Noah's Ark

[Subduction Zone]

Your world is nothing more than a crystal ball.

Ask your crystal ball how we got our moon.

Please, AV, you know better than that. If that was the case we could not use the information to find oil. To make predictions about virus evolution. In fact we find all sorts of minerals because we understand the history of the Earth. Your beliefs do not yield such finds.


We know how we got our moon. Why do you constantly ignore the fact that science improves over time? We learn more and more by building upon past discoveries.

 

[AV1611VET]

If that was the case we could not use the information to find oil.

Easter eggs that God put in the earth for later discovery are another matter altogether.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

We know how we got our moon.

Let's hear it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Easter eggs that God put in the earth for later discovery are another matter altogether.

Easter eggs that tell us there was no flood.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

Sorry, no help for you there. You forgot that the science that finds those "Easter Eggs" tells us that the entire Earth was never under water.

Let's hear it.

Everyone seems to be accepting the collision hypothesis.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A mark that shows massive amounts of flowing water. We have evidence of smaller older floods. A worldwide flood would have "overwritten" the record.

Only if you get to define how the flood acted. If all flood conditions were viewed in the light of the fact that the ark survived the flood it would paint a much different picture than is generally supposed.

 

[VirOptimus]

Only if you get to define how the flood acted. If all flood conditions were viewed in the light of the fact that the ark survived the flood it would paint a much different picture than is generally supposed.

Really? What would that picture be?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Really? What would that picture be?

The picture would support the story. In order for the ark to fail it's mission skeptics have to include conditions that the ark could not meet. Such was not the case as the ark and all (most) passengers survived. Skeptics have to rewrite the story to support their contentions, and ya can't do that. Skeptics have to explain how the ark 'broke up' and yet survived.

 

[VirOptimus]

Forty days of rain preceding the flood would have quieted the atmosphere by equalizing pressure and temperature, therefore there would have been little or no wind driven waves. Large currents would have been changed as well to unidirectional as the seawater gently flowed over the land. This eliminates any risk of the ark breaking up, as is proposed by skeptics.

Uhm, no, it would be a cataclysmical event. For starters, the heaviest continuous rain recorded on Earth - 1.144 meters in 12 hours, Foc-Foc, La Reunion Island, during the storm of 7-8 Jan 1966.

So the rain would need to be even heavier, much heavier which would lead to catastrophical conditions.

Also, not enough water (as I have previously presented).

Really, a gobal flood is not compatible with physical reality.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Uhm, no, it would be a cataclysmical event. For starters, the heaviest continuous rain recorded on Earth - 1.144 meters in 12 hours, Foc-Foc, La Reunion Island, during the storm of 7-8 Jan 1966.

So the rain would need to be even heavier, much heavier which would lead to catastrophical conditions.

Also, not enough water (as I have previously presented).

Really, a gobal flood is not compatible with physical reality.

Why was a heavy rain needed? The rain didn't cause the flood, therefore it had another purpose.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why was a heavy rain needed? The rain didn't cause the flood.

Really? Then why rain at all?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Really? Then why rain at all?

It stabilized the atmosphere against wind and waves.
Provided fresh water for the ark.
Maybe it was also a metaphorical baptism using clean water before mankind was drowned in it's own filthiness (the "waters below" represent that which is polluted).
It also might have confused and hindered people (from travelling to the ark once they realized it's purpose). They would have a hard time burning the ark down as well. Lot's of good reasons for the rain.

 

[VirOptimus]

It stabilized the atmosphere against wind and waves.
Provided fresh water for the ark.
Maybe it was also a metaphorical baptism using clean water before mankind was drowned in it's own filthiness (the "waters below" represent that which is polluted).

In other words, you dont know.

And, as I have shown you earlier, there simply isnt enough water on earth for the flood (aside from all the other problems). It is, quite frankly, a disproven concept.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In other words, you dont know.

And, as I have shown you earlier, there simply isnt enough water on earth for the flood (aside from all the other problems). It is, quite frankly, a disproven concept.

The is plenty of water to accomplish that flood. Remember that the flood didn't have to cover Mt. Everest. An overzealous translation of "hills" into "mountains" is responsible for that erroneous belief. There was no need for five miles of water as there was no one up there to drown.

This also accounts for the lack of evidence for a global flood. The flood would only have left evidence of local or regional floods, each with it's own unique characteristics.

 

[VirOptimus]

The is plenty of water to accomplish that flood. Remember that the flood didn't have to cover Mt. Everest. An overzealous translation of "hills" into "mountains" is responsible for that erroneous belief. There was no need for five miles of water as there was no one up there to drown.

Even if there was "only" over the hills (whatever that would mean) there still isnt enough water. And people have live on the mountains for a very long time anyway so your argument is very hollow.

 

[RickG]

Just out of curiosity, when God did this:

Genesis 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

... did He leave blood stains around? and did Adam walk around with a scar?

In your opinion.

Once again, what was previously described with the ocean floor rising as much would be required withing the time span of the flood, the amount of energy needed to do that would put the Earth in a molten state which would still be in existence today and thousands of years to come.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This also accounts for the lack of evidence for a global flood. The flood would only have left evidence of local or regional floods, each with it's own unique characteristics.

But all at the same time - which is not what we see in the geological evidence, nor do we see any singular interruption in the signs of human and animal life that might correspond - and we do see such interruptions in pre-human great catastrophes (the great extinctions), so we know the characteristics to look for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only if you get to define how the flood acted. If all flood conditions were viewed in the light of the fact that the ark survived the flood it would paint a much different picture than is generally supposed.

You appear to have no clue as to what flowing water does. And you want to add and take away five vertical miles of water in less than a year.

 

[RickG]

Works great. Read the account. It doesn't say Mt. Everest was covered, only the "high hills".

Does that mean you are now suggesting the flood was not global? If so, I don't understand the need for tectonic forces that would generate enough energy to melt the earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The is plenty of water to accomplish that flood. Remember that the flood didn't have to cover Mt. Everest. An overzealous translation of "hills" into "mountains" is responsible for that erroneous belief. There was no need for five miles of water as there was no one up there to drown.

This also accounts for the lack of evidence for a global flood. The flood would only have left evidence of local or regional floods, each with it's own unique characteristics.

So now you want to change the interpretation of the Bible. It appears that even you know that 5 miles of water would be impossible to miss. But even 1 mile of water would be far too much to miss and that would not do the job.

Worse yet you keep forgetting about the lesson of the Cheetah. Can you pick just about anyone one the street when you want an organ transplant, or would there be possible rejection issues?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Once again, what was previously described with the ocean floor rising as much would be required withing the time span of the flood, the amount of energy needed to do that would put the Earth in a molten state which would still be in existence today and thousands of years to come.

So where is the heat generated by the moon's gravitational effect on the earth. This is an enormous force by itself. Bring the moon a bit closer and you would have a global flood.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Does that mean you are now suggesting the flood was not global? If so, I don't understand the need for tectonic forces that would generate enough energy to melt the earth.

A flood doesn't need to cover all the mountaintops to be global in reach.