DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Secular Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2337--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Piper Date: June 17, 2015, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]You guys. Kerry deleted his 'Kerry' account.
He's still here as 'Gaffer', but no longer a member on his own
forum. :-\
Here are some interesting paragraphs I read on this
topic:[/font]
[quote][font=times new roman]Mt. Everest and the Himalayan
range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the
Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of
ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the
Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These
rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia.
They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water
processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to
result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.
At the end of the Flood, after thick sequences of sediments had
accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided with
Asia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand
as giants—folded and fractured layers of ocean-bottom sediments
at high elevations. No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas,
it formed them!
Thus we find the Biblical account not only possible, but also
supported by the evidence. A pre-Flood world with lessened
topographic extremes could have been covered by the Great Flood.
That Flood caused today's high mountains and deep oceans making
such a flood impossible to repeat. This is just as God promised,
back in Genesis.[/font][/quote]
To read entire article, click the link:
HTML http://www.icr.org/article/did-noahs-flood-cover-himalayan-mountains/
HTML http://www.icr.org/article/did-noahs-flood-cover-himalayan-mountains/
#Post#: 2338--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Piper Date: June 17, 2015, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Amadeus link=topic=265.msg2336#msg2336
date=1434577636]
[font=courier]Gaffer is not Mike..., really?[/font]
[/quote]
[font=trebuchet ms]No. Gaffer is the name Kerry uses for his
admin account. [/font]
HTML http://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com/new-board-7/new-developments/msg839/#msg839
HTML http://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com/new-board-7/new-developments/msg839/#msg839
[font=trebuchet ms]He must've forgotten to switch over when he
opened the thread. I think he thought no one interested in the
topic, but perhaps it was just bad timing; I, for example, was
dealing with my own flooding in my basement at the time, and my
driveway is still impassable; water (rain), as in the article I
linked, can certainly move earth. And rock. And stone. ::)
Hope Kerry returns soon. I DO appreciate the way he set up
this site, giving us all space to be true to ourselves. We all
know we are a mixed group, here. But I value all of you as
friends, regardless of specific belief.[/font]
#Post#: 2339--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Piper Date: June 17, 2015, 5:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[font=trebuchet ms]Mike, btw, is no longer a member here by his
own volition, John.
Mike did originally open this site, but then closed it, and
later gave it over to Kerry's ministering.
We're an interesting bunch of bananas aren't we? ;D[/font]
#Post#: 2340--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: bradley Date: June 17, 2015, 9:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No doubt at one time Gaffer "was" Mike before he turned the site
over to Kerry. So that might be how the thought came to be.
#Post#: 2344--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Amadeus Date: June 18, 2015, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=bradley link=topic=265.msg2340#msg2340
date=1434594171]
No doubt at one time Gaffer "was" Mike before he turned the site
over to Kerry. So that might be how the thought came to be.
[/quote]
[font=courier]No wonder so many people... especially me... are
so confused.[/font]
#Post#: 2345--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: bradley Date: June 18, 2015, 10:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was Mike as well.
#Post#: 2349--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Gaffer Date: June 19, 2015, 6:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll answer my own questions and bore everyone some more. But
first let me say I did not ask about land masses moving up or
down, past, present or future. Nor did I ask about Noah's
flood or how much water there may have been then. For all I
know maybe there was more water then and it blew off the planet
somehow. Also since water is also only hydrogen and oxygen,
there is no absolute guarantee that it's always going to be in
the form of water. I frankly assume that most the hydrogen found
in hydocarbons today was found in as part of molecules of
something else before becoming hydrocarbons. We also have
reason to believe that the oxygen level on earth has changed
drastically over time. Those are complex issues, and my
question was not about them; but we can discuss them later. But
I'd like an honest yes or no answer to my direct question first.
If we can't agree on how things are now, why bother trying to
figure out anything in the past? If we can't see with our eyes
today what is true now, why try to use the Bible to figure out
things in the past? Let me paraphrase what Jesus told
Nicodemus: If we can't understand the earthly, what hope do we
have of understanding the heavenly?
First let's take all the water in the atmosphere. Very little
water is in our atmosphere today, just 0.0001% -- 3,095 cubic
miles. In comparison, 96.54% is in the oceans -- not counting
rivers, groundwell, etc., just oceans -- 321,000,000 cubic
miles.
If all 3100 (rounding off the 3095) cubic miles of water fell as
rain, it would raise the water level around the world one inch.
What about glaciers and the like? The estimate at
water.usgs.gov
HTML http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html
(where I got the
other numbers also) is 5,773,000 cubic miles, a lot more than
what is in the atmosphere but still relatively small compared to
the water in the oceans -- 1.74% of the total water on the
planet. They don't give an estimate there how much the ocean
level would rise if it all melted; but you could do the math to
get some rough figures. But let me go to another site for
that. Edmond Mathez
HTML http://www.amnh.org/ology/features/askascientist/question18.php<br
/>estimates 230 feet.
If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain
glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise
about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the
coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly. But
many cities, such as Denver, would survive.
. . .
One way to approach the problem of not understanding the process
is to study how sea level changed in the past. Earth is nearly
as warm now as it was during the last interglacial period, about
125,000 years ago. At that time, sea level was 4 to 6 meters
(13-20 feet) higher. It seems that this higher sea level was due
to the melting Greenland and West Antarctic ice caps.
Perhaps a similar sea level rise is our future. We don't know.
We also don't know how rapidly sea level could rise. Will a
4-meter (13-foot) increase take 200, 500, or even 1,000 years?
This is a question that a number of scientists are now trying to
answer by studying how ice moves.
While a small rise in the ocean level would affect coastal areas
and probably mean some cities could go out of existence, one
thing we do not need to fear is that all the world's land is
going to be flooded by melting ice from global warming. If
global warming is true, the threat is not global flooding.
So the answer is simple. No, there is not enough water now in
the atmosphere and ice to flood the whole earth. And I wonder
why people couldn't say as much? Even if the estimates are
off wildly, even if they underestimate it by a factor of ten,
there isn't enough water to raise the sea level even half a
mile.
#Post#: 2350--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Gaffer Date: June 19, 2015, 8:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Amadeus link=topic=265.msg2325#msg2325
date=1434381406]
Start from nothing, Mike and then simply trust in the God in
whom you do believe to help you as He will. All of the knowledge
of men will tie into the things of God, or so I believe, but let
us not attempt to do the tying. We, in ourselves, will err in
the doing.
You are looking for something that only God is able to provide.
Remember all to the questions that God put to Job? He purposely
asked questions to which He knew Job did not have the answers.
Have you not done the same thing with 'water'?[/quote]God gave
us eyes and ears and minds, and we should use them. Next
you'll be asking me to question if I live on the earth. "Earth
to Amadeus, come in Amadeus." You assumed I was Mike, and on
what evidence? Hmmm?
And no, I do not think I am doing what Job did.
[quote]Some may have an answer or be able to find answers in
books or on the Internet or in the ideas and calculations of
men, but why would any of those answers be the best answers? Do
we trust some men more than others? [/quote]I've studied enough
math and science to know about estimates, that numbers given are
seldom known to be trusted implicitly. I also know that when
estimates are given, they are often right with a margin of
error. What I see is if the numbers of scientists are wrong by
a factor of ten, if they estimated the amount of water to be
just one tenth of what it really is, there still isn't enough
water to raise the sea level a half a mile. One need not know
the exact amount of water with complete precision to draw the
conclusion. A person without a measuring cup or calculator
can look at water in a pan and say, "There is not enough water
in that pan to boil eggs in it." Nor does that person need to
ask God if there is enough water in the pan to boil eggs.
[quote]Now you have decided to close your mouth because your
thread did not become the most popular. Shutting our mouth for a
season can be a good thing, but don't let be as Elijah running
away and hiding himself from what he did not like or was unable
to understand in his world.[/quote]
I have never been the most popular person anywhere I was or at
any time. This is an irrelevant personal comment, way off
topic, and you didn't even know who I was. You couldn't or
wouldn't answer the question, just like everyone else; but you
then pretended to know things about me. That's very sad,
Amadeus.
[quote]All of us at times have felt sorry for ourselves because
things have not gone as we would like to believe that they
should have gone. Is this a good reason to say to yourself or to
God or to your friends: 'Stop the world, I want to get
off!"[/quote]Actually I was angry when I posted before.
Strange how poorly people can "read" me. In other forums,
other people have accused me of being angry when I was not.
Then when I really am angry, people think I'm feeling sorry for
myself. No, no, no. I feel sorry for you and some others here;
and I was angry at the people who completely ignored the thread.
Mike, when he set up the site, invited many people to
participate. Honesty requires us to admit he included some
"problematical" people. He promised them they could say
anything here and not be banned. I would have thought people
would have jumped at that; but it seems many did not. My goal,
when taking over the site, was to keep that promise made by
Mike. Perhaps it's a mistake to admit it; but I still intend
to keep that promise not to ban anyone -- if he or she is an
original member who had that promise made to him or her. Be as
outrageous as you want, I won't ban you. I may do other
things, but I won't ban you.
I was angry at them. I have sent out notices announcing topics,
trying to get more people to participate. I was angry about
that and I probably won't send out any more notices.
I was also angry and remain angry at members who showed up for
a while and then have disappeared. Yes, I'm angry, and I may do
something about it. Some pretended to be so supportive at
first, pretended to be encouraging; but where are they now? I
wish they'd have the balls to delete their accounts to be
honest. I can't ban them because of the promise, but I wish
they'd be honest enough about it to delete their accounts. I'm
through trying to entice them back by announcing topics.
[quote]I am going quote a scripture here and please read it and
with you do have in you ask of God for help in applying it to
yourself:
"Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in
whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content." Phil 4:11
You really have been and are blessed, Mike. Don't run yourself
down because you think that things should have been or should be
better! Give God the glory always![/quote]
Yes, if I bore people, I should be content knowing that. It is
obvious -- as plain as the nose on your face -- that people here
are not interested in my opinions or even that much in reality.
I asked a question and people pretended I had asked a
different question. It reminded me of how some married couples
carry on odd conversations.
Husband: "Do you know how much money we have in our checking
account?"
Wife: "I didn't buy anything that wasn't necessary."
Was my question unclear? I asked how much water there is -- is
-- now -- in reality here and now -- in the world. Is there
enough to cover the earth if all the water vapor fell as rain
and all the ice melted. I thought it a clearly worded
question, one that could be answered easily yes or no.
Matthew 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay:
for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
I did manage to get a "yes" from Patrick but he was talking
about Genesis and his interpretation of it. He reminded me of
the Pope who put Galileo in prison for saying the sun didn't go
round the earth.
Everyone seemed to want to dodge the question. That tells me
or suggests it anyway that people's faith might be shaken if
they faced facts. Facts are threats. I have more faith in
God than to fear facts. I know I have many unusual ideas; and
I am so sure of them that I can predict confidently that someday
science will prove what I believe. Science doesn't undermine
my interpretations of the Bible. If it did, I'd have to wonder
if maybe my interpretations were wrong -- just as the Catholic
Church got around to admitting Pope Urban VIII's interpretation
of the Bible was wrong. I do not mock them for admitting that
a Pope made a mistake. I congratulate them.
So why do people put so much "faith" in the belief of a literal
(by the letter) interpretation of Genesis? Aren't they
deterred by what Jesus said about the letter killing? What is
their faith in then? I begin to wonder. I am troubled. I
wonder if they are willingly ignorant, choosing to hold onto a
tradition taught to them.
2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by
the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing
out of the water and in the water:
Now my own opinion is that Peter is talking about the three
heavens in that passage, one of fire, one of upper water and one
of lower water; and when I read about Noah's ark with its three
levels, I think I see something about what Peter is talking
about. And it's not physical water.
I also wonder if people are reducing sections of the Bible to
"Jewish fables."
Titus 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of
men, that turn from the truth.
Spiritually, how much water is there -- if people want to talk
about that? I'd say that can be known. The ancient Jewish
Tradition says the ratio of "the earth" to the heavens is 1 to
7, that the physical earth is 1/8 of the total. That is all
they say; but I go on to say half of the total is the Third
Heaven of Fire. The Second Heaven of Air which is 1/4 of the
total; and then there is the lowest Heaven of Lower Waters (the
sea of iniquity to use Colin's phrase) which is 1/8 and the
earth which is the same. Thus the ratio of earth to water is 1
to 4.
#Post#: 2351--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Gaffer Date: June 19, 2015, 8:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Patrick link=topic=265.msg2335#msg2335
date=1434573172]
how much water is there?
in the beginning was God
and God created darkness
and in he darkness angels were created and dwell [/quote]
I was not asking about the past. I was asking here and now.
