How the Ark was ventilated.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

</p>
Ok. How about this. It is a fact that many areas that were pushed down (sunk) by the ice cap are being lifted, or pushed back up by the pressure within the earth. (This is occurring with no associated volcanic activity or earthquakes.) It could well be that the weight of the flood water pushed whole continents down much like the ice cap did. This is turn would have impacted the rising of the seafloor as the oceanic crust would now be much lighter than the combined weight of the continental plates plus the weight of the seawater standing upon them. In this scenario it may even be possible for the floodwater to actually 'stand' over the tallest peak. Also the mountainous areas might actually sink lower just because of their incredible weight. Fill up the valleys with water and you've got some real weight pressing down...........Another thought. We don't know how high the tallest peak was 4500 years ago. Based on it's rate of growth of 3 cm per year Everest would have grown nearly 500 feet since the flood. That's a lot of water that my argument doesn't have to account for.

A clever idea but it won't work for a global flood. Isostatic depression and rebound are very slow processes due to the viscosity of the Lithosphere and Astenosphere and the extent of depression will not be sufficient. The mass of all the water in the oceans is about 1.4x10^18 kg, (based on 1.4x10^9 cubic km of water). The mass of the contential crust is about 1.4*10^22 kg

Answers.com - What is the mass of Earth's crust

so while the additional mass of the water will cause isostatic depression of the crust it will be of neither sufficent magnitude or rate to help you with your global flood model.

As to the changing height of Everest the difference between 29,000 feet and 29,500 feet is not really all that significant to the problem.

 

[Tiberius]

Because God wanted one in Arizona?

Look what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah.

He made those twin cities a deep depression in the earth, and today it's called the Dead Sea.

By the same token, He could have done the same to the Grand Canyon -- made it a big crack in the earth for some reason.

I'm sure He had His reasons.

Ah, typical creationist.

You make claims and justifications about God's motivations and yet, whenever you come to something you can't explain, something you can't justify, you turn to, "Ah, but God works in mysterious ways."

Do you see the intellectual dishonesty of your position, AV?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, typical creationist.

Thank you -- I hope so.

You make claims and justifications about God's motivations...

I make suppositions -- usually preceded or postscripted by 'in my opinion'.

... and yet, whenever you come to something you can't explain, something you can't justify, you turn to, "Ah, but God works in mysterious ways."

I say He worked a miracle.

It might be a 'mystery' to you guys, but it's a 'miracle' to us.

Do you see the intellectual dishonesty of your position, AV?

No -- I see someone using an Arab phone, though.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It might be a 'mystery' to you guys, but it's a 'miracle' to us.

You mean it's "nonsense you make up on the spot to avoid unpleasant realities."

 

[Targ]

I'll just give a link: Sodom and Gomorrah found beneath Dead Sea

Okay, so no Biblical or scholarly references then. I see.

 

[Belk]

I see.

So not only do you guys have evidence the Flood didn't occur -- (that is, evidence of a negative) -- you have evidence that God didn't clean up the mess left behind?

No, we have evidence that directly refutes your account of events. Do you understand the difference?

In other words, you have evidence that God didn't clean up a mess left behind by an event that didn't occur?

(Today's science at its best.)

No, we have evidence of what DID happen that directly refutes what you CLAIMED happened.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Thanks to all for a lively discussion. Happy New Year.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Thanks to all for a lively discussion. Happy New Year.

Thanks for the laughs. Happy New Year back at ya.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, we have evidence that directly refutes your account of events.

And what is 'my account of events', Belk?

Do you even know what they are -- (let alone understand them)?

I disagree with your statement.

You might have evidence that refutes your account of events, but I promise you, you don't have anything that refutes 'my account of events'.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And what is 'my account of events', Belk?

Do you even know what they are -- (let alone understand them)?

You're a creationist -- your accounts aren't worth bothering to "understand," in that they serve no purpose except to elevate yourself above others in your own mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're a creationist -- your accounts aren't worth bothering to "understand," in that they serve no purpose except to elevate yourself above others in your own mind.

Fair enough -- then I most certainly don't believe you have evidence that refutes creationism.

You're just as evidence-free as I claim I am.

The only difference is: I know it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Fair enough -- then I most certainly don't believe you have evidence that refutes creationism.

Creationism is self-refuting -- evidence for or against it is more or less superfluous.
In any case, nobody particularly cares enough about you to bother with what you do and do not believe. Responses to you are either entertainment or as warnings to lurkers who might mistake you for a source of info.

You're just as evidence-free as I claim I am.

Ah, ye old "I know you are but what am I?" canard -- a familiar page from the YEC playbook.

The only difference is: I know it.

Careful, AV -- the more you "know," the less you can boast about wearing ignorance like a badge.

But by all means, do whatever you must to put yourself on equal footing -- in your own mind, anyway -- with people who use sources besides their own imagination.

 

[Belk]

And what is 'my account of events', Belk?

Do you even know what they are -- (let alone understand them)?

Exactly how much do you think I need to know AV? We have evidence the universe is much older then 6000 years. We have evidence the earth was not created before the universe. We have evidence there was no global flood.

I disagree with your statement.

You might have evidence that refutes your account of events,but I promise you, you don't have anything that refutes 'my account of events'.

Refusing to look at evidence is not the same as it not being in existence AV. The fact is that you are incapable of determining if there is evidence against your account or not since you readily admit that anything that might contradict your understanding is discarded a priory. Your promise is therefor so much dross.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly how much do you think I need to know AV?

No comment.

We have evidence the universe is much older then 6000 years.

And I've only been agreeing with this for -- what now? -- going on 5 years?

I've even stated that I agree with you guys over what my pastor says.

We have evidence the earth was not created before the universe.

Do you now?

What is it? a computer program or something?

We have evidence there was no global flood.

Nice -- if I were to say that, you guys would start yakking about 'you cant prove a negative'.

Okay, show me this evidence -- (and I want it to be evidence that there was no global flood, too).

Refusing to look at evidence is not the same as it not being in existence AV.

As my apple challenge shows -- you wouldn't even know where to begin to look.

Not only that, you can't even hypothetically think up something that would pass for evidence.

The fact is that you are incapable of determining if there is evidence against your account or not since...

Until you answer my apple challenge -- neither are you.

... you readily admit that anything that might contradict your understanding is discarded a priory.

That's right.

Quite unlike my apple challenge, where the shoe is on the other foot, and you guys like to accuse the OP of being bogus, instead of admitting myopia.

Your promise is therefor so much dross.

My promise stands.

If it was 'so much dross', it would have been pwned by now.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And I've only been agreeing with this for -- what now? -- going on 5 years?

I've even stated that I agree with you guys over what my pastor says.

Of course, with your "embedded age," you can claim to be smarter than us nad your pastor.

As my apple challenge shows -- you wouldn't even know where to begin to look.

Actually, your apple challenge shows not to look to you for useful information.

 

[MoonLancer]

you wouldn't even know where to begin to look.

lets look in that gap that's too small to hide your god. I bet he is in there.

 

[Tiberius]

And I've only been agreeing with this for -- what now? -- going on 5 years?

I've even stated that I agree with you guys over what my pastor says.

We have evidence that the universe has existed for more than 6000 years. You claim it hasn't.

Do you now?

What is it? a computer program or something?

What nonsense is this now?

Nice -- if I were to say that, you guys would start yakking about 'you cant prove a negative'.

Okay, show me this evidence -- (and I want it to be evidence that there was no global flood, too).

If there was a global flood, there would be evidence all around us that indicates that flood.

Not only do we find a lack of everything that we would expect to find if there was a global flood, but we also find things that would be IMPOSSIBLE if such a flood occured.

the only way to get around it is to believe that God set up a world where events that did occur seem to not have occured.

And anyone who states that a thing didn't happen when that thing did indeed happen is a liar.

Face it, AV. Creationism makes your god a liar.

As for evidence that says there was no global flood, all the various forms of radiometric dating that agree (which is all of them) indicate an old earth. Stellar redshift indicates an ancient universe, far older than your thousands of years. And the fossil record, neatly sorted from primitive animals through to more modern animals, eliominates the idea of a global flood.

As my apple challenge shows -- you wouldn't even know where to begin to look.

Your apple challenge shows you are a troll.

Not only that, you can't even hypothetically think up something that would pass for evidence.

I have given you three different evidences. Dismiss them without understanding what they say about the age of the universe and you are embracing ignorance.

Until you answer my apple challenge -- neither are you.

Your apple challenge begins with the claim that you create an apple from nothing.

Any idiot can claim that. A claim doesn't prove itself.

That's right.

Quite unlike my apple challenge, where the shoe is on the other foot, and you guys like to accuse the OP of being bogus, instead of admitting myopia.

in other words, you have no actual interest in anything but tyhe conclusions you have already decided on. You will learn nothing like that, and shall remain forever ignorant.

My promise stands.

If it was 'so much dross', it would have been pwned by now.

It has been pwned. You just don't realise it because you refuse to look at the reasons why, and just stick your fingers into your ears screaming so your precious worldview won't be shattered by reality.

 

[hillard]

Face it, AV. Creationism makes your god a liar.

Creationists spend their time telling everyone that their God is a fool, and when they're not they're clapping someone else ( Ham, Hovind ) who is.

 

[Freodin]

Quite unlike my apple challenge, where the shoe is on the other foot, and you guys like to accuse the OP of being bogus, instead of admitting myopia.

My promise stands.

If it was 'so much dross', it would have been pwned by now.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7524745/#post56466775

PWND!

 

[AV1611VET]

We have evidence that the universe has existed for more than 6000 years.

That's not what he said, though.

He said we have evidence the earth is older than 6000 years.

You claim it hasn't.

I could go either way on this:

1. I could agree that you have evidence it does; just like you had evidence that Pluto was a planet, Thalidomide was a wonder drug, and Phlogiston was liquid heat.
2. I could claim you don't have evidence.

If there was a global flood, there would be evidence all around us that indicates that flood.

Either keep looking, or agree that God cleaned it up.

Not only do we find a lack of everything that we would expect to find if there was a global flood...

So you're basically saying that God should have left some evidence behind?

Well, He did -- written Documentation and stockpiled coccolithophores.

... but we also find things that would be IMPOSSIBLE if such a flood occured.

With God, nothing was impossible concerning the Flood.

the only way to get around it is to believe that God set up a world where events that did occur seem to not have occured.

It's called cleaning up.

And anyone who states that a thing didn't happen when that thing did indeed happen is a liar.

That's why God stated the Flood did happen.

Face it, AV. Creationism makes your god a liar.

Creationism has nothing to do with the Flood; and if God was a 'liar' -- believe me -- you wouldn't know it.

If I was a liar, but wanted you to believe that I wasn't, I certainly wouldn't put it in writing -- then preserve that writing for all generations to come.

As for evidence that says there was no global flood, all the various forms of radiometric dating that agree (which is all of them) indicate an old earth.

Again, you're confusing 'old earth' with the Flood.

Stellar redshift indicates an ancient universe, far older than your thousands of years.

We're changing the topic now?

And the fossil record, neatly sorted from primitive animals through to more modern animals, eliominates the idea of a global flood.

Here we go again.

I'll say this again: not if God cleaned things up.

1 Corinthians 14:40 Let all things be done decently and in order.

What's wrong? is the earth too tidy? did God do too thorough a job?