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.
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.
Quite so, and yet....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
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.
Oh. OK... my bad I suppose. but still... let's see here just exactly what you said: if we take enough water and put it into a giant water dish, then yessiree, we can indeed place Mt. Everest into it. But what about all the other mountains around Everest? Let's take a quick looksee, shall we, little E? (SOrry, but with your continued vast scientific illiteracy and illogical nannyiddly-brained stuff, I've had to demote you. I have that power, you know. After all, I'm waaaay better educated than you, so God's given me that option! No sit down and shuddup and learn!)
As to your equally stupid idea of those aquatic animals just easily co-existing in a completely altered salinity ocean, you're (as usual, and demonstrably) out of touch with the facts again.
AS I've already suggested, since you know so much about aquatic ecology, you should go on down to your local pet store and sneak in a cup of health-food store "natural sea salt!" and pour it into the tank with the Amazonian Tropical fish. BTW, then you'd best have your Amex card handy. Not to mention your Get Out Of The Asylum Free card...
But hypothetically, if you did the same thing with, say, porpoises, seals, whales, sharks and the like, whose body chemistry even you can't just ignore, were thrust into a very modified near-fresh water [or even slightly less-saline] post-fludd oceanic environment, guess what?
PS: How do you imagine such species exchange waste products right now? Why, by osmosis within their bodies (via their kidneys), but with altered salinity, such things do not work. This is the principle behind diuretic drugs, btw. They alter your kidney's osmotic processes, and you pee like a racehorse.
Next: you guys always trot out the "dogs are just different breeds, so a cat is just a different breed of giraffe!" Riiiigghhhhtt...
Moderator cut: edit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
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... etc etc...
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.
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.
There are quite a number of scientists now coming out stating the world-wide flood did happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn
(List? You have to leave out the list of pseudo-scientists, btw. And if you provide a list of even a hundred Creationist scientists, those who actually have relevant degrees, I will then produce a list of a million, with literally millions more young new bio-scientists graduating each year. and you are powerless to do anything to stop them. And also don't forget: a pretty large number of them become high school science teachers.
Oh oh, huh? Them facts will "out"!
BTW, what do such "numbers of people who believe" mean to you? Is this a popularity contest? If so, remember how the church handled the disbelievers a few centuries ago? Yup: they killed those who thought the earth was spherical, or this or that...well, you know. The church was always right, by those "majority" numbers.
So even if it is a majority vote, in which case we win hands down! Or is it fact-based, in which case we also win, hands down? Or is it based on demonstrable evidence? Ditto: we win hands down. In any rational contest of facts versus fancy, we win, hands down. Oh, and by corollary, you lose!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
Oops...Wrong thread...I thought this was the Atheist forum joke thread...My bad.
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.
Oh, but you did say there are drowned dinosaur fossils found in Canada, to bolster your Great Flood theory. Are you saying Noah screwed up? Clearly, if there were no dinosaurs on the ark, but they perished in the flood....well, do the math. Someone screwed up, royally.
Why would Noah save everything except dinosaurs?
Clearly, if the ark was big enough to hold killer whales, a few tweaks here and there would have accomodated dinosaurs.
There are quite a number of scientists now coming out stating the world-wide flood did happen.
Name one that isn't now in teaching at Liberty University or a permanent resident at the local mental hospital.
Quote:
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.
Oops, problem. All of these bones would be in the same sedimentary layer if they all died at once. They are not!! Fail!!
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.
I will not conceal that our last thread on the subject was my inspiration for my last few posts. I recall that you posted a you -tube arguing that sea -anchors gave stability to the Ark in high seas. If you want to argue that they were used 'to keep the ark from hitting the sides of the mountains', Ok. I presume you mean by use in steering, not as stone bumpers strung along the side.
In any case, I recall that these 'sea anchors' were found near Wyatt's rock outcrop which you (correctly) accept is not the Ark. So...ah, these perforated rocks are nothing to do with the ark in any case.
Quote:
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.
It is a rather nice calculation exercise in making the mountains low enough to make a flood feasible without your far -fetched Saturn rings melting and pouring in through holes in the sky and then inflating like a lot of rocky bladders to their present height. However it occurs to me that we need at least mountains up to snowline and above well before the Flood inorder to make your ingenious freeze drying of fodder a known technique in Noah's day.
Quote:
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.
It's not all about you,chum. There are many who assert that dinosaurs had to be on the Ark, because otherwise there would be no dinosaur tracks in the supposed 'Flood levels'. Also, while humans can selectively breed varieties of animals, natural selection unhelped along by human artifice and leading to different species of the macro -evolved kind is going to take a lot longer. After all, if it happened quick enough to produce all the species from a couple of hundred baramin - basics, why don't we see such 'macro' evolution going on today? As before,God waving a magic wand in order to overcome problems means that the whole flood and ark scenario is unfeasible and indeed pointless and that is tantamount to ...implausible.
Quote:
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.
To repeat a point made in an earlier post, part of the evidence for a flood is the piled up fossils of fish signifying catastrophic extinction. If so, the global Flood ocean was not a cosy environment for sea -life and, thus, the breeding pairs of fish and whales as well, had to be on the Ark in suitable tanks (more space needed ) to keep their kind alive upon the face of the earth. Since to make the legalist argument that the sea isn't the earth sorta misses the point of the exercise.
Quote:
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.
I have seen many interpretations (the famous upright whale for one and the shells on mountains for another) of fossil evidence misrepresented for the purposes of proving the biblical flood. If you can Google it as easy as me, they YOU present the evidence rather than send me off searching out your case for you.
Then there's the hugely uncomfortable evidence of the three-on punches of 1) modern dating methods (radioactive isotopic decay rates) 2) inarguable geo-column chronology and 3) those pesky riverine and lacustrine sedimentary varves.
Oh yes, plus the absolute lack of any mention of tens of thousands of local roaming or migrating dinosaurs that an historically accurate bible would surely have noted in it's various stories. But nope: not a single account there.
All of these taken together confirm an obvious long-time process that easily predates the claimed fludd myth story by literally hundreds of thousands of years.
I harbor a faint hope (very faint) that Eusebius is just playing devil's advocate ad absurdum here and doesn't seriously entertain the intellectual absurdity that the Genesis stories are literal historical events AS DESCRIBED. I can understand believing there is SOME underlying reality that served as the stimulus for the stories. The embellishment of stories over time is a well-established feature of human story-telling . . . especially among primitive peoples. However, that hope is faint indeed . . . and regrettably likely to be squelched by Eusebius himself in answer to this post. I am flabbergasted that ANY intelligent human being would EVER seriously believe such absurdities in this day and age!
How can Christians even defend this story with a straight face? Seriously can somebody explain how all the Earth's creatures were stored on this ark for 40 days with everything taken care of. I want the sizes of the animals, all of the logistics of this and how it is accomplished. Why didn't God just re-create the animals / creatures again from scratch like he did in the beginning? Everything does not need another to reproduce. What about asexual animals?
Such a flood would've killed all the plants, meaning no oxygen, hence no life. Also, the rains from such a flood would've diluted the salt water, killing all the salt water fish, while the salt water spilling over into fresh water would've killed all the fresh water fish. There is no way that 20,000+ animals would've fit onto a boat smaller than the Titanic, along with enough food to keep them all fed for 100 days. Like, how would say, kangaroos and koalas have gotten all the way from Australia to where the ark was being built, then back again? And for a mere 8 people to keep all those animals fed, and dispose of all that waste(otherwise the methane from all the excrement would've killed everything on board), would've been a Herculean task, to say the very least.
I am flabbergasted that ANY intelligent human being would EVER seriously believe such absurdities in this day and age!
Why so? If one starts from the assumption that this all powerful god exists in the first place then how is anything from _after_ that point "absurd"? A being with unlimited powers could do anything. "With god anything is possible" after all. With infinite powers - merely allowing a man live to 900 years old - and helping him build a ship where the internal dimensions are larger than the external - are all childs play.
The absurdity stems from the base premise - that there is such a god with such powers in the first place - not in thinking that such stories in the Bible are beyond it's capabilities. Your accusation of absurdity is entirely well founded - just mis-assigned.
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.
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.
There are many who assert that dinosaurs had to be on the Ark, because otherwise there would be no dinosaur tracks in the supposed 'Flood levels'. Also, while humans can selectively breed varieties of animals, natural selection unhelped along by human artifice and leading to different species of the macro -evolved kind is going to take a lot longer. After all, if it happened quick enough to produce all the species from a couple of hundred baramin - basics, why don't we see such 'macro' evolution going on today? As before,God waving a magic wand in order to overcome problems means that the whole flood and ark scenario is unfeasible and indeed pointless and that is tantamount to ...implausible. 
) to keep their kind alive upon the face of the earth. Since to make the legalist argument that the sea isn't the earth sorta misses the point of the exercise. 
God doth make too many big assumptions! As in...
