"The Whole Silly Flood Story"

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Again BJ, there's NO EVIDENCE that would support your claims. If what you say really happened, it would have left evidence behind.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa

 

500 metres of water? Blue_Jay, you cannot measure water by length, so your above statement is meaningless.

Yet you said

global sea levels and global changes in sea-level are measured in metres, not kilometres.

I used the standard you set forth, now you are contradicting yourself. Why?

Do you really not understand the difference between sea-level and water?

Water, which was all you referred to in the post I replied to, is measured by volume.
Sea level is measured by height.
However this is a relative, not absolute, measurement.
Thus referring to a 500 metre sea-level is still meaningless,
as you are not stating what you are comparing it to.

It's just one more case of, "oranges have half the vitamin C".

reply to post by dusty1


And yet, none of this is supporting evidence for any of your claims. You know, copy-pasting massive blocks of text from external sources with just a single line isn't proving an argument. You actually have to connect the pieces together.

Of course, you fail to remember that I'm not saying that there hasn't been geologic change, I'm just saying that massive shifts didn't occur over the course of a single year.

Originally posted by puneetsg
Not to forget the Eatern Civilizations, India, China etc. All of them have text that predates the bible by many centuries!

Agreed, not to mention the Epic of Gilgamesh. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh is told to that there is a great flood that God is going to slam the earth with because of their 'sins'.

Gilgamesh is told to build a large Ark by God and to stock it with two of every animal on earth.

Gilgamesh after 40 days and nights lets a raven fly out of the ark in search of land.

The raven returns and Gilgamesh exits the ark to populate the earth.

- This story predates the flood story by about 1k years

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

In some places today, there are great underwater abysses more than six miles [more than 10 km] deep at the plate boundaries.


Yes, they're called subduction zones.

And you cannot prove they existed before the global flood.

Similarly, you cannot prove the global flood happened, so there's no point in me saying whether or not things existed or not prior to this event which you claim happened yet have no supporting evidence for.

It has been estimated by some that water pressures alone were equal to “2 tons per square inch,”
What would that have done to the geology of the earth back then?

Estimated by some? You mean people pulled numbers from their rectum? Putting it in quotes doesn't make something have any more value. You actually have to show your work there.

Oh, and it also would have shattered a certain boat into toothpicks and diced meat if it really did have that much pressure.

reply to post by SirClem


*Ahem* So?

I mean, honestly, it's still just a piece of mythology. The prevalence of stories doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they actually happened. Seriously, just read up on some comparative mythology.

reply to post by Kailassa

However tectonic plate movement does not affect global sea levels and global changes in sea-level are measured in metres, not kilometres.

eustatic sea level 1. n. [Reservoir Characterization] ID: 10663 Global sea level, which changes in response to changes in the volume of ocean water and the volume of ocean basins

Link

Causes of Eustatic Sea-Level Change Changes in eustatic sea level arise from either changes in the volume of ocean basins or changes in the volume of water within those basins. The volume of ocean basins is controlled primarily by the rate of seafloor spreading and secondarily by sedimentation in ocean basins

Accomodation

Do you understand the difference between Eustatic Sea Level and Relative Sea Level?

If sea floor spreading is not caused by Plate Tectonics, then what causes it?

reply to post by Kailassa

Sea level is measured by height.

Thus the 500 meters comment. Again by your own standard.
Height is meters, liters is volume, but you already know that, don't you?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Oh, and it also would have shattered a certain boat into toothpicks and diced meat if it really did have that much pressure.

Oh Madness you must know that water pressure at that level is at the bottom of the ocean and not at the top where boats float.
You do understand that, right? The ark has never been claimed to be a submarine.

I finally caught you on something after all this time, where you are 100% wrong and I am 100% right. I wonder what other area's this applies to in the various threads we have been discussing these past few months.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa

 

Sea level is measured by height.

Thus the 500 meters comment. Again by your own standard.
Height is meters, liters is volume, but you already know that, don't you?

I didn't realise, Blue_Jay, you could only read one line per post.

I'll try repeating the relevant bit, and putting big spaces, and then you might manage better.

Originally posted by Kailassa

Sea level is measured by height.

However this is a relative, not absolute, measurement.

Thus referring to a 500 metre sea-level is still meaningless,

as you are not stating what you are comparing it to.

Saying sea level is 500 metres when you don't specify whether you mean depth - which will vary depending on the depth of the ocean floor, or a comparison to another sea level, in which case you need to specify what the comparison is.

So B.J., what exactly did you mean when you said 500 metres of water?

reply to post by Kailassa


What you said

global sea levels and global changes in sea-level are measured in metres

For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!!

You claim plate tectonics made sea levels rise. So please, entertain us, present objective evidence for a global flood. Show us the sediment evidence, explain to us why there is not a grain of evidence hinting at a global flood when it comes to geology...yet you still claim a global flood happened.

What's the basis for your claims???? The bible? Pleeeeeeease don't say it's the bible because I'm gonna spit out my beer laughing out loud

reply to post by MrXYZ

For crying out loud, stop this nonsense!!

Do you mean it? Any one want a peanut?

You claim plate tectonics made sea levels rise.

Actually Geologists get credit for that idea.

So please, entertain us, present objective evidence for a global flood. Show us the sediment evidence, explain to us why there is not a grain of evidence hinting at a global flood when it comes to geology...yet you still claim a global flood happened.

There is tons of sedimentary evidence of global marine transgressions.

What's the basis for your claims???? The bible? Pleeeeeeease don't say it's the bible because I'm gonna spit out my beer laughing out loud

Que the drum roll......




Yes XYZ the basis for my claim is the Bible.....

reply to post by dusty1

There is tons of sedimentary evidence of global marine transgressions.

Then link me just 1 scientific article that presents evidence for a global flood...including sedimentary evidence

Yes XYZ the basis for my claim is the Bible.....

Well, given that the bible isn't objective evidence, it's rather worthless as evidence...especially in the absence of any hard scientific evidence to back up the crazy claims

antiquity.ac.uk...

Marine Fossils on Top of the Andes Mountains. More than 500 giant fossilised oysters were found 3000 metres (about 2 miles) above sea level in Peru in 2001 by Arturo Vildozola, palaeontologist with the Andean Society of Paleontology.
(photo from AP/Wide World Photos)
Now, to the ancients, fish and/or seashell fossils up in the hills and mountains naturally implied that water levels at some time in the past had to be that high. How else would those seashells get up there?

In the experience of the ancients, only a persistent, calamitous flood could account for such high water in a region that is otherwise largely desert, and where the nearest lakes and seas are far below the elevations where some of these fossils are found.

The world-wide occurrence of marine fossils in high elevations can explain why stories of a great flood are found in the folklore or legends of ancient peoples in diverse places around the globe (Bright 1961; Wickersham 2000: 66-69). It is understandable that primitive peoples had no other conclusion to draw than that a deep flood, one like no other in their experience, must have put those seashells way up there. They did not know about mountain building and the geological processes that can raise fossil-bearing, sedimentary rock strata to great heights. In their minds, the mountains and hills had always been there, just as they saw them, from the beginning of time. The mountains never changed over their lifetime or even over generations. They had no way of knowing about the slow geological processes that we know about today.

So there is evidence of shells on top of mountains all over the world, But no proof of a flood. Because mountains grow over millions of years. I guess you could ask prove mountains grow over millions of years. Some things just seem impossible to beleive, but theres evidence something unbeleivable happened one way or the other. Either a mountain as big as Mount Everest started out at the bottom of a ocean and grew that big or there was water that high at one time. Its still amazing which ever you beleive happened.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa

 

What you said

global sea levels and global changes in sea-level are measured in metres

Are you incapable of giving a meaningful answer, or have you been replaced with a bot which just parrots a line of the post it's "answering" at random?
My intellectually handicapped son could do better,
- but then he didn't have a "Christian" education.

reply to post by Kailassa


I keep telling you, and you keep asking for the same answer, even though I have given it to you numerous times.

Once more the oceans rises and falls in mm, cm, & m.
The ocean increases or decreases the volume in liters.
Come on we learned this stuff in middle school.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Or do you disagree?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Oh, and it also would have shattered a certain boat into toothpicks and diced meat if it really did have that much pressure.

Oh Madness you must know that water pressure at that level is at the bottom of the ocean and not at the top where boats float.
You do understand that, right? The ark has never been claimed to be a submarine.

True, but I also understand F=ma, Force equals mass times acceleration. The amount of water mass times the acceleration of that mass would equal the force at which the ark was hit by water. Toothpicks and diced meat still stands.

I finally caught you on something after all this time, where you are 100% wrong and I am 100% right.

Nope. You didn't, you just misunderstood what I was saying.

I wonder what other area's this applies to in the various threads we have been discussing these past few months.

You know, you might find out where one of us is wrong and the other is right if you just studied some basic science or (crazy thought) actually participated in the discussion.

Alright, I'm just going to do this again, because people seem to be ignoring these basic questions about the flood:

Question 1: Where is the geologic evidence of a global deluge?
Question 2: Where is the evidence that there was a massive reduction in gene pool sizes across every "kind" at the exact same time?
Question 3: Where is the evidence that the boat in the story could actually be sea worthy?

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by Kailassa

 

I keep telling you, and you keep asking for the same answer, even though I have given it to you numerous times.
Once more the oceans rises and falls in mm, cm, & m.
The ocean increases or decreases the volume in liters.
Come on we learned this stuff in middle school.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Or do you disagree?

You are still proving trying to be a smart-ass, while proving you've got no understanding of the topic.

You have shown even you don't know what you meant by "500 metres of water."
You appear to still have trouble understanding distance and volume measurements.

Sea-level is measured using a measurement of distance, but it can be any unit of distance which is relevant, not just the metric scale, and, being a comparative measure, can only be measured in relation to a fixed object or another sea-level measurement.

Ocean volume can be measured by any unit of volume measurement, not only litres. The American measure used is still the imperial cubic mile.