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

[_SteelHead]

Nipper was in over his head 35 pages ago....

I have God on my side. You cannot top that 30 pages from now.

Where?

[_LittleNipper]

[
Where?

What I mean, is that evolutionists and uniformitarians are just as unscientific as everyone else, so spare us any "scientific" lecture, and we will save 30 more pages of bunk. Creationism is founded on understanding how God may have done things. Evolution and its sisters are founded on secularism, and how things might have happened if God never existed.

[_Res Ipsa]

Please, offer your opinion on the following as either an accurate depiction of the earth or not.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -time.html

The answer, if you had bothered to actually read the page you linked to, is no. The geoid is not the actual shape of the earth, and the video exaggerates the effect of differences in gravity 7000 times.

[_Res Ipsa]

Well, even a crank sees issues with the theory of the Big Bang. In any case, the theory isn't any more scientific the Creationism or the Flood. It simply has to do with who believes what.

All you are demonstrating is an ignorance about how science works. Neither creationism nor the flood are supported by the vast weight of scientific evidence. Just because you find a crank that disagrees with the big bang theory doesn't make everything just a matter of belief.

[_DrW]

Let's put things in perspective here. The earth's maximum diameter is 12,756.2 kilometers (7,926.3 miles) at the equator, and its minimum diameter at the poles is 12,713.6 kilometers (7,899.9 miles). Its average diameter is 12,742.0 kilometers (7,917.5 miles).

Thus its maximum diameter is only 0.11 % greater than, and its minimum diameter is only 0.22 % less than its average diameter. Its highest mountain peak is only about 8.8 kilometers (5.5 miles) above mean sea level, and its lowest ocean trench is only about 10.4 kilometers (6.4 miles) below mean sea level.

If the earth were reduced to the size of a standard cue ball (about 2.25 or 5.7 cm in diameter), with all its irregularities reduced proportionately, it would vary from perfect roundness by less 25 ten thousandths of an inch, or less than 64 micrometers. Its highest mountain peak would protrude only 16 ten thousandths of an inch or so (39 micrometers) above its surface, and its deepest "scratch" would only be about 18 ten thousandths of an inch (less than 47 micrometers) deep. In short, it would appear more nearly perfectly round and feel smoother to the touch than a typical, polished, slightly used cue ball!

Its ocean, reduced to the same scale, would form an almost microscopically thin film of dampness with an average thickness of only 7 ten thousandths of an inch (18 micrometers)! This would not even be deep enough to submerge a typical dust speck!

Great analogy. Thank you for some sanity. (We didn't have a pool table at home, but lots of eggs, so the version I taught my kids was the the Earth's surface was proportionally smoother than that of an egg.)

Most people I know have these kinds of facts in their "common knowledge" data base. Apparently not so with our faithful friends. One shutters to think what other common knowledge facts they have no clue about.

Little Nipper and subgenius seem locked in a contest to see who can bring up the silliest pseudoscience objections to reality from the most ridiculous creationist websites.

[_Gunnar]

Great analogy. Thank you for some sanity. (We didn't have a pool table at home, but lots of eggs, so the version I taught my kids was the the Earth's surface was proportionally smoother than that of an egg.)

Most people I know have these kinds of facts in their "common knowledge" data base. Apparently not so with our faithful friends. One shutters to think what other common knowledge facts they have no clue about.

Little Nipper and subgenius seem locked in a contest to see who can bring up the silliest pseudoscience objections to reality from the most ridiculous creationist websites.

You're welcome! I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of subgenius (what an apt user name he chose for himself! It makes me wonder sometimes if he is, in actuality, a covert "Poe") and Little Nipper. Extreme, inflexible TBMs like subgenius (if he really is one) have inadvertently done as much or more to turn me off from religion, in general, and Mormonism in particular than all the best scientific evidence and soundest arguments I have ever learned from science and respected scientists like you!

[_subgenius]

Please, offer your opinion on the following as either an accurate depiction of the earth or not.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -time.html

The answer, if you had bothered to actually read the page you linked to, is no. The geoid is not the actual shape of the earth, and the video exaggerates the effect of differences in gravity 7000 times.

not sure what link you are following...but most of you guys are that way.

"Markedly different from a simple sphere or ellipsoid, the geoid is the mathematically 'true' shape of Earth. It represents a motionless global ocean but takes into account the effects of the Earth’s rotation, weight difference resulting from the position of mountains and ocean trenches, and uneven mass distribution and density variations in the planet’s interior. "

[_subgenius]

Let's put things in perspective here. The earth's maximum diameter is 12,756.2 kilometers (7,926.3 miles) at the equator, and its minimum diameter at the poles is 12,713.6 kilometers (7,899.9 miles). Its average diameter is 12,742.0 kilometers (7,917.5 miles).

Thus its maximum diameter is only 0.11 % greater than, and its minimum diameter is only 0.22 % less than its average diameter. Its highest mountain peak is only about 8.8 kilometers (5.5 miles) above mean sea level, and its lowest ocean trench is only about 10.4 kilometers (6.4 miles) below mean sea level.

If the earth were reduced to the size of a standard cue ball (about 2.25 or 5.7 cm in diameter), with all its irregularities reduced proportionately, it would vary from perfect roundness by less 25 ten thousandths of an inch, or less than 64 micrometers. Its highest mountain peak would protrude only 16 ten thousandths of an inch or so (39 micrometers) above its surface, and its deepest "scratch" would only be about 18 ten thousandths of an inch (less than 47 micrometers) deep. In short, it would appear more nearly perfectly round and feel smoother to the touch than a typical, polished, slightly used cue ball!

Its ocean, reduced to the same scale, would form an almost microscopically thin film of dampness with an average thickness of only 7 ten thousandths of an inch (18 micrometers)! This would not even be deep enough to submerge a typical dust speck!

Great analogy. Thank you for some sanity. (We didn't have a pool table at home, but lots of eggs, so the version I taught my kids was the the Earth's surface was proportionally smoother than that of an egg.)

Most people I know have these kinds of facts in their "common knowledge" data base. Apparently not so with our faithful friends. One shutters to think what other common knowledge facts they have no clue about.

Little Nipper and subgenius seem locked in a contest to see who can bring up the silliest pseudoscience objections to reality from the most ridiculous creationist websites.

maybe you two need a room?
Again, the idea that the earth is shaped as a cue ball is more the issue than the earth's surface being as an orange.....both "analogy" are inadequate and misleading. One must state that the earth is like a deformed orange...little/minor irregularity across surface but not a primitive shape in dimension or mathematically.
Thus the assumption, at that scale, as to the behavior of water, etc... is flawed (as has already been proven by better scientist than thou).

The graphics posted have sufficiently illustrated the inadequacy of previously posted "estimations" for how the earth may or may not have been covered by water. As with many "scientists" and "code writers" (as if that appeal to authority means anything) on this thread - the stench of "wannabe" overwhelms actual competence in conveying adequate knowledge on this topic...either theological or scientific.
There is ample evidence, both disputable and not, that increases the probability of a global flood...whereas the evidence that renders such an event impossible is completely absent....which is why every discussion on this matter eventually becomes a discussion about "when" Noah's flood occurred...because the truth is that a flood is possible and the only argument that can somewhat reasonably be engaged is on the time period....and to that end there are inconsistent points on either side.

The bottom line is that it is possible, by modern and commonly accepted scientific principles, for the earth to have been covered by water at some point in time prior to today.

[_DrW]

The bottom line is that it is possible, by modern and commonly accepted scientific principles, for the earth to have been covered by water at some point in time prior to today.

It is scientifically accepted is that Earth has been pretty much completely covered by water more than once. That water, however, was in the solid state during these "Snowball Earth" epochs.

As for liquid water, there is no evidence that the Earth has ever been completely covered with liquid water, especially as recently as 4,800 years ago.

[_Drifting]

As for liquid water, there is no evidence that the Earth has ever been completely covered with liquid water, especially as recently as 4,800 years ago.

It's worse than that.
The earth needs to have gone from 'not covered entirely with water' to 'entirely covered with water' within forty days and nights. And then gone from 'entirely covered with water' to 'not entirely covered with water' in about 12 months. And it needs to have done both of those things no later than 5,000 years ago for a) The Bible to be accurate and b) the Church not to be officially promoting a myth as literal earth history.

If 'belief' were evidence subgenius would have a strong case...