If, when mankind pissed off God and he started a 40 day rainfall that flooded the earth, WHERE DID THE WATER COME FROM?

Scientific evidence explains how mountains can change in several ways over time. They can undergo erosion by rain and wind, as well as landslides due to flooding. Some mountains change via volcanic activity. They may also change due to earthquakes and shifting of tectonic plates. Sea shells found on mountain tops has nothing to do with holy book floods. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas. A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons: Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.

I see that my bigoted friend is still around ready to pounce.
So then you don't agree with this quote from the question: "Anyone that knows about the water cycle knows it is impossible to completely blanket the planet above the mountains."
If it did rain for forty days, do you think that would affect anything?

If the pouncing is educational, just take it all in. If you're not going to take for real, then here's the type of comment you deserve.
If it did rain for forty days, it had an affect on Noah's daughters. It made them horny enough to get Noah drunk and have sex with him.

This post was edited by antibiotic at August 29, 2017 5:56 PM MDT

You're sick!
Quote: "...it had an affect on Noah's daughters. It made them horny enough to get Noah drunk and have sex with him."
 Is that what you learned from your Church? Obviously you haven't read the Bible. As I said, 'Perhaps you should read the Bible and then you might be better qualified to ridicule other peoples beliefs like you always do'.
https://answermug.com/forums/topic/37670/the-pleides-star-cluster-aka-7-sisters-messier-45-has-playe/view/post_id/340076/page/1

You had it coming after calling me bigoted, now take the pounding, silly.
I have never convinced me on many topics. I've seen more polished ******** in religion, than I have in science.
Write a letter to the board members of the Watchtower and tell then those seashells on mountain tops are *******. This post was edited by my2cents at September 3, 2017 11:46 AM MDT

That wasn't Noah, it was Lot.

I stand corrected. It wasn't his daughters, it was with his son Ham.
If all other humans in the world were killed, then Noah's family had sex with each other to recreate population on Earth. We are children of incest, then. First from Adam and Eve and their son, then from Noah. Only some animals continue the pleasure, such as cats and dogs.

You gonna correct the rest of it? You don't agree with his last sentence of the reasoning of Lots daughters, do you?

Hardly any correction needed, that's almost how it was. Genesis 19:30-38. They certainly got him drunk in order to have intercourse with and become pregnant by him - and Lot wasn't all that drunk, either. I've been too drunk to achieve an erection, never in my life have I been sufficiently intoxicated to be unable to recognize who I'm sleeping with. Lot had to be coherent or he'd have been unable to perform. If he was the most righteous man in Sodom then the rest of them must have been despicable, he was scum. The Bible states that his daughters did so "as there is no man to sleep with in this land". It is not stated whether this was due to their wanting to be mothers, or were sexually frustrated. Lot was certainly aroused - no way to avoid it, he couldn't have "got it up" otherwise. This post was edited by Slartibartfast at August 31, 2017 4:36 AM MDT

Quote:" It is not stated whether this was due to their wanting to be mothers, or were sexually frustrated."
Is that what your sister of Jesus told you? All of your talk about Jesus' older sister revealing things in the Bible to you and that is what you come up with?From reading the account without an ulterior motive, it's obvious that their reasoning was to preserve offspring.

It was warped thinking on the part of the girls and an unrighteous act on all accounts. . Lot was obviously drunk enough to lose control of his good sense but not too drunk to have sexual relations, if you go by the account instead of trying to apply your agenda anyway.

(Genesis 19:32-38) Come, let us give our father wine to drink, and let us lie down with him and preserve offspring from our father.” 33 So that night they kept giving their father wine to drink; then the firstborn went in and lay down with her father, but he did not know when she lay down and when she got up. 34 Then on the next day, the firstborn said to the younger: “Here I lay down with my father last night. Let us give him wine to drink tonight also. Then you go in and lie down with him, and let us preserve offspring from our father.” 35 So that night also, they repeatedly gave their father wine to drink; then the younger went and lay down with him, but he did not know when she lay down and when she got up. 36 So both daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. 37 The firstborn gave birth to a son and named him Moʹab. He is the father of the Moʹab·ites of today. 38 The younger also gave birth to a son, and she named him Ben-amʹmi. He is the father of the Amʹmon·ites of today.


Part of an article from 2004: 
Did Jehovah condone Lot’s getting drunk and fathering sons by his two daughters? Jehovah condones neither incest nor drunkenness. (Leviticus 18:6, 7, 29; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10) Lot actually deplored the “lawless deeds” of Sodom’s inhabitants. (2 Peter 2:6-8) The very fact that Lot’s daughters got him intoxicated suggests that they realized that he would not consent to having sexual relations with them while he was sober. But as aliens in the land, his daughters felt that this was the only way to prevent the extinction of Lot’s family. The account is in the Bible to reveal the relationship of the Moabites (through Moab) and the Ammonites (through Benammi) to Abraham’s descendants, the Israelites.

Ever been to Seattle?

