The great flood.

Originally posted by defcon5

You are absolutely incorrect in every aspect.
The ratio of dimensions of the ark are still used today in building large, stable, vessels such as aircraft carriers:

Its length to width ratio of six to one provided excellent stability on the high seas. In fact, modern shipbuilders say it would have been almost impossible to turn over.

yes it would have been almost impossable to turn over but that isnt the problem

the reason ships had a finite size when built from wood is a simple one, wood flex's, under a perfectly clam sea the ship would still imediatley begin to flex and self destruct under stress without massive iron/steel strengthening

the amount of strengthening required would virtually see the entire ship clad in metal and internally structered with metal anyway so if he was smart he would have just stuck to iron, that amount of iron would be absurd for 1 man to make even given 100 years he was said to have

its stability is massivley inquestion not becasue it would be rolled but becasue it would tear its self apart and sink from the water pouring in through its self generated holes

not only this if in some way it miraculously managed to survive the flex in wood, wood also warps under pressure heat and moisture content, the wooden boards would swell forcing each other appart creating holes and permanently damaging the board for water to pour in through or contract leaving slits for water to pour into depending on the enviroment it found its self in

a bit of pitch splashed on wouldnt help enough, he would have to ironclad it or rubberise the external hull to prevent water leakage and pitch isnt rubber

so its either going to sink failry rapidly or just snap its self like a twig

I have seen your posts before, and you seem to be on quite the agenda to dispute anything you consider to be Christian, I have to wonder why you find Christianity to be such a threat.

no i dispute anything i believe to be absurd faulty and drastically unprovable

its just there are so many people making such claims and insiting they are real without evidence or attempting to look into how possible it really was, the threat is to my sanity or lack there of

but if you would like to feel persecuted then carry on ill even call you nams if you like to help you out a bit? (wow we can both pull ad homonims how about that for spiffing)

Originally posted by defcon5

many believe that it has already been found:
This is Noah’s Ark
As a matter of fact, the Bible is not the latest record of the existence of the Ark, it is mentioned by Flavius Josephus in his writings The Antiquities of the Jews

and scholars have shown flavius's work has a certain amount of extra material that was added later by christian hands. its hard to hold a document up as proof if parts have already been shown to be later fakes


im not saying that passage is i dont know but others are and that brings them under scrutiny


holy multipul arks batman heres another one www.666soon.com...

who would beleive it one ark made multipule found all in close proximity, could it be they were there was another reason they were built up mountains other then a big flood that has no eveidence it happened?

2 mountians next to each other both with big boats up them .... curious ehh

and where are the scientifc findings as they have both had teams of scientists wondering around pking at them? must be a global conspiracy to hide he truth

Which, that there was a flood, or that there was an ark?

both

Seems to be some very dubious science going on with the first ark excavation. If they are finding carbon traces, how come no one has cabon-dated them? Or did they date them, and didn't like the results? Why no data on the sedimentary layers around it, or even any relative age-dating. Seems odd they're digging around in rocks and fail to mention the age of the rocks. Has there been an independant assesment of the area by anyone?
Seems like Turkey's own minature creation museum.

Link to nice clear picture:
i1.trekearth.com...

This is clearly a naturally made rock formation.
It kinda looks like a boats hull, that formation that runs next to it, to the right from the bottom of the boat is a dead give away.
There is also 2 very similar for mations up to the left, never mind the main cap!
What a waste of time. I'm sorry for anyone that actually went to see this.

[edit on 20-11-2008 by cruzion]

Some quickie follow-ups:

Originally posted by noobfun
just for the record an Ark is also a cube or rectangle

Yes, the ark is definitely described as a rectangle, but certainly not a cube. Unless I'm unaware of some very simple geometry? The dimensions given in Genesis are rectangular and not of a cube.

Originally posted by dave420
the rest of your post wasn't exactly a great explanation of how the biblical account could have happened.

