U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-26-2013, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,087 posts, read 12,018,265 times
Reputation: 9717

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
There is also another theory which is that there was either an icy canopy surrounding earth or rings of ice such as is found around Saturn, which came down on the earth and caused torrents of water to come down from above.
However, it ignores the fact that the amount of water on this planet remains constant. Where did all that water GO?

 
Old 03-27-2013, 05:22 AM
 
7,378 posts, read 6,732,866 times
Reputation: 1252
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
However, it ignores the fact that the amount of water on this planet remains constant. Where did all that water GO?
How do you think the milk in the Milky Way was formed? Out of dehydrated milk and the water that was siphoned up after the Great Flood.

Good point weltschmerz. There are SOOOO many problems with the Great Flood story that one can conclude that it never happened. From that, one can conclude that the Bible is inaccurate and cannot be trusted with any of its claims.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 06:02 AM
 
39,135 posts, read 10,857,554 times
Reputation: 5089
I can't help enjoying this exchange.

Essentially, a literalist belief in the Bible requires that the Ark story be true pretty much as written and, taking that as true, any objections must be explained away with any explanation, reasonable (like the sea -anchor method of overcoming instability), unreasonable (as in -for example - having the mountains flat enough that the water needed for a flood could be made possible and then have them shoot up to something like the present height) and the downright whacky.

More, there are some explanations that are unworkable. The Ark was horribly overloaded even before dinosaur prints in the supposed flood deposits made it necessary for the prehistoric animals to be on the Ark, too.
The efforts to reduce the staggering numbers of kinds of animals with dinosaur eggs and baramins (e.g a basic kind of 'cat' which would evolve at supa -speed into all the cat family, thus cutting down fifty species into one) run into problems as the supposed flood -deposits have the fossils of already evolved species including not two but a dozen kinds of elephant not a thousand but ten thousand types of bird and all the 'kinds' of pterosaurs too - they all had to be on the Ark so that the largest ones could be filmed flying over Nugini.

The efforts to keep the fish -not to mention whales - out of the ark also run into problems. The Flood evidence includes fossils of shoals of fish buried under mudslides (so the argument goes) of thick deposits of marine life (1) and there is also that upright whale, not to mention the fossil Basileosaurids and the rest of the Cetan sequence. Clearly the global Flood - ocean was not a safe place for sea -life according the Creationist theory -not mine - and so Noah HAD to take each of the sea -life species from whales to jelly fish onto an impossible deck of aquariua and porpoise -pools just to be sure that no kind of animal would be lost.

When we come up against this sort of unfeasibility, there is only one way out: God has to wave a magic wand.

Now, aside from the argument that, once God hath intervened,then the whole whackmadoodle scenario becomes pointless, the relevance to the thread -title is that, the more fanciful the explanations produced (often apparently out of thin air) to keep the Ark afloat, the more the implausibility of the story becomes evident. And, when God has to do some magic to make it work, then the story has, in any reasonable, logical, scientific and rational terms, become totally implausible.

That means that it is based on faith, not evidence and the burden of proof is once more, shown to be on the Arkeologist, Flood -enthusiast and Bible -literalist creationists to make a feasible and plausible case - not for the doubter, skeptic and double-dammned unbeliever to disprove the feasibility and plausibility of the Ark story. Which I would say had surely been done anyway. The Ark has irretrievably sunk under the weight of extinct species.

(1) gotta foopnote this. Curiously without being mixed in with all the rest of drowned creation - one might be forgiven for thinking that they were just deposited in a ocean over millions of years, give or take a few washed -in animal fragments)e

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-27-2013 at 06:19 AM..
 
Old 03-27-2013, 07:16 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 12,938,502 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn View Post
How childish..."I know you are, but what am I?"
How childish..."I know you are, but what am I?"
 
Old 03-27-2013, 07:21 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 12,938,502 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
However, it ignores the fact that the amount of water on this planet remains constant. Where did all that water GO?
Not really. It doesn't ignore that at all. The polar ice caps are over 2.5 miles deep Polar Ice Study Guide & Homework Help - eNotes.com. That is where a lot of the water went. The rest of the water went into huge inland lakes and seas and oceans. The deepest part of the ocean is so deep that if you put Mt. Everest in it you would still have a mile of water above that mountain.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 07:41 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 12,938,502 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I can't help enjoying this exchange.

Essentially, a literalist belief in the Bible requires that the Ark story be true pretty much as written and, taking that as true, any objections must be explained away with any explanation, unreasonable (like the sea -anchor method of overcoming instability), unreasonable (as in -for example - having the mountains flat enough that the water needed for a flood could be made possible and then have them shoot up to something like the present height) and the downright whacky.
Essentially, a non-literalist belief in the Bible requires that the Ark story be true pretty much wrong, as written and, taking that as false, any objections must be explained away with any explanation, reasonable (like not believing the sea -anchor method of overcoming instability),

The sea anchor was not to overcome instability at all. It was just to keep the ark from hitting the sides of the mountains as it gracefully, slowly rose inside the valley it was built in. Also, I'm not saying he used a pile anchor. I'm just saying it's a possibility one was used.

Quote:
continuing with the non-literalist view:
reasonable (as in -for example - having the mountains flat enough that the water needed for a flood could be made possible and then have them shoot up to something like the present height) and the downright whacky.
More, there are some explanations that are unworkable. The Ark was horribly overloaded even before dinosaur prints in the supposed flood deposits made it necessary for the prehistoric animals to be on the Ark, too.
I never said the mountains had to be flat enough. I said they were not nearly has high back in Noah's day as they are today. Even the non-literalists must conclude that Mt. Everest was not as high 5 to 10 thousand years ago as it is today. If the rate of rise of Mt. Everest has been constant for the last 10,000 years (as it is today) then it would have been 10,000 x 2.5 inches/year = 2,023.33333 feet less tall back then. Of course the rate of rise was fastest right after the flood when Pangea broke apart and the continent of India pushed northward causing the upthrust of the Himalayan mountain range.

