Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2013, 04:28 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Yeah, so what?

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
19-09-2013, 04:37 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(19-09-2013 04:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yeah, so what?

That is one of the coolest things I've read.

How do YECs argue against living material that can be dated 32k years?

I know they say that carbon dating is inaccurate but that's on non-living material. Surely something that's living will throw a monkeywrench into that excuse.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
19-09-2013, 04:38 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(19-09-2013 04:37 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  That is one of the coolest things I've read.

How do YECs argue against living material that can be dated 32k years?

I know they say that carbon dating is inaccurate but that's on non-living material. Surely something that's living will throw a monkeywrench into that excuse.

Let's ask excubitor or theword next time they're around!

Thumbsup

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 06:14 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(19-09-2013 02:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 02:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Actually, there was no place for the water to go. The amount of water required to flood the world to the 'tops of the highest mountains' is about 4.32 times the total amount of water in the entire planet. We're talking about 4.52 BILLION cubic meters of water, when we only have about 1.36 billion on the planet now. If the water was still here, we would still be flooded... Drinking Beverage

You must have missed my earlier posts. The topography was closer to a smooth billiard ball then what it is now, like an orange with pits and bumps. There was very little water required to cover a few gentle, rolling hills.

Source please?
While you're at it, explain the dove and olive tree trick.
Honest, I'm interested in how you make it survive first the flood then the geological event that you state created a 5km mountain.
Without considering the fact olive trees don't grow on top of mountains in the first place.
You DO realize the explanation has to conform to that pesky thing I like to call reality.
No, stating these trees are still around today, therefore they survived is definitely not going to cut it.
That would be Ray Comfort level, and his arguments don't resist scrutiny either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 06:43 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2013 07:36 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(19-09-2013 02:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The topography was closer to a smooth billiard ball then what it is now, like an orange with pits and bumps. There was very little water required to cover a few gentle, rolling hills.

bwahahahaha ... hic ... bwahahahaha ... bwahahahaha ... hic ... hic ... so 3 or 4000 ... hic ... years ago .. hic hiccup .. hic ... the Earth ... hic hic ... (shot of vinegar) ... was almost a smooth sphere. ... You rode here on the short bus didn'tya.

[Image: HUH-WE-ENHANCE-1_zps9ae2d3c4.jpg]

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
19-09-2013, 07:23 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(19-09-2013 02:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 02:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Actually, there was no place for the water to go. The amount of water required to flood the world to the 'tops of the highest mountains' is about 4.32 times the total amount of water in the entire planet. We're talking about 4.52 BILLION cubic meters of water, when we only have about 1.36 billion on the planet now. If the water was still here, we would still be flooded... Drinking Beverage

You must have missed my earlier posts. The topography was closer to a smooth billiard ball then what it is now, like an orange with pits and bumps. There was very little water required to cover a few gentle, rolling hills.

AiG places the approximate date of Noah's Flood at 2348 BC.
Source

One of the oldest, accurately dated ancient pieces of literature The Kesh Temple Hymn mentions "mountains". This piece of literature was written ~2600 BC, centuries before the date of Noah's Flood.

You also have to take into consideration that the Sumerians had to have a concept of a mountain and create a word for it. It is reasonable to say that the word for "mountain" was in their language well before it was written down.

Moreover, if you look in lines 10-20 of the hymn (Source), you will see the two words "hills" and "mountains". {Sumerian transliteration here}

"hursag" ("hills" in the hymn) can be translated as "mountain" or "hill"; likewise, "kur" ("mountains" in the hymn) can be translated the same.

The curious part of this is that the author wanted to make a distinction between "hills" and "mountains" so he used two different symbols to show the height - not just rising above the hills but also the mountains.

This ancient writing shows that the country was not just "rolling hills". And, let's say that there was just one mountain... the point is still moot because the water would have to rise above that mountain. Ironically, in a flat landscape, that makes your explanation even harder because there are no pockets to help the water reach a higher altitude.

So, PJ... please explain this away. How is it that texts that were written ~300 years before the flood describe not only a hilly landscape but also a mountainous landscape - a landscape that the water had to rise above in order to make Noah's Flood literally true?

...take your time. I'm patient.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
19-09-2013, 07:42 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(19-09-2013 07:23 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(19-09-2013 02:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You must have missed my earlier posts. The topography was closer to a smooth billiard ball then what it is now, like an orange with pits and bumps. There was very little water required to cover a few gentle, rolling hills.

AiG places the approximate date of Noah's Flood at 2348 BC.
Source

One of the oldest, accurately dated ancient pieces of literature The Kesh Temple Hymn mentions "mountains". This piece of literature was written ~2600 BC, centuries before the date of Noah's Flood.

