world wide flood?

[Bunyip]

He is a she thankyou very much.

My apologies madam

 

[Alceste]

All ancient peoples evolved social entities linked to fresh water sources. As such they experienced, rarely but inevitably, floods of "biblical proportions" that, with equal inevitability, became the stuff of legends. To infer from multiple flood stories a world-wide flood - and to do so in the face of an enormity of scientific evidence - is willful ignorance.

Exactly, especially given humanity's penchant for settling in fertile flood plains since the dawn of agriculture.

 

[Alceste]

what if the mountain is 1 litre in volumn and the water covering it is 10 litres?

do you think the situation might be reversed then?

There is 10 times as much water in the ocean as there is land above it.

The land isn't floating on top of the water, Pegg. It goes all the way down to the bottom of the sea. The sea is sitting upon it, in all the nooks and crannies. And the volume of the earth's mantle far exceeds the volume of water dribbling around all over its surface. It is 3000 kilometers thick. Your 4 km of average ocean depth barely scratches the surface.

 

[kashmir]

Hey, was going to link a few thunderstorm gifs, just decided to create an animated movie complete with sound.
Some sites actually charge for soothing animations like this, so I assume people will appreciate a free version, should be pretty cool.
Cant we just all get along for a change?

 

[Alceste]

Hey, was going to link a few thunderstorm gifs, just decided to create an animated movie complete with sound.
Some sites actually charge for soothing animations like this, so I assume people will appreciate a free version, should be pretty cool.
Cant we just all get along for a change?

We can get along, I'm sure. I just get a little wound up when I discover grown men and women who don't understand the basic mechanisms by which the world they live in was formed and sustains us. It's heartbreaking to me, and also a little frightening in terms of humanity's future prospects. I don't get frustrated though until I try to explain but am met with denials, complaints and arguments, when it ought to just click, and produce a big "Oooooh! I see!" as the truth always should.

But I should be used to it by now. I've been a teacher, and it's the same thing with music lessons. Some kids are just completely certain they know much better than me how to play the guitar and piano, so they'd spend the half hour arguing with me instead of learning to play.

At least I got paid for that though!

 

[kashmir]

We can get along, I'm sure. I just get a little wound up when I discover grown men and women who don't understand the basic mechanisms by which the world they live in was formed and sustains us. It's heartbreaking to me, and also a little frightening in terms of humanity's future prospects. I don't get frustrated though until I try to explain but am met with denials, complaints and arguments, when it ought to just click, and produce a big "Oooooh! I see!" as the truth always should.

But I should be used to it by now. I've been a teacher, and it's the same thing with music lessons. Some kids are just completely certain they know much better than me how to play the guitar and piano, so they'd spend the half hour arguing with me instead of learning to play.

At least I got paid for that though!

seriously?
You asked me if I understood what ice is
Are you that high on a pedestal that you actually believe people here dont know what ice is?
What gives?
This thread is about things 100,000,000,000,000 times more in detail, stuff science isn't quite sure of, we all know what ice is, for the love of god.
How is that trying to get along with others to belittle about stupid ice?
I am not mad, but damn already, this makes no sense on how dumed down this thread has become,...we dont even know what water is, ohhh pity us.
Hahahahahahahahahaha


For those who seem to know so much on here, not one of them picked any part of the OP link and debated it.
Which what the thread was about...
Odd
:faint:

edit, yet these know it alls, can only belittle others and not actually discuss the OP link.
Clearly some on this board are so smart, that the only thing they can do is troll and belittle everyone else.
I wonder what degree one gets to learn the art of trolling..hmmm

Can someone explain what it costs to learn the art of belittling and trolling and what companies hire for that Einstein type quality?
Mcdonalds crewleader perhaps?

 

[Alceste]

seriously?
You asked me if I understood what ice is
Are you that high on a pedestal that you actually believe people here dont know what ice is?
What gives?
This thread is about things 100,000,000,000,000 times more in detail, stuff science isn't quite sure of, we all know what ice is, for the love of god.
How is that trying to get along with others to belittle about stupid ice?
I am not mad, but damn already, this makes no sense on how dumed down this thread has become,...we dont even know what water is, ohhh pity us.
Hahahahahahahahahaha


For those who seem to know so much on here, not one of them picked any part of the OP link and debated it.
Which what the thread was about...
Odd
:faint:

Not "what ice is" - how ice works. A massive ice cap wouldn't melt all at once with a big "sploosh", causing a global inundation. It couldn't. You suggested this yourself, which is what made me wonder if you've ever observed the gradual accumulation and melting of ice and snow first hand.

Pegg has suggested that all the water in the oceans "had to come from somewhere", so assumes it must have all fallen at once from the sky, causing a global inundation. She clearly knows what water is, but has no idea at all how water works.

Likewise, you suggested gigantic glacial erratic boulders could have been transported to their locations in a global flood, which leads us all to assume you don't understand that rocks don't float - IOW, you don't get how rocks work.

Disciple suggested that all the mountains in the world used to be at the bottom of the sea, positing this as evidence of a global inundation, which causes us all to assume that he doesn't understand how mountains work.

Pegg is insisting - INSISTING - that she can prove a global flood happened by pointing out that the surface area of the earth sounds like just a little bit, while the depth of the ocean sounds like a heck of a lot, which indicates she doesn't know some very basic facts about the earth, such as the fact that the land goes all the way down to the bottom of the sea, and then on and on for thousands of kilometers.

I know you folks know what water, ice, mountains, oceans and rocks ARE, but the three of you seem to be quite shockingly ignorant about how they work. This is something every child in my country learns in public school, and any adult who missed the opportunity can google in a matter of seconds. That's why I find it so disturbing that you all choose not to do so. Instead, you try to confound those of us who DO understand how things work (and would be more than happy to explain) with crackpot whimsies you've pulled out of thin air, or read on an appallingly deceptive website like the one you linked to in the OP.

Now, this is not to say we can't all get along, and couldn't happily crack a beer together, but the only way I can have conversations with you folks on this subject is to explain to you how the world actually is and why your contrary narratives are physically impossible and hope you have an "AHA!" moment.

There is truly no way I can treat the suggestion that the land is floating around on top of the sea as a respectable difference of opinion - such nonsensical beliefs are not equal to facts, and facts are both my God and my muse.

 

[kashmir]

Not "what ice is" - how ice works. A massive ice cap wouldn't melt all at once with a big "sploosh", causing a global inundation. It couldn't. You suggested this yourself, which is what made me wonder if you've ever observed the gradual accumulation and melting of ice and snow first hand.

Pegg has suggested that all the water in the oceans "had to come from somewhere", so assumes it must have all fallen at once from the sky, causing a global inundation. She clearly knows what water is, but has no idea at all how water works.

Likewise, you suggested gigantic glacial erratic boulders could have been transported to their locations in a global flood, which leads us all to assume you don't understand that rocks don't float - IOW, you don't get how rocks work.

Disciple suggested that all the mountains in the world used to be at the bottom of the sea, positing this as evidence of a global inundation, which causes us all to assume that he doesn't understand how mountains work.

Pegg is insisting - INSISTING - that she can prove a global flood happened by pointing out that the surface area of the earth sounds like just a little bit, while the depth of the ocean sounds like a heck of a lot, which indicates she doesn't know some very basic facts about the earth, such as the fact that the land goes all the way down to the bottom of the sea, and then on and on for thousands of kilometers.

I know you folks know what water, ice, mountains, oceans and rocks ARE, but the three of you seem to be quite shockingly ignorant about how they work. This is something every child in my country learns in public school, and any adult who missed the opportunity can google in a matter of seconds. That's why I find it so disturbing that you all choose not to do so. Instead, you try to confound those of us who DO understand how things work (and would be more than happy to explain) with crackpot whimsies you've pulled out of thin air, or read on an appallingly deceptive website like the one you linked to in the OP.

Now, this is not to say we can't all get along, and couldn't happily crack a beer together, but the only way I can have conversations with you folks on this subject is to explain to you how the world actually is and why your contrary narratives are physically impossible and hope you have an "AHA!" moment.

There is truly no way I can treat the suggestion that the land is floating around on top of the sea as a respectable difference of opinion - such nonsensical beliefs are not equal to facts, and facts are both my God and my muse.

As for rocks floating, the major tsunami's we have had lately has moved solid steel, which does not float, clear to other parts of the land.
So what the heck are you even talking about.
water can push non floating materials all the way around the world.

So who is the smart one here about that simple logic?
BTW, ever see water on fire, pushing everything in its path, including things that don't float, for miles and miles?

