Noah's Ark (2)

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by Insane_Duck

1. That would salt all the land with the evaporated sea water, causing hostile growing conditions.

​

That would be "diluted" sea water. An issue easily fixed by rain.

 

[OllieFranz]

Guys--

You do realize that Skaloop and Orogeny are not really trying to prove Noah's Ark; they are showing that the people who get their information from Answers in Genesis and such-like have no imagination and little understanding of science. Off the tops of their heads in less than 24 hours they have come up with more convincing explanations than the YECs top experts have been able to in fifty years. Of course it's not perfect, it doesn't need to be. It just needs to be plausible.

Sorry to burst the bubble.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong salinity = lots of dead fish.

If God can save Daniel's three friends from the fiery furnace, and Daniel from the lions' den, then He can preserve marine life as well.

 

[MoonLancer]

If God can save Daniel's three friends from the fiery furnace, and Daniel from the lions' den, then He can preserve marine life as well.

i bet he could also make special water that only drowns humans but no other life. or simply put air bubbles around all the other animals, and that the arc was just a test and that the other animals didn't really die except for the humans. apologetics at its finest.

 

[MoonLancer]

There are photosynthetic fish?

but everything the fish eat comes from something photosynthetic someplace down the chain.

the same goes for humans.

 

[Skaloop]

Guys--

You do realize that Skaloop and Orogeny are not really trying to prove Noah's Ark; they are showing that the people who get their information from Answers in Genesis and such-like have no imagination and little understanding of science. Off the tops of their heads in less than 24 hours they have come up with more convincing explanations than the YECs top experts have been able to in fifty years. Of course it's not perfect, it doesn't need to be. It just needs to be plausible.

Sorry to burst the bubble.

Yeah, I wasn't sure if people were taking me seriously or not.

 

[Skaloop]

The text reads that most species died accept for those that were saved. Variation/changes/evolution HAS occurred from the time of the flood until today to account for our current number of species. The specimens that did not perish are defined as "Kinds" because they are common ancestors to all current animals.

So you don't (if I recall correctly) accept evolution as described by the modern biological sciences, but you accept some sort of super-hyper-evolution over the past 4000 years?

 

[Orogeny]

Guys--

You do realize that Skaloop and Orogeny are not really trying to prove Noah's Ark; they are showing that the people who get their information from Answers in Genesis and such-like have no imagination and little understanding of science. Off the tops of their heads in less than 24 hours they have come up with more convincing explanations than the YECs top experts have been able to in fifty years. Of course it's not perfect, it doesn't need to be. It just needs to be plausible.

Sorry to burst the bubble.

Why would you ruin my fun like this? Daffy Duck and I were just getting going!

Somebody's always gotta be the spoil-sport.

ETA: Darkwing Duck- give me a standard response to my post addressing your issues-- I'd like to see how far I can take this.

 

[Orogeny]

but everything the fish eat comes from something photosynthetic someplace down the chain.

the same goes for humans.

And that's fine. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria would still survive- after all, your garden-variety cyanobacterium is capable of living in basically any aqueous environment, as long as there are no temperature or pH extremes, and provided they can stay in the photic zone, which of course would be easy-- lots of floating debris for communities to nucleate on.

 

[MoonLancer]

Why would you ruin my fun like this? Daffy Duck and I were just getting going!

Somebody's always gotta be the spoil-sport.

I already knew you were trolling

 

[MoonLancer]

And that's fine. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria would still survive- after all, your garden-variety cyanobacterium is capable of living in basically any aqueous environment, as long as there are no temperature or pH extremes.

I hear it gets pretty cold without sunlight.

 

[AV1611VET]

i bet he could also make special water that only drowns humans but no other life. or simply put air bubbles around all the other animals, and that the arc was just a test and that the other animals didn't really die except for the humans. apologetics at its finest.

Nice try -- next!

 

[MoonLancer]

Nice try -- next!

how dare you question gods power. are you trying to say he couldn't do this? don't you know this is basic doctrine.

 

[Orogeny]

I already knew you were trolling

Yeah, but daffy didn't!

 

[Orogeny]

I hear it gets pretty cold without sunlight.

Sure it does, but as I've already explained, there was plenty of floating debris to keep cyanobacteria perched happily at the top of the water column, where there's plenty of sun.

Also, the water from the 'fountains of the deep' would have been rather warm because of the geothermal gradient and such, so it would have helped to maintain a fairly uniform temperature.

 

[MoonLancer]

Sure it does, but as I've already explained, there was plenty of floating debris to keep cyanobacteria perched happily at the top of the water column, where there's plenty of sun.

Also, the water from the 'fountains of the deep' would have been rather warm because of the geothermal gradient and such, so it would have helped to maintain a fairly uniform temperature.

if its only warm water it wont make much of a difference without sunlight. The salt fish would have to travel to the surface to eat. I don't think they would do so well with that kind of commute.

 

[Orogeny]

The salt fish would have to travel to the surface to eat.

Why? If all of the salt water-dwelling organisms are in the stratum that is of marine salinity, then those fish wouldn't have to go anywhere else to feed; they would just feed on the other organisms in that stratum. Also keep in mind that there could be some light penetration into the saline strata, so photosynthesis would still be viable in this region of da flud.

 

[Insane_Duck]

As sea level dropped, the saline water would have run off, then the fresh water came into contact with the cratonic surface, where it too ran off (save the part that filled up the lakes). The only water left to evaporate on the continents was fresh.


They wouldn't have to move very fast, just fast enough to keep up with a rising sea.


Corrosion of what, by what? What type of mineral deposits would you expect to see? Where? Why?


They need not. The plants on earth were being consumed by herbivores. This means that the seeds of the plants were in the guts of the animals that died in the flood. When animals die, they often fill with gas, which makes them float. All that would be necessary for the seeds to survive is for the decomposition of the animal's carcass to take longer than the duration of the flood event. The plants grow from the ingested seeds where the animals were deposited after the flood.


Why would there be craters? Are there craters in deserts today? When the sand was 'carried away', it had to be deposited somewhere, right? Those would be the sand dunes of today.

PS~ I live in the desert, and desert's are far more than just sand dunes. If you would like to discuss the desert environment, I'd be happy to do that. The only thing you've addressed here is ergs.


There wasn't any ruined topsoil. As sea level rose, the fresh water at the top of the water column came into contact with continental soils first, such that the soils were saturated with fresh water. Once the flood receded, the fresh water in the soil was evacuated via evaporation and capillary forces, providing a well-preserved, dry soil profile.


Luckily none of these 'issues' that you've pointed out are actually a problem. YAY!

1. So wait, where is this water going? Was it raining sea water or fresh? It would have mattered because there simply isn't enough water on the planet.
2. My point is that there are places where the fish wouldn't have anywhere (mountains) to go or find food. Especially since they would have to go into the deadly salt water zone to get anywhere near the bottom.
3. I was under the impression that you could tell if a region was previously underwater by looking at the types of rocks formed there. But I guess that would be for long time periods...
4. That wouldn't work at all. To many plants don't have their seeds consumed. Besides, there are to many different types of seed and not enough animals, not to mention fertilization by animal waste (something not all plants employ) only has a limited success rate. And then you have to distribute the seeds (and the animals for that matter) evenly and across oceans.
5. Right, but the dunes would be now on top of land that has no reason to be a desert, likely one where sand shouldn't be, and btw, I lived in a desert (well, Phoenix actually, so I was close and could even see much of it from my house) for 8 years.
6. But they would be well saturated while they were underwater, and then the seawater would evaporate leaving salt deposits.

But arguing like this is irrelevant. 1 and 4 are the biggest issues but aside from major practicallity issues (it would be much easier to lift the animals in the air and feed/maintain them in the air with divine power) there is no evidence of a global flood, no genetic bottle necking, nothing.

 

[Insane_Duck]

Wow, this thread has grown fast. But anyway, lets cut to the chase Orogeny, practically is irrelevant when you have a divine God who can magically make the flood happen and solve resulting issues. The question is why do you believe this?

 

[Insane_Duck]

Nice try -- next!

Really? Because that's what you'd need to make this flood realistic.