The biblical flood date

[Jac3510]

ACB, as a non-scientist, I have what I hope is a simple question for you:

If glaciers are "stuck" to the rocks they are sitting on top of--and I can imagine that, I suppose, as I've had to pry ice (with some effort!) out of my ice-maker before--can you explain to me how such "stuck" glaciers can move across those same rocks? It would seem to me that if they move then, by definition, they are not stuck. So where have I misunderstood your claim?

[abelcainsbrother]

ACB, as a non-scientist, I have what I hope is a simple question for you:

If glaciers are "stuck" to the rocks they are sitting on top of--and I can imagine that, I suppose, as I've had to pry ice (with some effort!) out of my ice-maker before--can you explain to me how such "stuck" glaciers can move across those same rocks? It would seem to me that if they move then, by definition, they are not stuck. So where have I misunderstood your claim?

They can be both stuck or more floating depending on the climate,so that if the climate is such that the glacier is stuck and frozen it won't move,but if because of the climate it is not stuck down but more floating it can move some.The climate is the difference maker.

[Jac3510]

I assume they can't be "both stuck or more floating" at the same time, so you are saying that at one time they could be stuck and at another time they could be moving. So how much colder does it have to be globally in order for all the glaciers to get stuck down? Let's take 2015 as a convenient reference point, which I read had an average global temperature of about 59 degrees F. How much lower in F would global temperatures need to be for all the glaciers to be non-moving and "stuck"? Just a simple number, please, with your scientific reference would be helpful (i.e., at least 10 degrees F colder global average, according to thispaper.site).

[Audie]

I've sort of wondered Why there is so much Strong disbelief in the Bible -- on Audie's part.

.

You are misunderstanding me. This is a narrow focus on one thing, it is not about the whole bible.

If one chooses to think it is make -or - break, that if there was no global flood
then "the bible is false", too bad for them, whether they then reject the bible on that account,
or embrace global flood, despite the awful nonsense and falsehoods necessary
to cling to the belief.

Neither is a very educated, productive or thoughtful course of action.

It kind of bothers me to see it.

There is a larger context for why it is important, but I will leave that out.

[Audie]

I assume they can't be "both stuck or more floating" at the same time, so you are saying that at one time they could be stuck and at another time they could be moving. So how much colder does it have to be globally in order for all the glaciers to get stuck down? Let's take 2015 as a convenient reference point, which I read had an average global temperature of about 59 degrees F. How much lower in F would global temperatures need to be for all the glaciers to be non-moving and "stuck"? Just a simple number, please, with your scientific reference would be helpful (i.e., at least 10 degrees F colder global average, according to thispaper.site).

If I may interject here, the body of ice, sometimes miles thick is not going to
respond to warmer and cooler years.

They are in constant motion, year round. The movement of ice is very complex,
of course.

But let us say some particular glacier gets frozen down, stuck fast. Lets make it an old one inAntarctica, ice that profoundly predates any possible biblical events.

Consider the adhesive power of an ice cube stuck to a rock at say minus 50 C.

How strong might that be?

A quick n dirty calculation suggests that five miles of ice would have a buoyant force of about
132,000 lbs per sq. ft beyond the amount needed just to float. ( that is why bergs tower out of the
water)

Adhesive power of ice to rock? This is asking a cubic ft of ice to freeze hard enough to
hold on to the weight of an M1 Abrams tank.

Wanna stand while someone tries to lift even a buick le sabre
stuck to a one ft ice cube, over your head?

Of course, glaciers are not one solid block anyway, but run thru with millions of cracks and crevasses.

One more detail: EVERY mountain glacier, every part of both ice caps is to
be simultaneously "stuck down" for a year, in order for the flood to be a reality?

I dont see that this needs real deep thought.

