I was about the same age when I went off into the mountains gold panning when it started to rain heavily. I spent 4 days and 3 nights in an old mine shaft with no food and a sprained ankle until the rain let up and I could safely walk down the creek I walked up.
Especially when it is held at a constant 98.6F
That's not true, he just doesn't ignore the rest of the story, as you seem to wish to do.
Of course it is, it's myth, story and legend, touted as fact by the believers. Water seeks to level itself out, you can actually prove that in your own kitchen or bathroom. Hell, all I did was look out at the lake and poof, there it was, level. With depths ranging from 1" to 100'. By your logic, it should be an unnavigable undulating mess.
Nice try, you're trying to say that a wave or surge is a static thing. It isn't, the wave dies and the water attempts to level out again, when the wave loses its energy.
No. The key word being "dry". I'm sure even back then "dry" meant "dry".
I've walked more paths then the average veteran hiker.
Why? One seeks the survive, the other merely explore a strange new world.
Pain played a big role for me as well.
Re-read his post.
So you are promoting a flat-earth, a lake or ocean is part of an arc.
How much longer before tides cease to exist?
All beaches have wet sand an drier sand just a few feet away, both are considered to be dry land.
No more spiritual paths than anyone though. It takes many turns and bends and it even has dead-ends and thus backtracking.
The desire is the same, to know the most about their surroundings in the least amount of time, the method they use is exactly the same.
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear
Of course it is, it's myth, story and legend, touted as fact by the believers. Water seeks to level itself out, you can actually prove that in your own kitchen or bathroom. Hell, all I did was look out at the lake and poof, there it was, level. With depths ranging from 1" to 100'. By your logic, it should be an unnavigable undulating mess.
Where did I say that? Sometimes I wonder why I bother ever trying to explain anything to you, you twist everybody's words to mean whatever you want them to mean, ignore what they plainly say, and invent things they don't say. I have never said rain played no part, my first post in this thread acknowledged that the Bible mentions both rain and apparently an overland flood. Subsequent posts focused on trying to get you to think about the origin and disappearance of the volume of water necessary to cover all the mountains, and saying it was rain or an overland flood or both isn't an answer. That's the delivery mechanism, not the source. It requires over 3 times the volume of surface water currently on the planet, you're claiming it came and went in a space of less than a year only a few thousand years ago, and implicitly that it left no signs on the planet's surface. All you can do is invoke a supernatural explanation that defies well-known physics of how liquids behave. That's not much of an answer either.
That formula would be useful in finding the depth a strong wind could dig. Rather than soap on the surface in the Bitter Lake the waves would be stirring up sediment making the water/air interaction even more effective.
Back in this quote " The volume of the oceans is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers, to cover the earth to the depth of Mt. Everest would require about another 4.5 billion cubic kilometers." That isn't anything about rain it is purely about making that much water appear and disappear. That isn't promoted by any verse that makes up that story. That method, rising water from sea level, would not be a 'fountain' although the amount of water needed to cover the land with that much rain would most likely be observed because of the high rate. That is why I was saying the part that the Bible emphases most is the one you spend the least amount of time on. It is in my own interest to get you to pay more attention to the rain part of the story.
In full or per some square?
If rain fell and it stayed in place so water covered all of the land and tides move with the moon would it have flowed a lot further inland than would be 'normal'. Some method has to be found that gets the Ark high above sea-level if it is to ground out at a high elevation. A tide coming across the MED would be greater if it gained power from the Atlantic, today it is choked off. A strong wind on the side of the Ark would also help travel 'uphill'.
But it doesn't, it flows to the lowest level it can reach, so for it to overtop Everest it has to be that deep over the entire planet. I don't really see the sense of trying to apply scientific reasoning to parts of this story and not others though, you're clearly claiming it was a supernatural event where the usual rules didn't apply. If you do that you can assume anything you want, limited only by your imagination, and simply claim the deity did it. That's really all you're doing anyway, though you try to throw a few numbers and some rudimentary analysis in now and then to make it look respectable. The reality is that Noah's global flood didn't happen.
