Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And I was willing to set miracles aside to talk to you about it, and you still don't want to talk about it.
Okay ... let me ask you this:
A drone flies randomly over the face of the earth at a height of 29,000 feet, starting from New Jersey, and flying 10 mph.
Mount Everest is 29,032 feet high.
What are the chances that that drone will crash into Mount Everest within a year's time?
I really do not care to work out the odds since I don't like dealing with maths and probability. Nor does it really have anything to do with the (newer) direction of this thread.
Then skip the math altogether.
Do you see the point I'm making?
Thanks for the Math.0.002 feet per year? That seems a bit fast for something that size, but I don't know that it's geologically unworkable.
You want it to rise 14,000 feet in 6,000 years? That's more than two feet per year. For something as massive as Everest, that's not a gradual process. There would be frequent huge earthquakes as the tectonic plates smashed into each other.
Thanks for the Math.
Don't forget. The mountain just need to be lighten from its base.
New evidence points to a sudden and dramatic growth spurt for the South American mountain chain
Previous studies have suggested that the slow, steady collision between two tectonic plates — the Nazca Plate, made of dense oceanic crust, and the South American plate of lighter, continental crust — crumpled the crust and gradually lifted the Andes. But new analyses of South American sediments cast doubt on that steady-growth scenario, says John Eiler, a geochemist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.
Why the sudden change in elevation? Eiler and his colleagues suggest that a large mass of dense rock that often forms at the base of Earth’s crust — a type of rock called eclogite — detached beneath the Andes and then sank into the mantle. Relieved of that weight, the overlying, relatively light continental crust bobbed upward like a cork, thereby raising the mountains.
That's not taking off the crown. Once the uplift occurs, the mountain is continuing its build.
Nature is full of surprises.
I'm saying no such thing. YECs believe all kinds of different things.Of course it matters. If you are saying that people who believe that Creation is not billions of years old also believe that the asteroids were formed by the fountains of the great deep being broken up at the time of the Flood, then you are misrepresenting what others believe, and that matters.
I don't know; as a Traditional Christian I expect I believe things that you think are silly and am not much bothered if you say so. It's not as if we were talking about essential doctrine.I suggest it is not very polite to tell other Christians that their beliefs concerning creation are silly - surely we can disagree without insulting each other.
Thanks for explaining that. I expect those who don't believe in a comparatively young earth also believe many different things.I'm saying no such thing. YECs believe all kinds of different things.
I still don't think that calling somebody or their beliefs "silly" fits with the rules of these forums, which include: "Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue."I don't know; as a Traditional Christian I expect I believe things that you think are silly and am not much bothered if you say so. It's not as if we were talking about essential doctrine.
Yes you are right and I apologize. The rules require that we cut 'Bible believers' that slack. As far as YEC goes, I don't care what you believe about it and won't try and talk you out of it, what I really want to know is why you would want to believe such a thing about it at all. The interpretation of scripture which supports it seems, well I don't suppose I'm allowed to say, but I know of no essential Christian doctrine which requires it. There must be some reason I am missing. In all the years I have been bantering with YECs both in forums like this and in the real world, I have never been offered a coherent explanation for it.Thanks for explaining that. I expect those who don't believe in a comparatively young earth also believe many different things.
I still don't think that calling somebody or their beliefs "silly" fits with the rules of these forums, which include: "Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue."
Yet another claim with no supporting data.Yeah, it is.
Yet another claim with no supporting data.
If your claim had any value at all, Wikipedia, Britanica, and other credible sources would have no link[1] at all which references their source material.
Opinionated bias is easy found on internet forums, because most people on forums, believe their claims are facts, but that in itself is a myth.
I think you may need to re read our conversation. My reply was completely cromulent.Yet another claim with no supporting data.
If your claim had any value at all, Wikipedia, Britanica, and other credible sources would have no link[1] at all which references their source material.
Opinionated bias is easy found on internet forums, because most people on forums, believe their claims are facts, but that in itself is a myth.
Are you accusing me of not reading?I think you may need to re read our conversation.
Yet another self promoted claim, but the facts do not agree, and since you have no response to the data I provided, the claim cannot be fine, because a claim is not fine just because the one making the claim believes it is.My reply was completely cromulent.
I know that.Buddy, he was talking about me saying that you responding with links is just laziness.
You've just kind of gone off on something entirely different here.
I know that.
I wonder what you think I have gone off on.
Thank you very much for your information, and taking the time to post it.On the subject of mountain ranges the current tectonic uplift rate of mountain ranges is determined from GPS and geodetic data.
The history of the tectonic uplift rate of a mountain range is determined by a number of techniques involving thermochronology, strath terrace dating, sediment analysis, isostatic compensation and geological markers such as ancient shorelines, volcanic deposits, coral reefs etc.
I requested GPT-4o to find uplift data on mountain ranges and plot the tectonic uplift rate versus the age of the mountain range.
Three of the four mountain ranges show the expected uplift rate to be highest at the start of the mountain range formation which declines or decelerates with time for the reasons given.
The Himalayas is the odd one out where the uplift rate is accelerating.
The mountain range started off as the subduction of the Indo-Australian plate under the Eurasian plate followed by a continental collision between the plates.
Only if, as I said, the assumptions are used as a basis for fact, but we see that these assumptions need to be reevaluated.Where does this leave the fanciful idea the Biblical flood could have covered the highest mountain peaks by 15 cubits or 7 metres because we don’t know the heights of mountains at the time, very much floundering I’m afraid.
Please explain (elaborate) how?Firstly the conclusion is illogical as it is a false dichotomy fallacy.
We already went through this.Secondly given we have a record of tectonic uplift rates in the past based on evidence and if the flood had occurred around 4500 years ago which is a tiny percentage of the age of a mountain range, we can infer very little has changed in mountain range heights over that time frame.
Obviously.I did not read like you did. Not at all.
What exactly?Something entirely different.
Obviously.
What exactly?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?