Noah's Ark

[Obliquinaut]

Not according to the story.

So where on Mt. Ararat did the Ark come to rest? Just on the lower slopes?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How? Your story keeps changing.

Actually is it the criticisms that keep changing. The list of "Yeah buts" keeps growing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So where on Mt. Ararat did the Ark come to rest? Just on the lower slopes?

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.

 

[gudz23]

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.

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.

The moon's gravitational pull would help. Bring it nearer and all that heat and energy isn't needed.

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.

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.

I agree that the evoked imagery is stimulating. I often find myself wishing that the Moon could be considerably bigger in the night sky.

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.

Which is exactly the kind of sudden displacement that would unleash a tremendous amount of energy in the form heat.

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.

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How deep was the flood such that upon the ending Noah's Ark came to rest on the Top of Mt. Ararat?

It didn't.

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.

I suspect much of it didn't settled but went into the sea when the waters receded.

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?)

As the "great deep" refers to the sea the structure that holds the seas must be the "fountains" (like the bowl-like structure of a 'fountain' in the park. By "broken up" I take it to mean that the sea floor 'moved' upward, spilling the seawater onto the land. The great expanse of the sea floor is flexible enough that there would be little if any evidence (cracks and fissures) of it rising and falling (as there is no evidence of it's movement during daily tidal episodes).

 

[gudz23]

Actually is it the criticisms that keep changing. The list of "Yeah buts" keeps growing.

Not true. There are almost an endless possibilities to discredit the source material to begin with. Not our fault that you wish to believe it so much, that you expand on it.

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.

And, here you pretty much admit that every detail of the story was made up... Why not just go one step further, and admit that the event never happened at all?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What about the tides? Twice daily they defy the laws of gravity?

Gravity drives the tides.

ETA: Does he not know how badly Bill O'Reilly failed with this argument?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

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.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But, when they have to claim the science is wrong, you know they are in serious scramble mode.

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Gravity drives the tides.

ETA: Does he not know how badly Bill O'Reilly failed with this argument?

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, and the turning of the earth, that drives the tides.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Please, when you are the confused one it is a rather grave sin to project that flaw upon others.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

You're back to covering Mt. Everest again?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please, when you are the confused one it is a rather grave sin to project that flaw upon others.

Review the related posts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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?

Why do you continue to argue with me. Don't you see that it's hopeless?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Sorry, but the geologists that first showed the flood idea to be wrong were Christians. Trying to put down people for not being Christians is not a proper argument.

You should face the facts. All of the evidence out there tells us that there was no flood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Review the related posts.

No need. I am not the confused one here.