Existence of Noah's Ark

I'm not saying it would be on that mountain afterwards.
The bible could be wrong in its translation of that event.
But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, and the moral of the story cannot be taught.

I can't point it out his mistake, becasue he makess an obviously valid point. LOTS of the ocean is shallow. What's wrong with that?He's cursing because he doesn't understand why you're mssing such a simple point, I don't understand either. But I haven't been trying to explain it for as long, so currently I'm calm.I think maybe answering Nosy Ned's post #112 would help this discussion immensely.This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 09-29-2004 10:38 PM

Well, when a large lake drains because of a dam break (the Johnstown flood, as brought up by Schrafinator), it takes a few hours. That's a lake, which is a higher concentration of water than any possible rainstorm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by riVeRraT

​

Side note, is this webpage an indication that the ark may not be on the mountain, or the translation is messed up?

---

quote:

---

Genesis 8:4

​

And rested the Ark . . . upon the mountains of Ararat.

---

על הָרֵי אררט (al harai Ararat) = "upon the mountains of Ararat" הָרֵי (harai) is in the plural construct form = "mountains of . . ."If a single mountain were meant, the singular construct הַר would be used. Which, in this case, is identical with the singular absolute, i.e. simply "har".Thus, the verse says that the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat, indicating a region rather than a particular mountain.Amlodhi

quote:

---

Originally posted by riVeRraT

​

I'm not saying it would be on that mountain afterwards.
The bible could be wrong in its translation of that event.

---

The problem here is that the bible wouldn't be "wrong in its translation", it would just be wrong. And as Ned has so eloquently pointed out, if you have to re-write the story in an attempt to prove it, what's the point?Amlodhi

Isn't that obvious?
It didn't rain enough.It drained out based on the anmount of rain that took place. Over a certain area too, not the entire US. I'm not sure of the amount, but I would guess that it wasn't much more than 10-12 inches over spots, and 4-6 over others. Thats total rainfall over a day or so.I'm saying 4" PER HOUR FOR FORTY DAYS. THAS 96" OF RAIN A DAY. 8'.

If the polar caps melt, how much does the ocean rise?

I did answer this last night.Yes, you are 100% correct. I am only trying to prove that the earth can be flooded with the amount of water on it, while it is still raining.Of course the water is going to dry up in a matter of days. Thats so obvious, I really didn't think I needed to point that out.After all I do have a IQ of 129 But if it rained like that, where would the ark be, and how would his story go?

Maybe I am missing something here, but on that web page it says:Ararat is the resting place of Noah's ark is based on a misreading of Gen. 8.4,Misreading?
Plus the original language is lost, so the translation could be wrong???It is also a separate issue.

I don't know, why do we re-write history books all the time?
To get the correct story maybe, that makes sense, provided it really happened. Then we can learn from it, what not to do to piss God off.Just because a story is written wrong, doesn't mean it didn't happen.I am also not trying to prove the bible right or wrong here, just that the earth can be flooded in forty days of rain. Then supside immediatly (well almost)

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

If it rained like I said it would, the ark would be washed out to see.

---

Non sequitur.The question is not where the ark would be. The question is whether there is a way to keep a shell of water suspended above the land when there isn't enough water to cover land in the first place.

quote:

---

Only trying to prove that the earth can be flooded with the water thats here already.

---

Did you try the experiment I asked you to try? Get an object, any object just so long as it won't float. Put it in the bathtub and fill the tub up until the object is halfway submerged.Now, using only the water in the tub and without moving or dismantling the object, get the object completely submerged so that it remains completely submerged for 20 minutes without any apparatus in the tub except the object. You are free to agitate and manipulate the water any way you like (except for freezing), but when you are done, everything comes out of the tub and we let it sit for 20 minutes and see if it's still submerged.You will note that I have not specified the size of the object. It can be as tiny or as large as you like. The only requirement is that it is submerged only about halfway.Did you try the experiment where you take a bucket that does float, put it in the tub so that it is submerged about halfway, draw a line at the waterline where the water comes up, and then fill up the bucket to overflowing using only the water from the tub? Did you notice that the water is now below the waterline you marked even though you have cause a flood inside the bucket? Did you notice that the outside of the bucket is still dry and, in fact, has seen an increase in dry land due to the removal of water from the outside of the bucket in order to put it inside?Did you? Did you try?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

riVeRraT responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What is pushing down on the ocean to cause the water levels to overflow onto the dry land?

---

​

Where the heck do you get pushing the oceans down from?

---

Because there's no way to meteorologically raise that amount of water above Mt. Everest. And with no divine bucket to carry the water up that high, the only thing left is to push down on the water in the center of the oceans in order to have it rise in other places.Remember: The challenge is not simply to get the water above Mt. Everest. You have to keep it there. For five months.Water flows.

quote:

---

How is that logical.

---

It isn't.But then again, it's your argument.

quote:

---

If I say its rain that would cause the flood, the water has to come from somewhere.

---

That's my question to you.

quote:

---

The ocean.

---

But it immediately returns to the ocean. What is keeping it on land?You keep thinking this is a question of physics but it's a question of topography.

quote:

---

So if we displace all that water, we were talking about how much the oceans would drop.

---

But as soon as you let the water go, it returns to the oceans. What is keeping the water on the land? You've got to keep it there for five months without any process recycling the water.Did you try the experiment I suggested to you?

quote:

---

Apparently some people think they would have to drop much more than they actually would.

---

You will note that I have not said a word about how far the oceans would need to drop. It's irrelevant. I handily agree that there is enough water on the earth to create a lining of water over the entire earth. Heck, if you could condense all the water out of the atmosphere, you could create a film of water over the entire earth to a depth of an inch....but you can't keep it there. As soon as you let gravity kick in, all that water flows to the ocean and leaves dry land in its wake.The problem is not getting the water to the land. It is keeping it there.That's why it's a question of topograhy, not physics.Did you try the experiment I suggested?

quote:

---

You on the other hand, with all your logic, think that I am saying that the oceans are pushed down.

---

That's your argument, after all. What is keeping the water level down by seven feet? Go right ahead and take seven feet of water out of the ocean.How do you plan to keep it out of the ocean for five months?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Lost.

It would help if you actually read the entire thread, and all the threads that it refers to. This is why I do not waste my time with you.However if you need some help finding salvation, I am here for you.
I still love you.

buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The only way to flood a planet that has significant dry land is to add water from outside the planet.

---

​

If the planet's surface were relatively level

---

But it isn't. Mt. Everest is five miles tall, has been that tall for quite some time, and will remain that tall long after we are gone assuming nothing blows it up.If the planet's surface were relatively level, the earth would be flooded twice a day as the tides covered it over. Since that doesn't happen, then it is apparent to all but the most casual observer that it is topologically impossible to cover the earth with water.To do that, you need to add water above sea level. But all the water we have is at sea level or below. Any water we take from the oceans will immediately flow back to the oceans. You can certain dump the water on the land, but you can't keep it there.

quote:

---

it would not take nearly as much water to flood the entire earth as it would today with high mountain ranges.

---

Irrelevant.It doesn't matter if the highest point on earth was only one square inch in area that is one inch above sea level. The fact remains that it is above sea level. There is no problem with transporting water from the ocean to the land and dumping it. The problem is keeping it there. Even if it's only an inch, the water is going to immediately flow back to the ocean.Same experiment to you:Take an object that will not float. Put it in the bathtub and fill up the tub with water such that the object is half-way submerged.Now, using only the water in the tub and without moving or dismantling the object in any way, completely submerge the object such that when you stop doing whatever it is that you are doing to move the water and remove all apparatus from the tub other than the object, the object remains completely submerged for 20 minutes.

quote:

---

Many, including myself believe that was what the pre-flood earth's surface was like, with no deep and large oceans or high mountain ranges.

---

And, to be blunt, you are being ridiculous if you think that is in any way true.

quote:

---

Some thin areas may have had subterranian water under them, as the Bible implicates the breaking up of the subterranian water cavities by the flood.

---

Have you carried out the calculations required to determine how much kinetic energy is required to do that? And then calculated the thermal energy released from the interior of the earth as the crust breaks up and exposes the mantle?If you did that to the earth, you'd literally raise the temperature so much (and given all the water), that you'd thoroughly parboil every single living organism.Last time I checked, humans can't live in boiling water.

quote:

---

The Bible also implicates a terrarium like vapor canopy in the atmosphere which likely fell to earth during the flood.

---

No, it doesn't. Instead, it says that the firmament separated the waters in heaven from the waters on the earth. That does not mean the atmosphere was more humid than it is now. If I hold a glass of water over your head, does the atmosphere around you suddenly become thick as a summer's day in Omaha?And again, have you done the calculations required to determine how much heat would be required to suspend that much water vapor in the atmosphere? Have you done the calculations required to determine how much such an atmosphere would weigh with that much water suspended in the atmosphere?Congratulations: You've just determined that Noah could survive 900F temperatures in a pressurized atmosphere that puts the bottom of the ocean to shame.You really haven't thought this through at all, have you?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!