(September 28, 2013 at 7:16 am)John V Wrote:

(September 23, 2013 at 3:00 am)cato123 Wrote: Fuck your pseudo-intellectual quandry.

I want to know where all the fucking water went!

Into the oceans. Same amount of water can flood the world, or leave exposed land, depending on topography. YEC models typically have a single land mass before the flood, with tectonic action only happening during or after the flood. There were greater differences between the highest mountain and the lowest sea canyon after the flood than before.

This is beyond stupid. Even Statler Waldorf had to agree that the only possible solution to getting rid of all the water was to have god poof it out of existence.

(September 28, 2013 at 12:23 pm)John V Wrote: Why?

To submerge the earth up to the top of every mountain would require that much water. Mount Everest is almost 4 1/2 miles in the sky. the average depth of the ocean is just over 2 1/2 miles deep. Water covers 70% of our planet and equates to about 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons. Imagine going 4.5 miles above sea level.

Source: oceanservice.noaa.gov

(September 28, 2013 at 1:48 pm)searching4truth Wrote: To submerge the earth up to the top of every mountain would require that much water. Mount Everest is almost 4 1/2 miles in the sky. the average depth of the ocean is just over 2 1/2 miles deep. Water covers 70% of our planet and equates to about 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons. Imagine going 4.5 miles above sea level.

Source: oceanservice.noaa.gov

Did you not actually read what I said?

Quote:YEC models typically have a single land mass before the flood, with tectonic action only happening during or after the flood. There were greater differences between the highest mountain and the lowest sea canyon after the flood than before.

I.e., YEC models have lower mountains before the flood.

How much lower? Can you site your source? I don't put much stock in YEC models but I'll be open-minded about your information. Although even at, let's say 60% reduction of mount Everest, that's still over 2 1/2 miles high. so now you have about 5 miles from ocean floor to the top of Everest with 60% reduction by 200,000,000 square miles. Still lots of water

(September 28, 2013 at 2:22 pm)searching4truth Wrote: How much lower? Can you site your source? I don't put much stock in YEC models but I'll be open-minded about your information. Although even at, let's say 60% reduction of mount Everest, that's still over 2 1/2 miles high. so now you have about 5 miles from ocean floor to the top of Everest with 60% reduction by 200,000,000 square miles. Still lots of water

Here's one link:
http://www.icr.org/article/520/

Quote:It has been calculated that if the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet.

For one supercontinent to become several continents, in just 40 days time, would, at the very least, require a surface which is virtually molten. You can't have a molten surface and oceans at the same time. I guess geologists have just been pretending that all visible rock is more than 6000 years old because you can't like rocks without hating God.

(September 28, 2013 at 2:57 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 28, 2013 at 2:22 pm)searching4truth Wrote: How much lower? Can you site your source? I don't put much stock in YEC models but I'll be open-minded about your information. Although even at, let's say 60% reduction of mount Everest, that's still over 2 1/2 miles high. so now you have about 5 miles from ocean floor to the top of Everest with 60% reduction by 200,000,000 square miles. Still lots of water

Here's one link:
http://www.icr.org/article/520/

Quote:It has been calculated that if the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet.

According to your own Bible there were mountains at that time. Stop trying to justify your belief in this fairy tale. Get your ass off of Bullshit Mountain.

It's creationist relativity at work. The equation consists of the mythology, the science and reality. The mythology is a constant and the science is often tricky to manipulate convincingly. That only leaves reality as the mutable factor; therefore it must be the physical Universe that's unreliable. Result: reality dilation.

Quote:Did you not actually read what I said?

I'm sure he merely couldn't believe his eyes. You have now crossed over into The Twilight Zone.

John... you can't use a creation source to prove your argument. That's like using the Bible to prove the Bible or a Harry Potter novel to prove Hogwarts is a real place. This theory of yours just isn't going to stretch.