No calculations necessary. How high was it?I'm not the one doing calculations.
I don't think I said that. He needs to know how tall Everest was or his calculations aren't worth spit. On one hand we are always told how destructive this would have been then on the other hand it is assumed it did nothing to the surface of the earth. Choose a side and stick to it.Are you saying the mountains weren't so tall before 'the flood', and that when it receded it caused them to rise? Seriously?
I'm not the one saying I know.No calculations necessary. How high was it?
I'm not the one doing calculations.
Thanks. I don't know is the answer.That has been obvious a long time now.
So you don't have any idea and were once again pulling stuff out of your butt. Got it.I'm not the one saying I know.
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.
4.525 x 10 to the ninth cubic kilometres (4.525x1009 km3) Or, to put into a more sensible number, 4,525,000,000,000 cubic kilometres
He doesn't understand what is written there so has to skate.I wish you would have just posted this earlier instead of danced around.
This isn't the account I was talking about. The flood account should be read completely instead of making assumptions. The bible doesn't say all the water came from rain fall. I was hoping you'd just read it and discover it for yourself since that is always more meaningful to the learner.There are certainly issues with that link. There are typos in the link and he never takes into account the volume of land above sea level.
From the link:
4.525x10^9 is 4,525,000,000.
I wish you would have just posted this earlier instead of danced around.
I spotted the error within a minute. But hey, I don't understand it. Instead of blasting me why don't you blast the person who posted bogus information?He doesn't understand what is written there so has to skate.
I'm not running any calculations as if I did know. Why are you complaining to me when I'm not the one assuming things I don't know?So you don't have any idea and were once again pulling stuff out of your butt. Got it.
Are you saying the mountains weren't so tall before 'the flood', and that when it receded it caused them to rise? Seriously?
He assumes a perfectly smooth sphere while assuming the water needed to go over Mt. Everest.There are certainly issues with that link. There are typos in the link and he never takes into account the volume of land above sea level.
How tall was Mt Everest at the time of the flood? How could this flood be so catastrophic yet so mild to not effect the surface whatsoever?When evidence is not required, he can assert anything. He should just assert that god did it and then planted evidence to make it look like it never happened. That at least is consistent with the world and explains everything. It certainly is much more plausible than anything he has posted.
How tall was Mt Everest at the time of the flood? How could this flood be so catastrophic yet so mild to not effect the surface whatsoever?
This isn't the account I was talking about. The flood account should be read completely instead of making assumptions. The bible doesn't say all the water came from rain fall. I was hoping you'd just read it and discover it for yourself since that is always more meaningful to the learner.
I do apologize. I should have been. I thought you were being deliberately obtuse.You were never clear with me what account you were talking about.
Why?
How tall was Mt Everest at the time of the flood?
Do you have evidence that God did this?Obviously, to make more people not believe in him so he could fill his quota of people to throw in hell. That is only the reason I can think of for God to put in so many stories that contradict measurable reality. He especially wants intelligent and informed people to go to hell. He is pre-selecting the gullible and uniformed for heaven.