A simple question for a complex issue

quote:

---

You have proof, clams are found on top of Mount Everest, even today these mountains are atill rising, God created these bounds so the waters would not again cover the earth.

---

No. Coninental drift: the Indian plate is attempting to move North against the Asian plate, forcing up the Himalayas.

quote:

---

kjv psalm 104:8-9, the bible says the waters only rose 15 cubits above the highest mountain,

---

No it doesn't. Psalm 104:8-9

quote:

---

104:8
They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

​

104:9
Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.

---

Nothing about the height of the mountains, the depth of the water or, indeed the flood.

quote:

---

so with the waters presently in the oceans you can calculate the heighth of the mountains pre-flood were only around 1/2 mile in height, etc...

---

Only if you know the depth of the ocean pre flood. You've got to assume a shallow ocean to make this work. Alternatively, knowing the height of the mountains, you could calculate the depth of the oceanSince there is nothing in the reference quoted to show what the pre-flood height of the mountains is, or what the depth of the se is, the calculation is moot.Further, lets examine this thesis.We have a pre-flood world with low mountains and shallow seas. The flood happens, and Noah sets sail. All around him, as well as the flood, you have mountains rising at hundreds of feet a day, and the ocean floor sinking at a similar rate, you have volcanoes erupting here there and everywhere, and, if you also hold to the "single continent" pre-flood thesis, with the modern continents moving around the surface of the world like demented dodgem cars.[irony]Throughout this the Ark sails placidly along[/irony].And at the end of all this, the Rivers Tigris and Euphrates - mentioned in the Bible both in pre and post flood periods - drop calmly back into their original beds as if nothing had happed.

quote:

---

MarkAustin, Where in the bible is the tigris and euphrates mentioned pre-flood, kjv Genesis 7:20 actually says Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

---

Here, Genesis 2:14

quote:

---

And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

---

Hiddekel is the Hebrew for the Tigrisand here, Genesis 15:18

quote:

---

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

---

Note this also implies that the Nile was in the same place both pre and post flood.Also note this: Genesis 7:20

quote:

---

Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

---

It doesn't say the mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water, but that the water rose 15 cubits and covered the mountains.

quote:

---

I agree with you that the oceans sank and the mountains rose, but with this in context, that the oceans sank, there is enough water in the oceans themselves, if the earth was a smooth sphere to cover the earth over 1/2 mile in water, meaning the mountains were a whole lot lower in height pre-flood, meaning less than 1/2 mile of water covered the earth, etc...

---

Apart from the fact that you commit the logical error of assuming your conclusion, in order to postulate a flood by this means, you have to either:Have the sea bed rise to push the water out - thus denying the clear Biblical word of 40 days rain.Or:As I said, assume shallow seas, have the rain fall, and cover the land.In both cases, you have fantastically fast simultaneous falling ocean beds and rising land, and with the first scenario, it has to rise first. You simply can't deform rock that fast: it'll snap. If you come back and say it was soft sediment, it won't rise and fall be the required amounts without slumping.

quote:

---

P.S. Its interesting how Ron Wyatt, found giant sea anchors in the mountains of Ararat, and because of fluid dynamics, would of made an arked boat float quite well within the waves, though because of the direction the earth rotated and where Mt.Ararat is located is was likely protected from the bulk of the outpressing waters, etc...

---

Not sure aboute these stones, will come back later.However, Mt Ararat would have to be rising at the same fantastic rate as every other mountain. Given its current height of 16,916 ft and your estimate of an original maximum height of 1/2 mile or this gives a rise of 14,276 ft. Even allowing a year, this is a rise of just over 40 ft/day. This must have caused immense disturbance to the waters around: I don't think even a drogue anchor could have stabilised the Ark.