Noah's ark

[Hapsburg]

Impossible. Ships of that size only became possible with better contruction materials, i.e iron and steel.

And as I said, no matter what kind of wood it was, the pressure of the rain falling would snap it in half. As in, break it. Boat would sink if it split in half, no matter what it's made from.

And what the fuck about with giants and whatnot? Sure, there were tall people, about nine feet max, but that's not a giant, really. Just depends on ethnic variation.

 

[superluminal]

What the fuck are you talking about.
Okay, the ark was supposedly made from WOOD, correct? For rain to flood the world in the span of 40 days and nights, it would have to fall at a constant rate. That rate would have rain falling down as great velocity and at high pressure. The pressure of that much rain falling on those wooden planks would snap the damn things in half like a graham cracker. The boat would collapse and most things would die, if not from drowning, then from predatory sea creatures like sharks.

It's an easy calculation. To cover the entire surface to 29,000ft (Mt. Everest) in 40 24 hour periods would take a rainfall of:

40*24 = 960hrs

29000ft/960hrs = 30ft/hr = 6 inches/minute = 1 tenth inch / sec.

This is equivalent to a steadily running faucet at moderate pressure into a 1 sq inch container. You can find out exactly what it's like using your kitchen sink and a stopwatch and a variety of different sized containers.

 

[TheVisitor]

Impossible. Ships of that size only became possible with better contruction materials, i.e iron and steel.

And as I said, no matter what kind of wood it was, the pressure of the rain falling would snap it in half. As in, break it. Boat would sink if it split in half, no matter what it's made from.

And what the **** about with giants and whatnot? Sure, there were tall people, about nine feet max, but that's not a giant, really. Just depends on ethnic variation.

Golieth at 9'3" was just a small throw-back to the genetic strain of giants.
King Og was possibly 12' or greater...he had a bed 14'.
Then there's the anakim ...
By Golieth's day the real strain had been exterminated , and was pretty watered down
Golieth came from some that excaped into Gath from Joshua's day and he was found in that same town 800 years later.

Just a small genetic throwback...they have people today that are nearly 9'.
A museum in Texas has the thighbone of a humaniod male that would make the giant over 30'...
Burial pits all over the U.S. have 12' skeletons with red hair still on them, ...the indians called them the Se'Ti'Ca's, and made coats out of their red har.
They were exterminated when all the indian tribes banded together to defeat them just before the "white" man arrived.
.
9' was nothing...do your homework on a subject before you try to make a major out of a minor.

 

[SkinWalker]

A museum in Texas has the thighbone of a human male that would make the giant over 30'...

No they don't.

Burial pits all over the U.S. have 12' skeletons with red hair still on them,

No there aren't.

They came over in the genes of one of the women Noah's sons married or something like that.

Poppycock. They don't exist. If they do, where's the evidence. I'm in Texas, I'll be happy to go look at it.

9' was nothing...do your homework on a subject before you try to make a major out of a minor.

Quit making shit up or repeating the made up shit of others.

 

[Woody]

Nope. It's estimated that 90%+ of all species that ever existed are extinct.

And millions of years ago the entire middle section of north america was an inland sea.

How can that be known anyway? There are probably many species that have come and gone without leaving evidence.

So it's only the hominids that have fared so poorly in such a short period of time too. So much for human adaptation.

By the way, I got the 99% statistic from S/G.

This from University of Connecticut reference lecture notes:

It is the fate of most living things eventually to go extinct. The species diversity now is almost certainly greater than it ever has been in the past, but paleontologists tell us that more than 99% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct.

It's a treehugger reference. So in conclusion I guess the statistic must depend on your agenda. Avatar odviously is not a tree-hugger.

 

[Woody]

Here's one for Skinwalker:

Stories of the Great Flood are almost universal among the civilizations on Earth. Anthropologists who study legends and folktales from different geographical locations (China, Babylon, Mexico, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Persia, India, Norway, Wales, Ireland, Indonesia, Romania, Mexico, Peru, Australia, Greece, Tanzania etc.) and cultures consistently have reported one particular group of legends that is common to practically every civilization, the story of the Great Flood. Historians estimate that these legends number into the hundreds. In 95% of the stories, the flood was worldwide; in 88%, a certain family was favored; in 70%, survival was by means of a boat; in 67% animals were also saved; in 66% the flood was due to the wickedness of man; in 66% the survivors had been forewarned; in 57% they ended up on a mountain; in 35% birds were sent out from the boat; and in 9% exactly eight people were spared. The reality of a global Great Flood event is supported by the universal nature of these accounts.

So is this crapola?

 

[spidergoat]

I suppose you think the bible is made up too...?

Sure, not just once but many times, written and re-written, edited, abridged, translated and obfuscated.

What is the lesson of Noah?

 

[superluminal]

How can that be known anyway? There are probably many species that have come and gone without leaving evidence.

That's why they call it an ESTIMATE.

So it's only the hominids that have fared so poorly in such a short period of time too. So much for human adaptation.

WTF? Most species transitional forms are short lived. Hence the term "transitional". As hominids, we haven't fared so poorly. Your arguments are getting weaker Woody.

 

[superluminal]

Here's one for Skinwalker:

So is this crapola?

The bulk of it may be accurate but this part:

The reality of a global Great Flood event is supported by the universal nature of these accounts.

is complete crapola. All these accounts support is the likelyhood of a relatively common origin of a local flood tale that has good story value and has therefore spread easily.

 

[spidergoat]

Here's one for Skinwalker:



So is this crapola?

Oh, that's an easy one. There are floods and tsunamis all the time, and most human settlements are near water.

 

[Woody]

That's why they call it an ESTIMATE.



WTF? Most species transitional forms are short lived. Hence the term "transitional". As hominids, we haven't fared so poorly. Your arguments are getting weaker Woody.

But they are species, never-the-less, and 15 of man's relatives are now dead, leaving humanity as the sole remant of both a species and a genus.

What do you think about the University reference I provided? Is it an exaggeration so we can all hug a tree? Higher extinction rates provide more touchy-feely value you know.

 

[superluminal]

What do you think about the University reference I provided? Is it an exaggeration so we can all hug a tree? Higher extinction rates provide more touchy-feely value you know.

I think its probably accurate. For over 3.5 billion years of life on this planet species have been coming and going as a natural part of the evolutionary drama. There's no agenda here. Just educated estimates based on observations.

 

[Woody]

I think its probably accurate. For over 3.5 billion years of life on this planet species have been coming and going as a natural part of the evolutionary drama. There's no agenda here. Just educated estimates based on observations.

So an extinction statistic of 99%+ is as good a guess as 90%+?

Apparantly Avatar has his own opinion that isn't shared by anyone else. ok then you answered the question -- he's just being a jerk.

 

[SkinWalker]

I suppose you think the bible is made up too...? (I hope not)

All available evidence indicates it *is* made up in as much as any good work of human literature. The bible is a compendum of Near Eastern myths that were "borrowed" by its Jewish and early Christian cultists. There is plenty of evidence to support my claim, and I'll be happy to share it if you'd like.

But back to your claims: you still didnt' answer "where" the alleged artifacts of "giants" are. If you can't give a proper source, its very clear that you are a liar and willing to make shit up just to justify your missguided beliefs and superstitions.

Like John said; "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come"

Like Fred Flinstone said: "yaba daba doo." Both are equally valid quotes from equally real entities with equally real verifications.

 

[SkinWalker]

Here's one for Skinwalker:



So is this crapola?

I'd like to see the source so I can see how they quantify those percentages, but even if they're accurate I wouldn't doubt them. Most cultures *do* have stories and myths that surround floods. Many of them global. Since the earliest humans, people have been living near water: rivers, oceans, lakes, etc. The best suited places for agriculture are those places that flood routinely every 25, 50, or 100 years -or even annually. Flood mythology is to be expected.

Moreover, superstitious nutters are to be expected even today given that the DNA of H. sapiens hasn't changed significantly in probably 200,000 years.

What's crapola, however, is the specific superstitious nutter that has access to the technology of computers and likes to engage in the mental masturbation of arguing superstitious woo-woo shit with people who frequent science boards. But its a "crapola" that I find endlessly fascinating and I read your rants with eagerness each day. Indeed, I've been filling a notebook of field notes in my participant observation as I study the anthropology of belief among American fundamentalists.

Do continue.

 

[superluminal]

So an extinction statistic of 99%+ is as good a guess as 90%+?

Apparantly Avatar has his own opinion that isn't shared by anyone else. ok then you answered the question -- he's just being a jerk.

Yeah sure. Why not.

 

[Woody]

I'd like to see the source so I can see how they quantify those percentages, but even if they're accurate I wouldn't doubt them. Most cultures *do* have stories and myths that surround floods. Many of them global. Since the earliest humans, people have been living near water: rivers, oceans, lakes, etc. The best suited places for agriculture are those places that flood routinely every 25, 50, or 100 years -or even annually. Flood mythology is to be expected.

Moreover, superstitious nutters are to be expected even today given that the DNA of H. sapiens hasn't changed significantly in probably 200,000 years.

What's crapola, however, is the specific superstitious nutter that has access to the technology of computers and likes to engage in the mental masturbation of arguing superstitious woo-woo shit with people who frequent science boards. But its a "crapola" that I find endlessly fascinating and I read your rants with eagerness each day. Indeed, I've been filling a notebook of field notes in my participant observation as I study the anthropology of belief among American fundamentalists.

Do continue.

OK, let's put the religion aside and ask ourselves a question: Is it really such a stretch to believe the earth has been completely flooded not only once but perhaps several times in its history?

The earth is probably close to 99% liquid, assuming the interior is molten. It's a wonder the earth isn't totally smooth and 100% submerged in water.

Think about it: Mt. Everest is 5 miles above sea level and the earth is 4,000 miles in diameter -- that just isn't a lot of wiggle room by comparison.

Now you can argue that a worldwide flood didn't happen at the end of the last ice age -- but a continental sized glacier weighs quite a bit and it pushes down on the earth's crust. If you remove the weight of a glacier from the earth and redistribute the mass, it will have some effect on the earth's geometry merely by a redistribution of buoyancy forces.

It only makes sense that the earth's diameter is larger at the equator than at the poles because of centrepetal acceleration and a liquid interior.

So on a cosmic scale is our planet rigid, non-catestrophic, and impervious to anything our galaxy wants to throw at it? I don't think so, and given enough time practically anything can happen -- meteor collisions, comet, and asteroid collisions, and these things are credited for a lot of the earth's geological history.

Yet for some reason it is now taboo to consider these things in a more recent time frame. Answer me -- why is this so? Why are catastrophic events shunned by much of the science community?

And the really sad part of it all - the ocean floor has hardly even been explored. 80% of the globe is underwater. Do you think we even have 20% of the evidence concerning the earth's history? Maybe we do, but who knows what is really down there? Probably not primordial goo, but who knows for sure?

Nobody has even seen a live giant squid yet. Does that mean living giant squids do not exist? Of course not, and if they sank instead of floating when they died, and whales didn't like to eat them, we wouldn't even know about them, though they are more than 60 feet long.

 

[SkinWalker]

Is it really such a stretch to believe the earth has been completely flooded not only once but perhaps several times in its history?

Yes. It is. Solid geologic evidence exists that clearly indicates that there was always dry land going back to the pre-Cambrian probably before.

Now you can argue that a worldwide flood didn't happen at the end of the last ice age -- but a continental sized glacier weighs quite a bit and it pushes down on the earth's crust. If you remove the weight of a glacier from the earth and redistribute the mass, it will have some effect on the earth's geometry merely by a redistribution of buoyancy forces.

Isostasy is a phenomenon that is very well known in geology, Woody. The physics of isostasy are understood enough that we know that there simply wasn't a "global flood" as a result. Indeed, there simply is no evidence that a global flood occurred.

Yet for some reason it is now taboo to consider these things in a more recent time frame. Answer me -- why is this so? Why are catastrophic events shunned by much of the science community?

They aren't "shunned," they are rejected as hypotheses. The global floody hypothesis has zero evidence. Science cannot accept those speculations as fact just because the superstitious among us want them to be true.

And the really sad part of it all - the ocean floor has hardly even been explored. 80% of the globe is underwater. Do you think we even have 20% of the evidence concerning the earth's history?

We have 100% of the geologic history needed to show that a global floody simply did not occur at any point since the Cambrian. Cratons of continental land-masses are demonstrably reliable in telling the story of their geologic past.

 

[Laika]

Woody, SkinWalker is speaking sense so heed him. Global sea levels have risen and fallen over geological time. In the Cretaceous, for example, relative sea levels sea levels were significantly higher because of changes to the topography of the ocean floor. But the Cretaceous ended 65 million years ago, and you're suggesting that an even larger increase came and went over a number of weeks just yesterday in geological terms, and was infeasibly selective in the evidence it left. That's absurd.

 

[Woody]

Yes. It is. Solid geologic evidence exists that clearly indicates that there was always dry land going back to the pre-Cambrian probably before.



Isostasy is a phenomenon that is very well known in geology, Woody. The physics of isostasy are understood enough that we know that there simply wasn't a "global flood" as a result. Indeed, there simply is no evidence that a global flood occurred.



They aren't "shunned," they are rejected as hypotheses. The global floody hypothesis has zero evidence. Science cannot accept those speculations as fact just because the superstitious among us want them to be true.



We have 100% of the geologic history needed to show that a global floody simply did not occur at any point since the Cambrian. Cratons of continental land-masses are demonstrably reliable in telling the story of their geologic past.

I would have to say all catastrophic events are shunned whether it's a flood, a meteor impact, or worldwide seismic event. Many Scientists rely on gradual change over eons to support their theories, though mass extinctions could be explained otherwise.

How about these comet interactions from source:

THE 11,600 BC STRIKE - Swarm B' - 13,600 YA
THE 11,000 BC STRIKE - Swarm B - 13,000 YA
THE 10,600 BC STRIKE - Swarm A' - 12,600 YA
THE 9,600 BC STRIKE - Swarm A' - 11,600 YA
THE 8,300 BC STRIKE - Swarm B' - 10,300 YA
THE 7,800 BC STRIKE - Swarm B - 9,800 YA
THE 6,800 BC STRIKE - Swarm A' - 8,800 YA
THE 6,200 BC STRIKE - Swarm A - 8,200 YA
THE 5,600 BC STRIKE - Swarm C - 7,600 YA
THE 5,000 BC STRIKE - Swarm B' - 7,000 YA
THE 4,500 BC STRIKE - Swarm B - 6,500 YA
THE 3,500 BC STRIKE - Swarm A' - 5,500 YA
THE 3,000 BC STRIKE - Swarm A - 5,000 YA
THE 2,350 BC STRIKE - Swarm C - 4,350 YA
THE 1,600 BC STRIKE - Swarm B' - 3,600 YA
THE 1,200 BC STRIKE - Swarm B - 3,200 YA
THE 200 BC STRIKE - Swarm A' - 2,200 YA
THE 500 AD STRIKE - Swarm A - 1,500 YA
THE 1,000 AD STRIKE - Swarm C - 1,000 YA
THE 1,700 AD STRIKE - Swarm B' - 300 YA
TUNGUSKA AND OTHER RECENT STRIKES - Swarm B

Samples were taken from the polar ice caps to determine these dates.