What Would Falsify the Flood?

Golan · Dec 16, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Here's the math, since you all claim to understand math, there you go, ain't been proved wrong yet.

Safety Investigation of Noahâ€™s Ark in a Seaway - Answers in Genesis

Full size dutch ark

Safer than the Titanic, and it was designed by engineers, and look what happened to it. All the ark had to do was survive for several months, Titanic made of steel couldn't survive one day, yet was declared the safest ship on the seas by engineers. Yah, we know how that went. But I am sure you would of jumped right on board, being built by engineers and all.

Read it again, it needed a steel frame to keep it together otherwise it would have broken it's back.
Without iron straps around the ark the wood would not have taken the strain.

Why do you all go to lying creationist sites to get your information? what do you expect them to say?
they are only ever going to tell you what they want you to believe to them the truth means nothing.
Creationism for those site are a Business. they know they can tell you anything and you will all believe it,
they feed it to you and you eat it all up.
Why don't you people ever check to see if what they are telling you is the truth? you owe it to your God to check.

USincognito · Dec 16, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Safer than the Titanic, and it was designed by engineers, and look what happened to it. All the ark had to do was survive for several months, Titanic made of steel couldn't survive one day, yet was declared the safest ship on the seas by engineers. Yah, we know how that went. But I am sure you would of jumped right on board, being built by engineers and all.

The maiden voyage launched 10 April 1912. The ship sank on 15 April 1912.

Last I checked, 5 days was more than 1.

AV1611VET · Dec 16, 2013

USincognito said:
The maiden voyage launched 10 April 1912. The ship sank on 15 April 1912.

Last I checked, 5 days was more than 1.

Either way:

Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.

Subduction Zone · Dec 16, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Ok, you are right, just 98% of them. The rest in amber and a few that got covered in volcanic eruptions, so 2% out of several billion fossils. Snicker.

And your incredibly poor reading comprehension strikes again. The topic was sedimentary rocks in that sentence, not fossils. Try again.

Some are found in metamorphic rock, which is just sedimentary rock subjected to high temperature after the fossil has already formed.

You need to study up on your geology bub. Your ignorance is showing.

Ooh, an extremely minor point for you.

Sadly you are wrong in everything else.

Exactly, because they were not formed by the flood which deposited the fossils, and this is why they lack any fossils. You just proved flood theory and didn't even know it in your zeal to disprove it.

And an incredible non sequitur. Wrong again. So incredibly wrong.

If you understood what you just said above, you would know flood theory is the only theory that fits. Sedimentary rock formed by processes other than water deposit, as you rightly pointed out, tend not to have fossils in them. But that corrolation has never crossed your mind because you like to ignore evidence that does not fit your fantasies. You just pointed out the best claim for flood theory, the fact that sedimentary rock formed by processes other than water deposit rarely have fossils in them.

There is no "flood theory". You cannot find a link for one.

Seems your scientists are saying you know nothing about what you speak

http://www.icrs2012.com/proceedings/manuscripts/ICRS2012_4C_1.pdf

"Linear extension, measured as change in length for individually tagged branches (or columns), was quantified for 394 branches, on 138 colonies from 6 genera. Of the 394 branches that were tagged in December 2010, 93.7% (369/394) were alive and growing in March 2011. Estimates of linear extension obtained using direct tagging were consistent between sites for all genera except Acropora where the linear extension at Horseshoe Reef was 14.76 ± 1.45 mm (mean ± SE) and North Bay was 18.53 ± 2.47 mm. The linear extension varied significantly within and among coral genera (Table 2). Acropora had the greatest mean linear extension (16.62 ± 1.43 mm) (Fig. 2). The slowest growing coral was Pocillopora with a branch mean linear extension of 2.15 ± 0.27 mm."

So in 3 months they grew anywhere from 1/2 inch or more. In 20 years? Add it up. Acropora cervicornis grows over 10 inches per year. That's 16 feet in 20 years. 83 feet every 100. How thick are your coral beds? Snicker, snicker.

Roth, A. A. --- Coral Reef Growth

Snicker indeed.

After I warned you about conflating the rate of growth of individual corals with the rate of growth of the reef what did you do

What you just did was the same as conflating the rate of growth of trees in a forest with the rate of growth of the soil on the forest floor.

Care to try again?

You lost.

You did exactly what I warned you not to do. I was trying to keep you from looking like a fool and you ignored the warning.

Subduction Zone · Dec 16, 2013

I think part of Justa's problems is that he reads the title of his articles and never reads the actual articles.

How else would he make such a mistake that if I described correctly would put me in the doghouse here.

Black Akuma · Dec 16, 2013

Amateurs built the Ark

How do you know Noah was an amateur?

mzungu · Dec 16, 2013

Justatruthseeker said:
Here's the math, since you all claim to understand math, there you go, ain't been proved wrong yet.

Safety Investigation of Noahâs Ark in a Seaway - Answers in Genesis

Full size dutch ark

Safer than the Titanic, and it was designed by engineers, and look what happened to it. All the ark had to do was survive for several months, Titanic made of steel couldn't survive one day, yet was declared the safest ship on the seas by engineers. Yah, we know how that went. But I am sure you would of jumped right on board, being built by engineers and all.

Human error caused the Titanic to sink. As for your Ark? Sorry but you seem to not know how SCALE effects things. The bigger the more pronounced the strains are.

An ant can lift many times its weight can you? Drop an ant from a building and it will land unharmed. Can you say the same for a human?

An Ark the size claimed by the Bible simply cannot take the strain and will invariably break and sink. If you want to understand why then take the time to read about Bernoulli's bean theory: EulerâBernoulli beam theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Golan · Dec 17, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Either way:

Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.

The other difference is the Titanic floated but the Ark didn't.

Why does everything creationists believe get crushed by reality?

Damian79 · Dec 17, 2013

Golan said:
The other difference is the Titanic floated but the Ark didn't.

Where did you get that from?

Dave Ellis · Dec 17, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Either way:

Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.

And both would have sank

mzungu · Dec 17, 2013

Damian79 said:
Where did you get that from?

Perhaps because it is a mythical vessel?

Golan · Dec 17, 2013

Golan said:
The other difference is the Titanic floated but the Ark didn't.

Damian79 said:
Where did you get that from?

The Titanic existed and floated but the Ark didn't exist so didn't float.
Unless you know something no one else in the world knows that is.

Dave Ellis · Dec 17, 2013

Damian79 said:
Where did you get that from?

Engineers have tested the design for the ark based on what's listed in the bible, a wooden ship that large would not have been able to stay afloat due to the strain on the hull. The only way it would have worked was with iron supports, which were not available in Noah's time.

Not to mention the absurd amount of rain that would have been falling which would have sank the boat either way.

Golan · Dec 17, 2013

Dave Ellis said:
Engineers have tested the design for the ark based on what's listed in the bible, a wooden ship that large would not have been able to stay afloat due to the strain on the hull. The only way it would have worked was with iron supports, which were not available in Noah's time.

Not to mention the absurd amount of rain that would have been falling which would have sank the boat either way.

You are forgetting one thing Dave, the engineers didn't have Gods hand holding up their boat,
or the umbrella God was holding over the ark.

mzungu · Dec 17, 2013

Golan said:
You are forgetting one thing Dave, the engineers didn't have Gods hand holding up their boat,
or the umbrella God was holding over the ark.

In that case why need an Ark at all

Damian79 · Dec 17, 2013

Well in Genesis 4:22 it says they had bronze and iron tools. *shrugs*

Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of[a] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

mzungu · Dec 17, 2013

Damian79 said:
Well in Genesis 4:22 it says they had bronze and iron tools. *shrugs*

They did not have enough iron to fashion the beams and braces required to hold such a ship together. Besides iron had to be processed to make it less brittle and have more tensile strength. Do you honestly think Noah had at his disposal such engineering skills? Not to mention that a vessel of that size would have required hundreds of skilled carpenters and metalworkers.

Now since we are on the subject of the Ark; what did Noah feed the T-Rex? Creationists insist the Earth is only 4,000 years old and obviously Noah had to save the Dinosaurs, etc since the Bible does not say to exclude any kind of animal.

Dave Ellis · Dec 17, 2013

Golan said:
You are forgetting one thing Dave, the engineers didn't have Gods hand holding up their boat,
or the umbrella God was holding over the ark.

I don't recall any passages in the bible which refer to god's hand or his magical giant umbrella... Can you direct me to where you got your assertions from and the evidence to back them?

Dave Ellis · Dec 17, 2013

mzungu said:
Now since we are on the subject of the Ark; what did Noah feed the T-Rex? Creationists insist the Earth is only 4,000 years old and obviously Noah had to save the Dinosaurs, etc since the Bible does not say to exclude any kind of animal.

Even more importantly, how did a small family shovel off the hundreds of pounds of manure that must have been produced on a daily basis?

And how do you store enough food on the boat to feed all those animals for 40 days?

EternalDragon · Dec 17, 2013

Dave Ellis said:
Engineers have tested the design for the ark based on what's listed in the bible, a wooden ship that large would not have been able to stay afloat due to the strain on the hull. The only way it would have worked was with iron supports, which were not available in Noah's time.

Not to mention the absurd amount of rain that would have been falling which would have sank the boat either way.

So all the other wonders of the ancient world are incorrect? There are structures and other things we can't even duplicate today. How do you know iron was not available in Noah's day?

Wooden ships smaller than Noah's Ark were built by other civilizations and seem to hold up fairly well. It was not until the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries that they began using iron in wooden ship construction.
Shipbuilding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rain would not cause a boat to sink. Larger boats are less prone to sink this way and the Ark could naturally have had a self bailing design.

What Would Falsify the Flood?

Golan

Guest

a post by Alan Smithee

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Regular Member

Regular Member

Shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die...

INVICTUS

Golan

Guest

Newbie

Contributor

INVICTUS

Golan

Guest

Contributor

Golan

Guest

INVICTUS

Newbie

INVICTUS

Contributor

Contributor

Counselor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency