To be fair, the Bible did say that it was very rainy.
Noah's Ark
- Thread starter Mickmeister
- Start date
To be fair, the Bible did say that it was very rainy.
Your comment is the lowest form of wit and not helping you though, is it?
The maths is correct for the idea of water levels rising above Mt Everest through a spherical expansion of water above the earth, but this did not happen.
In order to know how the water covered everything involves two basic factors, the behaviour of a large scale body of water and the relationship it has with the land below. The earth below changed in height to various degrees accordingly. Both these concepts are foreign to most, and cannot be fathomed by most.
It has nothing to do with intelligence, but familiarity, so you should not feel offended if you don't get it.
When I was a child of 3 in an ocean storm, I was fascinated that water could rise in mountains that threatened to overturn the ship, and how everything seemed to be in slow motion. The bigger the wave the slower the dynamics.
What I witnessed was only a pin in the ocean. During the flood bodies of water like mountains, 200 km long and 500 m high would rise and fall very slowly over many hours, the land below was continuously reshaped. It took months for the flood to allow sendimentations. This is only one aspect out of twelve that operated during the flood.
LOL. That would be an understatement, something the Bible is not famous for.
We could try to clarify this. We could come out with a Scientific Version. We could add the following explanatory notes:
The rain fell 717 times harder than the hardest monthly rainfall on record, which was in Cherrapunji, India in July 1861, a mere 9,246 mm. It fell 717 times harder than this on every square meter of the earth, even at the poles and mountaintops, without freezing. It did so for 40 days and nights, killing every living thing that was not adapted to marine life, as well as many that were. Then, as magically as this moisture had appeared out of thin air, the waters evaporated, restoring everything just as it was, and all traces of the excess water vapor also vanished. Every fresh water system than had been contaminated was magically restored, their salts and pollutants also vanishing into the thin air where all the water disappeared. Every living thing that was killed by the flood was magically resurrected. Every creature and habitat suddenly popped back into existence, without any memory or trauma of the cataclysm, and the reanimated animals went about their business with the same behaviors as before, among reanimated forests and habitats of every kind, completely restored to the last detail. Every person killed was magically resurrected without any memory of the event, and every monument and city was restored uninterrupted. The fire that the baker had going was magically rekindled on dry wood, and the half-baked loaves magically popped back into existence resuming the last half of the baking cycle. All of the vats of wine and vinegar magically reappeared, in the exact stages of fermentation that were underway when the waters initally interrupted them. All the hay reemerged dry and the cattle appeared in their stalls ruminating as if nothing at all had happened. Every detail of reality that had been interrupted was magically resumed without a single glitch. We know this because no reports are given anywhere in the world of any unusual phenonomena that might indicate that something anomalous had transpired. In fact, the only only evidence we have of this paranormal event is that it is reported in the Bible, by eye witnesses who choose to remain anonymous. Nevertheless we know they are correct because the Bible says so, and it is obviously inerrant. Amen.
Last edited:
Your understanding of the physics of the tsunami isn't grounded. The parameter that matters is energy. When you get around to understanding math a little better (which I'd encourage you to do) you'll understand why it is impossible to produce a tsunami that covers the whole earth. It's physically impossible, it never happened, and there never was a mass extinction.
In other words, let's ignore all of the math, science and history that reveals the truth, and proceed blindly on with a complete fabrication?
The accumulation of related factors you are referring to are nothing more than common knowledge. The wrinkles you want to iron out are mountains, but they aren't flattened by your wishes that they would.
If that were true the sea beds would sink and the dry land would ascend to higher elevations. This completely contradicts your ridiculous scheme.
No, you've just made stuff up that has no basis in reality. Water does not leap around and jump up steep and rugged terrain for the same reason that the earth does not spontaneously turn into styrofoam and collapse. And that reason is that the laws of nature do not simply cease in order to make some silly idea seem to ring true. You're simply dismissing all of human knowledge in order to shore up your frivolous version of the flood myth. But that doesn't change anything. It always was -- and always will be -- a mere myth.
I was referring to plate tectonics, which has everything to do with earthquakes and volcanoes and nothing at all to do with land collapsing, like the styrofoam that creationism is built on.
Again, if any of that were true, there would be evidence of mass extinctions in the human era. There would be evidence of global flooding. There isn't, and thus there wasn't. Again, this goes back to holding all knowledge hostage so you can force the Earth to have a past it never had, simply to shore up your personal opinion of an ancient superstition. You need to refer to any standard text on geology for an explanation of vulcanism and the ages of the volcanoes you are referring to.
Momentum is another word for energy. Water does not have energy. It acquires it from external forces. Tidal energy is due to the gravitational force with the moon. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes that impart kinetic energy to the water. Neither of these in any way supports the nutty idea that water was thrown up the Tibetan plateau. You are simply evading the question that extra water is needed to flood the earth. It was in the 18th order of magnitude for cubic meters of water. Mutiply that by 1000 kg to get to the mass involved. It's impossible, it never happened, and the only reason for saying so is to prop up a silly myth.
No I can't imagine that, that would be impossible. Now imagine a world in which the laws of nature are not violated just to shore up a silly myth.
Land does not bend down. It shifts laterally as brittle glass plates, then fractures under the pressure. This is how earthquakes happen. In a rubber earth world there would be no earthquakes or volcanoes.
Ridiculous.
Answer: Never. Still pending is the question of the velocity required to send 1L of water up to the top of Everest. You said a couple of knots. Are you prepared to belly up to the bar and find out how fast it would have to be traveling? We can compare this to the energy of a typical earthquake in order to figure out how much water could be thrown up there.
You are demonstrating pseudoscience very well.
Indeed. It did not happen. But your heresy, dismissing the rain cited all of the Mesopotamian versions, and in the Bible version of the myth, is duly noted. For the same reason that it did not rain 717 times harder than ever witnessed, and for 40 days and nights, none of the rest of the myth ever happened.
The behavior of water is that it obeys the laws of physics. It remains in its state of motion until acted upon by a force. However, neither matter nor energy will be created or destroyed in the process.
No, the earth never changed its height. That's absurd. And it certainly never happened in the human era. The cities and monuments of antiquity were never under water. The people and their civilizations were never eradicated. No interruptions occurred whatsoever in the habitats on land, or in the populations of people or other creatures, during the human era. No salt was laid down in the numerous fresh water systems.
Oh, sure, they can be fathomed, but only in the context of science fiction. They're not foreign to us, they are similar to thousands of years of superstitions that have thwarted progress since the dawn of history.
It has everything to do with intelligence. The opposite is willful ignorance, the condition that allows a person to ignore what all the facts and evidence are telling us. None of this ever happened, and the only reason you even conceive of it is because you think a superstitious myth should be taken literally.
And it happened at sea level, 8848 meters lower than your silly pseudoscience version of the superstitious myth. It therefore has no bearing on the ridiculous idea that swells magically grew high enough to cover the land.
Mountains of water have no relationship to the swells that occur naturally due to tides, winds and currents. Experiencing a wave of several meters does not imply that thousands of years ago the waves spontaneously grew to thousands of meters in height. There is no logical connection whatsoever between the premise and the conclusion. It's nothing more than a nutty fallacy.
:bawl: But I was supporting the Bible.
I just can't win can I?
@ Aqueous
How thick would the clouds have to be to produce that amount of rain?
Why didn't the Tsunamis capsize the ark?
Why didn't other people who had boats just get in their boats?
The tsunami illustration was used, not to say the flood was one big tsunami, but to help you visualise how powerful water can be.
Your understanding of the earth flexing, and the cause of earthquakes is not correct, but another field I do not want to open.
The idea of ocean basins getting deeper and mountains rising is a true reaction based on what I said, but which does not happen because the natural tendency is for the water to dominate the land, unless land floats.
You both keep going backwards to your overall sea level risings and other underdeveloped models.
The word heresy applies to opposing a religious injunction, and does not fit here.
The comment on rain is a fair one.
The rain that occurred was the worst the world has and will ever experience, but the majority of waters came from under the earth. The world used to have large underground seas as part of its structure. That situation was broken up releasing great quantities of water over the land. This is another point ready to be cavilled over by skeptics.
Your understanding of the earth flexing, and the cause of earthquakes is not correct, but another field I do not want to open.
The idea of ocean basins getting deeper and mountains rising is a true reaction based on what I said, but which does not happen because the natural tendency is for the water to dominate the land, unless land floats.
You both keep going backwards to your overall sea level risings and other underdeveloped models.
The word heresy applies to opposing a religious injunction, and does not fit here.
The comment on rain is a fair one.
The rain that occurred was the worst the world has and will ever experience, but the majority of waters came from under the earth. The world used to have large underground seas as part of its structure. That situation was broken up releasing great quantities of water over the land. This is another point ready to be cavilled over by skeptics.
Last edited:
Re the waves thousands of meters high, my post says 500 meters and 200km wide, about as large as they became at one stage. That is not a steep wave, it is quite unnoticable in the overall picture.
If you want to sound plausible and intelligent, you have to read more carefully, consider what's said, sumerise what you want to post, keep it free of slandering and petty comments, don't misquote or exaggerate the other person's views, don't blaspheme, don't resort to foul language, and show that you are able to reason, and don't be sarcastic.
If you find it too difficult to change those habits, then we don't have enough in common to learn anything.
If you want to sound plausible and intelligent, you have to read more carefully, consider what's said, sumerise what you want to post, keep it free of slandering and petty comments, don't misquote or exaggerate the other person's views, don't blaspheme, don't resort to foul language, and show that you are able to reason, and don't be sarcastic.
If you find it too difficult to change those habits, then we don't have enough in common to learn anything.
When you make a scientific or reasonable statement, you don't need crutches to hold them up, just leave it up to the reader to decide, otherwise you loose impact.
Sometimes you come from a scientific standing and other times you mix in your upsets about what other people might think.
Immotive talk...smacks of grandstanding not reasoning.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Captain Kremmen said:
It was a humorous and ironic way of agreeing with what Aqueous Id has written in the previous post:
Aqueous Id said:
Even 40 days and nights of rain isn't going to deliver the volume of water necessary to raise mean sea levels to the level of Mount Everest. (Never mind where all the water came from or where it subsequently went.)
Gerhard said:
Of course it didn't. None of it literally happened. It's a myth, a story that the ancients told to make sense of their world and to give it context. The "flood" is an ancient metaphor for the unraveling of creation and the universe returning to the primeval chaos from which it came.
You're just assuming the truth of the idea that "the water" once "covered everything".
So there's all this wonderful Biblical-flood-science (or faith or revelation or imagination) that only you understand and nobody else does? Something to do with the Earth's surface flattening out and becoming smooth like a billiard ball (except for Mount Ararat, of course)? Then all of the planet's topography sprang back when the "waters" disappeared as inexplicably as they first appeared?
The Biblical Flood, like all myths, probably has a kernel of truth around which all sorts of superstitious non-sense and "The fish was this big." exaggeration was erected with each telling. There are several, scientifically known floods that could have been that kernel including the flooding of the Black Sea, several known ice dam collapses or meteor impacts off the coast. Remember, to Neolithic humans the whole world was a very small part of the Earth. Imagine a civilization living on the shores of the Black Sea at the end of the last ice age as the last dam keeping out the rising world oceans failed and everything you knew in the world was hundreds of feet under water within a month, probably accompanied by near continuous rain due to the extremely violent water flow through a narrow straight(Niagra times a few thousand)and a man lucky enough to have a boat big enough to save his family and their goats, sheep or cattle becomes a legendary figure through a millenia long game of telephone. Then the priests get ahold of it...
Grumpy
Grumpy
No doubt. The Mesopotamian Myth probably is referring to local flooding of the Tigris Euphrates, and the Canaanites, who generally had never been to Mesopotamia or seen the rivers, were relying on the tales they heard from travelers from the East. It may also be that the Canaanites may have gotten corroborating stories from their neighbors to the west, the Phoenicians, who were sailing merchants, of some other flood legend. It's hard to imagine that something that took place in the Neolithic could have survived as lore until the Bronze Age. But then again, suppose there was some kind of trace evidence that ancient chroniclers had - like finding Minoan pottery submerged, that kind of thing.
And much later, when Canaanite oral tradition was committed to text their sense of geography was marginal. They were aware of Mesopotamia; they place Eden somewhere in the vicinity of the Tigris-Euphrates, and indeed the Canaanites probably came out of Mesopotamia, if the "Abram/Abraham" tale ever turns out to be one of those ancient memories of their true origins. But then again, they conceived of a river that flowed out of Mesopotamia into "the Land of the Kush" which is East Africa, requiring the river to cross the Red Sea! Perhaps they were referring to the Nile, and they weren't exactly sure of how the river systems interconnected. In any case, their knowledge of geography several hundred miles from home was sketchy at best.
And all bets are off. Such a tale might have been transmitted to the Canaanites by the Phoenicians, who probably traveled the Bosporus. From there it could have been melded with the Babylonian story, which has some common denominators, like sending a bird out to see if it will roost.
Last edited:
I'm sure you just won an indulgence to the Pearly Gates, just check the expiration date on the coupon, it would be Hell (literally) to kick the bucket after the thing expired.
That crossed my mind as I was contemplating a 8848 meter of condensate forming over my head. Liquid water is defined as 1 L per mol, whereas water vapor is typically 22 L/mol. This means the clouds would have to be 195 km high, and that's assuming 100% concentration, i.e., all the air is displaced and everything suffocates. That's the stuff that would press down on us at 867 atmospheres. This story might work better if the setting was on Venus.
Because it was made of anti-tsunami wormword, which is magic. Has there been an Indiana Jones episode covering the search for the magic wormwood? There ought to be. Maybe titling it is problematic, since "ark" is already taken.
This is why God created hell. For people who ask such impertinent questions.
No, actually, if you read the text carefully you will see they were off behaving badly. Imagine trying to find your dinghy in a downpour when you're loaded.
Last edited:
A myth is a story that contains important truths.
Sometimes what you have created is so bad that there's no fixing it. You just have to start afresh.
I wonder whether the Jews themselves actually believed that story.
A man made an ark, and loaded it up with every kind of animal.
Did they really believe that?
Or did they just enjoy it, and learn the lesson it gave?
Sometimes what you have created is so bad that there's no fixing it. You just have to start afresh.
I wonder whether the Jews themselves actually believed that story.
A man made an ark, and loaded it up with every kind of animal.
Did they really believe that?
Or did they just enjoy it, and learn the lesson it gave?
Many scientists, if you can call them that, have to minimise the flood myths, so they make up stories or find evidences of comparatively small incidences. The flood was a horrible catastrophy, so great that for generations after, every tribe and nation kept the story. It wasn't invented by a board of Jews.
There are thousands of scientists world wide who agree with what I have put forward. This forum is in the minority, and what is said here, can be lost over night, but the flood myths have been preserved for hundreds of generations, with or without books, globally.
It is only the last generation that is eager to rid themselves of it.
And why would that be?
Do they need an opportunity to anaethetise themselves before destruction by fire?
You see the flood myth, comes with the sign of the rainbow which is a promise that the earth will never see such a flood again, represented by the blue spectrum of the light, but the red spectrum is a sign that this time the world will be destroyed by an inferno, such as never before.
The reason for rejecting the story is not scientific, it's conscience.
There are thousands of scientists world wide who agree with what I have put forward. This forum is in the minority, and what is said here, can be lost over night, but the flood myths have been preserved for hundreds of generations, with or without books, globally.
It is only the last generation that is eager to rid themselves of it.
And why would that be?
Do they need an opportunity to anaethetise themselves before destruction by fire?
You see the flood myth, comes with the sign of the rainbow which is a promise that the earth will never see such a flood again, represented by the blue spectrum of the light, but the red spectrum is a sign that this time the world will be destroyed by an inferno, such as never before.
The reason for rejecting the story is not scientific, it's conscience.
Modern geology was born from christian scientists who seeked justification of the Flood of the Bible. They didn't find it. They found a much older Earth with varying history in the strata that told a completely different story.
Either it didn't happen...or the evidence got removed. One makes a lot more sense than the other.
Either it didn't happen...or the evidence got removed. One makes a lot more sense than the other.
Well, I guess then the only evidence that the story is true will be the destruction by fire as predicted with it and by it.
There are many specific signs leading up to that destruction - in all fairness to humanity, which have also been preserved in myths, legends and in the Bible. All you need to do for evidence, is know those signs, both in history and what is happening now, and watch it unfold.
Interesting point. They already had a creation myth to explain the origins of things, and they had the pillar of salt story to teach consequences. So why bother with having God shake the Etch-a-sketch clean and start over? It's also kind of bizarre, because in the later story Noah's son walks into his tent and finds Dad in a compromising situation, passed out, drunk. It cuts into his hero status. We don't think of Canaan as a place that ever saw much rain. Was this maybe a way to discourage the people from expecting God to send rain? Did the Hebrew people actually believe every living thing had descended from the pairs taken on the ark? What difference would it make, I wonder. And most of them probably never saw more than a few dozen plants and animals anyway, since Canaan was arid and not conducive to a lot of diversity of flora and fauna.
Even you call it a story.
Not only a story, but one of the best ever imagined in the mind of man.
A flood. The whole mess cleared away, then a fresh start.
It is a seminal tale.
Hence its contagion from place to place.
Do you really think that you have found a correct theory because your conscience is clear,
and that we reject it because we have guilty consciences?
Is that your scientific opinion?
@Aqueous
I'm thinking back to the first time I heard those Bible stories, when I was a child.
They were told to me as stories. Not something made up, but stories nonetheless
We had history, which was supposed to be fact,
but that was told as stories as well.
Out of the Bible, the story I loved most was the story of Joseph and his brothers.
I was the youngest in my family, and so was Joseph.