Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[_LittleNipper]

Use the formula for the volume of a sphere to calculate the amount of water needed to raise the sea level over the Himalayas.

1st calculate the volume required to cover the highest mountains. (Hint radius of the earth at sea level + 8.84 km).
2nd calculate the volume at sea level.

3rd. Subtract 2 from 1.

4th Multiply by .9 to roughly account for landmass.

Now find the resultant volume of water.

Roughly 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water. Or more than 3 times the existing volume of the seas & oceans.

Where did it go?

The surface of the earth was flatter, and there was and is underground water.

[_Themis]

The surface of the earth was flatter

Not 5000 years ago or even millions of years ago.

and there was and is underground water.

So? It doesn't just come out. It's down there for a reason and even it is not enough.

[_SteelHead]

Himalayas didn't exist 5K years ago?

How bout the Rockies?

[_SteelHead]

What is to be understood by?:

Moses 7:28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

Is this not evidence for the LDS of antediluvial rain and mountains?

[_Franktalk]

You are not showing an open mind, but an ignorant one. The mechanics don't work that way.

Oh Themis the world must be so wonderful for you. Each day your life is filled with exciting bits of knowledge. So tell me what was the height of the tallest mountain before the flood? And of course you should also know the average depth of the ocean at that time as well? I mean you sound so sure of yourself. You must have some data to back up your claims. Or are you just making up stuff again?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 075354.htm

and

Some faults incise the earth's crust and reach the earth's upper mantle. These are called deep faults and are typically hundreds or thousands of kilometers long, as much as 700 kilometers deep, and from several hundred meters to tens of kilometers wide. Deep faults are ancient. They bound large blocks of the earth's crust and have different structures and developments.

http://webgis.wr.usgs.gov/globalgis/met ... faults.htm

Sure sounds to me that the ancient mechanics were vertical. But being ignorant of such things I just have to guess well.

[_bcuzbcuz]

The volume of a sphere is 4/3 pi x r^3. The volume of water required to cover the himalayas simply does not exist on the planet.

Come now open your mind up a little. Simple mechanics shows us that sinking the continents and rising the sea floors could easily flood the earth. Are you saying that a God that could fashion the universe could not make a flood? Or are you saying that it is your belief that God does not exist? It seems to me that a God that can not flood His own creation is not a God. Is not the argument for a weak God a way of arguing for a strong position of man in the universe? Are we not a product of nature and we sit at the top of the evolutionary tree? I mean a weak God did not even create life or anything. Nature is God and man is top dog from a naturalist point of view. So isn't this all an attempt to replace God with man?

The volume of a toroid is V = 2 (pi^2) ( r^2) R. Aren't I smart.

What you are actually trying to prove is that your God sank the continents, raised the sea floors, then flooded the world, destroyed all life except for Noah and his family and animals on the ark......and then destroyed all evidence of doing so?

This almighty God, that you so dearly wish for, is a master of trickery. And for what purpose?

Your scenario would have the Egyptian peoples creating their first pyramids and their life around the Nile (flowing from Kilimanjaro) then all this was destroyed by the flood whilst Kilimanjaro was flattened. Then up pops Kilimanjaro again, the Nile flows again and the new Egyptians go right back to building pyramids? (Archaeological finds such as pottery ....millions of pieces of pottery, have been found around the deltas of the Nile dating back more than 6000 BCE. This pottery has been been buried by natural fluvial depositions, not a massive flood.)

[_SteelHead]

I'd say the tallest pre flood mountain was mt. Everest. Go figure. But Ararat is just shy of 17k feet. Was it significantly shorter before Peleg?

Other problems with your scenario. Various ice fields that have continuous deposition records for 10s of thousands of years. The dating of bristle cone pines to before the flood. And dozens of civilizations whose lifes, building, and development went uninterrupted through those years.

[_subgenius]

As was posted previously, Australian scientist have already determined that the 28% dry land we have today was likely 2% (or less) some time ago. This is because the amount of water (which includes water vapor in the air) was actually across the earth due to the climate conditions. Most scientist agree that just the melting of ice caps would raise the sea level 75-80 meters from its current level.
Granted the average height of mountains are about 4000 meters but most mountains were not created "gradually" but rather abruptly. And since most mountains have evidence of being at a lower level atop them there is no real geologic stretch required in what the Australians are demonstrating.

The quasi-scientist on this thread still have no rebuttal for the simple notion that if one recognizes that God could flood the world, then surely God could flood the world. The "rules" of physical science do not apply to the Divine (ergo the term supernatural)...i mean, there is currently no scientific support for a man to be able to walk on water, let alone walking on water by faith alone (Peter).

[_Themis]

You are not showing an open mind, but an ignorant one. The mechanics don't work that way.

Oh Themis the world must be so wonderful for you. Each day your life is filled with exciting bits of knowledge. So tell me what was the height of the tallest mountain before the flood? And of course you should also know the average depth of the ocean at that time as well? I mean you sound so sure of yourself. You must have some data to back up your claims. Or are you just making up stuff again?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 075354.htm

and

Some faults incise the earth's crust and reach the earth's upper mantle. These are called deep faults and are typically hundreds or thousands of kilometers long, as much as 700 kilometers deep, and from several hundred meters to tens of kilometers wide. Deep faults are ancient. They bound large blocks of the earth's crust and have different structures and developments.

http://webgis.wr.usgs.gov/globalgis/met ... faults.htm

Sure sounds to me that the ancient mechanics were vertical. But being ignorant of such things I just have to guess well.

I am not sure if you are just this ignorant or not. You continue to cite articles that have nothing to do with what we are talking about. Now show the mechanics that would cause denser oceanic crust to rise while at the same time lighter continental crust to lower.

[_Themis]

As was posted previously, Australian scientist have already determined that the 28% dry land we have today was likely 2% (or less) some time ago.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL Why not say when these scientists said this happened. I have to laugh at you and frank wanting to quote scientific literature as though one thing in might support what you want but leave the rest out. Lets try to be honest with what they have to say.

Granted the average height of mountains are about 4000 meters but most mountains were not created "gradually" but rather abruptly.

And where is your scientific evidence most mountains were created abruptly. Also is abruptly for you a matter of minutes, days, weeks, years, or millions of years. If millions of years then I would agree.

And since most mountains have evidence of being at a lower level atop them there is no real geologic stretch required in what the Australians are demonstrating.

I don't think any one is disagreeing with what they are saying. We just don't pick and choose what we are going to keep and throw out. I don't see them suggesting most mountains forming in weeks or years, or that the world was almost completely covered anytime millions of years ago.

The quasi-scientist on this thread still have no rebuttal for the simple notion that if one recognizes that God could flood the world, then surely God could flood the world. The "rules" of physical science do not apply to the Divine (ergo the term supernatural)...i mean, there is currently no scientific support for a man to be able to walk on water, let alone walking on water by faith alone (Peter).

I am going to assume a typo and you meant create instead of flood. You and frank continue to miss the point. If you want to say magic, just say magic and be done with it. It's you and people like frank who want to pull out pseudo science, or misrepresent actual scientists as you are with these Australian scientists. Now the problem we see with the magic card that people have been bringing it up over and over again is that this God has to hide the evidence a global flood ever happened in which all people, except 8, and most life destroyed. This God has to bring it all back to pre-flood conditions including people. That is why this God would be like Loki. This is the real point people are trying to get you and others like frank to grasp.