The Flood- one explanation

If we take an earth without a tilt and suddenly tilt it 18 degrees what do you think would happen? The velocity at the equator is about 1,000 mph and at the poles about zero. Then with the shift the waters that were traveling at 1000 would have to slow down, the same with the waters at the new poles. the waters at the old poles would have to speed up- well I hope you understand what I am getting at.Would this cause a global flood? I would think that at least most of the earth would be under water during that event- at least until things calmed down. Also climate changes would be brought on. That is what caused the ice age- not glaciers. Glaciers need gravity to move. What was the cause of the gravity if glaciation did occur?What is the evidence? Tiahuanaco- a port city that is now some 12,000 feet above sea level, about the same distance that the equatorial buldge in sea depth would be. It also just happens to be where the equator would be when there isn't any tilt.

How?I mean, if you're going to introduce magic, well, we can go anywhere with that. If you take a normal human male and magically pull his heart out with your fist, what do you have?If you said "a scene from "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", you're right. You've also got John Paul's argument, which we've pulled the heart out of. The mass of the Earth - same as always. What kind of objection is this? The equator is in the same place it would be sans tilt, dude. The Equator isn't measured from solar vertical but perpendicular to the Earth's rotational axis. Same as always.You display a staggering scientific ignorance in this post. If you're cutting and pasting this from somewhere else I reccomend you adopt a new source. If you're making this up yourself you should be embarrased. Take a clue from your namesake: "You have not yet begun to argue."

How? What are you an indian? A close pass by a celestrial object could do it- no magic needed.

Such an occurance would have a considerably more catastrophic effect on the world.After all water isn't the only liquid part of the planet. Are you forgetting that the Earth's volume is mosty superhot fluid? How do you think it would react to such an occurance? Here's a hint - we're not talking about a gentle sea for Noah to float a boat on. We're talking about lava covering every surface of the earth and boiling away the oceans into superheated steam. We're talking about the extinction of all life on Earth, Noah's Ark included.Funny that such an occurance would have happened in the Earth's past and conviniently failed to leave any evidence.

I said nothing about Noah. Also I presented at least one piece of evidence. A piece I have been fortunate enough to see first-hand. Tiahunaco.Do you have any evidence that an object passing close by the earth would cause what you assert? The earth's crust would shift, but I doubt the scenario you mention would occur.[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-15-2003]

JPPerhaps you would care to determine the mass of the object whose gravity would be sufficient to tilt earth without vastly altering the moon's orbit.------------------
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."
R.P. Feynman

Without Noah, why do you need a flood?

How do you know the moon's orbit is as it has always been? But how about this scenario- the object passes on one side of the earth when the moon is on the other. The magnetic field of the object reacting with the earth's causes the tilt/ crustal movement.

I don't need a flood, I am just presenting how one could have occured.

Q: "Without Noah, why do you need a flood? "
A: "To separate the old world from the new world (also symbolized by the death of Methusella, the oldest living human extant before the Deluge)."

That explains nothing. In order for the moon to have moved from another orbit to its present one without an obvious remnant of the encounter leaving evidence is absurd. Not to mention the evidence of other cultures that kept track of such things not mentioning any change.Where is the object now?

sidelined:
In order for the moon to have moved from another orbit to its present one without an obvious remnant of the encounter leaving evidence is absurd.John Paul:
Nice assertion. How do you know that?Where is the object now? I didn't know I was supposed to track it. However it could have crashed into that bright yellow thing, Jupiter, Saturn and wasn't there evidence that something crashed into Uranus? Maybe this object is what caused Venus & Uranus to rotate differently than the other planets.If the moon were on the opposite side of the earth it wouldn't be affected. Especially if the tilt/ shift in the earth's crust was caused by magnetic influences.

Tiahunaco- don't just ignore it. A port/ habour city that now sits at 12,000 ft. above the sea it was once connected to. Its agricultural fields now at an altitude where barely anything will grow never mind support a civilization.

Threads like this should be euthanised.John Paul,Did you ever take any high school physics?Also shame on other people for not seeing the overwhelming errors in the original post.I am going to let you suffer in ignorance.PSYes! I am being snotty BUT come on guys, it is so obvious what is wrong in this thread.

But one didn't occur. So why bother?I mean, I can construct potential scenarios about how ninjas put all the dinosaur fossils there to confuse us, but why bother? Why not just go with what the geological evidence pretty confidently suggests - that the diversity of life on this planet is best explained by evolutionary models, and that the geological features of this Earth stem from natural processes and the occasional "everyday" catastrophe?