Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does The Flood Add up?
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 57 of 298 (307397)
04-28-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by inkorrekt
04-28-2006 10:58 AM


Show us your evidence
inkorrect writes:
There are ancient civilizations around the world which were destroyed. They have historical literatures which do not even have any references to the Bible.
For your claim to have any validity, you need to:
  1. Tell us what those ancient civilzations were. Saying you know a guy who knows a guy is worthless as evidence.
  2. Show that all of those civilizations were destroyed, by a flood, and at the same time.
  3. Explain how their "historical literatures" survived the flood.
  4. Etc.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by inkorrekt, posted 04-28-2006 10:58 AM inkorrekt has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 105 of 298 (318962)
06-08-2006 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Crue Knight
06-08-2006 12:28 AM


Crue Knight writes:
Remember, when the Bible says someone "begat" someone, it doesnt mean it is a father-son relationship. It could be a grandfather, great-grandfather ect.
Wouldn't that screw up all of the chronologies? How can you tell that "Peleg was born in 3153 B.C."?
quote:
Gen 10:24 And Arphaxad begot Salah; and Salah begot Eber.
Was Salah Eber's father or grandfather or great-grandfather? Was Arphaxad Salah's father or grandfather or great-grandfather? How many generations are "missing? How many years?
And what are you using for your "anchor date", from which your dates are calculated?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Crue Knight, posted 06-08-2006 12:28 AM Crue Knight has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 126 of 298 (321876)
06-15-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by mjfloresta
06-15-2006 12:38 PM


Re: No
mjfloresta writes:
I was wondering why God would have Noah spend a hundred years working on the ark when he could've migrated REALLY far away from the flood area in a hundred years...
God told Noah to build an ark. Noah didn't ask "Why?" - why should you?
The point of the story is that Noah did what he was told and God took care of him. It doesn't matter one blessed bit if the whole earth was flooded or if the crick just rose three feet.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 12:38 PM mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 1:48 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 128 of 298 (321932)
06-15-2006 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by mjfloresta
06-15-2006 1:48 PM


mjfloresta writes:
Why was the ark so big?
Exaggeration? Misplaced decimal point? There are a lot of explanations more plausible than that an impossibly large boat actually existed.
(Why don't creationists just build a replica if they think it's possible?)
Why would God have made the animals board the ark at all....
He didn't. He told Noah to do it. As I said before, it's a question of Noah trusting God.
Why would Noah not have migrated to an unaffected location?
Read my lips: God told him what to do. He did it.
Certainly birds could have flown to an unaffected area...
No doubt they did. Two of each would certainly not have been a viable breeding population.
... all humanity was destroyed...
Figure of speech, irrelevant to the point of the story: Noah trusted God and was saved. Others didn't trust God and perished.
In order for the water to rise fifteen cubits above the mountains, an extremely large area would have been inundated....
Exactly. There isn't enough water in the world, so we know it couldn't - and didn't - happen.
all (kol) the high mountains under (kol) all the heavens were covered - no ambiguity...
Also no basis in reality.
Why would Noah have spent an entire year and ten days on the ark if dry ground was available not far away?
Ever hear of property lines? National boundaries? He would have had to stay on his own land.
How would God's promise to never again destroy the earth with a flood if the earth merely refered to a localized area?
God's specific promise was to Noah, to never destroy his part of the world again (with a flood). Anything outside Noah's purview is irrelevant to the point of the story.
-------------
... the Bible makes it apparent that the flood was global
And the most cursory glance at the world around us makes it apparent that it wasn't.
This is a science forum. We don't twist the facts to fit your interpretation of the Bible here. Any interpretation of the Bible in this forum has to fit the facts.
Edited by Ringo, : Ms. Spelling

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 1:48 PM mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 2:52 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 130 of 298 (321969)
06-15-2006 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by mjfloresta
06-15-2006 2:52 PM


mjfloresta writes:
So who's conjecturing here and who's presenting the evidence as laid in the Bible?
As I said, this is a science forum. The Bible claims carry no more weight than the Grimm Brothers' claims. They are not evidence.
...Actually, modern shipbuilders acknowledge the the Arks dimensions and ratios would have made it MORE seaworthy than modern sealiners...
Then let's see creationists build a replica that floats. That's how science works, by testing theories, not by making empty claims backed up by more empty claims.
So the Koreans have already done the work you want creationists to do....
Well, no they haven't - not even close. Where's the working prototype? Where's the year-long (maiden) test voyage with two of every kind of animal and a crew of eight? Where's the soft-landing on a mountain-top? Where's the animals redistributing themselves to the four corners of the earth and building viable populations?
So what do you know that these experts don't?
I know that in the thousands of years at their disposal, creationists have never built a working protoype of the ark.
You talk about trusting God and yet you reject the plain language of the Bible...
The plain language of the Bible is not all literal history. Trusting God includes trusting Him not to lie to us in His creation. If we look at the world around us, we can use our God-given brains to figure out which parts of the Bible are literally true and which are not.
Yet the bible mentions taking birds on the ark..but why take some on the ark if there were others safe and dry in other areas of the world?
Because God told him to.
Noah must've been really dense for God to tell him the same thing so many times!!
Repetition is common enough in literature, isn't it? I remember an English teacher telling us to say everything three times: once to introduce the subject, once to talk about the subject and once to remind your readers what you just told them.
It's for the reader's benefit, not necessarily Noah's.
Or else God really meant what he told Noah...Could it be?
Well, no, it couldn't - for reasons I've already touched on: the boat wouldn't float, the animals wouldn't fit, there isn't that much water in the world.... When the literal interpretation is ludicrous, we have to search for a better one.
... how can you trust the moral of the story if almost the entire story is not to actually be believed?
What does the literal truth of the story have to do with the moral? Lots of fictional stories have a moral that you can trust. Ever read The Grapes of Wrath?
Jesus told lots of parables that were not literally true. Do you not trust their morals?
... you keep going against the clear, precise language...instead creating your own reality...
Fiction can have clear, precise language. I'm going with real reality - reality that can be measured and tested.
...which is fine, if that's what you want to do but don't use the Bible as your source...
Who said I was using the Bible as my source? In this science forum, the Bible is not a valid source on its own. It has to be tested against the real world.
So God has Noah spend a hundred years creating the ark because that's easier than asking permission to travel through foreign land?
Don't get out much, eh? Once you get your ark prototype built, try floating it down the Mississippi without permission. See how far you get.
.... before you attempt to prove or disprove the Flood (the biblical theory) you must understand the Flood account as related biblically...
That isn't true at all. Science doesn't have to "understand" a myth before it can look at the real world - it just looks at the real world. If the myths don't add up, they don't add up.
You are projecting your own flood theory which is unsupported by the text you claim to use...
I don't have any "theory" about the flood. The story is clearly fiction, the descriptions undoubtedly based on local floods. I have tossed out a few ideas of how the story might have developed - that's all.
Once again, this is a science forum and you'll have to do a lot better at providing "evidence" that the flood really happened. If you want to discuss local versus worldwide floods, etc. from a strictly Biblical standpoint, you'll have to go to the Bible Study or Faith and Belief Forum.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by mjfloresta, posted 06-15-2006 2:52 PM mjfloresta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 1:23 AM ringo has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 133 of 298 (323695)
06-20-2006 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Crue Knight
06-20-2006 12:43 AM


Crue Knight writes:
According to my calculations:
About 33,750 sq feet for the ark's floor.
About 101,250 sq feet for all levels combined.
About 112 1/2 football fields for just 1 level.
About 337 1/2 football fields for all three levels!
Do teachers still tell you to show your work?
I'm having difficulty seeing how you get from 33,750 sq feet for each level to 112 1/2 football fields for each level. According to my calculations, it would be less than one football field.
Not a very auspicious start at making the ark "add up".
Where's the working prototype?
That as you know would be impossible to do without God's help.
You can argue that with mjfloresta. He said, in Message 129:
quote:
So the Koreans have already done the work you want creationists to do....with what results? Near Optimal porportions and a scale feasible in waves up to 30m....
I'd suggest: take a dollar from every creationist video sold and just build a wooden structure that size. Load up the animals and have eight people tend them for a year. I'd be pretty impressed if even that wasn't a total disaster.
Remember, God was involved in all this. It was not all Noah.
This is a science forum. That kind of statement carries no weight here.
(the whole Bible is spiritually speaking a parable) But the historical facts are true
Do you not see the contradiction there?
Once again, this is a science forum and you'll have to do a lot better at providing "evidence" that the flood really happened.
Perhaps finding aquatic animals on the top of mountains? Scientist did!
We can observe the mountains rising today. That explains the fossils on mountaintops far better than an impossible flood.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Crue Knight, posted 06-20-2006 12:43 AM Crue Knight has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 147 of 298 (326275)
06-26-2006 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by PetVet2Be
06-25-2006 9:37 PM


Just a few more points that haven't been mentioned yet:
PetVet2Be writes:
The Ark was about 1.5 (American) football fields in length and about three stories high. Plenty of room for the animal kinds.
Depends on what wishy-washy definition of "kind" you use. What's yours?
Even dinos were on the ark; most likely juveniles as these would fit a lot better!
All of the animals on the ark would have had to be sexually mature, so that they could propagate their "kinds" after the flood. Care to give us the benefit of your research on how big those sexually mature dinos would be?
(And I always wondered: why would Noah go to all the trouble of taking dinos on the ark, only to have them all go extinct immediately after the flood?)
Like enough room to keep the neccesary plants alive for 40 days.
More like 370 days, if you read your Bible. (Another creationist trying to make the flood "add up" who can't do simple math?)
Austrailia is a very unique climate. the animals that migrated there did so because they thrived there best.
And was the climate along the way suitable for them too? Or did the climate migrate with them?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-25-2006 9:37 PM PetVet2Be has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by MangyTiger, posted 06-26-2006 1:32 AM ringo has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 152 of 298 (326301)
06-26-2006 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 2:10 AM


PetVet2Be writes:
I mean kinds as in equines, canines, bears, etc.
Okay, now what we need from you is a complete list of all the kinds, and how much space would be required for two of each kind. (Don't forget to allow for exercise-room.) Then we need to know what volume of food and water would be needed for all of those pairs for 370 days (see below). When you have provided all of those figures, maybe you can get away with saying there was "plenty of room".
And Dinos did not have to be sexually mature. Who said that they all got off the ark and immediately began reproducing.
Okay, then how long did it take the dinos to get from "juvenile" ark-size to reproductive size? How long were there two of each dino "kind" wandering around with no predation or other death by misfortune? The topic is "Does the Flood Add up?" We need numbers here, not just empty assertions.
And Dinos did not go extinct immediately after the flood.
Most of them must have. The Egyptian civilization, the Mesopotamian civilization, the Indus civilization, the Chinese civilization, etc. all fail to mention large numbers of dinos wandering around. The odd "dragon" tale, even if true, does not refute the fact that there have been very few dinos around since the flood. Why save them just to have them die out anyway?
And you are correct that the number is larger than 40, but its actually 150 (Genesis 7:24).
Nope. Still wrong. Read your own reference:
quote:
Gen 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.
The waters "prevailed upon the earth" for 150 days. We're not interested in that. We're interested in how long Noah and company were inside the ark.
quote:
Gen 7:7 And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood....
Gen 7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
quote:
Gen 8:13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.
Gen 8:14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
The Bible plainly states that they were in the ark for more than a year.
Still a reasonable number.
Still an empty assertion. Show us the numbers.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 2:10 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 164 of 298 (326407)
06-26-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by PetVet2Be
06-26-2006 9:28 AM


PetVet2Be writes:
I am going to bow out of this discussion for a while to do some research.
Just a suggestion: don't confine your research to more-of-the-same creationist websites. They tend to generate more questions than answers.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by PetVet2Be, posted 06-26-2006 9:28 AM PetVet2Be has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 171 of 298 (326515)
06-26-2006 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Faith
06-26-2006 3:09 PM


Faith writes:
Some that were on the ark possibly didn't survive the drastically changed climate and other conditions after the Flood.
So, according to you, God's plan to save the animals from the flood didn't work out very well.
I would have thought this very standard explanation would have been better known around here by now.
The explanation is quite well known. It's just useless.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Faith, posted 06-26-2006 3:09 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2006 4:27 PM ringo has replied
 Message 174 by CK, posted 06-26-2006 5:09 PM ringo has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 173 of 298 (326526)
06-26-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Chiroptera
06-26-2006 4:27 PM


Chiroptera writes:
Evidently he's a "doer", not a "thinker".
If He would at least learn from His mistakes.... He should have said, "I'll get the next flood right." But no, He abandons the project and tries something completely different: "Next time, fire."

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Chiroptera, posted 06-26-2006 4:27 PM Chiroptera has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 178 of 298 (326563)
06-26-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by CK
06-26-2006 5:09 PM


CK writes:
Why do we even HAVE A flood?
Box office. Special effects, drama, a cast of thousands. Get 'em in the door and then you can tell them whatever you want.
(If the book was just a bunch of poofery, can you imagine anybody defending it with the fervour of Faith?)

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by CK, posted 06-26-2006 5:09 PM CK has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 196 of 298 (326921)
06-27-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by lfen
06-27-2006 5:16 PM


Re: Dung beatles need Elephant Dung!
Lfen writes:
what did they feed the anteaters and all?
The two anteaters ate the two ants and promptly starved to death - which is why there are no anteaters or ants alive today.
More complications: a lot of living things have a lifespan shorter than the one-year flood, so they must have reproduced. There would have been a whole lotta reproduction goin' on - unless Noah laid in a supply of mouse condoms and elephant condoms, etc.
What with the on-board extinctions and population explosions, it's pretty hard to estimate the post-flood contents of the ark.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by lfen, posted 06-27-2006 5:16 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by jar, posted 06-27-2006 8:03 PM ringo has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 210 of 298 (328267)
07-02-2006 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Jon
07-02-2006 5:14 AM


Invictus writes:
It really is an admision to "evolution", though just not of the scientific kind.
What gets me is the change, from no pre-flood evolution to post-flood hyper-evolution to no evolution again today.
I can see the hyper-evolution petering out as the "genetic potential" is used up - but how (and why) did it start? Did God flip the switch? If it took a miracle, why all the pretense of a "scientific" scenario at all?
(And to hold all that "genetic potential", the pre-flood animals must have had DNA strands a mile long. )

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Jon, posted 07-02-2006 5:14 AM Jon has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024