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

[_Res Ipsa]

What you studiously avoid is that you have not shown, and cannot show, that the use of the sphere as an approximation is material to the calculation.

Not. Enough. Water. Period.

I'm perfectly fine with the answer: godddidt. But you're just tap dancing now.

More than 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the surface of this planet is covered in water. That does not include the amount of water that is located under the surface of the land masses. So, I would question your opinion that there is not enough water to cover all the land 20 feet deep --- given a very valid possibility that the land masses were smoother and the oceans shallower, and the water came from outerspace (comets and ice meteors) and underground springs.

Check the link I cited for the amount of water in, on, and above the earth. 96.5% of that is already in the ocean. There is not nearly enough. You have to just about double the water in, on, or above the earth to do it.

There is no evidence that, at any time within the last 6,000 years, the land masses were materially smoother, the oceans were materially shallower, or that any comet struck the earth. In fact, the evidence is so the contrary. It is not possible unless you invoke a supernatural, all powerful being, who can violate the known laws of physics and who went to significant effort to hide the evidence.

[_LittleNipper]

[More than 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the surface of this planet is covered in water. That does not include the amount of water that is located under the surface of the land masses. So, I would question your opinion that there is not enough water to cover all the land 20 feet deep --- given a very valid possibility that the land masses were smoother and the oceans shallower, and the water came from outerspace (comets and ice meteors) and underground springs.

Check the link I cited for the amount of water in, on, and above the earth. 96.5% of that is already in the ocean. There is not nearly enough. You have to just about double the water in, on, or above the earth to do it.

There is no evidence that, at any time within the last 6,000 years, the land masses were materially smoother, the oceans were materially shallower, or that any comet struck the earth. In fact, the evidence is so the contrary. It is not possible unless you invoke a supernatural, all powerful being, who can violate the known laws of physics and who went to significant effort to hide the evidence.

Actually, isn't Creation of the Universe and life origin a violation of the known laws of physics. And I do not see that evidence was hidden. It is simply that everything is being dated (including this not so distant past ) under false pretense. Fossils dating formations -- formations dating fossils. The early stages of the Flood would have buries small organism and especially those in living in shallow areas. Small animals would be among the last to survive. Smme birds would hold out to the last. And the very large animals would be the most likely to be found once buried by mud. The fact that uniformitarians cannot seem to find life anywhere else in the universe, given its size, are now developing a theory that there are multiple universes existing in mutiple dimensions. This would provide more worlds where life might exist for them...

Please see: http://www.Bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

believe it or not, i know that 2+2=4.

Not.

A laconic phrase may be used for efficiency (as in military jargon), for philosophical reasons (especially among thinkers who believe in minimalism, such as Stoics), or for better disarming a long, pompous speech (the most famous example being at the Battle of Thermopylae). Spartans were expected to be men of few words, to hold rhetoric in disdain, and to stick to the point. Loquaciousness was seen as a sign of frivolity, and totally unbecoming of sensible, down-to-earth Spartan peers.

+

[_Res Ipsa]

Actually, isn't Creation of the Universe and life origin a violation of the known laws of physics.

No.

And I do not see that evidence was hidden. It is simply that everything is being dated (including this not so distant past ) under false pretense. Fossils dating formations -- formations dating fossils.

False. That's one of the neat little catchphrases YEC's use inside their little YEC bubble. Read up on how the dating is actually done from a source outside your bubble, then we can talk.

The early stages of the Flood would have buries small organism and especially those in living in shallow areas.

The creatures at the bottom of the geologic column are actually simple ocean creatures. How did they drown at all, let alone end up at the bottom of the column?

Small animals would be among the last to survive. Smme birds would hold out to the last. And the very large animals would be the most likely to be found once buried by mud.

Hold on there. How do you know all this? Were you there? Have you flooded the earth to conduct repeated experiments?

The fact that uniformitarians cannot seem to find life anywhere else in the universe, given its size, are now developing a theory that there are multiple universes existing in mutiple dimensions. This would provide more worlds where life might exist for them...

That statement displays a stunning level of ignorance. Read up on how big the universe is and how much we've looked at and then get back to me about not being able to find life "anywhere." Also, educate yourself on the actual history of the theory of multiple universes so you can talk about the motivation for the theory based on fact rather than ignorance.

And, enough with the Gish Gallop. I rode with you this time, but it's the last. The topic here is the Biblical Flood -- not multiple universes.

[_subgenius]

What you studiously avoid is that you have not shown, and cannot show, that the use of the sphere as an approximation is material to the calculation.

i do not have to show that (though i already have- see below, again)...the burden of proof is yours because you are making the claim that it is material to the calculation.LINK
You have yet to even address the inconsistencies in your model...such as assuming an average radius of sea level, but not an average radius of land level. This is sufficient to "prove" that using the sphere is not material to a calculation that is being used to justify an absolute statement of impossibility - which, ironically, is something that science can never do!

I'm perfectly fine with the answer: godddidt. But you're just tap dancing now.

interestingly enough, your argument does not hold water either.

[_subgenius]

Subgenius is also avoiding the implications of claim that the flood waters rose to cover the Earth because of 40 days and 40 night of rain. Even if there were enough water on Earth (which there wasn't) it would not have been possible for this water (or even significant portion of it) to have been taken into the atmosphere and fall out as rain.

and thus we see you discredit your argument...anyone with a Bible knows that "rain" was not the sole source of the water
see Genesis 7:11 and 8:2. (spoiler alert : fountains of the deep)

what are those implications exactly.....?

awkward

[_subgenius]

believe it or not, i know that 2+2=4.

Not.

A laconic phrase may be used for efficiency (as in military jargon), for philosophical reasons (especially among thinkers who believe in minimalism, such as Stoics), or for better disarming a long, pompous speech (the most famous example being at the Battle of Thermopylae). Spartans were expected to be men of few words, to hold rhetoric in disdain, and to stick to the point. Loquaciousness was seen as a sign of frivolity, and totally unbecoming of sensible, down-to-earth Spartan peers.

quite selective on applying this are we not?
Bias much?
To bad its not more Bias of Priene

[_LittleNipper]

Actually, isn't Creation of the Universe and life origin a violation of the known laws of physics.

No.

And I do not see that evidence was hidden. It is simply that everything is being dated (including this not so distant past ) under false pretense. Fossils dating formations -- formations dating fossils.

False. That's one of the neat little catchphrases YEC's use inside their little YEC bubble. Read up on how the dating is actually done from a source outside your bubble, then we can talk.

The early stages of the Flood would have buries small organism and especially those in living in shallow areas.

The creatures at the bottom of the geologic column are actually simple ocean creatures. How did they drown at all, let alone end up at the bottom of the column?

Small animals would be among the last to survive. Smme birds would hold out to the last. And the very large animals would be the most likely to be found once buried by mud.

Hold on there. How do you know all this? Were you there? Have you flooded the earth to conduct repeated experiments?

The fact that uniformitarians cannot seem to find life anywhere else in the universe, given its size, are now developing a theory that there are multiple universes existing in mutiple dimensions. This would provide more worlds where life might exist for them...

That statement displays a stunning level of ignorance. Read up on how big the universe is and how much we've looked at and then get back to me about not being able to find life "anywhere." Also, educate yourself on the actual history of the theory of multiple universes so you can talk about the motivation for the theory based on fact rather than ignorance.

And, enough with the Gish Gallop. I rode with you this time, but it's the last. The topic here is the Biblical Flood -- not multiple universes.

Interestingly but not surprising, you entirely failed to explain how the following could exist and not be the result of the Flood. They certainly do not fit the uniformitarian mold. And I just wonder ---how much of this sort of stuff is suppressed because evolutionists have no answers but now control universities, the science museums, government research facilities, etc.:
http://www.Bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm

[_Drifting]

Subgenius is also avoiding the implications of claim that the flood waters rose to cover the Earth because of 40 days and 40 night of rain. Even if there were enough water on Earth (which there wasn't) it would not have been possible for this water (or even significant portion of it) to have been taken into the atmosphere and fall out as rain.

and thus we see you discredit your argument...anyone with a Bible knows that "rain" was not the sole source of the water
see Genesis 7:11 and 8:2. (spoiler alert : fountains of the deep)

what are those implications exactly.....?

awkward

Why does the Church teach (Primary, Seminary, Institute) "rainfall" as the sole method of flooding the earth?

[_Drifting]

Interestingly but not surprising, you entirely failed to explain how the following could exist and not be the result of the Flood. They certainly do not fit the uniformitarian mold. And I just wonder ---how much of this sort of stuff is suppressed because evolutionists have no answers but now control universities, the science museums, government research facilities, etc.:
http://www.Bible.ca/tracks/dating-radiometric.htm

Nipple, you are correct, the flood "could" have happened.
But then you would have to concede that we "could" have originated as a species exactly the way the Scientologists explain that we came about....and that the moon "could" be made of cheese. Both have a similar amount of evidence supporting their claim as does the flood.

Edited to add: This should be to "Nipper" but my automatic spell checker seems to have developed a sense of humour!