Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
46 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (4 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,280 Year: 926/14,102 Month: 329/597 Week: 107/96 Day: 2/22 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009

Message 9 of 432 (642593)
11-30-2011 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by frako
11-29-2011 8:24 PM

Isn't it interesting that the entire video is nothing more than assertion from faith in a book of mythology without a single bit of actual evidence?

Creationist arguments in the creation/evolution debates all seem to fall into two categories:

1) The mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen is scientific in nature. That is the argument offered in the video. But it is presented without any evidence. The arguments show a gross lack of understanding of what science is and how it works. In science, an assertion must be supported by evidence as the basis of an hypothesis which supports a prediction that can be tested. Creationism is assertion based on mythology that is untestable and therefore, not scientific.

2) Evolution is a religion. But, of course, not even christian evolutionary biologists attend evolutionary worship services. In fact, in science, the point is to challenge everything and to accept nothing on faith. But any challenge must be based on evidence supported by hypothesis, prediction, and testing. Empty assertion just doesn't do the job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by frako, posted 11-29-2011 8:24 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by frako, posted 11-30-2011 7:27 AM pandion has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009

Message 39 of 432 (642956)
12-03-2011 1:10 AM

I have done the calculations more than once. In fact, i think that I may have posted them on this board. At any rate, given the known quantity of water on the earth (the oceans, the atmosphere, and the water inside the crust), it would require more than 4 times the quantity of water on earth today to flood the earth to cover the Himalayas. It would have taken less water to cover Mt. Ararat, but the myth states that all land was covered.

Of course, if one wishes to argue that the various mountain ranges arose after the mythical flood, then how was the heat dissipated? The Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, the Rockies? Nonsense! The raising of such mountains in the few thousand years of the creationist scenario would have reduced the earth to magma.

Moreover, there is the problem of the latent heat released into the atmosphere by 40 days of rain. When water vapor condenses to water, it releases latent heat. It is a fact. Even though most people believe that rain cools the air, in fact, at high altitude, where the rain condenses, it warms the atmosphere.

In short, the latent heat released by water vapor that could produce 40 days of rain would have been enough to boil the oceans.

And yet we are to believe that Noah and family survived.

I have yet to see a creationist defense of an ark in a boiling ocean.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ICANT, posted 12-03-2011 12:56 PM pandion has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021