Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: Question about flood
(13-03-2015 04:43 AM)Typho2k Wrote:  I asked a christian yesterday about how Noah and his animals could survive the altitude of 8000m and the oxygen problems.

The water that covered the earth during the flood is still here in the oceans so the ark was at the present day sea level. The flood ended when the present continents rose to their present height.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/0...-water-go/

All of the scientific objections raised to disprove the flood have been answered but many people never find these answers because they refuse to look for them or don't know where to look. They simply accept the generally held opinion that there never was a worldwide flood and that the fossils evidence we find to support the flood was the result of millions of years of evolution. Here is a good place to find out more about this subject:

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/magazine/v2-n2/

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 10:18 AM
Question about flood
(28-03-2015 10:04 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 04:43 AM)Typho2k Wrote:  I asked a christian yesterday about how Noah and his animals could survive the altitude of 8000m and the oxygen problems.

The water that covered the earth during the flood is still here in the oceans so the ark was at the present day sea level. The flood ended when the present continents rose to their present height.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/0...-water-go/

All of the scientific objections raised to disprove the flood have been answered but many people never find these answers because they refuse to look for them or don't know where to look. They simply accept the generally held opinion that there never was a worldwide flood and that the fossils evidence we find to support the flood was the result of millions of years of evolution. Here is a good place to find out more about this subject:

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/magazine/v2-n2/

Continents don't simply rise. There is a compositional difference between continental and oceanic lithosphere.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
28-03-2015, 10:29 AM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 10:04 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(13-03-2015 04:43 AM)Typho2k Wrote:  I asked a christian yesterday about how Noah and his animals could survive the altitude of 8000m and the oxygen problems.

The water that covered the earth during the flood is still here in the oceans so the ark was at the present day sea level. The flood ended when the present continents rose to their present height.

https://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2012/0...-water-go/

All of the scientific objections raised to disprove the flood have been answered but many people never find these answers because they refuse to look for them or don't know where to look. They simply accept the generally held opinion that there never was a worldwide flood and that the fossils evidence we find to support the flood was the result of millions of years of evolution. Here is a good place to find out more about this subject:

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/magazine/v2-n2/

False, disingenuous, and long debunked...

Egyptian civilization is probably familiar to most of us. Egypt’s dynastic history started with the uniting of Upper and Lower Egypt by King Menes, around 3100 BCE. The Egyptian period known as the “Old Kingdom” lasted from 2800 to 2175 BCE. During this time many of the pyramids were built. There is no record, written or archaeological, for a monster flood destroying and completely interrupting this countries infrastructure or it’s monuments such as the Sphinx, the Step Pyramid, or the Great Pyramids, which were built before ‘The Flood’. Neither were they wiped out.

China has a reasonably accurate history starting around 3000 BCE. According to texts from a Chinese book called “Shu King” and verified by archaeological records, China was undergoing a prosperous period around 2400 to 2200 BCE during the early Yaou Dynasty. They have no record of a cataclysmic flood interrupting their whole civilization and destroying the infrastructure of the country. Neither were they wiped out.

The Indus valley civilization has a well-known history dating back to perhaps 3100 BCE. By 2500 BCE there were two major cities, Mohendaro (or Mohenjo-Daro) and Harrapa, which rivaled Egypt and Mesopotamia in population and technologies. This great Civilization also encompassed maybe 100 smaller cities, towns, and villages, and didn’t fall until about 1500 BCE. They have no record of a worldwide civilization-destroying flood. Neither were they wiped out.

The Minoan civilization was probably as old as Egypt. Based on the Island of Crete, this civilization grew quickly and was highly advanced by 2500 BCE. By the middle of the second millennium it had an alphabet, used bronze tools, had pottery, textiles, advanced architecture, and had established cities around the Islands. It continued to grow and was a center for trade and culture until about the mid-1400′s BCE when it was suddenly destroyed by the violent eruption of the Thera volcano. There has been no evidence unearthed from this civilization that shows a flood destroying their whole infrastructure, at any time in their existence. Neither were they wiped out.

Trees that were completely submerged in salt water would have died, so when we look at trees that are say 10,000 years old, and not only did they live past the "mythical flood' but they show zero evidence of a flood. Can you find trees with flood evidence ? Sure, that shows there was a local flood, not worldwide, submerged flood that killed all life including vegetation. you are familiar with barometric pressure of course so you understand introducing that much magical water into our system would have wrecked it right? There is not enough water on or in the earth to cover the planet under 40 feet above the highest mountain.

The conventional flood story states that the flood waters came from rain that lasted 40 days and 40 night right? Rain appears when the atmosphere can no longer support water in the vapor phase and it becomes saturated. So normally, the atmosphere is on the brink of saturation, and the variations in temperature and pressure caused by weather fronts are capable of altering the threshold at which precipitation will form quite easily. What about the amount of water vapor suspended in air needed for the 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water needed for the global flood? The water vapor currently in the air is only around 2-3% on average, with a maximum of 4% limited by temperature and pressure.

