if flooding from any sources happened first, and after that the tectonic plates shifted or whatever to make the land sink under where the oceans are now- then the waters would recede. leaving dry land where it is now, and deep oceans. which are beginning to produce archaeological underwater finds of extremely ancient manmade structures of huge stone escarpments etc where no civilization is recorded to have existed in our written history. such as in the caribbean, etc.
i said in the caribbean, which is not off the coast of japan. but yes that may be one of the sites. anyway, look further, if you haven't found things yet. it 's there, and it's relatively new findings so no there isn't a huge body of research and exploration about it. also the google earth images.
btw, i don't think everest or other glaciated peaks have to be included in any flood story, as humans did not live on those glaciers. purpose of flood= eliminate evil hybrid-human society, start over.
@Christigoth I don't need to look further. If I can't find information about an underwater pyramid (or any kind of structure) off the coast of Cuba after 20 minutes of googling, it's very safe to say that it is bogus.
Of course Mt. Everest has to be considered in any flood story, the bible clearly says the entire planet is completely flooded 20 cubits deep. The only reason one wouldn't consider Mt. Everest is out of desperation to make such illogical BS make sense. There is no other reason.
Appears you've bought into some conspiracy theories. I can find nothing about it on the internet besides rinky-dink ATLANTIS IS FOUND sites. I can't even find a single archeologist who was willing to print a quote about it aside from Paulina Zelitsky saying she will go explore it. Nothing further from her since, at latest, 2005.
Yes there is something off the coast of Japan but this doesn't in any way validate the myth of noah's flood. Ocean levels have risen and fallen due to ice ages... and?
another reason why people like these chinese, or the hopi indians.. why they live in caves and such is because of Noah's flood.. they survived by seeking higher ground and shelter within caves..
You realize there has never been enough water on the planet to cover all of the land right? It's literally physically impossible.
If you flattened everything out, melted all the ice and measured it out, the elevation of the land mass would still be over 700 meters tall.. nearly a half mile.
Isn't that painfully obvious when you just even look at a world map? Umm....?
The average elevation of all land above sea level is about 2700-2800 ft. covering approximately 29% of the earth's surface. The average depths of the earth's oceans is 12000 ft. covering approximately 71% of the earths surface. There appears to be something wrong with your math.
"... about 75% of the world's freshwater is held in ice, if melted the seas would rise about 70 meters (about 230 feet)." - United States Geologic Survey
"The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 meters (12,430 feet)." - Encyclopedia Britannica
"The elevation of the land surface of the Earth - maximum altitude of 8,848m (at the top of Mount Everest). The mean height of land above sea level is 840 meters." - Wikipedia (. ) com / Earth
Ack.. I murdered all sorts of text on that last stat.
"The elevation of the land surface of the Earth varies from the low point of −418m at the Dead Sea, to a 2005-estimated maximum altitude of 8,848m (at the top of Mount Everest). The mean height of land above
Flattened everything out in a plateau manner. Meaning all ocean bottoms flat and all land above the water perfectly leveled and plateaued. It doesn't matter how you slice it tze, there isn't enough water bro. Not sure why this is so hard for you to wrap your mind around, the numbers are right in front of your face. If you need to visualize it to make it easier to understand, see my quick 40 second video:
Yes, all land mass above sea level would fit in the current space occupied by the oceans, however, that's completely irrelevant because that water is already there. It'd have to be further displaced to cover the land.
The earth is covered by ~140 million square miles of ocean, 1 square mile contains ~4 billion square inches, 1 gallon contains 231 cubic inches. To raise the ocean levels 1 inch would require some 200 trillion gal. of water.
You don't have to add water. It would be sufficient to affect a significant change in the relationship between land and water for flooding to occur. The Bible mentions the fountains of the deep breaking up as part of the cause of the flood. The breaking up of aquifers could add free water to the open oceans while lowering land levels. Subsequent tectonic activity could raise continental plates back up out of the water.
We've figured out to cause 1 inch of water-level, it requires about 200 trillion gallons of water. To cover mount everest, which we'll round up to 8900 meters for easier calculations. One meter is about 40 inches.
8900m x 40in = 356,000 inches (mt everest elevation)
356,000 in. x 200,000,000,000 gal. = 71,200,000,000,000,000 total gallons of water required to flood earth.
71,200,000,000,000,000 minus 1,368,690,280 =
71,199,998,631,309,720 gallons of "underground water"
You do not have to add water if you lower the land elevation into the water. You are also assuming that Mt. Everest was there at the time of the flood and not uplifted subsequently by tectonic activity.
"You do not have to add water if you lower the land elevation into the water."
In argumentation, an ad hoc argument is one that is hastily constructed to support or explain something without any underlying data or evidential framework.
TSF thank you for your reply. Your statement "In argumentation, an ad hoc argument" is repetitive. The whole of it is circumstantial ad hominem and irrelevant thesis.
No, it's not repetitive, it's specifically called an 'ad hoc argument'
No, it's a matter of pointing out that you're simply producing even more unfounded claims in an attempt to salvage your idea when any part of it is rebutted.
Because an ad hoc argument is an argument, stipulating its use in argumentation is repetitive. All that need have been said is "An ad hoc argument is one..." Also, an ad hoc argument is still an argument even when used outside of formal argumentation.
Still ad hominem, and still irrelevant thesis. Rather than starting off by being confrontational, why don't you just ask about the point of the argument that you don't agree with, or that are unclear to you.
I already did, I asked you what you're proposing. Where do you think the water came from, where do you think it went and how do you think it covered all land mass?
one of the most plausible theories says that there was a huge amount of water up in the earth's atmosphere, which finally fell as rain which never happened before. according to that theory, all of this was unleashed at the flood; previous to that, the earth was watered by mist , like early morning dew, rather than rain. the whole entire atmospheric and climatic conditions were different.this is actually described in the biblical account if one reads it carefully.
Also, if you lowered the land elevation to the water table, then there would be no suitable environment for the land animals once the flood water had gone to where ever it supposedly went. It would all still be underwater. If you say all geological formations reformed after the flood, I'd ask for evidence. If you say they were still there after the water drained off, then they didn't flatten out in the first place.
The water table is the level at which ground water pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure. I'm not talking about lowering the level of the land to the level of the water table. That would likely fit the description of marshes.
There are so many flaws with the hydroplate idea as to make water canopy seem plausible.
The rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float. Even two miles deep water exceeds the boiling point. The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing basaltic erosional deposit, none have ever been seen. No mechanism would've prevented the water from re-entering the crevices
An aquifer model does not need to be as dramatic as Walt Browns. The collapse of the ground could cause the water to be released from the aquifers and would prevent water from re-entering. I'm not sure what your point is regarding underground water above the boiling point, since we have that condition now. There are also other models to explain the world wide flood without adding water.
And there is underground water now that is above the boiling point. So? In your mind is underground water not allowed to be above the boiling point? Hot springs and geysers can exist because there is underground water that is above the boiling point that makes it to the surface.
I think it has something to do with dispelling the popular Hollywood myth that cave dwellers were knuckle-dragging, saber-tooth tiger adorned Neanderthals.
OOC, do you have a secret crush on Berean Beacon? I think you must be his most devoted fan judging by your unflagging interaction with his videos.
That's cool though, I find them interesting as well.
@boan000 Oh and P.S. the only idiots who think "cave dwellers" were knuckle dragging idiots are people who've never bothered to learn about anthropology at all.
there smarter then humans
FIGHTFANNERD3 1 year ago
of course, those cave dwellings have probably been "remodeled" and updated at least 100 times each ....
Christigoth 2 years ago
if flooding from any sources happened first, and after that the tectonic plates shifted or whatever to make the land sink under where the oceans are now- then the waters would recede. leaving dry land where it is now, and deep oceans. which are beginning to produce archaeological underwater finds of extremely ancient manmade structures of huge stone escarpments etc where no civilization is recorded to have existed in our written history. such as in the caribbean, etc.
Christigoth 2 years ago
@Christigoth You mean off the coast of Japan?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
i said in the caribbean, which is not off the coast of japan. but yes that may be one of the sites. anyway, look further, if you haven't found things yet. it 's there, and it's relatively new findings so no there isn't a huge body of research and exploration about it. also the google earth images.
btw, i don't think everest or other glaciated peaks have to be included in any flood story, as humans did not live on those glaciers. purpose of flood= eliminate evil hybrid-human society, start over.
Christigoth 2 years ago
@Christigoth I don't need to look further. If I can't find information about an underwater pyramid (or any kind of structure) off the coast of Cuba after 20 minutes of googling, it's very safe to say that it is bogus.
Of course Mt. Everest has to be considered in any flood story, the bible clearly says the entire planet is completely flooded 20 cubits deep. The only reason one wouldn't consider Mt. Everest is out of desperation to make such illogical BS make sense. There is no other reason.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Appears you've bought into some conspiracy theories. I can find nothing about it on the internet besides rinky-dink ATLANTIS IS FOUND sites. I can't even find a single archeologist who was willing to print a quote about it aside from Paulina Zelitsky saying she will go explore it. Nothing further from her since, at latest, 2005.
Yes there is something off the coast of Japan but this doesn't in any way validate the myth of noah's flood. Ocean levels have risen and fallen due to ice ages... and?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
another reason why people like these chinese, or the hopi indians.. why they live in caves and such is because of Noah's flood.. they survived by seeking higher ground and shelter within caves..
natruto 2 years ago
@natruto No, there was no higher ground.
isheepJesusShepherd 2 years ago
You realize there has never been enough water on the planet to cover all of the land right? It's literally physically impossible.
If you flattened everything out, melted all the ice and measured it out, the elevation of the land mass would still be over 700 meters tall.. nearly a half mile.
Isn't that painfully obvious when you just even look at a world map? Umm....?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
The average elevation of all land above sea level is about 2700-2800 ft. covering approximately 29% of the earth's surface. The average depths of the earth's oceans is 12000 ft. covering approximately 71% of the earths surface. There appears to be something wrong with your math.
tzephon 2 years ago
"... about 75% of the world's freshwater is held in ice, if melted the seas would rise about 70 meters (about 230 feet)." - United States Geologic Survey
"The average depth of all the seas has been estimated at 3,790 meters (12,430 feet)." - Encyclopedia Britannica
"The elevation of the land surface of the Earth - maximum altitude of 8,848m (at the top of Mount Everest). The mean height of land above sea level is 840 meters." - Wikipedia (. ) com / Earth
It's not my math, it's your #s.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
Ack.. I murdered all sorts of text on that last stat.
"The elevation of the land surface of the Earth varies from the low point of −418m at the Dead Sea, to a 2005-estimated maximum altitude of 8,848m (at the top of Mount Everest). The mean height of land above
sea level is 840 meters."
Wikipedia (. ) com / wiki / Earth
pokerslut530 2 years ago
"If you flattened everything out..." then you could easily cover the whole earth's surface with water... without even bothering to melt any ice.
tzephon 2 years ago
Flattened everything out in a plateau manner. Meaning all ocean bottoms flat and all land above the water perfectly leveled and plateaued. It doesn't matter how you slice it tze, there isn't enough water bro. Not sure why this is so hard for you to wrap your mind around, the numbers are right in front of your face. If you need to visualize it to make it easier to understand, see my quick 40 second video:
watch?v=VfqYJRVLJOQ
pokerslut530 2 years ago
... and don't stop at the coast line either.
tzephon 2 years ago
Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society by chance tzephon? If not, you should go join them. You'd fit right in!
pokerslut530 2 years ago
A landmass with an area of 148,940,000 km2 and an average elevation of 8400m gives a volume of 125,109,600 km3
An ocean area of 361,132,000 km2 and an average depth of 3890m gives a volume of 1,368,690,280 km3.
The landmass above sea level would fit in the oceans almost 11 times. There's plenty of water to cover the earth.
Flat earth has never been a Christian belief.
tzephon 2 years ago
Yes, all land mass above sea level would fit in the current space occupied by the oceans, however, that's completely irrelevant because that water is already there. It'd have to be further displaced to cover the land.
The earth is covered by ~140 million square miles of ocean, 1 square mile contains ~4 billion square inches, 1 gallon contains 231 cubic inches. To raise the ocean levels 1 inch would require some 200 trillion gal. of water.
Make sense?
pokerslut530 2 years ago
You don't have to add water. It would be sufficient to affect a significant change in the relationship between land and water for flooding to occur. The Bible mentions the fountains of the deep breaking up as part of the cause of the flood. The breaking up of aquifers could add free water to the open oceans while lowering land levels. Subsequent tectonic activity could raise continental plates back up out of the water.
tzephon 2 years ago
We've figured out to cause 1 inch of water-level, it requires about 200 trillion gallons of water. To cover mount everest, which we'll round up to 8900 meters for easier calculations. One meter is about 40 inches.
8900m x 40in = 356,000 inches (mt everest elevation)
356,000 in. x 200,000,000,000 gal. = 71,200,000,000,000,000 total gallons of water required to flood earth.
71,200,000,000,000,000 minus 1,368,690,280 =
71,199,998,631,309,720 gallons of "underground water"
Plausible? No.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
You DO have to add water. Otherwise we WOULD be flooded. My god man, shake the cobwebs out.
pokerslut530 2 years ago
You do not have to add water if you lower the land elevation into the water. You are also assuming that Mt. Everest was there at the time of the flood and not uplifted subsequently by tectonic activity.
tzephon 2 years ago
"You do not have to add water if you lower the land elevation into the water."
In argumentation, an ad hoc argument is one that is hastily constructed to support or explain something without any underlying data or evidential framework.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
TSF thank you for your reply. Your statement "In argumentation, an ad hoc argument" is repetitive. The whole of it is circumstantial ad hominem and irrelevant thesis.
tzephon 2 years ago
No, it's not repetitive, it's specifically called an 'ad hoc argument'
No, it's a matter of pointing out that you're simply producing even more unfounded claims in an attempt to salvage your idea when any part of it is rebutted.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Because an ad hoc argument is an argument, stipulating its use in argumentation is repetitive. All that need have been said is "An ad hoc argument is one..." Also, an ad hoc argument is still an argument even when used outside of formal argumentation.
Still ad hominem, and still irrelevant thesis. Rather than starting off by being confrontational, why don't you just ask about the point of the argument that you don't agree with, or that are unclear to you.
tzephon 2 years ago
I already did, I asked you what you're proposing. Where do you think the water came from, where do you think it went and how do you think it covered all land mass?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
one of the most plausible theories says that there was a huge amount of water up in the earth's atmosphere, which finally fell as rain which never happened before. according to that theory, all of this was unleashed at the flood; previous to that, the earth was watered by mist , like early morning dew, rather than rain. the whole entire atmospheric and climatic conditions were different.this is actually described in the biblical account if one reads it carefully.
Christigoth 2 years ago
And of course to consider that you have to ignore, oh, all of physics.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Also, if you lowered the land elevation to the water table, then there would be no suitable environment for the land animals once the flood water had gone to where ever it supposedly went. It would all still be underwater. If you say all geological formations reformed after the flood, I'd ask for evidence. If you say they were still there after the water drained off, then they didn't flatten out in the first place.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
The water table is the level at which ground water pressure is equal to atmospheric pressure. I'm not talking about lowering the level of the land to the level of the water table. That would likely fit the description of marshes.
tzephon 2 years ago
So what ARE you proposing, and what is your evidence for it?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
@TheScienceFoundation hahahaha this guy is a piece of work, I tell ya...
pokerslut530 2 years ago
watch?v=zKO-vTwYCo8
tzephon 2 years ago
There are so many flaws with the hydroplate idea as to make water canopy seem plausible.
The rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float. Even two miles deep water exceeds the boiling point. The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing basaltic erosional deposit, none have ever been seen. No mechanism would've prevented the water from re-entering the crevices
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
An aquifer model does not need to be as dramatic as Walt Browns. The collapse of the ground could cause the water to be released from the aquifers and would prevent water from re-entering. I'm not sure what your point is regarding underground water above the boiling point, since we have that condition now. There are also other models to explain the world wide flood without adding water.
tzephon 2 years ago
I'm getting it from the fact that the water we have is above the boiling point.
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
And there is underground water now that is above the boiling point. So? In your mind is underground water not allowed to be above the boiling point? Hot springs and geysers can exist because there is underground water that is above the boiling point that makes it to the surface.
tzephon 2 years ago
Yeah, and if a few quintillion gallons of boiling water spewed up all at once, it would sterilize the surface of the earth.
Anyway, where is your evidence for any of it?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
Is all the water that is underground now currently boiling?
tzephon 2 years ago
Pretty much all the water that's compressed is.
Now don't dodge, what is your evidence for any of it?
TheScienceFoundation 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Pretty much all the water that's compressed is."
What degree of compression of water is necessary for it to be boiling, how much does the water compress?
tzephon 2 years ago
People still live in caves today, and in fact it's prime real estate now.
EbolaV1rus 2 years ago
Cool stuff. Seeing some of the intelligence of the ancient world can be surprising and awesome to learn about.
ViciousAnimus 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What the hell was the point of this video?
Because man used to live in caves he was intelligent? WOW no shit???????????
pokerslut530 2 years ago
I think it has something to do with dispelling the popular Hollywood myth that cave dwellers were knuckle-dragging, saber-tooth tiger adorned Neanderthals.
OOC, do you have a secret crush on Berean Beacon? I think you must be his most devoted fan judging by your unflagging interaction with his videos.
That's cool though, I find them interesting as well.
:p
Have a great day!
boan000 2 years ago 3
@boan000 Yes I'm a loyal subscriber!!!!
I come here for the lulz :)
pokerslut530 2 years ago
@boan000 Oh and P.S. the only idiots who think "cave dwellers" were knuckle dragging idiots are people who've never bothered to learn about anthropology at all.
pokerslut530 2 years ago