jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (182 posts)

If it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, would the entire planet flood?

  1. tHErEDpILL profile image87
    tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago

    I'm pretty sure this is a story in the bible, Noah's Arc or something?  Anyway I want to know if this is even scientifically possible.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No!  There is only so much water on our planet.  Even if all of the ice melted it would not have covered the earth.  And where did it drain away to if the earth was saturated?  Merely another ridiculous ancient myth!  smile

      1. Diane Inside profile image84
        Diane Insideposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I believe in the time of Noah the earth was not completely populated, there were many places where there no human inhabitants.  So there was not need to flood the whole earth.  But people seem to be so literal and don't want to even consider the context in which it was written. 

        So, the earth is flooded all the time in different parts of the world.  This just happened in Noahs part of the world at that time.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Then wouldn't it have been easier for God to tell Noah to travel to high ground instead of building the ark for decades?  How does one tell which parts of the bible to take literally?  Pray on it?   lol

          1. Diane Inside profile image84
            Diane Insideposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I like your little serpent picture at least it lets us know who we are dealing with. How kind of you to be so straight forward. lol

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you!  I feel the same about your armpit avatar!  roll

              1. profile image0
                kimberlyslyricsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                lol

                1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Kim!  smile


                                            sssshy snake

                  1. profile image0
                    kimberlyslyricsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey you, that made me pee my pants with the armpit lol -nicely done as always, do hope all is good! big_smile

            2. Eaglekiwi profile image73
              Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Randys not always correct but he is indeed straight up smile hehe

              1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am too always correct, EK!  Except for when arguing with you, of course!  lol

                1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Edit: Oh tis a wise man who agrees with a woman lol

                  Rascal pants!

              2. profile image61
                CORNYCOOKposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Pumpkin Soup? EEEWWWWW!!
                How ever, I do like pumpkin pie..

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It would have had to flood Mt. Ararat, though,  And that is right beside the Mediterranean, which empties into the Atlantic ocean, which connects to all the other seas.  You won't have to cover Mt. Everest to the top (even though that's what the story says happened) to kill all animals but you WILL have to cover the entire surface to the height of Mt Ararat.

          In addition, don't forget that Noah had to save all the animals; that would only be necessary if all animal species were in danger as well and means the entire earth.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is true!  Of course, all of the fish in the oceans would die if the world were flooded because of all the fresh water pouring into the oceans.  But perhaps Noah also had a giant aquarium on the ark to keep a pair of all of the whale species plus pairs of all other salt water creatures.

            A hell of a aeration pump would be called for too!  Wonder what powered it?  smile

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Considering the size of the aquarium to hold 2 of each sea life I would think the moon would cause enough tidal action to do the job. smile

              Although I haven't tried it I understand it's almost impossible to keep an octopus in an aquarium; they're too dang smart and their suckers let them climb glass walls.  Wonder how Noah did it?

              I wonder if Noah collected 2 of those deep sea worms around the volcanic vents?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Of course!  He used electric eels to power his gopher wood submarine!  smile

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You may have just found the answer.  A submarine certainly makes more sense that a floating marine zoo.

                  1. ddsurfsca profile image69
                    ddsurfscaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    perhaps those animals didn't evolve into existance until later after the flood.

            2. tHErEDpILL profile image87
              tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol I like this serpent guy.  His jokes are funny because THERE TRUE!!! And they point out some of the many absurd tales in the "Good Book."  I wonder if M. Night Shamalan wrote the bible in a past life.

              1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
                Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Red pill ,blue pill are you related lol


                The Bibles been around a lot longer than all of us,so logically its got merit.

                Personally its the best book out there for instructions in living IMO....of course its not for everyone and never ever will appeal to the self centred ,selfish heart wink

                1. secularist10 profile image89
                  secularist10posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "The Bibles been around a lot longer than all of us,so logically its got merit."

                  I guess by that standard, Mein Kampf has got logical merit too. It's been around a lot longer than most of us too.

                  1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
                    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Mein Kampf has nothing on Bible sales  wink

            3. Conekeeper profile image61
              Conekeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              The Flood - Physical Evidences
              The Flood "myth" is not just some ancient allegory meant to teach us about God's judgment on sin. The Flood was a real historical event and earth's crust bears witness to this in many compelling ways. Consider the fossil record: billions of dead things buried in sedimentation ("laid-down-by-water rock") found all over the earth. Geologist Dr. John Morris explains, "Sedimentary rocks, by definition, are laid down as sediments by moving fluids, are made up of pieces of rock or other material which existed somewhere else, and were eroded or dissolved and redeposited in their present location." [1] Over 70% of the earth's surface rock is sedimentary rock (the rest of earth's surface rock is volcanic igneous and metamorphic rock). In these sedimentary rock layers, geologists find some very odd features. For example, fossilized trees buried at all angles, upside-down and right-side-up, often passing through multiple rock layers, obviously the result of a marine cataclysm. These "polystrate" fossils (poly, meaning more than one; strate, meaning rock layer) are a worldwide phenomenon.

              Consider the ratios of dead things we find buried in this sedimentary rock: "95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.74%). 95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%). The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.)" [2]

              Also consider the abundant fossil remains of marine life found atop every mountain range in the world. For example, clusters of hundreds of gigantic (300kg/650lbs) oysters found atop the Andes Mountains in South America.
              Hope this helps.

              1. qwark profile image60
                qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Conekeeper:

                I wrote a long response and in getting the Hub I'm offering. I lost it...damnit!

                "Diastrophism" is responsible for changes in the earths surfaces.

                Tectonic plate movement pushes mountains hi into the sky taking with them the remnants of prior ocean life.

                I explained alot but I'm not going to repeat. smile:

                If you are interested to understand the effect the subject of "Diastrophism" has on all life, here's a hub I've written about it. if you'd like to read it, go for it. smile:

                http://hubpages.com/hub/qwark39

                Qwark

                1. Conekeeper profile image61
                  Conekeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I agree that the tectonic plate movement will move the earths surface,however you can still follow the layers in the plates and discover the age of the material in the plates. Also the tectonic movement is not totally responsible for all of the changes in earths surface.

          2. tHErEDpILL profile image87
            tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            YES!!!  That's what I said.  Why else would you have to take two of every animal unless the whole planet was going to be flooded.

            1. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              the first thing Noah did was sacrifice animals after this so-called flood - a bit wasteful, don't you think?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Now that was a brilliant move!  Probably rabbits!  smile

      2. Stump Parrish profile image60
        Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not so sure Randy. Perhaps humans were much heavier drinkers back then. All that water that was turned into wine had to come from somewhere. Then again, all that water could have come from what is now the Sahara desert.

        1. darkland profile image60
          darklandposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In Genesis it says that God destroyed man from the face of the earth by means of a flood that covered the earth for 40 days and 40 nights.  Scientifically speaking, if all the water in, on or over the world were to sudden end up on it's surface it would cause incredible havoc but probably wouldn't cover it completely. There is the possibility that a water filled meteor could have hit the earth at that time which may have caused the kind of effects mentioned. There are supporting myths of a great flood from other parts of the world at approximately the same time. I might wonder where the water went though.  Anyway, it's good to remember that if there is an omnipotent God, He can do pretty much what He wants.  Which wouldn't necessarily preclude creating water and then making it disappear.  Just food for thought.

          1. Paul Wingert profile image79
            Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Or at the time that these fairy stories were written, it was common belief by the Ancient Eqyptians that the "world" was an island floating on an endless sea and that the sky was a great canapy that was supported by the four mountain ranges rounding Eqypt (the four corners of the earth). Clues in the Noah story point to this ancient belief. Also comets don't contain enough water to do anything major.

      3. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I did the calculations once - it would take not only the water on earth but an additional sphere just about the size of Pluto, or about 1,000,000,000 cubic miles.  Just as an aside...

      4. tHErEDpILL profile image87
        tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol

    2. NathanielZhu profile image82
      NathanielZhuposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Water is recycled. Flooding the planet would mean the Earth gaining water, but that's not how it works.
      The amount of water on Earth 1000 years ago is the same it will be 1000 years in the future (as long as astronauts don't pee in space).

    3. spanishtoday profile image59
      spanishtodayposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The myth was created by other cultures before the Bible plagiarized it.

    4. JGoul profile image60
      JGoulposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think it's kind of strange to ask, assuming that a document that claims to be authored by an omnipotent being is true, could X have actually happened? 

      If you start by assuming that God created the universe ex nihilo, then OF COURSE he could have flooded the earth.  I happen to believe there is no God, but if there was, he could obviously flood the earth.

      If your question is, could the flood have occurred through natural processes, I doubt it...  But why ask that question?  The Bible doesn't claim it happened through natural processes, it claims that GOD flooded the Earth.

    5. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      theredpill:

      About 2.5 % of the earths water is fresh water.

      It has already been figured out that if all the land mass on the earth was flattened to a smooth surface and all the fresh water dumped on it, the depth would be less than 2 inches.

      Ooooppss! There I go wuining the "Noah" tale!

      I'm sowwy!  sad:

      Qwark

      1. Rafini profile image86
        Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, Qwark, smile, now add a continuous heavy rain for 40 days and 40 nights over the entire planet.  Would the planet flood?



        My personal opinion on the Flood & Noah's Ark:  Yes, the known world did flood, but not enough to cover the tallest mountains - just as the Mississippi River floods and recedes, so did the 40 day/40 night flood.  The ark just didn't travel very far from it's origin b/c it wasn't intended to.  (no sails!)

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Raf;

          I think I just answered that???

          Rainwater is "fresh water."

          If all the fresh water (2 1/2% of all earths water) dropped on the earth in 40 days of continuous rain and all land masses were flattened, it would flood the entire land mass with about 2 inches of agua!

          Doesn't that give ya an idea about how high the water'd get if there were mountains over 5 miles hi?

