Myth About the Bible - Busted!

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then skip the math altogether.

Do you see the point I'm making?

Something something miracle...

 

[AV1611VET]

Something something miracle...

 

[CoreyD]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

Why did you leave out the part where they say how long it took the Andes to rise? Since that part reads:
Growth of the Andes was slow between 25 million and 10 million years ago, but then between 10 million and 6 million years ago — the blink of a geological eye — the landscape rose about 2.5 kilometers, the researchers report in the June 6 Science.

That's still a monumentally long amount of time and very much contradicts your idea of how long you think it took Everest and the Himalayas to rise.

 

[BCP1928]

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'm saying no such thing. YECs believe all kinds of different things.

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.

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.

 

[sjastro]

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.

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.

Firstly the conclusion is illogical as it is a false dichotomy fallacy.
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.

 

[David Lamb]

I'm saying no such thing. YECs believe all kinds of different things.

Thanks for explaining that. I expect those who don't believe in a comparatively young earth also believe many different things.

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 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."

 

[Larniavc]

However, that opinion is not shared by the majority of person.

Yeah, it is.

 

[BCP1928]

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."

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.

 

[CoreyD]

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

 

[CoreyD]

I think you may need to re read our conversation.

Are you accusing me of not reading?

My reply was completely cromulent.

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.

You will notice that on every forum, the rules will say something to the effect... Don't just make a claim, as if it is a fact. Support your claim with evidence (especially if asked to). Otherwise the claim can be dismissed as just a baseless claim. When making a claim, rather than state it dogmatically as fact, precede it with, "I believe...", "It is my view/opinion...", etc.

You made a claim, and cannot support it, so it is unacceptable... and dismissed as such.

 

[CoreyD]

Buddy, he was talking about me saying that you responding with links is just laziness.

I know that.

You've just kind of gone off on something entirely different here.

I wonder what you think I have gone off on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I know that.

I did not read like you did. Not at all.

I wonder what you think I have gone off on.

Something entirely different.

 

[CoreyD]

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.

View attachment 355505​

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.

View attachment 355508​

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.

View attachment 355509​

Thank you very much for your information, and taking the time to post it.

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.

Only if, as I said, the assumptions are used as a basis for fact, but we see that these assumptions need to be reevaluated.

Firstly the conclusion is illogical as it is a false dichotomy fallacy.

Please explain (elaborate) how?

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.

We already went through this.
Scientists will have to re-evaluate tectonic processes that build high elevation plateaus, such as those in Tibet and the central Andes.

"These results really change the paradigm of understanding of how mountain belts grow," says Carmala Garzione, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences and co-author of both papers. "We've always assumed that the folding and faulting in the upper crust produced high elevation mountains. Now we have data on ancient mountain elevation that shows something else is responsible for the mountains' uplift."

Science assumes there is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.

Things to consider:

• Rapid uplift of mountains.
• Growth spurts of mountains.
• Lowering of ocean floor.

Taking these into consideration, and the height of roughly 13 feet as a goal, how is this impossible?

 

[CoreyD]

I did not read like you did. Not at all.

Obviously.

Something entirely different.

What exactly?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Obviously.

I meant to say "ITdid not read like you did. Not at all." Boy, you really are just doubling down on the rudeness.

What exactly?

As I said: something else entirely.