It wasn't supposed to be. Going into this thread and writing my post, I decided to give Bible-based answers for the most part instead of dealing on the scientific answers. The attitude I was aiming for would have been what I would have used if someone has asked me any question along the lines of, 'What does the Bible say about...?' If you want to haggle the scientific feasibility of the flood account described in Genesis- feel free. But I'm tired.

And not to mention - where did the water come from, and where did it go?

Great springs broke forth, possible water shield in the atmosphere, the oceans are possibly lager than they are today, tons of water deposits have recently been discovered beneath earth's surface, and and Psalms mentions the mountains being raised during the flood (in what sounds like tectonic plates crashing). This would solve the dilemma about the water necessary to cover places like Mt Everest. The Bible makes it sound like antedelluvian elevation levels weren't anywhere near what they are today.



[edit on 11/21/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
Some quickie follow-ups:

Originally posted by noobfun
just for the record an Ark is also a cube or rectangle

Yes, the ark is definitely described as a rectangle, but certainly not a cube. Unless I'm unaware of some very simple geometry?

The dimensions given in Genesis are rectangular and not of a cube.

 

the word ark its self means box so cube for gilgamesh and rectangle for the ark ^_^ i knew what i meant lol sorry for lack of clarity there Ash i was using the word not the dimensions thats why i gave both

which makes it a bit less sea worth then a pointy boat but id still be more worried about it snappeing in 2

[edit on 21/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 21/11/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by AshleyD

And not to mention - where did the water come from, and where did it go?

Great springs broke forth, possible water shield in the atmosphere, the oceans are possibly lager than they are today, tons of water deposits have recently been discovered beneath earth's surface, and and Psalms mentions the mountains being raised during the flood (in what sounds like tectonic plates crashing). This would solve the dilemma about the water necessary to cover places like Mt Everest. The Bible makes it sound like antedelluvian elevation levels weren't anywhere near what they are today.
[edit on 11/21/2008 by AshleyD]

Orogeny (mountain building) is a long, slow process. Almost always it is caused by plate collisions. We can verify wether in fact there was a lot of lithospheric plate movement by the thickness of the depositional sediments on the ocean floor. But forget that, because if there had of been any drastic orogeny in the last 6000 years (less than 12000 for definite) we would have mountains that are made of holocene aged sediments....which we don't have. So you can forget that idea of recent mountain building. And you mention the Himalayas in this fantasy explanation - they were caused by India moving north after the breakup of Pangea (more precisely, India was part of Gondwanaland), and colliding with the Eurasian plate. The simplest evidence for this is the composition of the strata of the Himalayas themselves, which are early Cretaceous (Hauterivian stage, to be more precise) depositional shales and sandstones. They don't have any strata more recent than ~130 million years old.

Next - the oceans would actually have been smaller than today. We are in a period of interglaciation, hence our rising sea level. The last interglacial period similar to our was ~ 125,000 years ago, and the sea was ~6 meters higher, but the temperature was actually a lot warmer than it is today.

Water deposits in my crustal zones? It's more unlikely than you think!
Seriously, 29,000 cubic foot of water X circumference of the Earth, is hidden in the asthenospere??? Well, the asthenosphere is less than 150 kilometres thick, but the underside of it is a viscous plastic-type of rock, caused by pressure and heat, and that bottom ranges in thickness from 25-100 kilometres thick. There is 0 water anywhere near the plastic zone. Everest itself is 8.9k high, so it is pheasible simple model that the water could fit into the upper section. Only problems we have are the fact that we already have a water table, and of course, there are non-porous basement rocks underneath the sedimentary rocks. And of course, all these rocks take up room too. People are always finding new aquifers, but are any of them even remotely of the size needed to accomodate that volume of water? Of course not.

reply to post by cruzion


1). Thanks for the quickie science lesson about how mountains are formed. Yes, I am aware of the 'official story,' for lack of a better term, and Everest was used as an example because that is the one mentioned by skeptics about 90% of the time when asking about water covering the earth.

2). Oops. That is what I meant to say- that oceans are bigger today than they were back then. For some reason I used the present tense of 'are' and then compared it to ocean sizes 'today.' My mistake for typing at 3:30 A.M. lol

3). Water in the atmosphere: I was referring to those who believe in the raqueya theory. The jury is out on that one for me personally but I still wanted to mention it because it is often talked about in creationist circles, especially when it comes to the flood. It's by no means where all the water came from, though.

4). Underground water deposits: Not necessarily extremely common but they do exist and have been discovered. The largest deposit of which I am aware is beneath China.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by cruzion

 

1). Thanks for the quickie science lesson about how mountains are formed. Yes, I am aware of the 'official story,' for lack of a better term, and Everest was used as an example because that is the one mentioned by skeptics about 90% of the time when asking about water covering the earth.

- OK, so how do you explain the Cretaceous age of the Himalayas if they were a recent flood-related uplift event? Same question goes to any of the large orogenic zones in the world.

2). Oops. That is what I meant to say- that oceans are bigger today than they were back then. For some reason I used the present tense of 'are' and then compared it to ocean sizes 'today.' My mistake for typing at 3:30 A.M. lol

- OK, so we know that more water was tied up in glaciers around the time of the supposed flood, so where did the water come from?

3). Water in the atmosphere: I was referring to those who believe in the raqueya theory. The jury is out on that one for me personally but I still wanted to mention it because it is often talked about in creationist circles, especially when it comes to the flood. It's by no means where all the water came from, though.

- We'd love to know where the water came from.

4). Underground water deposits: Not necessarily extremely common but they do exist and have been discovered. The largest deposit of which I am aware is beneath China.

- Actually, the largest underground water deposits in the world are to be found under mid-west America.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by cruzion]

Originally posted by AshleyD
1). Thanks for the quickie science lesson about how mountains are formed. Yes, I am aware of the 'official story,' for lack of a better term, and Everest was used as an example because that is the one mentioned by skeptics about 90% of the time when asking about water covering the earth.

its one of the most famous and rtallest mountains in the world so an obvious choice although strictly speaking K2 would be better as an example as its taller

2). Oops. That is what I meant to say- that oceans are bigger today than they were back then. For some reason I used the present tense of 'are' and then compared it to ocean sizes 'today.' My mistake for typing at 3:30 A.M. lol

the problem is Ash the sea's are higher then they were 4000 years ago and theres still no where near enough water to completley flood the earth even with the underground deposits. a lot of land would be submerged but there would still be chunks of it even in the middle east

and as there has always been underground deposits of water unless rocks have drastically changed in the last 4000 years and all the evidence says no, there would be no mecahnism to force it all out of all the rocks all over the earth at the same time anyway without rediculous amounts of volcanic activity which would do more harm then the flood its self, the ash released from volcanoes creates a cold snap usually the following year

this much volcanic action would throw the earth into a virtual nuclear winter for years

3). Water in the atmosphere: I was referring to those who believe in the raqueya theory. The jury is out on that one for me personally but I still wanted to mention it because it is often talked about in creationist circles, especially when it comes to the flood. It's by no means where all the water came from, though.

not familiar with it and when i googled the only link i got was to a post of yours, is this anything to do with the hovind and his ice shield?

4). Underground water deposits: Not necessarily extremely common but they do exist and have been discovered. The largest deposit of which I am aware is beneath China.

see above hun

Originally posted by noobfun
see above hun

I have a hard time 'battling' with someone who calls others, 'Hon/Hun.' I have a habit of calling other members that on here and it warms my heart to see someone else do it.

Anyways, yes: Raqueya theory = 'ice shield.' I am probably misspelling it which is why it is not showing up in Google searches. It's the Hebrew word for 'firmament' in Genesis. So whatever the correct spelling of that is, is what to search for. Again, not sure how I feel about it and haven't read anything from Hovind to know what his studies are on it but I know the raqueya theory does include an ice shield.

Mountain tops: Absolutely. It would be impossible today with the elevation levels. What I'm thinking though is that earths' topography would have had to have been different at the time of the flood and the Bible hints at this being the case. That's the extent of my understanding on it. Although, some of you guys have pointed out the formation of mountains would have happened way before we believe the flood occurred.

Edit to add: Just looked it up. The correct spelling is 'Raqiya.' I did a test search on Google and some results came up.

[edit on 11/21/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
I have a hard time 'battling' with someone who calls others, 'Hon/Hun.' I have a habit of calling other members that on here and it warms my heart to see someone else do it.

ill try and call you names if that helps ^_^ i usually reserve the sarcasm for people who say it is deffinatley true not might be which is what you do lol

Anyways, yes: Raqueya theory = 'ice shield.' I am probably misspelling it which is why it is not showing up in Google searches. It's the Hebrew word for 'firmament' in Genesis. So whatever the correct spelling of that is, is what to search for. Again, not sure how I feel about it and haven't read anything from Hovind to know what his studies are on it but I know the raqueya theory does include an ice shield.

yeah its comonly known as hovind magic ice theory, he makes a complete fudge of it

but someone did some calculations on it, the ice would have to be over 1000Km thick to survive 2000 years befor it all became water, this doesnt take into account that the water would magnify the suns heat making the process faster or that the weight of the water bieng pulled down by earths gravity would casue it to self destruct a lot faster either so you can probabily double that(at least) to 2000km of ice

this is more then enough to block all light and heat down here on good ole terra firmer meaning we would all have no use for eyes and would all freeze to death as tempreatures down here would casue everything inlcuding air to liqufy

So, as you can see, there is no one temperature for space. The temperature that you read, about 40 K, is pretty cold for anything in the inner Solar System. It is, however, about right for the extreme outer planets, and is close to the temperature of the surface of Pluto (which it reaches in the same way as Mercury, by balancing heating by sunlight with re-emission back into space).

www.madsci.org...

remeber at this point we would recieve 0 solar radiation and the heat eminating from the earth would be as it is now absorbed long before it even came close to the surface so we would actually be colder then pluto

Liquid oxygen has a density of 1.141 g/cm³ (1.141 kg/L) and is moderately cryogenic (freezing point: 50.5 K (−222.65 °C), boiling point: 90.188 K (−182.96 °C) at 101.325 kPa

en.wikipedia.org...

40K puts us 10.5k below liquid oxygens threshold for cryogenics, and were still going to be colder then 40k as even pluto recieves some solar radiation

noah would have needed more then just a wooden ark to survive in a liquid oxygen enviroment even before the flood happened

this is before the ice and water starts falling through our atmosphere as the canopy collapses large blocks of ice would begin to burn up turning it into super pressured steam casuing the water falling with it to also become steam super heating the atmosphere and boiling anything lucky enough to survive the liquid oxygen cryogenics effect

the sudden and immediate temprature variance would create massive pressure in every cell of a living body causing every cell to explode a tiny split second before whats left of all the exploding cells becomes super boiled

again a wooden ark with a bit of pitch on the sides really isnt going to suffice as the wood its self would explode and imeddiatley combust from the heat even in a liquid saturated enviroment

suddenly this explenation requires you to refuse and deny every aspect of everything scientific including maths to not have massive and seriously detremental effects for all life on earth

i think if evolution really was random so the big and wrong probability numbers thrown around by creationists for life on earth suddenly seem a whole lot smaller then the chance of even 1 cell of noah his family the ark or all of the animals surviving intact

as for how badly hovind fudges it up ill leave it for thunderf00t who i borrowed the 1000km of ice calculation from ... thanks thunderf00t

Mountain tops: Absolutely. It would be impossible today with the elevation levels. What I'm thinking though is that earths' topography would have had to have been different at the time of the flood and the Bible hints at this being the case. That's the extent of my understanding on it. Although, some of you guys have pointed out the formation of mountains would have happened way before we believe the flood occurred.

as for that ill let the geology answer that,

Age of Everest:
Everest was formed about 60 million years ago

and mountians spend a whole lot more time getting smaller then they do getting taller

so unless you move noahs flood back 60 million years ago you have an imense problem with the water required

but then you find the next tallest mountain from that time period and get the same problem and have to keep going back and further back

until the water we have in the sea and trapped by glaciation are enough to swamp everything, and by the time we hit that even evolutionists are saying man in a form close to recognisable wasnt walking around

so there silly head (see said id try and make me less likable lol)

[edit on 21/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 21/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


Great job. Star for you. I'm not going to argue your thoughts on the 'ice shield' theory since I don't really know much about it or believe in it dogmatically but that was really good work.

As for the mountain ages, this is where my fundie side wakes up. I simply don't agree with the dates. We touched on this on my evolution thread and someone else's proof of creationism thread regarding dating. Don't get me wrong- I do believe in an older earth and universe I just don't believe it takes as long as modern secular science claims. This opens up the door for you guys to groan at me but that is my honest opinion on it. Things don't entirely add up when it comes to certain dating. This includes mountain formation, strata, and the age of some rocks and fossils.

These are the two threads where we discussed it before:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And, no I still like you and I consider 'Hun' a term of endearment- not sarcasm.

Who wrote Genesis folks? Moses supposedly yes? Moses was raised Egyptian as the story goes. Did he unlearn all of his Egyptian Knowledge to write the first five books of the bible?

This is where Moses, Egyptian schooled derives cubit from...that Noack uses to build the Pyramid or Ark, built out of stone.

The Egyptian Royal Cubit and Sumerian Nippur cubit
From the Nippur ell to the old royal cubit

The cubit is among the first recorded units of length used by an ancient people.

The earliest attested standard measure is from Egypt and was called the Royal Cubit (Mahe) and was 523.5 to 524 mm (20.61 to 20.63 inches) in length, and was subdivided into 7 palms of 4 digits, giving a 28 part measure in total. Secure evidence for this unit is known from architecture, from at least as early as the construction of the Step Pyramid of Djoser from around 2,700 B.C.[1]

In 1916, during the last years of Ottoman Empire and in the middle of WWI, the German assyriologist Eckhard Unger found a copper-alloy bar during excavation at Nippur from c. 2650 BC. which he claimed was a measurement standard. This irregularly formed and irregularly marked graduated rule supposedly defined the Sumerian cubit as about 518.5 mm or 20.4 inches, although this does not agree with more secure evidence from the statues of Guduea from the same region. A 30-digit-cubit known as a kus was nevertheless known from the 2nd millennium B.C., with a digit-length of about 17.28 mm (more than 0.68 inch).

Old Egyptian geometers could calculate the [color=#FF0000]square root of two from the value of the hypotenuse of a Cubit. This well-attested old Egyptian unit was known as the "construction remen" and used a good approximation: 2×20/28 ≥ root 2.

This is a Volume...Squared....not rectangled...

Peace


[edit on 21-11-2008 by letthereaderunderstand]

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by noobfun

 

As for the mountain ages, this is where my fundie side wakes up. I simply don't agree with the dates.

Well, the sedimentary strata are aged by relative age-dating, as radiometric age-dating will only tell you when the rocks were formed, not eroded then deposited. The rocks that we can age date are igneous and metamorphic. Obviously, if we have a layer of volcanic ash in amongst sedimentary strata, we can positively age date the sedimentary rocks directly above and below it. Same goes for igneous intrusions, as igneous rock can be radiometrically age dated.
Now, if we indirectly age date a sedimentry rock strata, because of say, an ash layer, we can look in the rock, and there is going to be microfossils and or fossils. As we know, species and families and phyla don't last for ever, so if we find the same rock elswhere in the world, with the same fossil record, we look for igneous and metamorphic strata or intrusions to get a more accurate time frame of when the critters where alive.
This intricate network of co-relations has been going on for almost 80 years now, but that's not to say that the absolute age-dating of the stratigraphic column does not get revised periodically.
I'm sure you have no doubts about the accuracy of radioactive age dating? That's pretty fool proof. Carbon dating on the other hand seems pretty tricky.
I was wondering why you had said 'the official story' - are you implying there is a possible conspiracy between multiple scientific branches, to cover something up? Is it all an elaborate plan to keep the story of Noah in the comedy section?