The order of fossils in the geological column

[Atheos canadensis]

Supplied with fresh water for a year? I said polluted air and water, not poisoned. With no wind the corruption would not be disbursed but would hang around for a long time. Picture the 'doldrums' on a vast scale. Recall that God wanted them dead (to be blunt).

From "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner":

All in a hot and copper sky,
The bloody Sun, at noon,
'Right up above the mast did stand,
No bigger than the Moon.
Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, no breath no motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.

Let's do some math. I'll write it down so you can make sure I haven't screwed it up. Then perhaps you will see fit to address the rest of the points I made (which I will reiterate in this post for your convenience).

1mm of rain = 1L of rain per square meter

Assuming a daily rainfall of 1092.2mm (this is on the extreme end of recorded rainfalls , which seems like a reasonable number to use for a divinely-produced global cataclysm), that's 1092.2L/square meter in one 24 hour period

1092.2L x 40 days =43,688L/square meter

43,688/365 days= 119.7L per day

Humans only require approximately 5 L per day to function normally, which means that almost forty people could survive on the water collected from rainfall over a single square meter.

Based on these numbers, it is absurd to claim that not even one other person besides Noah's family could have obtained enough water to last the year, particularly because many would have fresh water already. And of course you are still ignoring the fact that people (like the man from previous posts) survived for many months drinking blood.

Now here are the points you still haven't addressed:

You've ignored the majority of my post. You didn't address:

1. The argument that it is absurd to insist that nowhere in the world were there one or more ships already supplied with food and water for various voyages (Poon Lim manages with some biscuits and chocolate after all).

2. The argument that forty straight days of rain would provide a huge amount of fresh water and that that supply would be in addition to water already on board for long voyages..

3.The point from a previous post that people have been known to survive by drinking blood and even urine. In the instance I just linked, the man survived eight months at sea by eating birds and drinking turtle blood. So it is ridiculous to claim that no one else in the entire world was able to survive your Flood.

4. The point that food stores already loaded could easily be bolstered by fishing (considering many of these ships would be fishing ships) and catching birds.

I'm still waiting for:

1. Evidence that rotting corpses would render the air too polluted to breath or rain unpotable
2. Evidence that rotting corpses would prevent (rather than aid) fishing

Even assuming your no wind argument is valid, there would still be wind for much of the Flood, so there would be ample time to sail away from flotillas corpses. Plus many ships come equipped with oars or poles for locomotion. And in any case you I have still not seen you explain why the corpses would be clotted around where all the world's ships were despite the relatively vast areas of open water.

I hope in your response you will directly address the points I have numbered for your convenience.

If you are really interested in honest debate, I would appreciate it if you would directly address the points I have made rather than ignoring 80% of them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Let's do some math. I'll write it down so you can make sure I haven't screwed it up. Then perhaps you will see fit to address the rest of the points I made (which I will reiterate in this post for your convenience).

1mm of rain = 1L of rain per square meter

Assuming a daily rainfall of 1092.2mm (this is on the extreme end of recorded rainfalls , which seems like a reasonable number to use for a divinely-produced global cataclysm), that's 1092.2L/square meter in one 24 hour period

1092.2L x 40 days =43,688L/square meter

43,688/365 days= 119.7L per day

Humans only require approximately 5 L per day to function normally, which means that almost forty people could survive on the water collected from rainfall over a single square meter.

Based on these numbers, it is absurd to claim that not even one other person besides Noah's family could have obtained enough water to last the year, particularly because many would have fresh water already. And of course you are still ignoring the fact that people (like the man from previous posts) survived for many months drinking blood.

Now here are the points you still haven't addressed:

You've ignored the majority of my post. You didn't address:

1. The argument that it is absurd to insist that nowhere in the world were there one or more ships already supplied with food and water for various voyages (Poon Lim manages with some biscuits and chocolate after all).

2. The argument that forty straight days of rain would provide a huge amount of fresh water and that that supply would be in addition to water already on board for long voyages..

3.The point from a previous post that people have been known to survive by drinking blood and even urine. In the instance I just linked, the man survived eight months at sea by eating birds and drinking turtle blood. So it is ridiculous to claim that no one else in the entire world was able to survive your Flood.

4. The point that food stores already loaded could easily be bolstered by fishing (considering many of these ships would be fishing ships) and catching birds.

I'm still waiting for:

1. Evidence that rotting corpses would render the air too polluted to breath or rain unpotable
2. Evidence that rotting corpses would prevent (rather than aid) fishing

Even assuming your no wind argument is valid, there would still be wind for much of the Flood, so there would be ample time to sail away from flotillas corpses. Plus many ships come equipped with oars or poles for locomotion. And in any case you I have still not seen you explain why the corpses would be clotted around where all the world's ships were despite the relatively vast areas of open water.

I hope in your response you will directly address the points I have numbered for your convenience.

If you are really interested in honest debate, I would appreciate it if you would directly address the points I have made rather than ignoring 80% of them.

You are making assumptions well outside of the bounds of the story. There's no point in debating how some might have survived apart from Noah's group, because they didn't.

If you want a serious debate we can talk about how Noah cared for the animals, or how the ark was constructed, or how the flood occurred, etc.; subjects within the bounds of the story.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you know the difference between scholars and historians? Do you understand how historians follow the historical method to determine what likely happened in the past? Do you know what type of evidence historians require, to establish something likely happened in the past?

Do you have a name of a legit biblical historian, who claims the flood was a real event as depicted in the bible and the verified this as true by using the historical method? If you do, it is likely an evangelical Christian historian, that decided to utilize the historical method in a loose fashion, but I would love to see those names.

Once again, I meant exactly what I said. Read it again, carefully.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You are making assumptions well outside of the bounds of the story. There's no point in debating how some might have survived apart from Noah's group, because they didn't.

If you want a serious debate we can talk about how Noah cared for the animals, or how the ark was constructed, or how the flood occurred, etc.; subjects within the bounds of the story.

And again you have not addressed any of my points. I'm not arguing that other people survived the Flood. I'm arguing that there is no reason that no one else survived your version of the Flood. You have been unable to counter any of the points I have raised. I have shown that water would not be a problem. I have shown that food would not be a problem. And without the chaotic conditions traditionally ascribed to the Flood, no Ark is necessary to survive it; a regular ship would suffice. I have demonstrated at every turn that your version of the Flood is not consistent with the near 100% elimination of humanity described in the Bible. You have failed at every turn to provide a counterargument.

If you were really interested in honest debate you would be providing counterarguments demonstrating that other people could not have survived the Flood. But the best you can manage is to assert over and over that no one else survived. I'm not currently trying to convince you that the Flood never happened nor that there were other survivors beyond the eight; I'm arguing that your version of the Flood is completely survivable which means your version of the Flood is inconsistent with the Bible. So either you need to rethink your version of the Flood or you need to provide actual counterarguments to the points I've made. I'm guessing however that you will do neither and instead stick to your thoroughly debunked imaginings.

 

[Armoured]

Collateral damage happens (but, God restored all the those creatures as well).

...and we're back to "so why bother with the whole Ark rigmarole in the first place if God was just going to miracle everything to how he wanted it after the Flood"?

 

[bhsmte]

Once again, I meant exactly what I said. Read it again, carefully.

So you have no concern whether the story has historical credibility, you are only concerned with what the words say?

 

[dad]

...and we're back to "so why bother with the whole Ark rigmarole in the first place if God was just going to miracle everything how he wanted it"?

Does that mean God made a mistake Personally closing the ark door? Should we pretend He is dead and does nothing ever? God is in the whole creation story. One cannot wave Him away.

If He was here all along, then we know that the fossil record does not represent life on earth. He said that all the various things were created the same week.

The simple explanation foor why most life is not in the early record as fossils, is that the different nature did not allow most life to become fossilized!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And again you have not addressed any of my points. I'm not arguing that other people survived the Flood. I'm arguing that there is no reason that no one else survived your version of the Flood. You have been unable to counter any of the points I have raised. I have shown that water would not be a problem. I have shown that food would not be a problem. And without the chaotic conditions traditionally ascribed to the Flood, no Ark is necessary to survive it; a regular ship would suffice. I have demonstrated at every turn that your version of the Flood is not consistent with the near 100% elimination of humanity described in the Bible. You have failed at every turn to provide a counterargument.

If you were really interested in honest debate you would be providing counterarguments demonstrating that other people could not have survived the Flood. But the best you can manage is to assert over and over that no one else survived. I'm not currently trying to convince you that the Flood never happened nor that there were other survivors beyond the eight; I'm arguing that your version of the Flood is completely survivable which means your version of the Flood is inconsistent with the Bible. So either you need to rethink your version of the Flood or you need to provide actual counterarguments to the points I've made. I'm guessing however that you will do neither and instead stick to your thoroughly debunked imaginings.

Sure, here's one. All the birds died, so your survivors now have one less food source. Also, the rain stopped forty days into the flood; no fresh water for the next 11 months. Fish blood and urine for the next 11 months, really? Most of the boats would have been located on the coasts where the flood came in during the forty days of rain. Do you think those people would have gathered food and water, their families and friends, and set sail during a rainstorm and incoming tidal floodwater. I see them running around like chickens, half nuts, not knowing what to do.

You have debunked nothing.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you have no concern whether the story has historical credibility, you are only concerned with what the words say?

The 'historical credibility' of everything written in the bible is suspect to the atheist 'historical' community. My point is that bible scholars consider the flood story a genuine event based on the way it is presented literarily. It presents details that allegories and metaphors just don't normally contain, and the story is accepted as true by Christ and by Peter. I accept, as an article of faith, that it happened as written, and I'm good with that. I take great pleasure in fleshing out what I consider to be reasonable details of the story missing from the very brief biblical account.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

...and we're back to "so why bother with the whole Ark rigmarole in the first place if God was just going to miracle everything to how he wanted it after the Flood"?

Let's go all the way back. Nothing is natural on planet earth. Everything is either supernatural or a miracle. Science just doesn't see it. God uses what he has created to bless us or to destroy us.

Belief in miracles isn't limited to religion. Read any lengthy geology survey and you will see unproven assumptions and suppositions folded neatly within without which the whole thing falls apart. These assumptions are never rectified, remaining within these surveys, and always glossed over by believing readers of such. The TOE is so riddle with assumptions that if it were a boat it would collapse in the shipyard long before it could even have the opportunity to sink.

 

[Dusty Bin]

The 'historical credibility' of everything written in the bible is suspect to the atheist 'historical' community. My point is that bible scholars consider the flood story a genuine event based on the way it is presented literarily. It presents details that allegories and metaphors just don't normally contain, and the story is accepted as true by Christ and by Peter. I accept, as an article of faith, that it happened as written, and I'm good with that. I take great pleasure in fleshing out what I consider to be reasonable details of the story missing from the very brief biblical account.

It sounds to me like you're just a gullible old wise guy, if you can believe that there's not much you won't believe.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Sure, here's one. All the birds died, so your survivors now have one less food source. Also, the rain stopped forty days into the flood; no fresh water for the next 11 months. Fish blood and urine for the next 11 months, really? Most of the boats would have been located on the coasts where the flood came in during the forty days of rain. Do you think those people would have gathered food and water, their families and friends, and set sail during a rainstorm and incoming tidal floodwater. I see them running around like chickens, half nuts, not knowing what to do.

You have debunked nothing.

Are you kidding me? You just pretended that the last couple days of posts never happened.

Let's review:

1. I have provided links showing that people can survive with little to no supplies or preparation. You have offered no rebuttal.

2. I have shown you that over a period of forty days enough rain would fall in one square meter to supply 39 people with water for a year. You chose to ignore this and offered no rebuttal.

3. I have argued that it is unreasonable to claim that nowhere in the world were there any ships with supplies already on board. And, as noted above, preparation and supplies are not really necessary for prolonged survival at sea. You have offered no rebuttal.

4. I have argued that there would be ample opportunity to fish, particularly with all the meat in the water for bait. By your own admission, the Flood was not intended to kill life in the sea, so there would be plenty of fish and other marine creatures. You have offered no rebuttal.

5. You argued that the corpses would pollute the air and rain and prevent fishing. You have repeatedly failed to provide any support for this beyond your mere assertion.


Now for some new information. On the topic of food supply (keeping in mind that you have not provide any argument suggesting that fishing would be insufficient to sustain survival for a year), there is actually no reason that people could not survive eating the carcasses that you think surrounded them. Eating raw, rotten meat is actually an entirely viable means of sustenance, especially in survival conditions. This fellow documents his time eating the "Primal Diet" conceived by Aajonus Vonderplanitz. Whether or not you wish to accept the health benefits claimed, the fact is that it is entirely possible to eat rotten meat with no ill effects. So, far from being a problem, your vast rafts of floating corpses would in fact be a bountiful food source on their own, in addition to the harvestable fish and other sea life they would attract. As for the birds, it's not as if they all dropped from the sky the minute the Flood started. Presumably there would have been birds flying around for some time which could be eaten immediately or stored.

So again, I have offered actual evidenced arguments that show your version of the Flood is entirely survivable. That means that you have to either refute my arguments or accept that your version of the Flood is not in line with what the Bible says. I challenge you to directly address and refute the points provided above. Can you do it? Will you even try?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Are you kidding me? You just pretended that the last couple days of posts never happened.

Let's review:

1. I have provided links showing that people can survive with little to no supplies or preparation. You have offered no rebuttal.

2. I have shown you that over a period of forty days enough rain would fall in one square meter to supply 39 people with water for a year. You chose to ignore this and offered no rebuttal.

3. I have argued that it is unreasonable to claim that nowhere in the world were there any ships with supplies already on board. And, as noted above, preparation and supplies are not really necessary for prolonged survival at sea. You have offered no rebuttal.

4. I have argued that there would be ample opportunity to fish, particularly with all the meat in the water for bait. By your own admission, the Flood was not intended to kill life in the sea, so there would be plenty of fish and other marine creatures. You have offered no rebuttal.

5. You argued that the corpses would pollute the air and rain and prevent fishing. You have repeatedly failed to provide any support for this beyond your mere assertion.


Now for some new information. On the topic of food supply (keeping in mind that you have not provide any argument suggesting that fishing would be insufficient to sustain survival for a year), there is actually no reason that people could not survive eating the carcasses that you think surrounded them. Eating raw, rotten meat is actually an entirely viable means of sustenance, especially in survival conditions. This fellow documents his time eating the "Primal Diet" conceived by Aajonus Vonderplanitz. Whether or not you wish to accept the health benefits claimed, the fact is that it is entirely possible to eat rotten meat with no ill effects. So, far from being a problem, your vast rafts of floating corpses would in fact be a bountiful food source on their own, in addition to the harvestable fish and other sea life they would attract. As for the birds, it's not as if they all dropped from the sky the minute the Flood started. Presumably there would have been birds flying around for some time which could be eaten immediately or stored.

So again, I have offered actual evidenced arguments that show your version of the Flood is entirely survivable. That means that you have to either refute my arguments or accept that your version of the Flood is not in line with what the Bible says. I challenge you to directly address and refute the points provided above. Can you do it? Will you even try?

Believe what you may, I'll do the same.

 

[bhsmte]

The 'historical credibility' of everything written in the bible is suspect to the atheist 'historical' community. My point is that bible scholars consider the flood story a genuine event based on the way it is presented literarily. It presents details that allegories and metaphors just don't normally contain, and the story is accepted as true by Christ and by Peter. I accept, as an article of faith, that it happened as written, and I'm good with that. I take great pleasure in fleshing out what I consider to be reasonable details of the story missing from the very brief biblical account.

I dont know which historians you read (must be evangelical christian historians) because one thing a legit historian would do to verify the flood story as credible, is to turn to the physical evidence that would be obvious in regards to geology. Without geology confirming the flood, any historian claiming it is a credible historical event, is not following the historical method, but are instead turning to theology. No credible historian following their historical method, will verify the flood as historically accurate.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It sounds to me like you're just a gullible old wise guy, if you can believe that there's not much you won't believe.

There's more value to me in believing the story than disbelieving it. I value value.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Believe what you may, I'll do the same.

In other words, you are unable to refute my points that demonstrate the obvious survivability of your version of the Flood but you will continue to believe it anyway. Or, as AV likes to say, "Evidence can take a hike".

The points I have raised are not a matter of belief, they are objective facts which I have supported with links. But you've made it clear that you are not equipped to debate me on this issue; I have thoroughly debunked you model and the best rebuttal you can muster is a hand wave. How very disappointing, if not surprising.

 

[Dusty Bin]

In other words, you are unable to refute my points that demonstrate the obvious survivability of your version of the Flood but you will continue to believe it anyway. Or, as AV likes to say, "Evidence can take a hike".

The points I have raised are not a matter of belief, they are objective facts which I have supported with links. But you've made it clear that you are not equipped to debate me on this issue; I have thoroughly debunked you model and the best rebuttal you can muster is a hand wave. How very disappointing, if not surprising.

It's all about feelings, it makes them feel good so they stick with it, it's like a drug for them,
they don't want to lose the feelings they get even though they know it doesn't make sense, smokers can't stop either,
if they found out their God was not real how could they replace him? what would they do? they would be lost.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

It's all about feelings, it makes them feel good so they stick with it, it's like a drug for them,
they don't want to lose the feelings they get even though they know it doesn't make sense, smokers can't stop either,
if they found out their God was not real how could they replace him? what would they do? they would be lost.

It's a strange mindset to me. Why ignore facts rather than accept and integrate them? Particularly in this instance where I'm not even arguing that the Flood didn't happen, much less that God doesn't exist. I'm just trying to get him to address the objective, documented facts I have raised that show the Flood as he imagines it is completely survivable. I'm not even arguing that most people should have lived, merely that some would have.

 

[bhsmte]

There's more value to me in believing the story than disbelieving it. I value value.

If it has value and makes you a better person than great, believe it on faith, but there is no credible evidence the event occurred. If you can reconcile that reality in your own mind, then you are good to go.

 

[Dusty Bin]

I'm just trying to get him to address the objective, documented facts I have raised that show the Flood as he imagines it is completely survivable. I'm not even arguing that most people should have lived, merely that some would have.

That would be like asking him to admit he's wrong, he can't do that, he's 74, he's got too much invested to change now,
all he can do is hope for the best, it won't make any difference when he's dead anyway so good luck to him.
What does it matter if he believes nonsense? who can he hurt? tell him the flood happened and that he's been right all along.