Historic Mountainous Topography Facts from The Bible and Elsewhere. (hell, Christian, believe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sorry, but this is a conversation and debate for the adults. Please go back into the kid's play room and do something creative with your Legos.
BTW, they are a great metaphor for the processes of chance advancement by Evolution. Just only build on the good designs, and see where you get after, say, ten billion generations...)
But as I said; we don't want to scare you, son. So.... just run along now!
(but since you have, oddly, showed some unusual interest this morning, no: no-one has ever stupidly said they are exactly the same now as then, a mere 2000 - 2500 yrs ago. Or een 10,000 years ago! They were either just a bit shorter or just a bit taller, (the differences measured in a few meters at best...) depending on which of the earth's mountains you are referring to. Of courses, no Tibetan or Chinese spiritual or holy writers ever wrote extensively or inspiringly of 400 foot-high hills, as even you can hopefully understand.)
That's because they couldn't write of 400 foot-high hills because they all died in the world-wide flood.
The lego analogy proves
there had to be a being build
the lego star ship. The builder
didn't just put all those Lego
pieces in a bag, shake them up
and out popped the star ship.
They are a live mountain range meaning they are still growing as the Subcontinent pushes into India. But the Growth rate is quite slow a matter of inches per century. !00,000 years ago they would have only been a few feet shorter. No difference noticeable to the naked eye.
The Range is at least 60 million years old. You would have to go back at least 1 million years to have any observable difference in today's height. At which time Everest would have been about 500 feet shorter. On a mountain over 5 miles high that 500 feet would barely be noticed to the naked eye. Most people would probably not even be able to notice it.
If the Himalayas have been growing at a constant rate of today for 60 millions years, it would have had to start so deep beneath the earth that the earth wouldn't have been big enough to the trench out of which that range came from.
Take 2.5 inches X 1 million years then divide by 12, how tall would Mt. Everest have been 1 million years ago. It should be 208,333.32 feet tall by now.
If the Himalayas have been growing at a constant rate of today for 60 millions years, it would have had to start so deep beneath the earth that the earth wouldn't have been big enough to the trench out of which that range came from.
Take 2.5 inches X 1 million years then divide by 12, how tall would Mt. Everest have been 1 million years ago. It should be 208,333.32 feet tall by now.
]I just thought some inquiring minds might like to know the true story!
Excellent points. It debunks nonsense espoused by the Great Deflector particularly with respect to "the Flood." We know mountains existed at the time, since Noah/Ziusurda/Uptanistim was directed to land on Mount Ararat.
If the Himalayas have been growing at a constant rate of today for 60 millions years, it would have had to start so deep beneath the earth that the earth wouldn't have been big enough to the trench out of which that range came from.
Take 2.5 inches X 1 million years then divide by 12, how tall would Mt. Everest have been 1 million years ago. It should be 208,333.32 feet tall by now.
You see what Beginner's Lego-level mathematics does for you. "Let's see: 2.5" X 1M = exactly what happened in your version!"
Yup. Now as I said, son, you'd best go back into the kiddie's room before you hurt your head. (You're already smacking your head too often after all. )
As for the intelligence behind a Lego project's Evolution, it's rather simple, and somewhat like natural Evolution: In Lego projects, the designer/builder decides if he's accomplished what he wanted, but in natural Evolution, nature reaches in and stirs the pot, and a bunch of diverse mutants come out. Now what possible positive outcome could that silliness be to developing a more complex organism, right? So you must be correct, right?
WRONG. Too simplistic by far. It's the obvious and observed subsequent trial and error testing that does the trick, coupled with that indisputable ol' demon "DNA memory and duplication under repeated reproduction" theorum that comes into active play, don'tcha get it?
Meaning, sonny, that if it's a worse fit, it gets tossed. As we all agree!
Ahhh... but... BUT!!!!... (as any reasonable and logical person will agree...) if it's a BETTER fit, even infrequently and purely by chance, then it's NEVER FORGOTTEN within the DNA's "memory" codes, but instead gets duplicated over and over and over, exponentially, until the improved version is the dominant one.
"Ahhhh! I see!"...he mutters to himself, finally understanding it. But not being able to admit it, he bloviates back with some kiddy-level nonesense.
So... as I said, this is still a conversation only for the adults. Shoo!
Excellent points. It debunks nonsense espoused by the Great Deflector particularly with respect to "the Flood." We know mountains existed at the time, since Noah/Ziusurda/Uptanistim was directed to land on Mount Ararat.
Knowing...
Mircea
Good points, but shhhhhhhhhh Mircea; that thread was closed! Thank Gawd!
This one's about mountains of the world just a few thousand years ago, and is For Adults Only! So fear not: just ignore the silly trollista-combato kids: they'll get tired of it and go off and play with.... oooops... I mean by... themselves. Trust me!
I read your link. Interesting stuff. But they said India was an island about "225 million years ago" off the Australian coast. Then they make a remarkable statement: " When Pangaea broke apart about 200 million years ago, India began to forge northward."
They are correct for the most part. It is just that they got their date off a little, like about 199 million 995 thousand years.
If the Himalayas have been growing at a constant rate of today for 60 millions years, it would have had to start so deep beneath the earth that the earth wouldn't have been big enough to the trench out of which that range came from.
You really are clueless about geology, plate tectonics in general, or subduction in particular.
You really are clueless about geology, plate tectonics in general, or subduction in particular.
Well, gee, I am now convinced. Thank you for your research!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
