Noah's Ark 2004

oh i see. im not too familiar with the story to be honest. well not in great detail i just thought they wouldn't have been taken because it would have been a waste of time and space cos the world was going to be covered in water anyway.


maybe he just hated fish.

 

The problem is, if the rain was fresh water, a lot of marine life would have died when their salt water got diluted. And fresh water life that can't survive in brakish water would have also died.

If the rain was salt water, then all the fresh water forms would die for certain, and maybe some that live in brakish water.

But clearly there'd be no space on the ark for these aquatic animals and plants. You can't put a shark on a boat.

 

Neither am i realy but even so i think if you believe it the fatal flaws in this can not be ignored..or cleverly explained away

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/mainpts.htm

this is what realy drives me mad...because whe give our level of understanding back to a 'simpler time' yes now we can explain lots of things and go aghh but ..but this can not go on for ever.. i would just like this ridiculous story to finish and be proven for what it is a story ..not sure the meaning of the story but even so ..its just a story.

My thought is whats the point of judging us and then allowing a few to survive knowing that the whole cycle would happen again (look around)

 

I have not seen any mention of aquatic life being put on the ark ... if they were not this story is nonsense because nothing i have read has told me why not

If they were put on the boat .. i agree with you you can't put a shark on a boat..but then this little problem is solved , because only a little baby shark maybe required..


Gee whiz the more i think about this..the more i realise why i am not religous (and no i am not rubbishing noahs ark because i don't believe)..its just if you believe .. make it make sense for us all someone ??

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1993/2/2noah93.html

 

it can't be nonsense just because they didn't put fish on a boat when they flooded the world.



how would they buil the tanks to keep all of these things.


some babies are quite large like.

 

But when you put all the elements of this story together and try to build a story out of it, you see that it by logistics alone (wooden boats that big collapse under their own weight, not enough water in the world to cover the mountains, rain would fall too fast and too hard and would have destroyed the ark, not enough space on the ark, etc) it would have to be fiction, and not realistic fiction. It's a nice story as far as mythologies go, but when you try to take it literally things get sticky.

 

oh i took you literally and thought you meant it was nonsense cos the fish were left out of the boat.


but then again....he was god...if he could flood the earth,create man,resurect his son,give his son the power to heal illnesses with a touch of his hand, i figure he could probably make it work.

 

Apparently you just now came into this convo and you havent done any research on the matter other than "well this is what I heard". With the measurements given in The Bible, there have been scaled down replicas built, guess what, it floated and worked. Were you here whn it happened? Do you know what the earth was like when it happened? No, so your claim that there isn't enough water is just an assumption. The Ark's deminsions actualy had plenty of room for animals of each kind. Again, this has all been discused previously. I am not here to proove myself right or The Bible right. I already believe The Bible. Just because you don't believe it can happen, and lack the ability to explain that it could happen, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Wasn't to long ago that man thought flight was impossable. It took years and years of reaserch to figure out flight. Imagine if the Wright Brothers were like you, and just decided it wasn't possable.

 

Personaly its not the boat that i have a problem with....it is the other stuff that seems unlikely. I look at the pyramids and realise what man can achieve.

 

Unlikely, but not impossable.

 

Brock,
You are correct in saying that your radiator tempertaure would not be the same with and without water- because as we all know, water absorbs heat.

However, this analogy does not correspond to the machanics within the earth...
(The greatest commonality is that both radiator water and Noah's flood waters are very hot and contain harmful chemicals.)

The core temperature of our planet, if it has changed at all in the past few thousand years, has actually gotten cooler.

10 miles inside the Earth, where creationists claim the flood waters would have come from, the temperature is above 700 degrees F.

Brock, you argue that if water surrounded this 10 mile deep, 700 degree area; the heat would dissipate to the point that flood waters would not reach above boiling point- around 212 F.

What you have not taken into account is the fact that Earth's magma interior of 7,920 miles reaches temperatures up to 9,000 F.

The heat from the 700 degree area that was transfered into the flood waters would be replaced by a subsequent transfer of heat from areas inside the earth where temperatures soar into the thousands of degrees.

Thinking that 10 miles of water would dramatically cool temperatures inside the earth is like thinking that the same effect could be achieved by surrounding a radiator in a centimeter of water.

 

I cant agree with your hypothesis because there are some inappropiate presumptions and assumptions.

Genesis implies a tremendous amout of damage.
After all, the crust of the Earth itself is described as being broken open and the Earth being dramatically changed.
Water is described as bursting out from 'Fountains' of the Great Deep (sometimes translated as 'springs')

So we dont really know exactly what this means but it certainly implies tremendous damage and change to the original Earth (Seas and Earth both)

So, how am I supposed to use the physics of the broken object to calculate how it worked when unchanged.
Im not and neither should you.

btw.. the second source of flood waters comes from the skies being 'broken open'. Wether this is a collapsing 'Vapour Canopy' or simply tremendous rains we dont know - but it did happen at the same time fountains burst up from the deeps.

but again, current temperatures (and in some cases theories about current temps) are being used to calculate temperatures and conditions which the very formula assumes were different.

This would be like you trying to calculate continental drift but then concluding it could not be possible since the continents are currently so far apart they have almost met in the middle at rates being proposed for drift in the last 100 million years.
You would conclude the continents would all be melded together in the Pacific?

It should be easy to explain where your going wrong but unfortunately I have yet to wake up this morning.
Good luck on your own

 

Genesis implies no change for the lower mantle (magma), the molten outer core, or the solid inner core. These components of earth lie 400 miles below the surface and beyond. These areas also have the greatest effect on earths interior temperatures.

If you want to believe that Genesis implies a change ('bursting forth') 10 miles into the earth's mantle, fine, but there is no reason for you to believe that the temperatures of inner earth which affect the temperatures of the mantle have changed.

Earth's mantle is extremely hot, -flood waters, cracking, 'bursting forth'- or not.

A 'breaking' that occurs 10 miles into the earth has virtually no effect on interior temperatures, considering the fact that earth's interior extents several thousand miles. The area of inner earth we speak of in regard to the flood is a small fraction of a greater area. A 'drastic' change in the temperature of earth's mantle is simply not possible.

A creationist link that you posted discounted the vapor canopy theory. They say a 2 meter canopy of water is as big as it could get.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html

The formula assumes that a small fraction of the conditions were different. And a tiny change in one of the least consequential aspects of the conditions does not translate into drastic change.

Continental drift is currently being measured.

NASA scientists use Satellite Laser Ranging (SLR) systems, Synthetic Aperture Radars (SAR), and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to measure and study the geodynamics of Earth. These contraptions have detected several inches of movement per year.

Radio telescopes at Mauna Kea Hawaii, the world's largest astronomical observatory, are also able to detect continental drift.

As for the bit about continents being melded together...

250 years they were. And it is widely theorized that eventually the continents will meld together again.

btw,
The rock formations and minerals in the Caledonian mountains of northern Europe -from the arctic circle through Scandanavia and Scotland to northwest Ireland- match up with the formations and minerals in the Appalachian mountains of the eastern United States and Canada.

Also, fossils of the great Permian reptile Mesosaurus were found on both sides of the South Atlantic Ocean -in eastern Brazil and in South Africa- and no where else.

 

Yes we know that the continents match perfectly.
In some cases.. if you could drag the shorelines back together they would fit together almost as perfectly as a jigsaw puzzle.

Please stop pretending this is something you the Evolutionists are 'explaining' to us.
You must be pretty fucked up over why the same fossils are found in those areas?

So you are theorising that if any kind of subteranean springs were to burst and flood the planet there would be what?
Unbelievable destruction?

Steam so hot it would send every cloud above the Earth to rain?

Kill every living thing on Earth?

Yes, I think you are in agreement with Genesis which describes the combination of waters coming up and water coming down as nothing short of Earth destroying chaos?

BTW.. no, I do not agree with your conclusion the Earth 'must' have been the same temperature before continental drift occured.
Im not suggesting I know either - but I doubt you can speculate what the mantle was like before either the planet expanded and/or the continent began spreading apart.

 

What? No, absolutely not.

Honestly, you are one of the few creationists I have had a discussion with that actually supports PANGEA.

Perhaps this is because it would be scientifically impossible for the continents to move thousands of miles in a biblical timeframe? hmm...

Water hot and toxic enough to boil and/or suffocate Noah and his floating circus.

Again, a creationist link that YOU posted discounts the vapor canopy theory. Please acknowledge this.

The continental movement/expansion that you speak of occurs mostly in earth's crust. Only a small amount of this takes place in the uppermost mantle.

The mantle altogether is about 1,700 miles thick. The mantle gets warmer with depth; the top of the mantle is about 1,600° F; towards the bottom of the mantle, the temperature is about 4,000-6,700° F. The mantle contains most of the mass of the Earth.

Creationist theory on alterations of the earth concern the continental crust with depths like 10 miles. There is absolutely no reason to believe Earth's HUGE and hot mantle would have, or could have changed.

 

One problem you have is taking selected theories (actually hypothesis) from certain Creationist speculators and then supposing to test them against current conditions or (more dubiously) current evolutionist theories.

Simple adding numbers and decimal points, or detailed 'explanations' of side issues will not make it 'more true'. Just thought I should give you a heads up on that because it does appear to be a form of 'compensation' ok?

I am not arguing for or against this one particular websites 'Canopy Theory' but I cant (and you cant) say they are correct either.

Funny but you are very quick to grant acceptance to any Creationist theory if it suits your own (at the particular time)?

Now just to be clear - YOU are suggesting that the subterrainian waters were contaminated with magma and YOU are suggesting they were in direct contact with the Earths temperatures.
All I know is that there is water coming from 'Depths' and its described as being held in 'Fountains' or 'Springs'.
This does not therefore automatically imply they must be like todays Springs.

Question for you?

When you saw this theory of poisonous boiling water spewing forth - Did your formula take into consideration this was happening in the Sea?

Now, since we dont take 'Half the premise' I wonder if you are considering mitigating factors brought on by the deluge from the sky?

It does indeed call both outpourings happening at the same time so we have to include that in there.

Personally, I read a theory about poisonous boiling water being spewed into the air and the theory that this would kill Noahs lifeforms.
Unlike you - I dont swallow it as Gospel just because an Evolutionist tells me it 'must be' so.

BTW.. dont even try and pretend as if Panagea was in any way predicted or 'fits into' Evolutionism.
It doesnt.

Like most facts, evolutionists just came across it, were amazed and scrambled to 'write it in' to their story.
Laughably, in an effort to 'explain away' the suspiciously exact 'mutating' happening on completely seperate continents - the Evolutionists created endless myths about ... LOL.... Animals saving themselves by floating on tiny 'Arks' across Oceans and coincidently meeting another animal (mate) and then 'restarting' on the new continent.

Oh and Continental Drift does fit well into the Genesis account.
The Drift would be happening at an astonishingly SLOW rate of just 4 ft a day (average of course)
Considering the average nice hot Volcano can pour out 4 ft of molten rock a second - 4 ft a day for a freshly active Mid-Atlantic ridge is pretty slow alright - but over hundreds.. then thousands of years - it does work out to a pretty accurate timeline.

 

YOU MEAN PANGEA DIDN'T EVER EXIST?!?!?



*faints*

 

Sometimes Ol Brocktoon posts late at night and his grammar is sloppy.
Even still..

Cant imagine why you are asking this question Genesis?

Interesting thing... a lot of critics like to ask the question [usually with a snicker] "Oh.. so Noah gathered animals from all over the Earth eh... so how did he get to Australia or North America?"

When modern maps and geology began to come together it became pretty clear that all the continents had been one Earth before and are splitting apart.

Evolutionists are hilarious sometimes.... many still pretend as if this 'fits into' what they have been speculating on..

It fits with the idea that Noah could gather animals from one 'continent'.
It fits with the previously mysterious reports in Genesis of the Earth being 'Divided in those days'.
A mid-atlantic ridge certainly fits with the idea of 'The Fountains of the deep breaking open' [not the same phenom but interesting to compare]

How does Panagea fit into evolutionism stories?

Well.. it doesnt.

So they have to 'explain around it'.

Lifeforms morphed into more and more complex lifeforms for millions of years... errr... until the continents separated...
.. then the separate gene pools coincidently just stopped evolving more complexity and began to change only be genetic selection (a completely different and even 'opposite' process)

Oh.. yes.. there was a lot of intermixing by crossing an 'Ice Bridge' (this includes Parrots and Reptiles .. but dont talk about that!)

Oh... and identical Dinosaurs on completely separate continents coincidently morphed into the exact same kinds of tiny birds!

Panagea... NOT the 'property' of Evolutionists and no friend either.

 

lmao...

why did you misspell it like yours truely??



anyway...nah it was a bit of lightheartedness. i was goulin if you will.

 

Ok Gotcha.
hehe
I dont think Ive spelled it properly once. What do i say - Panagea?

lol

And did I 'Misspell' it or Mispell. Is Misspell a word?
Is it Spelt or Spelled?

I think it depends on what side of the Continental Drift you live on