Anti-Neocons

nitpick: I hope he meant 4525000000000 m^3 because even with his reference numbers it comes out to like 4519321041 km^3

4525000000000 km^3 <-- insane
4525000000000 m^3 <-- more sane
4519321041 km^3 <-- my results with his numbers


I'm not sure how I feel about the data I keep getting for the earth dimensions. Is the diameter number listed all over the place supposed to be the earth at sea level at the equator or what? I don't get it.

In other words, what is the radius of the earth from sea level?

_________________
Is your view of the world in sync with what you 'know' about the world?

"The state breaks everything and then blames freedom.
The state destroys everything and then blames those who interact voluntarily for that destruction."
-- Stefan Molyneux

Wouldn't it be easier to use the circumference?

24,878 mi. (40,036 km)

This result is .071% more than the polar circumference and .098% less than the equatorial circumference.

MHz wrote:

Sure it would if I had any idea what that was the circumference of. Is it at sea level? At mean land mass height? Some point in the atmosphere?

_________________
Is your view of the world in sync with what you 'know' about the world?

"The state breaks everything and then blames freedom.
The state destroys everything and then blames those who interact voluntarily for that destruction."
-- Stefan Molyneux

How does it compute with the numbers given? Say it only rained on the land masses, that would make the total about 25% of what water would be needed to flood just the land 15 cubits deep, rather than the oceans and such getting rain that would be pretty much useless in terms of the purpose of the flood in the first place.

Well, if they had boats back then, then obviously heavy rain alone wouldn't be enough. My guess is, they would've gotten destroyed by the massive tsunamis that would've taken place, due to the ocean/sea floors shifting upwards. However, I'd think having a global monsoon, would cause some serious erosion, along with massive landslides. If the waters didn't submerge everything, I'd think erosions and landslides would've been enough to prevent people from escaping to the mountains.

If the rain was from evaporation of water in the seas there wouldn't be any increase in water, the recycling was just faster than before. If you could add high winds that could create some pretty high waves, (lower than mean height needed and get the mountain tops totally wet).



I would certainly agree that if the mountains were getting heavy rain nobody is going to be able to go against the current.

Ignoring the Bible time-line would be the other floods that would have happened as the ice-sheets receded. The seas are supposed to have risen about 140ft. The Bible only references 20ft, could even be the last of the retreat of the ice.

If the theory about the Sphinx being very old is correct it was standing before the rains stopped. That civilization would have been smarter and more capable than the descendants of the Ark (who built the tower at Babel), after that last incident we were even less capable.

Indeed, I had completely forgotten about the height of the waves with the wind factor. Although, I wouldn't argue that all the sea water would've evaporated to become the rain. Rather, I'd think that the sea floor would've risen to sea level, which in turn would've pushed the ocean water upwards, flooding the land.



Well, if all the ice caps and ice sheets melted completely today, the sea level would rise 260 ft.

What I'm really curious about though, is if you took all the water in the sea, and pushed it above sea level, how much land would it cover.



Yes, but that's if you use the Bible's genealogy, and interpret it to refer to each generation, instead of just key generations. If you interpret it as just referring to key generations, then you don't know how many generations are in between, and constructing a timeline would then be impossible. Then the only thing they could be used for is to lengthen the timeline, not shorten it.

This site gives this figure 321,000,000 cu.mi.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html That much water added to 50M sq.mi. is is about 1.6 times greater than 200, if 200 only brings up the water 20 ft then 1.6 times that is 32 ft

Are you sure 260 ft is correct, one site gives a much smaller estimate, assuming in 2100 there is very little ice left to be found.

"They estimated the accelerated melting of glaciers and ice caps will add from 10.2 to 24.1 centimeters (4.0-9.5 inches) to the sea level rise globally by 2100."
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_re ... 5037202007

The ice-sheets could have flooded the land via lakes held back with ice that finally failed. the speed of that water would give you a new 'landscape fairly quickly' if it comes through at 1/4 mi deep. Even faster water would be something like the Black Sea filling up with salt water, that flood was also permanent.

If I try and weasel more time out of the years given for lives and deaths I might try this. Part of Eve's punishment was pain during childbirth, plus it was greatly increased. That either means that brought it up to todays rate or just Eve had a different rate. Triplets would be more than a little common just for example. I'm not sure the size of the # of men is relative to how far advanced they were, the fallen angels would have been the ones to actually be capable of building huge monuments in a relative short time. Those would be the Horus type gods.

Egypt should have been from people that scattered after the Ark landed. That only leaves 850 years until exodus. (Even then if they were organized that is quite a bit of time) What if the monuments were already there, they just needed a little cleaning up and digging out, that would take much less time than having to do the actual construction. If not that, how about they were being built by people who had the same knowledge as the ones that were in Babel, which was the grandest tower that anybody built. Either case would require a smaller # of people.