Fresh Problem with the Ark

this applies to the ark how?

hi monarch, and welsome to the forumplease read the original post on a topic thhread and try to keep the posts in that general field. Threads are limited to 300 or so posts so any off topic take away from possible valuable posts by others.the original concept was how fresh water was provided to all the organisms on the ark, given that (1) the rain only lasted 40 days while the "voyage" lasted over a year, (2) no mention of storage of water is given and even stored water goes bad after a few months, (3) the water the ark floated in would have been fouled by effluent from the ark, stirred up sediments and the salt content consistent with the current oceans.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

grasping at straws again, straws that contradict a literal bible and science again?perhaps you can show where any one of these other "vehicle" were used to transport any organisms? then a section where any one of them were used during the flood? then a specific one addressing how many need not be carried on the ark because god had other means set aside for them? perhaps more than one ark? isn't that also a contradiction?still waiting to see why over 3/4's of the earths organisms survived because they lived in the seas when the angry god of your myth was going to destroy all life, then relented to spare noah and his crew and the animals sent to him to take on board. how much does it take to qualify as a sea creature? sea turtle females only come ashore to lay eggs so do the males qualify as sea creatures and the females not? do they get taken on the ark as a pair? they eat jelly fish, and noah had to take food for each creature -- how many jelly fish does he take? how does he keep them alive?sea otters also live mostly on the sea but come to land more frequently. certainly they are air breathing mammals with legs and paws for running on land. do they get on the ark or are they sea creatures? they live on fish and shell-fish, so how would they be fed and how would that food be kept until feeding time?what about intertidal organisms that are in the sea at high tide but on land at low tide? are they sea creatures? how was their food, etc.where do you draw the line: these in the ark, these in the sea? when there is a spectrum of life that goes from living entirely within the sea to living entirely out of the sea?a real inconsistency, imho.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

doesn't have much to do with the ark and fresh water issues thereon that I can see... how about a new topic for this discussion?

quote:

---

Well, why not try it anyhow, just in case there may be something to it?

---

I have tried it.Numerous times.It didn't work.Nothing was different.

quote:

---

Some astronauts apparently didn't think it so devoid!

---

Really?Can you show me any physics or engineering calculations used by anyone in NASA that utilized the spiritual?

quote:

---

Besides, going a relative few feet, to the moon, does not give us a creation date with the kind of info I was mentioning. Let's not try to hide the bad stuff in with the good stuff.

---

My point is that we don't use subjective spiritual ideas in science, because they are based upon personal feelings or revelation or interpretation of religious writing.We use math and repeatable observations that anyone can do regardless of faith or lack of faith.Faith and spirituaity may help someone's attitude, but it cannot inform the content of their work if they are to practive real science.

quote:

---

My own humble opinion was that the money would be better spent on mankind.

---

It was.It increased our knowledge of nature by huge leaps and bounds.

quote:

---

But, surely you must realize I was talking about stuff like assumptions on light, and granny, and the big bang?

---

It's all science, so all of it excludes the spiritual or supernatural as an explanation.If you deny the science behind the Big Bang, you also deny all other science, including the science that finds cancer cures and sends people to the moon and back, because the method is the same.Science is science, no matter what you are studying.

quote:

---

I'll trade you 20 cures for cancer (are you sure there are real cures even?, yet?) for 400 causes for cancer some of this knowledge is causing.

---

Huh?I don't understand what you mean.

quote:

---

No, creation science doesn't,

---

Creation science isn't science.Creation science doesn't use scientific methodology at all. It is religion dressed up in a lab coat and holding a beaker, dressed up as science but sharing none of the qualities of real scientific inquiry.This is evidenced by the complete and utter lack of any increase in knowledge of nature or development of technology that has been discovered or developed using creation science.Perhaps I am wrong, though. Do you know of any Creation science which has led to useful technlogy or techniques?

quote:

---

and many men of science through history worked with the Hand of God as much as they could.

---

40% of scientists today believe in God.You are confusing a personal belief in God by an individual scientist with a Creationist trying to use "Godidit" as an explanation in scientific investigation.The first person can do science as long as he follows scientific methodology, and the second has given up using scientific methodology.

quote:

---

Science, by and large is after all, inspired! Some good, some bad. Like the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there is both.