Quote:
The efforts to reduce the staggering numbers of kinds of animals with dinosaur eggs and baramins (e.g a basic kind of 'cat' which would evolve at supa -speed into all the cat family, thus cutting down fifty species into one) run into problems as the supposed flood -deposits have the fossils of already evolved species including not two but a dozen kinds of elephant not a thousand but ten thousand types of bird and all the 'kinds' of pterosaurs too - they all had to be on the Ark so that the largest ones could be filmed flying over Nugini.
No problem at all. Today we have many different kinds of dogs through breeding. In just the last hundred years, how many new kinds of dogs have been bred from existing breeds? Also, who said there had to be dinosaurs on the ark. Not me.

Quote:
The efforts to keep the fish -not to mention whales - out of the ark also run into problems. The Flood evidence includes fossils of shoals of fish buried under mudslides (so the argument goes) of thick deposits of marine life (1) and there is also that upright whale, not to mention the fossil Basileosaurids and the rest of the Cetan sequence. Clearly the global Flood - ocean was not a safe place for sea -life according the Creationist theory -not mine - and so Noah HAD to take each of the sea -life species from whales to jelly fish onto an impossible deck of aquariua and porpoise -pools just to be sure that no kind of animal would be lost.

When we come up against this sort of unfeasibility, there is only one way out: God has to wave a magic wand. I think you are creating a straw man.
Why would one need fish and whales in the ark? They survived the world-wide flood just fine without having to be in the ark.

Quote:
Now, aside from the argument that, once God hath intervened,then the whole whackmadoodle scenario becomes pointless, the relevance to the thread -title is that, the more fanciful the explanations produced (often apparently out of thin air) to keep the Ark afloat, the more the implausibility of the story becomes evident. And, when God has to do some magic to make it work, then the story has, in any reasonable, logical, scientific and rational terms, become totally implausible
.

Quote:
That means that it is based on faith, not evidence and the burden of proof is once more, shown to be on the Arkeologist, Flood -enthusiast and Bible -literalist creationists to make a feasible and plausible case - not for the doubter, skeptic and double-dammned unbeliever to disprove the feasibility and plausibility of the Ark story. Which I would say had surely been done anyway. The Ark has irretrievably sunk under the weight of extinct species.

(1) gotta foopnote this. Curiously without being mixed in with all the rest of drowned creation - one might be forgiven for thinking that they were just deposited in a ocean over millions of years, give or take a few washed -in animal fragments)e
There are quite a number of scientists now coming out stating the world-wide flood did happen.

By the way, I don't believe in any sort of "double-damned unbeliever." I believe God is going to save all mankind . . . even me (if you can believe that!)

Actually, there are quite a lot of dinosaur bones of whole animals starting from Canada going way down into the U.S.A. showing they were suddenly drowned and most of them pointing in the same direction. Of course you can just say "nu-uh" or "prove it." No, you can google it just as easy as I can and it isn't from Creationists either.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,087 posts, read 12,018,265 times
Reputation: 9717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Not really. It doesn't ignore that at all. The polar ice caps are over 2.5 miles deep Polar Ice Study Guide & Homework Help - eNotes.com. That is where a lot of the water went. The rest of the water went into huge inland lakes and seas and oceans. The deepest part of the ocean is so deep that if you put Mt. Everest in it you would still have a mile of water above that mountain.

Since the surface area of Earth is approximately 200 million square miles, and the height of Mt Everest is approximately 5.5 miles, the amount of water that needed to be supplied (and disposed of) in the Great Flood is about 1.1 billion cubic miles[8]. The atmosphere today is only capable of holding the equivalent of one inch of precipitation (over the entire world) in the form of water vapor. The amount of rain per second that would be falling to generate 1.1 billion cubic miles of water over 40 days is almost unimaginable, the equivalent to 289 cubic miles per second. While rain is one possible source, the Bible also the "fountains of the great deep"[9] as found in Genesis 7:11-12. This has given rise to the whole flood geology area of hydroplate theory and the aptly named lunar bukkake theory, which has attempted to replace rain almost entirely with water from underground.
Noah's Ark - RationalWiki
 
Old 03-27-2013, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,087 posts, read 12,018,265 times
Reputation: 9717
The conventional flood story states that the flood waters came from rain that lasted 40 days and 40 nights.[2][3] Rain appears when the air can no longer support water in the vapor phase and it becomes saturated. 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.[4] 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[5] - 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. Barring the goddidit escape hatch (a tried and tested fallback for creationists everywhere), this is impossible.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 11:34 AM
 
Location: Montreal, Quebec
15,087 posts, read 12,018,265 times
Reputation: 9717
More recent theories have seen creationists try to get around this by either placing the water underground, positing an ice or vapor canopy above the atmosphere, water being contained in sealed chambers, or by having comets bring the water. This is despite the Bible not really describing the flood as such—in fact, they have to make a very loose interpretation of the firmament noted in Genesis for this to work. They still ignore several factors, however. When placing the water beneath the earth, the only viable method for releasing it is as steam,[6] which proceeds to sterilize the planet regardless of whether or not one is in a giant wooden boat.
 
Old 03-27-2013, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,881 posts, read 31,773,106 times
Reputation: 12629
Oops...Wrong thread...I thought this was the Atheist forum joke thread...My bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top