Existence of Noah's Ark

18 million? You're off by a factor of one thousand or so. The most conservative estimate I know of pegs the number of species at about 8 billion; the upper limit is somewhere around 80 billion. Since we know that floodists believe that all sediment prior to the K/T boundary is flood sediment, and floodists have offered an estimate of how much water was involved, we can calculate the estimated silt density of the floodwaters.It turns out that it's not silty water, it's more like runny mud. Your flood is a mile-thick mudpie. Freshwater species won't survive. They need to be on the Ark.

Easily.

It's a logic problem; a chance to show us the power of your common sense. (Actually, this is a famous problem that demonstrates how so-called "common sense" can be wrong about so many things.)AbE: On second though, spoiler removed.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-26-2004 08:15 PM

I thought it was made from gopher wood.

Except that that uncovers an assload of new land.

No problem. If water runs down a hill fast enough, it'll roll right up the side of a mountain. That's just common sense, right?

Well, maybe you've been to the area where the ocean is 7 feet or less - it's called the fucking beach. It constitutes millions of square miles of submerged land.Jesus Christ. Right back at ya. Of course, if you were thinking at all, I wouldn't have had to point out that lowering the ocean uncovers more beach.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-29-2004 11:46 AM

But if that was true, RR, the Earth would be flooded right now.The reason that water goes back to the ocean is because the ocean is the lowest point. Water goes to the lowest point. How are you going to flood the world for 100 days without the water immediately running to the lowest point, i.e. the ocean? You think the water is just going to stick to the sides of mountains?

They wouldn't drop at all, because - like what happens now when it rains - the water runs back to the ocean.

Is that what happens on your mountain when it "floods"? Nothing's left but a dead zone?I question the power of a four inch flow to end all life.

But see, I'm smart and educated enough to understand their reasoning and, to some limited degree, assess their arguments.I don't universally side with "scientists" (as though they all say the same thing), but I make a habit of not advancing idiotic propositions, like yours. Plenty, but what does that have to do with anything? When you get four inches of filthy stagnant water in your basement, is the result more or less living organisms than there were before?How could a flood that only comes up to your ankles and is gone in a few hours extinguish all life on Earth?This message has been edited by crashfrog, 10-03-2004 01:09 PM

If you think so, then you got the wrong answer.Floodwater is dirty and filled with life. It puts more living things than were in your basement to begin with. Then it's a fun waterslide but still not particularly lethal. Also I don't know exactly how you got "100 miles per hour." Just making up numbers now, are we? Where is the water coming from to rain for that long? If you took 7 feet of water from the oceans, like you said, and suspended it in the atmosphere as rain, it would be gone in a few hours.You haven't posited enough water to rain for 40 days. The place where I got a few hours is your own argument.

So, just by magic it keeps raining?

It isn't possible, though. We just covered that. There's no way to sustain that kind of precipitation cycle. You get a few hours of rain, and then you're done. That's not a flood.

Sure, but the problem with your lackadasical approach is that until you do actually demolish us with the brilliance of this oft-heralded superpost, this: looks a lot like the hollow boasting that conceals knowledge of defeat.You apparently don't get how it works - first you prove your point, then you get to celebrate your victory. You've got it all back-ass-wards.