Where did all the Flood water go?

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by john_bmth

 

My, God. You guys are reading from Inquisition manuals or something. That is almost exactly what the RCC said in the 14th century.

At least no one is being imprisoned this time around.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

You know what's ironic?

The fact that you call scientists promoting critical thinking the "inquisition", when the original inquisition's goal was to prevent critical thinking

Peer reviews are a form of critical thinking. You are essentially advocating AGAINST critical thinking.

Sorry, but I prefer not to be a blind sheep

Can anyone say "omniscient?" People are "amazed" when other people hold a belief in "religious dogma" and (with thinly veiled language) imply those who believe in God are blind, brainwashed or just stupid. What amazes me is that man (generally) has the arrogance to think HE is the supreme judge of what is or isn't "true." It's not that I don't believe in Science - but I don't believe our puny, finite minds comprehend all natural laws. Every couple of hundred years Man re-evaluates and clears his throat and says, "Um...we've had to modify our thinking because we've just had another "aha moment," and realized........the earth isn't flat, the earth isn't the center of the universe, etc, etc.

I believe God works through natural laws...He isn't a "genie" who waves a magic wand and waters part, the sun stands still in the heavens...there are natural, physical laws working here and He comprehends natural laws at a much higher level than we do, and working within those immutable laws does what He does...which we (poor fools) cannot yet comprehend. We're learning, yes...but still have quite a ways to go...and there are STILL a lot of "aha moments" in our future. (In fact, I predict a heck of a lot of forehead slapping ahead.)

reply to post by Jansy


Scientists aren't claiming to comprehend everything. The reason they exist is that we don't know everything. If we did, we wouldn't need scientists

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

Again, I don't see how god or religion plays into the question of "where did the water go" or that either is needed.

Plate tectonics, as is currently understood, doesn't address this question yet, the expanding earth does.

I have to ask again: What are you talking about???

We know for a FACT that a global flood didn't happen because there's ZERO evidence for it...so why are people even discussing where the water went? Like I've said before, that's like talking about the mating rituals of unicorns

Plate tectonics, as is currently understood, doesn't address this question yet, the expanding earth does.

What question???

edit on 20-7-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

It's quite simple to see how unicorns get it on...a little naying, some horn foreplay perhaps

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by john_bmth

 

My, God. You guys are reading from Inquisition manuals or something. That is almost exactly what the RCC said in the 14th century.

At least no one is being imprisoned this time around.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

You know what's ironic?

The fact that you call scientists promoting critical thinking the "inquisition", when the original inquisition's goal was to prevent critical thinking

Peer reviews are a form of critical thinking. You are essentially advocating AGAINST critical thinking.

Sorry, but I prefer not to be a blind sheep

Sorry. Peer review and science today is far from critical thinking.

Anything that does not agree with the known laws is thrown out as heresy. That is not critical thinking.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Sorry. Peer review and science today is far from critical thinking.

Anything that does not agree with the known laws is thrown out as heresy. That is not critical thinking.

It's not about stuff that goes against known laws...it's about stuff that has ZERO objective evidence behind it, or stuff that's demonstrably wrong.

One example is this silly global flood. There is ZERO evidence for a global flood, yet people ask where the water of that fictional flood went. In a "fiction" forum, or religious forum, sure...it's a free country. But I have no clue why this is in the Origins thread. A global flood would leave behind GLOBAL evidence. That's not the case, we only have evidence of local floods, at different points in time during the earth's history.

Testing, evaluating, and properly backing up claims are cornerstones of critical thinking...and calling it an "inquisition" makes you look silly.

In short, how about you provide some OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for a global flood. Because until you or someone else does, talking about "where the water went" is beyond laughable. Entertain us

Originally posted by MrXYZ
I have to ask again: What are you talking about???

We know for a FACT that a global flood didn't happen because there's ZERO evidence for it...

I think you lost all credibility with that ignorant statement. Read a book. Google or something don't let your hatred for yourself, others and their beliefs cloud reality and reason.

Here is a link,www.talkorigins.org... within the link are hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Noah wasn't the only one who survived. The Ocean of the earth rose 140 meters average since 10,000 b.c. When Lake Agassiz brok lose it flooded the earth over 4 meters in 1 year est.

Ignorance is ugly

reply to post by Shadow Herder

Here is a link,www.talkorigins.org... within the link are hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Noah wasn't the only one who survived. The Ocean of the earth rose 140 meters average since 10,000 b.c. When Lake Agassiz brok lose it flooded the earth over 4 meters in 1 year est.

Yes, and given that all those flood stories talk about LOCAL FLOODS and NOT global floods, your other claims are nonsense. Especially in the absence of geological evidence and the FACT that we wouldn't have today's biodiversity if a global flood happened 10k years ago

Ignorance is ugly

I agree...but you might wanna look in a mirror after re-reading what you just wrote

Read a book. Google or something don't let your hatred for yourself, others and their beliefs cloud reality and reason.

Right back at you. Apparently you don't even get the difference between a LOCAL FLOOD and a global flood.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Here is a link,www.talkorigins.org... within the link are hundreds of flood stories from around the world. Noah wasn't the only one who survived. The Ocean of the earth rose 140 meters average since 10,000 b.c. When Lake Agassiz brok lose it flooded the earth over 4 meters in 1 year est.

Yes, and given that all those flood stories talk about LOCAL FLOODS and NOT global floods

What part of my statement did you not understand? Flood stories from around the world sounds like a global story to me. World=Globe.... you know. www.talkorigins.org...

Sigh.... Stop being so ignorant and open your mind a little to comprehend. For someone who hasnt read the bible you sure take it literally. You should study the things you dont understand.

reply to post by Shadow Herder


I think you need to re-read what he said.

I'll repeat: there has NEVER been a GLOBAL flood as related through common mythology.

Originally posted by SG-17

 

The Earth cannot just grow without new matter being created. Less than 4% of the Earth's mass is from post-Theia extraterrestrial material. The planet would need to be under constant large scale bombardment to grow in mass to the terms that EErs claim.

Why would matter have to be created if the Earth was smaller then expanded? Surely all would happen is that the Earth's crust would get thinner as its expanded, like expanding a ballon, the balloon becomes thinner. So in this case matter would not be created, its already there.

Originally posted by Freelancer
[

Why would matter have to be created if the Earth was smaller then expanded? Surely all would happen is that the Earth's crust would get thinner as its expanded, like expanding a ballon, the balloon becomes thinner. So in this case matter would not be created, its already there.

Bang on. Its too bad some people dont have the capacity to compute such simple logic.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

What part of my statement did you not understand? Flood stories from around the world sounds like a global story to me. World=Globe.... you know.

I really have to spell it out for you, don't I?

You pretend all those civilizations listed are talking about a single global flood story. But that's simply not the case...mostly because THEY DIDN'T EVEN LIVE DURING THE SAME TIME!!!!

Even funnier, a lot of the cultures you listed lived AFTER the bible was written

Some of the flood stories are actually quite funny:

The ocean was once enclosed in a small pot kept by a man and his wife under the roof of their hut to fill their larger pots. The man told his daughter-in-law never to touch it because it contained their sacred ancestors. But she grew curious and touched it. It shattered, and the resulting flood drowned everything.

But reading this and making the ridiculous conclusion that this was a global flood is beyond laughable

Originally posted by Freelancer

Originally posted by SG-17

 

The Earth cannot just grow without new matter being created. Less than 4% of the Earth's mass is from post-Theia extraterrestrial material. The planet would need to be under constant large scale bombardment to grow in mass to the terms that EErs claim.

Why would matter have to be created if the Earth was smaller then expanded? Surely all would happen is that the Earth's crust would get thinner as its expanded, like expanding a ballon, the balloon becomes thinner. So in this case matter would not be created, its already there.

I hope you understand the difference between the earth an a balloon. Last I checked, a balloon is completely hollow and filled with AIR...the earth clearly isn't

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by Freelancer
[

Why would matter have to be created if the Earth was smaller then expanded? Surely all would happen is that the Earth's crust would get thinner as its expanded, like expanding a ballon, the balloon becomes thinner. So in this case matter would not be created, its already there.

Bang on. Its too bad some people dont have the capacity to compute such simple logic.

Speaking of 'logic', one would honestly have to throw 'logic' out the window to accept any of this flood and religion nonsense. And I'm talking about 1st-grade level 'logic'.

Poor fools and their 'once upon a time' stories written by ancient savage men!!

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Freelancer

Originally posted by SG-17

 

The Earth cannot just grow without new matter being created. Less than 4% of the Earth's mass is from post-Theia extraterrestrial material. The planet would need to be under constant large scale bombardment to grow in mass to the terms that EErs claim.

Why would matter have to be created if the Earth was smaller then expanded? Surely all would happen is that the Earth's crust would get thinner as its expanded, like expanding a ballon, the balloon becomes thinner. So in this case matter would not be created, its already there.

I hope you understand the difference between the earth an a balloon. Last I checked, a balloon is completely hollow and filled with AIR...the earth clearly isn't

Yes, but a cake in the oven expands, and we know that the Earth's core is hot, so... yeah. I call it the "expanding cake mix" hypothesis. Who's with me? Anyone? No-one?? Ah, screw you, then.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Freelancer

Originally posted by SG-17

 

The Earth cannot just grow without new matter being created. Less than 4% of the Earth's mass is from post-Theia extraterrestrial material. The planet would need to be under constant large scale bombardment to grow in mass to the terms that EErs claim.

Why would matter have to be created if the Earth was smaller then expanded? Surely all would happen is that the Earth's crust would get thinner as its expanded, like expanding a ballon, the balloon becomes thinner. So in this case matter would not be created, its already there.

I hope you understand the difference between the earth an a balloon. Last I checked, a balloon is completely hollow and filled with AIR...the earth clearly isn't

Yes, but a cake in the oven expands, and we know that the Earth's core is hot, so... yeah. I call it the "expanding cake mix" hypothesis. Who's with me? Anyone? No-one?? Ah, screw you, then.

And what's the difference between a baked cake and dough? The dough is a LOT denser, and doesn't contain as much air as the baked cake.

The earth didn't miraculously developed air bubbles to the extent that such an expansion would require

reply to post by MrXYZ

You forgot the secret ingredient: God. Case closed, good bye, can the last poser hit the lights?

There is no evidence whatsoever in the geological record for a global flood. Thus, the water did not go anywhere.
Eustasy and sea level rise/fall is not a global flood.
Catastrophism is so Nineteenth Century!
Even the expanding Earth theory doesn't wash. It only makes sense to the tinfoil hatters and fundamentalist religious nutjobs who don't understand the Scientific Method and twist the 'facts' for their own dubious aims.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

You forgot the secret ingredient: God. Case closed, good bye, can the last poser hit the lights?

Why not the pink unicorn? Or random magic?