How we know that there was no Flood of Noah.

[james dixon]

I have to go
may you and yours have a great day and beyond
bye

 

[Subduction Zone]

The mountains were not always that tall. Plate tectonics pushed the land up and up until we have the mountains we have now. Mount Everest is still climbing higher.

What I need to do is calculate the volume of the oceans water and then lay this on a flat earth to see how deep it would be.

For all practical purposes the heights of the mountains have been the same during man's time on the Earth. You would need to prove otherwise and since you have no science education you will not be able to do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Mississippi river and the Nile river have been flowing for as long and you do not see this kind of erosion there, so tell me why not?

btw I could be arguing myself into a corner I cannot get out of

Elevation.

And yes, you are stuck in a corner. You have no clue as to what you are arguing about.

 

[ChristineM]

If spread out over the entire earth it would only make the surface damp but well over your head and yet the World trade Center would stick out above it.

in my view of things

Thats how much water exists on earth, in all the seas, rivers, aquifers, lakes, atmosphere etc.

To cover mt Everest you would need around an extra 850000000 cubic miles of water

 

[gnostic]

Keep in mind-----

Earth’s diameter is 7,918 miles across.

Mount Everest is 5.4 miles high

The deepest ocean is 6.7 miles deep

If you looked at a cross-section of earth where the model of the earth was ten feet across, the highest mountain and the lowest point of our ocean would not be visible by the necked eye.

You have brought up both highest mountain and deepest ocean floor.

Did you know that Mount Everest isn’t the highest mountain in the world?

It is only highest mountain if you only measure the summit to the sea level.

The actual highest mountain is to measure the height of the summit to the base of the mountain.

Mauna Kea (Hawaii) is measured to 4,205 m (13,796 ft) at sea level, but if you measured from its base, then it is actually 10,200 m (33,464.6 ft).

And if you measure Everest from the base, at the Tibetan Plateau, it is only 5,200 m (17,100 ft), compared to the height from sea level of 8,848 m (29,029 ft).

So in reality, Everest is less than half the height of Mauna Kea, when measuring the height from base to summit.

 

[gnostic]

The mountains were not always that tall. Plate tectonics pushed the land up and up until we have the mountains we have now. Mount Everest is still climbing higher.

What I need to do is calculate the volume of the oceans water and then lay this on a flat earth to see how deep it would be.

Yes, Mount Everest is still rising at 5 mm per year, because the Indian tectonic is still into the Tibetan Plateau of the Asian tectonic at a rate of 67 mm per year.

At 5 mm per year, in 2340 BCE (or 4358 years ago), Everest would be on 21.79 metres shorter than it is today.

That mean Everest would be about 8826 m, back in 2340 BCE.

That’s still taller than Mount Ararat. The Greater Ararat is 5,137 m (16,854 ft) high (from sea level).

Most of the growth in height of both mountains (Greater & Lesser) were results of series activities between the late Eocene epoch and early Pliocene epoch. More activities in the Pleistocene epoch, with Ararat gaining new height, the last one occurring about 20,000 years ago, where the Greater Ararat was already over 5000 m above sea level.

There have only being one major volcanic activity since the start of the Holocene epoch (10,000 years ago, which coincidentally marked the start of Neolithic culture), was around 2500-2450 BCE. Even during this volcanic activity, the lava flow didn’t add much height to Ararat.

There was archaeological evidences that Kura–Araxes culture settlement near Mount Ararat was destroyed by this activity around 2475 BCE, but no sign of the settlement’s destruction accompanied by flood water.

This Kura–Araxes culture started at the rivers at Caucasus (4000 BCE), spreading south (eg northern Syria, Iraq and Iran), and west into eastern Turkey (hence into Ararat plain) by 3500 BCE.

There have been some minor eruptions, since then, but nothing contributed greatly to Ararat’s height.

 

[Audie]

Thats how much water exists on earth, in all the seas, rivers, aquifers, lakes, atmosphere etc.

To cover mt Everest you would need around an extra 850000000 cubic miles of water

There is about 321 million cubic miles of water in al lof the oceans.

But of course, now the "hydroplate" model is in,
there were no tall mountains before.

I wonder how all the weight of 850 000 000 cubic miles of water would affect the earth's orbit.

 

[ChristineM]

There is about 321 million cubic miles of water in al lof the oceans.

But of course, now the "hydroplate" model is in,
there were no tall mountains before.

I wonder how all the weight of 850 000 000 cubic miles of water would affect the earth's orbit.

Yes, to fill up to Everest hight would take about 2.5 times that.

Before what? The hydroplate model doesn't hold water.

Never though about the orbit. I don't think it would effect the orbit... much. Angular momentum would stay pretty much the same as mass increased... Wouldn't it?

 

[Audie]

Yes, to fill up to Everest hight would take about 2.5 times that.

Before what? The hydroplate model doesn't hold water.

Never though about the orbit. I don't think it would effect the orbit... much. Angular momentum would stay pretty much the same as mass increased... Wouldn't it?

I am not much of an orbitularian, so dunno. But,
they say that the planets affect eachother, and
the tug from one planet to the next is surely
less than that.

To say "hydroplate" does not hold water is one
of those understatements we hear about.

 

[ChristineM]

I am not much of an orbitularian, so dunno. But,
they say that the planets affect eachother, and
the tug from one planet to the next is surely
less than that.

To say "hydroplate" does not hold water is one
of those understatements we hear about.

Yes gravity is essentially infinite so spacial bodies all interact. But given the distances that interaction is relitively minor. Of course there would have been some horrendous tides

 

[gnostic]

The great flood spread out before your eyes even a denier cannot deny---

View attachment 22659 View attachment 22660 View attachment 22661

You lack of comprehension may be the log jam we seem to be in. Those pictures were included in articles where Archaeologists stated that the rapid flow of water caused the erosion.

Having said that, you are welcome to research this yourself and prove me wrong. If you do I will accept your findings and thereby change my mind.

Ah...no.

Those 3 pictures, nice as they are, provide NO CONTEXT as to when the erosion occur to these stratum or layers of rocks.

None of those layers of eroded rocks occurred in a single flood - your Genesis Flood.

The erosions occurred with each layer and different time, millions years ago, and hundreds to tens of millennia ago.

They don’t have contexts, because these photos to have dates as to when each erosion for any specific layer (or strata).

They all didn’t occur in “one” flood about 4358 years ago.

 

[Audie]

Ah...no.

Those 3 pictures, nice as they are, provide NO CONTEXT as to when the erosion occur to these stratum or layers of rocks.

None of those layers of eroded rocks occurred in a single flood - your Genesis Flood.

The erosions occurred with each layer and different time, millions years ago, and hundreds to tens of millennia ago.

They don’t have contexts, because these photos to have dates as to when each erosion for any specific layer (or strata).

They all didn’t occur in “one” flood about 4358 years ago.

Even three photos constitute a sort of gish.

If someone wants to present one (1) formation for
examination that would be much more reasonable.

All it takes is one, any way, if one can show that
it really is the result of ye noah flood, and not part of
some much smaller local event, or of long term
processes.

Kind of like how polar ice disproves the flood.

So does this, for anyone who can kind of figure things
out.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1.....0.0.0....0.H3DFauUW3DY#imgrc=8o3Ec2fOuqDqkM:

 

[james dixon]

At 5 mm per year, in 2340 BCE (or 4358 years ago), Everest would be on 21.79 metres shorter than it is today.

Your argument is based on a static rate of growth as in linear.

Tectonic plates are under a great deal of pressure and in a short period of time, even as short as 24 hours the pressure against the plates could snap and crack with enough force to push up Mount Everest far higher than your calculations allow.

In my view of things

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your argument is based on a static rate of growth as in linear.

Tectonic plates are under a great deal of pressure and in a short period of time, even as short as 24 hours the pressure against the plates could snap and crack with enough force to push up Mount Everest far higher than your calculations allow.

In my view of things

Your view of things is based upon a refuted myth. No one would take such claims seriously.

Instead of making yourself look either foolish or dishonest why not try to learn why we know that there was no flood. You are essentially calling God a liar. Are you sure that you want to do that/

 

[james dixon]

All it takes is one, any way, if one can show that
it really is the result of ye noah flood, and not part of
some much smaller local event, or of long term
processes.

We are engaged in a circular debate that has no end.
There is "real" evidence of great "floods", this; no one can deny.
We have ancient biblical texts that refer to a "great flood".
We know that the northern half of our earth was covered in ice once upon a time.

We know that this "ice" has melted away except for the north pole ice sheet.

If you are a religious person who chooses to believe in the biblical narrative, in my view you have a right to do so. I for one believe it.

If you believe that the bible is full of fables and folklore you have a right to do so as well.

Let this not be the end of this debate, it's fun and keeps me out of the bars.

Do carry on~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.
.

 

[james dixon]

. You are essentially calling God a liar. Are you sure that you want to do that/

No, actually, you are

 

[james dixon]

Instead of making yourself look either foolish or dishonest why not try to learn why we know that there was no flood.

There have been floods.
yes or no-?

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are engaged in a circular debate that has no end.
There is "real" evidence of great "floods", this; no one can deny.
We have ancient biblical texts that refer to a "great flood".
We know that the northern half of our earth was covered in ice once upon a time.

We know that this "ice" has melted away except for the north pole ice sheet.

If you are a religious person who chooses to believe in the biblical narrative, in my view you have a right to do so. I for one believe it.

If you believe that the bible is full of fables and folklore you have a right to do so as well.

Let this not be the end of this debate, it's fun and keeps me out of the bars.

Do carry on~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.
.

That is only because you are using circular reasoning and not thinking rationally.

And no, not even the "norther half of our Earth" was covered. Less than half of the Northern hemisphere was glaciated. But that has nothing to do with the flood myth so why did you even bring it up?

And no, the North Pole ice is only a very small part of the remaining ice. There is far more at Greenland and Antarctica.


If you "choose to believe" you have admitted that you are not reasoning rationally. A person that reasons rationally cannot choose what to believe.

We do not "believe" that the Bible is full of myths and folklore. We know that. You have mere belief. We have knowledge and knowledge is demonstrable. You really should try to learn the difference between belief and knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There have been floods.
yes or no-?

Of course. There have been floods long before man was on the Earth. There was rain long before man was on the Earth. An all or nothing approach is always a losing one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, actually, you are

Nope, that is your sin. You make the mistake of thinking that not reading Genesis literally to be calling God a liar, but even the writers of the Bible did not make the error that you are making. It was never claimed that the Bible was without flaw. Nor was it even claimed to be the "word of God". That is the rather blasphemous belief of a minority of Christians.