world wide flood?

[Thana]

To be a global flood you need to cover every surface, mountain tops and all. There is nowhere near enough water to do so.

Valleys, mountains etc are a part of all the land.

Do you know how to tall mount everest is? Do you really think a global flood means literally as high as the tallest mountain. That's... silly.

 

[Bunyip]

Do you know how to tall mount everest is? Do you really think a global flood means literally as high as the tallest mountain. That's... silly.

Of course it's silly. It makes Santa seem plausible. There is not enough water on earth.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yet again you need more than failing to understand simple concepts buddy.

Nope, you're not getting the simple concept here. Mountains=higher land. They have ocean fossils/seashells.


THEY'RE HIGHER THAN THE LAND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BENEATH THEM.

 

[Desert Snake]

Speaking of 'ocean volume', if mountains eroded, theoretically, exposing the fossils etc. (we'll try another theory), then the water WOULD HAVE COVERED THE LAND.

You're in a lose/lose argument.

 

[Thana]

Of course it's silly. It makes Santa seem plausible. There is not enough water on earth.

There is enough water on earth for a proper definition of a global flood, There is not enough water on earth for your idea of a global flood.

There's a difference.

 

[Bunyip]

Nope, you're not getting the simple concept here. Mountains=higher land. They have ocean fossils/seashells.


THEY'RE HIGHER THAN THE LAND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BENEATH THEM.

No mate, they formed at the bottom of the sea, the mountain grew beneath them. This is primary school stuff mate. The bottom ofthe sea is not higher than the mountains mate.

 

[Bunyip]

There is enough water on earth for a proper definition of a global flood, There is not enough water on earth for your idea of a global flood.

There's a difference.

You mean biblical flood, not my flood right? There is not enough water for a biblical flood that covers the mountain tops like in the bible?

Because as you say, that is just silly.

 

[Bunyip]

Speaking of 'ocean volume', if mountains eroded, theoretically, exposing the fossils etc. (we'll try another theory), then the water WOULD HAVE COVERED THE LAND.

You're in a lose/lose argument.

No mate, the shells formed at the bottom of the sea, the mountains grew beneath them and pushed them up. There is nowhere near enough water om earth for a global flood.

You're in a 'I don't understand primary school geology, so I win' argument.

 

[Desert Snake]

No mate, they formed at the bottom of the sea, the mountain grew beneath them. This is primary school stuff mate. The bottom ofthe sea is not higher than the mountains mate.

lol you're not getting the simple concept here.


The mountains, having ocean fossils/seashells, were obviously under water at some point. If they were 'shoved' up, or 'grew' as you put it,
THEY WERE STILL UNDER THE OCEAN.

It's extremely simple, but you're not grasping it.

 

[kashmir]

Why has no one replied to what I said, if the ice age happened, that means the earth was covered in ice, the ice melted, obviously there is plenty of water to cover the earth.

Or is my logic so flawed its not worth replying to?
seriously?

 

[Desert Snake]

Ocean fossils and seashells on mountains.


1. Flood=under the ocean
2. under the ocean=under the ocean.

There is no third option.

 

[Bunyip]

lol you're not getting the simple concept here.


The mountains, having ocean fossils/seashells, were obviously under water at some point. If they were 'shoved' up, or 'grew' as you put it,
THEY WERE STILL UNDER THE OCEAN.

It's extremely simple, but you're not grasping it.

Wow!

No, the sea floor was pretty flat when the shells formed - no mountain under it.
The tectonic plates that met in the middle of that sea floor moved towards each other and pushed that sea floor up.

Mate kids learn this stuff in primary school, how can you not knpw this?

 

[Desert Snake]

Wow!

No, the sea floor was pretty flat when the shells formed - no mountain under it.
The tectonic plates that met in the middle of that sea floor moved towards each other and pushed that sea floor up.

Mate kids learn this stuff in primary school, how can you not knpw this?

SO UNDER THE OCEAN. You just refuted your own argument. You're not making sense, and the snide comments are what's ending our discussion.

 

[kashmir]

lol you're not getting the simple concept here.


The mountains, having ocean fossils/seashells, were obviously under water at some point. If they were 'shoved' up, or 'grew' as you put it,
THEY WERE STILL UNDER THE OCEAN.

It's extremely simple, but you're not grasping it.

Not sure about this one, but just how deep into the mountain are these fossils now?
I still don't follow how the sea being pushed up would keep all the top layers of the bottom of the sea, intact.
wouldn't all that loose soil, crumble off the sides as the mountain pushed up, meaning the whole mountain sides would contain fossils too, and not just the top and the top actually couldn't have fossils, erosion and avalanches would force everything loose right back down the sides.

 

[Bunyip]

SO UNDER THE OCEAN. You just refuted your own argument. You're not making sense, and the snide comments are what's ending our discussion.

Dude this is so simple - the mountain was not under the ocean when the shells formed, the mountain did not exist,

The flat sea floor was pushed up by tectonic movememt AND THAT IS HOW MOUNTAINS ARE FORMED.

Spare me the whinging about snide comments you hypocrite, they compose the bulk of all of your comments.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why has no one replied to what I said, if the ice age happened, that means the earth was covered in ice, the ice melted, obviously there is plenty of water to cover the earth.

Or is my logic so flawed its not worth replying to?
seriously?

Yes, I've come across that theory. I guess it makes sense.


I think it may have been something else though, haven't researched the actual flood/water theories much.

I have to believe in the flood(s) however, too much legend and myth to refute.

 

[Bunyip]

Not sure about this one, but just how deep into the mountain are these fossils now?
I still don't follow how the sea being pushed up would keep all the top layers of the bottom of the sea, intact.
wouldn't all that loose soil, crumble off the sides as the mountain pushed up, meaning the whole mountain sides would contain fossils too, and not just the top and the top actually couldn't have fossils, erosion and avalanches would force everything loose right back down the sides.

Yes that is correct, and that is exactly what we find. As you say, those top layers are not intact, there are just fragments.

 

[Thana]

You mean biblical flood, not my flood right? There is not enough water for a biblical flood that covers the mountain tops like in the bible?

Because as you say, that is just silly.

I wasn't talking about a biblical flood, But if you want to get in on that sure.

Obviously you must be referring to Genesis 7:19 - "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."

Okay so first we have to figure out how tall mountains/hills were back when Noah was alive, And then we have to figure out how much water was around back then. Obviously, they were different to what they are now.

And if the most likely is true, And mountains weren't as high back then and that there was more water then it's plausible for a biblical flood to have occurred. If not, Please provide evidence with links to sources. Otherwise, Anything you say is just opinion/belief and not fact.

 

[Bunyip]

Kashmir

The ice age never came anywhere close to covering the world in ice.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not sure about this one, but just how deep into the mountain are these fossils now?
I still don't follow how the sea being pushed up would keep all the top layers of the bottom of the sea, intact.
wouldn't all that loose soil, crumble off the sides as the mountain pushed up, meaning the whole mountain sides would contain fossils too, and not just the top and the top actually couldn't have fossils, erosion and avalanches would force everything loose right back down the sides.

Right, it isn't my theory, just responding to other comments.