[quote]a globe of water formed within the holy spirit
[[ the holy spirit was above the waters]][/quote]
Would you say there is a also globe of water under the whore of
Babylon?
Revelation 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had
the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come
hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore
that sitteth upon many waters:
[quote]light appeared
and the globe of water opened
some to form the firmament
this allowed "LAND" to be seen
from within the water
how much water is there ???
enough to have all the land within it !
[/quote]The question was not in the past tense. I asked how
much water there is now, and you did not answer that.. There
are also objections to your theory. One you assume that all
the hydrogen and oxygen then in water would still be in the same
form? The other is you seem to assume Genesis is talking about
physical water?
There is an American Indian tradition that says crow went down
into the ocean and brought up the land. I think I understand
that -- even agree with it. But I'm not sure I understand what
you're saying.
#Post#: 2352--------------------------------------------------
Re: How much water is there in the whole world?
By: Gaffer Date: June 19, 2015, 8:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Piper link=topic=265.msg2337#msg2337
date=1434578519]
[font=trebuchet ms]You guys. Kerry deleted his 'Kerry' account.
He's still here as 'Gaffer', but no longer a member on his own
forum. :-\
Here are some interesting paragraphs I read on this
topic:[/font]
[quote]Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps,
the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the
world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments,
full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest
itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover
an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every
indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes. These
are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the
worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.
At the end of the Flood, after thick sequences of sediments had
accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided with
Asia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand
as giants—folded and fractured layers of ocean-bottom sediments
at high elevations. No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas,
it formed them!
Thus we find the Biblical account not only possible, but also
supported by the evidence. A pre-Flood world with lessened
topographic extremes could have been covered by the Great Flood.
That Flood caused today's high mountains and deep oceans making
such a flood impossible to repeat. This is just as God promised,
back in Genesis.[/quote]
To read entire article, click the link:
HTML http://www.icr.org/article/did-noahs-flood-cover-himalayan-mountains/
HTML http://www.icr.org/article/did-noahs-flood-cover-himalayan-mountains/
[/quote]There are several problems with this. One is that if
we interpret Genesis literally, Genesis says there were
mountains that were covered by the water. It does not say land
moved up making mountains. It says water came up from below and
down from above.
The other problem is that the limestone found on top of Mount
Everest is from the Ordovician period and is estimated to be
at least 400 million years old and many of the species of marine
life found fossilized are extinct now.
Why did they go extinct? From earth.usc.edu
HTML http://earth.usc.edu/~stott/Catalina/Ordovician.html:
1. One idea was that it was the breakup and movement of the
large super continent into many fragments. However, modern
biology teaches us that this would not likely lead to
extinctions, rather it would provide additional niche space for
groups to expand into.
2. The more likely cause is that the Earth cooled, particularly
the oceans where most of the organisms lived during the
Ordovician (Remember there were no land plants and no evidence
of land organisms yet). All the extinctions occurred in the
oceans.
The greatest extinctions occurred in the tropical oceans. This
makes sense since if the oceans cooled because of the
development of a large ice sheet over the south polar region,
the organisms adapted to warmer tropical conditions would have
few options and perhaps no where to migrate to. There would be
fewer regions warm enough to accommodate all the warm-preferring
organisms. This tends to support the idea that cooling lead to
many of the extinctions.
No land plants yet and no land animals. The fossils found in
the limestone are not from right before Noah's flood.
Another problem is the age of Mount Everest. I think it's
current rate of change is adding about 0.2 of an inch a year.
It's still rising as the two tectonic plates push into one
another, and the theory that the limestone getting up there in a
few thousand years would mean at some point it was rising at a
tremendously fast speed but most scientists estimate it's 60
million years old.
Then we could jump in time to when coal was being formed. That
was about 300 million years ago. We find things that aren't
around anymore
HTML http://www.mnh.si.edu/highlight/riola/
-- "6-foot-long
millipedes and dragonflies with yard-long wingspans." "Giant
tree ferns would have formed a lower canopy 30 feet high. Poking
up through the ferns would have been 100-foot-tall clubmosses —
asparagus-like poles that sprouted crowns full of spores.
"What's extraordinary about this discovery is that this forest
has been preserved in its growth position," said Falcon-Lang.
"It's an upright forest with trees still standing upright."
If scientists are wrong about dating these fossils, where are
these things today? Why didn't Noah take the 6 foot long
millipedes with him?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page