Where did all the Flood water go?

reply to post by stereologist



This is not athiests vs christians. Grow up.

" The Bible is a collage of different old stories and has been interpreted poorly by man and followed blindly by fools." - Shadow Herder

I dont like those crazy creationalist 6000 year old world people. They creep me out.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


A pointless comment that avoids the fact that creationists are liars. They can't help themselves it seems.

Most pedophiles, rapists, murders, and low lives claim to be athiests

Is this your lie? Is this your creationist lie?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

A pointless comment that avoids the fact that creationists are liars. They can't help themselves it seems.

Most pedophiles, rapists, murders, and low lives claim to be athiests

Is this your lie? Is this your creationist lie?

No it is a fact. And who said anything about me being a christian or a "creationalist". Dont try to blanket me with some term you throw at people and topics you dont understand. Now back on topic.

I wouldnt take the bibles words to literally for there are hundreds of flood stories from around the world, most pre dating the christian accounts in the bible. Just about every country and peoples have retained some story of the past which have one common theme, destruction, floods, rains, darkness, death. Survivors were the farmers and the peoples who ran for the hills.

Dont let your hatred for christians blind you to real world history. The christian view is just one in hundreds and one of the youngest.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

No it is a fact.

I don't believe you. The off topic comment you made was a lie wasn't it?

Just because there are flood stories does not mean anything about a global event. They are stories - unrelated stories.

Dont let your hatred for christians blind you to real world history.

Another ridiculous statement. There is a difference between creationists and Christians or don't you understand that?

The claims of creationists are as silly as the claims of an expanding Earth.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

No it is a fact.

I don't b.....e you. The off topic........................
.................
The claims of...................... of an exp............. Earth.

"A blind man cannot see." - Shadow Herder

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Thanks for admitting your inability to understand the issues surrounding the failed expanding Earth theory.

reply to post by stereologist


Plate Tectonic Theory does maintain that the earth is expanding at the Mid-Ocean Ridges. Here there is no conflict between the two theories. To compensate for this expansion, the theory of subduction was developed. Subduction theory states that the created ocean crust later moves back into the earth at descending chutes, like a down escalator. Subduction theory has many problems and is widely disputed. Subduction evidence is all in-direct and none is direct. No object has ever been seen to be subducted.

No object has ever been placed and measured being subducted. The radius of the earth is the final arbiter. The earth was accurately and precisely measured but once in 1983 and a second reading has never been taken. This is the “crucial experiment” never conducted. Most think GPS and other space “Geodesy” methods prove Plate Tectonics. In fact the major study published in 1993 found a consistent ¾” vertical rise of land sites (radius increase) but zeroed out the evidence as being unlikely. GPS now uses this assumption.

eearthk.com...

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Plate Tectonic Theory does maintain that the earth is expanding at the Mid-Ocean Ridges.

That is false. Plate tectonics does not suggest the Earth is expanding . The theory states that new plate material is formed at spreading ridges. That is very different. The only expansion is due to thermal expansion. As the material cools it decreases in volume.

To compensate for this expansion, the theory of subduction was developed. Subduction theory states that the created ocean crust later moves back into the earth at descending chutes, like a down escalator. Subduction theory has many problems and is widely disputed.

Several large mistakes here. Subduction zones are well documented and not widely disputed. Seismic evidence clearly shows subduction taking place. Subduction destroys plates just as spreading zones create plates.

No object has ever been placed and measured being subducted.

That is not necessary. This is a false requirement. Seismic evidence very clearly shows the shape of descending plates and the direction of motion of the plates.

The following is a quote from the site you supplied a link.

In fact the major study published in 1993 found a consistent ¾” vertical rise of land sites (radius increase) but zeroed out the evidence as being unlikely. GPS now uses this assumption.

So where is the study? It probably does not exist. Take a look at this number. It is a fixed value without a reference to a time frame. The value is also in SAE, not metric.

If the Earth were to expand then it could do so by a number of means such as thermal expansion, phase changes, or the addition of new mass. The size change as claimed by the expanding Earth theory could only happen through the addition of new mass. Thermal issues as seen at mid-oceanic ridges decrease over time, which is the same as distance from the spreading center. Phase changes also are small and one time changes. There is no evidence at all that the Earth is gaining new mass. Were that to happen then the Moon's orbit which has been so accurately tracked would not be as it is. Also, there would be problems with angular momentum which are not seen.

You linked to a site with all sorts of wacko ideas. Let's see some of them.

The location of these points indicates the expansion force from below is correlated to the earth’s magnetic core, and also to forces from the solar plane.

Really? The existence of some whimsical points means that forces outside the Earth are at play?

Plate Tectonics Theory was developed on the assumption and belief of a constant size earth.

That's false. PT is based on the distribution of geological events.

that the Earth is expanding now in radius about 1" per year.

If that were the case, then that would be easily detected. For example, it would affect the distance to the Moon measurements that have been done for 40 years. It would be reflected in a changing Moon orbit as gravity increases. It would be reflected in a change in Earth's orbit. The Moon is moving away from the Earth. The Earth is moving away from the Sun.

Other pages with nitwit statements.

L. Myers has shown that bodies become spherical at about a diameter of 400 miles. At this point the gravitational forces focus into the core.

This clown needs to learn about basic forces, i.e. take a high school physics course. Gravity does not focus.

Apparently, there is a magnetic core shaft in the earth that points very near to our two key points, but that the magnetically measured pole locations on the earth’s surface moves substantially — and not in perfect harmony — over time.

This is like reading Bermuda triangle baloney. Here the looney invents a "magnetic core shaft".

Between 23.5° North Latitude and 23.5° South Latitude the Sun travels its highest elevation in the sky. Between those two latitudes the sun is always perpendicular to the Earth’s surface.

That's a winner of a statement. It is a very poor to wrong way of stating that a line from the center of the Earth to the center of the Sun intersects a point on the surface of the Earth that never extends outside of this range of latitudes. What is the point of mentioning this? There is no point.

The studies of Aether would point more in this opposite direction.

I guess this nut doesn't understand there is no Aether.

Since a magnet has both an attractive and repulsive force the observer can view the numerous graphics and determine which may be which. My observations would indicate that the Australia Pt. is an attractive force and the Greenland Pt. is a repelling force.

This is hilarious. This nutter can't figure out the direction of the force. What a spazz! Then the wacko claims that these magnetic forces are reshaping the continents. That's so believable when the surface forces can hardly move a compass needle.

Shadow Herder, I really suggest you start getting your info from reputable sources rather than the hogwash sites you're looking at now. Pretty much all of your claims are demonstrably wrong...as Stereo highlights that in detail

Stereo, your cherry picking of my post shows how ignorant you are on the subject. You debunked plate tectonics when you blindly support it..... Duh! and you didnt even realize it.

You two kids have no understanding of anything. Its best not to argue with a fool or people might not know the difference. So I will stop arguing with you.

What THEORIES and BELIEFS do you little guys cling on to blindly? Is it platetectonics? or is it the I dont know but all I know is I am right and they are wrong mentality?

I would like to see sources to these THEORIES which you two super humans KNOW to be a FACT.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Stereo, your cherry picking of my post shows how ignorant you are on the subject.

If by "cherry picking" you mean "highlight the glaring falsities" then yes.

You debunked plate tectonics when you blindly support it..... Duh! and you didnt even realize it.

I fear you did not understand a word of Stereo's response if you came away thinking plate tectonics was debunked.

You two kids have no understanding of anything. Its best not to argue with a fool or people might not know the difference.

The irony of your statement knows no bounds.

So I will stop arguing with you.

That would be a good idea, your arguments have been very foolish..

What THEORIES and BELIEFS do you little guys cling on to blindly? Is it platetectonics? or is it the I dont know but all I know is I am right and they are wrong mentality?

I would like to see sources to these THEORIES which you two super humans KNOW to be a FACT.

Scientific theory:

A scientific theory is an explanation or model used to explain observations or experimental results about an observed phenomenon.

Religious belief:

Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine.

Learn the difference before you expose any more of your ignorance (or intellectual dishonesty).

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Shadow Herder, I really suggest you start getting your info from reputable sources rather than the hogwash sites you're looking at now. Pretty much all of your claims are demonstrably wrong...as Stereo highlights that in detail

Hey smart guy, stereos reply to me was completely rubbish and his beliefs in UFOS and other weirdo stuff maybe has made him delusional. I was going to rip him a new one but I dont have too.

Will spend my time having a awesome day. Lifes great. Thank God for making me awesome. Amen.

edit on 23-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

Barking dogs seldom bite

So in essence, you claim he's wrong...but can't man up to prove that claim. Got it

In a previous discussion of the expanding Earth theory it was proposed that the increase in mass might be due:
1. Energy transfer form the Sun
2. Material accreted from space

1. I showed that this required a transfer of energy like a million Hiroshima bombs passing through every square kilometer every day. I am not seeing that sort of energy transfer. Anyone else being fried constantly?

2. The accretion can be seen on the Moon where the astronauts dealt with a few centimeters of dust accumulated over billions of years.

There simply is no means of adding mass in the amounts claimed by the expanding Earth theory.

Please discuss the topic and not each other.

The personal sniping is not attractive or necessary.

TIA

How about the human population? I think outside the box.


I'd hate to be so ignorant as to believe the flood never happened when so many cultures around the world have a flood story. That would just be total ignorance.

The amount of water to cover the globe to any depth is staggering. I think that the creationists I have listened to understand that issue. It is problematic. That is why so many of them claim a large scale restructuring of the Earth underneath the flood waters.

They claim that the water was somehow trapped underground in huge voids that collapsed. Those voids would be impossible to form. Besides, breaking them open does not mean they spew out. There are claims that the water spewed out at the mid-oceanic ridges. The layering of sediments shows that is untrue.

For a fun giggle check out the hydroplate theory.
Hydroplate

Here is what this hydroplate theory claims about the waters receding.
Drain So Slowly?

As a result, the hydroplates eventually began sliding downhill, away from the rising bulge that would become the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. This removal of weight provided orders of magnitude more lift and slippage—and, near the center of the earth, melting. Within hours, the entire Atlantic floor was rapidly rising; that, in turn, pulled down the Pacific plate and moved surface water toward the Pacific side of the earth. The subsiding Pacific plate and the rising Atlantic floor steepened the slopes on which the hydroplates slid away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

Any evidence that the plates were sliding away from this? No. Any evidence that objects can even slide as claimed? No. Any evidence that the molten core of the Earth is recent? No. Any evidence that there was a molten core before the flood? Yes. Paleomagnetism suggests that the Earth has had a magnetic field for billions of years.

reply to post by randyvs


Actually no. The flood stories are all different. Some have the world scrubbed clean as in the bible. Others have many survivors. Some have floods of resin, not water.

Think of disasters that can happen just about anywhere: fires, quakes, floods. Volcanic eruptions are not found in many areas.

Another common myth found all over the world are stories of creation. Are you saying that the making of man from corn and the making of man from dirt or the making of man in some other place and brought to Earth or created below ground and brought to the surface.

There are other myths about beasts or gods that are part human and part animal. Are you going to give these myths the same status you do flood myths?

There are also myths about the structure of the world with the Earth on turtles or held up by giants or whatever. There are also myths about the planets being deities. Are you going to suggest that the planets are deities or that the Earth is being supported by some large creature?

Correct, the Flood story that you hear in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible is actually a written version of the verbal memory of a flooding of the Black Sea some 8 thousand years ago due to glacial melting.

reply to post by stereologist

The amount of water to cover the globe to any depth is staggering. I think that the creationists I have listened to understand that issue. It is problematic.

You must have missed my post on page 9.

There is apparently enough water to cover the earth.

abundance of water on Earth’s surface (in ocean (Earth feature)) ...the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.

Sphere depth of the ocean