Myth About the Bible - Busted!

[CoreyD]

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

No. I am not following your lead.
I am being to the point. It's either that, or nothing.

As I said: something else entirely.

Which you have no idea, because you know I was exactly on point.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No. I am not following your lead.
I am being to the point. It's either that, or nothing.

No, you are just being rude.

Which you have no idea, because you know I was exactly on point.

Okay, so let's go back on this, shall we.

This little spat began because I said in post #98:

First off, you need to stop replying with links to websites. It makes you look lazy.

To which you responded to in post #101 with:

Thank you for sharing your opinion.
However, that opinion is not shared by the majority of person.

Now, ignoring how grammatically incorrect that sentence is, Larniavc replied in post #150 with:

Yeah, it is.

To which you then replied in post #152 with:

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.

You went off the rails on supporting data, Wikipedia, Britannica and even going so far as to create a fake link to talk about references and source material... just because someone agreed with me that you responding with links is lazy.

That's what I've been referring to when I mean 'going off on something else entirely'.

 

[CoreyD]

No, you are just being rude.

Sorry if I sound like you... to you.
I really would not want that to be the case.

Okay, so let's go back on this, shall we.

This little spat began because I said in post #98:

To which you responded to in post #101 with:

Now, ignoring how grammatically incorrect that sentence is, Larniavc replied in post #150 with:

To which you then replied in post #152 with:


You went off the rails on supporting data, Wikipedia, Britannica and even going so far as to create a fake link to talk about references and source material... just because someone agreed with me that you responding with links is lazy.

That's what I've been referring to when I mean 'going off on something else entirely'.

Does Wikipedia and Britanica, and other sources link to their source material? Yes they do.
I did no different to what they do, and you said it is being lazy, so I can only assume you believe the authors of these Encyclopedias are lazy.

These Encyclopedias were used to show @Larniavc that the data disagree with both your claims. Which is on point.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry if I sound like you... to you.
I really would not want that to be the case.

You can't help yourself, can you?

Does Wikipedia and Britanica, and other sources link to their source material? Yes they do.
I did no different to what they do, and you said it is being lazy, so I can only assume you believe the authors of these Encyclopedias are lazy.

These Encyclopedias were used to show @Larniavc that the data disagree with both your claims. Which is on point.

But that's not what you've been doing. In fact, in the links you gave for mountain uplift, they showed you to be wrong since they weren't even remotely talking about the Himalayas, the topic of conversation, nor even showing anything that backed the claim that mountains could form in several thousand years.

 

[CoreyD]

You can't help yourself, can you?



But that's not what you've been doing. In fact, in the links you gave for mountain uplift, they showed you to be wrong since they weren't even remotely talking about the Himalayas, the topic of conversation, nor even showing anything that backed the claim that mountains could form in several thousand years.

Sorry I broke my silence to you.
I'll just continue as I did from your pleasant post.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry I broke my silence to you.
I'll just continue as I did from your pleasant post.

If you would like to not see anything I post, if you go to my icon, click it, it'll bring up the options to put me on ignore. You'll never see a post from me again.

I shall be doing the same to you.

 

[Larniavc]

You will notice that on every forum, the rules will say something to the effect...

You're becoming hysterical. Why don't you ask me about Sevastopol's safety procedures?

 

[AV1611VET]

You'll never see a post from me again.

Not directly, no.

 

[sjastro]

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


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

Scientists are not making assumptions but using evidence based on GPS, geodetic data, thermochronology, strath terrace dating, sediment analysis, isostatic compensation and geological markers.

Please explain (elaborate) how?

You have considered one option which is the least plausible, other more plausible options include the history of mountain range uplift (or the lack of it) tells you nothing about the depth of the flood or even if the flood occurred in the first place.

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?

If you look at the graph, the tectonic uplift history of the Andes contradicts your link.
This is because your link is from 2006 and is badly out of date having been superseded by new evidence.

GPT-4o said;

The 2006 study you referenced proposed that the Andes rose rapidly and dramatically, gaining much of their height in just 2-3 million years. This was based on isotopic evidence from carbonate rocks, which seemed to suggest rapid surface uplift due to tectonic and climatic factors.

However, more recent studies have contradicted this view, suggesting that the rise of the Andes was not as abrupt as once thought. Research led by scientists such as Christopher Poulsen from the University of Michigan indicates that previous interpretations of isotopic data might have been flawed. The apparent rapid rise in oxygen isotope ratios was likely a reflection of changes in rainfall patterns rather than a sudden increase in elevation. Instead, the uplift of the Andes appears to have been more gradual, taking tens of millions of years rather than just a few million, and being punctuated by rapid pulses of growth interspersed with long periods of relative stability.

This gradualist perspective aligns with newer studies that propose the Andes have experienced multiple "growth spurts" rather than a continuous, rapid uplift. These spurts of elevation increase likely coincide with tectonic shifts, particularly involving the detachment of dense lower crust material, which allows the upper crust to rise more rapidly during these periods.

Not so fast! Andes rise was gradual, not abrupt | The University Record
Taking the pulse of mountain formation in the Andes | Geology Page

This is how science works it is self-correcting and changes on the acquisition of new evidence.
Even if the Andes or any other mountain range experienced a growth spurt it is immaterial to your argument.

Consider Mt Everest which has a current tectonic uplift rate of 3-5 mm/year which is less than other regions of the Himalayas which have rates up to 10mm/year.
If you accept the flood occurred around 4500 years ago, at the current rate the height of the Mt Everest was approximately 20 metres less than it is today which for a mountain of 8849 metres height is hardly a big deal.

This now leads to the science which is evidence based, and if the flood was a few metres above Mt Everest even very briefly there should be evidence to support this.

(1) No evidence of mass extinction with the added problem of how life forms and civilization recovered so quickly in such a short period of time.
(2) No evidence of global sedimentation associated with the flood.
(3) If the flood exceeded the height of Mt Everest than the calculated water pressure at sea level is around 89 MPa.
To put this in perspective submarines would be crushed in seconds only specially designed underwater craft designed to investigate oceanic trenches are designed to exceed 100 MPa pressure.
The effect on existing sedimentation would be immediate such as the reduction in pore size and fracturing of grain elements none of which has been found.

​

The most important consideration is what the evidence tells you, in this case the Biblical flood never occurred.

 

[CoreyD]

You're becoming hysterical. Why don't you ask me about Sevastopol's safety procedures?

Keeping on topic...

Considering the weight of the water during a global flood, we have data which supports the lowering of the ocean floor, the pre and post flood.
The ocean bottom subsides elastically
The Ocean Bottom is Sinking

The bottom of the ocean is more of a "sunken place" than it used to be.​

​

In recent decades, melting ice sheets and glaciers driven by climate change are swelling Earth's oceans. And along with all that water comes an unexpected consequence — the weight of the additional liquid is pressing down on the seafloor, causing it to sink.​

​

Consequently, measurements and predictions of sea-level rise may have been incorrect since 1993, underestimating the growing volume of water in the oceans due to the receding bottom, according to a new study. [7 Ways the Earth Changes in the Blink of an Eye]​

​

Scientists have long known that Earth's crust, or outer layer, is elastic: Earlier research revealed how Earth's surface warps in response to tidal movements that redistribute masses of water; and 2017's Hurricane Harvey dumped so much water on Texas that the ground dropped 0.8 inches (2 centimeters), the Atlantic reported.​

​

In the new investigation, researchers looked at more long-term impacts to the seafloor. They evaluated how much the shape of the ocean bottom may have changed between 1993 and 2014, taking into account the amount of water added to the ocean from liquid formerly locked up on land as ice. Previous research into seafloor stretching had omitted that extra water, the scientists wrote in the study.​

So, there is evidence the height of a mountain above sea level, would be significantly altered after sea level drops.
The following illustrates this.
Before the flood

Sea level rises and the sea floor lowers; mountains rise

Sea level rises and the sea floor lowers; mountains' rise restricted by weight of water

Mountains covered; Weight on both sea floor and mountains, balanced

Water recedes; Sea level rises and the sea floor lowers; mountains rise

Weight of water lowers ocean floor, and the result is mountain is significantly raised above sea level

These factors are combined with the mountain uplift from continental drift, and growth spurts.

 

[CoreyD]

Scientists are not making assumptions but using evidence based on GPS, geodetic data, thermochronology, strath terrace dating, sediment analysis, isostatic compensation and geological markers.

Please clarify. Are you saying no assumptions are made here?

You have considered one option which is the least plausible, other more plausible options include the history of mountain range uplift (or the lack of it) tells you nothing about the depth of the flood or even if the flood occurred in the first place.

It does not tell the height of mountains or the depth of ocean floor, but the factors considered do tell us what is possible.
Are you saying it is impossible?

If you look at the graph, the tectonic uplift history of the Andes contradicts your link.
This is because your link is from 2006 and is badly out of date having been superseded by new evidence.

I'll take a look in a moment. Thanks.

This is how science works it is self-correcting and changes on the acquisition of new evidence.
Even if the Andes or any other mountain range experienced a growth spurt it is immaterial to your argument.

How so? Please elaborate.

Consider Mt Everest which has a current tectonic uplift rate of 3-5 mm/year which is less than other regions of the Himalayas which have rates up to 10mm/year.

Do you know that the uplift rate of Mount Everest was constant?

If you accept the flood occurred around 4500 years ago, at the current rate the height of the Mt Everest was approximately 20 metres less than it is today which for a mountain of 8849 metres height is hardly a big deal.

If you can prove that the rate of growth of Mt. Everest was constant, slow and gradual, I will consider this. Thanks.

This now leads to the science which is evidence based, and if the flood was a few metres above Mt Everest even very briefly there should be evidence to support this.

(1) No evidence of mass extinction with the added problem of how life forms and civilization recovered so quickly in such a short period of time.
(2) No evidence of global sedimentation associated with the flood.
(3) If the flood exceeded the height of Mt Everest than the calculated water pressure at sea level is around 89 MPa.
To put this in perspective submarines would be crushed in seconds only specially designed underwater craft designed to investigate oceanic trenches are designed to exceed 100 MPa pressure.
The effect on existing sedimentation would be immediate such as the reduction in pore size and fracturing of grain elements none of which has been found.

View attachment 355640
​

Well, I admit you have gone above my head, at the moment, so you will have to give me some time to look at this and evaluate it. Thanks.

The most important consideration is what the evidence tells you, in this case the Biblical flood never occurred.

I so far disagree that no evidence supports the global flood.
II'll look at what you offered though, as I said, and I will get back to you. Thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

(1) No evidence of mass extinction with the added problem of how life forms and civilization recovered so quickly in such a short period of time.
(2) No evidence of global sedimentation associated with the flood.

My suggestion then, if you feel that way about it, is to keep looking.

 

[sjastro]

Keeping on topic...

Considering the weight of the water during a global flood, we have data which supports the lowering of the ocean floor, the pre and post flood.
The ocean bottom subsides elastically
The Ocean Bottom is Sinking

The bottom of the ocean is more of a "sunken place" than it used to be.​

​

In recent decades, melting ice sheets and glaciers driven by climate change are swelling Earth's oceans. And along with all that water comes an unexpected consequence — the weight of the additional liquid is pressing down on the seafloor, causing it to sink.​

​

Consequently, measurements and predictions of sea-level rise may have been incorrect since 1993, underestimating the growing volume of water in the oceans due to the receding bottom, according to a new study. [7 Ways the Earth Changes in the Blink of an Eye]​

​

Scientists have long known that Earth's crust, or outer layer, is elastic: Earlier research revealed how Earth's surface warps in response to tidal movements that redistribute masses of water; and 2017's Hurricane Harvey dumped so much water on Texas that the ground dropped 0.8 inches (2 centimeters), the Atlantic reported.​

​

In the new investigation, researchers looked at more long-term impacts to the seafloor. They evaluated how much the shape of the ocean bottom may have changed between 1993 and 2014, taking into account the amount of water added to the ocean from liquid formerly locked up on land as ice. Previous research into seafloor stretching had omitted that extra water, the scientists wrote in the study.​

So, there is evidence the height of a mountain above sea level, would be significantly altered after sea level drops.
The following illustrates this.
Before the flood
View attachment 355644

Sea level rises and the sea floor lowers; mountains rise
View attachment 355645

Sea level rises and the sea floor lowers; mountains' rise restricted by weight of water
View attachment 355646

Mountains covered; Weight on both sea floor and mountains, balanced
View attachment 355647

Water recedes; Sea level rises and the sea floor lowers; mountains rise
View attachment 355649

Weight of water lowers ocean floor, and the result is mountain is significantly raised above sea level
View attachment 355650

These factors are combined with the mountain uplift from continental drift, and growth spurts.

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument.
The oceans and continental crust sit on the lithosphere which also includes parts of the upper mantle.

​

The lithosphere sits on the asthenosphere where the mantle is a viscous semi plastic medium due to the high temperatures and pressures.
If sea levels rise the extra weight lowers the lithosphere into the asthenosphere which undergoes a plastic deformation.
The sea level change is not amplified by the weight as it does not change relative to the mountain in this case, as both are on the lithosphere which sinks or rises relative to the asthenosphere.
This an example of isotactic effects mentioned in post #148.

 

[sjastro]

Please clarify. Are you saying no assumptions are made here?


It does not tell the height of mountains or the depth of ocean floor, but the factors considered do tell us what is possible.
Are you saying it is impossible?


I'll take a look in a moment. Thanks.


How so? Please elaborate.


Do you know that the uplift rate of Mount Everest was constant?


If you can prove that the rate of growth of Mt. Everest was constant, slow and gradual, I will consider this. Thanks.


Well, I admit you have gone above my head, at the moment, so you will have to give me some time to look at this and evaluate it. Thanks.


I so far disagree that no evidence supports the global flood.
II'll look at what you offered though, as I said, and I will get back to you. Thanks.

As soon as you get back to me with your evidence of the flood I will respond.

 

[CoreyD]

This now leads to the science which is evidence based, and if the flood was a few metres above Mt Everest even very briefly there should be evidence to support this.

(1) No evidence of mass extinction with the added problem of how life forms and civilization recovered so quickly in such a short period of time.

Can you please state what evidence you are expecting to see?

(2) No evidence of global sedimentation associated with the flood.

I found quite a number of articles on global sedimentation, so there is that evidence.
I guess what you meant to say, is there is no evidence of global sedimentation, during the period of 4,000 to 5,000 years.
However, that is to assume that you know where to look. Isn't it?

(3) If the flood exceeded the height of Mt Everest than the calculated water pressure at sea level is around 89 MPa.
To put this in perspective submarines would be crushed in seconds only specially designed underwater craft designed to investigate oceanic trenches are designed to exceed 100 MPa pressure.
The effect on existing sedimentation would be immediate such as the reduction in pore size and fracturing of grain elements none of which has been found.

View attachment 355640
​

This is the one that got me,
Are you thinking of Mt. Everest at its current height, because that is to assume that Mt. Everest was at its current height during the time of the flood?
Can you please clarify.

 

[CoreyD]

There is a fundamental flaw in your argument.
The oceans and continental crust sit on the lithosphere which also includes parts of the upper mantle.

View attachment 355660
​

The lithosphere sits on the asthenosphere where the mantle is a viscous semi plastic medium due to the high temperatures and pressures.
If sea levels rise the extra weight lowers the lithosphere into the asthenosphere which undergoes a plastic deformation.
The sea level change is not amplified by the weight as it does not change relative to the mountain in this case, as both are on the lithosphere which sinks or rises relative to the asthenosphere.
This an example of isotactic effects mentioned in post #148.

I was not speaking of sea level change being amplified.
Can you please explain what that has to do with the sea floor sinking.

 

[CoreyD]

As soon as you get back to me with your evidence of the flood I will respond.

Is this an "absence of evidence" argument?
I am sure you have seen the evidence, which is all over the internet.
Perhaps you reject it, but that does not mean there is no evidence. Nor does the argument absence of evidence mean evidence of absence.

 

[AV1611VET]

The effect on existing sedimentation would be immediate such as the reduction in pore size and fracturing of grain elements none of which has been found.

View attachment 355640​

Would a single grain of sand convince you otherwise?

 

[dlamberth]

Is this an "absence of evidence" argument?
I am sure you have seen the evidence, which is all over the internet.
Perhaps you reject it, but that does not mean there is no evidence. Nor does the argument absence of evidence mean evidence of absence.

There is zero evidence of a Global Noah type of flood. Floods leave distinctive evidence of their passing, especially one that is suppose to have been of global extent. When it comes to floods of such size, absence of evidence says it all.

 

[BCP1928]

There is zero evidence of a Global Noah type of flood. Floods leave distinctive evidence of their passing, especially one that is suppose to have been of global extent. When it comes to floods of such size, absence of evidence says it all.

There is no evidence of a global flood. Even the flood described in the Bible is not unequivocally global. The best working assumption is that there wasn't one.