Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What about altitude
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 23 (71294)
12-05-2003 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rei
12-05-2003 8:05 PM


quote:
It doesn't matter what environment you put a person in, they won't live anywhere close to that long.
Rei, the environment would make some difference, but you've reminded me that there would be more.
1. The genes of living things would likely be stronger the nearer creation you get, as Adam was created perfect in every way. There would tend to be a lessening of quality in beings as time went on, imo. This would possibly also be so in the quality of plants. Again, I can't prove that. Just another hypothesis.
2. They were vegetarians and had better quality to eat with the super climate.
quote:
It can't be even remotely a major portion of the flood, or it would have parbroiled everyone alive. And plants... did they evolve to the present diversity of plants that need shade and plants that need sunlight later?
Nobody, (even you, Rei ) would know how much water was in the atmosphere, how high the hills/mountains were, i.e how much water required to cover and how much under ground.
And evidence of exposure of the lithosphere is... where? And this water wouldn't be superheated.... why?
Neither of us were there, so God knows. As I stated, nobody knows how high or dense the vapor would've been, nor the pressure, nor anything else for sure.
When the island of La Palma alone collapses, the tsunami it will release should wipe out the entire eastern coast of the United States. *How much* mass displacement are you proposing?
Ditto, dono.
Sorry - there aren't huge reserves of water under the earth. Try again.
You missunderstood, I meant the canopy falling to earth via flood.
The rest is more hypothesis on both our parts, like your hypothesizing about billions of years ago as to what the universe was exactly like. So here we are, back here at square one. Shall we dance?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rei, posted 12-05-2003 8:05 PM Rei has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 23 (71295)
12-05-2003 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rand Al'Thor
12-05-2003 8:12 PM


Rand, there would be some miracle involved with the living things in preservation as well as much floating debris for insects to survive on, I would imagine. The rest likely would migrate by different means. God knows.
------------------
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 12-05-2003 8:12 PM Rand Al'Thor has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NosyNed, posted 12-06-2003 3:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 23 (71296)
12-05-2003 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rand Al'Thor
12-05-2003 8:12 PM


Rand, you raise another thought. Maybe this's an explanation as to why certain living creatures as well as plants are found only in certain parts of the planet, when they could as easily have existed in other parts. They simply didn't get around to migration to other places before the ocean cut them off and isolated them to their locations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 12-05-2003 8:12 PM Rand Al'Thor has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Rand Al'Thor, posted 12-05-2003 9:48 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Rand Al'Thor
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 23 (71301)
12-05-2003 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
12-05-2003 9:18 PM


Rand, you raise another thought. Maybe this's an explanation as to why certain living creatures as well as plants are found only in certain parts of the planet, when they could as easily have existed in other parts. They simply didn't get around to migration to other places before the ocean cut them off and isolated them to their locations.
But that is exactly my point. The question I was raising was how did they get to the places they are now? If the Ark landed in say Africa how did some of the animals get all the way to Australia or North America? And if they did migrate across entire continents (Oceans??) why don't we see kiwi’s (the flightless bird) living in Africa. Wouldn’t we find them all over the places that they migrated through?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 12-05-2003 9:18 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 20 of 23 (71305)
12-05-2003 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by FliesOnly
12-05-2003 3:55 PM


I am preparing to respond to Ip the frog in detail about the green that "avatar" and do have done so with the specifics required I have some false "statements" of Richard Lewontin, one of which used the WORD "altitude" with respect to "norms of rxm". This makes it possible as well fro me to address his conflation of niche and adaptation ABOVE the tree line. So once I am done there and so I will try to get back here as well. 3 cells DOES NOT make AN altitude no matter what a haa means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by FliesOnly, posted 12-05-2003 3:55 PM FliesOnly has not replied

JIM
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 23 (71372)
12-06-2003 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by FliesOnly
12-05-2003 3:55 PM


Of course, the story about the flood has many other inconsistencies. It looks like the author of the Biblical story did not know much about the geography, since he did not know about any mountain higher than Ararat. The highest point of that mountainous body, which is situated where the boundaries between Armenia, Turkey, and Iran meet, is 16854 feet (4983 m). Less than two hundred miles (about three hundred kilometers) north of Ararat, the mountain of Elbrus stands 18510 feet (5462 m) high. It is within the Great Caucasus range, which stretches for a few hundred miles, and in which several peaks exceed the height of Ararat. Of course, many mountains (Himalaya, Pamir, and others) are much higher than even those of Caucasus. If Ararat was indeed the first mountain to show above the receding waters, as Genesis tells us, then obviously the flood could be only a local one, covering a limited area rather than enveloping the entire earth as the Bible wants us to believe.
To explain the described inconsistency, defenders of the Bible often maintain that the name Ararat meant some different mountain. Of course, no evidence for such a name change was ever presented. Moreover, all the mountains suggested to possibly be the real Biblical Ararat are even much lower than that majestic white peak hovering above the southern border of Armenia.
There is no doubt that many floods happened in the long history of our planet. Legends about those floods, often exaggerating their scope, were transmitted from generation to generation. The Biblical story is just one of those legends, no better substantiated by any factual evidence than the stories told by other religions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by FliesOnly, posted 12-05-2003 3:55 PM FliesOnly has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 22 of 23 (71377)
12-06-2003 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Buzsaw
12-05-2003 9:10 PM


Creation Science? or giving up?
...there would be some miracle involved...
As you have probably had pointed out before there is no argument with religious beliefs. The arguement is with so-called creation "science". It seems you have given up the battle. Creation science can't answer the questions so you are forced to invoke a miracle.
Keep your beliefs in your church and out of science textbooks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 12-05-2003 9:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 23 of 23 (71380)
12-06-2003 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
12-05-2003 5:40 PM


Topic way too diverse
quote:
But I hardly think an expansion of the diameter of the earth of about 50,000 feet is going to make much of a difference in surface area. I would be very surprised if the mean air pressure at sea level changed even 1%.
First, a non-admin mode comment: I fully agree with the above. Even if somehow God produced all that water, the atmospheric column would remain essentially the same, and the sea level air pressure would also remain essentially the same. This is not an effective arguement against the "great flood".
End non-admin mode. Start admin mode.
Many (too many) different flood related topics were brought up in message one. These all are being or have been covered in more specific topics.
I'm closing this one down.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 12-05-2003 5:40 PM crashfrog 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