Did Noah's flood cover the whole earth including all the mountains with water?

[RocksInMyHead]

Sort of Well that's the scientific way Isn't it

Uh, no?

 

[TasManOfGod]

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.

Are yes makes me think of the "conclusion" of evolution

 

[TasManOfGod]

The source rocks for the zircons are igneous crystalline rocks. They didn't originate at Horseshoe Bend.

I am sure there is a Flood supporting answer there but without research I would not want to speculate

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Are yes makes me think of the "conclusion" of evolution

Somehow I doubt I could say anything that would convince you otherwise, despite the error of your statement, so I won't even try.

 

[SkyWriting]

Closed so a bird could not get out, not sealed to keep out water light or air.

Whatever you think.

Lots of them hunt when it is warm and dark.

Not if God has a hand in it.

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?

It not that big of a stretch. The writers of the scripture were likely unaware of how animals of every species would behave in the Ark and forgot to mention the carnage you imaginate. And the poop.

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 prefer to sleep together by kind or type.
Also keeping animals separated for size compatibility.
Also for ballast reasons on a moving rocking platform.
Also for keeping order in and out.
Also if they didn't sleep then for food handling and cleaning.
Also for exercising.

Just because you make up you own ventilation, it doesn't mean we can ignore the obvious ventilation source mentioned in the text.

I didn't invent the issue with eve ventilation. It's a natural part of roof construction. Check your house. Check ANY slope roofed structure. Its very hard to avoid. You said the word for window meant "light" not air. The window was closed and not transparent.

The text says rooms or compartments. Cages and pens are different compartments suitable for holding animals.

Different from the text....agreed.

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.

The window was closed and dark. Not transparent.

No just a single window, but as you illustration showed, it could run around the entire base of the roof a cubit high. 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.

As if you did know what the construction of it was.

I thought I based all my claims on the text.

And I'm showing that's not the case.

 

[SkyWriting]

Did Noah's flood cover the whole earth including all the mountains with water?

No.

Black Sea deluge theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to your link, it's not a well supported theory.

"Maybe Not" would be a better stand.

 

[Assyrian]

Whatever you think.

Not if God has a hand in it.

If you are going to make up a miracle, why make up a naturalistic explanation to go with it?

It not that big of a stretch. The writers of the scripture were likely unaware of how animals of every species would behave in the Ark and forgot to mention the carnage you imaginate. And the poop.

Making up your own miracles is always a stretch, fine if you want to believe them yourself, but don't expect others to just accept your claim, or think you have come up with a good exegesis of the text.

On the other hand God did give instruction for building separate rooms and there were people on hand to shovel the poo.

Animals prefer to sleep together by kind or type.
Also keeping animals separated for size compatibility.
Also for ballast reasons on a moving rocking platform.
Also for keeping order in and out.
Also if they didn't sleep then for food handling and cleaning.
Also for exercising.

Just because you can see other advantages to pens and compartments, doesn't mean the compartments don't also have the very major advantage of keeping the animals from eating each other. Why make up a miracle to explain what is already dealt with in the text?

I didn't invent the issue with eve ventilation. It's a natural part of roof construction. Check your house. Check ANY slope roofed structure. Its very hard to avoid. You said the word for window meant "light" not air. The window was closed and not transparent.

Sloped roof? Doesn't ark mean 'box'? Anyway, glad you recognise that the window provided light so the ark would not have been pitch black inside when the door was sealed, and your whole hibernating in the dark argument goes out the, um, window. With it your need for ventilation under the eves, so I am not sure why you are still going on about it. The method of sealing the body of the ark was painting it with pitch, which meant the window wasn't sealed, since it was meant to be a light.

Different from the text....agreed.

No not different from the text, differing meanings in the text.

The window was closed and dark. Not transparent.

Then it was't a window according to the building instructions, which called for a 'light' 1 cubit between the roof and the sides.

As if you did know what the construction of it was.

No, but I can read your description and see that it doesn't fit what the construction was. Not sure the point in continuing the discussion, we have established that the window provided light, which you hadn't realised when you tried to provide naturalistic explanations for the made up miracle of the animals hibernating.

And I'm showing that's not the case.

You have?

 

[losguy]

The Garden of Eden and the Flood of Noah or Utnapishtim​

My Theory began when I was hunting for information about the Bible flood of Noah. I came across an article that described where the Garden of Eden was located from references in the Bible. I then started my own investigation. I didn't just look for a place but clues as to whether it was a place or an Idea. On my search I was able through my Library to get hold of a book put out by one of the oil company’s exploration team about the Persian Gulf. While reading it I saw some time frame abnormalities in their geological analysis. I am not saying that they were not right about their findings but in their interpretation.
The Information:
They explained that in the main channel of the Persian Gulf that the layer that rested on the bedrock was approximately 6000 years old and the layers that were on the bedrock along the tidal plains was only 3000 years old. At the mouth of the Persian Gulf in the Straits of Hermouz the layers that rested on the bedrock was 11,000 years old. Also if you look at the geological structures on both sides of the Straits of Hermouz the geological formations are exactly the same except that on the southern shore it is the small end piece of the whole northern shore mountain range.
A missing piece:
I was watching one of my favorite programs about Earth and its geology's. They were explaining about the Mediterranean Sea and how it was formed. They explained that originally there had been a dike that went across the Straits of Gibraltar and the Mediterranean Sea was originally a large desolate valley with some salt lakes in it. This dike had broken and had let the Atlantic Ocean rush in.





Noah’s Great Flood: Had this happened in the Persian Gulf?
It had all the ear marks of the same event happening and maybe this time in mans own history. Could the Persian Gulf have been the site of the Garden of Eden and Noah's Great Flood? I did some figuring and found that if the Great flood of Noah had been world wide just to cover the lowest continental mass the flood would have to have risen a few thousand feet or so and that didn't take in to account any mountains, and if it were to cover the world thousands of feet of water would have to have risen. In my studies of the earth at USLB I was informed that if both Ice Caps were to melt that the water would raise only about a hundred feet or so. Also the debate about the 'Cubit' then came into play. If the water were to rise 15 Cubits to cover the entire Earth the cubit was enormous. Even to cover the lowest continent made the cubit to big even divided by 10( as many believe that the source really says 150 cubits) would make the cubit to large for any rational measurement. Most cultures have flood legends but most cultures could have experienced large floods due to large lakes or even inland seas held in by dikes or dam and being released. At this point I started to look at local flooding. The Ark of Noah is said to be 300x50x30 cubits in size. if we make an analysis of the size of the ark using the information in the bible and the geological information and the earth was covered by water that rose 15 cubits the ark would be approximately 23 miles long, even if the only the lowest continental land mass (Asia) were covered the ark would be about 3 miles long (boy what ship builders they had then). I don't think a vessel this long could long stay together in one piece. Therefore I believe that the flood was local to an area and not a reoccurring local or even an enormous river flood would not fit the bill. Either the Black Sea inundation or the Persian Gulf inundation I believe is the site of the Noah’s flood.
The Flood Story Origin
Prior to the Bible the story of Noah and the Ark was told in the ancient Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh where he goes and meets Utnapishtim the Sumerian version of Noah. The flood story also appears in the writings found at Mohenjo Daro and Harrapa in India as well as trading items from Samaria.


The Garden of Eden's Location
The Garden of Eden in the Bible is located at the junction of four rivers and each of these rivers going off in a different direction of the compass. Well there is a place at the head of the Persian Gulf that fits that description. This is where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come together. During satellite imaging it was been found that where these two rivers come together there is also remnants of two other rivers that have dried up and are only visible with ultraviolet satellite images.
The Theory
If a dike had been across the Straits of Hermouz in our past and had given way the flood of Noah and the Garden of Eden would have been found. Noah could have very well seen that the dike was about to give way from good observation and was prepared for it. Also in the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh it intimates that the water around them is salty. It also says that the waters came up from the bowels of the Earth as well as fell from the sky this would have been a very good description from a pre-written-historic man of the dike bursting. If you follow the line of the Persian Gulf and where the water would have channeled, Noah could well have ended in the Mountains of Ararat. According to the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh he did not end in the Mountains of Ararat but in Dilmun (Thought to be the Island of Bahrain). This would make the cubit approximately the right size. The water that would have come from the mountains on the north side of the gulf would have made the desert, in the valley where the Persian Gulf resides, a paradise and people have a tendency to believe that where they come from is always the GARDEN OF EDEN...

 

[SkyWriting]

If you are going to make up a miracle, why make up a naturalistic explanation to go with it?
Just because you can see other advantages to pens and compartments, doesn't mean the compartments don't also have the very major advantage of keeping the animals from eating each other.

That would be quite a trick.
God brought two of each kind of animal on a boat for a year. There is little that is "Natural" about the way the animals behaved as they boarded the Ark from across the continent. If God brought them there, he could have caused them to sleep or not. Many would likely have died on the trip due to natural causes. None would have attacked each other because that would have been a hardship on the crew. I'm sure God made sure they were not hungry. He's good at that kind of thing.

http://bible.cc/isaiah/11-6.htm

http://bible.cc/isaiah/65-25.htm

There are indications that neither animals or man ate meat before the flood.

http://bible.cc/genesis/9-3.htm

If all animals were herbivorous, that would solve imagined problems with conflict, space, & food.
I think it would be odd if only man was vegetarian before the flood.

Sloped roof? Doesn't ark mean 'box'? Anyway, glad you recognize that the window provided light..<snip>

I don't agree that the Ark had a flat roof or was much of a box. Flat roofs don't work at sea or in the rain. Don't tell Frank Lloyd Write I said that.

The window would be the only light. But only after it was opened near the end of the voyage.

 

[SkyWriting]

....<snip>...The Ark of Noah is said to be 300x50x30 cubits in size. if we make an analysis of the size of the ark using the information in the bible...<snip>..

One cubit equals 1.5 feet. This could have saved you some time.

LENGTHS
Finger 0.73 inches 1.85 centimeters Jeremiah 52.21 <Convert> Handbreadth (4 fing.) 2.92 inches 7.4 centimeters Exodus 25:25 <Convert> Span 9 inches 22.86 centimeters Exodus 28:16 <Convert> Cubit 18 inches 45.72 centimeters Matthew 6:27 <Convert> Long Cubit 20.4 inches 51.9 centimeters Ezekiel 40:5 <Convert> Fathom 6 feet 1.829 meters Acts 27:28 <Convert> Reed (6 cubits) 8.75 feet 2.73 meters Ezekiel 40:5 <Convert> Furlong 1/8 mi., 660 feet 201.2 meters Revelation 14:20 <Convert> Stadion 697 feet 185.4 meters Luke 24:13 <Convert> Sabbath day&#8217;s journey 3/5 mile 0.9656 kilometers Acts 1:12 <Convert> Day&#8217;s journey 20 miles 32.19 kilometers 1 Kings 19:4 <Convert>

 

[SonOfTheWest]

That would be quite a trick.
God brought two of each kind of animal on a boat for a year. There is little that is "Natural" about the way the animals behaved as they boarded the Ark from across the continent. If God brought them there, he could have caused them to sleep or not. Many would likely have died on the trip due to natural causes. None would have attacked each other because that would have been a hardship on the crew. I'm sure God made sure they were not hungry. He's good at that kind of thing.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

There are indications that neither animals or man ate meat before the flood.

Genesis 9:3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

If all animals were herbivorous, that would solve imagined problems with conflict, space, & food.
I think it would be odd if only man was vegetarian before the flood.



I don't agree that the Ark had a flat roof or was much of a box. Flat roofs don't work at sea or in the rain. Don't tell Frank Lloyd Write I said that.

The window would be the only light. But only after it was opened near the end of the voyage.

That which explains everything, explains nothing.

 

[SkyWriting]

That which explains everything, explains nothing.

Deductivism in mathematical literature and inductivism in scientific papers are simply the postures we choose to be seen in when the curtain goes up and the public sees us. The theatrical illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes. In real life discovery and justification are almost always different processes.

&#8212; Sir Peter B. Medawar

Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?

&#8212; Sir Peter B. Medawar

Scientists are people of very dissimilar temperaments doing different things in very different ways. Among scientists are collectors, classifiers and compulsive tidiers-up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers; some are artists and others artisans. There are poets&#8211;scientists and philosopher&#8211;scientists and even a few mystics. ... and most people who are in fact scientists could easily have been something else instead.

&#8212; http://www.christianforums.com/Sir Peter B. MedawarSir Peter B. Medawar


What do you need explained, son?

 

[Assyrian]

If you are going to make up a miracle, why make up a naturalistic explanation to go with it?
Just because you can see other advantages to pens and compartments, doesn't mean the compartments don't also have the very major advantage of keeping the animals from eating each other.

That would be quite a trick.

You have never been to a zoo?

God brought two of each kind of animal on a boat for a year. There is little that is "Natural" about the way the animals behaved as they boarded the Ark from across the continent. If God brought them there, he could have caused them to sleep or not.

The text says bringing the animals was something God commanded Noah (Gen 6:22 & 7:9), which makes the local flood interpretation of erets much more plausible. Noah could obey God's command and bring animals from his local region, but not from all over a creationist super continent. However God bringing the animals is certainly a popular interpretation, and if the text means the animals all wandered up two by two, then it is clear that it is God who performed this miracle. Unlike your hibernation miracle, it is a miracle based solidly on the text or at least an interpretation of the text. We see the animals coming in two by two, and if you miss the part where God commanded Noah to bring them, then it must have been God who brought them.

On the other hand we don't have any suggestion in the text that the animals hibernated, so your miracle of God transforming their natures to make them all sleep in the dark is one you have made up yourself to explain a behaviour you have made up yourself. What is the point in reading the bible if you are just going to make stuff up instead of reading what is there?

We do see God's provision clearly in the text, separate rooms and compartments to keep the animals in, and all the different kinds of food the animals were going to need.

Many would likely have died on the trip due to natural causes.

Given that God's purpose was to keep them safe through the flood, and that God (or Noah) would have picked young, healthy, fertile animals to start with, I think we can assume God's providential care while Noah obeyed his command, that God would accomplish the word he spoke. That is scriptural isn't it? Unlike making up behaviour like hibernation and making up miracles to explain the behaviour you made up, and then redesigning the ark with a cat flap instead of a window because your miracle needs the ark to be dark for it to work.

None would have attacked each other because that would have been a hardship on the crew. I'm sure God made sure they were not hungry. He's good at that kind of thing.

God is good at that sort of thing, it is why he commanded Noah to bring all the different kinds of food along and commanded the ark to be built with separate compartments. Not so sure the purpose was to keep the crew from hardship, wandering around the Sinai wasn't a picnic as I am sure the grumbling Israelites would have told you, nor was it all that pleasant for Elijah being fed by unclean ravens.

Isaiah 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.

Don't you find it odd the way creationists have to quote highly figurative prophesies about the future to try to come up with an argument about animals behaviour in Genesis?

There are indications that neither animals or man ate meat before the flood.

Genesis 9:3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.

No mention of animal diet here, there is only have evidence of dietary restrictions on the part of people. In fact if you look back in the account, we can see a very kosher sounding distinction between clean and unclean animals Gen 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate.

If all animals were herbivorous, that would solve imagined problems with conflict, space, & food.

Separate pens solve the problems of conflicts and meat is a lot more nutritionally dense than a herbivorous diet, feeding the carnivores meat would take a lot less space.

I think it would be odd if only man was vegetarian before the flood.

I am pretty sure the cows and sheep were vegetarian too.

I don't agree that the Ark had a flat roof or was much of a box. Flat roofs don't work at sea or in the rain. Don't tell Frank Lloyd Write I said that.

Have you ever seen an aircraft carrier? A container ship? A tanker? The difference between the top of a house and the top of a ship, the reason water can accumulate and cause problems on the flat roof of a house, is because the house tends to stay level. Remember, you were relying on the ship rocking back and forth to lull the animals asleep? Wouldn't that solve any problems of water on a flat roof?

The window would be the only light. But only after it was opened near the end of the voyage.

If it is a window, then its primary purpose, from its very name, is to provide light. You have replaced the window with a cat flap.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Deductivism in mathematical literature and inductivism in scientific papers are simply the postures we choose to be seen in when the curtain goes up and the public sees us. The theatrical illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes. In real life discovery and justification are almost always different processes.

— Sir Peter B. Medawar

Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?

— Sir Peter B. Medawar

Scientists are people of very dissimilar temperaments doing different things in very different ways. Among scientists are collectors, classifiers and compulsive tidiers-up; many are detectives by temperament and many are explorers; some are artists and others artisans. There are poets–scientists and philosopher–scientists and even a few mystics. ... and most people who are in fact scientists could easily have been something else instead.

— Sir Peter B. Medawar


What do you need explained, son?

Hey look stuff that has nothing to do with the "magic boat" theory.

 

[SkyWriting]

You have never been to a zoo?

They take a lot of space per animal and none I've visited in 40 years include any wood construction, anywhere.
So your idea of a "floating zoo" fails. Except in entertaining songs.

I wonder what the volume of urine would be for 2 of each species for a year. And the "trickle down" effect from the wood construction of the rooms. With a sealed hull, the Ark would would be soggy, pretty fast. And the smell of soaked dripping wood. Yikes! The humans would have a choice of living with the odors above all the animals or dripping soggy rooms below.


Raising Animals in Confinement: Is it a Sin?http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...TqtWmAwY2YDTfe9Eg&sig2=wU_qcz1HHgrGVzUtJRUxAA

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5689

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...oBytvc3x70r_Jz1DA&sig2=jjx072iuddNLzz-2akPuyQ

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...dcA_IHZsMTw9I8-bg&sig2=W4BnWfFNXm15mfptn10VNA

Legislation in Sweden on minimum size of zoo enclosures » General Zoo Discussion

http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/staff/staff-profiles/?a=26806

Cruel Confinement of Farm Animals : The Humane Society of the United States

Effect of confinement in small space... [Aviat Space Environ Med. 1983] - PubMed - NCBI

PCRM | Confining Rodents in Laboratory Cages Has Troubling Consequences

Animal Confinement

Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals - California State Government

 

[SkyWriting]

Hey look stuff that has nothing to do with the "magic boat" theory.

That which explains everything, explains nothing. &#8212; Sir Peter B. Medawar

Deductivism in mathematical literature and inductivism in scientific papers are simply the postures we choose to be seen in when the curtain goes up and the public sees us. The theatrical illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes. In real life discovery and justification are almost always different processes. &#8212; Sir Peter B. Medawar


What do you need explained, son?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Deductivism in mathematical literature and inductivism in scientific papers are simply the postures we choose to be seen in when the curtain goes up and the public sees us. The theatrical illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes. In real life discovery and justification are almost always different processes. — Sir Peter B. Medawar


What do you need explained, son?

1. not your son.

2.you're post doesn't address anything it's trying to reply to.

 

[Assyrian]

Happy Christmas everyone

 

[SkyWriting]

1. not your son.

2.you're post doesn't address anything it's trying to reply to.

1. It's the name you choose for yourself, Son.
2. What do you need explained?