Mount Ararat is 17,000 ft high and it is where the Ark came to rest after the flood.

[fasteddy]

welcome to the forum fasteddy. isn't that a restaurant?

No, he was a pool player.

Paul Newman.

 

[A4C]

Welcome all the hand wavers

 

[KerrMetric]

Why, because he proposed something that could be tested mathematically based on standard values for density and basic physical concepts dating to Newton? Didn't you hear, his opinion is that it is not scientific till it can be nailed down to the last goalpost.

Kerr, I am not a christian, so this is no skin off my back, but my condolences on your situation. As an agnostic, I would like to find a reason to believe in god but to paraphrase Ghandi I think; The ideas of your Christ I like, your Christians, I could do without.

Sorry

Cheese.

What is sad about all of this is that no detailed modelling is necessary. A quick and dirty (and easy to do) order of magnitude calculation would suffice.

We all know A4C isn't going to attempt one for two reasons. Reason 1 is that he suspects that he is totally off base here - Reason 2 and most importantly is that he does not know how to even proceed.

Like many Creationists - if yoy don't commit yourself to quantitative results then you can maintain the facade that your "model" is still intact.

Plus we have the entire history of Creationist attempts at quantitative analysis. Be it Lunar recession models, probablity analyses of proteins forming, population models or whacked out cosmologies - they are all usually dismissed by about 30 seconds of thought.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Welcome all the hand wavers

Uh thats a multifceted fun house mirror. The rest of us are still here.

 

[Soul Searcher]

this is my first comment on this thread...how could I change the rules? I don't know if mountains were as high back then or not...I was simply asking a question.

Actually it is quite likely that many of the worlds mountians were slightly taller then than now. Erosion gradually wears them away over very long periods of time.

The mountains here in the eastern US are said to be some of the oldest on the planet and they are not that tall at all compared to some of the other mountian ranges in the world.

 

[Trish1947]

Gen 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Plural..how can anything be calculated when you don't know which mountain peak it's talking about. The area was called Ararat. Not just a peak that we know today. 1,000 ft? elevation, or 15,000 ft.? 17,000 ft? Who knows? So the dove picked a olive branch and brought it to Noah? Do olive trees grow at high elevations?

 

[KerrMetric]

Gen 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

Plural..how can anything be calculated when you don't know which mountains it's talking about. The area was called Ararat. Not just a peak that we know today. 1,000 ft. elevation, or 15,000 ft.? Who knows? So the dove picked a olive branch and brought it to Noah? Do olive trees grow at high elevations?

It's far more likely (i.e. almost absolute certainty) the entire story is just that - a story.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Actually it is quite likely that many of the worlds mountians were slightly taller then than now. Erosion gradually wears them away over very long periods of time.

The mountains here in the eastern US are said to be some of the oldest on the planet and they are not that tall at all compared to some of the other mountian ranges in the world.

From what I remember from unnergrad historical geo class, there is conjecture that the Appalachian mountains were once higher than the Himalayas!

I grew up in the Midwest...so in a sense I grew up on the stuff that used to be the Appalachian mountains!

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Do olive trees grow at high elevations?

More on topic... do olive trees grow under water?

 

[Soul Searcher]

More on topic... do olive trees grow under water?

Not to the best of my knowledge. If they did the fish would probably eat all the olives

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Not to the best of my knowledge. If they did the fish would probably eat all the olives

Kinda begs the question where to dove's olive branch came from, doesn't it?

 

[A4C]

As for a tree growing on a mountain, if it was in an ideal location it would be the least likely to suffer destruction as it would not be subject to mudslides soil erosion or too much precipitaion and also it would be the last to be covered and the first to be uncoverd so the time frame is not that drastic. If the Ark of Noah had come to rest in a low lying area there probably would not be any survivors as the deep mud would be impossible to negogiate and nothing would grow for some time.

 

[flatworm]

It is hardly "scientic" to say when you are considering the matter of the position of the earths CoG to pick up a globe and say "oh look here is a mountain opposite that one -well that will cancel that one out --oh look here's is one that doesn't have one ........" ridiculus
There is another consideration too -the position of the poles . You cannot say this is not applicable when you consider that even an event as "small" as the Asian tsunami altered the poles position slightly.

The point of illustrating the position of the Andes relative to the Himalayas has nothing to do with calculating the earth's center of gravity. I was pointing out that by invoking such ad-hockery to "lower" one mountain range, you must necessarily "raise" another group of high mountains.

The position of the poles is indeed quite irrelevant. What does the position of the poles have to do with the earth's diameter or the height of mountains?

Now, here's another problem. You've been asserting that all this sediment was washed off mountains and ultimately ended up in subterranean voids. However, if we look at mountains today, we see many meters of sedimentary rock. Creationists often claim the marine fossils contained in the rocks are proof of a flood. Which one is it? Floods can cause huge amounts of erosion and sedimentation, but not both at once! If all this sediment was eroded from the high mountains, where did all the sediment that's still there come from?

Deep time and plate tectonics can explain the ubiquity of sedimentary layers on the earth today. A global flood cannot.

 

[flatworm]

As for a tree growing on a mountain, if it was in an ideal location it would be the least likely to suffer destruction as it would not be subject to mudslides soil erosion or too much precipitaion and also it would be the last to be covered and the first to be uncoverd so the time frame is not that drastic. If the Ark of Noah had come to rest in a low lying area there probably would not be any survivors as the deep mud would be impossible to negogiate and nothing would grow for some time.

Oh, so now there weren't catastrophic mudslides and rapid erosion from mountains? Whatever happened to your magic impermeable caps over inland lakes? Whatever happened to huge amounts of mountain soil being washed onto the roofs of subterranean voids?

Do you have any concept of what the effects of a torrential flood would be, other than "exactly what I want them to be at any particular moment for any particular purpose"?

 

[A4C]

The point of illustrating the position of the Andes relative to the Himalayas has nothing to do with calculating the earth's center of gravity. I was pointing out that by invoking such ad-hockery to "lower" one mountain range, you must necessarily "raise" another group of high mountains.

What do you mean "raise"??

The position of the poles is indeed quite irrelevant. What does the position of the poles have to do with the earth's diameter or the height of mountains?

The position of the poles is vital in tidal movements

Now, here's another problem. You've been asserting that all this sediment was washed off mountains and ultimately ended up in subterranean voids. However, if we look at mountains today, we see many meters of sedimentary rock. Creationists often claim the marine fossils contained in the rocks are proof of a flood. Which one is it? Floods can cause huge amounts of erosion and sedimentation, but not both at once! If all this sediment was eroded from the high mountains, where did all the sediment that's still there come from?

Actually I am amazed that I get asked question like this when there is really a very simple answer whereby if the matter had been carefully thought through there would not have been any reason to ask it in the first place. However since it has been asked I have no problem in giving such the logical answer to it if it was to do nothing else but to show the depth of reasoning that those claiming to be scientifically inspired have yet to rise to.
There was a stage of the Flood that the planet , including the mountains, endued heavy rain lasting 40 days and forty nights. Just like it would in low lying areas this torrential rain could be expected to wash most soil cover off these mountains (I say most in order to accommodate exceptions that are likely to occur in "pockets" where natural protective geology would allow the soil to remain and the plants in them to continue to grow).
Now a second stage of the Flood would be when the waters of the Flood rose to cover these high mountains and remain covered for a little time. As this water would be heavey with sediment like it would at every other part of the planet it would precipitate out including on the high mountains. This would account for the sedimentary rock that you see there today.
Now a third stage of the Flood would have been the receding stage when again torrential flows could ,but not necessarilly cause the removal of these sediments.
A forth stage in the process is the hardening of the sediments and the process of the effects of wind and other factors causing erosion.
The end result is what you see on the earth today.

Deep time and plate tectonics can explain the ubiquity of sedimentary layers on the earth today. A global flood cannot.

Deep time and plate tectonics is the scientists explanation for the evidence of a global flood that happened 4000 + years ago exactly as the Bible said it did.

 

[flatworm]

What do you mean "raise"??
The position of the poles is vital in tidal movements

Go ahead, explain what the position of the pole has to do with tides.

The idea of shifting the earth's center of gravity was that it would let you justify shifting the oceans so that high mountains wouldn't be so high above sea level, correct? Then the existence of two high mountain ranges roughly opposed to one another on the earth's surface represents an absolute limit on how much such a shift could support your position. Raising the sea level on one side of the earth by shifting the center of gravity would necessarily lower the sea level on the other side- thus causing mountains on that side to rise higher above sea level.

Actually I am amazed that I get asked question like this when there is really a very simple answer whereby if the matter had been carefully thought through there would not have been any reason to ask it in the first place. However since it has been asked I have no problem in giving such the logical answer to it if it was to do nothing else but to show the depth of reasoning that those claiming to be scientifically inspired have yet to rise to.

So much bluster, so little science.

There was a stage of the Flood that the planet , including the mountains, endued heavy rain lasting 40 days and forty nights. Just like it would in low lying areas this torrential rain could be expected to wash most soil cover off these mountains (I say most in order to accommodate exceptions that are likely to occur in "pockets" where natural protective geology would allow the soil to remain and the plants in them to continue to grow).

"Protective geology" that would supposedly protect topsoil from forces capable of carving the Grand Canyon in less than a year. Right.

Oh, I forgot- the flood was only violent when and where you want it to have been.

Now a second stage of the Flood would be when the waters of the Flood rose to cover these high mountains and remain covered for a little time. As this water would be heavey with sediment like it would at every other part of the planet it would precipitate out including on the high mountains.

Wrong. What's stopping the sediment from precipitating while the waters rise? Try this out for me: Get a large plastic tub or stock tank. Fill it to a depth of a few inches with sand-laden water, then fill it the rest of the way using the flower spray setting on your garden hose. Drain the tub, and take a look at where your sediment has ended up.

You see, you're wanting the sediment to filter up when you want it to, then magically switch and precipitate out.

Now a third stage of the Flood would have been the receding stage when again torrential flows could ,but not necessarilly cause the removal of these sediments.

How could it not? This is supposed to be the self-same mechanism that formed the Grand Canyon!

Once again, you can't have it both ways.

A forth stage in the process is the hardening of the sediments and the process of the effects of wind and other factors causing erosion.
The end result is what you see on the earth today.

Except what we see today doesn't conform to your model. If any sediment were carried upward by the rising waters, we would expect to see the rock on every mountain sorted by grain size, the smallest at the top and the coarsest at the bottom. This would all form one layer on the surface that varied continuously as you went up the mountain. This is not observed.

Deep time and plate tectonics is the scientists explanation for the evidence of a global flood that happened 4000 + years ago exactly as the Bible said it did.

How can you keep calling this "evidence for a global flood" when it patently doesn't jive with a flood model?

 

[A4C]

flatworm. Please tell me the grain sizes (of this sedimentary deposit) that you are referring to and on what mountain and altitude were they found?

 

[flatworm]

flatworm. Please tell me the grain sizes (of this sedimentary deposit) that you are referring to and on what mountain and altitude were they found?

How about this sandstone formation at a summit in the Catskills: http://images.google.com/imgres?img...=/images?q=mountain+strata&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=

If you don't understand how the term "sandstone" indicates grain size, refer to this:

http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~esci111/RockCycle-1/sedimentary.htm

Your model tells us we should expect only siltstone at the tops of mountains. If, on the other hand, you're right about the global flood but wrong about sediment redeposition on mountains, we would expect to find only the ancestral igneous tuffs.

Neither of these fit reality. There was never a global flood.

Now since I've been so nice to back up my position, perhaps you would be so good as to:

1) point out formations that show the kind of grain size distribution you claim.

2) Perform the experiment I described earlier.

3) Point out an example of the flood-debris-filled voids in the earth's crust that support your subterranean void hypothesis.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

out of reps