The flood (again)

[Zzyzx]

.
In a current thread someone said:

Would you like to have a debate on the deluge or Jesus' resurrection?

As people join the Forum they maybe unaware that some topics have been debated many, many times. Perhaps they think they have 'killer arguments' that are compelling.

Question for debate: Was the Earth flooded 'to the tops of mountains' as described in Genesis?

[1213]

...Flooding the Earth to 'the tops of mountains' requires three times as much water as the entire Earth water supply.
...

Maybe today, but, it is because things below the water have been compressed so that the water level is much lower today than it was before. Some claim that for example mountains rise, but it is actually so that the water level is going down, because of the pressure of the water and also because humans pump oil and gas.

In this case I think it is also good to understand how ice in North and South poles have affected to earths form. If they melt, vast pressure is removed and it will be similar as if you would have a rubber ball and press it on opposite sides and then release it (in poles land rises and in the equator land sinks).

[1213]

...If the flood happened as shown in http://www.kolumbus.fi/r.berg/geology.html, that interferes with your theory that mountains cannot be caused because of gravity because things 'down' cannot also go 'up'...

Maybe I misunderstood your argument - correct me if I have...

The way I see it, there is no 'up' and 'down'. There is only 'in' and 'out'.
....

I think in and out is basically the same as up and down in this case.

In the theory I have presented, earth sinks, it doesn’t rise. And earth sinks because of two reasons, one is the pressure of water on top of it in long time and in short time the reason was that the original continents were broken and collapsed/sunk in many parts. You have probably heard of the “earths pillars”, those areas are nowadays probably the modern mountain areas where earth has not sunk as much as in lower areas. Lover areas sunk, because the water below the original continent burst free when the continent was broken and the land sunk in the place where the water formerly was.

[1213]

...You forget the contributing factors, such as sun, moon, planets - and by association, Galaxy...even that most other galaxies are moving away from one another, the are not defying gravity, but rather, responding to gravity, and thus mountains are indeed born.
...

By what I know, gravity is basically the force that causes the weight of objects. And this means, if for example continent would be in some place 20000 feet thick and in other place 5000 feet thick, the thicker would be 4 times heavier and if the force is equal, it should level the whole thing, unless some force counters it. So, if the mountains rise as it is believed, there should be some force that prevents everything to go even level.

“…On Earth, gravity gives weight to physical objects,…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

[Clownboat]

...Gravity is actually a relatively weak force. In spite of the entire Earth's gravity pulling down on a steel bearing, even a small magnet will overcome the force and lift it up. The tectonic plates are floating on magma and are experiencing lateral forces due to convection currents beneath them. When two plates are pushed together by these lateral forces, buckling occurs and the land mass is pushed upwards. Mountains form. Try pushing two pieces of cardboard together on a flat surface. Where they meet the cardboard will buckle upwards.

Interesting opinion. Force that pulls things back to earth is F=gm. This means that the larger the mass of an object is, the greater the force is that is needed to lift the object. And now, if we take for example Himalaya, if the average height of that area is about 5,5 km, it causes force that is about 100 GN/m2. I have not seen anyone presenting what is the credible force that makes it raise, instead of it sinking to earths highly viscous solid mantle and liquid outer core.

I think card board is not good analogy for the matter. Better would be cast concrete that is not yet hardened. Because of gravitational force, concreate tends to level. If gravitational force exists, and tectonic plates are as claimed, they should even out, unless there is some force that is enough counter the mass that is on top of it. And in the case of Himalaya the force would be about 100 GN/m2. I don’t think there is any way for earths inner convection to counter that force. The whole idea of “The tectonic plates are floating on magma and are experiencing lateral forces due to convection currents beneath them” causing mountains is just illogical and shows lack of understanding the forces involved.

I can think of a reason to reject what we know about plate techtonics, and that would be to maintain a belief in ancient tales written by people that didn't have the understanding that we have today.

I say this, because without you having a Bible, the idea of plate techtonics being false would not come up. It would be up there with the rest of known (best we can know at the time) science. It is your ancient religious beliefs that have you at odds with known science. Ancient belief don't affect how the earth works though.

Makes me wonder what other sciences get reject in order to maintian religious beliefs and if any would prove to be dangerous. Blood transfusions come to mind, but I assume there are likely others.

[Zzyzx]

At one-point water covered all dry land. In that time marine animals could swim to those areas and some of them died there and got into the sediments. Eventually the water level begun to decrease, because in deeper areas land got compressed more. This means, land has not risen, but in some areas, it has settled more. The weight of water and sunk material has compressed for example dead organic material so that oil and gas fields were formed.

Where did you learn so much geology?

[bluegreenearth]

I think in and out is basically the same as up and down in this case.

In the theory I have presented, earth sinks, it doesn’t rise. And earth sinks because of two reasons, one is the pressure of water on top of it in long time and in short time the reason was that the original continents were broken and collapsed/sunk in many parts. You have probably heard of the “earths pillars”, those areas are nowadays probably the modern mountain areas where earth has not sunk as much as in lower areas. Lover areas sunk, because the water below the original continent burst free when the continent was broken and the land sunk in the place where the water formerly was.

I'll just place this here in case anyone needs it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... 20ability.

[Tcg]

This subject is addressed fairly often, but I enjoy it because I end up researching details I wouldn't normally. This time I've been studying the history of shipbuilding. While doing this research, it sometimes hits me that I'm researching the possibility of a worldwide flood and the likelihood of an ark carrying enough animals to repopulate the earth after a year long deluge. I can't help but chuckle.

If we return to the text, we find a clear indication the story is mythological:

• Genesis 7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth.

Discussions of the flood often focus on the size of the ark, the number of animals needed, the meaning of "kinds", where the water came from, the height of mountains, etc. As I stated earlier, this can lead to some interesting research, but the thought of a six hundred year old man building an ark should stop us dead in our tracks. Not because he wouldn't be healthy enough, but because he'd be dead.


Tcg

[Tcg]

.
A claim I've encountered in this most recent consideration of the flood is that birds, or at least some of them, would not need to be on the ark. Are we to assume that some birds could fly non-stop for a year? Perhaps as some have suggested there were little islands of debris where birds could rest for a bit. Are we to assume there would be suitable food available on these debris islands?

This line of thinking is promoted in order to reduce the number of animals the ark would need to carry. God of course saw no need for this reduction nor did he imagine birds would not need to be on the ark:

• Genesis 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

If God commanded Noah to take "seven pairs of every kind of bird", why do some of his followers question his judgement?

[JehovahsWitness]

Genesis 7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth

Adam 930 (Genesis 5:5)
Seth 912 (Genesis 5:8)
Enosh 905 (Genesis 5:11)
Kenan 910 (Genesis 5:14)
Mahalalel 895 (Genesis 5:17)
Jared 962 (Genesis 5:20)
Lamech 777 (Genesis 5:21)
Methuselah 969 (Genesis 5:27)
Noah 950 years (Genesis 9:29)

CAN THE BIBLICAL PATRIARCHS REALLY HAVE LIVED AS LONG AS THE BIBLE STATES?



ANSWER Yes, indeed given the design of the human body, the real mystery is why we die at all. Almost every cell in the human body renews itself after specific periods of time*. Indeed the body you have now is essentially not the same body you had 5 years ago. Regardless of how many years we might live whether 8, 80, or even 800 our physical body remains on a cellular level, very young. Indeed it has been estimated that in a year approximately 98 percent of the atoms in us now will be replaced by other atoms that we take in in our air, food, and drink. Based on the design of our physical bodies, it is not obvious why aging should occur at all; If you had a car that replaced every part of its engine and body every 5 years how long would you say the car would last? Clearly the human body was designed to be able to live forever.

* ...neurons do not die out with normal aging. - https://www.sharecare.com/health/health ... ls-die-age

[*] Almost all of your cells die within a few days to a few years, depending on where they are in the body. Your cells are in a constant state of dieing and being replaced by new cells. As a result, very few of the cells in your body now are the exact same cells that you had 20 years ago. According to a study done by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, outer gut cells die after a few days, outer skin cells die after two weeks, red blood cells last four months, liver cells last a year, and bone cells last about a decade.

source: https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/201 ... as-formed/

"We replace the cells lining our intestine once every few days, those lining the urinary bladder once every two months, and our red blood cells once every four months. .. Nature is taking us apart and putting us back together every day." - Jared Diamond, Biologist




THE REAL MYSTERY IS NOT HOW THE PATRIARCHS LIVED SO LONG BUT WHY OUR PRESENT LIFESPAN IS SO SHORT



At a certain point, yet to be fully explained mechanism kicks in and the cells start to renew less efficiently, less often, we call this "aging" ... and this continues until eventually the body ceases to function at all (we call this death). Why the cells do not continue to renew at maximum capacity is the mystery.

It appears that nonsenescence [not aging] was the original state of living things on earth." - Professors Robert M. Sapolsky and Caleb E. Finch

"After performing the miracles that take us from conception to birth and then to sexual maturation and adulthood, nature chose not to devise what would seem to be a more elementary mechanism to simply maintain those miracles forever. This insight has puzzled biogerontologists for decades." - How and Why We Age, Dr. Leonard Hayflick, microbiologist of the Bruce Lyon Memorial Research Laboratory, Oakland, California

CONCLUSION Given the above there is no valid reason not to conclude that our present relatively short lifespan is the "anomally" and the result of some kind of malfunction and that the biblical narrative an accurate reflection of our original state. In any case as yet nobody has been able to prove the bible narrative with regard the lifespan of the patriarchs, false.

JW


RELATED POSTS

How old was Ahaziah when he became king?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 60#p797160

Is there any evidence genes were designed?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 28#p926628

[Tcg]

Genesis 7:6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters came on the earth

Noah 950 years (Genesis 9:29)
Adam 930 (Genesis 5:5)
Seth 912 (Genesis 5:8)
Enosh 905 (Genesis 5:11)
Kenan 910 (Genesis 5:14)
Mahalalel 895 (Genesis 5:17)
Jared 962 (Genesis 5:20)
Lamech 777 (Genesis 5:21)

I'm thrilled that you have documented these other absurd claims presented in Genesis. Those who might have considered the claims in this book reasonable before seeing this list will have more than just the outrageous claims about Noah's long life to reconsider.

Now, shall we return to those estimates you've yet to provide to support this claim:

According to the measurements provided in the bible the ark would have had more than enough room for the animals and sufficient food storage.

Tcg