For a change, how about an actual and honest discussion of Noah's Ark-

OK.

Read the following and come back with your verification.

The ceiling light is your room provides a regular illumination that causes a standard shadow for everything inside the room. You want to know what location of your body causes a greater shadow, and from a sole location, standing in one place you bend your body, you straight up your body, you tilt your body towards one side away from the light, you do the same against the light, etc.

You record what your eyes perceive from the shadows. So you conclude that stretching your body and tilting it away from the light is causing a greater shadow going away from you.

But, even when you do a video of your experiment, it is required a verification of your results. This is to say, that even when the video corroborates your conclusion, the use of another method -other than the visual method used in the video- is required by science.

This is practically mandatory in science: a verification.

So, you add in your video a measurement made with a tape measure, which is a standard method of meassure, which may corroborate the visual observation.

When the data amount given by the tape measure agrees with your conclusion based in visual observation, then you have verified it as valid.

This is a requirement stated by the scientific method.

Now well, you say that the split of the continents happened 100 million years ago.

I might ask, what kind of measure method you have used to obtain that number of years.

The measure used by you must come from a valid standard method.

Plus, the data amount given by your valid standard method must be verified by a different valid standard method, in order to put both results one against another. If the data amount of both methods are in agreement, then you have verified your 100 million years as valid.

On the other hand, if you have not verified your 100 million years with a different valid standard method, then you can't argue the narration of the bible, because your 100 million years have never been scientifically verified.

Hope you don't scream, you don't cry, you don't pull your hair, and so forth.

You want to challenge the bible with science and I can tell you that you are doing the right thing.

BUT, and here is the point, if you want to challenge the narration of the bible, then you must do it with a verified method.

So far, your 100 million years is nothing but conjectures, and you know better than anyone that you can't challenge the biblical narration with mere conjectures... you just can't.

 

How in the world you are challenging my statement with the following words: as canis lupus is the supposed common ancestor of all dogs?

So, you are not sure. And if you are not sure, how you attempt to challenge the biblical narration with suppositions of yours?

I might ask you, according to you, which one of the fossils collected is the ancestor of all felines? It must be one, you know that.

If you don't know, then you can't argue against the biblical narration with your ignorance.

The whole species of the world, are according to the biblical narration, descendants from the species which survived the deluge. The deluge wasn't rain only, it was an event that causes desolation, because the Hebrew word "Mabul" is not rooted as meaning rain, water, and similar, but rooted from words that mean desolation, devastation, and in this case, caused with water. The scenario of a rupture of a continental floor by water pressure going up with force causes earthquakes, tidal waves, which will destroy and cover everything around.

Perhaps your idea of the deluge is based in the Hollywood movies you have watched since you were a child, and those images of a rain coming from heaven filling the earth like a water hose filling the swimming pool still flashing in your brain.

So, please forget your infantile memories and discuss against the biblical narration with solid science, evading using your best, those "suppositions" those lacked of scientific evidence statements of yours.

Your kangaroos were saved in the Ark and later when they were released they moved to a zone which split from the sole continent.

Oh yeah?

If you were correct, can you please show what "creationist website" is saying what I wrote in my message? I want to see where my statements were copied from in order to be pasted here.

 

You are a victim of optical illusion.

Water covers up to 75% of the surface of the planet, but it is merely 0.02% of our planet’s total mass.

We have a sole continent without huge mountains, because no movement of continental plates caused them. What we translate as mountains from Hebrew, can also be translated as hills.

We have a former era in planet earth where the whole planet was covered with water, according to Genesis.

After that, land appeared. Some cosmic event caused the rising up of land, or perhaps the earth itself caused it by internal causes. This created the formation of underground lakes and canals.

We have a huge land surrounded by water, Water has the tendency to move thru tiny spaces, like you see in your drink liquid at higher level inside the straw compared with the level of the rest of the liquid in the glass.

Same as well, water and vapors found canals on land to pass thru and this is what the bible explains was the first phenomenon that helped the provision of water for plants and animals.

The water in the underground lakes and rivers started to heat up due to the heat caused by the interior of the planet. As lava was continually looking for come out, like it still does today, started to heat up the underground water. Noah was told to build an ark because it was seen that sooner or later the pressure will cause a huge rupture and steam and hot water will flush up with force from it.

And this is exactly what the bible narrates, the rupture of land and before rain was first the coming out of steam and hot water. We can add sulfur and other elements.

The atmosphere was the pot lid which caused condensation and the steam became rain, lots of it.

We don't have to go back in history to agree that when rain happens in great proportions causes flood. Cities which experience fast and heavy rain for hours will suffer flood. And we know that these waters take hours and even days to go away. Notice that rain happened in hours and that the going away took days.

The same happened in Noah's days. All that water covered the entire sole continent because the fast and heavy rain for days. And it took months to go away.

Water went back to its former level, and lots of it went back to the underground lakes and rivers.

Since this release of the heat, the planet cooled off internally, and with the split of the huge continent, the cooling of the entire planet was balanced better. We know by fact that the ocean temperature has a great influence for the global temperature.

If in your imagination you believe that the flood was caused by our current and natural evaporation of water by the Sun's influence, then you are discussing this topic using the wrong tools.

The era of Noah, the planet of Noah, the environment around Noah was completely different to our current environment. You just can't argue against the deluge in base of today's environment.

 

Well, if your are just giving your personal opinion, you are entitled to it.

If you are using science to estate such opinion, then I must ask for the scientific evidence.

How do you know that species didn't populate the sole continent of Pangaea? Please, avoid conjectures, you must show solid and indisputable scientific evidence to go against the biblical narration.

 

The flood in the Euphrates river basin in 2900 BC was caused by spring snow melt from the Zagros Mountains and unseasonably heavy rains.. It wasn't global but it must have seemed so since it was 150 miles wide and 350 miles long.

Tectonic plates move to break up continents... The separation of Pangea was not cause by hot water under the earth....

BTW... Dilmun is still famous for its sweetwater springs....

 

One pair of dogs don't have enough genetic information to produce all those many breeds of dogs. Do know what inbreeding eventually does, which would happen if only one pair were allowed to mate and then their off spring over and over. It doesn't take many generations for serious genetic problems to arise if you only start with one breeding pair without refreshing the gene pool. Ex dog breeder (border collies) here by the way. If all domesticated dogs originated from canis lupus (which is probable) there would have been many breeding pairs. The change to what we see today would have been gradual as dogs have been part of human life since the stone age. Selective breeding of dogs has been around since the pharaohs.

Interesting, there are stray dogs here in SE Asia which look identical to the Australian dingo. Dingoes can possibly trace their ancestry to this breed. Somehow these dogs can't be bred out even when mating with domesticated occurs. You would think with the biblical theory that all domestic dogs come from one breeding pair that you'd see a great variation over a number of generations.

How many 'kinds' of kangaroos were there on the ark? I'm really interested in an answer to this, but be very careful if you don't know enough about kangaroos. Interesting critters kangaroos. What about wallabies and wallaroos? How many 'kinds' of those?

Why isn't there any evidence of kangaroos somewhere between the Middle East and Australia? How did kangaroos (and how many kinds) actually make their way to an island continent when there is no evidence of a land bridge? Did kangaroos originally come from Australia before the so called flood or some other part of the world? I'm using Australia as an example because it has some of the most unusual and unique fauna on the planet.

Is there only one ancestor of all cats? There have been many fossils found worldwide of cats of all shapes and sizes. Some older than others. You tell me. No native cats in Australia though. Why is that? There are marsupial native catlike animals but not true felines.




So,, how many inches of rain would need to fall an hour to cover say Mt Everest in 40 days and 40 nights? Round figures will suffice.
Another interesting thing is the olive branch. After one year (or was it only 40 days and nights) under water wouldn't the olive branch be all but disintegrated and well on the way to decay? And,, what did all the herbivores eat after landfall if all vegetation had been underwater and destroyed for that time?

 

Pangea, also spelled Pangaea,
Pangea [Credit: Adapted from C.A. Ross and J.R.P. Ross, Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication 24]
in early geologic time, a supercontinent that incorporated almost all the landmasses on Earth.

continental drift [Credit: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]
Pangea was surrounded by a global ocean called Panthalassa, and it was fully assembled by the Early Permian Period (some 299 million to 272 million years ago). The supercontinent began to break apart about 200 million years ago, during the Early Jurassic Period (201 million to 174 million years ago), eventually forming the modern continents and the Atlantic and Indian oceans. Pangea’s existence was first proposed in 1912 by German meteorologist Alfred Wegener as a part of his theory of continental drift. Its name is derived from the Greek pangaia, meaning “all the Earth.”

During the Early Permian, the northwestern coastline of the ancient continent Gondwana (a paleocontinent that would eventually fragment to become South America, India, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica) collided with and joined the southern part of Euramerica (a paleocontinent made up of North America and southern Europe). With the fusion of the Angaran craton (the stable interior portion of a continent) of Siberia to that combined landmass during the middle of the Early Permian, the assembly of Pangea was complete. Cathaysia, a landmass comprising the former tectonic plates of North and South China, was not incorporated into Pangea. Rather, it formed a separate, much smaller, continent within the global ocean Panthalassa.
http://www.britannica.com/place/Pangea



"The emerging picture is that mammal evolution spun off different body types early on, says Oklahoma State University paleontologist Anne Weil. "You can look at small rodents today and see that a mouse and a squirrel are different animals," Weil says, and mammals like the haramiyids show that the same was true in the Mesozoic.

And the new haramiyids do more than expand the image of how our ancient mammalian cousins lived. The relationships among these long-enigmatic creatures suggest that the very first mammals originated early.

The traditional view is that the first true mammals evolved sometime during the Jurassic. Haramiyids, while roughly mammal-like, were thought to fall outside the group.

With complete skeletons to work from, however, Meng and colleagues found that haramiyids were true mammals after all. And given the age of the earliest known haramiyid, Meng says that mammals originated "at least in the late Triassic," between 220 million and 201 million years ago.

"I expect this will be contentious," Weil says, but the study is an important addition to investigations of where mammals came from.

"I think it's going to be part of an argument that will be going on for some time," Weil says, "and I expect paleontology as a whole will learn a lot from questions gleaned from these animals about the antiquity of Mammalia."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140910-fossil-mammal-china-triassic-origin/

As is par for the course you need to throw in the term "Indisputable" as it will allow you to dismiss the science when you disagree with it. I will certainly use the findings of universities and scientists above an opinion on an internet forum..I'm funny that way.

 

Loose sentences?

Is this the way how you want to discredit the biblical narration?

What exactly caused the split of Pangaea in different smaller lands?

What other consequences might have happened besides the split of Pangaea in smaller lands?

How have you obtained that measurement of 2900 BC? Ancient written records? Scientific measurement?

Will you be so kind to expand your point?

 

If you're referring to Australia, there are no high mountains because over time they have been worn away due to erosion. Most mountains in Australia are soft sandstone or limestone based. There is still mountain building activity going on.

Remember Australia is the oldest continent in the world with the oldest continuous civilisation.

 

The thread topic is about Noahs Ark and the Biblical Flood.

Please stick to this topic or risk warnings/infractions and thread bans

 

We've been told by many, many believers on this forum that their religion is based on both evidence and faith. Even if your position is based on faith alone, and you have no evidence to share, then that faith only matters for you. There is no reason that any of us should care about it or see it as justification for your religion.

Yes, but that does not mean that we have to accept everything that we do not have proof against, especially when the bar for what counts as evidence keeps moving. I can't prove that my great, great, great great grandfather wasn't a unicycle-riding purple martian. If someone proposes it, I'm going to want to see evidence in order to believe it. "But faith" doesn't matter.

They are if they want to have a scientific discussion.

And ignore scientific evidence when it challenges biblical narration? That's intellectually dishonest.

Only for their own satisfaction. If believers want to engage in such a forum, we have the privilege of asking them to satisfy burdens of proof.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You can hand wave that requirement for the sake of your own belief and say that you will just chalk it up to faith, but no one here has any "duty" to accept such dismissals.

A global flood should have left global geological evidence. We haven't been able to find it. Faith doesn't make up for the silence in the geological record.

 

Yet every time it rains, it is proven that is plenty of water for the process of evaporation and condensation to work to produce precipitation. While simultaneously NOT being enough water to flood the entire Earth. Thanks for pointing that out.

I see you still have no links backing up anything you say, just more assertions. You claim "scientists" back you up. Well, let's see it. So far, you have put forth nothing but supposition and conjecture.

 

exactly, the new is often built on top of the old, why they lied and said Jesus was born on Dec 25th too, why many Christian churches are built on Pegan sites, ect....

 

Just so you know. There are underwater oceans the size of the Atlantic:
http://time.com/2868283/subterranean-ocean-reservoir-core-ringwoodite/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/e...r-holds-three-times-much-water-earths-oceans/
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141029-are-oceans-hiding-inside-earth
http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/oceans-of-water-found-locked-deep-inside-earth-140612.htm

To the atheists arguing about the flood, I have this to say...


** ahem **


BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Thank you and have a great night.

 

"Interesting, there are stray dogs here in SE Asia which look identical to the Australian dingo. Dingoes can possibly trace their ancestry to this breed. Somehow these dogs can't be bred out even when mating with domesticated occurs. "

You yourself are contradicting the base of the hypothesis of evolution. According to such a fallacy, when two animals can't breed when mating is because they are two different species.

See? the whole argument of yours is based in erroneous conclusions.

They are the same kind, they are from the same ancestral breed, but eventually, due to some changes caused by the environment these dogs can't breed between themselves, but this won't make them two different species.

And about your famous gene pool.

Look, according to the assumption that diversity causes a greater variety of genetic information, such is another fallacy. There are tribes in Africa who have been practically isolated from the rest of the world. They talk their own language, and are practically small number of families who live in scattered areas. Their members have no other sexual relations but with their own.

However, the gene pool shows a greater diversity than other peoples of the world who have contact with other cultures mixing races, mixing different families, and the diversity of their gene pool is lesser than these African families.

As you can see, the whole theoretic part established about diversity in genetic pool is completely erroneous.

So, if you want to base your argument in gene pools, you have no argument at all.

When it was a sole continent, and the animals were released, as it is very common, some kind of animals went North, others South, others West, others East, others stayed around, some shared the land, some prefer to live by their own...

After the split of Pangaea, some generations after the flood, animals were trapped in smaller sub-continents and traveled on them while these lands were moving away from each other.

From here, the variety of the fauna and plants was caused by their location in the land, like today we see the elephant of Asia being different than the elephant of Africa. Same with humans, the different races appeared in accord to their location. It won't be rare to find older fossils of a predominant "race" in places where people of other races inhabitant today. What caused the changes was the environment. But the whole come from a common ancestor.

No elephants neither their fossils are found in Chile, and no one make arguments of this.

The intention of your question is some kind of out of touch with reality. And I say this because you are trying to make an argument in something that is not an issue but a simple migration of animals. Why cats evaded to move to that part of Pangaea which came to be later on the continent of Australia, such is something that you might as to the cats.

Mount Everest didn't even exist in Pangaea.

You underestimate nature. I have witness trees almost completely under water because erosion caused by a river near my house, that have survived very well for long time. These trees are finally dying, but new ones are growing close to the edge of the river again.

You must do the experiment of flooding a certain zone for a year, and later check if any vegetation flourishes back again.

Without your scientific experiment you are not in position to argue against the biblical narration.

 

Oldest continent of the world, eh?

According to whom?

What kind of method of measure was used? And how such a method of measure was verified?

 

"WE" is many people, and who told you that religion is based in evidence when faith is what rules, at least in the religion found in the bible?

You have an excellent point.

Unfortunately for you, science does support what the bible states. Every step of the biblical narration in Genesis goes in accord to an ordered successive chain of events. In your example of you being descendant of a unicycle-riding purple martian, your story must show an ordered chain of successive events. After that, lets see if science corroborates with your story.

Of course.

But their problem is that they attack the biblical narration with conjectures, with never verified methods of measurement, "logic" (lol) and so forth. Nothing 100% evidential to discredit a single point of the Noah's event.

What is dishonest is to pretend challenging the biblical narration with obsolete, incomplete, and in many cases fraudulent scientific evidence.

Well, this is how science works:

The bible says something.

It is the duty of science to put under scrutiny the biblical narration.

You won't put the believers of the biblical narration against their own beliefs, right?

It is the job of the opponents of the Bible to show their best to demonstrate that what the bible says is scientifically false.

So far, in this discussion, the attempts to prove false the Noah's event are failing. I don't see any real evidence capable to discredit the biblical narration. The whole argument made by the opponents is based on conjectures. Their method of measure age of things has never ever been verified, so their data of millions of years simply falls in mere assumptions.

Even worst, I already saw one participant copying and pasting a complete article from a website, and such article lacks of the correspondent verification of the method of age measure.

See?

If you want to challenge the Biblical narration, then you better settled your own sources with the proper verification. Otherwise, you are just barking at the moon.

The evidence in this case is the records written by witness of the flood who passed the information to their descendants. So far, the order of the narration can be explained scientifically, from vapors coming up from underground to finally the pressure of underground hot water breaking the land apart. Any expert on steam can back up what the biblical narration says.

And again, you have not put on the table enough scientific evidence to contradict such an event.

Very well, show me the whole steps from a micro-organism becoming a macro-organism.

I will demand your demonstration with a sample of each step.

You will find yourself in trouble because gaps will fill your report in greater percent than the scattered samples collected by you.

This is how hard the finding of samples from further past is about. Upheavals, earthquakes, vegetation, and several other atmospheric causes will erase lots of events that happened in the past.

Just to have an idea. It is a crazy thought which is corroborated by the status of the ruins, that Tiahuanaco in Bolivia-Peru was a culture living at a lower level of altitude, but that their land went up by some unknown event causing the destruction of that culture. This might be corroborated by the filmed in black and white film of the birth of a volcano in Mexico in the 1940's. This volcano is now hundreds of feet high, and reached this altitude in months, not so millions of years.

Then, geological events which can happen "suddenly" are not impossible, but can be verifiable.

Of course, this verification is not possible in many cases, because scientists prefer to base their conclusions in obsolete and good for nothing existing theories.

So, if you still finding problems trying to discredit the biblical narration, those problems lie on the incapability of scientists to accept that their theories are dead wrong. Their pride is their failure.

 

Incorporeal, Goomba, QChan, etc. You are honestly the first person I've heard on here claim that religion is based solely on faith, without any evidence.

I've already pointed out below where the evidence does not match what the Bible states.

I presented a logical, scientific challenge below.

You are forgetting the part where it is the person presenting the hypothesis as fact that needs to pony up with the evidence to back it up. But I've already provided scientific scrutiny below.

Which I did below.

I don't fall for reversals. I provided an argument, and now you are changing the subject to something else rather than answering the challenge.

A global flood would leave global geological evidence. So where is it? There should be a global layer of hydrologically sorted sediment without any footprints, raindrop impressions, etc. between the layers. I've been presenting this argument for years. Each time the Bible believer confirms that this is exactly the sort of evidence that they would expect to find as well. Each time they then abandon the conversation.

 

Actually, I was arguing against the Ark itself...with logic and science. And you have yet to show any refutation of those arguments. Because you can't. Even when you tried....most of your answers were "I don't know" or "Who knows?".

Yet you claim to "educate" others out of a sense of self-righteousness and ego.

 

This is where it gets a bit weird. Are you actually taking humans out of the flood equation? Who released the animals? Considering Pangaea started to split apart about 200 million years ago. Or are you working to a different clock?

 

** scratches head **

So... You ask crazy questions that no historian could possibly find out about anyone in history and expect to get a straight and honest answer? You then use the "I don't know" to those questions as proof that the Ark didn't exist?

ROFLMAO!

I need not say anything else. One more crazy response from you and I'll just stop replying to your silliness.

 

Watch the Life of Birds about the flightless birds of New Zealand and the lack of predators.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00bm2hq

Christians are not required to be ignorant.

 

Let's make this simple. Anyone who actually believes the Ark story also has to acknowledge that The Christian God was the biggest mass murderer in history.

 

That is a ridiculous arguement. A God that could fake all those fossils to fool those who believe in evolution could certainly turn that sediment layer into rock.

 

The question has been asked, how many animals were there?

Well, the number of bird, mammal, and reptile species alone is 23,612. http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0934288.html

Since we don't know what is meant by "clean" animals, it's hard to know how many of those there would be seven of, and how many there would be two of. Mosaic law didn't come until later, so we can't necessarily use that as a guide. BUT, there were seven of ALL birds.

So, let's just say two of mammals and reptiles and seven of birds, to be conservative.

Mammals: 5416x2=10832
Reptiles: 8240x2=16480
Birds:9956x7=69692

Total Animals:97,004

Since, as we know, evolution is not real, these species could not have evolved from a lesser number of species within the last few thousand years (*cough*). So there is your highly conservative answer: 97 thousand animals. plus Noah and has family, plus food for all of them. Seems legit.