Noah's flood...again

[Add Homonym]

My SDA bro-in-law reliably informed me, some time ago, that the waters of the heavens, (you know, the ones above the sun and moon and stars) was what caused the flood. This is why when we look up there today, there is no water above the sun. Where did it all go, afterwards? It fell down holes, back into the abyss.

I don't know why anyone needs to get to the ark story to refute Genesis, when it says that there is water above the sun, and the sun was created 4 days after day and night. If the Earth is more than 10,000 years old, then the Genesis story is blown to boggery.

But, seriously, folks; there is evidence of the flood everywhere we look.
- The oceans are wet
- Shit happened, and caused stuff to break
- Flightless birds in New Zealand evolved in under 4 million years  http://creation.com/moas-ark-vs-noahs-ark
- Wood has been found all over the place
- The dinosaurs went extinct
- 900 species of Eucalypts, once a plentiful world species are now constrained to Australia by a fictitious virus
- Australian Aboriginals are black

Evidence of the flood is everywhere. The problem is refuting this evidence in such a way that would convince someone terrified of going to hell, if they stopped believing it.

[whatchamean?]

Looks like Brakeman got to it before me. Koodles to him for saving my time reading that trash source you gave Whatcha.

Georgey the atheist from Berkley saved you. Bwaaaahahahahahaha!!!

[freefromjesus]

*popcorn*
I'm anxiously awaiting the rebuttal now.

[Alzael]

Georgey the atheist from Berkley saved you. Bwaaaahahahahahaha!!!

You could at least pretend that you have something intelligent to say, you realize?

[jetson]

Georgey the atheist from Berkley saved you. Bwaaaahahahahahaha!!!

You could at least pretend that you have something intelligent to say, you realize?

Now...don't set the bar too high...

[curiousgirl]

Why isn't whatchamean debating this with C in the Debate Room?

[Xero-Kill]

Why isn't whatchamean debating this with C in the Debate Room?

Because if he does it that way he has to actually participate in the debate. Doing it this way he can try to cry foul play because all he really wanted was a one-on-one debate but all the mean ol' butthead atheists just wouldn't let it happen. See, now he can feel superior without ever actually participating. It's also a lot harder to dodge the questions when there are only two people posting to the topic.

[C]

 ^^^^^ He hasn't PMed me back on the debate. So I'm pretty sure what you say is true Xero.

[ungod]

My SDA bro-in-law reliably informed me, some time ago, that the waters of the heavens, (you know, the ones above the sun and moon and stars) was what caused the flood. This is why when we look up there today, there is no water above the sun. Where did it all go, afterwards?

[Brakeman]

Looks like Brakeman got to it before me. Koodles to him for saving my time reading that trash source you gave Whatcha.

Georgey the atheist from Berkley saved you. Bwaaaahahahahahaha!!!

Saved us? Saved us from giving credence to a falsehood, yes. Why would you laugh at our discovering that another one of your claims is false and fraudulent. Is lying to us funny now?

[Anfauglir]

Looks like Brakeman got to it before me. Koodles to him for saving my time reading that trash source you gave Whatcha.

Georgey the atheist from Berkley saved you. Bwaaaahahahahahaha!!!

That's the only response you have for this thread?

Why would I dodge such a simple topic?

I have no idea why you would want to dodge.  I can only assume its because you have no answers.

Do you feel you are being the best representative for your god, Whatcha?

[Bad Pear]

Bookmark.

[whatchamean?]

^^^^^ He hasn't PMed me back on the debate. So I'm pretty sure what you say is true Xero.

From a previous post, you implied that you would have used Herberts analysis to refute Hongs findings. By doing this, you have broken our agreement to keep this debate between the two of us, but I feel as though I should cut you a little slack, as I have observed the rampant dishonesty common among atheists and understand that your normal way of living has simply caused you not to know any better. I will therefore permit Herberts findings into this discussion and we will now examine them one point at a time.

Herberts quote
   
0. Editorial comment

This paper was written by people who looked at a naval
architecture text book and did not understand what they
were seeing; it uses terminology from the profession
but not correctly, and does not use the right analysies.
Either the translation was grossly incorrect or the
paper was the work of not particularly attentive undergrad
students, given that the authors were supposedly at the
Korea Research Institute for Ships and Engineering.

This paper was actually written by people who (unlike Herbert) design sea going ships for a living. There may have been some type of error in translation from Korean to English, but since Herbert makes the accusation that the translation ( both terminology and analysis)is "grossly incorrect", yet fails to cite any said negligence with respect to vocabulary, it is therefore left for us to assume that Herbert can only be referring to gross mistakes in analysis. As we go on, it will be demonstrated that Herberts accusations are the result of what He thinks a ship must look like and not the actual tests performed

Rebuttal?

[pingnak]

Genesis 8...
 20And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

 21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

Genesis 9...
 11And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.

 12And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:

 13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

But GOD promised there would never again be a doomsday for all creatures, and then changed fundamental properties of light physics or diffraction through water... to make rainbows possible, to seal the promise he would never wipe everybody out again.

I guess Noah carried some spare critters to do those burnt offerings.

[jetson]

[snip]...but I feel as though I should cut you a little slack, as I have observed the rampant dishonesty common among atheists and understand that your normal way of living has simply caused you not to know any better. I will therefore permit Herberts findings into this discussion and we will now examine them one point at a time.

You have been laid to waste on this forum by these atheists, and you have yet to do anything but pretend like you are in some position of superiority.  I think you should find another forum to bother, your time here has obviously gone to complete waste - unless you enjoy hearing yourself?

I can't disagree about the "rampant dishonesty", but it is clearly not coming from the atheists.

[Add Homonym]

If C wants to pursue this argument in a proper debate, I would advise him that it is actually possible to build a wooden boat and stick a few animals on it.

All a creationist has to do is demonstrate that atheists hold to propositions that are equally absurd, so by the mutual absurd proposition law, the absurdities cancel out, and putting 86million species on an ark is as equally improbable as life self-assembling from amino acids, therefore the story of Noah must be true, as long as there is someone around to support it.

Homoeopathy survives, despite modern double blind trial methodology, and is an example of an absurd proposition that can propagate as long as there are enough believers.

The fact that the story of Noah fails to account for certain problematic things and carries all the hallmarks of a children's bed time story, and that Christians have to invent most of the story to apologise for it, is not relevant. Noah could have happened if you believe hard enough, and invent lots of after-the-fact stories to cover for it.

[ButterFlavoredPam]

You guys do realize the futility of all these arguments, don't you?  The number of animals on the ark, it's structural integrity, height of water, relative calmness of water, food, potable water, etc are all moot points.  In this case we are dealing with instructions given to a mortal man by an omnipotent being.  The list of refutations to your points will actual be larger than the list of objections to the story. 

Structural integrity?  God held the ship together with his will.  The Gopher wood God made available was stronger than steel. 

Number of animals?  They all became tiny upon entering the ark.  The inside of the ark was actually larger than the outside.

etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.

I am not trying to defend the flood story.  I am simply stating the "obvious" when it comes to true believers.  If God said it happened . . . it happened.

In fact, I would argue that looking for or trying to present "proof" of the scientific feasibility of a Bible miracle demonstrates a disturbing lack of faith.  The only response acceptable to any questioning of the Bible is "God said it, so it must be true".  Perhaps you should reexamine your faith watchamean. 

[ParkingPlaces]

F**k the boat, whatcha. That's just a small part of the story. To concentrate one one tiny aspect in hopes of instilling doubt is a total waste of time.

Over the last fifty years I have had several dozen serious discussions re: the ark with various believers. Not only have no two ever told me the same story of what happened (excuses for where the water came from are myriad, how folks survived without plants after things dried out are never discussed, etc.) Personally I wonder where the grapes came from to make wine so Noah could become a drunk, but I'm not actually waiting for an answer, since none exist. Like the boat, f**k the wine too.

To believe the ark story, one has to suspend not only all common sense, but also overly use the imagination. That is not a good combination, unless you're a republican and used to that sort of thing.

The problem we here at WWGHA have with people who believe the ark story is that none of them are willing to pay attention to actual information. All we get are excuses, excuses, excuses every time we ask about why the geologic record shows nothing of a universal flood, explain how fish would have been wiped out by the drastically changed saline situation, or how the rainfall rate would be impossible to survive, no matter how many elephants you had to hide under.

If all christians agreed on the basic story and how it happened (water source, plant life, number of animals, etc) then we could come up with our canned responses to your canned beliefs. But since you guys couldn't agree your way out of a wet paper bag, and since all of you also insist you have it right, we atheists are forced to dig around in the debris of christian mythologies to find some question that adequately pisses you off, on a case-by-case basis.

Customizing your religion and then standing around in disbelief (oh, the irony) that atheists would laugh at your current crop of carefully contrived excuses is entertaining to a point. But you're past that point.

I'm with Jetson. Ban yourself.

[Historicity]

So, what it actually says is that all of the high hills, presumably including Mount Everest, were covered by the flood waters. Mount Everest is about 29,000 feet tall (above sea level.) It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. That amounts to 725 FEET of rain per day, or about 30 FEET of rain per hour. Now, according to Wikipedia:

No, Grogs, Mt. Everest was not there yet.  As it was explained in my confirmation class, the wind that blew the waters away built up the mountains.

No joke.  That's what they said in my church.  At least the teacher of the confirmation class did.

[Add Homonym]

The KJV says "hills". The hebrew actually re-iterates loftiest mountains.

The Jews translate it as

19. And the waters became exceedingly powerful upon the earth, and all the lofty mountains that were under the heavens were covered up.
20. Fifteen cubits above did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered up.

But then, the Jews would translate it in a way that's designed to foil Christians. That's what those lying Jesus killers do.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0107.htm
http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen7.pdf
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/8170

[Add Homonym]

http://translate.google.com/#auto|iw|loftiest%20mountains

In any case; if they can accept that 500m of water flooded the entire Earth, I don't know why their absurdo-meter would suddenly be triggered at 2000m. Obviously, at some point around 852 metres, the story becomes absurd.

[Grogs]

Like the boat, f**k the wine too.

I don't know about you, but if I'm going to be stuck on a boat with my in-laws and thousands of animals for a year or so, I'm going to bring all the wine I can lay my hands on. In fact, that's probably what happened to the dinosaurs - it was either them or the Cabernet.

So, what it actually says is that all of the high hills, presumably including Mount Everest, were covered by the flood waters. Mount Everest is about 29,000 feet tall (above sea level.) It rained for 40 days and 40 nights. That amounts to 725 FEET of rain per day, or about 30 FEET of rain per hour. Now, according to Wikipedia:

No, Grogs, Mt. Everest was not there yet.  As it was explained in my confirmation class, the wind that blew the waters away built up the mountains.

No joke.  That's what they said in my church.  At least the teacher of the confirmation class did.

Well, there's as much evidence for that (i.e., none) as for any other creationist proposition, so I guess that means it's true. 

It doesn't really matter much at the end of the day, though. The verse says that all of the high hills were covered, and later on it makes it clear that the ark landed on the "mountains of Ararat." You have to figure that even in really flat terrain, "high hills" would have to be at least 100 meters or so above the average elevation and "mountains" would have to be at least 500+ meters high. Even if we assume lower elevations, the rainfall levels would still be "extreme+++" for 40 days and nights. And then you would have to explain how all of the mountain ranges on Earth managed to rise thousands of feet in just a few hundred years without releasing enought energy to destroy the Earth in the process.

[Grogs]

^^^^^ He hasn't PMed me back on the debate. So I'm pretty sure what you say is true Xero.

From a previous post, you implied that you would have used Herberts analysis to refute Hongs findings. By doing this, you have broken our agreement to keep this debate between the two of us,

Wait, so you're implying that it's perfectly OK for you to simply paste in a link to an AIG propaganda piece, but how dare he refer to outside sources to rebut what I just cut and pasted in!

[Anfauglir]

....you implied that you would have used Herberts analysis to refute Hongs findings. By doing this, you have broken our agreement to keep this debate between the two of us, but I feel as though I should cut you a little slack, as I have observed the rampant dishonesty common among atheists and understand that your normal way of living has simply caused you not to know any better.......

Bwah hah hah!!!  Oh, Whatcha, what a wonderful double standard!  So in "the debate between the two of you", YOU are allowed to use others to make your points (Hong), but NOBODY ELSE MAY? (Herbert)  I thought that the debate was between you and C....not you and Hong against C?

But its okay....I have observed the rampant dishonesty common among Christians and understand that your Christian way of living has simply caused you to believe that lying and dishonesty is fine if you do it in Christ's name.

I ask you again, Whatcha: do you feel you are being the best representative for your god?

[Add Homonym]

do you feel you are being the best representative for your god?

Who is his god, do we know yet?

[Add Homonym]

Oh, yeah. I think we should give Watcha a break, because he only has God on his side. C has the whole fin internet. How fair is that?

[C]

From a previous post, you implied that you would have used Herberts analysis to refute Hongs findings.

Or I could have used, oh I don't know, any other credible source.

By doing this, you have broken our agreement to keep this debate between the two of us,

What?

but I feel as though I should cut you a little slack,

Mighty kind of you, junior.

as I have observed the rampant dishonesty common among atheists and understand that your normal way of living has simply caused you not to know any better.

Lol.

I will therefore permit Herberts findings into this discussion and we will now examine them one point at a time.

Or this: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20600.0.html

Still waiting for your PM.

This paper was actually written by people who (unlike Herbert) design sea going ships for a living.

For a living? LOL. Please check your own source and Herbert's actual background.

There may have been some type of error in translation from Korean to English,

Um, sure but when you said this:

Atheists believe the size of the ark would have caused it to break apart in the stormy seas, but the Bible never says the waves were raging or even that the water was choppy. The Bible simply says it rained until nobody had a ladder tall enough and they all drowned. The sea upon which the ark floated was as calm as your grandmother on valium

Your source said this:

In this study, the safety of the Ark in the severe environments imposed by the waves and winds during the Genesis Flood was investigated.

Y U AND SOURCE NO AGREE?

Of course, they probably mistranslated that whole part right?

but since Herbert makes the accusation that the translation ( both terminology and analysis)is "grossly incorrect", yet fails to cite any said negligence with respect to vocabulary, it is therefore left for us to assume that Herbert can only be referring to gross mistakes in analysis.

You're fucking kidding right? This was made by the Korean Association of Creation. Do you know how fucking extreme they are? Impossibly more extreme and dishonestly intelligent than American counterparts if that was even possible. Just look at their detailed work!

As we go on, it will be demonstrated that Herberts the entire scientific community's accusations are the result of what He they thinks know a ship must look like and not the actual tests performed

Fixed. Sort of. And, what "actual tests" that involve constructing such a large ship made solely of wood to get it on water after putting animals on it have been performed? Fucking please.

[velkyn]

Just about every major religion in the acenit times had a flood story of some sort. In Europe the Norse, Scandinavian, and the Celtics had the Blood Legends which was the equivalent to the bible flood. The Totonac  in Mexico also used an arch in the same way that the biblical flood did. In North america the Squamish and Pawnee used a canoe but the difference would be the aminal helper but according to them it was the same as the biblical flood. In  East Africa, the Masai also have a tale that is the same as the biblical flood. The Egyptians live in an area were the nile river flooded the plains so to them it was a way of life but to the others it must of devastated them in some way. These are only the ones I can think of off hand.

Now I am not saying that this whole thing is true. I am just stating the facts that something must of happened during their time. whether is was the rising of the oceans from the ice age or a comet who knows but something did happen to make such an impact on their life for them to record this.

  I disagree.  We could also say that somethign must have happened for the Greeks to claim that Hyperion got ahold of his father's chariot and that was based in reality or that Persephone must been abducted by Hades since the Greeks came up with that too to explain seasons.  Stories don't need an event necessarily.


Now, as for whatcha's nonsense, one of his major problems is that other Christians disagree with him!  Shock, I know, but the lovely disputes on what "really" happened with the flood even amongst those that God has chatted with shows how intellectually and morally bankrupt these people are.

[Brakeman]

Well, Whacha could simply ask god to tell him how the Ark was made as he is so close to him. I'm sure he talks with him daily, I wonder why that subject hasn't come up yet? Perhaps god could supply him with some special "seer" stones and a few golden plates. Seems that's what he's into lately..