If you read back about 5 pages, when I started posting to this subject, then at least you may be aware why I think there was enough water. There is about five times as much water as land, and the average depth of the ocean is about 2 or 3 kilometers. If such a mass of water was out of control, it would dominate the land and reshape it. Most people cannot fathom that, pardon the pun, because they believe the only way water can do that is by filling up like a giant bath, until the mountains are covered. If that was so, there is not enough water. There are several factors about the flood that are not understood, and the one point I have been making regarding the behaviour of a large mass of water is not understood or comprehended. The reason for this is, that the imagination keeps naturally reverting back to the dynamics of the glass of water on the kitchen table, and the bath tub. Only a disciplined imagination or a computer could demonstrate the dynamics of such a large body of water. I believe those that have opposed the idea, are capable of realising it, maybe not now, but in the future.
Despite the fact that you are dismissing the world body of science as invalid, you wish to hang on to the laws of mechanics. Yet you lack the training to understand its fundamental principles. A wave does not send its energy vertically through the water to the submerged terrain. If it did, there would be no energy for lateral motion, and the wave would immediately dissipate. You say the weight was shifting. I can prove no shift at all occurred, as follows. Weight = volume x density. Your volume is zero, therefore your weight is zero. (You have specified area--200 km x 500 m. It has zero volume.) Your numbers are sheer inventions. There is no basis in fact for claiming any waves of any particular dimensions ever existed other than those known to exist. Even if we pretended that 500,000 kg of magic force was rolling around all over the earth, it would have no effect other than to flatten some of the soft ground. You're talking about 10 times the weight of a steamroller, concentrated on a every square meter of the ground. This much weight is insufficient to alter the terrain. This claim is ridiculous. Flattening the earth is the opposite of mountain building. A global flood does not explain the Grand, Zion and Bryce Canyons containing radioactive isotopes graduated according to depth. Therefore those sediments could not be deposited by your flood. Waves do not create energy. They transmit it from an energy source. The total amount of energy to carve the mountains can not be accounted for from any source that would merely shake the water and form waves.
A wave is a volume of water above average height of the body of water, it therefore weighs more, and with large waves the weight is quite significant on the earth below. Another key you missed - the weight changes with the rise and fall of waves and with their passing. These changes are even more effective at reforming the land than an unchanging weight. These oscillations varied in speed and size throughout the year of the flood. The ratio of those variations was very great. And by the way 200km x 500m wave, weighs slightly more than 10 steam rollers. How you say it has zero volume, is puzzling.
No, it is a mass of water rotating, creating a crest and a through. The average hight of the water column is unchanged. No, below the actual wave movement, the pressure is not changing as a wave rolls over. A wave is a dynamic phenomenon, and you cannot resolve it into a row of steady states. No. To top it, pressure does not normally erode landscape. He is just pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about. 200km x 500m is a two dimentional amount. It cannot have weight. Hans
As I said before, it does not deliver energy downward. If it did, the wave would collapse. The energy of the wave is being transported laterally, not vertically. It therefore has no energy to alter the earth, even if bedrock were rubbery as you claim. Do you understand that magma lies below the crust? I presume you know that water can not exist in liquid form at the temperatures of molten rock. Presumably you believe that huge geysers erupted, to deliver the missing water, and then, when it was time to pull the plug, the water herded itself down into the hole against the pressure of the steam formed wherever it interfaced with magma. When you finally figure out how to specify this impossible scenario, we can compare it to the motion of the tides, which, by your reason, should be causing the land to sink when the tides are high and to rise on low tide. A laser can do this very precisely. I assure you I have missed not one tittle nor jot of your ludicrous scenario. See my comments above. There is no vertical transfer of energy. There is not even any lateral motion, because you have no energy source. You are claiming the water rose out of the hollow core of the earth, without the seas falling to fill the void, and without an energy source to raise that water. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Regardless of the impossibility of levitating the waters, and the impossibility of setting them in motion, the energy from any waves will be converted into kinetic energy, moving the mass of water forward, not down. Turbulence on the surface of water does not disturb the terrain underneath. It most certainly does not cause land to sink, nor does it lift miles of rock and set them atilt as your think. Waves require an energy source. Your "creation machine" can't do that, because it has no energy source. (Batteries not included.) You are specifying area, which has zero volume, therefore zero mass. You will now need to invent a third dimension, the length of the wave.