The change in atmospheric conditions required to support enough vapor for 112 million cubic kilometers of rain per day - about 120,000 times more than the current daily rainfall worldwide - would have rendered the air unbreathable.

Indeed, the atmosphere really couldn't sustain that much water even under the most extreme temperature and pressure conditions the planet can produce. If the conditions were right for that much water to be in the atmosphere, humans and virtually every other animal would have drowned through the simple act of breathing, as well as turning the earth into the equivalent of a pressure cooker with atmospheric pressure at nearly a thousand psi instead of the standard 14.7 or so that we have today.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions. The fact that greenland even exists single handedly refutes the flood.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Repopulation issue

The global flood story requires that only eight people were left alive in 2349 BCE. This does not allow enough time for humans to repopulate the earth. In 2000 BCE only 350 years after the flood the population of the world was 27 million. To go from a population of eight to a population of 27 million in 350 years would require a population growth rate of 136.07%. That is 133% more than the fastest growing portions of the world today.

The Bible also places the date of construction on the Tower of Babel roughly 100 years after the great flood. Saying a population could go from 6 people (Noah and his wife don't count, they didn't have any more children) to enough people to build the Tower of Babel as it is described in the Bible is absurd. This tower was so great that it threatened God, so it must have been greater that the pyramid of Khufu which took 30,000 people to build. Even a growth rate of 500%, which is absurd beyond all imagination, would only produce about half the required people to even begin to think about such a construction project.


The Ark,

I won’t get into the issue of how pandas, and polar bears, and ants, and anteaters, and sloths etc etc all animals from all over the world from different continents somehow swam/flew/crawled across massive oceans to line up for the ark cruise…or what they ate, or where the poop went, or how they breathed from that tiny window, or how the different species survived from various climates and requiring specific foods. I will dabble into some building issues however;

Noah's Ark was a great rectangular box of gopherwood, or perhaps some combination of other woods colloquially referred to as gopherwood. Its dimensions are given as 137 meters long, 23 meters wide, and 14 meters high. This is very, very big; it would have been the longest wooden ship ever built. These dimensions rank it as one of history's greatest engineering achievements; but they also mark the start of our sea trials, our test of whether or not it's possible for this ship to have ever sailed, or indeed, been built at all.

Would it have been possible to find enough material to build Noah's Ark? When another early supership was built, the Great Michael (completed in Scotland in 1511) it was said to have consumed "all the woods of Fife". Fife was a county in Scotland famous for its shipbuilding. The Great Michael's timber had to be purchased and imported not only from other parts of Scotland, but also from France, the Baltic Sea, and from a large number of cargo ships from Norway. Yet at 73 meters, she was only about half the length of Noah's Ark. Clearly a ship twice the length of the Great Michael, and larger in all other dimensions, would have required many times as much timber. It's never been clearly stated exactly where Noah's Ark is said to have been built, but it would have been somewhere in Mesopotamia, probably along either the Tigris or Euphrates rivers. This area is now Iraq, which has never been known for its abundance of shipbuilding timber.

Whether a wooden ship the size of Noah's Ark could be made seaworthy is in grave doubt. At 137 meters (450 feet), Noah's Ark would be the largest wooden vessel ever confirmed to have been built. In recorded history, some dozen or so wooden ships have been constructed over 90 meters; few have been successful. Even so, these wooden ships had a great advantage over Noah's Ark: their curved hull shapes. Stress loads are distributed much more efficiently over three dimensionally curved surfaces than they are over flat surfaces. But even with this advantage, real-world large wooden ships have had severe problems. The sailing ships the 100 meter Wyoming (sunk in 1924) and 99 meter Santiago (sunk in 1918) were so large that they flexed in the water, opening up seams in the hull and leaking. The 102 meter British warships HMS Orlando and HMS Mersey had such bad structural problems that they were scrapped in 1871 and 1875 after only a few years in service. Most of the largest wooden ships were, like Noah's Ark, unpowered barges. Yet even those built in modern times, such as the 103 meter Pretoria in 1901, required substantial amounts of steel reinforcement; and even then needed steam-powered pumps to fight the constant flex-induced leaking.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
28-03-2015, 10:46 AM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 05:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  My explanation was to show you that they are not dependent on each other. But I see it didn't work.

If life is needed for evolution to do its thang...then that would kind of make one dependent on the other. If you don't see how that works, then I can't help you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 10:54 AM (This post was last modified: 28-03-2015 11:04 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 10:46 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 05:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  My explanation was to show you that they are not dependent on each other. But I see it didn't work.

If life is needed for evolution to do its thang...then that would kind of make one dependent on the other. If you don't see how that works, then I can't help you.

And right there is the difference between how you "think" and rational minds. Conflation of topics is a sign of not understanding the concepts. Drinking Beverage

Example: it is like trying to explain why the tread on a tire wears down meanwhile you want to know how fossil fuels are extracted from the earth. Figuring out the former does not require knowing about the latter.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
28-03-2015, 10:58 AM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 10:46 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 05:27 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  My explanation was to show you that they are not dependent on each other. But I see it didn't work.

If life is needed for evolution to do its thang...then that would kind of make one dependent on the other. If you don't see how that works, then I can't help you.

Yes, Evolution needs life to exist to operate. However "how life arose" is irrelevant to Evolution. It doesn't matter how it happened, since Evolution is solely responsible on how life diversifies and what factors influence this process. That's it.

Even if God existed and it created the first spark of life, Evolution could still happen. There's nothing magical about this process, really. It only says that organisms better adapted can survive longer and are more likely to reproduce at the expense of other less-adapted organisms. So their genes (i.e. features) will be passed on, and so on, and so on. Until you have so many changes that the new organism looks different, acts different, lives different.

孤独 - The Out Crowd
Life is a flash of light between two eternities of darkness.
[Image: Schermata%202014-10-24%20alle%2012.39.01.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Polyglot Atheist's post
28-03-2015, 11:11 AM
RE: Question about flood
(27-03-2015 05:51 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Cotw- we already got to the point of life. Life is all around us.

If there were no life, then yes, evolution doesn't happen, but hey, we're here aren't we.

If you are saying God doesn't exist, then there is no escaping the implications of what I said.

(27-03-2015 05:51 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  We have done lots of experiments that show the components of life, organic compounds, can arise from inorganic chemicals.

We can produce proteins of life by recreating the early atmosphere on earth from billions of years ago. Done, proven. Time and time again.

Mannnn that is pure nonsense. There is no experiment that has EVER been conducted that shows how life can come to nonliving material. None. The absolute closest that we've ever come was the Urey-Miller experiment, and they were still so far from life that the experiment was an absolute FAILURE.

This article is from 2009, and they are still admitting that they aren't there yet http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

So what you are talking about, I don't know.

(27-03-2015 05:51 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Perhaps this is all new information for you.
So far, it seems like we have to start you off at grade 4 and work our way up.

Its definitely an uphill battle just trying to get you to follow along with the material.

Until you can go in a lab and demonstrate how life can arise from nonliving material, then you need not make such statements towards me, or anyone else that doubts the theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 10:58 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Yes, Evolution needs life to exist to operate. However "how life arose" is irrelevant to Evolution. It doesn't matter how it happened, since Evolution is solely responsible on how life diversifies and what factors influence this process. That's it.

I am saying if God doesn't exist, then evolution is not a brute fact like most of you would like it to be. You can't logically just completely bypass abiogenesis and jump right to evolution, when evolution depends on abiogenesis. That is the cart before the horse fallacy. If life CAN'T come from nonlife, then evolution without God would be impossible. That is the point, can life come from nonlife, or can't it? The question remains open and until science can put a lid on it, then it can't be a brute fact, without God.

(28-03-2015 10:58 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  Even if God existed and it created the first spark of life, Evolution could still happen.

And if that is the case, then atheism is still defeated, so see ya, have a nice day.

(28-03-2015 10:58 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  There's nothing magical about this process, really.

So, nonliving material, that cant think, see, hear...suddenly coming to life and beginning to think, see, and hear...that isn't magical??? What the hell is it then? You can't even call it science yet.

(28-03-2015 10:58 AM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  It only says that organisms better adapted can survive longer and are more likely to reproduce at the expense of other less-adapted organisms. So their genes (i.e. features) will be passed on, and so on, and so on. Until you have so many changes that the new organism looks different, acts different, lives different.

Sounds like microevolution to me. No denying that this occurs...I am talking about the whole reptile to bird thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 11:27 AM
RE: Question about flood
(28-03-2015 10:54 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  And right there is the difference between how you "think" and rational minds. Conflation of topics is a sign of not understanding the concepts. Drinking Beverage

Conflating topics? What? Dude, it is called "starting from step 1, and THEN moving to step 2". You want to just skip over step 1 and start from step 2.

Sorry, Charlie, no easy stuff, here. If you can't scientifically prove how life could have arisen from nonliving material, then the theory of evolution (without God) is not a fact.

It just could be the case that abiogenesis is FALSE. That could be the case...so, if evolution IS true, then God is the one behind the wheel making it happened, or evolution never happened in the first place and God did everything without evolution....but either way, God is in the picture whether you like it or not Big Grin

(28-03-2015 10:54 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Example: it is like trying to explain why the tread on a tire wears down meanwhile you want to know how fossil fuels are extracted from the earth. Figuring out the former does not require knowing about the latter.

If it is a fact that fossil fuels have something to do with why the tread on the tires wears down, then you could trace everything back to the fossil fuels, couldn't you??

So you are comparing something we KNOW to be true, with something we DON'T know to be true and trying to draw a parallel.

Again, sorry charlie, aint happening..not on my watch No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 11:31 AM
RE: Question about flood
Good lord god...a discussion with this moron isn't still going on, is it?

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Anjele's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: