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

[BandyOne]

Another one bites the dust. Can some other Christian please explain to me why fellow believers act in this manner?

Do you all think it is a coincidence that when asked for actual quantitative backup on a topic all these Creationists either go quiet or look for any measly
excuse to get out of providing substance? It is no wonder the entire Creationst community and its followers are often looked upon as terrible examples of Christianity because of their actions in this area.

Does anyone believe that A4C's putting me on ignore is anything but an excuse to avoid providing support for his nonsensical physical model?

Why the song and dance? Just a polite "No I cannot provide a mathematical basis" would have been the honest and Christian approach.

despite the fact that GPS shows this to be happening today.

That's a remarkable ability to be able to ignore factual evidence sport.

But we expect that from you

THEY CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES,
IT IS THEIR WAY.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

A huge amount of data collection concerning the volumes of Flood redistributed soil coverage of the planet, would have to be completed before any calculations would be meaningful. It saddens me that the importance of this type of research has been lost on 200 years worth of scientific ignorance on such matters.

Sorry? Why do you need to know about soil distribution to calculate how much of a shift would be required in the Earth's core to cause a 17,000 foot shift in sea level?

 

[Tomk80]

Sorry? Why do you need to know about soil distribution to calculate how much of a shift would be required in the Earth's core to cause a 17,000 foot shift in sea level?

But if data is not available to calculate such a shift, how can one assert that it shifted in the first place?

 

[A4C]

Sorry? Why do you need to know about soil distribution to calculate how much of a shift would be required in the Earth's core to cause a 17,000 foot shift in sea level?

Well if the amount of space in the places we now call basins was added to the current amount of water and the amount of sedimentary rock now in the basins that was once soil was assumed to be distributed over all the rocky mountains, then with the revised information, the nature of the worlds geography could be able to be estimated for all time periods and and it could be confirmed or otherwise that Everest could be submerged as the evidence (sea shells) suggests. Failure to include any of the data would result in inaccuracy and would lead to worthless conclusions and quite frankly a waste of time. This is the reason I am not racing headlong into any meaningless calculations simply to satisy somebody who's only desire is antagonism.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This is the reason I am not racing headlong into any meaningless calculations simply to satisy somebody who's only desire is antagonism.

I can see that... but seriously, to shift an everest amount sised mass of water, you must have some idea of what ort of shift in the Earth's core would be necesary... heck, even if you just averaged out the oceans to a uniform depth and ran the math then, I think you'd get a fair idea of the kind of distance needed to move at the core... I mean are we talking ones, tens or thousands of meters?

 

[A4C]

I can see that... but seriously, to shift an everest amount sised mass of water, you must have some idea of what ort of shift in the Earth's core would be necesary... heck, even if you just averaged out the oceans to a uniform depth and ran the math then, I think you'd get a fair idea of the kind of distance needed to move at the core... I mean are we talking ones, tens or thousands of meters?

I would suspect 1000's of metres

 

[A4C]

But if data is not available to calculate such a shift, how can one assert that it shifted in the first place?

I would ghave thought that a legitimate scientific method would have been that when a problem exists that has a mathematical solution then the natural progression would be to seek the data to enable the maths to be completed. However having seen how some scientific conclusions are reached I can understand how you might baulk of the application of real science.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Well if the amount of space in the places we now call basins was added to the current amount of water and the amount of sedimentary rock now in the basins that was once soil was assumed to be distributed over all the rocky mountains, then with the revised information, the nature of the worlds geography could be able to be estimated for all time periods and and it could be confirmed or otherwise that Everest could be submerged as the evidence (sea shells) suggests. Failure to include any of the data would result in inaccuracy and would lead to worthless conclusions and quite frankly a waste of time. This is the reason I am not racing headlong into any meaningless calculations simply to satisy somebody who's only desire is antagonism.

I would ghave thought that a legitimate scientific method would have been that when a problem exists that has a mathematical solution then the natural progression would be to seek the data to enable the maths to be completed. However having seen how some scientific conclusions are reached I can understand how you might baulk of the application of real science.

perhaps you could take the time to rewrite and or edit these, as it is i have no idea of what they could mean.


notes:
i apologize for this comment in advance, if English is not your native language.

 

[KerrMetric]

I would ghave thought that a legitimate scientific method would have been that when a problem exists that has a mathematical solution then the natural progression would be to seek the data to enable the maths to be completed. However having seen how some scientific conclusions are reached I can understand how you might baulk of the application of real science.

Anyone got an irony meter that is still in operation after the above quote?

Mine broke and I had even performed a recent dad calibration as was recommended in the user guide.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

perhaps you could take the time to rewrite and or edit these, as it is i have no idea of what they could mean.


notes:
i apologize for this comment in advance, if English is not your native language.

Its really fairly simple, A4C is proposing that the water for the flood came from the fountains of the deep. these he thinks are giant caverns filled with water and little patches on top. There was also more dirt on the earth before the flood, in fact his guess is that it was enough to fill these holes in just the right way so that we see the geology of today. but how much was it. Well first aproximation is fairly simple
Earth highest point~29000 ft. Average elevation of earth say 3000 ft above sea level, this is a guess but it is undoubtredly high and in his favor. spread that average elevation around and you have enough for ~ 1000 ft above the whole earth meaning the difference between the high point to cover 29000 and the distributed average 1000 is 28000 ft. above current sea level. Very simply half would be above ground as the missing dirt and half would be in the caverns so if the caverns or basins covered the whole world, they would be 14000 ft deep. If they occupy less than the whole world then just divide 14000 by the fraction they occupy and you have the necessary depth.

What does it mean, according to A4C, the entire world was sitting on a 3 mile deep water filled void that somehow sprung a leak, pushed up all its water leaving just void or maybe some unknown gas and stayed that way to have a flood. This somehow did not collapse this 3 mile or more high chamber until for some reason all the sediment could be lined up over the holes so that it could neatly slide back in and lower the water level on the new face of the earth down to what it is know.

Anyhow, all the nonsense about what the information is about in the long run only relates to how much more than about 3 miles these imaginary voids have to be.

I don't think this will mean anything to A4C since it is fairly obvious he has no concept of large quantities but hopefully it explains to you what he is dreaming about.

Cheese

 

[A4C]

Its really fairly simple, A4C is proposing that the water for the flood came from the fountains of the deep. these he thinks are giant caverns filled with water and little patches on top. There was also more dirt on the earth before the flood, in fact his guess is that it was enough to fill these holes in just the right way so that we see the geology of today. but how much was it. Well first aproximation is fairly simple
Earth highest point~29000 ft. Average elevation of earth say 3000 ft above sea level, this is a guess but it is undoubtredly high and in his favor. spread that average elevation around and you have enough for ~ 1000 ft above the whole earth meaning the difference between the high point to cover 29000 and the distributed average 1000 is 28000 ft. above current sea level. Very simply half would be above ground as the missing dirt and half would be in the caverns so if the caverns or basins covered the whole world, they would be 14000 ft deep. If they occupy less than the whole world then just divide 14000 by the fraction they occupy and you have the necessary depth.

What does it mean, according to A4C, the entire world was sitting on a 3 mile deep water filled void that somehow sprung a leak, pushed up all its water leaving just void or maybe some unknown gas and stayed that way to have a flood. This somehow did not collapse this 3 mile or more high chamber until for some reason all the sediment could be lined up over the holes so that it could neatly slide back in and lower the water level on the new face of the earth down to what it is know.

Anyhow, all the nonsense about what the information is about in the long run only relates to how much more than about 3 miles these imaginary voids have to be.

I don't think this will mean anything to A4C since it is fairly obvious he has no concept of large quantities but hopefully it explains to you what he is dreaming about.

Cheese

Thank you cheese for at least showing me that you read my posts . You just about have it but with two corrections: At some time after the build up of flood sediment due to stresses or perhaps explosion the whole top of the void would collapse causing all the sediment on top of it simply descend into the void/chasm.
The other fact that is extremely important is the adjustment to the characteristics of the planet which could cause there to be a CoG correction perhaps of several kilometres - all that would have to be confirmed by modelling of the original geological structure of the earth-a task well beyond my capabilities yet still doable I would imagine.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The other fact that is extremely important is the adjustment to the characteristics of the planet which could cause there to be a CoG correction perhaps of several kilometres - all that would have to be confirmed by modelling of the original geological structure of the earth-a task well beyond my capabilities yet still doable I would imagine.

I do0n't understand why you need yto understand the placement of every skeric of soil before calculating what sort of shift is necesary to move the water around like that...

Or, to be honest, how you can be so serious about this theory when you freely admit that you havn't done the research necesary... it sounds like you came up with a theory and are now looking for evidence... usually scientists work the other way around...

 

[flatworm]

The other fact that is extremely important is the adjustment to the characteristics of the planet which could cause there to be a CoG correction perhaps of several kilometres - all that would have to be confirmed by modelling of the original geological structure of the earth-a task well beyond my capabilities yet still doable I would imagine.

The other fact?

There's a problem with your little scheme of reducing the height of the earth's mountains above sea level by shifting the center of gravity. Get yourself a globe, and find the Himalayas. Now go to the other side, and rather near their exact antipodes you'll find... the Andes mountain range. Peaks higher than 22000 feet. Get the picture?

 

[A4C]

If a CoG shift was not factored in there would be howls of "not scientific enough". Now that it is suggested beforehand it is said to be all but redundant
Oh well I suppose you can't please everybody.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If a CoG shift was not factored in there would be howls of "not scientific enough". Now that it is suggested beforehand it is said to be all but redundant
Oh well I suppose you can't please everybody.

I don't think scientists who calculate things about the Earths core have to know much about the specifics of soil on the surface. I say go ahead and do your calculations, then you'll have more to back yourself up with when questioned

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

If a CoG shift was not factored in there would be howls of "not scientific enough". Now that it is suggested beforehand it is said to be all but redundant
Oh well I suppose you can't please everybody.

I still have no idea why you are harping on this center of gravity thing, first of all the earth is about 12,700 kilometers in diameter, Everest is less than 10 km high, about .00008 of this and in fact less than a 1/4 of the difference in radius between a measurement around the equator and through the poles. These are bumps on the face of an orange. Besides, what is the center of gravity change going to do, it would make the earth wobble on its axis for a while until it readjusts but I can't even see what it is supposed to do in terms of the distribution of land on the surface.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

If a CoG shift was not factored in there would be howls of "not scientific enough". Now that it is suggested beforehand it is said to be all but redundant
Oh well I suppose you can't please everybody.

Wait a minute, did you read somewhere that if you changed the center of gravity of the earth by x then to compensate, the earth would redistribute all of the water to one side and this might be the flood? Uh, even if it happened, then it wouldn't be global, it would be local.

Honestly besides being a number, why do you think the center of gravity is important?

 

[A4C]

I still have no idea why you are harping on this center of gravity thing, first of all the earth is about 12,700 kilometers in diameter, Everest is less than 10 km high, about .00008 of this and in fact less than a 1/4 of the difference in radius between a measurement around the equator and through the poles. These are bumps on the face of an orange. Besides, what is the center of gravity change going to do, it would make the earth wobble on its axis for a while until it readjusts but I can't even see what it is supposed to do in terms of the distribution of land on the surface.

Wait a minute, did you read somewhere that if you changed the center of gravity of the earth by x then to compensate, the earth would redistribute all of the water to one side and this might be the flood? Uh, even if it happened, then it wouldn't be global, it would be local.

Honestly besides being a number, why do you think the center of gravity is important?

If somebody with high school level of science please tell cheese how the position of the earth's CoG will affect the distribution of water on its surface. It seems that if he sees anything I post he would think it was wrong.

 

[A4C]

Oh and of course there would be a change in the position of the poles too which also would have a bearing. Now if you think that I have the resources to involve myself in scientific research of the magnitude of what is being discussed here then you are virtually saying that a single person is able to replace all of the scientific research of many scientists for the past 200 years. Quite frankly I did not think so highly of my own abilities as that nor do I have personal riches sufficient to carry it out..

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

If somebody with high school level of science please tell cheese how the position of the earth's CoG will affect the distribution of water on its surface. It seems that if he sees anything I post he would think it was wrong.

Why don't you, or do you not have a high school level of science to explain it to me?
Why does someone else have to do it when it is your assertion that it makes a difference?

I have at least a high school level of science, and other than creating a precession about the axis of rotation, and a temporary tidal force, I cannot see how this is significant to your hypothesis.
It is your hypothesis, it is for you to explain it.