The Flood- one explanation

How?I mean, if you're going to introduce magic, well, we can go anywhere with that. If you take a normal human male and magically pull his heart out with your fist, what do you have?If you said "a scene from "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", you're right. You've also got John Paul's argument, which we've pulled the heart out of. The mass of the Earth - same as always. What kind of objection is this? The equator is in the same place it would be sans tilt, dude. The Equator isn't measured from solar vertical but perpendicular to the Earth's rotational axis. Same as always.You display a staggering scientific ignorance in this post. If you're cutting and pasting this from somewhere else I reccomend you adopt a new source. If you're making this up yourself you should be embarrased. Take a clue from your namesake: "You have not yet begun to argue."

Such an occurance would have a considerably more catastrophic effect on the world.After all water isn't the only liquid part of the planet. Are you forgetting that the Earth's volume is mosty superhot fluid? How do you think it would react to such an occurance? Here's a hint - we're not talking about a gentle sea for Noah to float a boat on. We're talking about lava covering every surface of the earth and boiling away the oceans into superheated steam. We're talking about the extinction of all life on Earth, Noah's Ark included.Funny that such an occurance would have happened in the Earth's past and conviniently failed to leave any evidence.

But one didn't occur. So why bother?I mean, I can construct potential scenarios about how ninjas put all the dinosaur fossils there to confuse us, but why bother? Why not just go with what the geological evidence pretty confidently suggests - that the diversity of life on this planet is best explained by evolutionary models, and that the geological features of this Earth stem from natural processes and the occasional "everyday" catastrophe?

There's a lake, Titicaca - maybe you've heard of it? The highest big lake in the world? On the shores of which Tiahunacao is located?Is it possible, perhaps, that Tiahunacao has never been the harbor of any ocean, but rather for enormous Lake Titicaca?Just a thought. You grow what you can, where you live. I doubt their soil is any less fertile than most of Russia but they've had agriculture - and a civilization - there for a very long time. Maybe you need to quantify how much agriculture you think it takes, at the minimum, to support a civilization.(You did say it was a habor town. Maybe they shipped the food in?)

Yes, of course it is. It's a body of old sea-water trapped by massive geologic uplift some millions of years ago. The vast amount of sea-life fossils in the area would seem to bear this out.Duh. Christ, haven't you heard of plate tectonics?The point, of course, is that while the lake may be so old that it was once part of the ocean, the city is not. The city is a harbor city because it was the harbor of a lake. The lake significantly predates the city.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-16-2003]

I can't believe this.You've got a city built on a lake. It's a harbor city, with docks that face the lake.You really believe that the most reasonable explanation of that is that the docks really were built to service an ocean countless miles down and away?Me, I'll go for the simplest explanation: the reason the city has docks that face the lake is because the docks were meant to be used from the lake.

It does, though, raise the air column by the same amount, so that Everest now is at an atmospheric pressure equivalent to the old zero feet above sea level. That is, if we're talking about a global rise in sea level. A localized rise would have no such effect, of course.JP had mentioned something about growing crops at 12,000 feet so I thought that might be relevant.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-18-2003]