Flood Theory

[Matt from Akron]

RMB Furion wrote:

Bob, has any evidence been searched for? Say... like air pockets that didn't fully collapse deep under the crust? Oh wait, I remember hearing about a cavity somewhere
"A hole was drilled deep into the crust of the earth in Siberia and a large cavity was found"

Are you going to provide a link? Or are you just going to spout totally unsupported crap?

[Darwins Stepchild]

RMB Furion wrote:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/ rumors/d/drilltohellfacts.htm
The only part of this I am looking at is the fact that a cavity at that depth was found, which substantiates a feasibility.

What do you mean by "large cavity"? 100 feet across may count.

To hold all the water of the Flood, a cavity would have to be about ONE BILLION CUBIC MILES. Cavities like that WOULD show up on seismic tests.

You are living in fantasy land again.

[Nuggin]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you mean by "large cavity"? 100 feet across may count.
To hold all the water of the Flood, a cavity would have to be about ONE BILLION CUBIC MILES. Cavities like that WOULD show up on seismic tests.
You are living in fantasy land again.

RMB, like all the other Creationists, suffers from "Fantasy Prone Personality Disorder".

Basically, for him the least amount of evidence is the most correct.

So, we point out that there's no way you can fit that much water on the Earth - not sufficient.

Someone else points out, hey someone found a cave once - completely sufficient.

He's clearly a high school student (freshman? sophomore?), he hasn't taken basic physics, or if he has, he's failed it.

His conclusions are based on how he believes the world works rather than some (REALLY) simple calculations.

Go back a few pages to see my baseball/truck analogy. He just doesn't get the math involved.

Explaining to him that a 100meter cave can't hold 100,000,000 billion gallons of water just isn't gonna click for him.

His mental capacity is basically this: "Both are big".

"Bigger" - not in his vocabulary

[Dr Sausage]

RMB Furion wrote:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/ rumors/d/drilltohellfacts.htm
The only part of this I am looking at is the fact that a cavity at that depth was found, which substantiates a feasibility.

Time to give it up. The Hydroplate Theory is implausible, as has been shown.

[RMB Furion]

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
What do you mean by "large cavity"? 100 feet across may count.
To hold all the water of the Flood, a cavity would have to be about ONE BILLION CUBIC MILES. Cavities like that WOULD show up on seismic tests.
You are living in fantasy land again.

You absolutely cannot mention the hydrogen caught in the EM field n the same sentence can you or you would admit that water was held back in more ways than one until something caused the two dams to break...

Why is it that you do not even WANT to believe that a global flood IS possible? Did the global flood scientists hypothesize about mars happen? HELL NO, because there IS NO WATER on that planet. YET, THIS planet has ENOUGH water to globally flood everything GIVEN circumstances that YOU say couldn't be possible on the grounds of a geography that you DO NOT KNOW ABOUT.

One... YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE OCEAN'S DEPTH WAS BACK AT THAT TIME

Two... YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE GEOGRAPHICAL HEIGHT OF ANYTHING BACK AT THAT TIME

And Three... You are not presenting any reasons why it would be impossible for a one time event such as that to ever take place given your lack of knowledge on the geographics of the time. It's like me saying that the twin towers never existed because there is nothing but ground zero on there now.

[RMB Furion]

Hydroplate Theory, Hydrogen in Electromagnetic Field Disruption Theory, and the Ark are pretty much a part of the Flood Theory cluster dealing with Earth.

This Theory is only as implausible as Evolution of species and Evolution of the Solar System due to the fact that it has never been observed by human eyes in this day and age.

[Darwins Stepchild]

RMB Furion wrote:

<quoted text>
You absolutely cannot mention the hydrogen caught in the EM field n the same sentence can you or you would admit that water was held back in more ways than one until something caused the two dams to break...
Why is it that you do not even WANT to believe that a global flood IS possible? Did the global flood scientists hypothesize about mars happen? HELL NO, because there IS NO WATER on that planet. YET, THIS planet has ENOUGH water to globally flood everything GIVEN circumstances that YOU say couldn't be possible on the grounds of a geography that you DO NOT KNOW ABOUT.
One... YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE OCEAN'S DEPTH WAS BACK AT THAT TIME
Two... YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THE GEOGRAPHICAL HEIGHT OF ANYTHING BACK AT THAT TIME
And Three... You are not presenting any reasons why it would be impossible for a one time event such as that to ever take place given your lack of knowledge on the geographics of the time. It's like me saying that the twin towers never existed because there is nothing but ground zero on there now.

RMB...you are delusional. YOU have no idea of the energy required to do what you claim. If the Earth changed by that much, in that short of time, the crust would still be molten from all the heat released.

Everything you propose is a rationalization with no basis in fact. They are fantasies that are impossible. If you understood even a tiny bit of chemistry or geology, you would understand this. But, no, you would rather hold onto you myth and believe in magic.

[RMB Furion]

Show me the data of the heat and energy, accounting for the atmosphere and the frosting of super hot water vapor from the upper atmosphere. Make sure it's a dot org source so it will be reliable

[MIDutch]

RMB Furion wrote:

This Theory is only as implausible as Evolution of species and Evolution of the Solar System due to the fact that it has never been observed by human eyes in this day and age.

Mr. RMB Furion, I hate to point this out, but Washington crossing the Delaware "has never been observed by human eyes in this day and age."

The building of the Pyramids "has never been observed by human eyes in this day and age".

Electrons "[have] never been observed by human eyes in this day and age"

Black holes "[have] never been observed by human eyes in this day and age".

Jesus "has never been observed by human eyes in this day and age".

Pardon me for asking, but what's your point?

[MIDutch]

RMB Furion wrote:

Hydroplate Theory, Hydrogen in Electromagnetic Field Disruption Theory, and the Ark are pretty much a part of the Flood Theory cluster dealing with Earth.

Mr/ RMB Furion, would you happen to have any scientific EVIDENCE in support of these "theories"? Evidence for the ark is, of course, non existent so we know that one, and the Hydroplate "theory" is more like a "vague feasibility study" than a formal theory, so we know about that one, too.

So what is the Hydrogen in Electromagnetic Field Disruption Theory and what is the evidence in support of it?

Also, you forgot the "Variable Speed of Light Makes the Universe Look Younger by a Factor of 2,333,333 (14 billion years/6,000 years) Theory".

Wow, I wish my math classes back in college would have accepted answers off by factor of only 2,333,333.

[Wayne]

RMB Furion wrote:

Hydroplate Theory, Hydrogen in Electromagnetic Field Disruption Theory, and the Ark are pretty much a part of the Flood Theory cluster dealing with Earth.
This Theory is only as implausible as Evolution of species and Evolution of the Solar System due to the fact that it has never been observed by human eyes in this day and age.

Keep up the good fight RMB, the heathens will wail and the cretins will cringe at the word of God. All they can do is scoff at you.

[Wayne]

Dr Sausage wrote:

<quoted text>
Time to give it up. The Hydroplate Theory is implausible, as has been shown.

So? The evolution theory is implausible also but you believe THAT old chestnut, right?

[Nuggin]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
So? The evolution theory is implausible also but you believe THAT old chestnut, right?

Wayne, you've made this claim somewhere on the order of 100x now. Yet, not once have you given us any reason to believe this claim.

So far your "proof" that evolution is false are as follows:

1) Wayne doesn't believe in or understand evolution
2) Evolution (like computers) is not mentioned in the Bible
3) Some people in the past did believe in evolution

That's it.

If you go back and read this thread (you won't, I'm saying that for other readers) you will see that RMB presented several claims - we addressed his claims with SPECIFIC reasoning why his claims were wrong.

That's because we UNDERSTAND the claims he's making, we understand why he is wrong, we understand what reality is, and we can explain the differences.

In your case, not so much.

You haven't got the first clue what evolution is, but you know you don't like it.

I guess you never got up to "Green Eggs and Ham" before you dropped out.

Ask your uncle/dad to read it to you

[RMB Furion]

MIDutch wrote:

<quoted text>
Mr. RMB Furion, I hate to point this out, but Washington crossing the Delaware "has never been observed by human eyes in this day and age."
The building of the Pyramids "has never been observed by human eyes in this day and age".
Electrons "[have] never been observed by human eyes in this day and age"
Black holes "[have] never been observed by human eyes in this day and age".
Jesus "has never been observed by human eyes in this day and age".
Pardon me for asking, but what's your point?

Mr MIDutch, Thank you for posing that, it actually does help my point slightly. The point is, that "this day and age" we only know what was recorded as History. If someone were try and say that something didn't happen, they would have to make sure that it is historically accurate. Saying that the flood never happened has no historical basis whatsoever because history as it recorded in the bible, and 720 different cultures around the entire world. Saying that it was only a minor flood also is incorrect because that would mean scientists would be falsifying themselves because all of the people in the entire world could not have been inside that single flooded region at once. Evolution itself, according to Darwinists and only Darwinists say that there was Abiogenesis. The only reason that Darwinists make sure that it is thought that there couldn't have been a flood on a planet that has so much water that it would have been possible, is because they want to deny that the historical writings are factual and that there ever could have been someone on a higher plane of existence whom created us. Or as someone else said, they want to deny that there was a drowning punishment for wickedness upon the earth.

The historical evidence is recorded, but Darwinists do not believe in history apparently as I have seen.

[Matt from Akron]

RMB Furion wrote:

Show me the data of the heat and energy, accounting for the atmosphere and the frosting of super hot water vapor from the upper atmosphere. Make sure it's a dot org source so it will be reliable

What makes a "dot org" site automatically more reliable than a "dot com"?

[RMB Furion]

organization or .org, military or .mil, and other sites such as those are more into actually doing research, whereas commercial sites or .com sites can easily have false or misleading information.

[ZekeCDN]

RMB Furion wrote:

organization or .org, military or .mil, and other sites such as those are more into actually doing research, whereas commercial sites or .com sites can easily have false or misleading information.

Wrong. ANYONE, including an individual can register a .org domain.

.edu MIGHT be a better bet ... if you watch out for URLS like bju.edu !

[Matt from Akron]

RMB Furion wrote:

organization or .org, military or .mil, and other sites such as those are more into actually doing research, whereas commercial sites or .com sites can easily have false or misleading information.

Just because a site has .org after its name means nothing. Ever look at 911truth.org ? Not a lick of truth in that delusional whackjob site.

[Primewonk]

RMB Furion wrote:

<quoted text>
...Saying that the flood never happened has no historical basis whatsoever because history as it recorded in the bible, and 720 different cultures around the entire world. Saying that it was only a minor flood also is incorrect because that would mean scientists would be falsifying themselves because all of the people in the entire world could not have been inside that single flooded region at once...

All civilizations/societies/tribes etc. that built near lakes, rivers, oceans, etc. have had floods.

Your claim that all these cultures reports floods at the same time is false. In fact, your claim about this is evidence AGAINST your biblical claim. According to your god, he was pissed and decided to kill everyone and everything not on the Ark. So who recorded all these other flood stories? According to your god, there should have been no one left alive. So the options are - your god was wrong, and he couldn't kill every one; your god lied, and he didn't kill everyone; or, there was no global flood.

[Dr Sausage]

Primewonk wrote:

<quoted text>
According to your god, he was pissed and decided to kill everyone and everything not on the Ark. So who recorded all these other flood stories?

Good point. There are supposedly flood stories in nearly every culture (although NOT all global floods), but if Noah and his family were the only ones alive, then you'd think the flood stories would originate from them and then passed on to different cultures throughout the ages. Unfortunately, the stories bare little similarity to each other, which again is trouble for the Christians.

Flood Myths:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.h...