Make the mountains fit the tale?

[Zzyzx]

.
When those who believe that the Noah flood tale is literal truth are informed that total amount of water available make that doubtful (at best), a typical response is, “The mountains were lower back then (a few thousand years ago). Not only does this display lack of knowledge of hydrology and geology but the claim is totally unsubstantiated – just made up to ‘explain’ the ancient tale of a worldwide flood.

There are about 1500 mountains over 1000 feet above sea level, 250 of them exceeding 20,000 feet, and one, Mt. Everest, that reaches 29,029 feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _elevation

ALL of those (and all lesser elevation mountains) would have to be covered to meet the conditions specified in Genesis. It should also be noted that people are able to make their homes and communities at elevations over 15,000 feet and to frequent much higher elevations.

Genesis 7:19Finally, the waters completely inundated the earth, so that all the high mountains under all the heavens were covered. 20The waters rose and covered the mountaintops to a depth of fifteen cubits. 21And every creature that had moved upon the earth perished—birds, livestock, animals, every creature that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind. 22Of all that had been on dry land, everything that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23And every living thing on the face of the earth was destroyed—man and livestock, crawling creatures and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth, and only Noah remained, and those with him in the ark.

The text is very clear – water completely inundated the Earth, covered all high mountains, and wiped out every living thing on the face of the Earth.

If someone wants to claim that ‘the mountains were lower’:

1. How much lower?
2. What is the evidence to support that claim?
3. Did the mountains form rapidly in a few thousand years? Evidence?

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 10 by Guy Threepwood]

Putting that in perspective, 400 miles deep, within the Earth’s mantle is thought to occur a variety of the mineral olivine that contains oxygen and hydrogen (hydroxide ion) in chemical combination with magnesium and silicon.

Little is known about the occurrence and distribution of minerals involved. However, the claim of 'underground ocean' is hyperbole.

[1213]

Yes, In school I was told that there was not enough water to cover the land
But 'springs of the deep' is mentioned in the Bible before rain.

https://www.natureworldnews.com/article ... -crust.htm

Thanks, that is interesting thing, but is that information accepted by atheists?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 2 by 1213]

Yes, In school I was told that there was not enough water to cover the land
But 'springs of the deep' is mentioned in the Bible before rain.

https://www.natureworldnews.com/article ... -crust.htm

^
""If [the stored water] wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountaintops would be the only land poking out," [Steve Jacobsen from Northwestern University] said."

But that water is there, not on the surface, and has been for billions of years. From the same article:

• "And according to The Guardian, Jacobsen said that this trapped, hidden water may explain why Earth's oceans have stayed the same size for billions of years."

So unless you are claiming the flood happened billions of years ago, this trapped, hidden water couldn't possible have had any involvement with the flood story from the Bible.



Tcg

[Zzyzx]

.
This is what happens when Apologists attempt to cherry-pick pieces of scientific studies that they think support theistic mythology.

Yes, In school I was told that there was not enough water to cover the land
But 'springs of the deep' is mentioned in the Bible before rain.

https://www.natureworldnews.com/article ... -crust.htm

""If [the stored water] wasn't there, it would be on the surface of the Earth, and mountaintops would be the only land poking out," [Steve Jacobsen from Northwestern University] said."

But that water is there, not on the surface, and has been for billions of years. From the same article:

"And according to The Guardian, Jacobsen said that this trapped, hidden water may explain why Earth's oceans have stayed the same size for billions of years."

So unless you are claiming the flood happened billions of years ago, this trapped, hidden water couldn't possible have had any involvement with the flood story from the Bible.

A fabled flood of a few thousand years ago supposedly involved water that has been in chemical combination with mantle materials for billions of years.

That makes as little sense as considering the flood myth to be literal truth.

[1213]

But that water is there, not on the surface, and has been for billions of years. From the same article:

But we have nothing to prove the “billions of years�, it is just one belief. Only thing that can probably be proven is that there is the water. And one possible explanation is that things went as the Bible tells.

[Overcomer]

Zzyzx wrote:

When those who believe that the Noah flood tale is literal truth are informed that total amount of water available make that doubtful (at best), a typical response is, “The mountains were lower back then (a few thousand years ago).

Could you please cite a source for the idea that mountains were lower in the past?

Thank you. O.

[Zzyzx]

.

Zzyzx wrote:

When those who believe that the Noah flood tale is literal truth are informed that total amount of water available make that doubtful (at best), a typical response is, “The mountains were lower back then (a few thousand years ago).

Could you please cite a source for the idea that mountains were lower in the past?

Are you not aware that the ‘mountains were lower back then’ argument has been presented many times, both here and elsewhere? One example from a quick internet search:
https://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-floodwater.html

The Bible refers only to “high hills,� and the mountains today were formed only toward the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mount Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.

This uplift of the new continental landmasses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the flood waters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's Earth surface.

If you are familiar with the argument, what is the point of asking for sources?

[rikuoamero]

But that water is there, not on the surface, and has been for billions of years. From the same article:

But we have nothing to prove the “billions of years�, it is just one belief. Only thing that can probably be proven is that there is the water. And one possible explanation is that things went as the Bible tells.

1213 I want you to try something. Pretend you live in a world physically identical to our own.
The only difference between that world and our own world is that that world does NOT have a Bible, does NOT have any writings or stories that say there was a flood caused by a God a few thousand years ago with a handful of people and animals escaping on a large wooden boat.
Get that. In that world you don't have the story.
Now in that world, when you look at the world, what is the cause for you to suggest that a few thousand years ago, there was a worldwide flood caused by an angry God with a handful of people and animals escaping on a large wooden boat? What is the cause for you to even think of that?

[Tcg]

But that water is there, not on the surface, and has been for billions of years. From the same article:

But we have nothing to prove the “billions of years�, it is just one belief. Only thing that can probably be proven is that there is the water. And one possible explanation is that things went as the Bible tells.

Your protestation simply reveals the cherry-picking Zzyzx referred to. You like the one idea this article presents simply because you mistakenly think it supports the flood myth. You reject the idea you don't like simply because it provides clear evidence that this trapped, hidden water could not have been involved in flood story.


You need to explain what verifiable evidence you can present that would cause one to question the conclusion that this trapped, hidden water has been there for billions of years.



Tcg

[1213]

1213 I want you to try something. Pretend you live in a world physically identical to our own.
The only difference between that world and our own world is that that world does NOT have a Bible…
….Now in that world, when you look at the world, what is the cause for you to suggest that a few thousand years ago, there was a worldwide flood caused by an angry God with a handful of people and animals escaping on a large wooden boat? What is the cause for you to even think of that?

If we would not have the Bible, I would not know about the wooden boat, or the reason for the event, but I would know by modern knowledge about modern continents, oil and gas fields, sediment formations, marine fossils on high mountains… …best explanation for those is that there was once one continent that collapsed and sunk, which resulted the world as we can nowadays observe. If there would be no Bible, there would be no reason to imagine the modern irrational theories how things came up to this situation, just to make Bible look wrong. Atheists could use their reason and take the most plausible theory, instead of inventing theory that makes Bible look wrong.