          C'mon Raf...use the ole noggin!  lol

          Qwark

          1. Rafini profile image86
            Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            (yah, I kinda remembered the idea of water recycling AFTER I posted, lol, and mentioned it 5 posts down)

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              NP Raf:  smile:

              Qwark

        2. tHErEDpILL profile image87
          tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Some say the grand canyon was a huge body of water in the past...hmm?

          1. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            theredpill:

            Ya haven't read my hub on the subject of "diastrophism."

            Qwark

            1. tHErEDpILL profile image87
              tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I will read it today quark...finally have the time.  What's the title of that specific hub?

              1. qwark profile image60
                qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Theredpill:
                Here ya go:  smile:
                http://hubpages.com/hub/qwark39
                Qwark

    6. lizzieBoo profile image78
      lizzieBooposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      the redpill, yes it's Noah's Ark. That same story also says that Noah was about 700 years old. I think we have to accept that the ancient Hebrews used different time-scales to us. It was a long time before the Romans was it not?

    7. dutchman1951 profile image61
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      the subject has been studied by Physics researchers, it would cover the entire Planet with 2 inches of water??????

      another hard to believe tale of the Bible

    8. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      not only that, this water was supposed to top mountains and hang around for another 150 days before slowly going down

    9. jcnasia profile image59
      jcnasiaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      theredpill,

      If you extrapolate our current environment back to the time before this supposed flood, then 'no'.  It's not possible.

      If you don't make that assumption, then 'yes'.  It's possible.

      And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse.

      In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

      I'm assuming that some on this forum will assume I'm foolish for accepting the flood as literal, but I want to point out that a world-wide flood is possible if we consider that global conditions might have been different.

      1.  If there really was a canopy of water in the sky, then that would explain where most of the water came from.  It might also explain why humans lived longer.

      2.  If the 'fountains of the great deep' broke forth, this would assume that there were probably also massive volcanoes and earthquakes at the same time as the flood which would provide more water to cover the earth.  Plus, this would point to a flatter earth at the time of Noah.

      The major flaw with this explanation is that if you assume world-wide floods, massive earthquakes, and super volcanoes don't happen, then neither could the flood in Noah's day.

    10. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, it was Noah's Full Circle, you know, the fable coming 'full circle' from previous myths. smile

    11. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Personally, I don't worry about a world-wide flood.   God promised to never again destroy the earth with water. 
      Now all we gotta watch out for is the fire and brimstone.  That one's a given.

    12. Greg Sage profile image60
      Greg Sageposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It rains all summer here... more than 40 days.

      Hasn't flooded yet.

      Although.... I haven't looked outside lately...

    13. Ben Evans profile image74
      Ben Evansposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      certainly not if it is Seattle........

      The real question is how hard is it raining?
      At an inch per hour, that is 960 inches.
      At an inch every couple days, it will just cause irration not a flood.

    14. 6 String Veteran profile image85
      6 String Veteranposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It has been scientifically proven that the event known as 'the flood' from the Hebrew scriptures did not cover the entire earth, but only the area known as the Fertile Crescent, or Mesopotamia (today's Middle East). Man did not live far outside of this area until considerably later than the Flood.

  2. profile image0
    klarawieckposted 5 years ago

    We are at water level here in South Florida. When it rains for a whole day we go underwater and turn into frogs.

  3. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago

    No! The entire planet would not flood if it rained for 40 days and nights. Not enough water on the planet to do so! Get real!

    1. Rafini profile image86
      Rafiniposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      uh-oh.  is this something I haven't learned yet?  lol  something I heard here, on HP, a while ago...something about the water on earth is condensed into rain?  (basically recycled)

      1. Paul Wingert profile image79
        Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah right! rotflmao

  4. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    It would have to rain at about 363" per hour to get enough water to cover Mt. Everest in 40 days and 40 nights.  Only one place on earth, Mt. Waialeale, Hawaii,gets more rain than that in an entire year.  That wouldn't be a rain - it would be a waterfall!

    That much additional water (1,000,000,000 cubic miles) will decrease the salinity of the oceans to almost nothing, which means that Noah will also have to collect and maintain all marine life.  Ever see two blue whales in an ark?  Or try to pick out both a male and female phytoplankton?

  5. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    You're in rare form tonight Randy, I personally am enjoying it. thx for the chuckles and the belly laugh from the eel remark.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Life is funny in itself, Stump! Laughing is my favorite pastime.  Making others laugh is my second favorite!  smile

  6. Eaglekiwi profile image73
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Randy there are so many creative new names appearing on HP's now.

    Im seriously considering a make-over!

    What ya think?

    Any ideas,heres a few to start


    Youvegot_2bekidding

    Exit_now

    RolloverBeethoven

    2headed_people_movetothe_right

    (they take up too much of my headspace)  lol

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hmmmm.  My dad had a saying I think sums up the situation.  He would say "two heads are better than one, even if one of them is a goat head"!  smile

      1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I like your Dads thinking,always good to carry spare parts!

  7. Onusonus profile image87
    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    Of course it's possible. Didn't you watch Water World?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Well heck, anyone who bought Joseph Smith's script would have absolutely no problem believing Water World was a true story!  lol

    2. tHErEDpILL profile image87
      tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I will not answer this question because I will have to admit to watching "Water World"

  8. tHErEDpILL profile image87
    tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago

    I just thought of something else...if Noah and his family were the only humans left after the flood, where the hell (pun intended) did we come from.  Are we all descendants of his incestuous family?  In Keanu Reeves' voice (whoa!)

    1. profile image0
      klarawieckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And what makes it all even more weird is... they didn't know the world was round. They thought it was a giant plate. Wouldn't the water cascade down into the void once it reached the border of the plate? lol

    2. Conekeeper profile image61
      Conekeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Bible says that  Noah, the patriarchal head of this chosen family, the man who "found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (Genesis 6:8), was commanded to build a massive ark. This ark (a.k.a. Noah's Ark) was the implement of their salvation. In the aftermath, eight human survivors disembarked from the ark. These eight were all that remained of the human race: Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their sons' three wives.
      That should answer your question. NO Incest.

      1. tHErEDpILL profile image87
        tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Um, after the sons and their wives have kids then their kids would have to have sex with their relatives in order for the human race to still be here today.  There's no way around incest according to this dumb bible story that you jus explained to me.  This is what keeps me from reading that crap.    If your telling of the story is correct, it still proves that incest was inevitable.  There is no scenario on that ark where one relative would not be sleeping with the other.  Even if it was cousins procreating with cousins it's still incest, and first cousins at that.  Think about it...wait for it...wait for it...okay get it now?  roll

        1. Conekeeper profile image61
          Conekeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry no still dont see it.

  9. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    So the Leftists and green freaks cry about world wide flooding from the ice caps melting, but cannot abide by a biblical flood. Interesting... and expected.

    Torrential rain plus melted ice caps would be nothing but a thing... but global warming will swamp the world. lol What a bunch of laughs.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      TMmason:

      Have ya studied the subject: "precession?"

      Give it a shot on Google.

      It's a very interesting take on global warming.

      Qwark

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I will look into it. But I believe your talking about a change in the oreintation of the earths axis. We wobble, and we also know that the latest earthquakes around the world have knocked us some 12 inches or more... so?

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          TMMason:

          The 36 k yr wobble is responsible for changes in seasons...and weather patterns... yes.

          There is no doubt that we humans are adding to what may be happening as a natural event.

          So many don't know about this "wobble."


          Qwark

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            In order to believe that humans have affected the atmosphere in the way the Leftists and green freaks want us to, we have to totally ignore the fact that massive volcanic eruptions have and still are occurring which blast more acids and carbons and other pollutants into the atmosphere and gee... somehow the world has filtered it.

            Even that volcano in iceland in 2009... how much do you think that blasted into the air?... And where is it? now consider events such as Toba or Krakatua and the too many others to name, whaich it could be argued have blasted more pollutants into the atmosphere than man in all his years of the industrial age has ever done. And imagine that... though we had affects of cooling and agricutural issues... in the end our atmosphere filtered it out and continued on. I find it hard to believe that we are doing anything near what most massive and super massive eruptions have. Just a thought.

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              TMMason:
              Oh I agree with you intoto.

              But there is no doubt that the growing use of fossil fuels is adding to global warming IF "it" in fact is happening.

              Qwark

              1. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How have you been Quark? And I will agree to dis-agree on the "no doubt" aspect of our conversation.

                1. qwark profile image60
                  qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  TMMason:

                  Life is good TM. smile: I hope it is for you too! smile:

                  NP at all...smile:

                  First it must be a certainty that we are indeed experiencing a global warming trend. That hasn't yet been absolutely determined.

                  Something IS happening and IS always happening in the life of our planet.

                  Mother Gaia and her fermaments are "alive" and active.

                  I am more concerned about the viability of our species than I am about the longevity of this planet. She will be here long after man is no longer a memory.

                  Qwark

                  1. TMMason profile image72
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It is very good indeed, Quark. other than dying for 75 minutes in Dec of 2010, I am having a blast and doing fine.

                  2. TMMason profile image72
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not sure about your boast of the planet being here long after we are gone. The moon will be gone, I believe, long before mankind disappears from this planet. I hope we can get into space before that clock runs out. It, the moon, is leaving us at 1.5 inches per year, and that is fairly quick in astronomical times. So.....?

    2. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      First of all, no AGW proponents who know anything about science claim that global warming will "swamp" the world, only certain low lying areas of the world. Complete melting of the current Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (which wouldn't finish for hundreds of years even under the worst global warming scenarios) would increase sea levels by 80 meters, or about 262 feet, which would still leave plenty of land above water.

      Here are some sample maps of the US and Europe with 80 meters of sea level rise:

      http://the100metreline.blogspot.com/200 … erica.html
      http://the100metreline.blogspot.com/200 … great.html

      Secondly, volcanoes currently produce a typical min-max range of 65-319 million tons of CO2 per year, depending on the level of activity. Human activities such as fossil fuel burning currently produce approximately 30 billion tons of CO2 per year. In other words, humans currently produce approximately 94 to 460 times the amount of CO2 per year as volcanoes. Volcanoes have had significant impacts on climate in the past, but that was during periods of much higher volcanic activity than the present.

  10. Stump Parrish profile image60
    Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago

    TM, please show me where anyone concerned with the melting of ice caps has stated this will create a flood of biblical proportions. I believe they state that some of the lower islands and areas like florida will be covered by water. I believe they state coast lines will move inland as much as 100 miles in low lying areas. I beleive you need to get your head out of your a$$ and use a little common sense.  One has nothing to do with the other except in the ramblings of weak minded fools.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And I believe that UN falsified that report as authored by Lord Monkton and many other scientists.  And it is that exagerration that I am highlighting. And insults will get you no-where. So grow up.

  11. Evan G Rogers profile image82
    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

    obviously the answer is "it's not possible".

    There's not that much water in the world.

    To prove this, go outside and see how there isn't any water flooding you.

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I haven't said it would, or would not, Evan. I am simply stating a fact about the Left and the way they think in such contradictory ways. If it works for them, they say it. And later, if it doesn't, they deny it. It a Leftist thing.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Where I live now has been under water many times in the past, although I live around 100 miles from the coast.  Ice ages come and go, but when the earth loses much of it's forests (hint-the animals didn't cut down the trees) the earth's climate is affected to a different extent than in the past.

        No one ever claimed the entire earth would flood because of global warming.  It's people like you who cause all of the confusion regarding climate change because of your ignorance of science.

        1. TMMason profile image72
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You all do not grasp sarcasm well... do you.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Much better than your grasp of the sciences, I'll wager!  smile

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        rofl, i wasn't denying you! I was responding to the OP. I haven't even read what you wrote!

        I just saw the OP, and said "no, of course not".

  12. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Human Evolution, talk about myths. Right up there with aesops fables.

    Yes we know Evolution itself exists, ie;micro-evolution, but the fact is Evolution as applied to the animal kingdom and Humans is far from settled science. Though I would give more weight to Evolution in the Animal Kingdom, than the Human. Way too many thing about man that cannot be explained through Evolution.

    Also... The fossil record shows no evidence of transitional fossils, and on top of that the multiple explosions of life throughout history sort of stupify the Evolutionists. One minute nothing, the next 96% of life is there. Where did that evolve from? Where are the fossils, transitional and otherwise to prove it?

    Nope... way too many holes in that theory for it to be even considered near a fact as of yet. But I guess we could debate all day whether or not it takes as much faith to believe in alot of Scientific theories, as it does to believe in God. But it does.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
      Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Where in the heck did you get your education regarding evolution and fossils?  Are you from Texas or something?  lol

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So your going to argue that a fossil record, of which we are missing 99.99% of, is a true and accurrate guide to Evolution? That is like me dumping a billion piece puzzle set in my state scattered around, and you trying to guess what it is with 3 or 4 pieces in your hand. That is a laugh.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Do you believe a geneticist can take an almost invisible sample of your skin and find relatives you never knew existed?  And where did you get the 99.99% figure from?

          Genetics will tell us so much about our past in the future.  Along with the fossil record, genetic research will eventually give us the complete story of evolution for all animals, man included of course.  smile

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We as of yet have decoded what?.. about 4 to 6% of the genetic code, if that. You base alot of claims off very slim evidence, Randy. Genetics may tell us relation, but not if we had 5 eyes and 27 toes, not as of yet.

            And there is no evidence it ever will tell us such things. But good try Randy. And Yes I know we have DNA similar to other critters here on earth. but genetics is not so cut and dry as this gene does this, and this alone. Or this gene does these things and these alone. Nope. Not so cut and dry.

            And then once we figure out each gene's functions, we have the additional task of seeing if genetic combanations create new or unknown functions as of yet unknown to us.

            Are you a scientist randy? Cause you sure throw Theories around as facts just like one.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I have studied science for decades, TM.  Not merely genetics and fossils, but many other of the sciences.  I have been involved with, and produced genetically altered crops for quite a while.  So while I do not have a degree, I do have experience in some fields. 

              We are only beginning to touch the surface of the potential genetic research will provide us.  Today's super computers will only get faster and more complex which will enable us to understand more and more of the genetic code. 

              Or do you think we will just give up and say "god dunnit" like indoctrinated fundies do?  roll

              1. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Have I said that?

                Wow.

                You are a touchy one.

                I don't care if you breed pigeons, actually I would consider that more experience that master genetic farmer, but anyways, your making statements which are over-blown exagerations of what is... and what is not, known.... and that is my point.

                1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sure! What is, or what is known....by you!  lol

                  What are your experiences in the sciences Mr. Helper?  smile

                  1. TMMason profile image72
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Lets just say I do not breed plants, nor pigeons.

                    Actually I work for the CIA destabilizing countries for the take-over.

                    I have at least as much experience in the Physical Sciences and Genetics as yourself. At least.

          2. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Randy:
            Yes it will...thumbs up  smile:

            QWark

    2. Beelzedad profile image61
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Really? Such as what?



      The fossil record IS a record of transitional fossils.



      *hint* They aren't in the bible. wink



      Yes, believers who have no clue about evolution make that statement all the time. Funny how they are yet to ever poke a hole even through a wet tissue, relatively speaking. smile

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image82
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The argument that "God created everything" has quite a few gaps in it as well.

        I DEMAND THAT CHURCHES TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!!

        IF ID were correct... then...

        - Why would god create such a pathetic eyeball!? Really - a blind spot?! lame.

        - Why would god make unhealthy food taste good?

        - why would he make it so that we get back problems due to bi-pedalism?

        ... and on and on.

      2. Eaglekiwi profile image73
        Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I understand evolution ,but I sure dont have the faith that you do ,to think that we evolved from primates..roll

        1. recommend1 profile image70
          recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Common mistake - we evolved with and as part of the primate family or species.  No faith required, it is pretty clear from the fossil record that homo sapiens developed in this way,  just how in every detail is not so clear - but that we did is beyond scientific dispute.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But if humans kept adapting and evolving ,why didnt the other primates?

            1. recommend1 profile image70
              recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              For that matter, why didn't the dinosaurs ?

              How do you know that the other primates have not changed and adapted ?  adaptation and evolution to different forms is driven by need, if a food source becomes unnavailable animals change their diet, maybe man could not compete in the trees with the primates with longer arms, those that are smaller and faster and those that are bigger.  We developed reasoning and language and went our way, that is hard to see as overwhelmingly successful, while they ver successfully developed their niche markets up in the tress.

              We may or may not be more successful than a chimpanzee or an aboriginal australian, in the next cataclysmic event, ice age, some random space rock crashing into us again, or one of our own invention, we are less likely to survive than many of these other creatures, which of is the most developed ?

              Thinking we are special because we are aware of ourselves is arrogance of the species, thinking ability is only useful in thinking situations, if the world should seriously flood then ability to swim and survive in an aquatic environment would be far more useful if not so entertaining.  Whales and dolphins are an example of just that, they evolved from land mammals that evolved back to the sea.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Man has one glaring evolutionary fault when compared to other animals.

                While many animals will occasionally kill one of their own species, only man does it wholesale.  So far he has been able to overcome this with a rapid birth rate, but as his ability to kill improves and the birthrate goes down it could very easily spell his demise as a species. 

                If so, home sapiens sapiens will go down as one of the shortest lived of earths billions of species throughout history.

                1. recommend1 profile image70
                  recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I can agree with this - I was tryong to get across the idea of evolutionary time with an advanced language class and drew a line across the board divided into the various periods and couldnot draw a thin enough line at the end to represent the time man has been around, even making it a round million years.  It has been done many times before but doing it again and trying to explain brings it home.   

                  Man seems to be man's natural predator.

              2. kerryg profile image86
                kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yup. Evolution is not some sort of progression toward particular features (such as conscious thought); it's a progression towards perfect adaptation in a particular niche. Some of the most perfectly evolved creatures on the planet are some of the most simple. For example, horseshoe crabs have scarcely changed for at least 245 million years. They haven't needed to, because their aquatic environment hasn't changed much in that time.

                Conditions on land tend to change much faster than those in water, driving faster evolutionary change. To say that primates have not continued to evolve and adapt is not accurate. The human family split from the chimpanzee family about 5-8 million years ago, but modern chimpanzees have only been around for about 1 million years. Humans are younger than chimpanzees - about 200,000 years old - but not dramatically enough that you could safely argue that primates "stopped" evolving while humans continued to do so. There is a subspecies of gorilla, for example, that scientists believe has only existed for about 17,800 years.

                Dinosaurs also evolved constantly during their reign on Earth. Many popular depictions of them tend to be misleading. For example, t-rex and stegosaurus are often depicted together, when in fact they lived about 90 million years apart. Stegosaurus's plates and spikes were used to fight off the smaller Allosaurus, and T-rex was actually one of the last species of dinosaur on Earth before the comet hit, at a time when many of its relatives had already turned into birds. (T-rex is from a family of dinosaurs called coelurosaurians that is closely related to birds - some paleontologists think they may have had feathers!)

                1. recommend1 profile image70
                  recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  A T-Rex in a boa, didn't realise the old chap was a bit 'camp' !

              3. Joy56 profile image60
                Joy56posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                you should see my cat, she does the cross word every day..... with her specs on

                1. recommend1 profile image70
                  recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well one of you had to evolve from the Mirror Quick crossword !

                  1. Joy56 profile image60
                    Joy56posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    you are banned for that insult.... oops wrong thread.

            2. profile image0
              Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              the other primates have been too

              1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
                Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe they are the chimps who evolved into Politicians lol and Lawyers

        2. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, you don't understand evolution, not in the least, you have made that quite evident in your posts.



          Again, I don't have faith as you do, I have an understanding. That is what separates you from understanding evolution.

          It is so blatantly obvious why you don't think. smile

  13. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Yes we are loosing it, and no I didn't put a tme frame down.

    Just as I have nnot seen a time frame for the extinction of humanity quark mentioned. Time frames were not the discussion, other than in general as regards the existence of humanity at the time the world ends.

    So you can keep up your non-answers. It simply sshows you do not have any real answers.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      TMMason:

      I've never considered man becoming extinct.

      There may be another mass extinction. It would be the 6th.
      We may perpetrate it ouselves.

      I agree with Hawking when he said that man is a greater danger to himself than is anything arriving from the cosmos.

      WE now have the potential to cause that mass extinction and, being the pessimist I am, I also feel we have a
      desire to do it.

      I think we humans will survive but will suffer a massive reduction in population.

      I have a gut feeling it will happen this century.

      Of course the "world" will not end. She will probably survive for another 3 1/2-4 billion yrs...possibly longer as our sun runs out of fuel and expands, eventually taking out most of our solar system.

      We've got about 2 billion yrs to "become" or disappear. smile:

      QwaRK

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I was talking about your remark about humans being gone before the world is destroyed.

        That was you? I thought.

        But I could be wrong, it was a long way back. If not I apologize Quark.

        But that was the conversation as to Humans and the world ending, and which would come first. As I said if you didn'tsay it, or say it that way, I apologize.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          TM:
          smile: Nope, that wasn't me..
          Qwark

          1. TMMason profile image72
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Then I apologize, Quark. I have been answering on too many threads tonight and have lost track of who is saying what.

            1. qwark profile image60
              qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              G'nite TM...smile:

              1. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I believe we will lose the moon before the sun begins to burn out and expand to a red giant. I have not done the math... but I am of the impression we would see the moon leave before the sun dies. It is simply the way i see it. Your so concerned with it Randy ,then do the math and show me I am wrong.

                Quark said about 3.5 to 4 billion years till the sun begins to die... ( I believe it was quark)- I think the moon is moving fast enough to go before that. As I said I could be wrong... but I have seen no proof I am not. other than your opinion, and that isn't proof.

                1. tHErEDpILL profile image87
                  tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You do realize that the Moon is responsible for more of our gravitational pull (ocean tides, etc.) than the sun, and that without it it really wouldn't matter when the sun dies?  The moon leaving alone could be enough to start a domino effect that could kill us all.

                  1. TMMason profile image72
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That is exactly my point, red. Thank you.

                    The only question is which will occur first. I believe the moon will be gone before the sun dies. Appearently they do not.

  14. tHErEDpILL profile image87
    tHErEDpILLposted 5 years ago

    Because it stood the test of time, that makes it logical?

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image73
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Not always ,but it is a strong indicator.

  15. ameliejan profile image81
    ameliejanposted 5 years ago

    Would it actually be possible to rain everywhere in the world for 40 days and 40 nights? I'm sure the UK has experienced relentless rain for that long - well, Wales, for sure - but it would have to rain over the entire surface area of the earth. Then, maybe it would flood.

  16. Barbara Kay profile image85
    Barbara Kayposted 5 years ago

    At one time there was more water on the earth than there is now. All you've got to do is look along the shoreline of Lake Huron. We had a cottage there that was about a 1/4 of a mile from the beach and you could see where the shoreline once was.

    Why couldn't there have been more water on the earth at that time than there is now?

    1. Conekeeper profile image61
      Conekeeperposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There certainly was more water on our planet in earlier times as Kay stated, all you have to do is look around at the low lying areas of most deserts and check the sedement. You will see different levels of dead animal and plant life that could only have been placed there during times of large changes in the water level in those areas. Science is wonderful and can be quite helpful.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, there was not more water on the earth, at least not much more unless you want to count a comet striking the earth and the last known comet impacted over 65,000,000 years ago.

        You people apparently do not understand the many ice ages this planet has experienced, much less tectonic activity.  Oceans rise when ice caps melt-they fall when the ice caps build up at the poles.  No gods needed for this to happen.  The account of the biblical flood is a myth and nothing more.

  17. profile image0
    Baileybearposted 5 years ago

    it is well known that the ground can shift several metres

  18. qwark profile image60
    qwarkposted 5 years ago

    Awww, really! Who gives a dang wilderness?  smile:

    We've got about a billion yrs to make up our minds as to whether or not to leave this planet and head "out-there," or move the damn thing and it's moon further out to keep ouselves cool enuf to continue on until we can figger out a way to git outa this life.....alive!  lol

    I ain't takin' it seriously yet tho.....too busy tryin' to stay alive now.

    Ya know, that everyday, there's a "thousand ways to die!"  lol

    Qwark

    1. TMMason profile image72
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Death is not so bad, Quark.

      I passed away in Dec on the 11th of 2010. I recieved extreme measures for 75 minutes, CPR atrapine neuro epi, etc-  and I was brain dead, clinically dead for about 20 continuous minutes, and then on and off, as they would get me back for a half a minute or less then dead again. But all in all I did not mind being dead.

      It was rather pleasant where i was.

      1. qwark profile image60
        qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Oh I agree TM.

        It's not death that's worrisome for me, it's the dying.

        It can be painful or painless.

        It's the disappointment in knowing that that's all there is that would cause the consternation as the time nears.

        By the way, I'm glad ya made it! smile:

        Qwark

        1. TMMason profile image72
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I know you won't believe me... but there is more, Quark. I will leave it at that.

          And thank you.

          1. qwark profile image60
            qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            smile: You know me TM...smile:

            I appreciate that you've experienced a mind altering experience.

            I can only respond: "of course there's more!"

            The "more" is, for me, an eternity of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

            For you? Death is but another beginning.

            We, amiably, agree to disagree.  smile:

            Qwark

            1. TMMason profile image72
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I hear ya friend.

              And I wil only say that my faith was there before that occurred, and is still intact. Nothing altered. I was not an atheist at that point, so my conversion was not due to that. I took up my faith a long time ago, after years of Atheism. My faith has to do with other things than that experience. But it did solidify it some, I cannot dispute that.

              1. qwark profile image60
                qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                TM:
                Life is to be enjoyed!

                What you "believe" satifies your needs and it comforts ya.

                That is commendable. You have found a niche that fits your life needs. Many do not.

                What you do with it will determine your future happiness.

                "Live well and prosper!"

                Qwark

                1. TMMason profile image72
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Exactly... life is for the living.

                  As long as one is happy and enjoys their life, then that is all that matters.

                  1. qwark profile image60
                    qwarkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    2 thumbs up!  smile:

                    Qwark

          2. aguasilver profile image86
            aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Could you possibly do a hub on that?

            I would think it most interesting to know what you found out when you were dead.

            I mean that respectfully.

            John

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              TM, I second John's request.
              By the way, great seein' you around here again. smile

              1. profile image0
                kimberlyslyricsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                big_smile  smile  wink

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi kim. smile

                  1. profile image0
                    kimberlyslyricsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey Girl, hope all is well, what a slow Saturday it seems.  Could just be me though lol

              2. TMMason profile image72
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I have been doing great Brenda. And yourself, hun? I have missed seeing you on facebook... where have you been?

                1. profile image0
                  Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Nursing my R.A.
                  And watching the liberal agenda take over my Country.
                  But although I'm outta the battle, I'm not outta the war yet.
                  ah
                  haha

                  Hey, I've got some great pix of my grandkids, including the newest one, on Facebook.  But I'm not on there very much.   Will try to stop by your page and say hello next time.

                  1. TMMason profile image72
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Of course I will. And have you seen my profile pic on Face?.. That is my grand-daughter with me. I just met my daughter last year and now I am a father and grand-father in under a half a year. It is pretty cool. I had never known she existed.

            2. TMMason profile image72
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You know I have been savoring the eperience. And to be honest the first time I told anyone was today with quark. I was thinking about a hubon it... but it is just so hard to vocalize the emotion and sensation of the experience. I will try to put something together ina while. And I appreciate the interest John. And I would not assume you meant it any other way. You know I have read the ER report over and over... it doesn't seem like I should be here... but here I am. Thank God. And I could probrably scan them in for the hub.

  19. Greek One profile image78
    Greek Oneposted 5 years ago

    how much rain are we talking about?

    1. aguasilver profile image86
      aguasilverposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Rain, what's rain got to do with it! big_smile

  20. TMMason profile image72
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    What if the entire world was not so much completely under water, but huge swaths of water sloshing around the surface and swamping the world in different areas, in effect flooding the world?

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      that's what we call the ocean

      1. TMMason profile image72
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        non shit... hahahaaaaaaaa... Are you paying attention to the conversation? We are discussing how water could flood the earth. I think that might be a valid way. Not so much a total covering of the earth, but a sloshing mess or two, or three, slopping everywhere all over the world. geez... lolllll

        1. profile image0
          Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          how ridiculous.  You seem to forget that this 'flood' did not 'slosh around' but supposedly lasted for MONTHS before finally receding

  21. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    It would def be a bit damp. smile

  22. recommend1 profile image70
    recommend1posted 5 years ago

    The flood topic - with any religous wand waving taken away - is a stroy that exists in many oral histories world wide.  The various theories (that I am aware of) suggest either that there was a local flooding of the world 'known' to those peoples, there was a mass event like a giant tsunami or it is a popular way of answering impossible questions for people without science to provide the answers.

    Man has been here through several ice ages where the water levels have risen and fallen considerably.  There are clear geological records of vast areas being inundated with water as huge inland lakes and seas burst out of their confines and flooded equally vast areas of lowlands around them.  The earth's crust moves, the North Sea was once a vast plain of what is thought to be inhabited land, until the surrounding geography rose at the end of the last ice age and the bit in between sank 100 feet or so. This apparently would have taken place over only one generation or so and may be responsible for the beaker-people civilisation that pre-dated Stonehenge.

    1. profile image0
      Baileybearposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      most parts of the world would have had local floods that sweep people away, hence the fear about them (along with earthquakes, erupting volcanoes etc)

  23. kirstenblog profile image76
    kirstenblogposted 5 years ago

    If it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, it would just mean you are living in Wales. wink

    1. Joy56 profile image60
      Joy56posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      or Ireland

 
working