No?,
let me teach you that rocks don't have to float to move through the force of water.....
Pretty sure 5 year olds know this one
tsunami footage

 

[Alceste]

As for rocks floating, the major tsunami's we have had lately has moved solid steel, which does not float, clear to other parts of the land.
So what the heck are you even talking about.
water can push non floating materials all the way around the world.

So who is the smart one here about that simple logic?
BTW, ever see water on fire, pushing everything in its path, including things that don't float, for miles and miles?

No?,
let me teach you that rocks don't have to float to move through the force of water.....
Pretty sure 5 year olds know this one
tsunami footage

Actually, steel does float. It's even a very common material for constructing the hulls of boats. As long as the weight of the water displaced by an object is less than the weight of the object, the object floats. The Madison boulder in your OP is a solid piece of granite that weighs 5000 tonnes. It's not floating (or "being pushed by water") anywhere, ever, however big a tsunami or flood it encounters. Also, we KNOW that the Madison boulder is a glacial erratic. Even the image title from your website calls it "the Madison boulder erratic".

But here - I've got a gift. This is how scientists try to work out how far a tsunami can move a boulder. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this study.

http://nees.org/site/resources/pdfs/sangster_final_paper.pdf

My thoughts are, a tsunami moving a perfectly round 13 cm stone 20 metres across a gradual incline is very, very weak evidence that a tsunami could ever move a 5000 tonne granite block into the middle of New Hampshire.

 

[Desert Snake]

We can get along, I'm sure. I just get a little wound up when I discover grown men and women who don't understand the basic mechanisms by which the world they live in was formed and sustains us. It's heartbreaking to me, and also a little frightening in terms of humanity's future prospects. I don't get frustrated though until I try to explain but am met with denials, complaints and arguments, when it ought to just click, and produce a big "Oooooh! I see!" as the truth always should.

But I should be used to it by now. I've been a teacher, and it's the same thing with music lessons. Some kids are just completely certain they know much better than me how to play the guitar and piano, so they'd spend the half hour arguing with me instead of learning to play.

At least I got paid for that though!

You don't get it. We already know what you believe. I have massive text explaining continental formation etc. I DON'T CARE. We are discussing possibilities, do you EVER question ANYTHING you are taught. Do you EVER speculate possibilities.
Aside from that, you continually misinterpret everything I comment, not even sure if you're reading or just skimming posts on this thread.

 

[Alceste]

You don't get it. We already know what you believe. I have massive text explaining continental formation etc. I DON'T CARE. We are discussing possibilities, do you EVER question ANYTHING you are taught. Do you EVER speculate possibilities.
Aside from that, you continually misinterpret everything I comment, not even sure if you're reading or just skimming posts on this thread.

I always question everything. That's how I ended up knowing so much.

 

[kashmir]

Actually, steel does float. It's even a very common material for constructing the hulls of boats. As long as the weight of the water displaced by an object is less than the weight of the object, the object floats. The Madison boulder in your OP is a solid piece of granite that weighs 5000 tonnes. It's not floating (or "being pushed by water") anywhere, ever, however big a tsunami or flood it encounters. Also, we KNOW that the Madison boulder is a glacial erratic. Even the image title from your website calls it "the Madison boulder erratic".

But here - I've got a gift. This is how scientists try to work out how far a tsunami can move a boulder. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on this study.

http://nees.org/site/resources/pdfs/sangster_final_paper.pdf

My thoughts are, a tsunami moving a perfectly round 13 cm stone 20 metres across a gradual incline is very, very weak evidence that a tsunami could ever move a 5000 tonne granite block into the middle of New Hampshire.

I do believe you cant admit you were wrong when claiming that I am stupid to believe rocks float and you are now reaching for what isn't there to still be right, when in fact, you are still showing that boulders do move through the power of water, which IS my current argument that you belittled me for.

How far and how small the boulder has to be is completely irrelevant, other than it's your only method left to still be right, when you are wrong anyway.
You said rocks don't float and belittled me over it.

In fact, I never once even said that rocks can float to begin with, never said they couldn't either, you said they couldn't and put words in my mouth claiming I said they could, to belittle me, either or, they can theologically float do to the force of water pushing them, correct?

BTW, solid steel does not float in calm water, but it will move and be displaced in the force of water flow, the same as boulders will.
Bait and switch it to a boat made of steel, is quite the stretch to be right.
No clue why you even did that part nor what it even means.
I never said boats cant float.

