Noah's Flood...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:39 pm

Is the cat's name "Bubbles?"

--J. "Or to Give His FULL Name!!" D.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:08 pm

I do not mind beating a dead pussy [Stop that.--Ed.]

From the Original Calculations, the Volume of the Earth is a mere:

10,841,229,850 meters cub'd.

We ["We?"--Ed.] also determined the Volume of the Flood:

1,436,764,500,000,000,000 meters cub'd.

Do I need to continue? Even if some of the water came from "below"--in those pesky cisterns no one can find that archaeologist imagined, a COMPLETELY hollow Earth would still give us:

1,425,923,300,000 meters cub'd of water that would have to fail as rain.

Can I make it any clearer than that?! archaeologist, who whines and whimpers about "getting back to the topic" has to explain how this much water could fall--and where it could have come from and gone--without leveling the planet!

As far as I know, the world is not hollow!! So any "fountain of the deep" or "cistern" he wishes to imagine will only increase the volume that must have fallen.

"Gee whilikers, Batman, I wonder how much water there is in the oceans?"

"Well Old Chum, sit on my lap, and I will tell you!"

"That better be your Bat-Boomerang I am feeling!"

. . . a total volume of about 1,347,000,000 cu km. . . .

Fact Monster

Wow! This creation of Al Gore is so convenient!!

1,347,000,000 Km cub'd is 1,347,000,000,000,000,000 meters cub'd

Therefore EVEN with a Water Fill'd Hollow Earth and All of the Oceans Converted into Rain we would still have to "find":

78,923,300,000 meters cub'd of water!

Quod erat demonstrandum ad nauseum.

Now archaeologist can whine and cry all he wants, but to salvage his myths he needs to account for this data.

Simply declaring that the calculations are "inaccurate" or whatever waffling he chooses will not cut it. The Earth is a specific size. The mountains are a specific height.

Reality is reality.

--J.D.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:13 pm

That wasn't a great deal of help.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:14 pm

but to salvage his myths he needs to account for this data.

He never has before.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:16 pm

Minimalist wrote:That wasn't a great deal of help.

Turn up your volume. . . .

--J.D.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:18 pm

I still do not know what PWND stands for.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:52 pm

Sigh. . . .

Is Your Friend

--J.D.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:08 am

still waiting-- there are at least ten of yo out there who disagree with me and have voiced their opposition many times--i am just asking you to answer 4 simple questions, seriously and honestly.

i have one, and it is not the intelopers let's get a few more so i have a good idea of what you are looking for. especially since you reject everything else i have brought here.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:19 am

You ignore the questions of others and ignore the answers to your questions.

An unkind man would recognize that as hypocritical.

I merely understand it as "par for the course."

--J.D.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:05 am

I still do not know what PWND stands for.

no one does. it is a troll's game.

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:33 am

archaeologist wrote:
But in fact we find places with hundreds of thousands
where did you get that figure? i haven't read anywhere that man has reached that depth in any of his activities.

Mea culpae - although we have drilled to that depth

I should have just said thousands of feet.

it would help to know what you had in mind as to what you are looking for. i mean, woolery found his evidence yet was vilified by skeptics who are harder to please than a hooker.

I would expect to find exactly what Woolley found - a layer of sediemnts deposited by a flood. Probably containing remains of both marine and land animals. And to be found wherever you dig, anywhere on Earth - both on land and sea.

Basically - if you have 100 square miles of flood depoists, but nothing beyond the range, then logical says you've found evidence of a flood covering 100 sqaure miles. Not a global flood unless some explanation can be presented as to why sedimanets were deposited only over that 100 sqaure miles.

I do not expect to see, for example, red desert sandstones in Britain occurring above this flood deposit - snce I think even the most ardent creationist would accept there ahs not been a long period whereby Britain was covered in desert within the past few thousand years

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:42 am

btw I think Schoch would be rather surprised and possibly dismayed to see his name used to support Hapgood's long discredited theories

Just because he discusses the theory of ECD in one of his books, doesn't actually mean he actually believes in it any more than I do!

I know you're quoting him out of context 'cos I've got the book

Essan · Post by **Essan** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:58 am

btw Where did the water that supposed fell to flood the earth come from again?

And where did it subsequently go?

If it was previulsy suspended in a vapour above the Earth, why diesn;t it create an runaway greenhouse effect? How doid the sun shine through? And how, indeed, die it remian in suspension without precipitation out over the Garden of Eden?

And if it now forms the Oceans, how come they are so salty? If they were salty before, the Flood waters should have diluted it. And if they were saltier before, how did all the fish certainly adapt to different conditon?

It's old Mr Ockham again - if there was a Flood we have hundreds upon hundreds of inexplicables. But, if there was no Flood .......

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:50 am

Given the volumes above--the Volume of the Flood Water is greater than the volume of all of the oceans . . . well . . . their goes all of your fishies in the sea. . . .

And no, arch you cannot suspend this this amount of water in the atmosphere or space!

Which means . . . you have been PWN3D

In the rain.

--J.D.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:47 am

PWND is the next step above OWNED. It's a gamer's term. It means you got beat really bad. Doc, tone down the insults a little. You write some really good posts, but your attitude kinda sux. This isn't a contest.