seven pairs or one male and six females) at the most. That would leave an immense and undeniable population bottleneck. To avoid it thousands of each species would have had to have been on the Ark.

You keep posting falsehoods when you say "there is no good reason". There are extremely good reasons, you simply refuse to learn the basics of science. If you refuse to learn that basics of science no one can explain anything to you. We can only point out how you are claiming that God is a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For example in Finland we have approximately 2500 million tons of trees. Finland is about 5 times larger land area than West Virginia. From this we could calculate that West Virginia could easily have had 460 million tons of trees at one point of time. If they would all have been buried in a flood event, it could have formed over 90 tons of coal easily.

So, thank you for your calculations, they fit well to the flood theory.

Except that you cannot form coal quickly in nature. You keep trying to kill Noah and family by boiling them to death. First you try to claim that those temperatures did not exist and then you try to claim that they did not. You need to learn how to argue rationally. Of course you would lose any rational argument.

 

[1213]

Except that you cannot form coal quickly in nature.

And we should believe that just because you have not seen it? I believe it is possible to form coal relatively quickly.

You keep trying to kill Noah and family by boiling them to death.

That is not true.

 

[1213]

You would have to both prove that and show how things like even gravity would be different....

No intelligent reason to think gravity would have had to be different.

....There would be one "flood layer" That means a layer of sediments that could not have been deposited over long periods of time and we do not have that.

If the flood happened as the Bible tells, there would be many different flood layers. One of those would have come when everything was settled and water covered all dry land. After the water went down, the flood layer of that period would have been many times flushed down from higher areas, and it would not be possible to find it from everywhere.

...And even for kosher animals he could only take 14 at the most (the myth is unclear if it is seven pairs or one male and six females) at the most. That would leave an immense and undeniable population bottleneck. ...

How would you know and detect such, if you have no information what was before the flood?

 

[1213]

...yet here you are saying that it did happen.

Yes, because things that can be seen in nature, support the idea.

 

[1213]

and yep at 100% conversion rate in the magical flood that would have produced about 90 tons. so where did the other 27,999,910 tons of coal come from?

Sorry, I meant obviously 90 million tons.

 

[1213]

Where did all the water come from? Where did it go?

I think I have already explained it. The water came from under the first continent.

How did settlements, trees, &al exist continuously through the proposed flood period, with no evidence of any disturbance?

Why do you think they existed without any disturbance?

How did a handful of people feed and care for so many animals

I estimate that there was about 3000 animals. (For example one pair of bears, which became the ancestors of all modern bears). Most animals can take care of themselves on their own.

How would the latent heat of vaporization of so much water not have cooked the whole planet...

Please, don't make strawman arguments. No need to think there needed to be impossible amount of vaporization. Most of the water came under the dry land, not from rain.

How would the world look different if the biblical stories were all folklore; if the scientific explanations of how the world works were correct?

Planet would have smooth surface.

 

[1213]

...
What were these phases, and where are these non-uniform layers? ...

Phase 1:
- Water started to erupt from "the fountains of great deep". Similarly as what we can now see for example in Iceland.

- Massive, not impossible, amount of water vapor was released, causing the heavy rain for long time period.
- Water flooding from the fault line (presumably mainly in the area of Mid Atlantic ridge) went to different directions and transferred all loose stuff on the ground. Bible tells there was dust covering earth in the beginning. Probably that dust was moved at the same time with the flood and it was formed to many sedimentary formations that can now be seen in opposite directions from the Mid Atlantic ridge.
- Heavy and long rain was one part of the flood event. It also flushed stuff on the ground, causing and mixing up own different layers.
- The broken original continent begun to sink. This cause compression on the edges of the continent and changes to the sediment layers that were formed by the flooding water.
Phase 2:
- rain and clouds cooled the planet and result was the ice age. Water begun to be collected to glaciers, causing the water level go down and exposing the dry land. Descending water level also caused changes to the fresh sediment layers.
- all sunken stuff were compressed by water, causing the water level to go further down. -> more changes to sediments through erosion. Many flood results would have been eroded from higher areas.
Phase 3:
- Melting glaciers, more smaller flood events to mix up the sediments and cause more changes to the surface of earth.
- Normal rain erosion further cleaning traces of the flood from upper areas, and burying them in lower areas. Fortunately there still are marine fossils on high mountain areas to show that the water indeed covered them at one point.

How could the gene pool be so reduced without creating a bottleneck?

In Biblical point of view:
1) Everything was good at the beginning.
2) God was rejected and degeneration begun.
3) In earlier time there was not as much mutations, gene pool was "perfect", without errors.
4) At the flood time situation was still relatively good, much better than now.
5) After the flood, DNA are has continued to get weaker, more and more errors in copying. And more other changes also, for example from one bear couple, all modern bears.

That is why you can't see any bottleneck. There simply is no good reason why there should really be one.

 

[Argentbear]

And we should believe that just because you have not seen it? I believe it is possible to form coal relatively quickly.

That is not true.

and some people beleive the earth is flat.

 

[Argentbear]

Sorry, I meant obviously 90 million tons.

Then your math is laughable

 

[Argentbear]

I think I have already explained it. The water came from under the first continent.

the pressure and temperature of that much water under any land mass would have ripped the crust off the planet

 

[Argentbear]

Phase 1:
- Water started to erupt from "the fountains of great deep". Similarly as what we can now see for example in Iceland.

- Massive, not impossible, amount of water vapor was released, causing the heavy rain for long time period.
- Water flooding from the fault line (presumably mainly in the area of Mid Atlantic ridge) went to different directions and transferred all loose stuff on the ground. Bible tells there was dust covering earth in the beginning. Probably that dust was moved at the same time with the flood and it was formed to many sedimentary formations that can now be seen in opposite directions from the Mid Atlantic ridge.
- Heavy and long rain was one part of the flood event. It also flushed stuff on the ground, causing and mixing up own different layers.
- The broken original continent begun to sink. This cause compression on the edges of the continent and changes to the sediment layers that were formed by the flooding water.
Phase 2:
- rain and clouds cooled the planet and result was the ice age. Water begun to be collected to glaciers, causing the water level go down and exposing the dry land. Descending water level also caused changes to the fresh sediment layers.
- all sunken stuff were compressed by water, causing the water level to go further down. -> more changes to sediments through erosion. Many flood results would have been eroded from higher areas.
Phase 3:
- Melting glaciers, more smaller flood events to mix up the sediments and cause more changes to the surface of earth.
- Normal rain erosion further cleaning traces of the flood from upper areas, and burying them in lower areas. Fortunately there still are marine fossils on high mountain areas to show that the water indeed covered them at one point.

In Biblical point of view:
1) Everything was good at the beginning.
2) God was rejected and degeneration begun.
3) In earlier time there was not as much mutations, gene pool was "perfect", without errors.
4) At the flood time situation was still relatively good, much better than now.
5) After the flood, DNA are has continued to get weaker, more and more errors in copying. And more other changes also, for example from one bear couple, all modern bears.

That is why you can't see any bottleneck. There simply is no good reason why there should really be one.

there is no good reason to beleive any of the nonsense you post as anything but magical thinking

 

[Subduction Zone]

And we should believe that just because you have not seen it? I believe it is possible to form coal relatively quickly.

We know how coal was formed. You refuse to learn even the basics of science. Why are you using the benefits of science and then denying what science tells us? Isn't that incredibly hypocritical.

What you are doing is similar to driving a car while refusing to learn anything about how they work If a car mechanic who understood very well how cars work told you that it is very bad idea to drive without oil in your vehicle would you tell him "You have no good reason to believe that a car needs oil"? Can you not see that the mechanic knows what he is doing and you should at least try to understand?

That is not true.

It is true. But you not only do not understand any of the sciences you refuse offers to help you to understand them.

It does not help you to say "I believe in God" while you are calling God a liar. And you do that quite often because you refuse to learn even the basics of science.

Science cannot disprove God. It does not even try to do that. All that science can do is to refute false versions of God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No intelligent reason to think gravity would have had to be different.

What is wrong with you? Go back and reread that.

If the flood happened as the Bible tells, there would be many different flood layers. One of those would have come when everything was settled and water covered all dry land. After the water went down, the flood layer of that period would have been many times flushed down from higher areas, and it would not be possible to find it from everywhere.

You need to explain why. Here is what you cannot explain, why do fossils only appear in particular layers with older ones below and younger ones behind? You cannot say that they were sorted by density because that is not the case. Nor was it by size. In fact we can observe evolution in deposits of chalk where the species of coccolithophores change as we go up. And time and time again we see far too much life in the sedimentary column to have all be alive at the same time, or to even have been deposited in the short time that you believe that the Earth exists. This is a case of you calling God a liar again.

How would you know and detect such, if you have no information what was before the flood?

I have plenty of information. And there was no flood. The fossil record is evidence that refutes the flood myth. You also keep forgetting that ice floats. Scientists can and have counted the annual layers of snow deposition. Those dates can be confirmed by independent ways of dating. They do not use just one method and call it good. You have to be able to explain, with evidence, why those independent means do not work and explain how they got the same age. We know that the ice has been there for hundreds of thousands of years. That ice would have floated and broken up destroying the record that we see.

Here is your problem, though you refuse to learn the only way for all of the endless evidence to exist is if God planted endless false evidence after the flood. The Bible does not support that. In fact the Bible tells you that God does not lie, but planting false evidence is a form of lying.
You are calling God a liar.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, because things that can be seen in nature, support the idea.

No. All the things in nature that experts in relevant fields say would evidence such an event say that such a flood would leave abundant evidence -- and they find none. Moreover, how such a flood could have occurred must needs invoke magic, as no conceivable natural mechanism exists.

 

[Valjean]

I think I have already explained it. The water came from under the first continent.

???? What and when was this first continent, and why would it have enough water to cover Earth's entire surface?
And where did it go after the flood abated?
If such an inundation did occur, where did the latent heat of codensation go?

Why do you think they existed without any disturbance?

Archæologists know of human settlements that existed undisturbed through the period usually associated with the flood.
Dendrochronological records show no evidence of any flood.

I estimate that there was about 3000 animals. (For example one pair of bears, which became the ancestors of all modern bears). Most animals can take care of themselves on their own.

Most animals need food, water, waste disposal and specific conditions. Forty days without supplies and labor sufficient for 3,000 animals sounds unworkable.
When did this flood occur? How would all modern bears evolve from a single species in <millions of years? Why do we find fossil records of multiple species of bears dating back to prehistoric, pre-flood times?

Please, don't make strawman arguments. No need to think there needed to be impossible amount of vaporization. Most of the water came under the dry land, not from rain.

There was not and is not that much water on the planet.

Planet would have smooth surface.

When in the past couple billion years did the planet ever have a smooth surface?

 

[1213]

and some people beleive the earth is flat.

Yeah, that is ridiculous, because we all know mountains exist.

But, it is interesting that there seems to be no proof that earth is not like in UN map.

 

[1213]

Then your math is laughable

It was based on the numbers given. Were the numbers wrong?