So now what is your next move?
Find something else to twist to belittle me more and still try to be right?
I have all night, love every min of this pointless belittling you are attempting.
I may have even did a typo or two, just for you to grasp at

 

[Bunyip]

I do believe you cant admit you were wrong when claiming that I am stupid to believe rocks float and you are now reaching for what isn't there to still be right, when in fact, you are still showing that boulders do move through the power of water, which IS my current argument that you belittled me for.

How far and how small the boulder has to be is completely irrelevant, other than it's your only method left to still be right, when you are wrong anyway.
You said rocks don't float and belittled me over it.

In fact, I never once even said that rocks can float to begin with, never said they couldn't either, you said they couldn't and put words in my mouth claiming I said they could, to belittle me, either or, they can theologically float do to the force of water pushing them, correct?

BTW, solid steel does not float in calm water, but it will move and be displaced in the force of water flow, the same as boulders will.
Bait and switch it to a boat made of steel, is quite the stretch to be right.
No clue why you even did that part nor what it even means.
I never said boats cant float.

So now what is your next move?
Find something else to twist to belittle me more and still try to be right?
I have all night, love every min of this pointless belittling you are attempting.
I may have even did a typo or two, just for you to grasp at

What is relevant is that the specific boulder you identified as evidence for a worldwide flood is known to be a glacial deposit, and did not move there via a flood.

Not only that, but what is also relevant is that boulders such as that are not moved by floods.

You are demanding that the person who researched your claim and found it to be false admit that she was wrong. How does that work? Clearly you were wrong, it is not flood evidence.

 

[metis]

Cross-culturally, about 60% of all cultures have flood myths as part of their religious narratives, and the vast majority of them have issues with periodic flooding.
Also, there is not one shred of scientific evidence to indicate there was a worldwide flood, let alone that it covered all the mountains.

Unfortunately, what some people conveniently ignore is the fact that myth plays a large part in almost all religions, and these myths are important in order to pass on morals and values, so they certainly need not be taken as literal history. To try and insist they must be taken as history misses the point of why these myths were passed on for so many generations to begin with.

 

[Alceste]

I do believe you cant admit you were wrong when claiming that I am stupid to believe rocks float and you are now reaching for what isn't there to still be right, when in fact, you are still showing that boulders do move through the power of water, which IS my current argument that you belittled me for.

How far and how small the boulder has to be is completely irrelevant, other than it's your only method left to still be right, when you are wrong anyway.
You said rocks don't float and belittled me over it.

In fact, I never once even said that rocks can float to begin with, never said they couldn't either, you said they couldn't and put words in my mouth claiming I said they could, to belittle me, either or, they can theologically float do to the force of water pushing them, correct?

BTW, solid steel does not float in calm water, but it will move and be displaced in the force of water flow, the same as boulders will.
Bait and switch it to a boat made of steel, is quite the stretch to be right.
No clue why you even did that part nor what it even means.
I never said boats cant float.

So now what is your next move?
Find something else to twist to belittle me more and still try to be right?
I have all night, love every min of this pointless belittling you are attempting.
I may have even did a typo or two, just for you to grasp at

I'm not belittling you, hon. And I have no problem admitting my mistakes. Why do you think I gave you that present? I even have other presents for you since I spent a good part of last night looking up tsunami / wave / boulder movement evidence.

Look up Ireland's moving boulders. There you'll find a case of a 78 tonne boulder that was dislodged by a storm wave and thrown into a farmer's field one night in 1991. Just the sort of thing you could use to support your claim that the rock in your OP might not be a glacial erratic after all.

I'm trying to help you out, here. I know for a fact that rock in the OP was deposited by a glacier and not a flood, but I'm trying to help you put up a better fight to the contrary.

Basically I'm arguing both sides, since your arguments either lack evidence or rely on extremely poor evidence like the OP link. I've had to discover for myself that liquid water moves surprisingly large boulders (though not nearly as large as the glacial erratic in the OP), since you missed the opportunity to prove it to me.

 

[kashmir]

I'm not belittling you, hon. And I have no problem admitting my mistakes. Why do you think I gave you that present? I even have other presents for you since I spent a good part of last night looking up tsunami / wave / boulder movement evidence.

Look up Ireland's moving boulders. There you'll find a case of a 78 tonne boulder that was dislodged by a storm wave and thrown into a farmer's field one night in 1991. Just the sort of thing you could use to support your claim that the rock in your OP might not be a glacial erratic after all.

I'm trying to help you out, here. I know for a fact that rock in the OP was deposited by a glacier and not a flood, but I'm trying to help you put up a better fight to the contrary.

Basically I'm arguing both sides, since your arguments either lack evidence or rely on extremely poor evidence like the OP link. I've had to discover for myself that liquid water moves surprisingly large boulders (though not nearly as large as the glacial erratic in the OP), since you missed the opportunity to prove it to me.

What are you talking about, what present? :sarcastic
I am lost though, very tired, 30ish hrs up, gonna try to lay down, insomnia.

never the less if I been misreading you sorry, its so hard to tell who from who online.
I never said anything about rocks floating to begin with.
My arguments been of a totally diff direction.
No point to even rehash all that, seems we are on the same page about the boulders.
My main point has been if the whole earth was ice covered, then its melting, would be a global flood, but not all at once and that accounts for alot of what is in the OP link, that no one even is addressing still.
Mass amounts of strata layers displaced, tests have shown, water can do that, just as earthquakes can.

I seen tons of tsunami vids long ago, just assumed others have too.
I just leave too much out of my discussions, I assume people see logic as I do.
Water is one powerful thing, just assume that goes w/o saying.

You do know if those ice caps just break off right now, the whole coasts all around the world is in serious trouble.
Its coming, 100 years or less.

I am basically going back in time, considering ice ages and working off that.
I think too many people are stuck on the flood of noah, something this thread is not about.

heading to bed, but I believe there is overwhelming evidence of global flooding, not a God made it rain for 40 days thing.
As a occurring nature thing as a result of the ice ages ending, there were many of them.

Plus, I did not wish to turn it into a debate that God did it.
Its irrelevant to me, even if he did, nature, science and what we see is what we look at, not the bible.
Not trying to prove god or disprove god.
science cant do that anyway.

But if the OP link is very weak to the flooding thing, I wish you would pick a quote or two and address them, it is not about Noah, or the bible, its about water displacement to me.

Night.

 

[Alceste]

What are you talking about, what present? :sarcastic
I am lost though, very tired, 30ish hrs up, gonna try to lay down, insomnia.

never the less if I been misreading you sorry, its so hard to tell who from who online.
I never said anything about rocks floating to begin with.
My arguments been of a totally diff direction.
No point to even rehash all that, seems we are on the same page about the boulders.
My main point has been if the whole earth was ice covered, then its melting, would be a global flood, but not all at once and that accounts for alot of what is in the OP link, that no one even is addressing still.
Mass amounts of strata layers displaced, tests have shown, water can do that, just as earthquakes can.

I seen tons of tsunami vids long ago, just assumed others have too.
I just leave too much out of my discussions, I assume people see logic as I do.
Water is one powerful thing, just assume that goes w/o saying.

You do know if those ice caps just break off right now, the whole coasts all around the world is in serious trouble.
Its coming, 100 years or less.

I am basically going back in time, considering ice ages and working off that.
I think too many people are stuck on the flood of noah, something this thread is not about.

heading to bed, but I believe there is overwhelming evidence of global flooding, not a God made it rain for 40 days thing.
As a occurring nature thing as a result of the ice ages ending, there were many of them.

Plus, I did not wish to turn it into a debate that God did it.
Its irrelevant to me, even if he did, nature, science and what we see is what we look at, not the bible.
Not trying to prove god or disprove god.
science cant do that anyway.

But if the OP link is very weak to the flooding thing, I wish you would pick a quote or two and address them, it is not about Noah, or the bible, its about water displacement to me.

Night.

The OP article starts out by saying it's all about the Bible and God. I tend to read about science separately from reading about religion, so I didn't even read the rest of it. The fact that it knowingly took a picture of a glacial erratic, CALLED it an erratic in the image title, but claimed it's evidence of a global flood tells me I made the right choice. It's a dishonest article.

Sleep well, kashmir! Insomnia sucks.

 

[dust1n]

Jeez, education must be in a bad state of affairs.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Jeez, education must be in a bad state of affairs.

It's just that not everyone is equally suited to learning. Curious and interested people don't need a "good education" in order to become knowledgable, and you can provide dull people with the "best" education possible with no good results.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degress Farenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birs; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 anphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements accross the world. We do not find Penguine remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would hav devastated most aquatic life.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivablility of such a voyage..
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.

And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....

Sorry, 19 pieces of "evidence" don't even begin to cover the problems with trying to prove myth of Noah's Ark as even the remotest possibility.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IPGwAf0Ivw