Not significantly different to today. A few thousand years means ah heck all to a mountain.
I believe it did. Am I going to give evidence and make arguments in this forum about that, no.
Please provide your evidence. Leave your emotions out of your presentation.The Christian God does not exist so he obviously does not fiddle with earth.
I don't accept the premise of your question. You shouldn't ask loaded questions.The question is why did he change the earth to conflict with his written word? The answer is to get as many smart people into hell as possible.
I did say the things in it happened. By me passing I mean proving it to a bunch of atheists that it did.
I don't need overwhelming evidence to believe scientific ideas. I need some kind of decent evidence that a microbe could turn into pine trees, aardvarks, and people. I find the evidence presented as story telling.Very curious why you need overwhelming evidence in perfect form and exact, proper grammar to accept scientific assertions, but you don't need the same for how you believe the Earth and we were created as read from an ancient text. Why is this?
I don't need overwhelming evidence to believe scientific ideas. I need some kind of decent evidence that a microbe could turn into pine trees, aardvarks, and people. I find the evidence presented as story telling.
How long am I supposed to argue about lies to a liar?
The statements are rock solid taken as a whole. All the fluff you've said about them means nothing. Keep on making personal comments though, you're doing swell.
Who cares? 100k is the limit. Accuracy is unverifiable at those ranges.
Platinum alpha decays and has a half life of 1000 trillion years. Does that mean the universe must be older than that? Your logic doesn't hold up.
Rubidium has a half life of 49,000,000,000 years so it can theoretically test ages much older than you believe the universe to be. According to your logic the earth is older than 4.5 billion years. Is it?
No one in this thread.
You however have insinuated we don't understand how to use radioactive decay to date things. Or that you maynot believe in radiometric dating. Whatever that means.
Just for fun I took your 4,525,000,000,000 km^3 of water number and used Wolfram Alpha to convert it to a rain rate.
I came up with 40 days of 2.5 M/s of rain across the entire earth. Or in inches per hour 364,000 in/hr. :O
If we take the biblical size of the ark and multiply the rain rate by the area of the ark we get a flow rate equal to 85% of the Mississippi River over the top of the ark for 40 days straight. Pretty good roof!
Well I'm convinced now.
Straw man much?
Yes, that would be absolutely ridiculous levels of rain fall. Too bad that isn't what anybody thinks happened.
Very curious why you need overwhelming evidence in perfect form and exact, proper grammar to accept scientific assertions, but you don't need the same for how you believe the Earth and we were created as read from an ancient text. Why is this?
Wait, the bible said it rained for 40 days and then gave us a pretty specific point at which the water went up to. Are you saying the rain isn't what raised the water levels? If not then the amount of water required to reach the levels in the bible must have came from the rain and we can mathematically figure out how much rainfall that would require.
What does everyone think happened if not for whats it in the bible? If the water didn't come from rain why even mention the rain at all and exactly where did all that water come from, at least in the thinking of whoever you are talking about?
Because he just likes trolling.
It's obvious to begin with, but he has a pass on it for some reason.
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.
I was just thinking, bucky is nothing more than a troll, maybe it's time to just ignore the fool. Let him spin in his own world, and we can attempt to have a decent debate on topics.
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.
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.
If anything it would be taller.
Let's get the whole quote. We take it from the NKJV:
'And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. Then he said: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants he shall be to his brethren." And he said: "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem, and may Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant."'
Genesis 9:20-27.
At first sight this does not seem such a serious incident and many have wondered why the punishment for a young man seeing his father in a naked condition was so serious, after all they were both men. Also, this Scripture seems especially odd since the punishment seems to have been passed directly on to Noah's grandson (rather than his son). We must note that the text of Genesis here is less clear than one might wish so we have to work with various clues, including from other sections of Scripture. Overall, most Bible commentators (not all) feel that something else occurred which the text never specifically spells out.
So there might be much more to this text than immediately meets the eye!
Okay, let us consider this in more detail.
Much of the explanation may be found in the meaning of the Hebrew phrase, 'to look upon his/her nakedness.' Look up Leviticus 18:6-18 and 20:17. It is very clear that this phrase was used by the Hebrews to describe the sexual sin which occurred following seeing the nakedness of another. In this case, the sin of incest seems to be the problem. Here Noah apparently carelessly left himself uncovered in his tent (v. 21), whereupon his son Ham saw his 'nakedness' [Heb. 'erwa' = 'his genitals'] (v. 22); and then apparently performed a sexual act, probably masturbation, upon his weakened father (however, since the curse was pronounced on Canaan rather than upon Ham, some believe that Ham employed his son to perform the act upon Noah - v. 24). So, almost certainly, and in a completely depraved manner, Noah was probably masturbated (there is another explanation which we will consider later). Presumably Noah was drunk and did not react, and in his weakened state, might even have disgracefully enjoyed the act. But when he became sober, Noah was both ashamed and furious at what had happened. The text strongly suggests that whereas Shem and Japheth were horrified at noting Noah's careless nakedness, Ham exploited the situation. So Ham 'saw the nakedness of his father,' and seems to have been wholly responsible (although, as already alluded to, some think that the actual sexual act was performed by Canaan). This caused Ham to be removed from receiving any blessing from Noah, and Canaan, his son, was pronounced to be the future father of servants. Putting it all together, it seems most likely that Canaan, Ham's son, was not involved in the act but the curse was placed upon him possibly because he was Ham's favourite son.
It is surely interesting that a state of drunkeness leads to another act of incest in Genesis. This was when Lot's daughters deliberately got their father drunk in order to have sex with him. It is recounted in Genesis 19:30-35. So this was paternal incest.