I think you should do that.

Of course, since you're incapable of scientific reasoning, you better ask someone with an actual PhD in archaeology.

Originally posted by Adam

Indeed it would, infact i've watched it on Television one time, how the water level is expected to go up 16 feet, if particular ice cap melts down.

That's still in the news section in fact.

 

The Antarctic ice cap is continental - it's on land. If it all melted, mean ocean level would rise about 16 feet.

 

This is not sufficient to cause a Biblical flood.

 

 

You might also consider the following:

 

If the great flood covered everything, why was Mount Ararat the first thing to appear as the water drained? Its peak is by no means the highest point on Earth.

 

Answer: Because the flood was a story put together by fallible humans, probably from various accounts of several floods, and the friendly local Mount Ararat was the biggest thing they knew of.

heh... Adam, why do you never mention again points that you have made that have been debunked? you still haven't told us how big this planetty thing actually is

Originally posted by Adam

 

as the planet passed with it's red comet tail.

 

 

I find it highly implausible that a planet the size of jupiter would actually leave a comets tail, since the comets tail occurs as a result of a) melting water being blasted off the surface by the solar wind b) bigger stuff that falls off (there are actually two cometary tails, cone that is on the line between the comet and the sun, and the other that follows the path of the comet (approximately) ). For something to be blasted off the surface of a planet of that size, it would need to reach pretty incredible escape velocities, sinething that is not going to happen in any significant quantity Furthermore, for it to be red, it would need to contain large amounts of something that reflected/emitted red light, now this could be certain atomic transitions of hydrocen at abou 600 degrees (I think) but the volume required would need to be pretty big... of nebular proportions in fact. Alternatively it would need to be something like iron ore... something that I can't see existing in even remotely significant quantities on a planet that is only 24 times the density of earth. Finally you must be referring to the chinese culture, since there isn't an 'asian' culture (one might as well think there is an European culture) ... now I can check with a friend of mine about a 'fire dragon' that came hurtling by 3600 years ago causing massive damage to the planet, but I get the impression that I would be wasting my time asking her.

Originally posted by Adam

Look at my first quote, use ur brain wisely , and think what is a best explanation for an upcoming planet, which has to be covered up.

 

by time you see this thing, there would be no point covering it up

Maybe they surrounded the Earth with a giant TV screen to cover up the planet!

 

Idiocy, plain and simple.

Originally posted by Radical Edward

I find it highly implausible that a planet the size of jupiter would actually leave a comets tail...

'Twas the work of the good lord above.

Originally posted by Sayonara³

That's still in the news section in fact.

 

The Antarctic ice cap is continental - it's on land. If it all melted, mean ocean level would rise about 16 feet.

 

This is not sufficient to cause a Biblical flood.

 

 

You might also consider the following:

 

If the great flood covered everything, why was Mount Ararat the first thing to appear as the water drained? Its peak is by no means the highest point on Earth.

 

Answer: Because the flood was a story put together by fallible humans, probably from various accounts of several floods, and the friendly local Mount Ararat was the biggest thing they knew of.

 

 

 

I didn't say the great flood covered everything, nor did Was noah and his crew the last people on earth, It covered most of that area and for them back there it was pretty much a LOT.

 

Don't try to directly find logic in bible , and if you do you it won't make sense, you have to find analogies, because people back then understood differently, and for them a flying object was an angel , for us, it could be a plane, a bomber, a ufo, ... a giant bird?

 

read revelations..

Originally posted by Adam

I didn't say the great flood covered everything, nor did Was noah and his crew the last people on earth, It covered most of that area and for them back there it was pretty much a LOT.

 

Don't try to directly find logic in bible , and if you do you it won't make sense, you have to find analogies, because people back then understood differently, and for them a flying object was an angel , for us, it could be a plane, a bomber, a ufo, ... a giant bird?

 

read revelations..

I have read The book of Revelation.

 

You fail to understand my point. If even the melting of the ice caps could not flood the area in question, where did the water come from?

and who said only the ice melting cause the water level to increase?????????????

 

 

Obiously you don't know anything about pole shift effects , and failed to read what i wrote about moon effect on earth, and the possibility of a 4 times as biggest earth object pulling on earth,

 

Tidal WAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

the plates collide , and go under one another, that stimulates the water level, but not the water level as in the amount of water , but the density occupying

Originally posted by Adam

and who said only the ice melting cause the water level to increase?????????????

 

Obiously you don't know anything about pole shift effects , and failed to read what i wrote about moon effect on earth, and the possibility of a 4 times as biggest earth object pulling on earth,

 

Tidal WAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

the plates collide , and go under one another, that stimulates the water level, but not the water level as in the amount of water , but the density occupying

Now you're just talking crap.

 

I have given you cause and effect, based on observed, quantifiable and actual mechanisms.

 

You on the other hand are dragging together random statements based on a premise you have no evidence for.

 

Give it up. Your theory needs a lot of work.

Originally posted by Adam

Obiously you don't know anything about pole shift effects , and failed to read what i wrote about moon effect on earth, and the possibility of a 4 times as biggest earth object pulling on earth,

 

Tidal WAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(1) We have already established there was no polar shift 3,600 years ago. End of debate.

 

(2) If you locate Mt Ararat on a map (if you even have one) you will see why "TIDAL WAVES!!!" is such a ridiculous statement.

If one plate is being push under, obiously it is lower and the water is filling it,

 

 

 

 

_____________

| |

| |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

````|

|

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

___/ `````````|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.

/|\

|

|

 

 

Pole shift, created this kind of effect, instantly, not in matter of thousand or million years, but in matter of 3 hours, thus the great flood. Ice berg is another issue.

 

 

Learn your plate tectonics buddy, and use ur brain

Originally posted by Adam

If one plate is being push under, obiously it is lower and the water is filling it,

Pole shift, created this kind of effect, instantly, not in matter of thousand or million years, but in matter of 3 hours, thus the great flood. Ice berg is another issue.

 

 

Learn your plate tectonics buddy, and use ur brain

There was no pole shift.

coordinates for planet x:

 

RA 4.35941 Dec 12.11749 Feb 09, 2003

RA 4.35948 Dec 12.11813 Feb 02, 2003

 

 

need to be viewed at that date, with infrared filter.

Why with an infra-red filter?

Because it needs to be viewed as HEAT, thus the planets core has such.

In april, or possibly late march, it will be visible to a naked eye.

You said it was 4 times the size of Earth, the same size as Jupiter (although that doesn't make sense I take it to mean this is one big planet).

 

You also said it was recorded in the bible.

 

 

So why now do we need IR technology to see it?

It's not close enough yet.

Right. And it still won't be close enough to see in February unless you have an IR filter?

Originally posted by Adam

Don't try to directly find logic in bible , and if you do you it won't make sense, you have to find analogies, because people back then understood differently, and for them a flying object was an angel , for us, it could be a plane, a bomber, a ufo, ... a giant bird?

 

read revelations..

 

 

Typical argument; that which has shown not to be true is regarded as 'metaphorical'.

 

ps. A flying object by definition is a UFO until identified.

Originally posted by Sayonara³

Right. And it still won't be close enough to see in February unless you have an IR filter?

 

 

It will be visible to amateur astronomers. You will see for yourself.

Also, try to have better grammar. Some of your posts are almost unreadable.