Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

Tectonic activity separated Pangaea and it was a bumpy jerky start, including collision or compression as part of the process.

There was plenty of sediment as there was no doubt very thick land mass. But nobody said it was totally flat. It is assumed there were rolling hills at least.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 02:09 PM

Faith said:

quote:

---

It is rude of you to give a reference without quoting it or linking it

---

It is lazy of you not to look it up yourself.

quote:

---

but I assume that the Bible quote most likely refers to the landing of the ark on Ararat.

---

No. It refers to the fact that the Flood covered "all the high mountains under the entire heavens". Again, your theory as it stands is bankrupt.This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-10-2006 02:13 PM

I am dealing with multiple posters. Besides which it is considered very bad scholarly form not to supply links as references online. But you are no scholar. Only the rankest boor would tell me to look it up myself.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 02:13 PM

Another boorish communication. It covered all the highest mountains at a mere depth of FIFTEEN CUBITS. Look it up.

I did supply you with a reference. I gave you the exact verse to look up. As a Christian, I thought you might have a Bible handy. Certainly with access to the Internet, you do.

quote:

---

But you are no scholar.

---

How many papers do you have under your belt? I've a few.This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-10-2006 02:19 PMThis message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-10-2006 02:19 PM

I have a few myself. And you are the worst kind of boor even if you're a highly published scholar.

Faith wrote:

quote:

---

Another boorish communication. It covered all the highest mountains at a mere depth of FIFTEEN CUBITS. Look it up.

---

Perhaps you should read it again (congrats on finding the passage, by the way). The mountains were covered in 15 cubits of water (i.e. tops of the high mountains were 6.9 meters beneath the surface of the water). This does not imply the mountains were only 15 cubits tall.This message has been edited by Mallon, Mar-10-2006 02:18 PM

Let's avoid personal attacks.It would have been better if Mallon had quoted the text. However, your response is unwarranted.

---

Heavy erosion requires not only a lot of water, but a place for the water to go and a sufficient gradient to keep the water moving. Which would likely be quite steep in order for the water to carry such sediment-laden loads.If the land was relatively flat with few rolling hills, the basins would fill up very quickly, essentially flattening the landscape (i.e., no gradient), and erosion would stop.

To be fair, I read it the same way Faith does - that the water rose 15 cubits, i.e. the total depth of water was 15 cubits.I live at the bottom of an ancient lake (now dried up for our convenience) and it is very flat. Fifteen cubits of water would cover everything as far as the eye could see, barring human constructions. (Tower of Babel, anyone? )It could easily be miscontrued as a "worldwide" flood.Of course, the idea of mountains rising after the flood is utterly unscriptural.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

There is nothing in scripture for or against mountains rising after the flood that I can see.The Biblical events happen in an area with few serious mountains. Could have been a lot of mountain building going on elsewhere.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-10-2006 02:39 PM

I'll take it under advisement.

Ringo wrote:

quote:

---

To be fair, I read it the same way Faith does - that the water rose 15 cubits, i.e. the total depth of water was 15 cubits.

---

I guess it depends on the version of the Bible used. In this case, the NIV, which I am using, contradicts the KJV.
In any case, say the water was only 15 cubits deep... and yet the ark was 30 cubits tall... this thing would have nearly been scraping the bottom of the inundated ground! Certainly, it would have been smashing into the sides of the barely-covered mini-mountains.

Coulda shoulda woulda.Just don't pretend you're getting it from the Bible. You're making it all up.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC