Where did all the Flood water go?

reply to post by byteshertz


Energy does not equal matter.

Energy equals matter times the speed of light squared. There is a significant difference.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

reply to post by SG-17


Albert Einstein disagrees with you. "Mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent."

reply to post by Freelancer


I'm not saying that this is true, but it is a possibility. Have you ever heard of "The Growing Earth" theory? Perhaps the water never disappeared, but rather the internal pressure of the earth, grew the earth thus, making the existing water on the earth pool to the crevices and valleys created by such growth.

According to the theory you can track the age of the sea beds back using the age of the crust. By following the age of the crust and then moving backwards from newest to oldest you can then see the size of the earth shrinking.

These are only conjectures, but if there were only a few points on the earth that stood tall enough to project out of this pre-growth water then the life would of inhabited these "peaks". If the earth grew and the crust expanded it would surely of pulled these peaks into the water thus submerging land until the earth had grown enough to then again displace the water to the deeper crevices of the crust and thus making land appear to rise again.

As to the time scale of this happening...who knows.

Here is an example of the age of the sea beds...



I guess what I'm saying is perhaps the water didn't go anywhere, perhaps it was just redistributed.

Peace

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

I guess what I'm saying is perhaps the water didn't go anywhere, perhaps it was just redistributed.

And once again it comes down to evidence...and just like there's ZERO objective evidence supporting the claim that there was a global flood, there's also zero credible evidence suggesting what you say "might be true" is in fact true.

Why do people state the most random conclusions without ever asking for objective evidence as backup??

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Why do people state the most random conclusions without ever asking for objective evidence as backup??

Confirmation bias.



























Well, you did ask

reply to post by john_bmth


Well, I hope they realize their ignorance is holding the rest of us back

And of course they make themselves look kinda silly in the process...d

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

I guess what I'm saying is perhaps the water didn't go anywhere, perhaps it was just redistributed.

And once again it comes down to evidence...and just like there's ZERO objective evidence supporting the claim that there was a global flood, there's also zero credible evidence suggesting what you say "might be true" is in fact true.

Why do people state the most random conclusions without ever asking for objective evidence as backup??

I stated clearly,

These are only conjectures

and I gave objective evidence showing the age of the sea beds. I never said, "might be true", rather a "possibility".

As far as objective evidence for a world flood, i don't know if there is "ZERO", but I do know there are stories from all around the world from many different cultures. Here is a list of some of them. You can read the various stories here Flood Myths

Europe Greek, Arcadian, Samothrace Roman Scandinavian, German Celtic, Welsh Lithuanian, Transylvanian Gypsy Turkey Near East Sumerian Egypt, Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean, Hebrew, Islamic Persian, Zoroastrian Africa Cameroon Masai (East Africa), Komililo Nandi, Kwaya (Lake Victoria) Southwest Tanzania, Pygmy, Ababua (northern Zaire), Kikuyu (Kenya), Bakongo (west Zaire), Bachokwe? (southern Zaire), Lower Congo, Basonge, Bena-Lulua (Congo River, southeast Zaire) Yoruba (southwest Nigeria), Efik-Ibibio (Nigeria), Ekoi (Nigeria) Mandingo (Ivory Coast) Asia Vogul Samoyed (north Siberia) Yenisey-Ostyak (north central Siberia), Kamchadale (northeast Siberia) Altaic (central Asia), Tuvinian (Soyot) (north of Mongolia) Mongolia, Buryat (eastern Siberia) Sagaiye (eastern Siberia) Russian Hindu, Bhil (central India), Kamar (Raipur District, Central India), Assam Tamil (southern India) Lepcha (Sikkim), Tibet, Singpho (Assam), Lushai (Assam), Lisu (northwest Yunnan, China), Lolo (southwestern China), Jino (southern Yunnan, China), Karen (Burma), Chingpaw (Upper Burma) China Korea Munda (north-central India), Santal (Bengal), Ho (southwestern Bengal) Bahnar (Cochin China), Kammu (northern Thailand) Andaman Islands (Bay of Bengal) Zhuang (China), Sui (southern Guizhou, China), Shan (Burma) Tsuwo (Formosa interior), Bunun (Formosa interior), Ami (eastern Taiwan) Benua-Jakun (Malay Peninsula), Kelantan (Malay Peninsula), Ifugao (Philippines), Kiangan Ifugao, Atá (Philippines), Mandaya (Philippines), Tinguian (Luzon, Philippines) Batak (Sumatra), Nias (an island west of Sumatra), Engano (another island west of Sumatra), Dusun (British North Borneo), Dyak (Borneo), Ot-Danom (Dutch Borneo), Toradja (central Celebes), Alfoor (between Celebes and New Guinea), Rotti (southwest of Timor), Nage (Flores) Australia Arnhem Land (northern Northern Territory) Maung (Goulburn Islands, Arnhem Land), Gunwinggu (northern Arnhem Land) Gumaidj (Arnhem Land) Manger (Arnhem Land) Fitzroy River area (Western Australia) Australian, Mount Elliot (coastal Queensland), Western Australia, Andingari (South Australia), Wiranggu (South Australia), Narrinyeri (South Australia), Victoria, Lake Tyres (Victoria), Kurnai (Gippsland, Victoria), southeast Australian Maori (New Zealand) Pacific Islands Kabadi (New Guinea), Valman (northern New Guinea), Mamberao River (Irian Jaya), Samo-Kubo (western Papua New Guinea), Papua New Guinea Palau Islands (Micronesia), western Carolines New Hebrides, Lifou (one of the Loyalty Islands), Fiji Samoa, Nanumanga (Tuvalu, South Pacific), Mangaia (Cook Islands), Rakaanga (Cook Islands), Raiatea (Leeward Group, French Polynesia), Tahiti, Hawaii North America Innuit, Eskimo (Orowignarak, Alaska), Norton Sound Eskimo, Central Eskimo, Tchiglit Eskimo (Arctic Ocean), Herschel Island Eskimo, Netsilik Eskimo, Greenlander Tlingit (southern Alaska coast), Hareskin (Alaska), Tinneh (Alaska and south), Loucheux (Dindjie) (Alaska), Dogrib and Slave (Tinneh tribes), Kaska (northern inland British Columbia), Thompson Indians (British Columbia), Sarcee (Alberta), Tsetsaut Haida (Queen Charlotte Is., British Columbia), Tsimshian (British Columbia) Kwakiutl (British Columbia) Kootenay (southeast British Columbia), Squamish (British Columbia), Bella Coola (British Columbia), Lillooet (Green River, British Columbia), Makah (Cape Flattery, Washington), Klallam (northwest Washington), Skokomish (Washington), Skagit (Washington), Quillayute (Washington), Nisqually (Washington), Twana (Puget Sound, Washington), Kathlamet Cascade Mountains Spokana, Nez Perce, Cayuse (eastern Washington), Yakima (Washington), Warm Springs (Oregon), Joshua (southern Oregon), Smith River (northern California coast), Wintu (north central California), Maidu (central California), Northern Miwok (central California), Tuleyome Miwok (near Clear Lake, California), Olamentko Miwok (Bodega Bay, California) Ohlone (San Francisco to Monterey, California) Kato (Mendocino County, California) Shasta (northern California interior), Pomo (north central California), Salinan (California), Yuma (western Arizona, southern California), Havasupai (lower Colorado River) Ashochimi (California) Yurok (north California coast), Blackfoot (Alberta and Montana), Cree (Canada), Timagami Ojibway (Canada), Chippewa (Ontario, Minnesota, Wisconsin), Ottawa, Menomini (Wisconsin-Michigan border), Cheyenne (Minnesota), Yellowstone, Montagnais (northern Gulf of St. Lawrence), Micmac (eastern Maritime Canada), Algonquin (upper Ottowa River), Lenape (Delaware) (Delaware to New York) Cherokee (Great Lakes area; eastern Tennessee) Mandan (North Dakota), Lakota Choctaw (Mississippi), Natchez (Lower Mississippi) Chitimacha (Southern Louisiana) Caddo (Oklahoma, Arkansas), Pawnee (Nebraska) Navajo (Four Corners area), Jicarilla Apache (northeastern New Mexico) Sia (northeast Arizona) Acagchemem (near San Juan Capistrano, California), Luiseño (Southern California), Pima (southwest Arizona), Papago (Arizona), Hopi (northeast Arizona), Zuni (New Mexico) Central America Tarascan (northern Michoacan, Mexico), Michoacan (Mexico) Yaqui (Sonoran, Northern Mexico), Tarahumara (Northern Mexico), Huichol (western Mexico), Cora (east of the Huichols), Tepecano (southeast of the Huichols), Tepehua (eastern Mexico), Toltec (Mexico), Nahua (central Mexico), Tlaxcalan (central Mexico) Tlapanec (south central Mexico), Mixtec (northern Oaxaca, Mexico), Zapotec (Oaxaca, southern Mexico), Trique (Oaxaca, southern Mexico) Totonac (eastern Mexico) Chol (southern Mexico), Tzeltal (Chiapas, southern Mexico), Quiché (Guatemala), Maya (southern Mexico and Guatemala) Popoluca (Veracruz, Mexico) Nicaragua, Panama Carib (Antilles) South America Acawai (Orinoco), Arekuna (Guyana), Makiritare (Venezuela), Macusi (British Guyana) Muysca (Colombia), Yaruro (southern Venezuela) Yanomamö (southern Venezuela) Tamanaque (Orinoco), Arawak (Guyana), Pamary, Abedery, and Kataushy (Purus R., Brazil), Ipurina (Upper Amazon) Jivaro (eastern Ecuador), Shuar (Andes) Murato (eastern Ecuador) Cañari (Quito, Ecuador) Guanca and Chiquito (Peru) Ancasmarca (near Cuzco, Peru), Canelos Quechua, Quechua, Inca (Peru), Colla (high Andes) Chiriguano (southeast Bolivia) Chorote (Eastern Paraguay) Eastern Brazil (Rio de Janiero region), Eastern Brazil (Cape Frio region), Caraya (Araguaia River, central Brazil), Coroado (south Brazil) Araucania (coastal Chile) Toba (northern Argentina) Selk'nam (southern tip of Argentina) Yamana (Tierra del Fuego)

