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.
I only got through 5 pages of this, but no one had pointed out that the notion of Noah only taking two of each animal onto the Ark is something re-imagined for children's Bible pop-up stories. Essentially, a simplification of the story so it could connect with the targeted demographic. The reality is this:
"God then told Noah to take of every clean beast thou shall take seven pairs, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air also by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.”
Most people have omitted this from the story when teaching it, and merely remember this verse
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
They do find the remains of sea creatures on top of Mt. Everest.
Now then, if these shells are the result of an uplift in the Himalayan mountain range taking millions of years, I seriously doubt you would find very nice, pristine shells which they still find today.
Most likely you will see a bunch of nasty replies about it after this post.
No need to be nasty when you have the truth...
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
And yet the sea shells were left atop Mt. Everest by the world-wide flood. Remember, the Himalayan range was not nearly as high in Noah's day as it is today. They were not left just atop Mt. Everest but atop ever mountain range in the world.
The world-wide flood is the best explanation of marine shells on mountains.
I only got through 5 pages of this, but no one had pointed out that the notion of Noah only taking two of each animal onto the Ark is something re-imagined for children's Bible pop-up stories. Essentially, a simplification of the story so it could connect with the targeted demographic. The reality is this:
"God then told Noah to take of every clean beast thou shall take seven pairs, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air also by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.”
Most people have omitted this from the story when teaching it, and merely remember this verse
"And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive."
And notice the absence of Noah being told to take aboard every whale and every fish.
Aside from the contestable claim that we don't know much -because, yes, it gets a bit sparse before 2-300 BCE, Noah's Ark is not feasibly possible as described in the Bible because we 'know' a good deal about what the Bible claims and, compared with what we do know about archeology, palaeontology and geology, nothing really supports the Ark and Flood story as described in the Bible, though, yes, severe but global floods could well have left folk memories of Floods.
So everything we do know makes the Ark and Flood as described in the Bible unworkable or at least unfeasible. In the terms as described in the Bible 'possible' is so remote from what is feasible or plausible, despite the best that the Ark enthusiasts have been able to do, that to try to hang onto belief in it as true is an act of Faith, not of reason.
And yet there are PhD scientists who state the ark Noah built was feasible. And please don't say those PhD scientists are only to be found on so-called "Christian" web sites, as if that disproves their ability to think and arrive at logical conclusions the same way the atheist PhD scientist does.
we basically don't know much about before
500 BC, then it gets even less clear to 3,000 BC,
virtually impercievable 3,000 BC - 6,000 BC,
almost nothing further than 6,000 BC.
Absolutely nothing past 9,000 BC except for
some archaeological sites with unestablished dating.
Considering that we still don't know much about our
own history as a race/species, I would say that
Noah's Ark is possible.
In fact, au contraire, Snowball7: we do know a whole lot about non-human-civilization pre-fludd conditions & relative, and even specific dates. We have literally reams and (pun intended..) mountains of data about the chronology of sedimentation, the species that were laid down in layers and positions that are the well-documented result of annual deposition (vis-a-vis annual freshet [i.e.: runoff] events from annual snow melt and winter storm events. All irrefutable and incontrovertible. Except, of course, by the likes off....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Nope, sorry, it wasn't me who stated the salinity of the oceans would kill all the fish. rifleman made that statement. It truly is up to him to provide scientific proof as to how saline the oceans were prior to the flood and during the flood if he is going to make such statements.
Not only rifleman says this. Btw, Eusebius, perhaps you could just answer this one question from me: it's not about your Christian beliefs per se.
Q: Do you grant me any credibility as an educated scientist, (unless, of course, you will make the claim that I'm lying about that too?) in any area of expertise?
Or do you just write literally everything off that I say? And if you do write my professional career and experiences off, can you simultaneously just buy into the ramblings of the felons: Hovind, Hamm, Swaggart and so on? So that the score in your mindset is:
A) known felony pranksters: 1;
B) person with several degrees in the exact related sciences were discussing here: 0.
Is that how you see it? (This is not some ego contest: I'm just curious why you constantly and insultingly write off everything I and other educated posters like Nozz [geology if I'm not mistaken] say, as if I had the same lack of technical education as you seem to express...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Obviously it didn't matter one way or the other as to how less saline the water became since the critters of the ocean survived the world-wide flood of Noah's day.
Nothing supports rifleman's position as to salinity. Unless he can provide scientific data as to how saline the waters were pre-flood and during the flood his idea that a world-wide flood would kill all the critters of the ocean such an argument he stated is completely bogus.
Also, he needs to scientifically provide the exact data of what the ocean's salinity was during the flood and see if sea critters such as whales etc. would die by reproducing the exact state the oceans were during the flood. Good luck with that rifleman.
You see readers of these posts, if you haven't noticed, the unbelievers of the Noahic flood make unproven statements trying to get you to think a world-wide flood was not possible. Just read through all the posts and you will see.
And if they can't make scientifically provable statements all they are left with is put downs like rifleman posts in all his name calling and saying we are just idiots.
That's a tell-tale sign they have painted themselves into a corner and can only strike out at those to know the facts of the world-wide flood.
