Originally posted by @kellyjayIs it not reality that if you throw yourself off a 25 storey building you will splatter on the floor below? Is it not reality that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow?
You prove my point, scientific fact...and that system is only good until the next piece of
data shows up and what we thought was a fact no longer is. Scientific facts are not reality
they are simply what people think today with what they have.
Let us consider the claim that it rained for forty days and nights and that this caused the level of the seas to rise.
Heavy rains can certainly cause local flooding, in so far as local drainage (sewers, rivers, etc) is not sufficient to carry the water away, so the excess stands on the surface of the ground for a while. But globally, the hydro-economy is a closed system. Rainfall is ultimately water which evaporated from the oceans and condensed in clouds. So whatever is not in the oceans and rivers, is floating in the clouds or falling as rain, and vice versa. In other words, rain falling for forty days adds no new water the total system and therefore cannot account for a dramatic rise in the global sea level.
Let us now consider the claim that water shot up out of the ground. This would indeed add new water to the system and could, theoretically, cause a global rise in the sea level. How much water would be needed to cover the mountaintops worldwide? Let's do some rough calculations. The current average ocean depth is about 12,000 feet.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html
Everest is 29,000 feet high (just google it). Therefore, to cover Everest, the current sea level would have to be raised an additional 29,000 feet. That is, it would require another entire ocean, more than twice as deep as the current ocean depth, and larger in extent than the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans combined because the circumference of the Earth at current sea level (which the additional flood-ocean would have to cover) is greater than the circumference of the Earth at ocean bottom (which our current oceans cover).
So, the hypothesis requires an additional ocean, greater than all the oceans we have on the surface of the planet, to be hidden inside the Earth.
Obvious objections:
1. There is no evidence of such a gigantic ocean hidden inside the planet. All the evidence indicates that below the crust is a region of molten rock, not an ocean. The burden of proof is on the biblical-literalist to find that ocean. 100 million bucks for a deep-planet borehole would have been money better spent than on an ark-model with a parking lot in Kentucky.
2. Even supposing that a quantity of water sufficient to raise the sea level 29,000 feet exists under the crust, no known geophysical mechanism accounts for it's being transported to the surface quickly. We're not talking about Old Faithful geyser in Yellowstone Park which ejects a few thousand liters. a miracle?
3. Once the underground cavern containing an additional ocean had been evacuated to the surface, the weight of the additional flood-ocean on the roof of the now-empty cavern would have crushed the cavern, causing all the water to rush back down into the vast gap immediately, not ten months later. another miracle held up the roof of the cavern until God was sure all the baddies were drowned?
4. Ten months later, how does the extra ocean flow back down into the underground cavern? Huge tunnels? If so, the water should have flowed back down those tunnels right away, not ten months later. Or rather, the water should have stayed in the cavern the whole time, tunnels or no tunnels. Oh yeah, I forgot, goddidit.
I have an alternative hypothesis. There was no flood. Didn't happen. Not a global one, anyway. Noah's ark didn't happen either. It's an allegory.
Originally posted by @proper-knobYou have a point?
Is it not reality that if you throw yourself off a 25 storey building you will splatter on the floor below? Is it not reality that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west tomorrow?
Originally posted by @moonbusWater and the height of land were what in the days of the flood? There doesn't have to be more water a landscape change would be all it would take, flatten it out its covered.
Let us consider the claim that it rained for forty days and nights and that this caused the level of the seas to rise.
Heavy rains can certainly cause local flooding, in so far as local drainage (sewers, rivers, etc) is not sufficient to carry the water away, so the excess stands on the surface of the ground for a while. But globally, the hydro-economy ...[text shortened]... ood. Didn't happen. Not a global one, anyway. Noah's ark didn't happen either. It's an allegory.
Originally posted by @kellyjayYou said 'scientific facts are not reality', i've clearly demonstrated they can be.
You have a point?
How's that dinosaur constructed from one or two bones find going?
Originally posted by @kellyjayAh yes, the old Himalayas were formed after the flood debacle. YEC insanity at its best.
Water and the height of land were what in the days of the flood? There doesn't have to be more water a landscape change would be all it would take, flatten it out its covered.
As i recall it you believe that Africa and South America separated post flood as well.
Originally posted by @kellyjayOne question is "Where did the water go after the flood?"
Water and the height of land were what in the days of the flood? There doesn't have to be more water a landscape change would be all it would take, flatten it out its covered.
Another question is "From where came all the water needed to rain over the peak of Mt Everest?"
Originally posted by @fabianfnasYEC's believe there were no substantial mountains till after the flood. The Himalaya's didn't exist, so the volume of water required to flood the Earth is greatly reduced.
One question is "Where did the water go after the flood?"
Another question is "From where came all the water needed to rain over the peak of Mt Everest?"
Originally posted by @proper-knobI have never said that they could not be! The further away from the here and now the more we are not going to be certain of our theories and so called facts.
You said 'scientific facts are not reality', i've clearly demonstrated they can be.
How's that dinosaur constructed from one or two bones find going?
We can test what happens when we jump off a building the results will be painfully obvious. Suggesting X means Y millions or billions of years ago, that is faith!
Originally posted by @kellyjayDo you view your faith in the Biblical flood story the same as my 'faith', as you term it, in evolution?
I have never said that they could not be! The further away from the here and now the more we are not going to be certain of our theories and so called facts.
We can test what happens when we jump off a building the results will be painfully obvious. Suggesting X means Y millions or billions of years ago, that is faith!
Originally posted by @kellyjayWe can test what happens when we jump off a building the results will be painfully obvious.
I have never said that they could not be! The further away from the here and now the more we are not going to be certain of our theories and so called facts.
We can test what happens when we jump off a building the results will be painfully obvious. Suggesting X means Y millions or billions of years ago, that is faith!
This is a result of gravity, the speed at which you fall and hit the floor and the force with which you hit the floor can all be worked out using scientific facts. i.e., the laws of nature. Is it your view that somehow these 'facts' are going to change?
Originally posted by @proper-knobHaven't had a chance to look, sorry. We have a guest spending a couple of weeks with us from out of state, on top of normal other things.
You said 'scientific facts are not reality', i've clearly demonstrated they can be.
How's that dinosaur constructed from one or two bones find going?
Originally posted by @proper-knobNot completely I think evolution has been shown true, where I leave the reservation is all life, springs up from a single life form.
Do you view your faith in the Biblical flood story the same as my 'faith', as you term it, in evolution?
Originally posted by @proper-knobAnything we can calculate and run tests, in the here and now, is more trustworthy than events or theories about the distant past or future.
[b]We can test what happens when we jump off a building the results will be painfully obvious.
This is a result of gravity, the speed at which you fall and hit the floor and the force with which you hit the floor can all be worked out using scientific facts. i.e., the laws of nature. Is it your view that somehow these 'facts' are going to change?[/b]
Originally posted by @kellyjayIf the laws of nature work as they do now here in the present, why won't they have done the same a million years ago or a million years from now?
Anything we can calculate and run tests, in the here and now, is more trustworthy than events or theories about the distant past or future.