In a current thread someone appears to be attempting to defend the biblical flood tale as a truthful and accurate account of an event that really happened in the real world (or is attempting to score ‘points’?). viewtopic.php?p=970373#970373
Rather than further trash tat thread, I replied to significant parts of a post there and move the remainder here.
Let’s keep in mind that this is the biblical description of the flood:
Bold added to emphasize ALL mountains covered worldwide (unless there were some that ‘God’ didn’t know about).Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. 20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep . 21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind.
OH? Scoring points? High school debate club?shnarkle wrote:It's not just my opinion. If you can't or won't address or refute a point, the bottom line is you don't score the point; I do.
Kindly cite biblical passages that are descriptions indicate seismic activity.shnarkle wrote:Straw man argument. I never claimed 50' waves flood the tops of mountains. I pointed out that it doesn't take much to create a 50' wave, and the biblical descriptions indicate seismic activity that would create the necessary conditions for significantly larger waves. This is not only possible, but plausible.Zzyzx wrote: Do fifty foot waves flood the Earth ‘to the tops of mountains’?
Did you bring up waves and tsunami?
Thank you
What we observe today is that floods occur in lowlands, river valleys, and coastal areas – NOT flooding mountains. Were conditions different ‘long ago and far away’?shnarkle wrote:
The conditions described in Genesis are considerably greater. More importantly, they are descriptions which match what we observe today.
Does that address the Genesis flood?shnarkle wrote:
When we see seismic activity, it is accompanied with large waves. When we see driving rain, we see rainwater piling up and creating flash flooding.
Kindly explain to readers how the YouTube reference provides evidence that the Earth was flooded ‘to the tops of mountains’shnarkle wrote:Yes, and I provided the reasons why. Are you going to address and refute those reasons, or let yet another point slip away?Zzyzx wrote:There's a guy on YouTube who shows how to win a bet that he can drop the level of the pool he's standing in by an inch in five minutes.
NO. Really?
Does that provide evidence that the Earth was flooded?
What seismic activity was associated with the biblical flood account? Reference? Citation?
Kindly explain and describe ‘fountains of the deep’. What does that mean? What Earth processes are involved? Are said ‘fountains’ factual or mythological? Evidence?shnarkle wrote:
The fountains erupting from deep within the earth would have not only caused water to gush, but also created waves.
Correction: I have NOT stated that a world wide flood occurrence was possible or impossible. Kindly stop misquoting and reply to what I actually state.shnarkle wrote:I stand corrected. Great! Now that you're position is clear, and we see that your position is that it is possible for a worldwide flood to have occured,Zzyzx wrote: Have I stated that ‘it is impossible for a worldwide flood to have occurred’? If you think so, kindly quote verbatim with URL. Then perhsps read about straw-man logical blunders.
I ask for verifiable evidence that a worldwide flood occurred as described in Genesis.
Kindly demonstrate mountains being covered by flood water.shnarkle wrote:
we can refine our discussion somewhat. Your previous comments suggesting that mountains couldn't be covered with water threw me off. Thanks for the clarification.
Feel free to award yourself whatever brownie points you wish. A pile of them plus a few dollars might buy a cup of coffee somewhere.shnarkle wrote:
Are you ever going to address or refute this point? Again, I hasten to remind you that refusing to address this point scores yet another one for yours truly.
Again, readers will decide
Did the Genesis tale mention rain? Did it mention sea water?shnarkle wrote:Is there some reason why you might believe rain water and sea water are mutually exclusive propositions when it comes to flooding? Is there some reason why rain water couldn't mix with sea water? Is sea water a relatively recent introduction to this planet?Zzyzx wrote: Is this to say that the Earth was flooded with sea water? What happened to the rain tale?
Kindly supply adjusted calculations – and show readers your work and cite referencesshnarkle wrote:I don't think so. You're not including the rain and the 'fountains of the deep', remember? When you factor that in, your calculations need to be adjusted.Zzyzx wrote: The Earth’s surface area is approximately 196,900,000 square miles, with 29.2% land. Thus, 140,000,000 square miles of ocean (70.8%) would need to be raised 2500 feet (about half a mile).
Excellent. Now can you account for the Genesis account of flooding ‘to the tops of mountains’?shnarkle wrote:No, I'm pointing out that for a flood to be effective, it must at the very least move over land. It is not required to sit motionless on land. Nor am I suggesting that it be only on land.Zzyzx wrote:it would only have to move over the surface of the earth.
Is this to say that water would only have to be on continental / land surfaces?
Are you following what you are posting?
The Genesis account clearly says that the Earth was flooded ‘to the tops of mountains’. Do you wish to change that now?shnarkle wrote:
I'm posting just the opposite of what you're assuming. Water doesn't have to continuously pile up in order to flood. It simply has to move over the surface. As water moves over the surface it carries anything or anyone who gets in its way. As these object, people, etc. violently collide into each other, they die which is the purpose of the flood, right?
Care to make a stab at actually answering the question? Rates? Records? Actual information rather than fluff?
Perhaps we are making progress. Yes, water tends to flow downhill. That being the case, it leaves higher areas and fills low areas.shnarkle wrote:
In other words, it comes down faster than what has already fallen can get out of the way so it piles up causing flash flooding, and that flash flooding usually flows from higher elevations to lower ones.
What is required for high areas to be flooded?
The biblical account says flooded. Would it be snow covered if underwater?
Simplifying: Was Mt. Everest covered with flood water – meeting the Genesis account of flooding ‘to the tops of mountains’?shnarkle wrote:
Are you suggesting that Mt.Everest didn't have any snow because the bible doesn't state it did? Do the biblical authors have to mention Mt. Everest by name?
You stand corrected AGAIN – I have NOT ‘denied it is impossible’.
Again, I have taken NO position regarding that possibility (or lack).shnarkle wrote:
but now you're claiming that even though it is possible, it isn't likely?
Correction: I state that Mt. Everest is 29,029 feet in elevation. If someone wishes to claim that it was lower at some specific time in the past, they have the burden (in reasoned debate) of providing evidence to support their contention.shnarkle wrote:
So far, it would appear that your biggest reason is that Mt. Everest must have been as tall as it is now, therefore it isn't plausible.
Kindly explain to readers how ejection of material is evidence of ‘the time it takes for a mountain to attain higher elevations’shnarkle wrote:
Yet we know that violent and abrupt seismic events are what cause mountains to attain these elevations. For some reason which you have yet to present, over a thousand feet of material that was once the top of a mountain is ejected in a day has no bearing on the time it takes for a mountain to attain higher elevations.
Refer to discussion of formation of the Himalayas and Mt. Everest in the original thread viewtopic.php?p=970373#970373shnarkle wrote:
In both cases, it is seismic activity violently and abruptly moving massive amounts of material