Brad Hudson wrote:LOL. The guy claiming the earth was entirely covered with water within the last 6,000 years is relying on a burden of proof fallacy? You really crack me up.
i never claimed when...i believe i have only claimed that it is possible, if you can find that claim...otherwise i have specifically just disputed another's claim.
Brad Hudson wrote:Look, I know the game. You don't care about the facts because you've already decided you know the "truth."
funny...someone was just saying this about your posts.
Brad Hudson wrote:When the facts don't agree with your holy book, you're going with the book every time. All you do is through up a bunch of smoke and mirrors to convince yourself that there is some wiggle room. Then you declare victory and try to close down the discussion. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
cherry picking through approximation is not "Facts".
Pretending the earth is a sphere is also not a "fact".
The only smoke and mirrors has been in your "calculations" as they were derived from a bad model...but since you did the math you were convinced that the model suddenly became good.
Even the fundamental assumption that a global flood must mean a concentric sphere of water must envelope the earth is flawed....but that simple notion has so far escaped you.
while you mistakenly reduce the earth to a sphere, its surfaces are more like the apple or the egg.
Brad Hudson wrote:If you think that, as you say, not assuming an average radius of land level materially affects the calculation, explain how it does that. How would it change the calculation?
If you are unable to understand that reducing the earth to a sphere with an average radius while assuming that Everest would still be at the same elevation is a flaw - then no wonder the Mount Chimborazo example is lost on you.
Brad Hudson wrote:will the change reduce the calculated water shortage enough to make a difference? You've already led us on a wild goose chase using animations of the geoid that turned out not to be material to the calculation. If you can't explain how and why your latest objection is material, then it's just more tappity, tappity, tap.
if you average/reduce one then you have to for all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth a mean height of 840 meters....but not as a concetric layer for the entire earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth#HydrosphereIf all the land on Earth were spread evenly, water would rise to an altitude of more than 2.7 kmThe total surface area of the Earth is 5.1×108 km2. To first approximation, the average depth would be the ratio of the two, or 2.7 km.