Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

You've really never even bothered to find out how this stuff works, have you? (This will probably be off-topic, btw.)Satellites don't float above the Earth. They're nowhere near far enough out that they're "beyond the power of gravity". What's happening is that they're moving so fast (as fast if not faster than a bullet from a gun) that they shoot over the curve of the Earth before they have a chance to drop to the ground. In a sense, the curved Earth is continually falling away from them as they shoot over the Earth.They're still fully under the influence of gravity. They're falling down constantly (in "free-fall"). They just never get any closer to the surface of the Earth because the surface is continually falling away from them at the same rate that they're moving towards it.Anyway, warm, water-bearing air rises because it's less dense than cooler air. Like a hot-air balloon floating in the air. It's the same reason ships float in the sea. But ships only float on the surface - since they're denser than air, they don't float up into the sky.Warm water vapor-bearing air pockets can only go so high - only as high as their density allows. Gravity won't let them get any higher, and if they accumulate so much vapor that they're denser than the air surrounding them, guess what - it rains.Honestly I don't see how you can accept these biblical models as scientifically accurate if you choose to remain totally ignorant of science. I'm not even talking about evolution - just basic physics.

Crashfrog, the planet is experiencing record temporature changes at a higher rate than scientists formerly predicted by their methods of prediction. Right? The links I've searched and some I've posted attest to global climate change. The Biblical prophecies I've alluded to predict an even higer rate of climate change and a much higher incidence of warming; far more than mankind has ever experienced. I can't prove to you that these predictions will come to pass, but I can show that the trend is in the favor of some of the things in the Bible coming to pass eventually. Now, I believe I'm correct in stating that heat makes evaporation and the hotter the heat, the higher vapor will rise. Now, you say speed is keeping the space ship up there. Does the space ship need fuel to orbit the earth? Do satelites need fuel to orbit the earth? Isn't the speed for these furnished by the rotation of the earth? Couldn't a speck of water, suspended at the same height as the satelite, orbit the earth as does the satelite? Couldn't jillions of specks of water do the same? Where'm I goin wrong?

Newton's laws of motion - an object in motion tends to remain in motion, discounting friction. No air in space so there's no air friction. Ergo, an object in motion in space stays in motion, just like a car in neutral coasts.So no, the shuttle (in a stable orbit) doesn't need to use fuel to maintain orbital velocity. Their intitial speed is furnished by the rocket they got up on. But the satellite has to go way faster than the rotation of the Earth in terms of linear distance over time, even if it's matching the Earth in terms of rotation over time. I.e. a satellite that appears to "hover" over one point on Earth (aka geosynchronous) is travelling much faster (in terms of kilometers per second) than an object on the Earth's surface, even if they're making the same rotations per day. It's the same reason that the outside of a record travels faster than the inside, even if they're revolving at the same rate. It's the basics of angular motion. Not unless it was travelling at the same speed as the satellite. If it's traveling slower than the satellite, it'll drop in orbital altitude until it's either at the proper altitude for its velocity or it crashes into the Earth's surface. If it decends low enough to enter the atmosphere the drag will slow it further and nothing except acceleration will keep it from falling back to Earth. Where you're going wrong is that it's not height that keeps satellites up, it's speed. This is basic, fifth-grade, Newtonian mechanics. From the age you've hinted at in some of your other posts, I can appreciate that the fifth-grade is a little farther back for you than it is for some of us, but if you're going to try to support a point with science, wouldn't it behoove you to relearn some?As for the climate stuff, I'm inclined to support the position that we simply can't know what climate change is meaningful change, and what change is cyclic. We simply haven't collected data for long enough.

Buzsaw,Actually the evidence suggests the earth is relatively cool right now, as compared to the Jurassic, for example, when there were no polar ice caps. Presumably you missed armageddon by 125 million years?Mark

Hi Buzsaw,This is from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency): This reinforces what Ned and I have been telling you:

• In general, there will be increased precipitation.
  ​
• Specific impact predictions for each region are difficult to impossible to make.
  ​
• You can not generalize the impact of global warming on just one or a few regions to the entire world.