Only a couple of times in modern times at the airport for a stopover to/from Alaska. Never there when sea shells were deposited on what are now mountains. Why, is there something in antibiotics post that I was replying to that you had some more info on?

What is your source of facts to support your argument of sea shells existing on mountain tops?

Are you serious? I thought it was common knowledge. Pick your source:
https://www.google.com/search?q=seashells+on+mountains&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=seashells+&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j69i57j0l2.2854j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Are you serious?
Thank you for your source which contradicts what you say.
Here's what got out of a few sites you offered.

Leonardo da Vinci wrote, under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains.

Mountaintops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocks—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.

Shell deposits on mountaintops indicate that mountains have been formed by the uplift of sea bottoms. They are not directly the result of, or evidence for, a global flood.
No evidence of a global flood, followed by incest in a family to generate a genealogy tree in the name of Jehovah.

The Noah’s flood story was rejected by creationists based on the actual hard evidence over 170 years ago, and no geologist with legitimate training and any real experience in the real rock record has taken it seriously since then. The reason is simple: there are no flood deposits in most parts of the world that could reasonably be connected to Noah’s flood, and 99% of the rock record (including the Grand Canyon) are not flood deposits whatsoever. As I explained in my 2007 book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (pp. 58–64):

You don't have to believe that there are seashells on mountaintops if you don't want to. Just a note, even if 'geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops', that doesn't mean that there are none, just that they are rarely acknowledged. 

Side note: Most strong atheist don't even deny that there are seashells. They just debate how they arrived there.


https://foxthepoet.blogspot.com/2013/07/marine-fossils-on-mount-everest-by.html

 

You can believe that there are seashells on mountaintops if you want to. But, your websites, as your source of facts, suggest that they have nothing to do with a global flood.
Do you thing Jehovah was pleased with the acts of incest conducted by Noah and his family?

This post was edited by antibiotic at September 4, 2017 7:37 PM MDT

Quote: [You can believe that there are seashells on mountaintops if you want to. But, your websites, as your source of facts, suggest that they have nothing to do with a global flood.
Do you thing Jehovah was pleased with the acts of incest conducted by Noah and his family?]

You sure like to twist everything don't you. The reason for the link to a google search I posted had nothing to do with how the seashells were deposited on the mountaintops as that was not your challenge at that time. Notice what your challenge was:
What is your source of facts to support your argument of sea shells existing on mountain tops?

August 30, 2017 8:13 AM 



Go back up a few post to  mine on August 31, 2017 3:32 AM and see what I really said:

[...
It was warped thinking on the part of the girls and an unrighteous act on all accounts. .
...
Part of an article from 2004: 
Did Jehovah condone Lot’s getting drunk and fathering sons by his two daughters? Jehovah condones neither incest nor drunkenness. (Leviticus 18:6, 7, 29; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10) Lot actually deplored the “lawless deeds” of Sodom’s inhabitants. (2 Peter 2:6-8) The very fact that Lot’s daughters got him intoxicated suggests that they realized that he would not consent to having sexual relations with them while he was sober. But as aliens in the land, his daughters felt that this was the only way to prevent the extinction of Lot’s family. The account is in the Bible to reveal the relationship of the Moabites (through Moab) and the Ammonites (through Benammi) to Abraham’s descendants, the Israelites.]

Fine, go believe there are sea shells on mountain tops. Don't forget that they have nothing to do with a might global flood.

So my imagined seashells on top of mountaintops have nothing to do with my imagined flood. Okay, got it. Thanks. When you get edumacated on marine fossils being on top of some mountains, then ya gotta start trying to swallow some of the bible opposers reasoning as to how they got there.

The sites you recommended seem to show that there are some varieties of sea shells on mountain tops. None of these sites suggest that these shells are in any relationship to the great flood of Noah. Please give me a source of facts with evidence that sea shells exist on mountain tops as a result of Noah's flood. Solid facts, please.

These quotes are from sites you gave me, which contradict your argument. 
Leonardo da Vinci wrote, under the best conditions, clams move too slowly to reach such heights, even if the flood lasted centuries. Also, the earth does not have enough water to cover these mountains.

Mountain tops accumulate few sediments that might blanket and protect such fossils. Some early authorities, in frustration, said the animals and shells grew inside rocks—or the rocks simply look like clams, corals, fish, and ammonites. Others denied the evidence even existed. Today, geologists rarely acknowledge all the seashells on mountaintops.

Shell deposits on mountaintops indicate that mountains have been formed by the uplift of sea bottoms. They are not directly the result of, or evidence for, a global flood.

The Noah’s flood story was rejected by creationists based on the actual hard evidence over 170 years ago, and no geologist with legitimate training and any real experience in the real rock record has taken it seriously since then. The reason is simple: there are no flood deposits in most parts of the world that could reasonably be connected to Noah’s flood, and 99% of the rock record (including the Grand Canyon) are not flood deposits whatsoever. As I explained in my 2007 book, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (pp. 58–64):