Create account

TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2044d
I'm not gonna watch any dumb video. Show me your maths.
replied 2044d
5.1×10^8 Km^2 * 8.848 km = 4.5*10^9km^3 of added water volume to the Earth. Where did it go after the flood?
replied 2044d
5.1×10^8 Km^2 * 8.848 km = 5.7km^3 of added water volume to the Earth. Where did it go after the flood?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2044d
A huge meteorite hitting the ocean could have made similar damages at similar scale. In both scenarios no changes of water volumes are required.
replied 2044d
Nope, that is false. It would not have caused a flood. We do know what that causes, and know when those event happened. Long before there were humans.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2040d
Sure. A meteorite hitting water won't move water. Logic isn't your strength isn't it?
replied 2040d
Move water, sure. Cause a tsunami, sure. Cause a global flood, no. Especially not one that puts Everest under water. There isn't enough water on Earth for that.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2040d
Somehow Mt. Everest is filled with fossilized marine shells.
replied 2040d
As it should be since that land was below the ocean when the Indian plate crashed into the Asian plate. This was far back, like the timeframes it takes for things to fossilize.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2044d
This can easily be explained by a change of the earth's suface geometry (mountains height and oceans depth).A rapid change could have simply trigger mass of water to move across lands
replied 2044d
How could that rapid change happen? Chemical differentiation happened long ago. Granite plates float of the mantel higher than basaltic plates. They dont suddenly sink into the mantle.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2040d
Keep digging.
replied 2040d
Oh, I have thoroughly refuted your ideas. The idea that the surface of the Earth disobeyed physics to cause the flood is absurd.