Re: The nonscience of Noah's Ark: Creation society considers the

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 14:30:04 -0500, "[M]adman" <adman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:

Caranx latus wrote:
On Jun 8, 2:10 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jim Willemin wrote:
"[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:KUUWl.7814$he4.4611@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Jim Willemin wrote:
"[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:v1BWl.52139$19.19061@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Jim Willemin wrote:
<snip>

Well, if it's science then the question of 'where's the water?'
is valid, and that is a killer. There is no way amenable to
science to get rid of all that water within a few thousand
years, let alone a year or two. There is also the problem of
fish, and corals, and everything else. If they want to call
floodology science, by all means, let's discuss it - by the
rules of science. That is a dumb move... but then, nobody in the
Frederick Creation Society cares - just as nobody in the
Frederick Creation Society knows diddly-squat about geology, or
biology, or physics...

Wrong... Wrong... wrong

Look at the oceans with Google earth. Imagine (if you can) water
being only in the deep dark blue areas; and not very deep in
those areas at that. See all of those possible land bridges? You
can almost walk around the earth. Even to Hawaii.

Do you know *why* the mean depth of the ocean floor is about four
kilometers lower than the mean continental elevation? There is a
real, physical reason for that which has nothing to do with the
water filling the oceans. If there was no water in the oceans at
all (like Mars) the Earth's surface would still have continents
and deep abyssal plains. (Hint: the reason has to do with the
chemical composition of oceanic and continental crust.) Thus the
idea of uniformly shallow seas in the pre-Diluvean world is
inconsistent both with the facts of chemistry and physics and
with Genesis itself (e.g. Gen 1:9).

You left out verse 10

"God called the dry land Earth, and the accumulated waters He
called Seas."

He did not call them "Oceans". There is quite a size difference
between a sea and an ocean

Do you honestly think that the writers of Genesis knew the
difference? In fact, is there a word for 'ocean' that is different
than the word for 'sea' in Akkadian or ancient Hebrew? This is the
lamest response I think I have ever seen. Further, we note with
interest that you ignore the factual points I raised about the real
reasons we have ocean basins.

Hebrew words for "sea" and "ocean"

tehôm = the primaeval ocean

yam = sea

http://www.kreuzer-siegfried.de/hilfsmittel/hebr-500-engl.pdf

Any questions?





Now imagine an earth with a water
vapor canopy as well as water much under the ground.

If you want to play by science's rules, then you gotta deal with
the consequences of a 'vapor canopy' - absurdly high atmospheric
pressure, absurdly high surface temperature, total darkness at the
surface, etc. You also gotta figure out a way to support this
'vapor canopy' for a few thousand years (from Gen.1:6 to Gen.
7:11).

You would NOT have total darkness, there would be a dimmer light
however. You would have higher atmospheric pressure as well as a
higher oxygen content.

If you want to discuss the flood scientifically, you need to play by
the rules of science. Why would you have a higher oxygen content?

You forgot to address this question, [L]unatic. It's clear enough that
a 'vapor canopy' (assuming for sake of argument that such a thing is
possible) would result in a higher atmospheric pressure. Why does it
necessarily result in a higher oxygen content?


Did you bother to read the link below fish?

<QUOTE>
"The Paleozoic period, about 300 million years ago, was a time of
huge and abundant plant life and rather large insects -- dragonflies had
two-and-a-half-foot wing spans, for example. The air's oxygen content was
35% during this period, compared to the 21% we breathe now, Kaiser said.
Researchers have speculated that the higher oxygen concentration allowed
insects to grow much bigger. "

http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news/Giant-insects-might-reign-if...

Bigger plants make more oxygen

No. If fact the higher O2 content was most likely down to the warm
shallow oceans that covered the Earth of that time. Most of the land
masses were group into Gondwanaland which was around the South Pole at
the time.

Even today our oceans are far more important to the O2 levels than
land plants.


Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-

That 3.5% actually means 25%...

That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...

That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...

That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...

To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...

To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...

That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]

And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...

That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.


Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.

--
Bob.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading