Noah's Flood...

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:07 pm

http://india.krishna.org/Articles/2002/10/006.html

This site is not about Hancock.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:16 pm

ardallan wrote:i saw all the sites mentioned and perhaps hancook himself in a documentray film on TV here.i saw the under water staright lines at malta which as he was claiming was canals and also Iseki Point, Yonaguni.that site in india and...
thanks for the link.
but about sea level rising. which theory is right after all?

Sea levels rose allright. That's not theory. That is uncontested fact.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:40 pm

Sea levels rose allright. That's not theory. That is uncontested fact.

But they never covered the entire surface of the Earth.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:51 am

Minimalist wrote:
Sea levels rose allright. That's not theory. That is uncontested fact.
But they never covered the entire surface of the Earth.

Well, not in the pleistocene and holocene anyway. But who knows what was before pangaya...?

Oh, and BTW: sea level is still rising! And my country will be gone in only 200 years from now! Vanished from the face of the earth.
And ALL traces will be underwater...

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:21 am

Um.... here.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:07 am

Cheers!
Looks like I may need that....

ardallan · Post by **ardallan** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:14 pm

i was refering to these when i asked about sea level rising.

In reality these things happen in surges. In leaps and bounds. Dramatic events, like a dozen Katrina's and tsunami's per year! One after another. Year after year. Never average. Never gradual rise.

the scientific majority still hold that the 120 meter sea-level rise in the last 10,000 years of post-glacial flooding represents a non-cataclysmic rising process of about one meter per year

so which one is right??

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 5:34 pm

I don't know that there has been a poll on the subject. As I recall from Hancock's Underworld, the Ice Age began to end in 17,000 BC and finally did end around 10,000....but it was not a steady process and the ice advanced and retreated during that time.

If I get a chance I'll pull out the book tonight and see if he has a reference for you.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:03 pm

ardallan wrote:i was refering to these when i asked about sea level rising.
In reality these things happen in surges. In leaps and bounds. Dramatic events, like a dozen Katrina's and tsunami's per year! One after another. Year after year. Never average. Never gradual rise.
the scientific majority still hold that the 120 meter sea-level rise in the last 10,000 years of post-glacial flooding represents a non-cataclysmic rising process of about one meter per year

so which one is right??

A "120 meter sea-level rise [...] of about one meter per year" takes about 120 years in my calculus, ardallan. Not 10,000!
And you classify a rising process of about one meter per year as "non-cataclysmic"?????????
"A rising process of about one meter per year" would destroy my entire country in that year, ardallan. New York, Boston, Baltimore, 50% of Louisiana and virtually all of Florida would be gone too! Not to mention a couple of low-lying countries. Bangla Desh with a population of a cool 150 million souls comes to mind. Gone!
Sounds pretty cataclysmic to me...!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:49 pm

it has been stated that there is not enough water in the polar ice caps, in greenland and other areas nor enough moisture in the sky to flood the earth. then one has to wonder where this water is coming from to raise the sea levels.

given the fact that that point was really emphasized in past replies, no one should be in fear of any flooding. there isn't enough water to do the damage you claim will happen, let alone raise the sea levels.

though it is nice to see you arguing both sides of the issue, you really should make up your minds which it is that you believe.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:36 pm

archaeologist wrote:it has been stated that there is not enough water in the polar ice caps, in greenland and other areas nor enough moisture in the sky to flood the earth. then one has to wonder where this water is coming from to raise the sea levels.

given the fact that that point was really emphasized in past replies, no one should be in fear of any flooding. there isn't enough water to do the damage you claim will happen, let alone raise the sea levels.

though it is nice to see you arguing both sides of the issue, you really should make up your minds which it is that you believe.

"to flood the earth" is not equal "to raise the sea levels"

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:02 pm

to flood the earth" is not equal "to raise the sea levels"

still, a meter a year is a LOT of water. where did it come from??

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:33 pm

and the stupidity continues:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060404/ ... NlYwM5NjQ-

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:23 am

archaeologist wrote:
"to flood the earth" is not equal "to raise the sea levels"
still, a meter a year is a LOT of water.

It was NOT "a meter a year", Arch:
120 meters in 10,000 years is 1,2 centimeters a year! On average.

Your logic is on a par with your arithmatic.

where did it come from??

Arch, the Antarctic ice sheet, the 'south pole', today, is 3 MILES thick! And at glacial maximum it was at least twice today's circumference. And 5 MILES thick! At that same time, the arctic's sea ice sheet – the north pole – was not nearly as thick, but it was 30 times as large in surface as today.

That is a lot of water...

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:30 am

It was NOT "a meter a year", Arch:

sorry, i was going off the following:

A "120 meter sea-level rise [...] of about one meter per year" takes about 120 years in my calculus, ardallan. Not 10,000!

even so given the circumferance of the oceans even an inch or two would be a lot of water. i do not think that the ice caps would be able to suport such volume.