world wide flood?

[Alceste]

I would say a 'world wide' flood would have only been true once.

Considering there is about 1.4 billion cu km of water on the earth covering more than 70 percent of the globe’s surface and the average depth of the oceans is 4 km while the average elevation of the land is only 0.8 km above sea level, i think there is plenty of evidence that the entire earth has been flooded at least once.

No, that is not evidence that the world HAS BEEN flooded. That is evidence that the world COULD BE flooded, but only if it happened to be flat. Which it isn't, and never has been.

For that, we have mountains of evidence, literally and figuratively.

 

[Pegg]

No, that is not evidence that the world HAS BEEN flooded. That is evidence that the world COULD BE flooded, but only if it happened to be flat. Which it isn't, and never has been.

For that, we have mountains of evidence, literally and figuratively.

If mountains have always been as high are they currently are, you might have a point. But have they always been exactly as they are now?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If mountains have always been as high are they currently are, you might have a point. But have they always been exactly as they are now?

Within the time of humans, pretty much.

 

[Bunyip]

If mountains have always been as high are they currently are, you might have a point. But have they always been exactly as they are now?

Yes. For the period that man has been on earth the mountains are roughly the same height. Not exactly, but close enough to make no real difference.

Mountain ranges do not change much over a few thousand years.

 

[Pegg]

Your math is bad, that is nowhere near enough water. At the average height above sea level you would he covering half of the land right? Not all of it.

there is as much as 10 times the volume of water in the ocean as there is land above sea level. I think that makes a world wide flood entirely plausible.

 

[Pegg]

Within the time of humans, pretty much.

or perhaps since the time of the great flood which would have drastically changed the landscape beyond recognition.

 

[Bunyip]

there is as much as 10 times the volume of water in the ocean as there is land above sea level. I think that makes a world wide flood entirely plausible.

Yes, but only because your math is bad. It is nowhere near enough.

 

[Pegg]

Yes. For the period that man has been on earth the mountains are roughly the same height. Not exactly, but close enough to make no real difference.

Mountain ranges do not change much over a few thousand years.

and we know this how? Were there geologists 6,000 years ago taking measurements for us?

 

[Pegg]

Yes, but only because your math is bad. It is nowhere near enough.

lol, of course it is.

Its the equivalent of having 10 litres of water to 1 litre of water. 10 litres is well and truly enough to completely cover the 1 litre.

 

[Bunyip]

and we know this how? Were there geologists 6,000 years ago taking measurements for us?

No, there are geologists now measuring the rate of growth. There is also plentyof evidence that no such inundation occured. I live in a part of Westen Australia that has been above sea level for about 600 million years for example.

 

[Bunyip]

lol, of course it is.

Its the equivalent of having 10 litres of water to 1 litre of water. 10 litres is well and truly enough to completely cover the 1 litre.

That didn't make sense buddy. Covering water with water?

 

[Pegg]

That didn't make sense buddy. Covering water with water?

or whatever you want to call it.

10 to 1 is well and trully enough to cover anything.

 

[Bunyip]

or whatever you want to call it.

10 to 1 is well and trully enough to cover anything.

That just doesn't make sense.

 

[Pegg]

That just doesn't make sense.

here you go:

___1
___1___2___3___4___5___6___7___8___9___10


i think that well and trully covers it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why don't you just go with kashmir's explanation? God poofed a lot of extra water into existence and then poofed it away when his wrath was exhausted. That literally makes a thousand times more sense than trying to cram the flood story into what we know to be true about geology, paleontology and oceanography.

I didn't offer my opinion on the Flood narrative.

 

[Bunyip]

here you go:

___1
___1___2___3___4___5___6___7___8___9___10


i think that well and truly cover it

If you have 10 lt of water in a dish, and a plasticine mountain in the middle of the dish that is 1 lt in volume the water may not come even close to covering it.

There is no logical reason whatsoever that a 10 lt volume of water would necessarily cover a 1 lt volume of mountain. You are not making sense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

 

[Pegg]

If you have 10 lt of water in a dish, and a plasticine mountain in the middle of the dish that is 1 lt in volume the water may not come even close to covering it.

There is no logical reason whatsoever that a 10 lt volume of water would necessarily cover a 1 lt volume of mountain. You are not making sense.

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.

 

[Pegg]

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.

Do you think Moses was willfully ignorant too?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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

Therefore?