[re:" the planet does not hold enough water to cover the entire planet". ]
You may be incorrect in your assessment. Remember that way back when there were 1) far less living creatures, who as you should realize are made up of mostly WATER. 2) probably more ICE (i.e, 'frozen water') than there is today, and 3) a flatter earth (fewer high mountains back then than we have today); therefore, you'd need less water to cover the surface of the earth in Noah's time than today (reason 3), and there was more water available to do the job (reasons 1 and 2). Why couldn't the Biblical Flood have happened EXACTLY the way the Bible says it did, given the amount of water that was available ~ 6000 years ago (which is significantly different from today's amount)?
49 comments
water is not compressible. if it took up that much space then it would take up that much space now. water also does not disappear into thin air short of divine intervention. if you believe it was divine intervention, then please recognize that there is no objective evidence for it and argue divine intervention rather than making up gobbledygook.
You think the water has since evaporated into space or something?
If it was on the planet then there's a good chance it's on the planet now. So why is there no longer enough water to cover the earth?
Also, how the crap did you come to the conclusion that the earth was flatter back then? Something from the bible, I'm guessing...?
Even if a "global flood" was recorded by other cultures, it is most likely those flood stories do not refer a single, universal flood. At the time the biblical story came into being, the goatherder's definition of the "world" was pretty small, so it is most likely the story refers to an especially large flood that merely encompassed the world as they knew it, which wouldn't take all that much of the world's water.
A catastrophic flood could happen, one that a primitive tribe with little knowledge of the world outside their own wanderings could perceive as the entire world being inundated. But the entire planet (of which they had no real concept)? Absurd and not physically possible.
Yes, a completely flat surface would be completely covered in water.
But that would NOT be six thousand years ago. More like six million.
@Freboy: more like six hundred million years ago, if that recent. The world has been at times completely covered in water because there were no mountains, canyons, or other diverse land formations. Such diverse land formations, however, are specifically mentioned in the Bible so there's no plausible explanation for a global flood.
Also, I like how in the second argument you subtly concede that global warming is true (less ice today), but fail to recognize that large masses of ice are bouyant enough that they don't displace as much water as they contain due to large portions being above water. Obviously, without the ice you'd be a miniscule step closer to your global flood wet dream.
Basically, because if such a thing had happened, geologist would have it known by now. And by the way, the water you talk about in the first statement is synthesise in the cells, it has nothing to do with the water of the oceans or the rivers. And the Earth has been the same shape ALWAYS.
1. Prove it muppet boy...
AND you have no idea how much water you would STILL need.
I have a solution...
Would you like to meet the lions? Here! Wear this suit made of meat!
Water doesn't vanish anywhere, it changes places and forms, but it can't vanish off from this planet due to our atmosphere, dumbass
So if there were no mountains 4,500 years ago, how come llamas have specially modified hemoglobin for living at high altitudes? Did the Flood modify their hemoglobin, too?
Conservation of Mass
Aside from that, if the polar ice caps were to melt, sea level would only go up about 100-200 feet, andit surely wouldn't thaw and refreeze in 40 days.
From the USGS page on the water cycle:
DISCLAIMER: I am quite spectacularly bad at maths and science, so I make no apologies for the fact that the following may turn out to be utter swill, but according to my extremely rigorous calculations (my equipment was the Vista calculator) and some entirely reputable sources (Xbox 360 forum) all the water held in all the earth's population now isn't even a quarter of what's in the ocean. So if Shawn is suggesting that the flood water was absorbed by water-dependant life forms filling the planet after the flood, then it doesn't work.
I know you didn't need maths to tell you that, but there you go.
So, there was all this water to get rid of before Noah and his family could get off the ark. God had this brilliant idea that he could, over the next five thousand years, gradually get rid of the water by putting it into living creatures.
Face it, Bub, if that's where the water went they'd still be waiting to get off the ark and those new living creatures wouldn't have any dry land to live on.
Mattural Selection
#439908
2008-Feb-21 05:00 AM
"You may be incorrect in your assessment."
No, he isn't.
Surely a global flood would have been recorded by every civilization on the planet. It wasn't
They couldn't be. Supposedly, Noah and his wife and a few other people were on the ark. So, by the bible, we are brothers and sisters and with no different civilizations because the flood killed everyone.
"all the water held in all the earth's population now isn't even a quarter of what's in the ocean"
Septic sceptic, master of understatment...
"1) far less living creatures, who as you should realize are made up of mostly WATER."
less humans maybe, all creatures...no
thanks for giving me an example of what ice is buddy, also you probably forgot that ice is less dense than water (i.e, 'it floats') so if there was more ice that would mean the water from that ice would take less space
god damnit why am i even trying
"3) a flatter earth (fewer high mountains back then than we have today)"
nope
He's better than Hovind, This almost sounds reasonable at first read. Points for "all the living creatures have used up that water" theory, never heard that one before.
It's total bullshit but nice try
I thought at first that this moron having to clarify that 'ice' is 'frozen water' was rediculous. Then I remembered that we had a post a few weeks back where some moron was arguing for creationism, and thought that there was a big enough difference between ice and frozen water to matter. Still, this post is stupid.
"Why couldn't the Biblical Flood have happened EXACTLY the way the Bible says it did"
It's not up to US to prove it DIDN'T happen exactly as you claim, it's up to YOU to prove it DID. YOUR claim, YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.
Show us the EVIDENCE. You just asking "why couldn't it" isn't evidence. Pointing to your buybull isn't evidence,
I'd say that it's your assessments that are incorrect, buddy.
Why? Because no other civilization speaks of a global flood at about that time; they just keept on living their normal everyday lives with no mention of that much rain or floodings. Plus, you still haven't produced any valid evidence that there was more water around then. That's why.
My absolutely correct assessment is that Shawn is a fucking idiot without a single clue on what he is yapping about.
The Flood simply could not have happened, least of all 6000 years ago, which in cosmic terms is much less than the blinking of an eye.
Do the math. Better yet, have someone competent do the math for you. You need to know how high Mt. Ararat is how much water it would take, how much humidity on the environment it would take, and how high the atmospheric pressure would be under those conditions. THEN you need to explain how the Chinese and the Egyptians, both of whom had written language at the time, still failed to notice that they were under water. Good luck.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
