Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Roots don't need air to survive. They need oxygen yes, but they can get that from the water itself.

Only the trees themselves, i.e parts above ground need air(CO2)
.

Water does more than just suffocate non water based lifeforms. It also pushes IMMENSE pressure on it that would crush the organism. There is literally ZERO way a root system submerged under that much water would EVER survive for 1 day let alone 40 days and nights. To be honest, I don't even know why we are having this debate. That is beyond obvious to anyone who has encountered water before.

a reply to: GetHyped

To the contrary, I'm just looking at the evidence available and projecting it 3000 to 4000 years ago.

Case in point:

Marine life forms on top of mountains - i.e. sea shells found on the Himalayas.

How would you explain the presence of sea shells and other marine lifeforms on top of these mountains if they were not under water at some point in time?

So as you can see, the evidence is quite undeniable and incontrovertible.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: GetHyped

Actually there might be... apparently there are vast underground water lakes all over the world...

Of course this would mean all the ice caps would have to melt and all these lakes would suddenly bust open all at the same time... highly unlikely

and it certainly doesn't make a lick of difference in proving noahs flood actually happened

VERY UNLIKELY because they are NOT LAKES OR SEAS.

The discovery could explain exactly why the Earth is so habitable, with scientists suggesting that this underground store of water – which is trapped in minerals

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: GetHyped

To the contrary, I'm just looking at the evidence available and projecting it 3000 to 4000 years ago.

Case in point:

Marine life forms on top of mountains - i.e. sea shells found on the Himalayas.

How would you explain the presence of sea shells and other marine lifeforms on top of these mountains if they were not under water at some point in time?

So as you can see, the evidence is quite undeniable and incontrovertible.

THOSE are MILLIONS of years old NOT thousands!!!!

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: skalla

As long as it's a root system where they can sufficiently seek out nutrients and support each other, then they or a small part of the system can survive, for a limited time. In fact, it's possible that the Pando trees' root system was the only one that managed to do so(and grew back?), the rest died.

Try again:

Jurupa Oak
Old Tjikko

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: GetHyped

To the contrary, I'm just looking at the evidence available and projecting it 3000 to 4000 years ago.

Case in point:

Marine life forms on top of mountains - i.e. sea shells found on the Himalayas.

How would you explain the presence of sea shells and other marine lifeforms on top of these mountains if they were not under water at some point in time?

So as you can see, the evidence is quite undeniable and incontrovertible.

THOSE are MILLIONS of years old NOT thousands!!!!

So are you admitting then that they (marine life forms) got there because of water?

BTW - when you say MILLIONS of years old , are you referring to the age of the mountains or the age of the marine life forms?

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: wmd_2008

But why do they all match at one point in time? In addition, if there were other floods, then why didn't they record them?
Also, one thing in common with these flood stories is that they were basically up high to the mountains or heavens, not the variety that is only knee-deep.

The story has been COPIED the original came from the Indian sub-continent

In Hindu mythology, texts such as the Satapatha Brahmana mention the puranic story of a great flood,wherein the Matsya Avatar of Vishnu warns the first man, Manu, of the impending flood, and also advises him to build a giant boat

Sound familiar!

a reply to: edmc^2

the evidence is quite undeniable and incontrovertible.

Except we know that mountians are pushed up from earth plates moving and pushing against each other...

Every mountain on earth started at ground level...

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: GetHyped

To the contrary, I'm just looking at the evidence available and projecting it 3000 to 4000 years ago.

Case in point:

Marine life forms on top of mountains - i.e. sea shells found on the Himalayas.

How would you explain the presence of sea shells and other marine lifeforms on top of these mountains if they were not under water at some point in time?

So as you can see, the evidence is quite undeniable and incontrovertible.

Plate tectonics.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: GetHyped

To the contrary, I'm just looking at the evidence available and projecting it 3000 to 4000 years ago.

Case in point:

Marine life forms on top of mountains - i.e. sea shells found on the Himalayas.

How would you explain the presence of sea shells and other marine lifeforms on top of these mountains if they were not under water at some point in time?

So as you can see, the evidence is quite undeniable and incontrovertible.

THOSE are MILLIONS of years old NOT thousands!!!!

So are you admitting then that they (marine life forms) got there because of water?

BTW - when you say MILLIONS of years old , are you referring to the age of the mountains or the age of the marine life forms?

Millions of years ago various mountain ranges were at A LOWER LEVEL, due to plate movement mountains are thrust up Everest grows around 4mm a year even now!!!

The creatures were dead buried and thousands of feet up the mountains before man appeared!!!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What pressure? By your logic, all clams would die(even without being crushed by sediments) because of the pressure from the water, even without flooding. And what part of being underground so not being affected by the pressure is it so hard to get? Your faulty assumption is that roots need air to live.

Looks out the window. why has it stopt me saying! glass you look out of.
I see no flood?

a meteor was supost to have killd the dynosures.
if a big meteor landed in a big sea?
it would have flooded the world!...

originally posted by: edmc^2
Case in point:

Marine life forms on top of mountains - i.e. sea shells found on the Himalayas.

How would you explain the presence of sea shells and other marine lifeforms on top of these mountains if they were not under water at some point in time?

If I were a primitive goat herder, with no knowledge of geology then yes, I might well conclude that such shells found on mountains were proof of a global flood. Indeed, I suspect that this is one of the reasons that some such myths arose. logical, innit?

Except I am aware of how fossils form, about geological processes, and so do not believe that 150 mya limestone reefs forming the Cotswolds in England are proof that the whole world flooded 3,000 years ago.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: GetHyped

To the contrary, I'm just looking at the evidence available and projecting it 3000 to 4000 years ago.

Case in point:

Marine life forms on top of mountains - i.e. sea shells found on the Himalayas.

How would you explain the presence of sea shells and other marine lifeforms on top of these mountains if they were not under water at some point in time?

So as you can see, the evidence is quite undeniable and incontrovertible.

Plate tectonics.

Plate tectonics - no argument there. In fact it supports a Global Flood in that a large amount of water will have enough force / weight to move mountains and continents. In fact it's been said that if you remove the ice caps in the Greenland, the land will bounce back to a high degree.

Sea level is measured in relation to the adjacent land. Just like the ocean, the elevation of land may rise and fall over time. For example, the tremendous weight of a glacier on land pushes the land down, closer to sea level. That same land bounces back (a process called post-glacial rebound) if the ice retreats, or melts, and its weight is removed.

education.nationalgeographic.com...

The Antarctic Ice Sheet The Antarctic Ice Sheet is a thick, ancient sheet of ice with a maximum depth of nearly 3 miles (15,000 feet). It is the iceberg 'factory' of the Southern Ocean. This icesheet contains over 5 million cubic miles (30 million cubic km) of ice. The weight of the Antarctic ice is so great that in many areas it actually pushes the land below sea-level. Without its ice cover Antarctica would eventually rise up another 1500 feet (450 m) above sea-level. The Ice Sheet is very gradually moving, in this case towards the sea in a radial pattern.

www.antarcticconnection.com...

But still, the question is - do you agree that at one point in time mountains were under water?

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: GetHyped

To the contrary, I'm just looking at the evidence available and projecting it 3000 to 4000 years ago.

Case in point:

Marine life forms on top of mountains - i.e. sea shells found on the Himalayas.

How would you explain the presence of sea shells and other marine lifeforms on top of these mountains if they were not under water at some point in time?

So as you can see, the evidence is quite undeniable and incontrovertible.

THOSE are MILLIONS of years old NOT thousands!!!!

So are you admitting then that they (marine life forms) got there because of water?

BTW - when you say MILLIONS of years old , are you referring to the age of the mountains or the age of the marine life forms?

Millions of years ago various mountain ranges were at A LOWER LEVEL, due to plate movement mountains are thrust up Everest grows around 4mm a year even now!!!

The creatures were dead buried and thousands of feet up the mountains before man appeared!!!

Same question - do you agree then that at one point in time mountains were under water? Hence the presence of marine life forms?

I have read that the flooding of the Mediterranean region was caused by the Atlantic Ocean breaching the land bridge, which is now known as the Straits of Gibraltar. As for the Northwestern US, not sure. Maybe the same mechanism that caused the flooding of the Mediterranean region also caused flooding in other areas of the world.

This probably explains the salt content of the Black Sea.

a reply to: Akragon

How do you explain the clams still being there after million of years? Shouldn't they have disintegrated, once the sediments above them eroded? Yes, they got petrified, but if we assume that they were crushed by sediments(which is the only way that they can die closed), and the sediments got eroded, and the clams themselves are petrified by those sediments(or the same process), then they should also be eroded, and dissolved by now.

Clams dissolve after 1700 years. What process is allowing them to remain up there for million of years?

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What pressure? By your logic, all clams would die(even without being crushed by sediments) because of the pressure from the water, even without flooding. And what part of being underground so not being affected by the pressure is it so hard to get? Your faulty assumption is that roots need air to live.

You are STILL in denial? Wow... So I guess the absence of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and light isn't enough to convince you... It's already been shown that a tree system even of just roots would not survive under a body of water. It is literally impossible. The root system would drown. Yes that is possible. You are arguing with reality. You might as well be telling me that pigs fly.

originally posted by: edmc^2
But still, the question is - do you agree that at one point in time mountains were under water?

Yes, but not 5 - 6000 years ago. More like millions of years ago. Plate tectonics doesn't work that quickly.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Shown where? Unless you can show me that ANY small part of a root system as large as the Pando trees(perhaps even larger than that before the flood) cannot survive for 40 days under water, it's not proof.

And how many times does it have to be said? It's only the leaves that need the carbon dioxide and sunlight.