---

Mostly, science is inspired by evidence found in nature, and is current research is built on the work of scientists who came before.

quote:

---

So thank you for pointing out that one of your, (correct me if I am misinformed on the guy, as I don't know him well) atheistic, pagan, respected 'leaders' seems to indicate he believes in Demons!!!!!

---

Um, no, Carl Sagan never believed in demons.In this book title, he is characterizing a society where people wallow in superstition, fear of the unknown, and ignorance as "demon haunted". He juxtaposes that with science being a "candle" to bring light to the darkness of ignorance and superstitious thinking....kind of like the Renaissance, with it's emphasis on knowledge, rational inquiry and that saw the beginings of real science, drew us out of the Dark Ages which were characterized by superstition, ignorance, and fear of the unknown.

---

Critical thinkers and skeptics don't create answers just to manage their anxiety--Karla McLaren

please start a new topic if you want to discuss this instead of taking up the remaining posts on this topic.ARK
FRESH WATER SUPPLY
RELATED THOUGHTSthanks

Replying to:
--------------------------------------------------
There is another problem with the ark that I have not seen addressed:
Clean fresh water for crew and animals.
All the water of the flood is salty to some extent (being a mixture of sea, lake, underground and rain water), and is filled with silt too (according to some versions anyway) -- NOT potable.
The rain only falls (consistently) for 40 d/n's and the ark floats for another 600 plus days before landing.
One of the leading problems to exploring the world in the age of sailing exploration was maintaining sufficient supply of fresh water.
--------------------------------------------------
Your problem is based on the assumption that the water was NOT fresh on which Noah sailed. Yet creationist say the water was all fresh, before the time of flood. And so it is NO problem.

There's no way that can be true and expect sea life to have survived the flood, or have even lived before it.Where did all the coral live if there was no salt water before the flood?Moreover, if you calculate the silt density of the water needed to deposit the geologic colummn based on 40 days precipitation plus the "fountains of the deep", you don't get fresh, potable water, you get some pretty thick mud.

-----------------------------------
Where did all the coral live if there was no salt water before the flood?
-----------------------------------
All "living" coral you see today could have been easily created(grown back), in less then 3,500 years.-----------------------------------
There's no way that can be true and expect sea life to have survived the flood, or have even lived before it.
-----------------------------------
Yet Sea life over a certian period of time could adopt to different type of water.-----------------------------------
Moreover, if you calculate the silt density of the water needed to deposit the geologic colummn based on 40 days precipitation plus the "fountains of the deep", you don't get fresh, potable water, you get some pretty thick mud.
-----------------------------------
I don't see how you'd get mud, since the earth was not formed the way you see it now. In fact there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the earth 8,000 feet deep if the surface of the earth were smooth.It was only after the flood(so that water can clear) "Mountains rose and the valleys sank down" as it is stated in (Ps. 104:5-9)

Hardly. The only way you can come to that conclusion is if you're making up coral growth rates out of whole cloth.Coral grows very slowly. There's simply no way that the coral reefs we have today could have grown in the past 3500 years.Moreover, what would the coral have grown from? Your fictional flood would have killed all the coral. The stuff doesn't grow from seeds, you know. If you're proposing that all current sea life adapted to salinity in 3500 years, you're proposing rates of macroevolutionary change that even evolutionists wouldn't countenance. 3500 years isn't enough time to adapt to changing salinity, especially at the rates you're talking about. And there's a mile of geologic sediment over most of the Earth's surface. Divide a mile of dirt by 8,000 feet of water and tell me how clear that is. That's like taking one cubic foot of water and adding 5/8ths of a cubic foot of dirt. Would you drink that? You'd have to chew it.Also the thing you didn't cover was, if the seas weren't salty when Noah sailed his Ark, when did they get salty? If it didn't happen at flood time or soon after, you have even less time for sea species to acclimate to the new salinity, making you even more of a super-evolutionist.

but the comment about Coral is something worth exploring since it will provide some information about salinity.Not too long ago there have been some coring experiments done on the Great Barrier Reef. Since that is one of the largest such coral colonies around, its age can help determine how long the seas have been salty, or at least give us some miminum date. The results from the cores show that the Great Barrier Reef is at least 600,000 years old. From that it's possible to say that during the last 600,000 years at a minium there has not been a world wide flood where the whole earth was covered by fresh water.You can get a summary of the coring study at this BBC siteHopefully as this is expanded to other reef structures we will get additional corroborating evidence.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry was out visiting my Grandma, didn't have time to give a fast reply, but here U GO!-----------------------------------
Hardly. The only way you can come to that conclusion is if you're making up coral growth rates out of whole cloth. Coral grows very slowly. There's simply no way that the coral reefs we have today could have grown in the past 3500 years.
-----------------------------------
First off there is no possible way to date a Coral Reef, in total accuracy. Coral grows at different rates, depending on water temperature, oxygen level, amount of turbulence, and availability of food.Did you know that the rate of coral growth can be nearly doubled by increasing the temperature by only five degrees Celsius?At right conditions and taking EVERYTHING in consideration, everything could have grown back in less then 3500 years. Yet it had about 4400 years to do so.



----------------------------------
Moreover, what would the coral have grown from? Your fictional flood would have killed all the coral. The stuff doesn't grow from seeds, you know.
----------------------------------
1st off, it is NOT a fictional Story,Theory ONE:
God replants the earth and/or protects the "Water World".Theory TWO:
Coral polyps produce eggs which, after they are fertilized, float through the water until they settle on rocks to create new coral reefs. Great number of eggs are produced at one time! These eggs (Protected by God) float around till they find a fit environment (after the flood) in which they can flourish.



----------------------------------
If you're proposing that all current sea life adapted to salinity in 3500 years, you're proposing rates of macro-evolutionary change that even evolutionists wouldn't countenance. 3500 years isn't enough time to adapt to changing salinity, especially at the rates you're talking about.
----------------------------------
I never said it was 3500 years. Actually I believe it was more like "4400 years since the flood" It is NOT an macro-evolutionary change, I suggest you look that word up again. It's a micro-evolutionary change in which is a SMALL change occurs within a kind. Creationist called "Variation". Which doesn't require long period of time.Today we now have fresh water crocodiles and salt water crocodiles that are different species but probably had a common ancestor.



----------------------------------
And there's a mile of geologic sediment over most of the Earth's surface. Divide a mile of dirt by 8,000 feet of water and tell me how clear that is. That's like taking one cubic foot of water and adding 5/8ths of a cubic foot of dirt. Would you
----------------------------------
Your assuming that a mile of the sediment was in the water at all time, at all places, and at every level of the water. Your also assuming that the dirt was not laid down till the very last second of the story. Yet that was very unlikely. Taking everything in consideration I don't see how you'd get mud.



----------------------------------
Also the thing you didn't cover was, if the seas weren't salty when Noah sailed his Ark, when did they get salty? If it didn't happen at flood time or soon after, you have even less time for sea species to acclimate to the new salinity, making you even more of a super-evolutionist.
----------------------------------
Theory ONE:
The entire world was largely fresh water. Today about 30% of the rain water washes into the oceans, bringing mineral salts with it. The oceans are getting saltier every day. Today's oceans are about 3.6% salt. Between the salts washing in from ground water and the salts leaching in from subterranean salt domes, the oceans could have gone from fresh water to 3.6% in the 4400 years since the flood. Animals have been adapting to the slow increase in salinity over the last 4400 years.Theory TWO:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ea/AnswersBook/fish14.aspThis message has been edited by TruthisLaw, 07-15-2004 07:07 PM

To Jar:
The article is based on a assumption that the core which they drilled is "ancient coral" now dead. Yet that is just one interpretation of the data.I don't see why this so-called core couldn't have been "catastrophic deposits" laid down by the flood!This message has been edited by TruthisLaw, 07-15-2004 07:05 PM

The reason that it cannot be catastrophic deposits laid down by the Flood is that they are organized and regular with layers that show growing seasons. The deposit from a flood (I've had to help clean up after several) is a jumbled mess with no organization. There is no way to mistake the mess after a flood with normal growth cycles.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion