Fact is the highest mountains in the world were probably caused by plate tectonics and weren't in existence before plates crashed into each other, whenever that happened.I Wear Pants wrote: There were other mountains and the oceans were in different places. The entire elevation of the earth wasn't lower.
Dude, plate tectonics isn't one event. There have been several times that plates crashed into each other. India crashing into Asia isn't the first time mountains have been made by a convergent boundary with continental plates.jmog wrote:Fact is the highest mountains in the world were probably caused by plate tectonics and weren't in existence before plates crashed into each other, whenever that happened.I Wear Pants wrote: There were other mountains and the oceans were in different places. The entire elevation of the earth wasn't lower.
Who said the entire elevation of the Earth was lower? Are you just making stuff up?
Where did I say it was one event? Also, while evidence/models can predict plate tectonics back to "pangea", its pure speculation that plate tectonics is a reoccuring cycle (aka there are some geologists that believe there have been multiple times that all the land was in one area).I Wear Pants wrote:
Dude, plate tectonics isn't one event. There have been several times that plates crashed into each other. India crashing into Asia isn't the first time mountains have been made by a convergent boundary with continental plates.
.
The tallest mountains did not exist?jmog wrote:1. I've already talked about how most likely the tallest mountains diddn't exist.I Wear Pants wrote:
The flood is impossible by fact. There is not the amount of water in the world to cover the earth.
2. Why is it that some people believe the world oceans will rise by like 20 feet if the ice caps keep melting, meaning world wide floods, but when you include that water, the underground water, and all of the water in the atmosphere (clouds, etc) all the sudden the same person says its impossible?
3. You say its impossible by fact, so show me how you know there isn't enough water in the world to cover it?
There are other ways to attack the nonsense of the flood myth.I Wear Pants wrote:The flood is impossible by fact. There is not the amount of water in the world to cover the earth.jmog wrote:Impossible by your opinion, not impossible by scientific fact.I Wear Pants wrote:
But the fucking flood is still impossible. How's that dude explain that?
The difference there is huge.
Read some of his stuff, its quite intriguing even for a non-believer if you enjoy scientific papers.
1. Its pure conjecture that plate tectonics "started" prior to pangea, no proof whatsoever, and no evidence either to be honest.I Wear Pants wrote: The continents have been moved all over the place. Just look at all the evidence there is from the various ice ages in places that we wouldn't think possible today.
You really think that plate tectonics all of the sudden started with Pangea?
How does it fit your posts. You said and I'm paraphrasing "it wouldn't have had to cover as high as Everest because it wouldn't have been formed/wouldn't have been as tall". That's incredibly short sighted because while yes, Everest may not have been as tall there would also have been other mountains that would have been taller than they are now.
1. Yes, plate tectonic models, whether you believe the catastrophic model I mentioned above or the long time period ones show that the tallest mountains would not have existed when "pangea" was around. I'm not saying that, the science is saying that.BCSbunk wrote:
The tallest mountains did not exist?
What are you talking about? Are you saying those mountains moved thousands of feet in a few thousand years?
When you make a claim you need to have evidence to back it up that is not refuted by tons of other evidence that contradicts what you have to offer.
First off the flood is impossible. The only possible answer you have to retreat too is "god works in mysterious ways" non-answer nonsense.
A wooden boat of the dimensions in the bible is not seaworthy.
The longest wooden vessels today are 300 ft long and they require iron banding to make them seaworthy.
The ark was 450 ft long it would not be seaworthy and it gives the dimensions and step by step how it was built. It would not last with the turbulent waters in a world wide flood.
The Flood is indeed impossible. That is just the beginning of the flaws in that ridiculous myth.
I do wonder sometimes if people had to dispute the leftovers of the Greek religion when they told people Perseus flew around on a Pegasus
1. You assume the animals came in 1 by one.BCSbunk wrote:
There are other ways to attack the nonsense of the flood myth.
How was the Ark loaded?
Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark, one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.
They squeal about "kinds" but fail to provide a clear definition of kind and then cannot explain why kinds evolved into everything we have today.
It is a ridiculous myth same as Norse and Greek mythology. It deserves the same amount of seriousness applied to it.
You have to realize there are two different forms of what most people just call "evolution".I Wear Pants wrote: And the same people who argue for a young earth tend to also argue against evolution so...
You're answers are terrible and the flood did not happen. There is no microevolution that is bullshit term not used in science.jmog wrote:1. You assume the animals came in 1 by one.BCSbunk wrote:
There are other ways to attack the nonsense of the flood myth.
How was the Ark loaded?
Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark, one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.
They squeal about "kinds" but fail to provide a clear definition of kind and then cannot explain why kinds evolved into everything we have today.
It is a ridiculous myth same as Norse and Greek mythology. It deserves the same amount of seriousness applied to it.
2. I've gave a quite clear definition of what most Christian scientists view "kinds" as (mostly genus, maybe even family).
3. I've also talked about microevolution, which basically every Christian scientist accepts as fact. For instance, you only need 1 type of canine on the ark, over thousands of years through adaptation/microevolution it can/will change into all the species of dogs we have now. It just won't macroevolve into a cat/ape/human or whatever.
Notice the ark is under mythological ships where it belongs.jmog wrote:1. Yes, plate tectonic models, whether you believe the catastrophic model I mentioned above or the long time period ones show that the tallest mountains would not have existed when "pangea" was around. I'm not saying that, the science is saying that.BCSbunk wrote:
The tallest mountains did not exist?
What are you talking about? Are you saying those mountains moved thousands of feet in a few thousand years?
When you make a claim you need to have evidence to back it up that is not refuted by tons of other evidence that contradicts what you have to offer.
First off the flood is impossible. The only possible answer you have to retreat too is "god works in mysterious ways" non-answer nonsense.
A wooden boat of the dimensions in the bible is not seaworthy.
The longest wooden vessels today are 300 ft long and they require iron banding to make them seaworthy.
The ark was 450 ft long it would not be seaworthy and it gives the dimensions and step by step how it was built. It would not last with the turbulent waters in a world wide flood.
The Flood is indeed impossible. That is just the beginning of the flaws in that ridiculous myth.
I do wonder sometimes if people had to dispute the leftovers of the Greek religion when they told people Perseus flew around on a Pegasus
2. Show me how the flood is impossible, I've shown through a few different calculations and models that its at least possible.
3. You are false, please show me evidence that a wooden boat with the dimensions of the ark would not be sea worthy. This has been studied many times in the past and its exactly the opposite. Its not only sea worthy but "self righting" in case of any near/tipping. The only thing the ark did not have is a stearing mechanism, which it didn't need.
4. You state only opinion on whether it would be seaworthy, matter of fact century old texts share that opinion (300ft) but even in those ship building texts they admit its only a guess. Matter of fact the biggest reason today that most believe 300ft is the max for a wood ship is due to engine vibrations and longevity of use (20+ years out of a ship). Well, Noah's ark had no engine, and only had to last just over a year.
I'm sure you won't like it since its from a website you'll hate, but you can't deny the physics/engineering it used to determine if the Biblical dimensions given a woden vessel would be seaworthy.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp
psst they also used to argue for a flat earth.I Wear Pants wrote: And the same people who argue for a young earth tend to also argue against evolution so...
Why are you such a fucking douchebag? I really don't believe the ark actually happened but to call someone's religion nonsense, pathetic, terrible, and ignorant is well... ignorant on your part.BCSbunk wrote:Notice the ark is under mythological ships where it belongs.jmog wrote:1. Yes, plate tectonic models, whether you believe the catastrophic model I mentioned above or the long time period ones show that the tallest mountains would not have existed when "pangea" was around. I'm not saying that, the science is saying that.BCSbunk wrote:
The tallest mountains did not exist?
What are you talking about? Are you saying those mountains moved thousands of feet in a few thousand years?
When you make a claim you need to have evidence to back it up that is not refuted by tons of other evidence that contradicts what you have to offer.
First off the flood is impossible. The only possible answer you have to retreat too is "god works in mysterious ways" non-answer nonsense.
A wooden boat of the dimensions in the bible is not seaworthy.
The longest wooden vessels today are 300 ft long and they require iron banding to make them seaworthy.
The ark was 450 ft long it would not be seaworthy and it gives the dimensions and step by step how it was built. It would not last with the turbulent waters in a world wide flood.
The Flood is indeed impossible. That is just the beginning of the flaws in that ridiculous myth.
I do wonder sometimes if people had to dispute the leftovers of the Greek religion when they told people Perseus flew around on a Pegasus
2. Show me how the flood is impossible, I've shown through a few different calculations and models that its at least possible.
3. You are false, please show me evidence that a wooden boat with the dimensions of the ark would not be sea worthy. This has been studied many times in the past and its exactly the opposite. Its not only sea worthy but "self righting" in case of any near/tipping. The only thing the ark did not have is a stearing mechanism, which it didn't need.
4. You state only opinion on whether it would be seaworthy, matter of fact century old texts share that opinion (300ft) but even in those ship building texts they admit its only a guess. Matter of fact the biggest reason today that most believe 300ft is the max for a wood ship is due to engine vibrations and longevity of use (20+ years out of a ship). Well, Noah's ark had no engine, and only had to last just over a year.
I'm sure you won't like it since its from a website you'll hate, but you can't deny the physics/engineering it used to determine if the Biblical dimensions given a woden vessel would be seaworthy.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/noah.asp
Wrong as usual for the liars for Jesus.
Your answers are pathetic and terrible.
No wooden sea vessel over 300 ft does not have iron bands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships
Are you ignorant on purpose?
There is no 450 ft long wooden ship..... it will not be sea worthy LMAO.
Anything over 300 ft had to have the water pumped out.
Please stop deluding the minds of children with your nonsense.
The ships over 300 fit needed iron to reinforce them and they still had problems.
NO ship 450 ft made of wood is seaworthy it is yet another bible lie.
I don't argue for young earth. The bible also states that the earth is round not flat.BCSbunk wrote:psst they also used to argue for a flat earth.I Wear Pants wrote: And the same people who argue for a young earth tend to also argue against evolution so...
That is a lie. Please list your verses and I will list mine.majorspark wrote:I don't argue for young earth. The bible also states that the earth is round not flat.BCSbunk wrote:psst they also used to argue for a flat earth.I Wear Pants wrote: And the same people who argue for a young earth tend to also argue against evolution so...
Isaiah 40:22BCSbunk wrote: That is a lie. Please list your verses and I will list mine.
The four corners of the earth are North, South, East, and West. If you take a sphere and draw two perpendicular lines through its center you get four points. Those four basic points are part of a sphere's definition.BCSbunk wrote: The bible says there are corners and ends of the earth referring to a flat earth.
Just ignore the information put in front of you, ad hominem attacks are usually GREAT in logic/debates.BCSbunk wrote:
You're answers are terrible and the flood did not happen. There is no microevolution that is bullshit term not used in science.
No way did Noah load a boat with that many species in 7 days it is laughable.
The Ark is not seaworthy PERIOD it is a physical fact.
Just gather your crowds dollars and prove science wrong. A wooden vessel 450 ft long is not seaworthy LMAO.
Did you actually look at the science or you just didn't want to let your opinion be clouded?BCSbunk wrote:
Notice the ark is under mythological ships where it belongs.
Wrong as usual for the liars for Jesus.
Your answers are pathetic and terrible.
No wooden sea vessel over 300 ft does not have iron bands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_largest_wooden_ships
Are you ignorant on purpose?
There is no 450 ft long wooden ship..... it will not be sea worthy LMAO.
Anything over 300 ft had to have the water pumped out.
Please stop deluding the minds of children with your nonsense.
The ships over 300 fit needed iron to reinforce them and they still had problems.
NO ship 450 ft made of wood is seaworthy it is yet another bible lie.
Anyone who has ever read their Bible thoroughly, never though the Earth was flat...BCSbunk wrote:psst they also used to argue for a flat earth.I Wear Pants wrote: And the same people who argue for a young earth tend to also argue against evolution so...
Circle does not equal sphere.jmog wrote:Anyone who has ever read their Bible thoroughly, never though the Earth was flat...BCSbunk wrote:psst they also used to argue for a flat earth.I Wear Pants wrote: And the same people who argue for a young earth tend to also argue against evolution so...
Isaiah 40:22
22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
So, hundreds or thousands of years before even scientists knew the Earth was round, the Bible said it was...interesting?