[Jac3510]

Nor do I, Audie. You took it a lot deeper than I intended (particularly insofar as you are challenging his premises). I'm just trying to suggest that his own argument, taken on its own merits, is really unwarranted. ACB wants to tie the "stickiness" of ice to the climate, so he needs to be able to tell me 1) at what temperature ice "sticks" and 2) what evidence he has that the global climate dropped to those temperatures at that time. Frankly, I doubt he can do either. So he'll be left with the claim that the ice "sticks" to the bottom of the ocean during the flood, and then when the water goes away, suddenly it warms up enough or the ice to "unstick" and start moving again, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So you're posting fine defeaters for his position, and I'm sure your correct. But I'm working off a simpler premise, one that I can immediately grasp: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Then when you point out, to your last little detail, the global cooling necessity for all glaciers to stick--not just to form, but to actually hit that "sticky" number--and the whole idea gets even more absurd.

[crochet1949]

I've sort of wondered Why there is so much Strong disbelief in the Bible -- on Audie's part.

.

You are misunderstanding me. This is a narrow focus on one thing, it is not about the whole bible.

If one chooses to think it is make -or - break, that if there was no global flood
then "the bible is false", too bad for them, whether they then reject the bible on that account,
or embrace global flood, despite the awful nonsense and falsehoods necessary
to cling to the belief.

Neither is a very educated, productive or thoughtful course of action.

It kind of bothers me to see it.

There is a larger context for why it is important, but I will leave that out.

Okay -- what Is the larger context? Why leave that out?

[abelcainsbrother]

Nor do I, Audie. You took it a lot deeper than I intended (particularly insofar as you are challenging his premises). I'm just trying to suggest that his own argument, taken on its own merits, is really unwarranted. ACB wants to tie the "stickiness" of ice to the climate, so he needs to be able to tell me 1) at what temperature ice "sticks" and 2) what evidence he has that the global climate dropped to those temperatures at that time. Frankly, I doubt he can do either. So he'll be left with the claim that the ice "sticks" to the bottom of the ocean during the flood, and then when the water goes away, suddenly it warms up enough or the ice to "unstick" and start moving again, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So you're posting fine defeaters for his position, and I'm sure your correct. But I'm working off a simpler premise, one that I can immediately grasp: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Then when you point out, to your last little detail, the global cooling necessity for all glaciers to stick--not just to form, but to actually hit that "sticky" number--and the whole idea gets even more absurd.

Jac I never intended to get technical about this and made that clear. I was just trying to have a scientific discussion about this. I have researched this stuff but its not something I dwell on all the time. I've had discussions about this before and I've seen measurements taken in the bore holes that showed a negative 9 degrees C which shows the glacier is frozen solidly to the bedrock at the bottom,but I 've seen other measurements taken at different times that shows the ice at the bottom is not solidly frozen down to the bedrock.I was not being technical but was just trying to have a discussion about it. I might try to lay out a more technical scientific model sometime,not only with scripture but science also.

[abelcainsbrother]

Nor do I, Audie. You took it a lot deeper than I intended (particularly insofar as you are challenging his premises). I'm just trying to suggest that his own argument, taken on its own merits, is really unwarranted. ACB wants to tie the "stickiness" of ice to the climate, so he needs to be able to tell me 1) at what temperature ice "sticks" and 2) what evidence he has that the global climate dropped to those temperatures at that time. Frankly, I doubt he can do either. So he'll be left with the claim that the ice "sticks" to the bottom of the ocean during the flood, and then when the water goes away, suddenly it warms up enough or the ice to "unstick" and start moving again, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So you're posting fine defeaters for his position, and I'm sure your correct. But I'm working off a simpler premise, one that I can immediately grasp: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Then when you point out, to your last little detail, the global cooling necessity for all glaciers to stick--not just to form, but to actually hit that "sticky" number--and the whole idea gets even more absurd.

Jac I never intended to get technical about this and made that clear. I was just trying to have a scientific discussion about this. I have researched this stuff but its not something I dwell on all the time. I've had discussions about this before and I've seen measurements taken in the bore holes that showed a negative 9 degrees C which shows the glacier is frozen solidly to the bedrock at the bottom,but I 've seen other measurements taken at different times that shows the ice at the bottom is not solidly frozen down to the bedrock.I was not being technical but was just trying to have a discussion about it. I might try to lay out a more technical scientific model sometime,not only with scripture but science also.

[Audie]

I've sort of wondered Why there is so much Strong disbelief in the Bible -- on Audie's part.

.

You are misunderstanding me. This is a narrow focus on one thing, it is not about the whole bible.

If one chooses to think it is make -or - break, that if there was no global flood
then "the bible is false", too bad for them, whether they then reject the bible on that account,
or embrace global flood, despite the awful nonsense and falsehoods necessary
to cling to the belief.

Neither is a very educated, productive or thoughtful course of action.

It kind of bothers me to see it.

There is a larger context for why it is important, but I will leave that out.

Okay -- what Is the larger context? Why leave that out?

Because it is a different topic.

[Audie]

Nor do I, Audie. You took it a lot deeper than I intended (particularly insofar as you are challenging his premises). I'm just trying to suggest that his own argument, taken on its own merits, is really unwarranted. ACB wants to tie the "stickiness" of ice to the climate, so he needs to be able to tell me 1) at what temperature ice "sticks" and 2) what evidence he has that the global climate dropped to those temperatures at that time. Frankly, I doubt he can do either. So he'll be left with the claim that the ice "sticks" to the bottom of the ocean during the flood, and then when the water goes away, suddenly it warms up enough or the ice to "unstick" and start moving again, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So you're posting fine defeaters for his position, and I'm sure your correct. But I'm working off a simpler premise, one that I can immediately grasp: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Then when you point out, to your last little detail, the global cooling necessity for all glaciers to stick--not just to form, but to actually hit that "sticky" number--and the whole idea gets even more absurd.

The millions of tons of shearing action that carves out valleys is far more than enough to break ice free from rock, if it ever managed to get "stuck" however briefly. About as close to an irresistible a force as you are likely to find:

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hir ... tellit.jpg

You misunderstood my last point..One more detail: EVERY mountain glacier, every part of both ice caps is to be simultaneously "stuck down" for a year, in order for the flood to be a reality?

I neither agreed to the bit about cooling, nor that any glacier is ever "stuck down". No research is going to support that.

[Jac3510]

Nor do I, Audie. You took it a lot deeper than I intended (particularly insofar as you are challenging his premises). I'm just trying to suggest that his own argument, taken on its own merits, is really unwarranted. ACB wants to tie the "stickiness" of ice to the climate, so he needs to be able to tell me 1) at what temperature ice "sticks" and 2) what evidence he has that the global climate dropped to those temperatures at that time. Frankly, I doubt he can do either. So he'll be left with the claim that the ice "sticks" to the bottom of the ocean during the flood, and then when the water goes away, suddenly it warms up enough or the ice to "unstick" and start moving again, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So you're posting fine defeaters for his position, and I'm sure your correct. But I'm working off a simpler premise, one that I can immediately grasp: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Then when you point out, to your last little detail, the global cooling necessity for all glaciers to stick--not just to form, but to actually hit that "sticky" number--and the whole idea gets even more absurd.

Jac I never intended to get technical about this and made that clear. I was just trying to have a scientific discussion about this. I have researched this stuff but its not something I dwell on all the time. I've had discussions about this before and I've seen measurements taken in the bore holes that showed a negative 9 degrees C which shows the glacier is frozen solidly to the bedrock at the bottom,but I 've seen other measurements taken at different times that shows the ice at the bottom is not solidly frozen down to the bedrock.I was not being technical but was just trying to have a discussion about it. I might try to lay out a more technical scientific model sometime,not only with scripture but science also.

Which is what I thought. You have no evidence whatsoever. You're just making crap up, as usual. So I dismiss your ridiculous claims and unsubstantiated, as usual.

[Audie]

Nor do I, Audie. You took it a lot deeper than I intended (particularly insofar as you are challenging his premises). I'm just trying to suggest that his own argument, taken on its own merits, is really unwarranted. ACB wants to tie the "stickiness" of ice to the climate, so he needs to be able to tell me 1) at what temperature ice "sticks" and 2) what evidence he has that the global climate dropped to those temperatures at that time. Frankly, I doubt he can do either. So he'll be left with the claim that the ice "sticks" to the bottom of the ocean during the flood, and then when the water goes away, suddenly it warms up enough or the ice to "unstick" and start moving again, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So you're posting fine defeaters for his position, and I'm sure your correct. But I'm working off a simpler premise, one that I can immediately grasp: quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Then when you point out, to your last little detail, the global cooling necessity for all glaciers to stick--not just to form, but to actually hit that "sticky" number--and the whole idea gets even more absurd.

Jac I never intended to get technical about this and made that clear. I was just trying to have a scientific discussion about this. I have researched this stuff but its not something I dwell on all the time. I've had discussions about this before and I've seen measurements taken in the bore holes that showed a negative 9 degrees C which shows the glacier is frozen solidly to the bedrock at the bottom,but I 've seen other measurements taken at different times that shows the ice at the bottom is not solidly frozen down to the bedrock.I was not being technical but was just trying to have a discussion about it. I might try to lay out a more technical scientific model sometime,not only with scripture but science also.

Which is what I thought. You have no evidence whatsoever. You're just making crap up, as usual. So I dismiss your ridiculous claims and unsubstantiated, as usual.

On a way more sensible topic, I am terribly hurt that you feel it is immoral of me to not like ice cream.

[crochet1949]

I've sort of wondered Why there is so much Strong disbelief in the Bible -- on Audie's part.

.

You are misunderstanding me. This is a narrow focus on one thing, it is not about the whole bible.

If one chooses to think it is make -or - break, that if there was no global flood
then "the bible is false", too bad for them, whether they then reject the bible on that account,
or embrace global flood, despite the awful nonsense and falsehoods necessary
to cling to the belief.

Neither is a very educated, productive or thoughtful course of action.

It kind of bothers me to see it.

There is a larger context for why it is important, but I will leave that out.

Okay -- what Is the larger context? Why leave that out?

Because it is a different topic.

What different topic would we be talking about?

[Audie]

I've sort of wondered Why there is so much Strong disbelief in the Bible -- on Audie's part.

.

You are misunderstanding me. This is a narrow focus on one thing, it is not about the whole bible.

If one chooses to think it is make -or - break, that if there was no global flood
then "the bible is false", too bad for them, whether they then reject the bible on that account,
or embrace global flood, despite the awful nonsense and falsehoods necessary
to cling to the belief.

Neither is a very educated, productive or thoughtful course of action.

It kind of bothers me to see it.

There is a larger context for why it is important, but I will leave that out.

Okay -- what Is the larger context? Why leave that out?

Because it is a different topic.

What different topic would we be talking about?

As the current topic ground to halt like a barge in a cornfield (speaking of "stuck"!)over the craziness of trying to pretend that glaciers are "stuck", or get stuck when they need to support a flood story, I guess it is not a derail to say.

So...sorry if this steps on toes.

embrace global flood, despite the awful nonsense and falsehoods necessary
to cling to the belief.

Neither is a very educated, productive or thoughtful course of action.

It kind of bothers me to see it.



Now, why should it bother me? I think it is in large part just because I am an Asian American, and I have spent plenty of time on both sides of the puddle, I know how things are.

Japan, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong have the highest IQ and
student achievement in the world. China and India are not there, percent wise because of widespread poverty, but the actual number of very
educated and highly motivated people there is enormous.

I wish more Americans would figure this out, and realize what the long range implications are. It would scare the shyt out of them, pardon my French.


The ignorance and / or intellectual dishonesty required of a person if they
are to maintain yec beliefs in the face of the most blatant, overwhelmingly obvious facts to the contrary, that is also scary.

Ab is kind of an extreme case, but what percent of the country do you suppose could go down that road, before the weight of it would reduce the
USA to second or third rate status, while the rest of the world overwhelms us and leaves us spinning in the wake?

This is not joke.

I dont mention it often, anymore, because nobody likes to hear it.