Who is 'Us' ?
- Thread starter MrBishop
- Start date
chcr
Too cute for words
Sorry, but all that water you refer to (quite nearly 3% of the total volume on earth) would only suffice to raise the global water level by about 80 meters. A problem to coastal dwellers (as Noah reputedly was) but hardly a global inundation. An asteroid of sufficient mass to cause a large enough tsunami to inundate the earth would in fact shatter the planet and boil most of the seas and atmosphere into space (never to return). There's heat and then there's heat. Not to mention the fact that a modern steel ship would not be able ride a 1000+ kph tsunami and survive, let alone an overloaded wooden one. 
As I said before, believe what you want but I find the story completely unsupporatable. I find it much more likely that this is a fable garnered from various stories of catastrophic floods that have doubtless occured time and again in the millenia that civilization has existed in the middle east.
BTW, interesting mostly unrelated fact: 80% of the world's ice is contained in the Eastern Antarctic Ice Shelf (and 70% of the worlds fresh water if I remember correctly). Is it the cocktail hour yet?
As I said before, believe what you want but I find the story completely unsupporatable. I find it much more likely that this is a fable garnered from various stories of catastrophic floods that have doubtless occured time and again in the millenia that civilization has existed in the middle east.
BTW, interesting mostly unrelated fact: 80% of the world's ice is contained in the Eastern Antarctic Ice Shelf (and 70% of the worlds fresh water if I remember correctly). Is it the cocktail hour yet?
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
chcr said:
So what you're saying is that such a flood is impossible...interesting...
While you're debating upon things that are impossible, drop a flat rock, not too massive, and a round rock of the same mass, and drop them in a pond. Measure, by guesstimate, the size of each wave.
It's not mass...it's displacement. Now...back to the water...Every continent has found evidence of a large flood, and has stories, which you dismiss as a series. Evidence you dismiss from mass graves of dinosaurs from different areas of the world is quite telling that such floods are possible. There's even a theory that states that the earths surface isn't fixed...it could slip when the poles reverse, which would also cause such a flood, but, there just isn't enough water. It's always cocktail hour somewhere. Help yourself.chcr said:BTW, interesting mostly unrelated fact: 80% of the world's ice is contained in the Eastern Antarctic Ice Shelf (and 70% of the worlds fresh water if I remember correctly). Is it the cocktail hour yet?
chcr
Too cute for words
Sorry, Gato. I really don't have time right now to respond at length. Geologists have completely discredited the evidence that literal bible teachers still quote about the evidence on every continent for a global flood, it simply doesn't exist. I can't quote sources right now, I read most of this in books years ago. I know that various people keep bringing it up, but it is quite simply a gross misinterpretation of sedimentary geology.
chcr
Too cute for words
You are half right. A flat rock and a round one of the same volume however, will always displace the same amount of water (Archimedes principle). At supra-orbital speeds the volume is an insignificant factor. What matters is the mass of the impactor, the speed it is traveling and therefore the energy released. The resulting tsunami (assuming an ocean strike which is always more likely) is not caused by the volume of the impactor in any significant way. The water directly under the impact flashes to steam. What causes the tsunami is the uplifting of the sea floor as the crater forms (almost instantly). A suffciently large impactor or one travelling at a great enough velocity can actually cause a tsunami in the magma. The volume and/or shape of the impactor and even the angle of approach are non-factors. I learned this in college, but I'm certain there are many sources available on the web that will bear me out, this is elementary astrophysics. Well, elementary if you've been exposed to it before.
I'm ashamed that I had to look up the formula.
KE = (mass x velocity2)/2 or 1/2 mv2
chcr said:
Really? It should be as plain as day.
There is evidence for a global flood and there is also a lack of evidence for it. What is so hard for you to understand?
I suggest all who think that a global flood is not possible to read this articlehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/flood12.asp...
chcr
Too cute for words
Sorry, there is but there isn't? Sorry, but that doesn't work in English (or Latin for that matter). It makes no sense. Either there is or there is not. As I say, I'm sure it makes sense to you.
Ahh, "Answers in Genesis." Eminently familiar with the site.
Or more likely they don't exist at all.
The temperature (by direct observation) of the earth at the depth of a few kilometers far exceeds the boiling point of water. Divine intervention???? Once again we fall back on the supernatural.
Sorry but the article doesn't "hold water."
freako104
Well-Known Member
was the pun intended
I think the "proof" was how people back then perceived things. They could have seen it as a flood. In regards to a question you had for me I do not think according to again the History Channel or TLC it wasnt very far from where Noah launched the Boat from. Maybe a few miles at best if I remember correctly
I think the "proof" was how people back then perceived things. They could have seen it as a flood. In regards to a question you had for me I do not think according to again the History Channel or TLC it wasnt very far from where Noah launched the Boat from. Maybe a few miles at best if I remember correctly
Lopan
New Member
Gotholic said:
Consumerist christianity, Your soul saved for a reasonable price.
There's a really good book by Julian Barnes called "History of the world in 10.5 chapters" Its a collection of short stories, many to do with christianity. The first chapter is called the stowaway. The book doesn't rubbish the idea of Noah's ark it just asks some difficult questions. Such as how come we still have termites and woodworm. Also it states that there were 8 ships and noahs children started eating some of the animals (unicorns etc).
I do think you should expand on your sources, try using non christian sites.
chcr said:Sorry, there is but there isn't? Sorry, but that doesn't work in English (or Latin for that matter). It makes no sense. Either there is or there is not. As I say, I'm sure it makes sense to you.
Hmm...How should I explain this to you? Lets use Michael Jackson. Is there evidence that he is a pedophile? Yes, of course there is. For example, the kid and the mother have their own stories which portray him as a pedophile. But is there a lack of evidence that Michael Jackson is a pedophile? I would say yes to that too since the mother's and child's testimony keep changing and are not in harmony.
Of course it must fall back on the supernatural! Did God say to Noah, "I have forseen a global flood coming, so you better get ready"? Of course he didn't. Who or what caused the global flood? God did. It was not 100% natural. If God did not intervene then there would have never of been a global flood...
Lopan said:
That is not what the ads are suggesting at all.
I think that book is only distorting what really happened. What do they base their information off of?
I try to use sources that explain well the Christian view point. There aren't too many sites that support God's involvement without actually believing in Him...
chcr
Too cute for words
And of course no one but christians actually believe in god. Don't you think that's a rather large blind spot to be working from behind?
No, there is evidence that Michael Jackson is a pedophile. There may not be enough evidence to convict. A lack of evidence means there isn't any. To say there is evidence and there is a lack of evidence is nonsense. Do you know any English teachers? Sorry, I don't propose to be one, so let's drop it, shall we
chcr said:
Maybe in your own little world.
No, since many don't ignore the opposing arguments.
Yes, it can mean that. But don't forget it can also mean a deficiency (which means a shortage of something).
lack
1. Deficiency or absence: Lack of funding brought the project to a halt.
2. A particular deficiency or absence: Owing to a lack of supporters, the reforms did not succeed.
I think I have just proven my right usage of the word lack. So yeah, we can drop it...