Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sven · 04-10-2004, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvenoy

You'd think that somebody might have noticed.

I actually heard an "answer" to this (from dear Magus55): They were all busy with the aftermath of the flood.

:banghead:

gagster · 04-10-2004, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kuu

Creationists would debunk it by saying that Mount Everest either didn't exist, or wasn't as tall as it is now, at the time of the flood. You could use the height of Mount Ararat (about 16,000 feet) instead of Mt Everest as YEC cannot deny that Mt Ararat existed. They could however say it was lower than it is today.

These people believe that there might have only been one continent 4000 years ago. They think it is possible that the continents might have drifted apart after the flood. Can someone tell me about how far the continents would have to drift each year for this to be so (taking into consideration that this massive drifting must have stopped before the last 1000-2000 years otherwise early mariners would have been aware of it).

I don't think there is any reasoning with those that believe that Noah's Ark is a true story.

Exactly. I've had creationists tell me that the seas were shallower before the flood and mountains were'nt as high. In fact, one creationist claimed that mountains were no more than twenty or so feet taller than hills. With less variance in land elevation, it wouldn't take nearly as much water for a worldwide flood. The exact amount is left as an exercise for the non creationist because the burden of proof is on him to prove the creationist wrong.

All the major features of the planet are the result of a catastrophe. Namely, the flood. That's where the Grand Canyon, mountains, ocean depths and seperate continents come from.

Apparently, before the flood, India had not yet smashed into Asia. That happened during the flood. Amazingly, noone there at the time noticed. Of course they didn't notice that they all drowned either, so maybe that's not so amazing after all.

Since all the continents were joined together before the flood, that solves the problem of how all the animals got to the ark. Creationists claim they all lived near the ark. Of course, how they got back to their habitats after the flood is a mystery.

I think the assertion that the flood created the Grand Canyon is an interesting one. Creationists claim that after the flood, there was a large body of water trapped somewhere in what is now the U.S. midwest. Part of the southern or southwestern rim broke and water came gushing out, digging a channel that is now the Grand Canyon.

Of course, this makes little sense. Why did the water in this sea not evaporate or somehow disappear like the water elsewhere? What were the walls of this sea? Perhaps the Rockies on the west and the Appalacians on the east, but what about the north and the south? Surely, there'd have to be some trace of them left. Also, how does water dig a channel on flat land? There's have to be a channel there already or the water would just spread out.

Creationists claim that all (or at least, most) of the fossils we find were from the flood. Animals died, sank below the flood, had sediment deposited on them and fossilized. If that's the case, then why are there fossils in the Grand Canyon? According to creationists, there were no sediments left deposited there because they would have been washed away when the rim broke. Yet we find fossils buried there.

Greg

Duvenoy · 04-10-2004, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

I actually heard an "answer" to this (from dear Magus55): They were all busy with the aftermath of the flood.

:banghead:

Betcherass they were!

What with wildly chaotic weather patterns as the newly-formed continents began truckin' along, pushing up new mountains as they went; earthquakes that would make the famous San Fransisco shake-up look like a polite bealch, and volcanos popping up like dandilions; yeah, I 'spect they were pretty busy!

But, the really amazing thing about it is that all of the geological evidence in support of this is so subtle that it cannot be detected even by the most advanced tecniques, and the most skilled and learned scientists.

Truly wonderous!

doov

MrFurious76 · 04-10-2004, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nukular

Can't, too much like the Rapture...

He could have had them all slowly and painfully self combust

ten to the eleventh · 11-03-2004, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disgracian
what about the land vegetation?

i spoke to a creationist who claimed that all the trees, grass, shrubs, etc. were perfectly capable of surviving being submerged for over a month.

Bet him $1000 to prove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

Bet him $1000 to prove it.

Thread resurrection!

You guys could do much better with creationists if you'd at least read your bibles. It was not just a month (or 40 days) that the plants would have been underwater. Here's a little timeline I pieced together:

Day 1: Noah & Co. enter the ark
Day 7: The rain comes and the springs burst forth.
Day 48: The rain stops, but the springs continue.
Day157: The rain stops (again) and so do the springs. At some point here the ark comes to rest on Ararat.
Day 230: Mountaintops can be seen.
Day 270: Noah sends out a raven
Day 271(?): Noah sends out a dove, but it returns b/c the whole earth is flooded.
Day 278: Dove again, comes back with olive branch.
Day 285: Dove again, no return.
Day 313: Noah could see dry ground.
Day 370 (based on a 360 day year): Noah and the animals came out.

So I figure you've got at least 240 days of flood covered earth. That's eight months you get to bet that creationist on. Don't think your rose plant will make it.

Oh God please some creationist come on here and explain flood hydrology to me. Oh, but if you don't at least know how to use a unit hydrograph and a HEC2 program, don't bother.

Plognark · 11-04-2004, 06:05 AM

I posted this on another forum a year ago, thought it was relevant. Some of my old links are probably dead, but eh, what can you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plognark on 11/21/2003

3) The size of the boat. Sure, it's a big boat. The bible says exactly how big:

Genesis 6:15 in the Bible tells us the Ark's dimensions were at least 135 meters long (300 cubits), 22.5 meters wide (50 cubits), and 13.5 meters high (30 cubits). That's 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high, based on an 18 inch cubit, give or take some for rough estimation. That's 1,518,750 cubic feet of storage, without eliminating space for decks, rounded hull, walls, etc.

Um....it's not that big, no offense.

Mmmmmmkay...lets think about this. Two elephants (unclean animals, I suppose) and enough food for 40 days.

This link states that elephants can eat around 175 pounds of food per day.
http://www.zooatlanta.org/site/the_a...a_springs.html
So lets put them on a diet: only 100 pounds per day. 40 days, 100 pounds per elephant, 2 elephants, = 8,000 pounds of food. Just for 2 elephants. On around a 60% calorie restriction. And that's just FOOD. Elephants need water too, and most of the world's water is salt. I'm hoping that you'll forgive my assumption that the waters of the flood were brine and unsuitable for drinking. So noah would need to bring fresh water with him.
The same site says elephants drink 40 gallons per day. Lets restrict that a bit to: assume they can survive on half that; 20 gallons per day. So we do some quick math and get, for 40 days, 1600 gallons of water for both elephants to survive.
One gallon of water = .13 cubic feet. So that water takes up 208 cubic feet of space. A bale of hay, according to this site below, weighs about 8 pounds per cubic foot. We''ll be nice and use alphalfa, which is 14 pounds per cubic foot:
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/pub...s/372210-1.pdf

That's 571 cubic feet of storage for the food for 2 elephants. Plus the water: 779 cubic feet. For food alone. For 2 elephants. The elephants themselves would require, according to this site:
http://www.zoo.org/chai/site/learn/african.htm
about 1800 cubic feet of space just to have a little breathing room on the sides, each. 3600 more cubic feet gone. So the elephants would need 4,379 cubic feet of space.

Ah! but it was raining right? so no need for fresh water storage! You fool!
but wait: It only rained for 40 days; noah was on the boat for 150 days, give or take depending on how you want to look at it. So he actually needed at least 110 days of water....and 150 days of food....assuming he knew exactly when the flood would end, and could plan without having to pack extra food.

in summary we get over 6, 314 cubic feet of space needed for the elephants. Without any room to move, clear excrement, etc. That's 0.4% of the volume of the ark....0.4% just for 2 elephants.
Now, did noah decide to just leave the dinosaurs to die off, or did he take those as well? Even if we just add in 2 more hippos and rhinos we've consumed probably 1% of the space on the boat. A tyranosaurus or two, dwarfing an elephant easily, would consume a staggering amount of space by itself. nevermind a brachiosaur or two. Even if he took along just TWO brachiosaurs we're hosed.

Even a small one was fifty feet long, five times longer and many times larger than an elephant. We're looking at an animal that would have outweighed and outconsumed an elephant by a factor of ten to twenty, easily.
http://www.wvup.edu/ecrisp/lec11-sauropodamorpha.html

And, if noah left the dinos behind to die, well, then isn't the bible being false in asserting that he took 7 of every kind and 2 of each unclean? He obviously left a WHOLE LOT of animals behind to drown and die.

After some rough calculations I fiured out that two elephants would require at least .4% of the volume of the Ark just for food, water, and a room big enough for them to have about an inch of clearance on all sides.

premjan · 11-04-2004, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plognark

I posted this on another forum a year ago, thought it was relevant. Some of my old links are probably dead, but eh, what can you do.
After some rough calculations I fiured out that two elephants would require at least .4% of the volume of the Ark just for food, water, and a room big enough for them to have about an inch of clearance on all sides.

they were probably pygmy elephants no bigger than hyraxen that later evolved into larger size.

leccy · 11-04-2004, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gagster

Exactly. I've had creationists tell me that the seas were shallower before the flood and mountains were'nt as high. In fact, one creationist claimed that mountains were no more than twenty or so feet taller than hills. With less variance in land elevation, it wouldn't take nearly as much water for a worldwide flood. The exact amount is left as an exercise for the non creationist because the burden of proof is on him to prove the creationist wrong.

If we seriously want to make a start on calculating the volume of water involved in Noah's Flood some constraints on the water depth might be useful.

This well regarded work by Marriot Edgar provides independent verification, via a contemporary eye witness account, of the likely depth of water at the end of the 40th day of rain falling in a rather famous North West European coastal setting.

Assuming height of the eyewitness of 5 feet 3 inches and the stated height of his vantage point as 518 feet 9 inches then the contemporary sea level, located one half inch below his mouth would be somewhere in the region of 523 feet 6 inches above present day mean sea level. If the mountains at the time were approximately twenty feet tall as claimed then something around about 500 feet of water may have been present over the tops of those mountains.

Plognark · 11-04-2004, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

they were probably pygmy elephants no bigger than hyraxen that later evolved into larger size.

Yeah, actually I didn't even get anything that well reasoned.

I got "well, he rounded up all baby animals to save space!"

Yes, you dumb fuck, and they grow and mature over five months on the ship! And now all the baby mammals need their mother's milk in the early stages! Go fuck yourself you retard! :banghead:

premjan · 11-04-2004, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plognark

Yeah, actually I didn't even get anything that well reasoned.
I got "well, he rounded up all baby animals to save space!"
Yes, you dumb fuck, and they grow and mature over five months on the ship! And now all the baby mammals need their mother's milk in the early stages! Go fuck yourself you retard! :banghead:

embryos in suspended animation would be adequate in the ALIENS version.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.