LIke I said. Really stupid thread.
Creation Museum Scheduled to open in 2007
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
Woody:
Are you ignoring me? I wonder why.
Which is more dense, Woody - salt water or fresh water?
Find out the answer and get back to me about your "layers" argument.
Did somebody call for Mr Biology?
Have you ever looked up-close at a dolphin's blow hole, Woody? Find a picture and get back to me. Tell me whether the opening has one hole or two.
Are you ignoring me? I wonder why.
Which is more dense, Woody - salt water or fresh water?
Find out the answer and get back to me about your "layers" argument.
Did somebody call for Mr Biology?
Have you ever looked up-close at a dolphin's blow hole, Woody? Find a picture and get back to me. Tell me whether the opening has one hole or two.
James R said:
what question did you ask that I didn't answer?
Salt water is more dense, and hence would have an ever-so-slight tendency to stratify below fresher water (reference) as you can see from this graph:
Now I ask you a few questions:
- What water comes down as rain -- salt water or fresh water?
-Where does it land on the ocean, on the top of the ocean or on the bottom?
- When fresh water combines with salt water does the salinity get more concentrated or less concentrated?
Odviously the salt would be less concentrated in the shallow areas and more concentrated in the deeper areas with a constant deluge of fresh water coming from surface rain, and from the run-off of fresh water from the land. The end result would be nearly pure water at the shoreline, ranging to a reduced salinity in extremely deep water because of all the fresh rain water that was added. This water would be very highly oxygenated by the way, giving all fish plenty of oxygen to breath. In combination with this, you have the salinity stratification effect I gave you from my reference -- this could be accentuated by temperature differences as well, especially If the top layer is considerably warmer than the lower layers.
Yeah, I did, I'm an engineer.
No I haven't. I admit you are a better biologist than I am, and I am a better engineer than you are. It is irrelevant in the discussion anyway, because they (dolphins and whales) do not inhabit dry land, and they can fend for themselves in a flood.
Here is a feasibility study on Noah's ark. Feasibility studies are something engineers work on before they embark on a project. Noah's ark is a project, how feasible was it?
We can work together to prove or disprove the feasibility -- I don't mind a debate because it is usually helpful.
Last edited:
What about the hundreds of thousands of varieties of insect? Oh forget it. This is really dumb. You have to accept all of the biblical bullshit about all animals being vegetarian, dinosaurs coexisting with man, and all of this happening ~6000yrs ago or so. Just look at the slides on the website. You can't debate the "feasibility" of an ark designed to carry the entire... Oh forget it. If you're going to accept the bible as support, then you might as well just say god made it feasible. It's absolutely impossible given our knowledge of actual biology, geology, and physics, not bible fantasies.
Superluminal: Heh, it's almost impossible to debate Bible fantasies isn't it? I think a debate requires two sensible people or else it is pointless.
I remember being taught about Noah's ark in my horrible faith based education. When you're at that age you really do think it happened. The teachers present it as fact, but when you grow up and develop some common sense then it's clear that these are simply stories. Stories passed on from generations at a time when there were no news papers, no tv, no internet - Story telling in ancient days was the form of entertainment. It didn't matter if they were real or fake or based on half truths.
I am just baffled why so many adults around the world today say this stuff is real. Even the stories like Adam and Eve and Noahs Ark were there is every evidence to contradict and no evidence to support, that adults still say it's fact as written in the Bible.
I remember being taught about Noah's ark in my horrible faith based education. When you're at that age you really do think it happened. The teachers present it as fact, but when you grow up and develop some common sense then it's clear that these are simply stories. Stories passed on from generations at a time when there were no news papers, no tv, no internet - Story telling in ancient days was the form of entertainment. It didn't matter if they were real or fake or based on half truths.
I am just baffled why so many adults around the world today say this stuff is real. Even the stories like Adam and Eve and Noahs Ark were there is every evidence to contradict and no evidence to support, that adults still say it's fact as written in the Bible.
Superliminal said:
They don't take up a lot of space and They also lay eggs. Your average honey bee hive has about 80 thousand honey bees.
I suppose all the world species of insects could fit in a railroad car. The larval forms that live in water probably wouldn't need to go on the ark -- ie dragonflys, etc.
I don't think cock roaches would have a bit of trouble surviving on an ark, neither would flies, ticks, fleas, gnats, termites, ants, and a lot of beetles. Rats and mice would fit right in too.
And strangely you leave out logistics. If I listened to everybody that says something won't work, I wouldn't get a lot done as an engineer.
By the way, what is your geological explanation for the Black Sea Flood 7,000 years ago when Noah was around? The science community agrees that there was a flood in the Black Sea -- are you going to deny it?
Actually I think you are living in your own fantasy world and in total denial of the evidence you claim doesn't exist. I don't see you providing any links, nor KC -- you guys are ruled by opinion -- you don't need links -- you already have all the answers -- right?
They don't take up a lot of space and They also lay eggs. Your average honey bee hive has about 80 thousand honey bees.
I suppose all the world species of insects could fit in a railroad car. The larval forms that live in water probably wouldn't need to go on the ark -- ie dragonflys, etc.
I don't think cock roaches would have a bit of trouble surviving on an ark, neither would flies, ticks, fleas, gnats, termites, ants, and a lot of beetles. Rats and mice would fit right in too.
And strangely you leave out logistics. If I listened to everybody that says something won't work, I wouldn't get a lot done as an engineer.
By the way, what is your geological explanation for the Black Sea Flood 7,000 years ago when Noah was around? The science community agrees that there was a flood in the Black Sea -- are you going to deny it?
Actually I think you are living in your own fantasy world and in total denial of the evidence you claim doesn't exist. I don't see you providing any links, nor KC -- you guys are ruled by opinion -- you don't need links -- you already have all the answers -- right?
Last edited:
Ok Woody, lets forget the ark itself for a bit. Are we talking about a world-wide flood that covered all land surface? Yes or No?
If yes, then, as a fellow engineer, please calculate the rate of rainfall required to cover the entire land surface of the earth (including mountains at the 8000meter height) in forty 24 hour days. I already have.
If no, then what is the point if land was left for species to survive on anyway?
If yes, then, as a fellow engineer, please calculate the rate of rainfall required to cover the entire land surface of the earth (including mountains at the 8000meter height) in forty 24 hour days. I already have.
If no, then what is the point if land was left for species to survive on anyway?
superluminal said:
Well first of all the majority of the water didn't come from the rain, but from the "fountains of the deep". Gen 7:11
There is water in the earth .
From the source:
Everyone believed the earth was too hot that far down to hold water. Only recently has the science community made this observation (since the late 1980s).
From the link:
This isn't a christian-propaganda.com web-site.
On the subject of a world-wide flood -- I am inclined to believe it was indeed worldwide. How the animals got to the ark and back again -- I don't know. The bible says on that point that (Gen 6:20):
The animals showed up on their own.
Last edited:
Ok. So my question stands. Worldwide total inundation or local flood?
So, the exposed land surface "at the time" was completely submerged. This must be so for the story to be true.
This means that a volume of water capable of raising sea level by approximately 8000 meters or 5 miles (there were very tall mountains (everest, K2, etc.) "at the time") issued forth within forty days.
How did this happen and how did it recede again? Remember, according to your link much of this water is in molecular form trapped in crystal lattices.
This means that a volume of water capable of raising sea level by approximately 8000 meters or 5 miles (there were very tall mountains (everest, K2, etc.) "at the time") issued forth within forty days.
How did this happen and how did it recede again? Remember, according to your link much of this water is in molecular form trapped in crystal lattices.
Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
(king james version).
It seems that god wasn't very educated and didn't know there were large oceans between the landmasses we now know to exist as continents. That is kind of funny, since he is supposed to have created land.
Of course the other option is that the entire story is a work of fiction by man and they didn't know about other continents, in fact they hardly ever traveled outside their own region.
(king james version).
It seems that god wasn't very educated and didn't know there were large oceans between the landmasses we now know to exist as continents. That is kind of funny, since he is supposed to have created land.
Of course the other option is that the entire story is a work of fiction by man and they didn't know about other continents, in fact they hardly ever traveled outside their own region.
The Noachian flood myth can be dismissed as a myth with no factual basis based solely on its comparisson and contrast to the older stories and myths about floods that existed long before among the people residing in the flood plain of the Tigris and Euphrates.
The Gilgamesh epic is demonstrably the literary progenitor of the Noachian myth. I'll include passages from both Genesis and Gilgamesh here in a line-numbered format to compare:
Now Gilgamesh:
In the Gilgamesh passage, I left two blank lines to maintain the correlation between the two and show the parallels. The Genesis passage shows clear embellishments (again, a common literary device of the period) I took the Gilgamesh passage from Pritchard (1955, pp 94-95).
But we must also consider that Gilgamesh itself is not original with its flood story. A Sumerian myth was recorded in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. on a cuneiform tablet that described the destruction of the "seed of mankind" by the gods. This story is referred to as The Deluge and describes how Ziusudra, a particularly pious man, attentive to divine revelations, was chosen by the gods to survive the flood and who built a "huge boat."
The flood of The Deluge sweeps the land for 7 days and 7 nights until Utu, the Sun god, appears, at which point Ziusudra sacrifices an ox and is rewarded for his obedience with eternal life. "Ziusudra," by the way, means "life of long days."
The Deluge is then incorporated into the Akkadian Atrahasis epic, some details are added (i.e. the survivor's family is among the boat's passengers) and this is later incorporated into the Gilgamesh epic, which is a story that spread throughout the Near East.
Until recently, Biblical readers of Gen. 8:6-12 only had the Biblical account of the flood to go by until archaeological and linguistic recovery of the ancient languages occurred. It's now obvious that the Genesis author was drawing on an older oral tradition for the details of the flood and that it wasn't divinely influenced at all.
Key Elements
** The details of the birds are absent from The Deluge and Antrahasis epics, making Gilgamesh the biblical source.
The big failing of the religious is that they are believers and thus refuse to have an objective point of view. The advantage of the non-believer or the liberal-believer, is that they can look at the biblical stories and realize that these are myths created by an ancient set of cultures that borrowed heavily from existing stories and motifs to make points about morality and offer explanations. Most religious people aren't threatened by the notion that biblical stories are mythological and allegorical, but fundementalists like Woody fear this realization since they think it threatens to bring down the house of cards they superstitiously live in.
The irony is that it will probably be the fundamentalists that will finally cause most religious people to turn away from religious superstition as they continue to assert fiction and superstition trump the science that keeps providing consistent answers and explanation. The double irony is that religious idiots are anti-science at nearly every turn, but don't mind reaping the benefits science provides with new technologies from indoor plumbing to computers to refined petroleum.
The Gilgamesh epic is demonstrably the literary progenitor of the Noachian myth. I'll include passages from both Genesis and Gilgamesh here in a line-numbered format to compare:
[*]At the end of forty days
[*]Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and released a raven,
[*]Which flew back and forth as it waited for the waters to dry up on the earth
[*]Then he released a dove to see whether the waters were receding from the earth
[*]But the dove, finding nowhere to perch, returned to the ark, for there was water over the whole surface of the earth. Putting his hand out, he took hold of it and brought it back into the ark with him.
[*]After waiting seven more days, he again released the dove from the ark.
[*]In the evening the dove came back to him and there in his beak was a freshly-picked olive leaf! So Noah realized that the waters were receding from the earth.
[*]After waiting seven more days, he released the dove and now it returned no more.
Now Gilgamesh:
[*]When the seventh day arrived,
[*]I sent forth and set free a dove.
[*]The dove went forth but came back since no resting place was visible, she turned around.
[*]Then I set forth a swallow
[*]The swallow went forth but came back, since no resting place for it was visible, she turned around.
[*] .
[*] .
[*]I then set free a raven. The raven went forth and, seeing that the waters had diminished, he eats, circles, caws, and turns not around.
In the Gilgamesh passage, I left two blank lines to maintain the correlation between the two and show the parallels. The Genesis passage shows clear embellishments (again, a common literary device of the period) I took the Gilgamesh passage from Pritchard (1955, pp 94-95).
But we must also consider that Gilgamesh itself is not original with its flood story. A Sumerian myth was recorded in the late 3rd millennium B.C.E. on a cuneiform tablet that described the destruction of the "seed of mankind" by the gods. This story is referred to as The Deluge and describes how Ziusudra, a particularly pious man, attentive to divine revelations, was chosen by the gods to survive the flood and who built a "huge boat."
The flood of The Deluge sweeps the land for 7 days and 7 nights until Utu, the Sun god, appears, at which point Ziusudra sacrifices an ox and is rewarded for his obedience with eternal life. "Ziusudra," by the way, means "life of long days."
The Deluge is then incorporated into the Akkadian Atrahasis epic, some details are added (i.e. the survivor's family is among the boat's passengers) and this is later incorporated into the Gilgamesh epic, which is a story that spread throughout the Near East.
Until recently, Biblical readers of Gen. 8:6-12 only had the Biblical account of the flood to go by until archaeological and linguistic recovery of the ancient languages occurred. It's now obvious that the Genesis author was drawing on an older oral tradition for the details of the flood and that it wasn't divinely influenced at all.
Key Elements
- Deciding to send a flood to wipe out life on earth
- Selecting a worthy man to survive
- Building a boat
- Riding out the storm on the boat
- Offering a sacrifice on dry land at the end.
** The details of the birds are absent from The Deluge and Antrahasis epics, making Gilgamesh the biblical source.
The big failing of the religious is that they are believers and thus refuse to have an objective point of view. The advantage of the non-believer or the liberal-believer, is that they can look at the biblical stories and realize that these are myths created by an ancient set of cultures that borrowed heavily from existing stories and motifs to make points about morality and offer explanations. Most religious people aren't threatened by the notion that biblical stories are mythological and allegorical, but fundementalists like Woody fear this realization since they think it threatens to bring down the house of cards they superstitiously live in.
The irony is that it will probably be the fundamentalists that will finally cause most religious people to turn away from religious superstition as they continue to assert fiction and superstition trump the science that keeps providing consistent answers and explanation. The double irony is that religious idiots are anti-science at nearly every turn, but don't mind reaping the benefits science provides with new technologies from indoor plumbing to computers to refined petroleum.
Last edited:
SkinWalker said:
Yeah I've heard about Gilgamesh. According to the bible all of humanity came from Noah and his sons Ham, Shem, and Japheth. It is highly likely their descendants had their own versions of the account. Ham is the line to Babylon -- didn't Gilgamesh originate in Babylon?
Ham's son was Cush and his son was Nimrod. Nimrod married his own mother Isis. They started their own religion in Babylon and built the towers of babel to their sun god. Ham, by the way, sodomized his own father Noah. Is it any surprise that his grandson married his daughter-in-law?
That's your analysis of me -- and do you get paid to do this for a living? You like to think these things about me because you must justify your own set of beliefs which does not include an afterlife. I was a lot more scared when I believed the way you do. What if you are wrong?
The fact of the matter is -- I accept evolution as being true, the world was not created in six literal 24 hour days, the earth is not 7,000 years old, and even if man evolved, it's not a deal-breaker for me. Likewise for Noah's ark and any other notable relic such as the ark of the covenant.
I believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross and was raised from the dead. You can't prove that he didn't anymore than I can prove he did.
Last edited: