Announcement

**molly bloom** · April 16, 2003, 20:39

Obiwan, I'm sorry, but the literalist account of the flood involves far too many implausibilities- you have saline and freshwater mixing, in what amounts you don't specify. But somehow, the freshwater fish and the sea dwelling fish are both meant to get along just fine- what's Noah meant to have done, equipped the ark with goldfish bowls, or aquaria?

Some carnivores eat carrion- which means you're going to need a regular supply of dead bodies. Some carnivores won't eat carrion, so you'll need a supply of live prey. Some herbivores won't eat dried or stored vegetation, so you'll need fresh leaves. Given that there are more insects than any other kind of creature on earth (and more species are still being discovered) where on the ark are they all meant to have been stored? Just think, for instance of all the different kinds of beetle, fly, ant, and so on. What are anteaters meant to eat? They eat only ants, live ones, so at the very least you're going to need several anthills. You'll need trees for animals like koalas that eat only a specific kind of leaf. You'd need a certain kind of pine for squirrels that eat only the bark and fruiting bodies on one species of pine, and so on and so on. The story of the ark demonstrates the lack of imagination or rather experience of the world outside a small part of the fertile crescent of the person or people that wrote it. No one with a passable knowledge of physics or the animal kingdom would come up with the same kind of children's fable today.

**Frogman** · April 16, 2003, 23:23

Originally posted by obiwan18

Well, then tell me what dogmatic beliefs I have about the flood? What is the position that I will not be moved away from.

Care to discuss the scientific merit of the sources listed? Are their arguments plausible or unplausible?

I don't know what dogmatic beliefs you have, but you post a link that supports a book that attempts to show that dinosaurs were on the ark. Some of my Sunday School peers believe that and have a whole set of DVDs by this guy named Ken Hamm and he also takes this stance.

I don't believe T-Rex was a vegetarian prior to the flood, like Jehovahs Witnesses and strict literalists believe. I don't believe the behemoth and the leviathan of the Bible refer to dinosaurs. I don't believe there is time in 6000 years for us explain the fossil record from trilobytes to dinosaurs to wooly mammoths, to neanderthals. Continental drift, light from stars, erosion of mountains just take more time. I will never ever ever believe in a 6000 year old earth and I'm stunned any thinking person does.

And yet I know these people, they appear intellegent, and no argument seems to sway their belief. If there was a magic bullet of convincing proof that would sway their belief from the YEC and the global flood, they wouldn't still be around. Apparently they look at the world through different glasses and see the "facts" differently. The only thing I learned from this topic is that its a waste of time to try to convince them otherwise.

So Obiwan, you go believe whatever you want and I'll believe what I want with regard to how God created the universe. At least we agree that he did.

**tinyp3nis** · April 16, 2003, 23:58

When I posted last time, I actually made up the part about dinos myself. I had no idea there are people who really think dinos were there onboard.

**Urban Ranger** · April 17, 2003, 00:11

Originally posted by obiwan18
Depends on the salinity of the water falling from the sky. If the water raining is fresh water, they can slough off some of that water for their own purposes, even when sailing in a saline environment.

That would post a problem for salt water creatures.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Please walk me through the pressure calculation. What formula are you using to calculate the pressure?

Divide the height (in metres) of the water column by 10.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Supprose you reduce the height needed to 1500m, that is 1/9 off the top right there.

Originally it's 8900 metres, so 1500 m is a lot less, sure.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Then if you reduce the number to 1/10 of 1/9 you have 1/90 the amount of water in the sky.

Well no. We go by an increase of 1500 m in sea level. If we assume 1/10 of the water came from the sky, you would still need a 150 m thick layer of water in the atmosphere. That translates to an increase of 15 ATM.

Humans could survive a greater pressure, but only a brief period. Not for days on end.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Would this cool the earth or warm the earth?

What about the albedo changes? Would water absorb more heat then the earth does normally?

Looks like a very bad case of global warming. You'd have very violent weathers, which somehow wasn't recorded into the bible.

**Ben Kenobi** · April 17, 2003, 00:28

Pot/kettle, Mr. One-or-Two Miracles!

Well, you started.

If the geologic record was deposited in a year (as one must believe to believe the literal Flood story),

Those were provided as examples of the miracles of nature God needed to work to accomplish the Flood and erase its evidence from the geologic record

Why must we believe this? I'm missing a step here.

As Jack pointed out, we can easily use Geneaologies to estimate a more or less precise date of the flood. There's not much wiggle room here. Creationist "experts" consistently put the date around 2250 BCE.

No arguments with the 'quotes' around 'experts.' For the geneologies between Adam and Noah and between Noah and Abraham we do not know if they are complete or not, or even to what extent they are complete.
There may be significant gaps.

If it's salt water, it also destroys your argument about Noah & Co. being able to get fresh drinking water.

What about my multiple sources of water, which I found after that post of mine? Could that explain the lack significant salinity change?

Aardvarks would have had a field day, as would frogs and all the other insect-eating animals.

Hey, why don't zoos just let their insects roam free?

Point well taken.
However, some insect species will be able to live together, and will be able to live with other animals. So rather than a seperate space, they could make sure that the insects stayed with co-operative animals.

No such other catastrophes are detailed in the Bible.

So if it is not in the bible, it never happened?

What I meant were other catastrophes to a lesser extent than a worldwide flood. Massive local floods, etc.

Surely he could kill all the evil people with a plague, and still have a test for Noah's faith...after all, he tested Job without resorting to world-altering calamities.

God did use plagues, and tested people by having them stay indoors, follow the commandments, etc.

I guess it all comes down to the point we both have been avoiding: Do we really know all that was going on during the Flood? Were we there? No. All we have is a record that gives us some of the details, but not all of them.

For this reason I am loathe to second-guess God. The Flood accomplished his objectives of testing Noah and destroying humanity. That's the most important thing for me.

There is ample fossil evidence of the species in question that predate the flood showing they had the same diets as they do today. So for some reason, all the animals would have to go to being herbivores (grain-eating ones, too, since fresh vegetation isn't an option), and then go right back to their previous diets afterwards.

Not impossible, just something that needs to be planned for.

Out of curiosity, on what basis do you assert the tallest mountain at the time was only 1500m? Seems rather arbitrary to me. At any rate, it is absurd, since Mr. Everest was not formed by cataclysm or erosion, but by the slow continental collision, and it certainly wasn't formed in the last 4,200 years.

It is arbitrary. I wanted to get a feel for what kind of numbers the Physics involved, how much a variation in the mountain height would affect the pressure argument.

That's even worse. So the area calculations have to make way for 3 decks. Three decks at 450X75 = c. 102,000 sq ft. Assuming, generously, that there are only 30,000 animals on the Ark (and this is actually a really ridiculously low number), that means there is about 3.4 square feet of space per animal. That is not including storage space for food/water, nor living space for Noah & family. Now I ask you...doesn't that seem a wee bit cramped?

Average animal size, as estimated by my second source, is about the size of a rat. A cage of 3.4 square feet could house the rat. Also remember, you have a third dimension to deal with.

Also, what about the space beneath the hull? Could one not store grain and food there?

**Ben Kenobi** · April 17, 2003, 00:45

Obiwan, I'm sorry, but the literalist account of the flood involves far too many implausibilities- you have saline and freshwater mixing, in what amounts you don't specify. But somehow, the freshwater fish and the sea dwelling fish are both meant to get along just fine- what's Noah meant to have done, equipped the ark with goldfish bowls, or aquaria?

molly:

Then that's a fault of my argument, not of the account at hand. There is nothing in the actual biblical account that describes how much water would be salt water and how much would be fresh water.

Fish are not mentioned, and are not included in the account, which leads to some speculation as to what happened with them during the Flood. We simply do not know.

Some carnivores eat carrion- which means you're going to need a regular supply of dead bodies. Some carnivores won't eat carrion, so you'll need a supply of live prey. Some herbivores won't eat dried or stored vegetation, so you'll need fresh leaves.

Would a carnivore eat plants if they had to? How rigid are these dietary restrictions? Did these dietary restrictions apply at the time of the flood?

[Quote]
Given that there are more insects than any other kind of creature on earth (and more species are still being discovered) where on the ark are they all meant to have been stored? Just think, for instance of all the different kinds of beetle, fly, ant, and so on.
[Quote]

Maybe a million and a half identified species. Anything more than this is somewhat speculative.

The story of the ark demonstrates the lack of imagination or rather experience of the world outside a small part of the fertile crescent of the person or people that wrote it.

Lack of imagination on who's part? The recorder or the reader? I would think you would be more confident in a less- imaginative recorder.

No one with a passable knowledge of physics or the animal kingdom would come up with the same kind of children's fable today.

Would you read the account of the flood to your children Molly? Including the part where God wants to destroy all of humankind?

Hardly a children's fable.

As for our physics, that's what this whole discussion is about.

**Ben Kenobi** · April 17, 2003, 01:07

Frogman:

So Obiwan, you go believe whatever you want and I'll believe what I want with regard to how God created the universe. At least we agree that he did.

Well, I want to have a better understanding of these issues, and I do not have a firm interpretation of these passages. That's why I was taken back by your comment, that my mind is set.

It certainly is not, and that is why I am trying to hear out arguments on both sides. I don't know much about the Flood, and have certainly learned lots in the process of examination. So please, if you have some points, continue posting.

**Straybow** · April 17, 2003, 01:48

I always get a kick out of atheists who permit no miracles in an account of miraculous intervention in the order of the universe.

**Urban Ranger** · April 17, 2003, 02:28

Old news, but still good news

More evidence for evolution

Biologists have uncovered important genetic evidence about how evolution redesigns animals.

It explains how large-scale changes to body plans can arise from very simple genetic mutations, or errors.

BBC link

Also a link to a completely uncontested thread of mine

**Urban Ranger** · April 17, 2003, 02:34

More food for thought

This "Questions for Creationists" thread makes good reference material.

**Straybow** · April 17, 2003, 03:26

ooooOOOooooo, an uncontested thread! I guess that means you trumped 'em.

**tinyp3nis** · April 17, 2003, 03:40

Originally posted by Straybow

I always get a kick out of atheists who permit no miracles in an account of miraculous intervention in the order of the universe.

Uh, well that's mainly because in their eyes, there was no miraculous intervention in the first place.
It would be too funny if there was an atheist who was as you describe. I mean, how he can be an atheist in the first place believing that?

**Urban Ranger** · April 17, 2003, 04:49

"Look, we can't explain this. God!

"

Announcement

Survey about creationism

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment