Where did all the Flood water go?

Ballard Finds Traces of Ancient Habitation Beneath Black Sea
Lisa Krause (September 13, 2000)
Off the coast of northern Turkey, 311 feet (95 meters) below the Black Sea, explorer Robert Ballard has discovered remains of an ancient structure that was apparently flooded in a deluge of biblical proportions. The find may lend credence to a theory that a Black Sea flood gave rise to the Noah story and other flood legends.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

The whole world was flooded with a average sea level rise of around 140 meters in the last 12,000 years. This sea level is the same. There were times in earths history where it was almost completely under water to almost no water and back again.

But after reading many flood stories from around the world it seems that it was a MegaTsunami, Lake Agassiz breaking free, fountains of the deep opening up, dark skies for months, earthquakes and volcanoes. It was an active time and we survived it. Sad we deny the story we spent thousands of years keeping.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


So wait...you post a link to a flood on the Black Sea...and then make the claim that's proof of a worldwide flood?? Really??

You might wanna read up on floods...and read the definitions of "local" and "global"

reply to post by MrXYZ


I can't believe how hard it is for people to grasp this simple concept.

Originally posted by SG-17
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.

Exactly what I said in previous posts - the point of science is to try to explain what we can measure - but if we don't remember that in the grand scheme of things we can't measure jack all then we end up with a warped perspective.

It was the point of science when it said the earth was flat too
It was the point of science when it said we have 9 planets in our solar system
It was the point of science when it said humans evolved directly from tree dwelling apes
It was the point of science when it said there are 109 Elements in the Period Table
It was the point of science when it said the first mammals evolved about 155 million years ago

BUT GUESS WHAT - SCIENCE WAS WRONG, but that is not the fault of science because it is the job of science to explain what we can measure.
IT WAS THE FAULT OF MAN, for thinking science was unable to be wrong and not saying "based on what we currently know" before every sentance.

If you follow science blindly and do not keep a perspective on what science explains you have a religion.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I can't believe how hard it is for people to grasp this simple concept.

Says the science guy that blatently said mass is not energy.
Dont argue with me about it - take it up with Einstein.

Originally posted by byteshertz

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I can't believe how hard it is for people to grasp this simple concept.

Says the science guy that blatently said mass is not energy.
Dont argue with me about it - take it up with Einstein.

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

It isn't the same

What you are talking about is mass-energy equivalence. It states (as Einstein said too) that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.

Here's the link if you wanna read up on it

This may be what happened. This is an answer in this similar thread.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

I can't believe how hard it is for people to grasp this simple concept.

I don't get it either. It feels like I'm talking to some guy on speakers corner in London...one who claims unicorns are real. And just like the global flood people, those dudes obviously don't provide evidence either

Local floods make TOTAL SENSE, especially given that we still observe them every single year. So it should make total sense that ancient people were talking about several local floods. Creationists always make it seem as if all those civilizations mentioned a flood happening at the same time. Yet most of those civilizations didn't even live during the same time. This link makes it abundantly clear that they couldn't have been talking about a single global flood

Originally posted by byteshertz

Originally posted by SG-17
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.

Exactly what I said in previous posts - the point of science is to try to explain what we can measure - but if we don't remember that in the grand scheme of things we can't measure jack all then we end up with a warped perspective.

It was the point of science when it said the earth was flat too
It was the point of science when it said we have 9 planets in our solar system
It was the point of science when it said humans evolved directly from tree dwelling apes
It was the point of science when it said there are 109 Elements in the Period Table
It was the point of science when it said the first mammals evolved about 155 million years ago

BUT GUESS WHAT - SCIENCE WAS WRONG, but that is not the fault of science because it is the job of science to explain what we can measure.
IT WAS THE FAULT OF MAN, for thinking science was unable to be wrong and not saying "based on what we currently know" before every sentance.

If you follow science blindly and do not keep a perspective on what science explains you have a religion.

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

Science cannot be wrong. Science is a method, not an idea. The individual ideas listed were PROVEN wrong or incomplete with hard EVIDENCE.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Bah! You stole my thunder. I was just about to say that the oldest sea floor is at most about 170 million years old while the land on the continents ranges around 4 billion years of age. That's a huge difference. And look at the age of the mountain ranges. The Rocky mountains are about 60 million years old, the Himalayas are only about 50 million years old. Essentially the dinosaurs lived on a flat earth with no mountain ranges. If we buy into their super-continents cycle theory then why wouldn't 300 million year cycles have left existing mountain ranges on the edges of the 4 billion year old continents?

Even more amusing is that the Himalayas were said to have formed at the same time that India was over 2,000 miles away from Asia. How did this happen and why didn't the ocean floor get pushed down as they say it normally does when the continents drift around?

Also if the continents are made of the lightest material, granite, then how did the crust of the earth cool with all the granite shoved over to one side? That doesn't make sense. If the earth was at one point all liquid then the granite being lighter than basalt, it would float to the top and make a solid covering of granite over the entire earth.

I'm not buying into the expanding earth entirely but there sure are a lot of unanswered questions that current theories don't seem to support.

Originally posted by SG-17

Originally posted by byteshertz

Originally posted by SG-17
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.

Exactly what I said in previous posts - the point of science is to try to explain what we can measure - but if we don't remember that in the grand scheme of things we can't measure jack all then we end up with a warped perspective.

It was the point of science when it said the earth was flat too
It was the point of science when it said we have 9 planets in our solar system
It was the point of science when it said humans evolved directly from tree dwelling apes
It was the point of science when it said there are 109 Elements in the Period Table
It was the point of science when it said the first mammals evolved about 155 million years ago

BUT GUESS WHAT - SCIENCE WAS WRONG, but that is not the fault of science because it is the job of science to explain what we can measure.
IT WAS THE FAULT OF MAN, for thinking science was unable to be wrong and not saying "based on what we currently know" before every sentance.

If you follow science blindly and do not keep a perspective on what science explains you have a religion.

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

Science cannot be wrong. Science is a method, not an idea. The individual ideas listed were PROVEN wrong or incomplete with hard EVIDENCE.

Here is an example of what you fail to understand:
Science does not have the big picture, it only can explain what we measure. You asking someone that believes in something more to this reality to prove their beliefs happened using science is like me asking you to prove you know maths by giving you calculus questions - if the test only covers a small portion of subject then you can not determine that someone knows the subject or not. You can conclude this person does not know maths but you have to say based on what I measured - which was only calculus.

reply to post by byteshertz


And that's why it's called a BELIEF...it's not based on facts or evidence. Basically, religious people can make up whatever they want, which they do of course. That's why there are hundreds of different religions and sects.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by byteshertz

 

And that's why it's called a BELIEF...it's not based on facts or evidence. Basically, religious people can make up whatever they want, which they do of course. That's why there are hundreds of different religions and sects.

Well when you dont have the full picture it is called a hypothesis

Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. source

Probable
1.likely to occur or prove true: He foresaw a probable business loss. He is the probable writer of the article.
2.having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.
3.affording ground for belief source



You believe in your the belief of science, they believe in the belief of god or whatever their religion is
But neither of you have all the answers and history would tell us you are probably both wrong.

reply to post by byteshertz


So at best it's a working hypothesis? That's not exactly the "only truth" title religious believers so much like to give their specific religion

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by byteshertz

 

So at best it's a working hypothesis? That's not exactly the "only truth" title religious believers so much like to give their specific religion

Agree completely - but them being wrong (if they are) doesnt make science right either.
Just as science being wrong does not make them right.

I think we have reached an understanding between us though, very good debate - thanks for your contributions and helping me to expand my mind.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
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

Apparently it is very easy to Google, but that still doesn't explain why the coast lines are fairly new.

If the Kula plate was pushing into the North American plate don't you think it would of lifted the Sierras first or did it burrow and wait until it hit Colorado to push up like Bugs Bunny trying to find Albuquerque? I thought subduction worked by one land mass pushing under another, there by, pushing the opposing land mass up directly where the other begins to subduct. Such would not be the case with the Rockies..."That John Denver was full of s#!t man". If the North American plate swallowed the now non-existent Kula plate (Kula meaning "All Gone"-courtesy of Google) wouldn't most of the whole west U.S. be as high as the Rockies?

Back to the flood...how funny is it that the age of the sea bed is a report put out by NOAA? Bu dump bump tiss

reply to post by dbates

Yes, keep ignoring everything that I post. It certainly makes you look intelligent.

Originally posted by SG-17
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.

The Appalachian Mountains and the Anti-Atlas Mountains are both well over 400 million years old. Certainly before the dinosaurs. They are the existing mountain ranges on the edge of the ancient continents.

The Earth is a sphere, things just don't "float to one side" because there aren't any "sides". Granite is light yes, but it is also relatively fragile. Thus how it broke into plates.

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

Bah! You stole my thunder. I was just about to say that the oldest sea floor is at most about 170 million years old while the land on the continents ranges around 4 billion years of age. That's a huge difference. And look at the age of the mountain ranges. The Rocky mountains are about 60 million years old, the Himalayas are only about 50 million years old. Essentially the dinosaurs lived on a flat earth with no mountain ranges. If we buy into their super-continents cycle theory then why wouldn't 300 million year cycles have left existing mountain ranges on the edges of the 4 billion year old continents?

Even more amusing is that the Himalayas were said to have formed at the same time that India was over 2,000 miles away from Asia. How did this happen and why didn't the ocean floor get pushed down as they say it normally does when the continents drift around?

Also if the continents are made of the lightest material, granite, then how did the crust of the earth cool with all the granite shoved over to one side? That doesn't make sense. If the earth was at one point all liquid then the granite being lighter than basalt, it would float to the top and make a solid covering of granite over the entire earth.

I'm not buying into the expanding earth entirely but there sure are a lot of unanswered questions that current theories don't seem to support.

Sorry to steal your thunder d I side with you on this. I don't entirely buy the expanding earth theory either, but it sure makes a lot more sense then the theory of plate tectonics.

Peace

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


The Expanding Earth "Theory" (I use the word very loosely) does not make any scientific sense at all. The simple facts of the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy completely invalidate Expanding Earth.

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

The Expanding Earth "Theory" (I use the word very loosely) does not make any scientific sense at all. The simple facts of the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy completely invalidate Expanding Earth.

Shhhhh!! No one cares about facts if they go against one's religious belief