Out of control? The only thing that controls the oceans is gravity. How else could it cover the land? There are no factors about the flood that are not understood, because it has not happened. That is all you need to understand. You point has been understood: It is wrong.:bugeye: Imagination is not the tool for this. The dynamics of a global ocean are not significantly different from those of existing oceans. The main difference is that waves can build up unhindered. You would have mile-high waves, breaking over the submerged mountain ranges. Good luck navigating that.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You keep referring to "the flood" as though it were a real historical event. It's mythology. Mythology is neither facts nor lies, but metaphors. The flood is a metaphor for humans' tendency to behave so badly that we could literally destroy the world. In the mythology the destruction is wrought by an imaginary supernatural creature, angry at us for our own misdeeds, who takes pity on us at the last moment and allows a handful of people to survive. (We know this cannot be real history because the number of surviving people was nowhere near the minimum required to rebuild a genetically healthy population.) In reality the destruction could be wrought by nature, a mindless entity with no capacity for pity. The "motivation" will not be anger, but simple natural reaction to our clearing the rainforests, polluting the oceans, flooding the atmosphere with CO2, etc. Either way, we're toast. A good percentage of the population don't believe science so they disregard the warnings of the environmental scientists. But they believe in ancient holy books, yet they don't see the parallel. In any case, if you continue to write as though a biblical myth were literal truth, no one is going to treat you with respect.
I don't believe that the bay is getting any wider. The bay is a coastal valley that was flooded when the sea level rose at the end of the last ice age. What's happening is that part of the peninsula - not all of it, and not the part on which San Francisco sits - is moving northward at an average rate of about 2"/year or something. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/move.html
Your points about weight transfer etc are correct. When I described the giant waves, these are and could be described as a simple change in depth, the reason I called them waves is because they moved and changed like waves but in some cases it would days for a transfer of water. The mechanics you and Aq point out apply to smaller waves you might see by the beach. As I said earlier it is very difficult to concieve the dynamics of great bodies of water. Don't make me think it is impossible for you to work it out.
You have the ability to imagine, but when you imagine big it is very easy to exaggerate - eg the mile high wave crashing on a mountain. This is an expansion of a beach wave, the water on the scale you proposed would not act the same. It would be more sublime and yet powerful. Did not Einstein say that imagination is greater then knowledge?
I follow all your points. I may discuss the lava water relationship later. But what you say about wave dynamics is true. I may have made the mistake of calling changes in water depth waves, which they are because they do shift and change like waves, but very slowly, allowing water pressure and weight to be over one part of the ground below and lesser on another. Even so, on a minature scale like waves on the beach, which are proportionately higher than wide, the pressure and weight on the sand below, changes the floor of the beach. But to imagine global and oceanic changes, you have to be able to slow things down - a lot.
I talk about the flood as it were real, because to argue a point of view, I have to be able to own it first. As far as myths are concerned, they can be unravelled because, they are usually based on some truth however minute, either an event or human experience. Even if the myth is 'wrong' it is an expression of human thought, and therefore a reflection of mind set - a truth in itself. I like the comparisons you make between mythology and reality, human fear and enviromental science. It's a good thing to have respect for our earth, and no doubt the flood myth had the elements of warning to those who should disregard it.
Re the question about the size of the ark, and the number of different creatures. The creationists have an answer to this. They have an answer for everything, as you will find if you google any aspect of evolution. They are so prolific, that they may well be the first explanation a person happens upon. Their answers are far more credible for anyone uneducated or naive, than hard to grasp, truly scientific answers. Animals were taken into the Ark "after their kind", so instead of having to have the countless varieties of bacteria and viruses on board, which would cram the ark prow to stern, and port to starboard on their own, a pair of e-coli and a common cold germ with its partner suffice. @Fraggle I agree with GK's reply below. You are committing the logical fallacy of "begging the question" Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition relies on an implicit premise within itself to establish the truth of that same proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion. Such arguments are essentially of the form "a is true because a is true" though rarely is such an argument stated as such. Often the premise 'a' is only one of many premises that go into proving that 'a' is true as a conclusion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
The theories of evolution are also based on interlocking premises. Logic can be followed in either a creationists system and an evolutionists system, and both have had their popularity. Eventually logic and reasoning in itself can be questionable, as also can the intelligence of man. What the Bible claims, is that it is the inspired word of God, that it considers a Higher authority and intelligence than the creature. In essence the Bible has to be read and tested on the merit of its own claims. Now if ignorance and prejudice take priority in this research, then it cannot be a fair judgement. In my experience, criticisms of the Bible generally come from the lowest denominator, a lack of knowledge of its contents, let alone its principles, with the religious class equally bereft. But if its claims are true then a plea of ignorance will not suffice in the judgement, especially in this enlightened age of opportunity. Just because I have chosen to read and test the Bible, does not mean that I have it all together, and also, when it comes to science, I am willing to admit my lack of education, without demeaning those who stand for it. At the same time I am aware of aspects of science which have been bought to the fore by the scriptures, but the general populace, from both religious and scientific communities, is unaware of. Having said that, what I have proposed is not new by any means, and is known by a few hundred thousand.
If you mean testability, prediction, and falsification, then yes, you're right. It's ironic that the most attacked theory in science is also the most tested and validated.
You rarely can own what you do not pay for. Where's the money? So far you've expounded for quite a while on ideas pulled out of thin air which have little or no basis in fact. All throughout your discussions you have ignored the reminders that Flood Myths are endemic to places that had seasonal floods. The Utnapishtim character in the Akkadian/Sumerian/Babylonian myth builds a boat and rescues the animals and people who will survive, anticipating the Canaanite myth which would follow hundreds of years later. It was a merciless slaughter by angry gods. Yet no such myth developed around the Nile which had gentler seasonal flooding--just enough to water and fertilize the fields. The truth you are referring to, as it applies here is pretty shallow. Snow melts. It rains. It floods. People that live on flood plains get wiped out. Therefore the gods are mad at us. How much useful truth proceeds from that? Considering you express this nonchalant attitude about myth, I'm surprised you labored on such an elaborate scheme for trying to force pseudoscience to yield the explanations you've been propounding here. They are utterly bogus. Earth does not bend under water. The plates are moving--only inches per year--and this is because the earth has been cooling for about 4.5 billion years. They move laterally, and as they do so, they build mountains and volcanoes, and they cause hotspots, subduction zones and earthquakes. There never was a mass extinction in the human era. There is incontrovertible geologic evidence that no such flood ever took place. You admit to not having a good understanding of science, yet you are quick to call the Creationist propaganda "science". There's a lot of conflicting ideas going on there. I think if this subject interests you at all you should try to learn a little more from credible sources, such as university and official government sites. They are often cited as references in Wikipedia articles. You could probably be disabused of a lot of your errors simply by taking a class in geology. Another thing that would be easier is to try to learn how and why atoms decay into isotopes, and how and why this reveals the age of geological specimens, and how this fits in with all the other knowledge scientists had accumulated before they had radiometric dating to assist them in dating geological specimens. Another excellent class would be biology. I would also recommend world history, especially if you can find a course that deals with the ancient world. After that, you won't need to try to argue in favor of a global flood. Once you get on the right track, you can begin to work from best evidence. Then you can go take this gospel to your buddies on the Creation Network: the words of creation are written in the fossil record. All you need is faith -- in yourself -- to decipher them.
There are over 300 global flood stories, in different parts of the world, and many of those myths place that time at the beginning of their era or ancestory. It points to either a major event, or many major events, but rarely can one deduce local floods, unless every local flood had prewarned citizens escaping in an ark, with animals and seed on board for one year. No doubt there are other flood stories, and catastrophies, but none of such an impact as to remain in tradition for thousands of years. If a handful of self made and styled universities some four and a half thousand years later, deny that...? We are back to the theory of "we are the most advanced generation ever." The reason thousands of intelligent students are rejecting evolution is that the evidence they find does not always support it. I say not always, because evolution templates do fit many excavations, but not all, but a flood theory fits them all, and that's where the students make their mind up. Whether we like it or not, evolution has had its day and is crumbling as quickly as its exponents, which is sad in a way because they have spent so much time and diligent effort in that pursuit. Your recommendation for me to be educated comes from a supportive intent, and I am certain that if I had no learning difficulties, I could have been successful in other ways. To be honest, I was fascinated as a child, with those strata drawings, because I went through school looking at pictures and diagrams, to think that history can be read by what lies beneath.
This itself is a myth. No...it's a lie, used to prop up a myth. The only stuff that matters is the literature of the Early Bronze Age. This covers only three cultures: the Mesopotamian/Levant (Middle East), Egypt and India. These myths correspond to local flooding of the Tigris-Euphrates, the Nile, and the Ganges rivers. All of the other stories which originate a thousand years later, or more, are useless to this discussion. The only stories that matter, as far as you are concerned, are the stories from the Middle East, which are easily dismissed. Isreal (Canaan) was never under water, and the cities mentioned in the Mesopotamian myths were frequently under water. Remember how spidergoat (post 341) specifically stated that there is no sedimentation deposited worldwide? Guess what - you have layers of sediment on top of various cities from various dynasties near the Tigris-Euphrates. Clearly then, all of these myths relate to local river flooding, nothing more. And they are very silly myths indeed. Again, it's all foolishness, since these are silly myths realating to local river flooding. The myths of the Bible are most easily disproven. Their survival is brought to you by the Holy Roman Empire, which says nothing of their foolish content. No, it's the other way around. Every center of learning in the world, except for only a few Creationist schools of propaganda, teach geology and related sciences. All of the evidence is freely available, and you can collect it all the days of your life and never run out of fresh clues that your ideas are utterly bogus. Theory? You mean it's not self-evident that every generation learns by the mistakes of its predecessors, and also learns by building on the accomplishments of its predecessors? That's utterly bogus. No, it's just a lie. There is no such thing as evidence that does not support evolution. It is one of the most fundamental threads that links all of the life sciences. Here you are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of archaeology. The principle flood evidence concerning excavation sites occurs along the Tigris-Euphrates, near places mentioned in the Bible before the flood (Ur and Nineveh come to mind.) "Ashurbanipal - He who builded Nineveh" is a king born after the Gilgamesh epic, found in the ancient library at Nineveh. The excavations at principal Iraqi sites in or around these ancient cities reveals sedimentary deposits - city upon city - so it's very clear these were repeated flooding events. And they all took place before the Genesis creation story even begins. That's ridiculous. You're obviously steeped in propaganda. Every educated person in the world has the facts of evolution clearly laid out. They are irrefutable. You just don't read much. However, disputing evolution will not rescue your flood myth. You will also need to overturn all the findings of history and archaeology. You can run, but you can't hide. I suggest you not give up, but pursue further testing and help. You demonstrate here that you have learned a lot from Creationist material. For example, you were quick to claim that there are around 300 flood myths. I think if you are concerned about your learning ability you should take extra care to ensure that the material you are reading comes from accredited schools and universities. I would urge you to refer to the National Academy of Sciences for some introductory material concerning evolution and science in general. The USGS, NASA and NOAA are all excellent sources of earth science educational materials. Then don't give up, follow up. If I were you I would investigate the following information: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! These are sites where clay deposits are found on top of ancient cities. If I were you I would read up on these cities and investigate ancient history. I would encourage you to read more on Ur and Nineveh. The tablets at Nineveh are in the British Museum, which has a good search tool. Think about what it means to cite the name of a city, then to claim it was wiped out in a flood, and then to refer to that city again to people who would not be aware of its existence. Who does the Bible say came from Ur? The ancestors of the Isrealites? And this place, Ur, is covered by sedimentary clay. Think about it. And in the tablets of the people of Ur is the flood myth involving Utnapishtim. The gods that spared Utnapishtim are the "pagan" gods of the Isrealite arch-enemies, the Babylonians. Get it? They picked this story up from their enemies while in captivity. The worst fallacy of all is to read the literature of one's pagan enemy and claim it is the "gospel truth".
