Episode #6, to be exact. These guys do a great job commenting on the bible, and yes, they're working on getting through the entire ******ned thing! I wanted to share this episode in particular, though, because it's just got so much good stuff. Why is it so good? Because it covers the flood myth [video=youtube;ixgSmPGkn74]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixgSmPGkn74[/video] Among the many interesting things they have to say, they actually go through the math involved and explain in no uncertain terms that there is not enough water on this planet to flood the surface and cover Mount Ararat, nor of course any of the taller mountains. That volume of water simply does not exist on this planet. QED, eh. Not that facts or reason ever concern bible literalists all that much.
There are several logical questions....that the Believer in Noah's Ark won't answer directly... because they CAN'T answer them at all.
There are many versions of the story, and most religious people understand it is a morality story, not a scientific historical account. Why do Atheist's always go for the low hanging fruit, and confront the small percentage of those who view the bible as 100% actual events.
I fail here, but I am trying to avoid posting on these threads. I am agnostic atheist myself, I just see nuances that don't match up with the black and white picture that most of the die hard anti-theist see. I do agree with them on the most basic level though. The thing is they are not looking for nuance, or exceptions, they are looking to argue with literalist/fundamentalist or to kvetch about them with like minded posters. Nothing else is going to exist on this thread.
1. We have several fundamentalist/Literalists Christian posters here who believe it IS a scientific historical account....should we ignore those folks? Especially when they START OPs about Noah's Ark? 2. If the Noah's Ark story isn't historically true....what ELSE in the Bible is myth?
I'm pointing out the knuckle dragging literalists don't, its all the actions and word of Gawd. Praise be to Gawd! Atheists can also rip this book of yours as a book of morality so do you want to go there, that's why you need a whole branch of your cult apologizing for Gawd's actions and policies in the Bible.
We shouldn't ignore them, but we also shouldn't just throw the same tired old arguments on them over and over. We've been doing that for years and it hasn't changed them. The only thing that happens is that they tell themselves more and more vividly that those who don't share their religion is just out to take potshots and humiliate.
But it exposes them. You see it in their posts. Whenever they are incapable of scientific or even logical refutations of challenges to their beliefs....they invariably attempt to A. dodge or deflect B. change the subject C. attack the challenger or impugn his character or intelligence or all three in that order. The last?...personal insults and attacks...also shows that they are hypocrites if they claim they "believe in the Bible", since Titus 3:2 clearly says for them not to be boastful and to speak humbly to others. So apart from showing the logical or scientific flaws in their beliefs...which they endlessly try to claim ARE "logical and scientific".... it also, very often, shows them for hypocrites. - - - Updated - - - But that opens up a whole new can of worms.....i.e. "Which parts of the Bible are just myths and tall tales...and which is 'history'...and how and why do we make the distinction?"
You are correct that most Christians don't take the Bible literally or consider it a book of history and science.. However, those who do typically are very insistent and vocal and sometimes insulting. Did you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny by age 9 or 10? Most children are questioning and puzzled by the Bible stories by that age and unless the intention is to drive them away from faith, its probably a good idea to encourage their questions and deal with the allegorical qualities in scripture.
Nope. No where does your link, or the other five articles I have read on the subject sense you first posted it, claim that: 1. The water was deposited by a flood, making your claim intellectually dishonest. 2. The water was deposited in the last few thousand years, making your claim intellectually dishonest. 3. The water is actually usable water typical of what is considered to be fresh water (it isn't), making your claim intellectually dishonest. 4. The water proves some ancient myth to be true, making your claim intellectually dishonest.
I fail to see how that matters. Unless your motive only is to take pleasure in their uncomfortability, exposing them isn't doing you any good. It's like the "the customer is always right" saying. It's clearly not true, but if you don't act as if it is, you're not going to sell anything.
Entrenched blind faith in the face of mountain ranges of facts to the contrary. Its an all to common facet of human nature. Biblical literalists use EXACTLY the same tactics as the holocaust denier and even the extreme partisan political hack for that matter, the only differences being the object of their faith and their individual motivations. - - - Updated - - - But that opens up a whole new can of worms.....i.e. "Which parts of the Bible are just myths and tall tales...and which is 'history'...and how and why do we make the distinction?"[/QUOTE]
Welcome to physics. After listening for a few years, and carrying out lots of complex calculations, the researchers believe that they’ve found a huge reserve of water that’s located in the transition zone between the upper and lower mantle — a region that occupies between 400 and 660 kilometers (250-410 miles) below our feet. As you can imagine, things are a little complex that far down. We’re not talking about some kind of water reserve that can be reached in the same way as an oil well. The deepest a human borehole has ever gone is just 12km — about half way through the Earth’s crust — and we had to stop because geothermal energy was melting the drill bit. 660 kilometers is a long, long way down, and weird stuff happens down there. Basically, the new theory is that the Earth’s mantle is full of a mineral called ringwoodite. We know from experiments here on the surface that, under extreme pressure, ringwoodite can trap water. Measurements made by the USArray indicate that as convection pushes ringwoodite deeper into the mantle, the increase in pressure forces the trapped water out (a process known as dehydration melting). That seems to be the extent of the study’s findings. Now they need to try and link together deep-Earth geology with what actually happens on the surface. The Earth is an immensely complex machine that generally moves at a very, very slow pace. It takes years of measurements to get anything even approaching useful data. You think water trapped that far inside the earth could ever have come gushing up to the surface in a hurry to flood the surface? You think it could then have managed to get back down into the mantle afterwards? You really think that's at all physically possible, prof.?
1) Deflection. 2) Deflection. 3) Deflection. 4) Deflection. Nothing you said have anything to do with what I said in this thread. Nothing. The OP said, "Among the many interesting things they have to say, they actually go through the math involved and explain in no uncertain terms that there is not enough water on this planet to flood the surface and cover Mount Ararat, nor of course any of the taller mountains." What I underlined is false and was proven incorrect as of 2014.
At least Waterworld still had some dry land! I suppose it could kinda-sorta happen if the earth warmed up just enough and all our glacial and polar ice melted, but for sure there'd still be a lot of dry land at higher elevations.
Why would anyone with a modicum of intelligence spend a whole lot of time studying a work of fiction? I don't care if you are pro God or anti God spending any effort on a work of fiction is just pure silly.
Yet another who knows very little on the topic in which he/she speaks. Scientists now believe that the Earth's oceans are supplied by this very large underground body of water. The very source you're quoting explains that. So, if its supplying our oceans with water, then clearly the water isn't "trapped" with no way out.
I supplied the nails, and Durandal nailed you to the cross. You have failed to substantiate the claim that water in the mantle came from a flood that never happened.
There is not enough water on the surface of the planet to cover all of the mountains should of Mt. Everest by 15 cubits. The statement is true. Basic english and reading comprehension. What you have predictable and expectantly failed to do and prove your assertion that the water in the mantle was deposited by flood waters a few thousand years ago.