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

[_just me]

The End

[_LittleNipper]

Even any high school science book would more then suffice for this CFR.

Or any of several comments in this very thread.

"there is not enough water in the world to raise sea levels sufficiently to cover the Himalayas and once flooded, there would be no mechanism for drainage."

Or not...
Job 38:8-11
8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,
9 when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,
10 when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,
11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?

Psalm 108:5-9
5 He set the earth on its foundations;
it can never be moved.
6 You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment;
the waters stood above the mountains.
7 But at your rebuke the waters fled,
at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;
8 they flowed over the mountains,
they went down into the valleys,
to the place you assigned for them.
9 You set a boundary they cannot cross;
never again will they cover the earth.

[_subgenius]

Or any of several comments in this very thread.

"there is not enough water in the world to raise sea levels sufficiently to cover the Himalayas and once flooded, there would be no mechanism for drainage."

That actually has not been proven.
1. It assumes facts not in evidence
a. that the earth forms were identical today as were then.
b. that water is across the globe in a spherical form (which has been proven otherwise due to tidal distortion form moon)

2. Science has already proven that given the amount of water we assume exists today that 98% of the earth would be under water. This arguably leaves the highest mountain peaks exposed which may be covered in ice, or were not present during flood, as is the case with volcanic activity.

3. "Mechanism for drainage"? So, you could concede the power of God being able to flood the earth, but propose that this same power could not cause the same waters to recede?....please, explain rationale on that point because it escapes me.

[_SteelHead]

Or any of several comments in this very thread.

"there is not enough water in the world to raise sea levels sufficiently to cover the Himalayas and once flooded, there would be no mechanism for drainage."

That actually has not been proven.
1. It assumes facts not in evidence
a. that the earth forms were identical today as were then.
b. that water is across the globe in a spherical form (which has been proven otherwise due to tidal distortion form moon)

Spherical is close enough for estimates.

2. Science has already proven that given the amount of water we assume exists today that 98% of the earth would be under water. This arguably leaves the highest mountain peaks exposed which may be covered in ice, or were not present during flood, as is the case with volcanic activity.

Has been shown to be blatantly false. I walked you through the math a couple of time. It requires 3 times the volume of water currently on earth to cover the existing topology.

3. "Mechanism for drainage"? So, you could concede the power of God being able to flood the earth, but propose that this same power could not cause the same waters to recede?....please, explain rationale on that point because it escapes me.

It is not a concession to point out the absurdity of your argument. It is a refutation.

[_subgenius]

Spherical is close enough for estimates.

why? because you say so?
what is your tolerance on calculating a sphere as opposed to its true form (geoid or ellipsoid)




its as if you have no real understanding of how the earth is truly shaped and how water forms across the surface

the irony of how you accept the "illusion" of optical contour which is created by the atmosphere as being "close enough"! (now that is good irony)...its like your source of "science" on this matter is the Rand-McNally globe spinning on your desk!
(maybe you should shoot for something higher than the before mentioned "high school" science book)

Has been shown to be blatantly false. I walked you through the math a couple of time. It requires 3 times the volume of water currently on earth to cover the existing topology.

i see, your "math" is more accurate (close enough) than actual science...your math is much better than the calculations by guys like this:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/456919-earl ... d-in-water
Not to mention the irregular form of water across the surface, even a simplfied view can not assume a sphere due to the dramatic influence of tides (for example, on a sphere the tides would all be the same, but they are not. Bay of Fundy has the highest tides at 17 meters while the equator has no tides at all)
Your argument and calculations are blatantly inadequate and inaccurate at their foundation and exhibit a naïve understanding of the actual science and the actual form of the earth.

It is not a concession to point out the absurdity of your argument. It is a refutation.

you should read the "science" proposed in the article i cited above, and then ask the same question about "how did it drain"? - that question merely reflects the same lack of knowledge as i described above.
and more so it illustrates the fallacy of personal incredulity

(hmmm, you are in luck...class seems to be back in session)

[_SteelHead]

Those renderings grossly exaggerate the shape for visual impact. At that level and scale unless you significantly multiply elevations mountains aren't visible at all. I have written visualizations of the earth's surface based on the 3m height set, and unless elevations are multiplied you can't see mountains at that scale.

The impact tides is cyclic and hence offsets itself. The spherical representation of the earth for these volumes is sufficiently acurate enough to show that the volume of water required to inundated the existing topology does not exist on the planet.

You keep referencing an earth billions of years ago....... This does nothing to further your arguments as it assumes a homogeneous topology.

If all of the ice on the planet melted sea levels would rise around 300 meters. You are still 8.5 km shy. Where is the water?

[_subgenius]

Those renderings grossly exaggerate the shape for visual impact. At that level and scale unless you significantly multiply elevations mountains aren't visible at all. I have written visualizations of the earth's surface based on the 3m height set, and unless elevations are multiplied you can't see mountains at that scale.

if you say it enough maybe it will be true....So, now that science does not agree with you, science must be wrong. The images provided are accurate.
no exaggerations, sorry.

The impact tides is cyclic and hence offsets itself. The spherical representation of the earth for these volumes is sufficiently acurate enough to show that the volume of water required to inundated the existing topology does not exist on the planet.

Even the Australians (actual scientists) have found enough water to cover 98% of the earth...the probability for total coverage is greater on my side than yours...after all you can't even get the math correct.
and for what it is worth, the tides being "cyclic" for the distortion i am referencing is over the course of a year...ironically the same amount of time the world was flooded.

You keep referencing an earth billions of years ago....... This does nothing to further your arguments as it assumes a homogeneous topology.

."A hotter mantle would have thickened and buoyed up the Earth's crust beneath the oceans, creating shallower basins and leading to the flooding of what is now land. The continental crust would also have spread, making it lower and flatter and more vulnerable to floods"
personally, i think there is a certain eloquence to equating this physical description as a manifestation of God's will.
There is no reason to assume that the physical modifications resulting from and necessary for a global flood would not have occurred. The good scientific theory form the Australians provides ample evidence to maintain probability that the earth could be completely covered in water.
sorry that is not palatable to you.

So, at least you are admitting is that the surface of the earth is inconsistent over time? But you have specific dates, specific and proven dates, for all that we are talking about, correct?

the reference is simply showing that it is indeed probable and possible that the earth was indeed "flooded".

If all of the ice on the planet melted sea levels would rise around 300 meters. You are still 8.5 km shy. Where is the water?

ask the guys in Australia, they found it everywhere...even the air...and ironically if the water form the air is absent there sure would be no rainbows!

[_SteelHead]

Sub

The Australian study is about earth 3 billion years ago. Their assumptions are for a different scenario. A homogeneous topology.

Currently there is enough water in the atmosphere to cover the earth to a depth of less than 3 inches.

The Bible, and PoGP narratives speak of mountains. Not a homogeneous topology.

Try again.

[_Themis]

a. that the earth forms were identical today as were then.

They mostly were during anytime Man has been around.

b. that water is across the globe in a spherical form (which has been proven otherwise due to tidal distortion form moon)

Desperate and pathetic. Tidal movements of water are not that much and where they are higher in some areas they are lower in other areas.

2. Science has already proven that given the amount of water we assume exists today that 98% of the earth would be under water.

Not the earth of the last few millions of years. Why don't you read the articles you want to quote.

This arguably leaves the highest mountain peaks exposed which may be covered in ice, or were not present during flood, as is the case with volcanic activity.

Volcano's again. Most mountains are not formed from Volcanic activity, and many of those that are like the Hawaiian Islands have been around longer then Man.

3. "Mechanism for drainage"? So, you could concede the power of God being able to flood the earth, but propose that this same power could not cause the same waters to recede?....please, explain rationale on that point because it escapes me.

If you are going to go with magic for everything you cannot explain, then go with it. Don't keep making stuff up like it is real science. The real problem is why would God use magic to hide a global flood. Why bring back all those people he supposedly killed.

[_LittleNipper]

If you are going to go with magic for everything you cannot explain, then go with it. Don't keep making stuff up like it is real science. The real problem is why would God use magic to hide a global flood. Why bring back all those people he supposedly killed.

Magic and the supernatural are entirely different. Magic is by man . The supernatural is of God. Magic is explainable. The supernatural is not. Magic is slight of hand, trickery, illusion. The supernatural is very real and brings about change.

God created a very real and perfect ecological system in 6 days. The Flood took that already decaying ecological system (due to the introduction of sin), and broke it apart and changed it. What is being found are the remnants of the orginal perfect planet, now mixed with that of the sinfull pre-flood earth, mixed with the flood ravaged earth, mixed with the post flood earth, mixed with the ravages of our decaying planet of 4000 years of turmoil. This is want scientists find ; however, without God they have no clue and see everything through the eyes of a uniformitarian ---- which a big error.