- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I would like to know if the layers showed signs that the flow in one of the "forks" was opposite to what it is now. This would proove a receeding water scenario .
Try a solid roof and painting it with pitch the same way the rest of the ark was sealed. Not sure why anyone would want to seal the eves when you have a cubit an a half window running all the way round the base of the roof. It is your water proof, air tight seals on the windows that are the addition to the text. Why seal the windows up watertight and leave the eaves open?
No I find that claim pretty bizarre too, that animals sleep in the dark when there is no food. What about all the nocturnal predators, who are going to be surrounded by prey the whole journey? What about all the animals that use body heat to find their prey?
Why do you think the instruction Gen 6:21 take with you every sort of food that is eaten, is given right after the instructions to bring every sort of animal? Noah brought all the food for the animals too.
It is bad enough Creatio.<snip>.
Whatever the number of animals, the structure of the ark provided adequate ventilation with the roof set a cubit above the sides of the ark.
We share the same broken vitamin C synthesis gene...<snip>
No you imagined that it was waterproof, you just didn't realist the implication that it would also be airtight.I never claimed anything airtight. That was your idea.
Your point was that they would go to sleep because there was no light and no food. The ones using infrared were surrounded by the warm bodies of their prey, and aren't noted for their ability to hibernate.Not during hibernation. Sheesh
Besides animals don't prey on others unless hungry. See point below.
And no need for food at all if God brought pairs of fat animals. Really this hibernation thing is just something you made up, there is no suggestion of it in the text, what you are doing is trying to reconcile this extra-biblical claim with the description of Noah simply bringing food along for all the animals.There would be opportunity before or after hibernation to eat.
If you can't justify the way you twist scripture that is fine, I would suggest that as someone open to Old Earth Creationism you look at Young Earth claim about the ark very carefully and see if they are really what the text says before accepting their claimsI can't comment on ranting and blather.
So we can forget about the waterproof window then.Correct.
Of course it isn't, you are the one who wanted to read YEC perfect DNA and hyper evolution arguments into the biblical text and accuse people who don't buy it of being brainwashed.Not Ark related.
Lets air through how fast? Not sure I'd tie a Gore-tex bag around my head to keep the rain off.Yes, the holes let air through, while water (which needs to have a certain minimum droplet size on these highly water-hating surfaces like Gore-tex) stays outside.
Easily obtainable from the magma the ark is floating in so many creationist scenarios.Now if only the Bible recorded God telling Noah to cover the ark inside out with pitch (which would supply all the necessary hydrocarbons) and hydrofluoric acid ...
Roofs are naturally vented. An airtight window is of no consequence.No you imagined that it was waterproof, you just didn't realist the implication that it would also be airtight.
Your point was that they would go to sleep because there was no light and no food. The ones using infrared were surrounded by the warm bodies of their prey, and aren't noted for their ability to hibernate. And no need for food at all if God brought pairs of fat animals. Really this hibernation thing is just something you made up, there is no suggestion of it in the text, what you are doing is trying to reconcile this extra-biblical claim with the description of Noah simply bringing food along for all the animals.
If you can't justify the way you twist scripture that is fine, I would suggest that as someone open to Old Earth Creationism you look at Young Earth claim about the ark very carefully and see if they are really what the text says before accepting their claims so we can forget about the waterproof window then.
Of course it has natural venting, it is the cubit high window between it and the hull, which you wanted to seal.Roofs are naturally vented. An airtight window is of no consequence.
Evos usually look for evidence to support their ideas and distinguish between speculation and ideas that have been backed up by evidence. There is nothing in the text to suggest your hibernation idea or the need to seal the windows to make the animals sleep.I'm using an old evo trick.....thinking and believing.
Or command Noah to build separate rooms in the ark and to bring food. Which is what we read in the account.What would happen if God brought together 1000's of animals placed them in the dark hold of a ship where it was warm?
Clearly they would be well fed ahead of time and not interested in eating each other.
Then gently rocked.
We know many of them would sleep.
What would God logically do to avoid them tearing each others guts out.
Have them all sleep.
No, hibernation is using wild speculation to explain their survival with nothing in the text to suggest they this is what actually happened. Rooms, cages, pens and enough food is another explanation, and one that actually looks at what the text says.According to what we DO READ, every animal that got on the Ark, got off.
So Hibernation is a logical explanation.
Surely the number of sturdy cages depends on the number of predators and prey you want to bring? Or do you rely on hot bunking them, wait for the the first batch of carnivores to fall asleep before you bring the next lot of carnivores in? Bit tricky relying on the wave to rock the carnivores asleep when you needed to have all the animals on board before the flood starts. And if the food is for the animal when they wake up hungry, isn't it better to have the lions and tigers and bears in cages when they wake up hungry?There are other explanations.
But my solution reduces the amount of shoveling work needed, the amount of free space needed, the amount of sturdy cages, the amount of food needed for the trip, as well as animal handling required.
I admit leaving out the full stop after claims, but 'so' was a whole new paragraph, and it was a capital S, did you change the 's' to lowercase?Weird sentences do you write, young A.If you can't justify the way you twist scripture that is fine, I would suggest that as someone open to Old Earth Creationism you look at Young Earth claim about the ark very carefully and see if they are really what the text says before accepting their claims so we can forget about the waterproof window then.
It was coated inside and out with pitch, but that tells us nothing about the window, but it was a window rather than a cat flap, which suggests it was to let air and light in. It was also able to keep birds in until it was opened, so looking at technologies available at the time, a simple trellis would do that, or if you wanted something more weather proof, you could go for a thin skin across a frame though you would need to open it regularly for fresh air. But the word for window is tsohar, which means a light, so I don't think anything pitch black when it is sealed counts.If I said the one window on the Ark was waterproof, like the flex-seal commercial, then I misspoke. Water resistant is good enough. But it wouldn't let through light. Glass or plexiglass are more modern technology. We read that Noah opened a window and let out a bird. So.....the window was closed, and birds couldn't get out normally. The ship was pretty tight evidently. As the scriptures read.
Of course it has natural venting, it is the cubit high window between it and the hull, which you wanted to seal.
Evos usually look for evidence to support their ideas and distinguish between speculation and ideas that have been backed up by evidence. There is nothing in the text to suggest your hibernation idea or the need to seal the windows to make the animals sleep.
Or command Noah to build separate rooms in the ark and to bring food. Which is what we read in the account.
No, hibernation is using wild speculation to explain their survival with nothing in the text to suggest they this is what actually happened. Rooms, cages, pens and enough food is another explanation, and one that actually looks at what the text says.Surely the number of sturdy cages depends on the number of predators and prey you want to bring? Or do you rely on hot bunking them, wait for the the first batch of carnivores to fall asleep before you bring the next lot of carnivores in? Bit tricky relying on the wave to rock the carnivores asleep when you needed to have all the animals on board before the flood starts. And if the food is for the animal when they wake up hungry, isn't it better to have the lions and tigers and bears in cages when they wake up hungry?But you also need miraculous physiological changes to all the non hibernating animals to make them hibernate when it goes dark. There is no suggestion or hint of any such miracle in the whole account. It is one thing to trust in the miracles the bible tells us about, it is something completely different to faith in miracle people just make up. It was coated inside and out with pitch, but that tells us nothing about the window, but it was a window rather than a cat flap, which suggests it was to let air and light in. It was also able to keep birds in until it was opened, so looking at technologies available at the time, a simple trellis would do that, or if you wanted something more weather proof, you could go for a thin skin across a frame though you would need to open it regularly for fresh air. But the word for window is tsohar, which means a light, so I don't think anything pitch black when it is sealed counts.
Closed so a bird could not get out, not sealed to keep out water light or air.I said it was closed. As the text states.
Lots of them hunt when it is warm and dark.They sleep because it is dark and warm.
Is appealing to an undocumented miracle is any better than appealing to a process that doesn't happen naturally and claiming it was the result of things not suggested in the text?Perhaps God helped this happen.
Not sure what your point here is. It doesn't address the fact God told Noah to construct the ark with compartments or rooms.Animals naturally sleep together by Kind.
Just because you make up you own ventilation, it doesn't mean we can ignore the obvious ventilation source mentioned in the text.We covered the ventilation "problem" with eves.
The text says rooms or compartments. Cages and pens are different compartments suitable for holding animals.The texts says nothing about:
"cages"
"pens"
Just looking at technologies available that fit the description of a window in the text which as I pointed out meant a 'light'. But it is the word used to describe the window as a light rather than the material it was constructed form, that puts paid to you attempt to induce hibernation by turning the lights off. You haven't actually addressed this."a simple trellis"
No just a single window, but as you illustration showed, it could run around the entire base of the roof a cubit high.multiple windows
open windows
Cat flap describes your idea of the window, a flap you can open to let animals out through, and when you close it the ark is pitch black. I said it wasn't a cat flap."cat flaps"
I thought I based all my claims on the text.so lets' keep the playing field even. I get to add to the text
just as you're attempting to do.
From a Flood perspective there is a very easy solution. It is the receeding waters that cause the formations. With huge amounts of water causing massive currents the layers are put down. When the level drops below the top layer erosion begins to occurr as the water gourges the surface producing a wide but (relatively shallow) trench. The diminishing water flow undermines the edges until the layer can no longer support the overhang. The face then gives away producing the sheer cliff face as well as the pile of rubble at its base. Now the water subsides a little lower so the process starts again this time producing the same a little closer to the middle of the flow. The process continues to repeat on multple of layers finally after more wind and rain erosion producing the effect we see today.
The Coconino was a desert, but it was located relatively close to the coast. This allowed some rain and inter-dune ephemeral pools to form. The layer above the Coconino is the Toroweap, which was represents a coastal/tidal environment. It has sandstone, siltstone, and limestone. Above that is the Kaibab Limestone, which formed in a shallow sea. No flooding, at least not as you describe. It seems like a normal coastal subsidence progression.OK back from my busy
There are sedimentarty layers above and below the Coconino said by geologists to be put down by flood but they say the Coco was a windswept desert. This has even put off YEC's but has now been proven to be a fallicy because the tracks are shown to be amphibian.
The angle of repose of sand on Earth is approximately 30 degrees. This is the maximum slope that sand grains can form. That is to say, eolian sand dunes can form at lower angles as well.I dont know where you get your info from but I have read that underwater face angles of 25 deg. are normal (as measured) whereas sand dunes are 30 +deg
McKee, E. D., 1979. A study of global sand seas: Ancient sandstones considered to be eolian. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1052, Reston, VA: USGS. Page 204, to be exact.Not too sure what you on about there . Could you supply a reference
They don't have to stand up to millions of years of weathering. If it rains and the imprints are immediately covered by sand, they can be preserved in between layers without ever being exposed to the surface. And while we can't prove for certain that they're rain drop imprints, they sure as heck look like what you see after it rains on sand.Are they really raindrop imprints or only a quess. Do you really expect us to beleive that rain drop imprints would actaully stand millions of years of weathering
Whether they are ancient or not has nothing to do with it. How does soil form in fast-moving water over the course of a year?Are they only termed ancient because they have "ancient" fossils in them, and are they only ancient fossils because they have been found in "ancient soil beds"
And you still haven't answered my question.Sorry. I thought you said I was attacking you.
I honestly don't know what the numerical difference is. My point is that you can't use the rate at which a cliff erodes back to relate to the rate at which a river carves down. There are too many different variables between the two situations.Easier to erode back a cliff? Ok. 10 times? 20 times? 100 times? 20,0000 years then. 200 times easier? 40,0000 years then.
Rate of change of a riverbed is proportional and changes according to the amount of water flowing through it. Granted, Niagra has 100 times the volume. But I'm thinking over 1000 times that anyway.
If you'd actually read the link, you'd know that it said that the river flowed backwards from California to Utah, not that it diverged at Horseshoe Bend (which, conveniently, looks like a standard meander sunk into the rock, almost like the rock lifted up underneath it...hmmm).thx for the link
My thoughts are that horseshoe bend maybe was where the two "rivers" originated. As the flood waters drained the canyons became natural river beds and water entered from different inflows and reorganised the formations to suit
Yes I did note the reference to the assumed pattern of flow but this could have been a quess not having the insight of a massive Flood aftermath as I have describedIf you'd actually read the link, you'd know that it said that the river flowed backwards from California to Utah, not that it diverged at Horseshoe Bend (which, conveniently, looks like a standard meander sunk into the rock, almost like the rock lifted up underneath it...hmmm).
I'd also like to point out that this is not a widely accepted theory and that it doesn't have all that much supporting evidence (at least for whether or not the California River followed the same course). You're also ignoring the fact that the rocks they're talking about are dated at 55 Ma. Significantly younger than the rocks in the Grand Canyon, which range from ~250 Ma to ~1.8 Ga.
Another thing to consider: if the Grand Canyon was carved by the floodwaters receding, then water would have had to flow uphill.
Firstly there is a little difference to the meandering river pattern produced by a relatively small body of water finding a path on a flood plain as against kilometer deep water heading for a plug hole.
What are you trying to describe here? this makes no sense to me.What I consider is that if there is water above where it can to flow to, it will flow to it. This can of course be shown by experiment using a tilted bathtub.
Except the zircons were only from California - they specifically mentioned that there weren't any zircon signatures from another area (which would suggest that the river had taken a different route). If they were put there by a flood, the zircons should be from all over.Yes I did note the reference to the assumed pattern of flow but this could have been a quess not having the insight of a massive Flood aftermath as I have described
...Firstly there is a little difference to the meandering river pattern produced by a relatively small body of water finding a path on a flood plain as against kilometer deep water heading for a plug hole.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The elevation of the surrounding topography at the start of the Grand Canyon near Lee's Ferry is ~3100 feet. The elevation of the South Rim inside the park is ~7500 ft. The North Rim is ~8000 feet. According to all the laws of physics, the water could never have flowed east to west if the topography was at it's present elevation when the flood was receding.What I consider is that if there is water above where it can to flow to, it will flow to it. This can of course be shown by experiment using a tilted bathtub.
Perhaps they both began their journey at Horseshoe bendExcept the zircons were only from California - they specifically mentioned that there weren't any zircon signatures from another area (which would suggest that the river had taken a different route). If they were put there by a flood, the zircons should be from all over.
I was pointing out that there is a significent difference between this;FYI, "meandering stream" is the final stage of river development. It only occurs when the river is flowing relatively slowly over a roughly flat surface with a wide floodplain surrounding it. The floodwaters you're describing meet none of these criteria.
But it wasn'tI'm not sure what you're trying to say. The elevation of the surrounding topography at the start of the Grand Canyon near Lee's Ferry is ~3100 feet. The elevation of the South Rim inside the park is ~7500 ft. The North Rim is ~8000 feet. According to all the laws of physics, the water could never have flowed east to west if the topography was at it's present elevation when the flood was receding
Sort ofAre you making this stuff up as you go along?
. I am trying to describe how water can appear to flow uphill if the conditions that cause the flow changeWhat are you trying to describe here? this makes no sense to me
The source rocks for the zircons are igneous crystalline rocks. They didn't originate at Horseshoe Bend.Perhaps they both began their journey at Horseshoe bend
No, this a logical fallacy known as "begging the question." You entered with a conclusion and are now trying to force the facts to fit it. It's bad science and poor logic.I was pointing out that there is a significent difference between this;
http://www.elcivics.com/horseshoe_bent_colorado_river_1.jpg
and this:
http://i.imgur.com/xILht.jpg
Yes there are "horseshoe bends" in each but there was a vastly different water flow that formed it. The non Flood scenario would support similar formatiom it but not the massive water flows I am referring to.
Ok, you've got me there.But it wasn't
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?