You also have to take into consideration that the Sumerians had to have a concept of a mountain and create a word for it. It is reasonable to say that the word for "mountain" was in their language well before it was written down.

Moreover, if you look in lines 10-20 of the hymn (Source), you will see the two words "hills" and "mountains". {Sumerian transliteration here}

"hursag" ("hills" in the hymn) can be translated as "mountain" or "hill"; likewise, "kur" ("mountains" in the hymn) can be translated the same.

The curious part of this is that the author wanted to make a distinction between "hills" and "mountains" so he used two different symbols to show the height - not just rising above the hills but also the mountains.

This ancient writing shows that the country was not just "rolling hills". And, let's say that there was just one mountain... the point is still moot because the water would have to rise above that mountain. Ironically, in a flat landscape, that makes your explanation even harder because there are no pockets to help the water reach a higher altitude.

So, PJ... please explain this away. How is it that texts that were written ~300 years before the flood describe not only a hilly landscape but also a mountainous landscape - a landscape that the water had to rise above in order to make Noah's Flood literally true?

...take your time. I'm patient.

You kids and your World of Warcraft, Grand Theft Auto, Diablo, WarHammer and all your other Dungeons and Dragons fantasy games sorta things. Smile

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2013, 08:41 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(19-09-2013 02:30 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You must have missed my earlier posts. The topography was closer to a smooth billiard ball then what it is now, like an orange with pits and bumps. There was very little water required to cover a few gentle, rolling hills.



Pure assertion does not a fact make. Evidence or GTFO. Drinking Beverage

[Image: james-randi-evidence-or-gtfo.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-09-2013, 09:30 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(19-09-2013 07:23 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  AiG places the approximate date of Noah's Flood at 2348 BC.
Source

One of the oldest, accurately dated ancient pieces of literature The Kesh Temple Hymn mentions "mountains". This piece of literature was written ~2600 BC, centuries before the date of Noah's Flood.

You also have to take into consideration that the Sumerians had to have a concept of a mountain and create a word for it. It is reasonable to say that the word for "mountain" was in their language well before it was written down.

Moreover, if you look in lines 10-20 of the hymn (Source), you will see the two words "hills" and "mountains". {Sumerian transliteration here}

"hursag" ("hills" in the hymn) can be translated as "mountain" or "hill"; likewise, "kur" ("mountains" in the hymn) can be translated the same.

The curious part of this is that the author wanted to make a distinction between "hills" and "mountains" so he used two different symbols to show the height - not just rising above the hills but also the mountains.

This ancient writing shows that the country was not just "rolling hills". And, let's say that there was just one mountain... the point is still moot because the water would have to rise above that mountain. Ironically, in a flat landscape, that makes your explanation even harder because there are no pockets to help the water reach a higher altitude.

So, PJ... please explain this away. How is it that texts that were written ~300 years before the flood describe not only a hilly landscape but also a mountainous landscape - a landscape that the water had to rise above in order to make Noah's Flood literally true?

...take your time. I'm patient.

Oooooooh! PJ dun goofed and roused the rational beast within KC!

Except no. Don't tell me you've forgotten the answer to this kind of thing.

Well, whenever you notice something like that... a wizard Satan did it.

[Image: 1365356023547.jpg]

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
19-09-2013, 09:50 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2013 12:49 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(19-09-2013 09:30 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Oooooooh! PJ dun goofed and roused the rational beast within KC!

Except no. Don't tell me you've forgotten the answer to this kind of thing.

Well, whenever you notice something like that... a wizard Satan did it.

[Image: 1365356023547.jpg]


But once you posit a magical answer, then the sky is the limit. So not only did the flood happen by magic, but all evidence of it ever happening was hidden away by God and/or Satan just to test our faith. So not only did God pick one of the most needlessly obnoxious ways to destroy all life on the planet, he had to hide the fact that this is what he did. Because heaven forbid we have any real evidence to support the story, why that might interfere with our 'freewill' and be considered compulsion from God (regardless of the fact that this didn't stop God from interacting personally with Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc...).

[Image: O0AT1kN.jpg]

PJ thinks this actually happened, against all reason and evidence. There is every reason to believe that it is simply a story borrowed from earlier ones from their neighboring cultures that might have had some basis in a small local flood. We have near continuous records from the dynasties in both Egypt and China, and both forget to mention being wiped out; resilient people those Egyptians and Chinese.


Also, let's not forget that in the pre-Flood universe, water lacked the refractive properties need to create a rainbow until God bestowed those properties upon H2O molecules as an apology after the fact. Laughat

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: