Given your arithmatic prowess I recommend you rethink.archaeologist wrote: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.
Noah's Flood...
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
how about breadth of the oceans, circumferance was the best word i could think of at the time. however you measure the oceans, they are wide and long and even an inch or two requires a huge amount of water.Given your arithmatic prowess I recommend you rethink.
since water expands into ice, 3 miles of ice does not equal 3 miles of water. thus the ice caps may be unable to provide this extra liquid required to raise the sea levels.
This is what happens with wild guesswork.archaeologist wrote:how about breadth of the oceans, circumferance was the best word i could think of at the time. however you measure the oceans, they are wide and long and even an inch or two requires a huge amount of water.Given your arithmatic prowess I recommend you rethink.
since water expands into ice, 3 miles of ice does not equal 3 miles of water. thus the ice caps may be unable to provide this extra liquid required to raise the sea levels.
You should have rethunk.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
since water expands into ice, 3 miles of ice does not equal 3 miles of water. thus the ice caps may be unable to provide this extra liquid required to raise the sea levels.
Wait a minute, arch....you were the guy arguing that there was enough water to cover the whole earth...now you're claiming that it wouldn't even raise sea level?
You didn't go to a science class with George Bush, did you?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
i am just asking him where he feels the water comes from since he doesn't believe there was enough to cover the earth. not arguing against it, just pointing out some loopholes in his position.Wait a minute, arch....you were the guy arguing that there was enough water to cover the whole earth...now you're claiming that
no, i think that is science 101.This is what happens with wild guesswork
so again if the sea levels are rising, where is the water coming from? when and where will it stop? once the the earth has been flooded?
with the limitedness of water available, scientists should be able to predict when rise levels off and people will be safe and if that is so, then scripture is proven true again that God would not flood the earth a second time.
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
He is confusing the idea of ice bergs, 90% of which are underwater and thus displace water with glaciers which are on land and when they melt add an equivalent amount of water to the oceans.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
And when ice bergs fall off glaciers they raise the water level, genius.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
I believe in creation and I dont believe it is only six thousand years.Therefore creationists 6000 year timeline is just a figment of narrow minded fanatic mysticism , and just downright stupid.
according to the bible, we are still in the "seventh day"
and it is already at the 6000 isnt it?
some people I guess take "day" way too literaly.
I could say "in my day" I could be talking about my youth or teen years etc...
I notice there is a trend to subvert the bible, I wonder why?
I remember when archeologists and scientists used it
as a good reference.
so I thought this would be a topic about proof of a big flood.
guess not.
I really want to know if Archeologists have seen evidence
in the stratum layers? I could swear
I saw mention of that in a National geo documentary years ago.



-
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
I notice there is a trend to subvert the bible, I wonder why?
Because it's bullshit.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
I believe it has something to do with the topography of the earth, then and now.Wait a minute, arch....you were the guy arguing that there was enough water to cover the whole earth...now you're claiming that it wouldn't even raise sea level?
You didn't go to a science class with George Bush, did you?
The earths crust being relatively thin, had stretched over a rather plastic mass thousands of kilometers in diameter. hence, under the added weight of the water, there was likely a great shifting in the crust. , new mountains thrust upward, old mountains rose even higher, shallow sea basins deepen new shorelines develop etc....
liken that to a boggy area totaly covered by water but shallow, if you dig a pool the water will gather THERE.
this is a plausable explanation. what do you think?