Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2013, 12:26 AM
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.

[Image: 242.gif]

It is reasonable to assume that, as mountains and mountain ranges form as a consequence of plate tectonics which takes a reallllllllllllllly long time, that there was already mountains in existence before the flood. The Barberton Greenstone Belt in South Africa is estimated to be around 3.4 billion years old.
(I would have picked a mountain range in the Middle East, but you'd be surprised at how difficult it is to try to find the age of middle eastern mountains. It's mostly fucking tourism sites.)

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2013, 08:24 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
*waits*

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 02:42 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're going to strange places when you write that a piece written in 2600 BC was written "centuries before Noah's flood." I don't know any YECs who date the flood that late. I personally date Abraham's time so close to that date there's no room for your argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 02:45 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(20-09-2013 12:26 AM)Free Thought 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.

[Image: 242.gif]

It is reasonable to assume that, as mountains and mountain ranges form as a consequence of plate tectonics which takes a reallllllllllllllly long time, that there was already mountains in existence before the flood. The Barberton Greenstone Belt in South Africa is estimated to be around 3.4 billion years old.
(I would have picked a mountain range in the Middle East, but you'd be surprised at how difficult it is to try to find the age of middle eastern mountains. It's mostly fucking tourism sites.)

There are some issues with tectonic plate movement systems. The current uniformitarian theories (a plate moves inches a year now, so it must have moved from Pangea slowly to where it is now) is disallowing for catastrophic change. In a recent example (and I'm not ascribing all this movement to plate shifts) Japan moved eight feet closer to the U.S. shoreline in one day.

I'm not accusing you personally, but the argument is circular (we know the plates have always moved slowly, so extrapolating backwards, the mountains had to be there in recent millennia).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 02:47 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(23-09-2013 02:42 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You're going to strange places when you write that a piece written in 2600 BC was written "centuries before Noah's flood." I don't know any YECs who date the flood that late.

Other than Answers in Genesis as quoted in the OP and KC's post, I guess. Are they not representative of creationists? That'd be news to them...

(23-09-2013 02:42 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I personally date Abraham's time so close to that date there's no room for your argument.

Sure. There's still no evidence of anything, but that's clearly not the important thing.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2013, 08:19 PM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(23-09-2013 02:45 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm not accusing you personally, but the argument is circular (we know the plates have always moved slowly, so extrapolating backwards, the mountains had to be there in recent millennia).

No. Clearly you don't know the meaning of 'circular' reasoning, because you use it constantly and now misapply it here. Unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise it is not uncalled to extrapolate the measured movements of the plates backwards through time. Unless we have evidence or reasons to suggest otherwise (such as evidence of faster vulcanization of the mantle in the past) there is no reason to think that the plates moved faster than they do now. At least not anyting within the last few million years, given the planet's lifetime measured in billions.

What you are attempting to do is 'special pleading', wherein you want a special exception to the rules (in this case, presenting evidence in support of your assertion) that only applies to you. You make one vague reference without any citation, and then somehow expects us to simply take your word on it over the consensus of the professional geological community.

Nice try, I award you no points. Weeping

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
24-09-2013, 08:30 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(23-09-2013 02:47 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(23-09-2013 02:42 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  You're going to strange places when you write that a piece written in 2600 BC was written "centuries before Noah's flood." I don't know any YECs who date the flood that late.

Other than Answers in Genesis as quoted in the OP and KC's post, I guess. Are they not representative of creationists? That'd be news to them...

(23-09-2013 02:42 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I personally date Abraham's time so close to that date there's no room for your argument.

Sure. There's still no evidence of anything, but that's clearly not the important thing.

I didn't vote at last year's World Christianity Convocation to elect AIG as official YEC representatives. Richard Dawkins has ticked off a lot of people, both atheists and theists. Shall I start quoting him and then accuse you of not defending every stance he takes?

There is evidence for many things, let alone "anything" as you stated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 08:38 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(23-09-2013 08:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(23-09-2013 02:45 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'm not accusing you personally, but the argument is circular (we know the plates have always moved slowly, so extrapolating backwards, the mountains had to be there in recent millennia).

No. Clearly you don't know the meaning of 'circular' reasoning, because you use it constantly and now misapply it here. Unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise it is not uncalled to extrapolate the measured movements of the plates backwards through time. Unless we have evidence or reasons to suggest otherwise (such as evidence of faster vulcanization of the mantle in the past) there is no reason to think that the plates moved faster than they do now. At least not anyting within the last few million years, given the planet's lifetime measured in billions.

What you are attempting to do is 'special pleading', wherein you want a special exception to the rules (in this case, presenting evidence in support of your assertion) that only applies to you. You make one vague reference without any citation, and then somehow expects us to simply take your word on it over the consensus of the professional geological community.

Nice try, I award you no points. Weeping

1. The geological community is currently debating crust formation and plate theories, etc. because we weren't there to make observations in the field

2. Reference for the Japan movement - http://phys.org/news/2011-03-quake-japan-feet-usgs.html

3. The Japan earthquakes shifted the Earth on its axis and changed its rotation - http://www.space.com/11115-japan-earthqu...-days.html

4. There is certainly a reason to think the plate movement rate has changed, since scientists acknowledge catastrophisms like the recent Japanese earthquake

5. Again, I'm not accusing you but the reason why the argument is circular is your statement that "...there is no reason to think that the plates moved faster than they do now. At least not anyting within the last few million years..." as you are exhibiting special knowledge to bolster your claim. Within my lifetime, catastrophisms unknown to prior, recent generations were blamed (and un-blamed, and re-blamed) for mass extinctions.

It would be more reasonable to conclude that there may have been more recent catastrophisms, especially when being open-minded to see if the Noahic flood is a myth or 100% fact or... somewhere in between.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2013, 08:46 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
Plants did survive the story of Noah.
Fictional stories can't kill plants, unless your story is written out on the ground with weed killer.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
24-09-2013, 08:51 AM
RE: Plants Could Totally Have Survived Noah's Flood Guize!
(24-09-2013 08:38 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1. The geological community is currently debating crust formation and plate theories, etc. because we weren't there to make observations in the field

Sure.

(24-09-2013 08:38 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  2. Reference for the Japan movement - http://phys.org/news/2011-03-quake-japan-feet-usgs.html

3. The Japan earthquakes shifted the Earth on its axis and changed its rotation - http://www.space.com/11115-japan-earthqu...-days.html

Yes. You might notice that this is exactly as predicted by theory.

(24-09-2013 08:38 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  4. There is certainly a reason to think the plate movement rate has changed, since scientists acknowledge catastrophisms like the recent Japanese earthquake

Yes. You might notice that this is exactly as predicted by theory. Motion of any given specific plate will vary as conditions change. The overall mechanisms do not change. At least, not according to all evidence ever observed.

(24-09-2013 08:38 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  5. Again, I'm not accusing you but the reason why the argument is circular is your statement that "...there is no reason to think that the plates moved faster than they do now. At least not anyting within the last few million years..." as you are exhibiting special knowledge to bolster your claim. Within my lifetime, catastrophisms unknown to prior, recent generations were blamed (and un-blamed, and re-blamed) for mass extinctions.

That conditions remain generally constant over time and space is the basis of scientific inquiry.

You're skirting into "if science is right why does it keep changing lol" territory. That is the most shallow, infantile objection possible. As we collect more data we revise our conclusions.

(24-09-2013 08:38 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It would be more reasonable to conclude that there may have been more recent catastrophisms, especially when being open-minded to see if the Noahic flood is a myth or 100% fact or... somewhere in between.

It has been investigated. It's myth. Deal with it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: