Noah's ark
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
Lemming3k said:
God told him, are you guys stupid or something? he was a man of god did what he willed I don't know why you Atheist have to push your agenda on everyone else. Just because you guys are too thick to comprehend god doesn't give you the right to make lie about god.
Who lied? Who pushed any agenda? Someone claimed it had never rained before, im asking for the verse that explains to noah what the word rain meant, since he will have never encountered it before.
It was quite a simple request, can you provide the verse? Are you even capable of a discussion or do you always assume theres an attack and a need to respond with name calling? If not then kindly be silent, your entertainment value is wearing thin.
Was Noah Jewish?
Muslim said:
Actually humanity had spread already accross the earth and no, not most people lived in the area where Noah was residing. Global means hypothetical? Is that one of those things that only believers are capable of reading between the lines?
I'd rather wouldn't convert you to atheist. I'd rather send you back to elementary school.
I love to break it to the religious idiots of sciforums: there is geological evidence of rain at least 1 000 000 000 years ago, long before humans, dinosaurs and even the first tetrapods.
And overall geological and atmospherical patterns suggest of rain as early as 4 billion years ago.
And overall geological and atmospherical patterns suggest of rain as early as 4 billion years ago.
i would be interested in hearing about the salt content of the ground throughout most of the middle east, actually. anybody know where to find that info?
however, i do believe that there was a catastrophic flood at a period in humanity's fairly early history. it was probably fairly localized throughout the world, as there is no evidence of a complete global flood.
many cultures throughout history that had no contact with eachother talk of a cataclysmic flood.
completely covered the earth? not likely.
however, i do believe that there was a catastrophic flood at a period in humanity's fairly early history. it was probably fairly localized throughout the world, as there is no evidence of a complete global flood.
many cultures throughout history that had no contact with eachother talk of a cataclysmic flood.
completely covered the earth? not likely.
Yes, they do, and Noah is thought to be a fairly recent version of the myth.
My idea is that it has to do with the melting of ice during the last ice age when glacial lakes released huge quantities of water and new sea areas formed, coastal lines changed.
Oh, it wouldn't stop just there; the pressure would also snap the wood of the boat, etc. If they didn't drown, a torrent of hundred-mile-per-hour water bloblets going through thier skull would...and we wouldn't exist...thus, the story is bullfrogshit.Lerxst said:Anyway I recall it because he mentions a calculation as to what the rainfall rates must have been in order for such a volume of water to swell up in such a time, as described in the bible, and finds that the pressure exerted by the rain would far exceed that which would sink any type of aircraft carrier or sea vessel ever built.
Last edited:
Visitor said:
Cool! (no pun intended).
That explains a lot of things. The earth would have to start wobbling -- would this accelerate the ice ages? I'll have to look into it.
Here is a bible verse in Gen 8 that agrees with your hypothesis:
This is the first mention of seasonality, which comes from the earth tilting.
Cool! (no pun intended).
That explains a lot of things. The earth would have to start wobbling -- would this accelerate the ice ages? I'll have to look into it.
Here is a bible verse in Gen 8 that agrees with your hypothesis:
This is the first mention of seasonality, which comes from the earth tilting.
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood
spuriousmonkey said:
The fresh rain water would dilute the salinity, but that doesn't matter.
If your theory is true then nothing will ever grow in New Orleans or surrounding areas now that it has been flooded with ocean water.
The EPA begs to differ with your theory:
Katrina's Environmental Assessment
Well SM, so much for your salinity theory. New Orleans went under for several weeks, and folks can still garden there.
Yes, but the salt would be detectable all over the world. Not to mention the layers of debris that would be found under the ocean floor (not there).
spidergoat said:
No big deal with salt in the New Orleans area -- give it several thousand more years and would anyone ever guess that Katrina hit there? Nahh maybe they would call it a fairy tale about as credible as Noah's arc.
What would debris on the ocean floor look like after several thousand years?
It would look like land vegetation, soil, mineral sediments, animal (and human) remains in a distinct layer in every ocean basin. In other words, once deposited, it wouldn't change very much in thousands of years except for the vegetation and flesh rotting.
spidergoat said:
Creationists make the same argument about the absense of river sediments in the ocean floor. Assuming the earth is indeed 4 billion years old, where is all the sediment from the soil erosion that ran off of the continents? as you say -- not there.
If you answer that question then you probably counter your own point about Noah's flood.
Last edited:
Woody said:
You could measure it. Not guess it.
Woody:
4 billion years is a tad longer than the 6000 years you will allow since the time of the Flood.
Soil is a complex mixture of organic compounds. My guess is that soil which flows into the sea is largely broken down by micro-organisms over long periods of time, as well as being redistributed by water currents.
Over enough time, even mountains are gradually weathered away. Look at the inland mountains in Australia compared to the mountains in volcanically active regions such as New Zealand. The Australian mountains are rounded and weathered. The New Zealand mountains are much more craggy and shear.
4 billion years is a tad longer than the 6000 years you will allow since the time of the Flood.
Soil is a complex mixture of organic compounds. My guess is that soil which flows into the sea is largely broken down by micro-organisms over long periods of time, as well as being redistributed by water currents.
Over enough time, even mountains are gradually weathered away. Look at the inland mountains in Australia compared to the mountains in volcanically active regions such as New Zealand. The Australian mountains are rounded and weathered. The New Zealand mountains are much more craggy and shear.
bottom line:
there is no scientific basis for the flood, and there is plenty of scientific evidence that there was no such event. you can go on and on with the if this, if that, maybe this, maybe that, but where is the evidence that suggests that this event did happen (not just could happen, but did)?
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
there is no scientific basis for the flood, and there is plenty of scientific evidence that there was no such event. you can go on and on with the if this, if that, maybe this, maybe that, but where is the evidence that suggests that this event did happen (not just could happen, but did)?
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.