Did a World-Wide Flood in Noah's day Happen? (grace, Satan, rejecting)

[TRANSPONDER]

Eusebius, aside you attempts to patronize us 'kiddies' you yourself contradict this statement:

""We now know, of course, that the earth has plenty of water to launch a global flood. It has been calculated that if the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet. But is there enough water to cover a 29,035 foot mountain?" Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?"

This is saying that there is now enough water to cover the earth IF THE EARTH WAS FLAT.

I presume you can read, Eusebius minor?

Your view is that the earth was not flat but had mountains -though not as high as they are now, because you had to lower them to be submerged by the amount of water you worked out on your hand -held calculator was available (subsquently inventing an unfounded but convenient rate of growth to get them to where they are now).

You yourself have completely refuted the post you quoted as evidence.

Don't you see how absurd you are making yourself look even without your cheap attempts to patronize us?

[TRANSPONDER]

I am aware of course that 'Flat' with low mountains and with mountains but not as high as they now are, are can eventually be made to look as though they are the same theory, so let us look at a Flood- believer site which roundly scuppers that theory (underlining mine):-

"Many Young Earth Creationists espouse the theory that most of the Earth's mountains and sedimentary rock strata were formed underwater during Noah's flood by massive global volcanic and tectonic activity. They then conclude that because the mountains formed during the flood, not as much water was needed to cover the Earth to "fifteen cubits" above the highest mountain as Genesis 7:20 requires. Nice try, but no prize.

That answer does not meet the Scriptural or geophysical requirements, as the Bible clearly says (see the verses above) that the mountains were already there, and by implication, the continents and tectonic plates were in their present-day locations (give or take a hundred yards to account for 4,000+ years of continental drift). Additionally, the alleged underwater volcanic and tectonic activity, on such a massive scale as proposed by Young Earth Creation Science models, would have produced a great deal of acid which would be detectable as SO4 ions in the Greenland Ice Sheet core record. That evidence is simply not there."
The Fountains of Noah's Flood and the Windows of Heaven

This, by the way, is from a fairly unquestioning christian site which goes on to give us a good chuckle with this bit of back to front logic.

"Noah's Flood did happen because the Bible is true, so let's try and find answers that can fit the facts, both scientific and Biblical. After all, Jesus Himself confirmed that the flood was a real event, so there must be an explanation." (1)

It then goes on to fiddle geology to produce a flood out of nowhere by "Scientists are just now finding evidence to confirm the presence of large volumes of water deep inside the Earth, enough to fill Earth's ocean basins 10 times over (see also Earth Mantle 'Ocean': 3-D Seismic Model Of Vast Water Reservoir Revealed)."

Which if you read the link says:

"If you combine the volume of this anomaly with the fact that the rock can hold up to about 0.1 percent of water, that works out to be about an Arctic Ocean's worth of water."

0.1 percent of water is - as I have said said before - mere damp soil. It is not a huge underground reservoir of water. There is no mysterious hidden 'ocean' under China. There are various elaborate models to have volcanic activity 'squeeze' this water out in the form of an additional ocean, but I have never seen anywhere any evidence (The Bible must be true' is not 'evidence') that any such thing ever occurred. but even then, would it do any good? The extra water still has to come from somewhere by some feasible natural mechanism - remember that waving a magic want makes as reasonable mechanism pointless. God can make an ocean (as you said - Eusebius) from a thimbleful of water.

(1) I hate to seem to state the obvious, but Eusebius minor will probably need this spelled out "If the Bible is not true, and the sayings attributed to Jesus are not true, then there is no reason to suppose that the flood was real."

[PoppySead]

Wow Eusebius, you gave me so much proof that Christians are indeed pompous conceded fantasy laden misguided followers that I don't know what to start with...........since I have no "what if's" up my sleeve I guess I'll just have to pass with a question.

What if you're wrong, there was no flood, would that shake your belief? Do you actually need the magic tricks and fantasy to believe or could you possibly believe in your God in our normal surroundings? Why do Christians need the tricks, magic and movie theatrics to have their beliefs. I don't need them, it doesn't matter what historic fantasy is true or not, mine stands day to day with whatever is around me at the time. It's much more relaxing and seems more enjoyable IMO.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by mikebnllnb

This post shows you are either a troll or your cognitive and reading abilities are that of a preschooler. In either case it makes any kind of discourse with you pointless and futile.

And I apologize to the memory of C34 when I compared you to him. He at least had some dignity.

Agreed. THis does prove, however, that the wooden icon god-deity of our primo poster-child here is a concoction of a vengeful and vicious humorless god. Hardly as represented by the troll-o-mats here.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

How old did you say you are?

Go through the posts I presented. I presented loads of facts. Just because you don't agree with the facts presented does not make them unfactual.

Facts schmacts. You present nothing but yowling at the moon statements completely unsupported by any links that are credible. Your "'Cause my bible tells me so" juss dohn cut it with anyone 'ceptin' the kiddies you live amonst that bleebe anything that is sugar-coated.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

"We now know, of course, that the earth has plenty of water to launch a global flood. It has been calculated that if the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet. But is there enough water to cover a 29,035 foot mountain? " to read more go here:
Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?

Originally Posted by Eusebius

If you read the article, you would have noted that they did not say the earth is flat, so you are using a fallacy of straw man. That goes for all you others who stated this.

(editted etc.)

Now I know I have to spell it out for you kiddies out there, so do you notice the bolded, italic, underlined "IF" above? That means IF something were so then such and such is so. I know, I know it is a hard concept for you bible bashers out there. It is not completely your fault that you can't think. You have been dumbed down over the years but I am here to help you to rationally think.

For all you kids who can't read, I will re-state it and explain it for you:

"We now know, of course, that the earth has plenty of water to launch a global flood. It has been calculated that if the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet. But is there enough water to cover a 29,035 foot mountain?" Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?

Now then kiddies, it does no good to read the above and then try to disprove it by saying puerile things such as:

Now I have to admit, I didn't know that if someone like the highly advanced rifleman said "John Morris was born in 1946 that that disproves the world wide flood in this article or that if he said he is an American that that disproves his main thesis or that if Morris is a young earth creationist (I don't know if he underlined those words to really make a point) as if being a young earth creationist (underlined words or not) that Morris can't be correct as to a world-wide flood. Now children, that is not how you properly make an argument nor win an argument.

Mr. Morris' argument that the earth does have enough water to have a world-wide flood. Anyone of you who can't abide by these rules will have to stand in the corner, wear this pointed dunce hat and wear this sign, "I am a dunce."

Well, that'd be because it does not. This was tried once before, by C34, to conflate an article that claimed vast sloshing water resources under the earth. Tom also did not bother to read it all, in which the article said that the water they spoke of, hypothetically, was at best trapped as micro-particles in micro-pore structures that could not be accessed in any meaningful way. Just as "moisture", never as conveniently available gushers, that could be called up as necessary, and then just as conveniently returned back.

Oh but that would all gush up into...uhmmm.. fully collapsed, compressed and subsided geological crater formations. Which also would have provided the necessary new volume to create lakes or depressions for that exact same non-water to flow back into. Even if it did exist, which it so clearly does not....

Such wild circular arguments can cause brain damage. Perhaps that's what's happened here to the presenter...

But that part didn't fit the flood requirements so it is Selectively ignored. As you do with literally anything that your critically hampered mindset dislikes. How nice that must be for you!

NOTE: I'm not the only one to notice this circuitous crap...

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Eusebius, aside from your attempts to patronize us 'kiddies' you yourself contradict this statement:

""We now know, of course, that the earth has plenty of water to launch a global flood. It has been calculated that if the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet. But is there enough water to cover a 29,035 foot mountain?"

Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?"

This is saying that there is now enough water to cover the earth IF THE EARTH WAS FLAT.

I presume you can read, Eusebius minor?

Your view is that the earth was not flat but had mountains -though not as high as they are now, because you had to lower them to be submerged by the amount of water you worked out on your hand -held calculator was available (subsquently inventing an unfounded but convenient rate of growth to get them to where they are now).

You yourself have completely refuted the post you quoted as evidence.

Don't you see how absurd you are making yourself look even without your cheap attempts to patronize us?

NO, I do not think he sees how utterly absurd his "Fact-filled" posts have all made him look. Well, having been put in my academic place, I'll leave him to you boys now.

(BTw, I watched the linked video. It's presented by a total hydrological ninny-moron. He obviously didn't even attend the first Intro to Hydrology lecture, since well, you can see for yourself...

If this is the defended level of questioning and critical thinking, then I can see why God wanted to kill all of those people off. Too bad he left some to repopulate, even though that's also technically & mathematically impossible as well.. Sigh.

Do finish Euselessibius off quick-like though would yah? Like a pack of intelligent wolves feeding on a lone stupid inexperienced and uneducated lamby that stood out in the field a bit too long, bleating it's innocence to ... to... no-one at all!

(as the bumber sticker in Colorado states: "Eat lamb: 10 M coyotes can't be wrong!")

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by PoppySead

Wow Eusebius, you gave me so much proof that Christians are indeed pompous conceded fantasy laden misguided followers that I don't know what to start with...........since I have no "what if's" up my sleeve I guess I'll just have to pass with a question.

What if you're wrong, there was no flood, would that shake your belief? Do you actually need the magic tricks and fantasy to believe or could you possibly believe in your God in our normal surroundings? Why do Christians need the tricks, magic and movie theatrics to have their beliefs. I don't need them, it doesn't matter what historic fantasy is true or not, mine stands day to day with whatever is around me at the time. It's much more relaxing and seems more enjoyable IMO.

Read the link provided.
I am not wrong. It is not a matter of "what if I'm wrong." Asking questions such as "Why do Christians need tricks, magic etc." does not PROVE the earth was not flooded.

The fact that I am pompous does not disprove the article. You are merely shifting your argument to the human rather than the problem at hand.

While I am thankful to God you are a believer (I take it you are from what you wrote) I would encourage you to research this out. The Jesus you believe in is the same Jesus who said Noah really existed, really built an ark and a flood took all of earth's inhabitants to their death. Believe Him if you can't believe me.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Agreed. THis does prove, however, that the wooden icon god-deity of our primo poster-child here is a concoction of a vengeful and vicious humorless god. Hardly as represented by the troll-o-mats here.



Facts schmacts. You present nothing but yowling at the moon statements completely unsupported by any links that are credible. Your "'Cause my bible tells me so" juss dohn cut it with anyone 'ceptin' the kiddies you live amonst that bleebe anything that is sugar-coated.





Well, that'd be because it does not. This was tried once before, by C34, to conflate an article that claimed vast sloshing water resources under the earth. Tom also did not bother to read it all, in which the article said that the water they spoke of, hypothetically, was at best trapped as micro-particles in micro-pore structures that could not be accessed in any meaningful way. Just as "moisture", never as conveniently available gushers, that could be called up as necessary, and then just as conveniently returned back.

Oh but that would all gush up into...uhmmm.. fully collapsed, compressed and subsided geological crater formations. Which also would have provided the necessary new volume to create lakes or depressions for that exact same non-water to flow back into. Even if it did exist, which it so clearly does not....

Such wild circular arguments can cause brain damage. Perhaps that's what's happened here to the presenter...

But that part didn't fit the flood requirements so it is Selectively ignored. As you do with literally anything that your critically hampered mindset dislikes. How nice that must be for you!

NOTE: I'm not the only one to notice this circuitous crap...



NO, I do not think he sees how utterly absurd his "Fact-filled" posts have all made him look. Well, having been put in my academic place, I'll leave him to you boys now.

(BTw, I watched the linked video. It's presented by a total hydrological ninny-moron. He obviously didn't even attend the first Intro to Hydrology lecture, since well, you can see for yourself...

If this is the defended level of questioning and critical thinking, then I can see why God wanted to kill all of those people off. Too bad he left some to repopulate, even though that's also technically & mathematically impossible as well.. Sigh.

Do finish Euselessibius off quick-like though would yah? Like a pack of intelligent wolves feeding on a lone stupid inexperienced and uneducated lamby that stood out in the field a bit too long, bleating it's innocence to ... to... no-one at all!

(as the bumber sticker in Colorado states: "Eat lamb: 10 M coyotes can't be wrong!")

Stand in the corner and receive your "Dunce" reward. You can't even follow simple instructions.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Eusebius, aside you attempts to patronize us 'kiddies' you yourself contradict this statement:

""We now know, of course, that the earth has plenty of water to launch a global flood. It has been calculated that if the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet. But is there enough water to cover a 29,035 foot mountain?" Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?"

This is saying that there is now enough water to cover the earth IF THE EARTH WAS FLAT.

I presume you can read, Eusebius minor?

Your view is that the earth was not flat but had mountains -though not as high as they are now, because you had to lower them to be submerged by the amount of water you worked out on your hand -held calculator was available (subsquently inventing an unfounded but convenient rate of growth to get them to where they are now).

You yourself have completely refuted the post you quoted as evidence.

Don't you see how absurd you are making yourself look even without your cheap attempts to patronize us?

At least you are head and shoulders above the other childish posters here by following the instructions.

In the town I grew up in is a mountain. It is called Mount Pleasant. It is 300 feet above sea level. One can see about 40 plus miles from its top. It is the highest mountain near the town. A mountain need not be 29,000 feet high.
The lowest mountain in the world is:
What is the world's lowest mountain

Officially, the world's lowest mountain is Mt Wycheproof near the town of Wycheproof, Victoria, Australia. It stands at a mere 43 m in height. (141 feet high.)

There was a very interesting show on PBS a few years ago about Noah's flood. The scientists were showing a computer simulation of the continent(s) submimating and causing extreme pressure on the under water reservoirs under the oceans and causing these fissures to open up with huge water spouts. I thought it was very interesting.

Now then, what I wrote did not disprove the article. Remember the article said IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF the earth was flat. It was not saying the earth was flat. If the earth were without mountains and with out sea basins the water would cover the earth by 8000 feet. That does not contradict anything. The mountains of Noah's day could have been hundreds of feet high. Scientists have speculated that when the continents slid away from the original Pangea India's plate pushed northward creating the Himalayas. Now you can say that happened millions of years ago but last I looked I didn't see a plaque on those mountains signed by ancient historians that they were formed millions of years ago. It was formed about 5,000 years ago. You will just have to take my word for this.
I was going to give you an 'A' on your report but you will have to be marked down for this snide remark: "I presume you can read, Eusebius minor?" I requested no snide remarks. You still get a 'C' so don't feel too bad. At least you don't have to wear the dunce hat like the others who can't follow simple instructions that even a 5 year old could have followed.

[Obamuchadnezzar]

I wonder what Jesus thinks of his followers calling people dunces (even if they are wrong and you're right) and not acting meekly when they proclaim to believe in him.

[whoppers]

Bah, Jesus also predicted the end of the world within his own generation - and that turned out to be wrong (prompting his followers to start invoking their own understandings of time and words like "soon", reinterpreting Jesus' words in order to keep the Church faithful). So I'm not so sure I'd accept a Noah's Ark story simply on the basis that a 1st Century Jew was brought up to believe in it - thousands of years before science could show that such stories were myths, and nothing more.

Jesus believed a lot of things, many of them now untenable. But then again - we don't actually have any actual writings of Jesus, just other people writing about him - so who knows what he REALLY said...

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

I am aware of course that 'Flat' with low mountains and with mountains but not as high as they now are, are can eventually be made to look as though they are the same theory, so let us look at a Flood- believer site which roundly scuppers that theory (underlining mine):-

"Many Young Earth Creationists espouse the theory that most of the Earth's mountains and sedimentary rock strata were formed underwater during Noah's flood by massive global volcanic and tectonic activity. They then conclude that because the mountains formed during the flood, not as much water was needed to cover the Earth to "fifteen cubits" above the highest mountain as Genesis 7:20 requires. Nice try, but no prize.

That answer does not meet the Scriptural or geophysical requirements, as the Bible clearly says (see the verses above) that the mountains were already there, and by implication, the continents and tectonic plates were in their present-day locations (give or take a hundred yards to account for 4,000+ years of continental drift). Additionally, the alleged underwater volcanic and tectonic activity, on such a massive scale as proposed by Young Earth Creation Science models, would have produced a great deal of acid which would be detectable as SO4 ions in the Greenland Ice Sheet core record. That evidence is simply not there."
The Fountains of Noah's Flood and the Windows of Heaven

This, by the way, is from a fairly unquestioning christian site which goes on to give us a good chuckle with this bit of back to front logic.

"Noah's Flood did happen because the Bible is true, so let's try and find answers that can fit the facts, both scientific and Biblical. After all, Jesus Himself confirmed that the flood was a real event, so there must be an explanation." (1)

It then goes on to fiddle geology to produce a flood out of nowhere by "Scientists are just now finding evidence to confirm the presence of large volumes of water deep inside the Earth, enough to fill Earth's ocean basins 10 times over (see also Earth Mantle 'Ocean': 3-D Seismic Model Of Vast Water Reservoir Revealed)."

Which if you read the link says:

"If you combine the volume of this anomaly with the fact that the rock can hold up to about 0.1 percent of water, that works out to be about an Arctic Ocean's worth of water."

0.1 percent of water is - as I have said said before - mere damp soil. It is not a huge underground reservoir of water. There is no mysterious hidden 'ocean' under China. There are various elaborate models to have volcanic activity 'squeeze' this water out in the form of an additional ocean, but I have never seen anywhere any evidence (The Bible must be true' is not 'evidence') that any such thing ever occurred. but even then, would it do any good? The extra water still has to come from somewhere by some feasible natural mechanism - remember that waving a magic want makes as reasonable mechanism pointless. God can make an ocean (as you said - Eusebius) from a thimbleful of water.

(1) I hate to seem to state the obvious, but Eusebius minor will probably need this spelled out "If the Bible is not true, and the sayings attributed to Jesus are not true, then there is no reason to suppose that the flood was real."

Dig almost anywhere in Michigan where I live and you run into water. My neighbor could only go about 5 feet down before he hit the water table here where we live. We are about 500 feet above sea level where I live. If you think there is hardly any water under ground why is it municipalities can drill down and put up a huge water tower or two to give water to many thousands of people in each city or town all over the United States? Sure, some places need reservoirs. I realize you don't live in the USA and it might be different where you live but that is just how it is. The reason why they denied the recent oil line from Canada to the gulf is due to the huge underground aquifer it would go over and could possible contaminate.