Underwater pryamids/cities give credence to Noah's Flood

[Cypher1980]

Dr.Grass said:

Mummelmann said:

Buddha_Maitreya said:

I believe there have been flood, but honestly..

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers.A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

Begone with your insight and reason!

Masterfully put, and I'm sure there are one thousand other flaws and logical tears to be explored in the Noah myth (along with pretty much everything else in the greatest work of fiction ever).

Ya just keep up patting each other on the back.

So how old are the oldest trees that exist again?

I don't believe it rained for 40 days or whatever, but is there no possibility that the ice caps could have melted before? Is there no possibility that continents could have rapidly shifted and buried large parts of themselves under the ocean?

Why is there always such hate between you 'masterfully intelligent' scientific geniuses and the fanatic reliogionists?

You know I've been coming to this site for a long long time. The above statement is probably the most ignorant, appallingly inaccurate and risible posting I've seen in all that time.

It would take a 5 year old child 10 minutes with an encyclopedia to realise just how utterly flawed the concept above is.