Wasn't hard. as I suggested, please do go down to your local pet store and without their permission (since they would most certainly protest your murdering of their inventory..) dump even a 1/ cup of gen-yoo-whine sea salt into a tan if expensive Amazonian fresh water fish.
I provided you with the citations, but as usual, you've ignored and evaded them. Typical.
As to what all of us "technical imposters" have stated:
1) there is no possible source of water in the volumes necessary to raise the global water level more than a few meters. (This has been calculated several times, providing more than enough opportunities for you to show those posters exactly where they went wrong. Btw, this is not my particular specialty, but I'm also happy to rely on the calculations of those with demonstated knowledge of such things.) Not posible, nor is it's subsequent absorption back to herever it went. At least not without MAGIC. And if that's your only card to play, then stop with any pretense of science.
You, unfortunately, will not accept any such calculation, preferring to blindly accept impossible hydro-source theories, usually based on fanciful and wishful concoctions. As well, even if these included the complete melting of all the world' icecaps and glaciers, this clearly did not hapen because, OMG, we can and have completed ice core drillings with (dang it, huh?) VERY countable varves (sediment layers showing annual events like pollen depositions, etc.).
2) We've clearly shown (and in these statements, I am more than credible, but I also provide citations of others similarly credible..) the necessity for far more than a mere two of any species to provide an even slight chance for subsequent reproductive success. As I've noted more than once, I'm involved in cheetah restoration, and their current population of ≈ 10,000, in far better environs than up on a frozen mountain top, is barely enough to hope for their staying alive, much less showing improvemens in their population.
So... jeeezzz... to claim that a mere two elephants, two cheetahs, two garter snakes, two hyenas, and so on ad infinitum, is utterly laughable. All it shows is that the original authors of this fairy-tale had literally no understanding of population dynamics, animal husbandry and/or genetics. Literally nothing. Which is both understandable and acceptable for early first century authors, but it's also no longer defensible, except by the fringe-cult scientifically illiterate types like you.
Also understandable, but not defensible in an honest debate. And there's the problem of you refusing to admit your lack of education is these highly technical areas of knowledge.
Finally, keeping this to a mere three areas of concern:
3) The existing geo-chronology. We have ice core samples, sedimentary varve drilling samples (another area I was educated and involved in directly, providing absolute safety-oriented geological consultation to a mining company by using varve analysis aspand easily counted and analysed sedimentary layer, the aptly named geological column, which is typically both incontrovertible and inarguable. And yet your fellow Christian acolyte apologists, as well as you, feverishly deny it all, with nary any agreement tat it might be at least partially valuable. (In fact, it goes far more than that!).
So. Three very defensible empirical areas of actual and undeniably factual knowledge which you have no education, nor understanding of "the big words", often using them completely out of context, or entirely incorrectly, then followed by your smug assertion that it's in fact me or us who are insulting you or are in error.
Deeply repugnant, to be sure, but let's get it straight: it's you being "the repugnator!"
rifleman, I don't discount everything you say. It is just that as it regards the world-wide flood of Noah's day, that is outside your expertise. You, dear friend, are in over your head (excuse the pun).
Actually, there is plenty of water on the earth to flood the earth again if necessary. Melt the existing over 2 1/2 miles deep polar caps, force all the HUGE amounts of subterranean water to the surface, sublimate the contintnts and wallah, global flood. The earth was once completely under water (Genesis 1:1-2) and again in Noah's day. It's not really that hard to understand.
Quote:
Or do you just write literally everything off that I say? And if you do write my professional career and experiences off, can you simultaneously just buy into the ramblings of the felons: Hovind, Hamm, Swaggart and so on? So that the score in your mindset is:
Since when did I ever quote one of them to prove my points? You'd have just been as well to as ask if I buy into the ramblings of atheists who've been thrown in prison. You see, rifleman, you are using a fallacy in your argument. It might even come across as a red herring as well, not to mention "guilt by association" fallacy. IT PROVES NOTHING.
I see you still fling your foo at ones who do not agree with you. That reveals one must resort to that sort of antics when one has not the wherewithal to form a cogent, provable reply.
And yet the sea shells were left atop Mt. Everest by the world-wide flood. Remember, the Himalayan range was not nearly as high in Noah's day as it is today. They were not left just atop Mt. Everest but atop ever mountain range in the world.
The world-wide flood is the best explanation of marine shells on mountains.
It is not an explanation at all. Over a hundred million years ago the Himalayas were sea bed, as were all mountains that contain marine fossils. How does that fact fit your myth?
It is not an explanation at all. Over a hundred million years ago the Himalayas were sea bed, as were all mountains that contain marine fossils. How does that fact fit your myth?
I already said the earth was under water (Genesis 1:1-1:2). I think you should have said "how does that fact fit your fact?"
I already said the earth was under water (Genesis 1:1-1:2). I think you should have said "how does that fact fit your fact?"
Unbelievable how you try to twist my words to fit your myth...I said that the mountains that contain marine fossils were once sea bed, and of course sea bed is underwater...That has nothing to do with your fairy tale flood....How does the fact that mountain ranges are millions of years old fit your flood story? Feel free to move your goal posts wherever you want, but I'll still demolish your flood myth...
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.