I don't care if there was a flood or not, i was just "conjecturing" on where the water went if there ever was a flood.

10,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong...Peace

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Check the last two pages, I've already debunked the Expanding Earth theory and explained why many cultures have a flood story.

reply to post by SG-17


Will do...thanks

Peace

Guys, you're making it far more complicated than it needs to be. Where did the flood water go? God magicked it away. Case closed!

reply to post by SG-17


*Checks last 2 pages*

Originally posted by SG-17
The expanding Earth theory has been debunked countless times.

Yep, that pretty much proved it wrong right there.


If your image showing tectonic plates is to believed then how do you explain the Rocky Mountains? There's no fault line there. A better explanation would be that the surface wrinkled as it was flattened out relative to the smaller circumference that the Earth used to be.

So has anyone discussed the whale fossils in the Andes mountain range yet? Fossils only form when they're covered by new layers of sediment that keep out bacteria and oxygen. Seems like it would take a lot of sediment to cover up a whale. A mountain range isn't a normal place to find whale bones I would think.

Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet.

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by john_bmth
Guys, you're making it far more complicated than it needs to be. Where did the flood water go? God magicked it away. Case closed!

OR...Jesus turned it into wine and then went on a drinking binge

reply to post by dbates


The plates haven't always been the same throughout history. There were smaller plates that have completely subducted or fused with other plates. In fact the current Pacific Plate was several separate plates between 70 and 30 million years ago. The formation of the Rockies was caused by those plates (named the Kula Plate and Farallon Plate) being completely subducted by the North American plate at a shallow angle, simultaneously pushing up the North American plate. This event is known as the Laramide orogeny. That is the better explanation.

Other mountain ranges like the Appalachians and Himalayan are extremely old, the first mountains to form ever when the first plates collided to form Pangaea.

Whale fossils and other sea life fossils are found at higher altitudes because that crust hasn't always been at the same altitude.

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by SG-17

 

*Checks last 2 pages*

Originally posted by SG-17
The expanding Earth theory has been debunked countless times.

Yep, that pretty much proved it wrong right there.

If your image showing tectonic plates is to believed then how do you explain the Rocky Mountains? There's no fault line there. A better explanation would be that the surface wrinkled as it was flattened out relative to the smaller circumference that the Earth used to be.

 

So has anyone discussed the whale fossils in the Andes mountain range yet? Fossils only form when they're covered by new layers of sediment that keep out bacteria and oxygen. Seems like it would take a lot of sediment to cover up a whale. A mountain range isn't a normal place to find whale bones I would think.

Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet.

www.nytimes.com...

edit on 19-7-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)

Google is your friend.

So now you know how the rockies formed

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Well, I hope they realize their ignorance is holding the rest of us back

And of course they make themselves look kinda silly in the process...d

There was never any evidence the earth was round either, pythagoras hypothesised it was round as did many others but no one actually knew. Then all of a sudden the people who were saying there was no evidence it was round found there was plenty to support the Earth being round - they just had their mind so closed to the idea they had not seen it.

I am not saying science is wrong, I am simply saying I don't think science has enough of the picture to say there is no evidence of a flood and to draw a conclusion. It wouldnt be the first time.
There is nothing wrong with drawing a conclusion now as long as there is a footnote saying this is a theory and could be totally wrong - it's when it is treated as the word of the 'science god' we are dealing with a religious belief not a unbiased point of view.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by dbates

 

The plates haven't always been the same throughout history. There were smaller plates that have completely subducted or fused with other plates. In fact the current Pacific Plate was several separate plates between 70 and 30 million years ago. The formation of the Rockies was caused by those plates (named the Kula Plate and Farallon Plate) being completely subducted by the North American plate at a shallow angle, simultaneously pushing up the North American plate. This event is known as the Laramide orogeny. That is the better explanation.

Other mountain ranges like the Appalachians and Himalayan are extremely old, the first mountains to form ever when the first plates collided to form Pangaea.

Whale fossils and other sea life fossils are found at higher altitudes because that crust hasn't always been at the same altitude.

Where do I find the "Kula plate" and the "Farallon Plate" on your plate map? I don't see them or are you saying those plates were completely subducted? I find this hard to swallow since the age of the sea bed (hard evidence) traveling the length of the of the North American West coast up and down is relatively new. How can the coast be "new" if it is subducting the old? Would not the age of the underwater coast lines be ancient and not brand new, geologically speaking, if they were indeed being subducted? See photo to understand what i am saying.

The oldest areas of the seafloor are represented in blue while the newest areas are represented in Red. If subduction was occurring along the North west coast of America thus forming the Rocky mountains where is the "old" plate pushing into it? Instead we have seafloors that have been freshly generated within the last 6 to 40 million years running through the middle of most of the seas indicating that the surface has been "growing" like the rings of a tree show the age and growth.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae526a7a4b13.gif[/atsimg]

Peace

reply to post by byteshertz


THAT IS THE POINT OF SCIENCE. Just because we don't know doesn't mean that science will not be able to explain it. Scientists are open to contradictory theories AS LONG AS the presenters of these theories can provide new, unique evidence to support it.


reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Yes, the Kula and Farallon plates were completely absorbed around 30 million years ago.

Look at the map I provided, look at the flow direction of the plates (the Pacific plate is no longer being subducted by the North American plate). The majority of the "newer" areas are NOT near subduction zones. They are near divergent zones.
The oldest areas on your map are either near ancient coastlines like the Atlantic coasts or on currently-stable plates like the Filipino Plate. There is nothing contradictory in that Age Map to Plate Tectonics.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Kula Plate

How hard is it to google? And I've already posted a link that fully explains how the Rockies formed

Originally posted by byteshertz

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by john_bmth

 

Well, I hope they realize their ignorance is holding the rest of us back

And of course they make themselves look kinda silly in the process...d

There was never any evidence the earth was round either, pythagoras hypothesised it was round as did many others but no one actually knew. Then all of a sudden the people who were saying there was no evidence it was round found there was plenty to support the Earth being round - they just had their mind so closed to the idea they had not seen it.

I am not saying science is wrong, I am simply saying I don't think science has enough of the picture to say there is no evidence of a flood and to draw a conclusion. It wouldnt be the first time.
There is nothing wrong with drawing a conclusion now as long as there is a footnote saying this is a theory and could be totally wrong - it's when it is treated as the word of the 'science god' we are dealing with a religious belief not a unbiased point of view.

edit on 19-7-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)

The difference is, when it comes to the earth being round, that was something entirely new...they didn't even know what evidence to look for. When it comes to floods, we perfectly know what to look for. If the geological evidence floods leave behind (ALWAYS!!) isn't there, then it's logical to say a flood didn't happen.

So in short, no, there's no doubt a global flood didn't happen

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

How hard is it to google?

Its quite easy. Many mountain ranges were formed as the earth expanded like the wrinkles on your finger knuckles as you bend and extend as well as plates being pushed against continents as the oceans spread.

As for where did the water go? Its in the oceans. There is a large portion of earths coastlines that were flooded within 20,000 years the most recent being around 7-8000 b.c