I hope you don't use natural gas to heat your house because it totally doesn't exist if gravity is what keeps it in the earth.
I think I won't. He can find the account quite easily and realize where his error is.
If you have conviction you can lay out your reasoning for everyone to follow. Or you can dance around and troll this thread.
I don't know what I'm looking for. We've danced around what you are telling me to seek. Is it the Noah's Ark story or the calculation Paratus's volume measurement is based on or something else?
Quantify this "huge difference". Why couldn't there be water under the earth? Why must it be an entire layer? How is it scientifically impossible? Saying things doesn't make them so.There are tiny pockets of natural gas trapped beneath the surface. There is HUGE difference from a pocket of trapped lighter substance and an entire fucking layer of water of sufficient volume to cover the earth to the level of Mt Everest. On what planet or what reality can granite rest UPON water? It is a scientific impossibility. It is denying the reality of physics.
If I were buckshot, I'm fairly certain that the last thing I'd want is immortality.The world and its history is not what buck wants it to be, so he denies physical reality in exchange for a mythical and nonexistent immortality.
I didn't calculate the volume directly. I used Darwin333s estimate.
You can educate yourself as well, once you do you can come back and see if we need what Paratus said we needed. If you're not interested enough to do that then I'm not going to spoon feed you.If you have conviction you can lay out your reasoning for everyone to follow. Or you can dance around and troll this thread.
Physical reality is that water can and is trapped underneath the earth. You make up strawmen and argue against them as if they are the only possible way things could be. You don't have the emotional capacity to be anything but a hack on these subjects.God done said it. Reality, physical science, uniformity... all that is an illusion if it contradicts what God said. The reason that buck dances is that there no rational or scientific reason behind his assertions. It is the entire reason that presuppositional apologetics exists. There no longer is a debate on a scientific level for any of this shit. How could there be? The world and its history is not what buck wants it to be, so he denies physical reality in exchange for a mythical and nonexistent immortality.
You can educate yourself as well, once you do you can come back and see if we need what Paratus said we needed. If you're not interested enough to do that then I'm not going to spoon feed you.
Read the account!Gotcha, so buckshot has a secret qualm with this that he won't let us in on.
Right, I am being evasive on this subject because I don't debate it with atheists. Don't like that, I'm sorry.You're just being evasive and do not seem interested in real conversation. Asking others to justify your own reasoning is just silly and evasive.
Right, I am being evasive on this subject because I don't debate it with atheists. Don't like that, I'm sorry.
The things I do debate with atheists are being ignored.
Physical reality is that water can and is trapped underneath the earth. You make up strawmen and argue against them as if they are the only possible way things could be. You don't have the emotional capacity to be anything but a hack on these subjects.
Read the account!
This is where he is getting this from.It would require 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometers of additional water not currently on Earth for the flood to happen as it's stated in the bible.
From what I see, Darwin stated the number in this post:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38347376&postcount=358
He didn't show the derivation of it, so I'm curious as to what buckshot's issue with this is.
It is fairly straightforward to calculate the volume needed. You'd first have to agree on what "flooding the earth" means. Does that mean 100% everything covered, even the top of Everest? If so then you'd get a HUGE number. If you agree with something like 95% of the land covered then you'd get something lower, obviously.
Once we agree to a "flood height" then we need to find the volume of a shell with an inner radius of the distance from the core of the earth to the sea surface and an outer radius of the distance between the core of the earth to the "flood height." Then subtract the volume of all land above sea level. All these can be estimated close enough to get rough approximations of the magnitude of the volume of water needed.
The volume of a shell is the absolute difference between the volume of the smaller sphere and the larger sphere.
I'm guessing buckshot's hang up is on what is considered "flood height" because the rest is straight math. I have not checked Darwin's math, but I may when I have more time.
How high was Mt Everest? Not today.The Bible says the flood covered the highest mountain peaks. It has to be higher than Mt Everest or it isn't Biblical.
This is where he is getting this from.
https://holysmoke.org/cretins/fludmath.html
He has the number wrong by a factor of 1000 for starters.
You tell us. Provide sources.How high was Mt Everest? Not today.
How high was Mt Everest? Not today.
I'm not the one doing calculations.You tell us. Provide sources.