Obliquinaut
Сделайте Америку прекрасной
- Jun 30, 2017
- 2,091
- 1,635
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
So where on Mt. Ararat did the Ark come to rest? Just on the lower slopes?
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.
Not according to the story.
How? Your story keeps changing.
So where on Mt. Ararat did the Ark come to rest? Just on the lower slopes?
Do you realize that motors would burn up if they didn't have cooling systems to remove the heat?
These cooling systems are designed and built into the motor to keep it from overheating.
Do you think God, in His foreknowledge, did the same thing?
He could ... by way of example ... have an angel standing by to absorb any heat that is generated.
Then said angel could simply fly out into space and dissipate it.
Here's another idea:
God could simply tell Mother Nature, "When I do this, and you start to get hot, don't even go there. Don't even think it. Keep your cool. I have spoken."
Or here's another idea ...
Or another ...
Or another ...
Get the picture now?
God did it.
The moon's gravitational pull would help. Bring it nearer and all that heat and energy isn't needed.
There is actually precedence for God using the moon as the moon represents darkness/rebellion/evil. What more appropriate mechanism to aid in destroying wicked mankind.
In addition to 'lifting' the waters the moon's pull actually lifts the sea beds thus changing the shape of the earth. I believe it is the lifting of the sea beds ('breaking up' the fountains of the great deep) that caused the flood.
Any credible geologist will affirm that the earth's crust, and especially the sea beds, is very flexible, and can flex greatly without leaving any evidence if done over a wide area........as they have twice a day for millennia.
How deep was the flood such that upon the ending Noah's Ark came to rest on the Top of Mt. Ararat?
Did the sea water sit still on the land for thousands and thousands and thousands of years? Remember you have to collect hundreds of feet of fine grained sediment in places...stuff that won't settle out for a long period of time.
What are these "Fountains of the Deep" to which you refer? Can you show me some details from GEOLOGY about these? (Or do you mean just plain springs?)
Actually is it the criticisms that keep changing. The list of "Yeah buts" keeps growing.
In the 'hills" of Ararat. Why park the ark on a mountaintop making it impossible for Noah and the others to climb down. Just change "mountains" to "hills" and the story makes perfect sense. Remember that the translators were affected by the mythology of the story and the artists depictions long before the bible was 'assembled'. They got a little carried away. A slow incoming tidelike flood that took six months to crest and another six months to recede became a raging tsunami accompanied by hurricane force winds. Nonsense.
Nope, you obviously have no clue when it comes to geology.Ruin/restoration answers your questions (the geologic record plainly attests to this phenomenon). Recall that my base position is that everything is supernatural, everything. That God uses his creation to accomplish his purpose is why I speculate about how he might have done it using or interfering with the very laws he created.
What about the tides? Twice daily they defy the laws of gravity?
And, you are welcome to believe any fantasy you fancy, but space angles flying hotter than the hottest supernova holds no merit in a science debate. Just admit that you don't care about science.
I imagine that you are addressing the magical "rearrangement" of the continents? "Heat" wouldn't be "needed", it would be released.
You do realize that pushing the moon that much closer, would increase its tug on Earth's crust many many times over. Imagine doing that without so much as a moment's notice. It would crack open like a brittle egg shell.
The Moon used to be almost as close as it can be without being teared apart by Earth gravity. It's effect back on Earth were turbulent to put it mildly. Due to the constant remodeling of the Earth crust, I don't think we have geological records of this all the way back to the Moon's formation, but we do find tidal deposits caused by a closer Moon a really long way back.
Even though every tide would be a mega-tsunami, I highly doubt they were big enough to flood the whole world. Someone should do a calculation.
I agree that the evoked imagery is stimulating. I often find myself wishing that the Moon could be considerably bigger in the night sky.
Which is exactly the kind of sudden displacement that would unleash a tremendous amount of energy in the form heat.
The oceanic crusts might be relatively flexible compared to the continental crusts, but not that flexible.
The Moon, from the distance it is currently orbiting, does not bend them much. However, if God in the blink of an eye jumped the Moon considerably closer to us, the crust wouldn't be able to keep up with the immense and sudden additional force exerted on it, no matter how flexible. No solid structure would.
But, when they have to claim the science is wrong, you know they are in serious scramble mode.
Nope, you obviously have no clue when it comes to geology.
In the science events can be dated. A massive flood such as yours would have left evidence and yet there is none. But then you run away when I offer to go over the concept of evidence with you.
Why are so many creationists afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence? It is a near universal fear.
Gravity drives the tides.
ETA: Does he not know how badly Bill O'Reilly failed with this argument?
The flood took six months to crest. It was a slow process. It was God's purpose to kill off humanity, not destroy the earth.
I covered the 'evidence' argument. You are looking for one giant flood that swept 'uniform' evidence all around the earth. The flood didn't do that.
So it seems that Mr. Gravity is confused. He's supposed to keep the seas in their place yet he spills them onto the land twice a day.
And, it's extra-terrestrial gravity that drives the tides.
Six months is an extremely short time to get add and get rid of over a mile of water (and that is being generous for you) Floods of only ten of feet or so take weeks to go away. You seem to have no appreciation for hydraulics either.
Please, when you are the confused one it is a rather grave sin to project that flaw upon others.
No, sorry but you can't. If you don't understand evidence then you can't cover the argument. All you can give us are ad hoc explanations. And there is no uniform flood evidence around the Earth. You fail on multiple levels again.
Once again, why does even the concept of evidence scare you?
Science is neither wrong or right. It's merely the opinion on what the natural world tells us. The following is not necessarily directed against you.
To those who are taken in by some who would have us to believe, "It's science, and it can't be wrong", that is far from the reality. It's the opinions of people, and worse yet, people with agenda, people who are often paid to "prove" something, when the other side is much much less likely to be paid to research their end.
These are also people who don't believe in a God, who have a predetermined notion that they will find a way to make fact, in attempt to make God a myth. It's done with ridiculous lies of how the most mind boggling intricasies on earth all just happened, things that make no sense at all unless we "want" to believe them. Some do that purposely, and some subconsciously. Then there are the honest folk that have bought the facade, and think they do a good thing in promoting it.
So you see it's slightly more than "Science says so, so it must be true." To put it bluntly, it's no more than an agenda driven joke, and I'd be careful the joke is not on you.
No need. I am not the confused one here.Review the related posts.
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?