[analogue SPRINKLES]

I could have sworn they have discovered it 4x already in the last 20 years.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm no scientist, but how could water go 4000m up a mountain and remain a "localized" event. Wouldn't that water have needed to spread out a bit?

I saw on TV that it might have been a massive flood like when a glassier acts as a damn and breaks. Something similar made the grand canyon.

Thing is he wouldn't have had any warning it was coming.

Also I believe the bible mentioned there was shitloads of rain leading to it. Doesn't really matter though, all bullshit.

[hyteckit]

Geez people.

When God cries, it rains. When he really cries like for 40 days and 40 nights, it really pours. The whole world gets flooded.

When he is thirsty, he drinks from the ocean.

Duh!

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I saw on TV that it might have been a massive flood like when a glassier acts as a damn and breaks. Something similar made the grand canyon.

It's largely believed that there was a sizable amount of water damned by a glacier. During a warming period, the glacier melted and the water poured out into the valley adjacent to it.

There was no global flood. This event was recorded by several different civilizations, and it coincides with the biblical account of the flood.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Something similar made the grand canyon

Er, no. Are you thinking Columbia River Gorge?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Er, no. Are you thinking Columbia River Gorge?

Perhaps. whatever the example same dice.

[OldManMac]

Actually, this doesn't disprove anything that Dawkins, Hitchens, or any other atheist/agnostic believes in. All it does is prove that someone may have found something that some would like to immediately use as "proof" for their own particular version of a story that's been around for thousands of years, of which verification is impossible, just like the Bible.

[DrTacoMD]

Oblig:

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I could have sworn they have discovered it 4x already in the last 20 years.

Lot's of people claimed to have seen it over the years. The problem is that the terrain, weather, etc. isn't exactly conducive to bringing down what they've seen from the mountain, so it's still there years later when others go looking (assuming something IS there).

Also, for those who have researched this, it's believed that if an ark (or whatever the structure is) is on the mountain, it's likely broke into pieces over the years with landslides, errosion, etc. There could very well be several different sites where large portions of this structure are located. It's quite possible that different explorers have found several different sections of the ark, if their stories are true.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Actually, this doesn't disprove anything that Dawkins, Hitchens, or any other atheist/agnostic believes in.

Do you actually know what an agnostic is, Karl?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm no scientist, but how could water go 4000m up a mountain and remain a "localized" event. Wouldn't that water have needed to spread out a bit?

Since everywhere seems to have some kind of flood story, maybe Noah had all the animals from the ME. Maybe some other dude had all the animals from Africa and ended up on top of Kilimanjaro. Maybe some other dude had all the animals from Asia and ended up halfway up Everest.

Or maybe the whole story's a prophecy foretelling what was to come. When one compares the dimensions of the ark with those of the Tabernacle we see the number "three" a lot.

[turtle777]

[QUOTE=Paco500;3962368]I'm no scientist, but how could water go 4000m up a mountain and remain a "localized" event. Wouldn't that water have needed to spread out a bit?

LOL, it's funny how people think they can explain things easier by eliminating God.

A "localized" flood up to 4,000m is as much a miracle as a worldwide flood.

-t]

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Do you actually know what an agnostic is, Karl?

Yes, I do. There are varying degrees of agnosticism, so my statement was not incorrect.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

There are varying degrees of agnosticism

How so?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Also I believe the bible mentioned there was shitloads of rain leading to it. Doesn't really matter though, all bullshit.

The most amazing feat the L-rd ever pulled off was to conceal Himself so completely so as to allow some of His creation to believe He does not exist.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, it's funny how people think they can explain things easier by eliminating God.

A "localized" flood up to 4,000m is as much a miracle as a worldwide flood.

-t]

Easier, no. We just like them to make sense. You know, obey the rules of the universe he created.

I guess I should give silent thanks the Bible doesn't take credit for the Pyramids, too, given that we still can't explain how that got done, either.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Easier, no. We just like them to make sense. You know, obey the rules of the universe he created.

The rules ain't what you think they are.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The most amazing feat the L-rd ever pulled off was to conceal Himself so completely so as to allow some of His creation to believe He does not exist.

Odd perspective, I'd think that's the easy part.

Also, are you purposely paraphrasing The Usual Suspects?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The rules ain't what you think they are.

The rules ain't what you think they are, either.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, it's funny how people think they can explain things easier by eliminating God.

LOL, it's funny how religious people explain evidence to the contrary as "testing their faith."

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, it's funny how people think they can explain things easier by eliminating God.

What!? Explaining things with God is far easier than trying to explain something absent an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being.

[Chongo]

Where does one obtain 4800 year old timber to pull off a hoax?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Where does one obtain 4800 year old timber to pull off a hoax?

Good question. However this stuff needs to be independently verified to actually be that old first, right?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I guess I should give silent thanks the Bible doesn't take credit for the Pyramids, too, given that we still can't explain how that got done, either.

Thanks to whom?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Good question. However this stuff needs to be independently verified to actually be that old first, right?

I also read somewhere on the internet that it was 4800, so I think we're good.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Thanks to whom?

Aliens, I think.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Sure, but, Mt. Ararat has an elevation of 16,000 feet and the average ocean depth for the planet is 13,000 feet. To raise the planet's sea level enough to park a boat on Ararat you'd need to at least double the amount of surface water on the planet. I'd be amazed if there were that much water stored in giant underwater caverns.

Which makes me wonder how we ended up with so many different animals after only a few thousand years since the Flood. Especially if there's no such thing as evolution.

Genesis says that the highest peaks were under 15 cubits of water. So quite a lot. However, one theory that I've thought about is that the opening of the deep created new mountain ranges. Some creationists also thing that the flood is what started the separation of the continents from Pangea, which makes sense to me.

Macroevolution perhaps, but even the most staunch creationist can't deny microevolution however, which over time of course leads to variation.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I guess I should give silent thanks the Bible doesn't take credit for the Pyramids, too, given that we still can't explain how that got done, either.

Well, thanks to God's chosen people, the pyramids exist.

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Macroevolution perhaps, but even the most staunch creationist can't deny microevolution however, which over time of course leads to variation.

Yes, and you know what they call "microevolution over time"? Macroevolution.

Of course, there is no scientific difference between micro- and macroevolution -- it's just foolish to think that given enough time, a series of "microevolutions" wouldn't lead to species drifting completely apart from one another.

[Wiskedjak]

It would seem to me that the Flood and Noah's Ark are the clearest proof of the evolutionary process ... unless the Ark was a giant Bag of Holding.

[smacintush]

Finding a boat on a mountain is not evidence of god and it is not evidence of the truth of the story of Noah. It is evidence that there is a boat on a mountain, and that the story in the bible may be a fantastic, heavily embellished misinterpretation of a real event rather than one completely made up of whole cloth.

Big deal.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How so?

Agnostics are those who are fairly certain there is no god. I happen to be what I would call a strong agnostic, in that I can't disprove the existence of god, but I find the whole concept extremely implausible. Other agnostics may not be as sure. An atheist is one who flat out denies that god exists, which is, IMO, most likely true, but I can't prove that, as I don't know. As in everything else, there are varying degrees of belief. I've spent many years reading religious material, including having taught Sunday School at a Lutheran and Episcopalian church, being involved as a youth group leader, and being personal friends with several ministers, and the more I study, the less I believe that god is real, and the more I believe that it is a fantastic story, but has no basis in fact.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

it is a fantastic story, but has no basis in fact.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Some creationists also thing that the flood is what started the separation of the continents from Pangea, which makes sense to me.

You just hit me in the face with a sledgehammer.

How can this possibly make any sense to you? Pangea broke up in phases dating anywhere from 50 to 200 million years ago, as far as anyone can currently tell.

You're either saying that:

1. Humans were around during that time - and capable of some form of communication and/or passing of information to successive generations,

2. Our geological time scale is wrong and Pangea actually broke up 4800 years ago and "continental drift" is more like "continental pinball"

3. Some other effed-up explanation I am failing to grasp.


Your move?

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Agnostics are those who are fairly certain there is no god.

Let me refresh you:

agnostic |agˈnästik|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You just hit me in the face with a sledgehammer.

How can this possibly make any sense to you? Pangea broke up in phases dating anywhere from 50 to 200 million years ago, as far as anyone can currently tell.

Ya, that blew my mind as well ... to the point that I formulate a response because I couldn't decided if he was being sarcastic or not.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You're either saying that:

1. Humans were around during that time - and capable of some form of communication and/or passing of information to successive generations,

2. Our geological time scale is wrong and Pangea actually broke up 4800 years ago and "continental drift" is more like "continental pinball"

3. Some other effed-up explanation I am failing to grasp.

"miracle" is always an "option".

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Lot's of people claimed to have seen it over the years. The problem is that the terrain, weather, etc. isn't exactly conducive to bringing down what they've seen from the mountain, so it's still there years later when others go looking (assuming something IS there).

Also, for those who have researched this, it's believed that if an ark (or whatever the structure is) is on the mountain, it's likely broke into pieces over the years with landslides, errosion, etc. There could very well be several different sites where large portions of this structure are located. It's quite possible that different explorers have found several different sections of the ark, if their stories are true.

Oh whatever. Unless they find a boat with Noah's licence plate on it that still makes it next to impossible to prove against any other mountain boat.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

2. Our geological time scale is wrong and Pangea actually broke up 4800 years ago and "continental drift" is more like "continental pinball"

Yes, that's what I think. With a catastrophic event like the flood, why couldn't the continents separate during the timespan of a few days?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

Of course, there is no scientific difference between micro- and macroevolution -- it's just foolish to think that given enough time, a series of "microevolutions" wouldn't lead to species drifting completely apart from one another.

There is a huge scientific difference between micro and macroevolution. One can be done (and is commonly) in a lab. One can't.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You just hit me in the face with a sledgehammer.

How can this possibly make any sense to you? Pangea broke up in phases dating anywhere from 50 to 200 million years ago, as far as anyone can currently tell.

You're either saying that:

1. Humans were around during that time - and capable of some form of communication and/or passing of information to successive generations,

2. Our geological time scale is wrong and Pangea actually broke up 4800 years ago and "continental drift" is more like "continental pinball"

3. Some other effed-up explanation I am failing to grasp.

Your move?

I'll have a go. And it'll be option 3.

The actual facts of the matter are that in the weird and wonderful world of reality, both evolution and creation could have happened. Yes, that's right - the earth can simultaneously be 6,000 and zillions of years old.

Strange, no?

No, I can't explain the mechanisms to you. But you can start with Schrödinger.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Yes, that's what I think. With a catastrophic event like the flood, why couldn't the continents separate during the timespan of a few days?

A basic understanding of newtonian physics would tell you that is next to impossible, never mind a global flood would have little baring on continental drift. Also, the Law of Radioactive Decay makes it impossible for the world to have been created only 6000 years ago.

[imitchellg5]

I admit I am by no means a scientist, but it make sense to me that if a bunch of water is suddenly coming up from underneath the ground, that the one big continent would separate into multiple smaller continents due to the force of water. Is that really too crazy?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

A basic understanding of newtonian physics would tell you that is next to impossible, never mind a global flood would have little baring on continental drift. Also, the Law of Radioactive Decay makes it impossible for the world to have been created only 6000 years ago.

A basic understanding of high-end theoretical physics would tell you that nothing is impossible.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I admit I am by no means a scientist, but it make sense to me that if a bunch of water is suddenly coming up from underneath the ground, that the one big continent would separate into multiple smaller continents due to the force of water. Is that really too crazy?

Here's what scientists and engineers call a sanity test: even more water travels through straights like the straights of Magellan and the Bering straight, and the Panama canal, yet these amounts of water don't push the continents apart at a pace that approaches halfway around the world in just 6000 years. Does that answer your question?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Is that really too crazy?

Err... the tectonic plates don't float on top of water. Below the crust is the mantle. You sound like Hank Johnson worried that too many troops on Guam would make the island tip over.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

A basic understanding of high-end theoretical physics would tell you that nothing is impossible.

I said next to impossible In any event, the mantle makes up nearly 85% of our planet's total volume, there isn't enough water on this entire planet to split up tectonic plates.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Let me refresh you:

Let me refresh you; that is just one broad definition, which is not the most commonly used one in thinking of an agnostic.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Err... the tectonic plates don't float on top of water. Below the crust is the mantle. You sound like Hank Johnson worried that too many troops on Guam would make the island tip over.

And in between layers of the crust is water. Or on top of the crust. I know this much.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Here's what scientists and engineers call a sanity test: even more water travels through straights like the straights of Magellan and the Bering straight, and the Panama canal, yet these amounts of water don't push the continents apart at a pace that approaches halfway around the world in just 6000 years. Does that answer your question?

More than enough water travels between those to cover the highest mountains in 15 cubits of water?

All I was doing was bringing a popular theory to the foreground, it's not my own intellectual property.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Or on top of the crust.

Yes they are called oceans, lakes, rivers and so on.