Existence of Noah's Ark

You still haven't dealt with the problem of flooding in one place means that there is less water someplace else, rat.

quote:

---

Why do you duplicate your answers?

---

I would imagine that he duplicates his answers for the same reason many of us duplicate our answers; because the person we are responding to keeps making the same mistakes.

quote:

---

I can't believe your logic sometimes.

---

Actually, Rrhain is very, very good at formal logic and math.He has quite a lot of formal training in both, although I actually hesitated before writing that because I am afraid that you will discount what he says precisely because he has this formal training.I think the problem you are having is one of understanding.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-26-2004 08:20 AM

quote:

---

Rhains logic is very flawed. I have proved this time and again. I will continue to do so.

---

Remember what Ned said to you, rat?That you might want to ask more questions when people disagree with you?I will tell you what I see in your exchange with Rrhain.I see him creating several very clear pictures, especially with his bathtub example, of his points. I understand, through those examples, exactly what he is trying to say, and I can see that he makes sense.I see you ignoring those examples, and instead of explaining, point by point, how his logic or math is flawed, you simply say, "No, you're wrong".You keep saying "Rrhain's logic is very flawed", but you need to SHOW how it is flawed, in detail.Tell me how you could keep that object in the bathtub submerged for 20 minutes if the water only came halfway up the side of the object.Tell me how both the lake and the river could be at the same level if the Hoover Dam broke.

quote:

---

They perfect sense except that they have nothing to do with what I am saying.

---

Actuall, they have everything to do with what you are saying.

quote:

---

If I cleary state that my theory doesn't require anymore water than what is here already, then why would rhain proceed to waste my time calculating how much water it takes to fill up a sphere or a bath tub.

---

The water inb the tub represents the finite amount of water on the planet Earth.The object in the tub represents a land mass that is not completely covered with water; i.e. dry land is exposed.He is asking you to submerge the object in the tub completely under water using [i]only the water in the tub[/b].If you pick up water in a bucket, you will lower the water in the tub. If you pour the water over the object, the water will run over the exposed "dry land" on the object, then run off the object into the tub.Therefore, he illustrates easily that without adding more water than you started with, you cannot submerge the object for 20 minutes.So, your theory is shown to be incorrect.

quote:

---

Answer it yourself.

---

OK.The lake would empty and the river valey would flood, with the river water returning to pre-dam levels.

quote:

---

How long would it take for the lake to empty out, and during that time, what would be the level of the lake vs. the level of the river?

---

I don't know. When the dam broke to cause the Johnstown flood, the entire 450 acre lake emptied in a few minutes.There was no long-lasting flood. It was a wall of water that came and went.

quote:

---

Ok folks, here it is. Rhains logic in full swing. This is why I won't even bother with you anymore rhain. Where the heck do you get pushing the oceans down from? How is that logical.
If I say its rain that would cause the flood, the water has to come from somewhere. The ocean. So if we displace all that water, we were talking about how much the oceans would drop.
Apparently some people think they would have to drop much more than they actually would. At least they understood what I was saying, and only confused about how much the level would go down.

​

You on the other hand, with all your logic, think that I am saying that the oceans are pushed down. When cleary no-one else thinks that, and I never said that. Maybe your logical, but if you are then you must be just a nut case. How else would you describe how you came up with that?

---

But the oceans would have to be pushed down to keep all that water covering the land.Take a bucket.Fill it with water from the ocean.What happens to the water level in the ocean?It drops by one bucketful, right?If you pour that bucket of water on to the dry land, what happens to the water?It runs back down to the ocean again, right?What you are saying is that you can take that bucket of water, pour it on to the dry land, but it somehow won't run back to the ocean. The only way you could get a drop in the ocean without the water flowing back to the ocean is if you could somehow push the ocean down. This is the logical implication of youtr own argument which I guess you haven't thought of.If there is a drought in an area where a lake is, and the water levels in the lake drop, what happens to the shoreline of the lake? We see more land, right?

quote:

---

But none of us was there so nobody knows exactly how long it's been that tall.

---

Yeah, and none of us was around for the building of the Brooklyn Bridge, so are you saying that nobody knows how long it's been around?This is a fallacious argument that you have continued to use for YEARS, even though, every single time you make it, someone patiently explains why it is a poor, illogical, fallacious argument.Here you are, using it again.This is what you were vehemently denying that you do in the thread you opened about your posting.This is what we were talking about.