If you want to argue locally and anecdotally, why don't you use your own region as an example? Pretty wet and cool spring so far in New York, wouldn't you say? Temperature was way down from average, and the number of days with rain was way up. Doesn't sound like global warming, does it? It was a particularly cold winter, too, wasn't it? And last year's summer was cooler than average. But this kind of weather doesn't cause any great concern the way dry weather out west does, and so you never read about it under alarming headlines, and you probably barely give it any thought even though you live there. But it has to be included if you're trying to develop a global picture of what is happening. You can't just take the extremes and ignore everything else.Bottom line: We don't yet know the global impact of global warming, if indeed that is what is happening, but it isn't going to be a global drought because some regions will get wetter and some drier.About the number of forest fires, I don't think anyone would argue that the numbers haven't increased. The problem with the statistics you're using is that every minor out-of-control campfire that gets squelched gets counted as a forest fire. Most forest fires are caused by people, and the number of people visiting forests has increased dramatically over the past hundred years. Just look at attendance figures for any national park.What has decreased here in the US is the number of forest fires that get out of control. Surveillance by fire tower, aircraft and satellite catches most fires while they are still small.You didn't address these other points, and I didn't want them to get lost:

1. The effect of an impact by an asteroid big enough to push the earth away from its orbit would pretty much destroy life on the planet.
   ​
2. The prophecies you are applying to the current era have been interpreted endlessly by prior prophecy interpreters over the centuries as applying to their own era, and if you're right then they were all wrong.
   ​
3. Evidence that has survived to the present, no matter how old, is still evidence.
   ​
4. The findings of Ballard in the Black Sea contradict your interpretation of the Bible.

--Percy

Crashfrog has already replied to this, but I wanted to point out that what keeps water vapor aloft in clouds and what keeps satellites aloft in orbit are completely different things. Just as a hot air balloon rises because the hot air inside the balloon is less dense than the surrounding air, water vapor rises in the atmosphere when it is less dense than the surrounding air. When it is more dense than the surrounding air then it descends to the ground and is called fog, which is actually just low flying clouds. Clouds are not in orbit.The atmosphere can only hold so much water. Humidity is a rough measure of how much water is in the air, and when the humidity is 100% it means that the air can absorb no more water. The atmosphere is not capable of holding the amount of water that could flood the world, not even close. It's so far beyond the realm of possibility that going through a mathematical exercise to illustrate this shouldn't be necessary, and you ignored the math about the asteroid in a previous message, so I think perhaps you'd prefer to stay away from math, so I won't do it.But that's why Crashfrog asked what is going to hold the water for the flood up there, because the atmosphere by itself can't hold that much water. I suppose you could put the water in orbit like a satellite, where it is the satellite's velocity just equaling the pull of gravity that maintains an equilibrium between shooting off into space and falling to the ground (not the rotation of the earth - you're probably confusing orbital velicty with using the earth's rotation to give an additional boost at launch time - the earth's rotation is why you want launches to be as close to the equator as possible in order to maximize the satellite's initial speed at launch), but you need a Godly miracle to put the water in orbit, another miracle to make it fall, and yet another miracle to get rid of all the extra water. Why not just have God say, "Let it rain for 40 days and 40 nights," and the rain just miraculously appears. Since you need miracles anyway, why contrive scenarios that obey physical laws but need more miracles. Occam's razor says the scenario with the fewest miracles must be the right one. --Percy

Hi Buzsaw,In Message 68 you said, "If you were around 300 years ago, you wouldn't see voices and pictures flying through space originating in Seattle to be almost instantly landing in another's living room in a little box in NY either would you? Only the Bible predicted such technology as this with all nations viewing things in one spot on the planet." ConsequentAtheist inquired about where the Bible predicts these things, and you offered a couple: There are several problems with these passages regarding prophecy of modern communications. First, they make no reference to communication technology whatsoever. Second, because of this they cannot be considered predictions of modern communication technology because no one living before our modern era would have arrived at this interpretation. It isn't a prediction if you can only figure out what it means after the fact. Third, such a loose and free interpretative style as yours could place any interpretation on any passage and has no real significance. Fourth, what you're doing is simply following the age old prophecy trick of using passages that are as vague as possible so that no matter what happens the prophecy can be interpreted as correct.--Percy

quote:

---

You didn't address these other points, and I didn't want them to get lost:

​

The effect of an impact by an asteroid big enough to push the earth away from its orbit would pretty much destroy life on the planet.

---

Hi Percy. It got to be the wee morning hours and I needed to hit hay before I could get to your other points. There's so much response input (which I appreciate from all) but I'm a slow thinker and not finding time to respond adequately to it all. Will do the best I can.As to the asteroid, you're probably right. I don't think the earth would necessarily have to be moved to fulfill what is prophesied, but threw that in as a possible factor, since there is "mountain" cast into the sea which the prophet John forsees, destroying a third of the ships. (I assume that to mean a third of the ships in one of the oceans or possibly the Mediterranean sea.

quote:

---

The prophecies you are applying to the current era have been interpreted endlessly by prior prophecy interpreters over the centuries as applying to their own era, and if you're right then they were all wrong.

---

I'm not aware that there have been anywhere near the interest in prophecy anytime before the 20th century that there has been in recent decades from what I've read -- nothing close. Yes, there were some in the 19th century, but the industrial revolution brought that on and yes, the industrial revolution was "kickoff" for the beginning of the end times prophesied for the "latter days" imo. The ones who've erroneously preached the time was near without a regathered Israel, computerized number systems in the economy, and emergence of world government simply either didn't do their homework, or allegorized it since so much of it was simply considered impossible back then, even by Biblicalists as to becoming the reality we are witnesses to.

quote:

---

Evidence that has survived to the present, no matter how old, is still evidence.

---

Yes, true, but it still depends on your/my preconceived ideology as to how you/I interpret it. For example, we creationists argue that if Adam was created with appearance of age, then so may have been the rocks. We also argue that with a far different world before the flood the dating data would show things to be much older than actuality because of things like carbon content and nitrogen, etc in the atmosphere and in organisms living and dying then.

quote:

---

The findings of Ballard in the Black Sea contradict your interpretation of the Bible.
--Percy

---

I don't think so. If we had the same conditions that the unusual Black Sea affords over there on in the area of the Mojave Desert here, you'd likely come up with a similar flood here.Gotta run. Have a good'n n go with god, Jehovah, that is. My apologies for deviating from the rules. I wasn't aware of having done so when posting. Will make an effort to keep within the perameters you all are trying to hold to and can understand your reasons for doing so. It's just that when dealing with the supernatural, if indeed the supernatural exists, it's very existence makes it scientific and a reality to deal with. I believe it does exist and natually have an agenda to prove my ideology just as you folks are interested in doing. May the truth prevail to the benefit of us all, is my sincere desire.

You appear blind to the fact that you are repeating the same mistakes as your predecessors. You accuse them of ignoring or allegorizing certain passages while you do precisely the same thing. You emphasize those passages you think have correspondences, allegorical or factual, in the current era, and ignore those which do not.So you latch onto passages that appear to predict global drought because you think, "Aha! They're predictions of global warming!" Except that global warming doesn't mean global drought. And you ignore passages that predict other types of disaster. And then there are those passages that are always true for any era, like the ever popular, "There will be wars and rumors of wars."Prophecy is just a parlor game where you back-fit prophecy to events that have already happened. If they were truly prophecy then you would know what was happening before the fact instead of after. There were no Bible prophecy interpreters predicting global warming before science started talking about it, it only came after, and even then they got it wrong thinking global warming meant global drought. When you can use the Bible to predict something we couldn't possibly know in advance, and then it happens, then you've got some persuasive evidence. Short of that the only people you're going to convince is other prophecy believers and the always-present-in-any-era believers in the supernatural.--Percy

quote:

---

Germ/disease, gravity, atomic, etc are proven factual present time stuff. Imo, these are no longer theories, but factual, present, proven and observable.

---

Well, your opinion is flat out wrong, sorry.We actually do not have a single "Theory of Gravitation". There are several competing theories. Gravity actually is not very well understood at all. We observe it all the time, but we have very little idea of how it works. With the recent observation allowed by the Hubble space telescope that the expansion of the universe is actually increasing, rather than decreasing, physicists are now realizing that we know even less about gravity than the little we thought we knew.Now, you say that Atomic theory is based upon observations, but nobody had ever directly observed an electron or an atom. They have all been inferred by experiment. On the other hand, we can and do directly observe evolution all the time.Lastly, you use the word "proven". There is no such thing as "proven" in science, at least not "proven" to such an extent that the concept becomes immune to new evidence.For example, that our solar system is heliocentric is inferred, and it is based upon a great deal of fact, but it is called the "Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System" because, at least in theory, we must allow for the possibility for some previously unavailable or unthought-of information which might contradict what we currently know.That's what happened when Physics incorporated Einstein's work into Newton's work. Newton's theories broke down in certain conditions, and Einstein's work explained why this happened.In other words, Each and every scientific theory is philosophically the same with regards to falsifiability, tentativity, need for supporting evidence, etc. It happens that the Theory of Evolution is one of the best-supported scientific theories of all time. Many diverse fields of science continually confirm it, and none has altered it basic premise; organisms change over time due to descent with modification.

quote:

---

I'm talkin about this hiper-snobbish sophisticated arrogancy of claiming to know all this alleged detail about what things were like on planet earth hundreds of millions to billions of years ago. I say HOGWASH!!

---

To the contrary, it's incerdibly arrogant for you to simply disregard the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years when it is clear you have made little effort to come to the table with an open mind, or even a basic education in what you are rejecting. Have you ever taken a basic Biology course, or maybe read a basic Freshman Bio 101 textbook?

quote:

---

The account of the flood is more historical than religious, imo.

---

To be blunt, at this point your opinion means little to me in these matters. Evidence would be much more compelling. Opinions are cheap.

quote:

---

The Old Testament contains more history than it does religious doctrine. Much of it has been proven.

---

Um, since when? Are you going to provide independent confirmation for a single one of your claims?

quote:

---

We who believe it to be accurate historically,

---

...are pretty much all fundamentalist Christians. Huh, how about that?

quote:

---

look at the things you folks also look at and we see much support for the world flood.

---

Did you know that the notion of a worldwide Noachian flood was rejected (due to lack of physical evidence) by Christian Creationist geologists around 180 years ago? The difference is, they were good, honest scientists who were no willing to lie to themselves and others in order to perpetuate their chosen dogma.It always amazes me that Creation "science" types don't know much, if anything, about their history. Of course, you aren't going to find much about Reverend Sedgewick on most Creationist sites, but here is a breif description of his work on the flood.http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood21.htm"Flood geology was considered and tested by early-nineteenth-century geologists. They never believed that a single flood had produced all fossil-bearing strata, but they did accept and then disprove a claim that the uppermost strata contained evidence for a single, catastrophic, worldwide inundation. The science of geology arose in nations that were glaciated during the great ice ages, and glacial deposits are similar to the products of floods. During the 1820s, British geologists carried out an extensive empirical program to test whether these deposits represented the action of a single flood. The work was led by two ministers, the Reverend Adam Sedgwick (who taught Darwin his geology) and the Reverend William Buckland. Buckland initially decided that all the "superficial gravels" (as these deposits were called) represented a single event, and he published his Reliquiae diluvianae (Relics of the Flood) in 1824. However, Buckland's subsequent field work proved that the superficial gravels were not contemporaneous but represented several different events (multiple ice ages, as we now know). Geology proclaimed no worldwide flood but rather a long sequence of local events. In one of the great statements in the history of science, Sedgwick, who was Buckland's close colleague in both science and theology, publicly abandoned flood geology -- and upheld empirical science -- in his presidential address to the Geological Society of London in 1831.'Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.... 'There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period...."

quote:

---

We don't use the Bible to find and prove these things either.

---

Yes, you must, if you use the Bible as a science book with regards to the ToE. Evolutionary theory is used quite a lot in Bacteriology and virology, and therefore vaccinations.

quote:

---

We read the Bible, find it reliable in about every way and go to the observable to see if indeed it fits what we read about, and yes it does.

---

No, sorry, it really doesn't. The fact that you have all sorts of strong opinions about Geology and Biology when you also seem to be relatively uneducated in these areas tells me that you aren't really interested in unbiased inquiry.I suggest that what you are doing is that you are reading the Bible, going out and looking at nature with a preconceived idea of what you are "supposed" to find, and then ignoring or twisting what doesn't fit easily.By contrast, what real science does is NOT assume we know what we are going to find. Observation, rather than revelation, is the basis of real science.

quote:

---

Our interpretation of the observed is just as valid, imo as yours.

---

The evidence and subsequent testing of the results is what will detemine validity, not your opinion.Creation 'science' doesn't hold up to scrutiny or repeated testing.

quote:

---

You don't have to have lotsa smarts to see sea fossils all over the planet, scratch your head a minite, think, and come to the realization that there was water over the whole thing at some time or other.

---

Gee, sea fossils on top of mountains that are located where there is also evidence for great uplift due to plate tectonics!http://www.mtnforum.org/education/subexplore/explore02.cfmPlease, please, learn some basic geology. You are making yourself look like you don't have "lotsa smarts".

quote:

---

You go from there and talk about the more detailed stuff and learn as you go. The more educated folks seem to get, the more they seem to stray from truth, imo, and as the Bible states. Men will be "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." (Forgot the text, but it's there.)

---

So, God wants us to remain ignorant? He doesn't want us to use the big, complex brains and problem solving abilities and urge to understand our world that he gave us?How sad to be afraid of learning.

quote:

---

I don't get vaccinations

---

You've never been vaccinated? Do you believe that vaccinations are to be avoided? Why or why not?

quote:

---

and I don't reject science.

---

You most certainly do reject science. You just pick and choose the parts of science that you like based upon your particular interpretation of a particular version of the Christian Bible.

quote:

---

I'm simply saying your brand of science isn't the only brand in town.

---

Creation 'science' is really poor science if it's science at all.Not that I have great hopes that you will read them, here are two short essays. One is concerning science and what it is and isn't, and the other deals with Creation 'science'.science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comPlease read them. If you disagree or have questions about anything in their contents, please cut and paste the relevant parts in a post and let's discuss it.

quote:

---

I certainly have been listening. I've also been climbing in Colorado and Wyoming over the past couple years, and have had quite a few hazy climbs as a result. But this does not necessarily mean that forest fires, overall, are becoming increasingly frequent. You would need some data to support that theory. And the U.S. Forest service might have something like that... (Hint, hint.)

---

I'd like the chime in here...There could be several reasons Buzsaw thinks there are more forest fires these days.It could be the same reason people think that crime is on the increase, or that there are lots of child abductions, or that there was an increase in shark attacks a summer or two ago.That's what the news decides to report because those are sensational stories that make for gripping TV and spectacular video.The fact is, crime is down, child abductions are rarer than they used to be, and shark attacks were no more frequent than any other year.One's vague personal impressions are the absolute worst way to come to a conclusion about historical trends, or really about anything. We humans have lots and lots of built in thought and memory biases that work great when you are on the savannah hunting antelope but stink when trying to conduct science. That's why we have this thing called the scientific method which tends to involve a lot of meticulous recording of data and control procedures to get the cleanest data possible.Here is more about logic and perception and the miriad errors humans make (and are what the use of the scientific method helps us largely avoid during inquiry) if you would like to read up on it:logic and perception - topical index -The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

I see buzsaw has not replied to my post yet... I'm still waiting for him to get back on topic; i.e. evidence for a global flood, which, in my professional opinion, does not exist.All this debate about forest fires and global warming is irrelevent to the topic of Noah's Flood. So let's keep our eye on the ball ok?I'm actually suprised that the admin hasn't stepped in yet The Rock Hound

quote:

---

God isn't the author of confusion and to have multiple interpretations just doesn't make sense to me.

---

LOL!!Then why are there hundreds and hundreds of different Christian denominations? Why are there dozens of different Bibles with the numbers of individual interpretations of those bibles reaching into incomprehensably large numbers?

quote:

---

I've studied these prophecies and followed things related to them for for over 50 years and the multiple interpretation bit just doesn't fit in any prophecy I can think of.

---

Um, so how do you know you are right and the other interpretations are wrong if you just have your own opinion/revelation to go on, just like everybody else?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-03-2003]

It looks like Admin has been part of the problem. Could someone please remind us how the diversion into prophecy ties into the thread's topic?------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

quote:

---

Could someone please remind us how the diversion into prophecy ties into the thread's topic?

---

The topic was started on a prophetic note. Strange as it seems, this diversion into prophecy is pretty much on topic for THIS discussion of Noah's flood. EvC Forum: Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com