FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Science & Skepticism > Evolution/Creation
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-22-2003, 03:33 PM   #131
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Just another hick from the sticks.
Posts: 1,108
Talking

Oh dearie me! Noah's Vacation Cruise again.

As seen from a deck-ape's perspective, the ark was a not-quite-floating disaster. As described, it would not have lasted an hour in flood conditions, nor much longer in relitivly calm seas. With no steerage, it would have broached, hogged and sagged, twisted, then broken up with a loss of all hands and cargo. Also, I'd like someone to explain to me exactly how eight terrified, sea-sick people are going to care for X-thousand animals for a year in tight quarters.

But, all that is just a lot of unimportant nit-picking. Ignore it; it really has no bearing upon the important question, namely, what did Noah and the pangolins, hummingbirds, moas, helbenders, marine iguanas and naked mole rats, etc. eat after the flood?

Nothing, that's what. The ark would have landed upon bedrock covered by a layer of noxious mud, and you ain't gonna grow no 'taters in that!

I admit that I've only scanned this thread -- it's a long one and came in late. So, if this has been touched on eariler, my apologies.

doov
Duvenoy is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 03:34 PM   #132
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,762
Default

Magus, you're slipping. My KJV distinctly says: 104:19 - "He made the moon for the seasons; The sun knows its place of setting."

If you're going to insist on 100% literalism, you're going to have to admit you believe the moon is responsible for the seasons and that the sun sets in a specific place. Nothing about "appointed times".

It also says earthquakes are caused by God looking at the earth. You must believe that, too.
Calzaer is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 03:51 PM   #133
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default korean paper

I went to the thread where the korean paper was criticised.

Here's the paper itself for those interested:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home..._arksafety.asp

I'm going to contract with these guys to make one modification. I want it to fly, too.
rlogan is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 04:04 PM   #134
Tod
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
Where does it say that?
Where does it say moutains were raised? That is the question. Here is the full context of the verses you did cite:

At your reproof the waters fled, at the voice of your thunder they sped away, flowing over mountains, down valleys, to the place you had fixed for them; you made a limit they were not to cross, they were not to return and cover the earth.

That is where "it say[s] that." Now you tell me where this says anything at all about mountains being raised.
Tod is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 04:20 PM   #135
Tod
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 152
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55
No where in Psalms 104:8-9 does it say the waters flowed over the mountains. Look at multiple translations of verse 8. It says the mountains rose and the valleys sank. God changed the topography of the Earth to accomodate the water.
From the Jerusalem & New Jerusalem Bible:

...they sped away, flowing over mountains , down valleys...

From the Revised English Version:

...they rushed away, flowing over the hills, pouring down into the valleys....

From the New American Bible:

They rushed up the mountains, down the valleys...

From the Septuagint:

They go up to the mountains, and down to the plains...

From the NIV:

...they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys...

From the Old & New Revised Standard Versions:

They rose up to the mountains, and ran down to the valleys...

From the KJV:

They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys...

And for a literal word-for-word transliteration, we turn to my Hebrew-English Interlinear:

they-flowed-over mountains they-went-down valleys

It seems that an awful lot of translations say what you say that Psalms 104:8-9 doesn't say, and don't say what you say it says.
Tod is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 04:23 PM   #136
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 3,794
Default

WOW!

First, Bagofsnakes deserves a :notworthy for his calculations. Note well that Magus has NO ANSWER to them other than burble about assumption . . . yet . . . get this . . . he argues that Mt. Everest was shorter than Mt. Ararat.

So . . . what happened?

How did it "grow?"

Viagra?

This is one of the funniest threads I have read in a long time. Thank you everyone.

Nevertheless, the question remains that Magus has not answered:

WHY MUST THE FLOOD MYTHS BE LITERALLY TRUE?

--J.D.
Doctor X is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 05:01 PM   #137
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Snyder,Texas,USA
Posts: 4,411
Default

Quote:
Anyway...I'm hoping you're going to start a thread on the details of the Gulf of Mexico, seafloor, geological column.
I only know what I've read in the papers about that - Glenn Morton has pretty much the definitive smackdown of Flud stratigraphy here anyway. There's also a wunnerful full-color chart of all those little forams and such there.

Magus, we'll start a thread for you after you finish this one.
Coragyps is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 05:12 PM   #138
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default Pseudo-summary of Korean Ark "safety" paper

I forget who suggested the Korean paper on the supposed structural "safety" of the Ark. In reviewing the comments by a professional structural engineeer on the thread there pointed out how they got around the problem of hogging/sagging: They calculated using roll instead of pitch. Of course, the whole point of "safety" would be whether the ship could hold together in any pitch stress ( like, standing still on a calm sea, even).

Many other items a novice could see with just a little math background in looking at the paper. Not giving the volume of wood, the thickness of members, etc. As a former carpenter and sometime logger I did marvel at the presumption of 100% log to timber frame conversion efficiency. Since they had no lumber mills then, the reason is simple: the trees grew into timber frame shapes, thereby obviating the need for any milling and planing whatsoever.

At least this was a little more challenging than "poof" arguments...
rlogan is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 05:48 PM   #139
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,088
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Magus55

Quote:
Originally posted by Paul2
You can't rationalize th story of noah's ark without tossing the apologetic spin "goddidit" in, because that's just it: It's just a story. It's impossible. Besides, where in the bible does it say god had an active part in the construction of it? i mean, besides the whole cubits thing. Or are you just adding stuff to make your story better? Just because you can't open your mind beyond your litte box of christianity...
It isn't impossible with God and until you can disprove His existence, it leaves a huge opening for the so called impossible. Can you prove its just a story, or is that your opinion?

I'll disprove your god when you've disproven the mighty god THOR.

The whole noah's ark story is illogical and impossible. It's a symbolic story of a 'rebirth' of the world and nothing more.

Shit, i give up, you're not worth my time and effort. besides, i got a midterm to study for.
Paul2 is offline  
Old 10-22-2003, 06:57 PM   #140
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 7,204
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Tod
Where does it say moutains were raised? That is the question. Here is the full context of the verses you did cite:

At your reproof the waters fled, at the voice of your thunder they sped away, flowing over mountains, down valleys, to the place you had fixed for them; you made a limit they were not to cross, they were not to return and cover the earth.

That is where "it say[s] that." Now you tell me where this says anything at all about mountains being raised.
What translation are you using? KJV doesn't say what you just posted.

KJV:


Psa 104:7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.

Psa 104:8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.

Psa 104:9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.


Other translations however, refer to 104:8 meaning the mountains rose and the valleys sank. The meaning depends on what translation you are referring to.

NLT:

Mountains rose and valleys sank

to the levels you decreed.

NASB:

The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.

RSV:

The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which thou didst appoint for them.

ASV:

(The mountains rose, the valleys sank down) Unto the place which thou hadst founded for them.

HNV:

The mountains rose, The valleys sank down, To the place which you had assigned to them.
Magus55 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:57 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.