Where did all the Flood water go?

Originally posted by byteshertz
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Cultures around the world talk of a great flood, how is that no evidence?

It's evidence of people talking about several individual LOCAL floods. Hell, those stories don't even play out around the same time!!

If there was such a thing as a global flood, we'd find geological evidence of it...and there's none.

The expanding earth theory has not been debunked,except by geologists with a agenda.

The USGS is a Government agency with a agenda.

There is much evidence that the earth has grown larger even in recent times.

The Northridge earthquake caused the Santa Susana mountain range to increase in height.

The earthquakes in South America caused the Andes to grow in height.

NOAA another government agency even found that the ocean floor is younger than the land mass.

How can it be younger unless it is NEWER!

Japan was further away from the U.S. west coast, but it is now closer because of the most recent quake!

The Moon is 40 some inches further away than it was when man stepped foot on it.

The earth has increased in size, the evidence is there for any idiot to see.

This is a video of all the planets earthquake since 1960.

50 years of the worlds earthquakes in about a minute of our time.

The planet is dynamic not static.

Humans with our simple mind can not conceive something that takes eons to accomplish.

Scientists used to believe that all the water on the earth there is now has always existed,but now they believe that the planet can and is creating new water.

All one needs is one part hydrogen and two parts oxygen and that is plentiful on this planet.

well it wouldnt need to go anywhere if you buy into the expanding earth theory =D

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by byteshertz

 

The end of the last Ice Age raised the global sea level by several feet (this is a lot). Many then-coastal settlements would have been flooded. Not to mention the Black Sea Deluge.

As I said Science describes what we can measure - which isnt a lot.
From what we can measure we then establish facts.
We use facts to create theories. The facts are the dots in a dot to dot, Theories are the lines.
We have a lot of dots, a few promising looking lines, but we have no idea what the big picture is.

So you can continue trying to prove your point, but all you are proving is that you draw a good conclusion from what you currently know. To anyone who thinks they have knowledge beyond your sources that allows them to see a more of the picture or a different picture, you dismiss because it does not match your view.

So either:
- You struggle to grasp this concept
(To which I would say you are likely going to continue trying to answer with more science)

- You believe that science see's enough of this reality to draw conclusions on the big picture
(To which I would say go back to the science books, because the you will soon find the more you learn the more you realise you know nothing)

- You believe science does not see enough of this reality to draw a conclusion on the picture
(To which I would say do you not consider that if the creator existed he would be the big picture, and all your science would mean nothing for all you know he creates your memories, none of this is real or everything could be changing constantly but you do not percieve it.)



Reality is all perception my friend, science is still just grasping this concept - but the scientific theory is there to back it up if you want to talk theory. We can start talking multiverses and the mathematics of why they are theoretical but the limitations of us being in this universe restrict our ability to measure outside them.
Or we could talk about the limitation of science to be able to pinpoint where mass actually comes from because everything we look inside is 99.999999% empty
We could talk about radioactive decay rate models recently proven to be wrong changing the dating system which we seem to treat as concreate.
Or we could just realise science answers our reality, not the reality.
Science is the perception of reality not reality, if we keep relying on science like it is religion without realising what it actually tell's us then it is no different to any other failure to deny ignorance.

reply to post by IamJustanAmerican

Plate Tectonics, Continental Drift, Obduction Zones and Subduction Zones.



Each plate is floating on liquid magma, magma moves in currents. In some locations two plates push each other down into magma (the arrows pointing at each other), melting into new magma. In some locations each plate is moving away from each other allowing magma to rise and solidify into new crust (the arrows pointing apart). In some locations the plates are pushing themselves up upon another plate, creating mountains (the arrows pointing towards another plate). In some locations the plates move laterally (the side-to-side arrows), this is just movement.

reply to post by byteshertz


The current scientific theories (note scientific theories are not guesses, they are fact) on the origin and dynamics of our planet work in a universe with the laws of physics. Competing theories (really they shouldn't be called theories since they haven't been tested and retested) do not work in a universe with the laws of physics.

Science can do all of those things. Cite, the closed universe model and dark matter.

Science is reality, it doesn't matter how we perceive reality, it doesn't matter what we can measure. Science is science.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by byteshertz

 

The current scientific theories (note scientific theories are not guesses, they are fact)

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.
Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis. Source

Far from fact - If you don't distinguish the difference you are missing the big picture. This is not scientific flaw it is human flaw.

on the origin and dynamics of our planet work in a universe with the laws of physics.
Competing theories (really they shouldn't be called theories since they haven't been tested and retested) do not work in a universe with the laws of physics

Ah yes the laws of physics, the laws that we call laws even though they are not yet complete. Science scraps the old law or comes up with a new one that incorporates or explains the anomalous occurrence - for example Quantum theory was the response to the failure of classical mechanics to explain interactions at the subatomic level. Again Science understand this limitation, people tend to forget it.
And if you dont believe in competing theories existing in a universe with the "laws of physics" please tell me if light is a particle or a wave. I rest my case.

Science can do all of those things. Cite, the closed universe model and dark matter.
Science is reality, it doesn't matter how we perceive reality, it doesn't matter what we can measure. Science is science.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." - Albert Einstein

You talk about the laws of physics can not be broken when it comes to the water disapearing yet science does not even know what makes the water and the earth different, science says the atoms, but the atoms are made of the same thing just with different quanities of sub atomic particles - but it is all made of the same stuff - wo why are its properties so different? Oh yeah.. because there is a bigger system than science see's, there could be a reaction changing the water to earth for all we know, but until we find something to disprove the theory you will treat it as fact - and when it is replaced ignorant generations later will act as if that theory could never be disproven.
If your mind is so brilliant and educated, put it to use and think for yourself. Science can not even explain how all the intricacies of your brain work - why are you going to let it dictate what you think.

reply to post by byteshertz

Atoms of oxygen are different from atoms of hydrogen because they contain a different number of sub-atomic particles due to the electromagnetic force. Molecules of water are different from molecules of rock because the atoms are organized differently, again due to the electromagnetic force. It isn't that hard to comprehend, why are you constantly challenging it with untestable assertions?

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by byteshertz

 

Atoms of oxygen are different from atoms of hydrogen because they contain a different number of sub-atomic particles due to the electromagnetic force. Molecules of water are different from molecules of rock because the atoms are organized differently, again due to the electromagnetic force. It isn't that hard to comprehend, why are you constantly challenging it with untestable assertions?

edit on 7/19/2011 by SG-17 because: (no reason given)

But you agree the subatomic particles are all made of the same material correct? So in theory there is nothing to preventing water becoming carbon should it find the right process - all the ingredients are there are they not, they are just not organised correctly.

reply to post by byteshertz

Yes, but the ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE is what keeps it from changing (think ions). This is why matter can only be changed when exposed to high amounts of energy. Thus how the fusion of hydrogen created heavier elements.

Oh and water is a compound, carbon is an element. If you want to do a "proper" comparison you should use elements for elements (like oxygen and carbon) or compounds for compounds (water and hydrofluoric acid).

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by byteshertz

 

Yes, but the ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE is what keeps it from changing (think ions). This is why matter can only be changed when exposed to high amounts of energy. Thus how the fusion of hydrogen created heavier elements.

Ah yes high amounts of energy required. And what is "energy" made of?
and what are those particles made of? and those particles?
Oh yeah the closer we look the more we see it is all the same - it is all a hologram, it is the same stuff in groups which we percieve to be something else.

So you are saying something can not be turned in to something made of the same unless something made of the same is added.

I love science. Welcome to the Holographic universe THEORY. Since you think theories are facts this should be all the proof you need

reply to post by byteshertz


..............

Energy can vary in form, such as heat and electricity. We don't know, yet, what matter is made of at its very farthest base, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be an artificial construct. Imagine you were the first person to discover fire. You have no idea about the methodology of science so you think that fire is created by a "God". However just because the origin of fire was unknown back then doesn't mean it wouldn't be discovered later. The same applies to the Theory of Everything.

Matter cannot be transformed without energy. Matter and energy are not the same. Stop trying to over simplify everything, it makes it painfully obvious that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Tested and retested scientific theories are as good as facts because they are the only model that works in our universe. Your "theories" are untestable, therefore are not scientific.

Originally posted by fixer1967
There is not enough water on the Earth to make it a WATER WORLD. Here is a picture of what the Earth would look like if all the ice melted. You see a lot of flooding but still a lot of land as well.

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

www.johnstonsarchive.net...

They are saying the sea level would only rise 66 meters (216 feet) so anything that is now higher than that above sea level would still be dry land.

edit on 7/17/2011 by fixer1967 because: to add link

That is a good post.

thank you

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by byteshertz

 

..............

Energy can vary in form, such as heat and electricity. We don't know, yet, what matter is made of at its very farthest base, but that doesn't mean that it needs to be an artificial construct. Imagine you were the first person to discover fire. You have no idea about the methodology of science so you think that fire is created by a "God". However just because the origin of fire was unknown back then doesn't mean it wouldn't be discovered later. The same applies to the Theory of Everything.

Matter cannot be transformed without energy. Matter and energy are not the same. Stop trying to over simplify everything, it makes it painfully obvious that you don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Tested and retested scientific theories are as good as facts because they are the only model that works in our universe. Your "theories" are untestable, therefore are not scientific.

edit on 7/19/2011 by SG-17 because: (no reason given)

If they were the only model that worked then they would not be called a theory they would be called a law. You are the one who has the distorted view because you are following a religion of science not the scientific theory or you would know E=mc^2


Matter = Energy

SOURCE
If you're still reading this, then you might already have guessed that that's not the whole story... and you're right! The cosmic dance between matter and energy isn't anywhere near as simple as this. You see, they're related on a fundamental level and, in truth, one is the other! As it turns out, matter is every bit as abstract as energy and the ethereal energy that you hear about is as tangible as the matter you interact with! Quick caveat: this part is a lot more free form/stream of consciousness. Feel free to skim the following and don't worry if parts of it don't make sense... the idea is just to get an intuitive feel for what the world you live in is "really made of". Briefly, matter and energy are interconvertible... one can "become" the other (maybe not easily but it is possible). At their core, the "particles" that make up everyday matter are really not anything like the solid spheres we all tend to imagine. And energy itself is a lot more ubiquitous and intrinsic part of our lives than we usually consider. First, as was hinted above, matter and energy are completely interconvertible... one can be changed into the other. This equivalence of matter and energy was formulated by one of the most prolific geniuses of science, Albert Einstein, and is expressed by his famous equation E=mc2. So what does this really mean? It means that, at the fundamental level, there really is no difference between energy and matter. One is equivalent to the other. This can really be seen when you encounter the strangeness that is Quantum Mechanics. This theory of the very small tells us that we can't really think of microscopic particles as particles at all! Instead, we're forced to look at these microscopic "particles" as solid yet not solid... they show aspects of both the solid particles you see around you (like baseballs, for example) and waves (somewhat like those you see on the ocean). It is certainly very strange but it shows that the "ultimate reality" (if there is such a thing) is quite unlike what we experience at our macroscopic level of existence.

BURN

-But it was a pleasure debating with you

Originally posted by byteshertz
Ah yes high amounts of energy required. And what is "energy" made of?
and what are those particles made of? and those particles?
Oh yeah the closer we look the more we see it is all the same - it is all a hologram, it is the same stuff in groups which we percieve to be something else.

Nicely said and you've hit on a major idea that is being skirted in this thread. I alluded to this before with the expanding Earth theory and as you so rightly pointed out it's quite likely that the Universe is a hologram. Arguing that we need massive amounts of energy to convert matter is amusing when matter is energy and energy is matter. What is the idea that's being skirted? The idea is that based on what we actually know we can't say this is a case-closed discussion.

So this question, "Where did all the Flood water go?", is in reality a statement and not a question. The statement of course is "I can't comprehend where the Flood waters went." That is a more accurate title for this discussion and better fits with the reality of what we know about the Universe. Did the Earth expand thinning out the layer of water? Did the water just disappear because it really isn't there, or did it just change to another state of being? There are so many possibilities to this and I'm not going to be the one with fingers in ears saying "La la la! I can't hear you" when interesting ideas are discussed. So please elaborate more. Not because I agree 100% with the universe being a hologram but because it's an interesting point of view that has at least a some possibility of being the truth.

Why are people still talking about how the flood happened when there is NO EVIDENCE of a global flood at all???

That's like talking about the mating rituals of unicorns...100% useless and quite frankly, laughable

reply to post by byteshertz

If they were the only model that worked then they would not be called a theory they would be called a law.

I don't think you understand the difference between a scientific law and a theory

Law:

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute.

A law is mostly defined through a mathematic formula. It defines one simple process or action...it is NOT suitable to describe something as complex as the entire big bang.

Scientific Theory:

A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true.

This is used when something is dependant on several hypothesis...and they don't even have to fall within one field of science. Evolution for example includes chemistry, medicine, fields related to DNA and genes, geology, sociology (animal and human), and a ton of other scientific fields. You could never formulate a law from that...

In short, you're "it's just a theory" is an often used fallacious argument

None of this matter of course given the complete lack of evidence for a global flood...wondering how it happened when we know for a FACT it didn't happen (due to the lack of evidence) is beyond silly

An article I read about it surmised the following:

The physical conditions Many scientists that believe in the cosmology given in the scriptures say that a thick canopy of water vapor existed over the entire earth. The weight of this canopy gave an atmospheric pressure much higher than that of today. There was a constant stable climate of approximately 72 degrees Fahrenheit, with no rain or winds. Any precipitation was a mist or dew that formed on the early mourning ground. The sunlight would appear as a diffused glow, as this thick canopy would block out radiation from the suns harmful rays. A "greenhouse" effect would be the result in a sub-tropic condition of rich lush vegetation on the one huge continent. (Gen 10:25) This environment was better enhanced to maintain and prolong life as well as congenial in comfort.

Recently in biomedical research, it has been shown that both high pressures and the absence of mutation producing radiation contribute significantly to longevity of life. In addition, the human genetic system and its bloodstream had purity very unlike our degenerated state of today. This was the result of very few accumulated mutant genes, and primeval absence of disease-producing organisms. (Which was a part of the result of sin and its increase not yet fully developed or experienced.)

From this understanding of the environment and the human biological response to it, it is not unreasonable to see how Cain, Able or Seth married their sisters. Genetically they would be pure enough to inter breed without harm. It also explains the longevity of life, the average life span being over 900 years. It was only after the flood and the bursting of this water vapor canopy that allowed the rays to penetrate the earth, that man’s life-span reduced gradually until the time of King David, when the average age was about 76 years as it somewhat remains today. This environment was truly Eden - like.

The Great Flood of Genesis 6

Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
Its a blatant lie....

Only animals with nostrils were brought on....so why have we still got insects and animals without nostrils??

My guess is this.

There was a flood...but it was a localized flood. The people believed it was world wide because...they were morons.

There was no need to get rid of trillions of tons of water....as it wasnt here in the first place.

40 days and nights of rain cannot cause a global flood....because there is not, and never has been that amount of water present on our pale blue rock.


It was coastal floading from the sea levels rising, hence all the off-coast under water cities around the world.

edit on 17-7-2011 by loves a conspiricy because: (no reason given)

reply to post by jjkenobi


You should really get your information for somewhere else...there's so many wrong claims in that pseudo-scientific article, I don't even know where to begin. For example, we know for a FACT that the climat wasn't stable. We can know stuff like that by taking ice probes deep down...amongst other means of research.

In short, your source is hogwash