What The Genesis Noaic Flood Would Not Produce.

LOL. So long as you ignore the possibility of a global Genesis flood and pshaw all research from that premise, your uniformity flawed dating methods will never produce the evidence you would require. I have an ICR Grand Canyon video on flood research done at the canyon. You should check it out.Wyatt's allegedly debunked Noah Ark site in the foothills of Aarat along with 13 ballast like stones with eyes in the tops of them is likely an impression the correct length according to the Genesis record. I go with it as evidence, though it is debatable. We don't? It has been estimated that the current population is about right, beginning from three childbearing couples about 4300 years ago. This is based on an average of 2.5 children and an average lifespan of 40 years overall.How does that stack up with a million years ago? Wouldn't the hapless folks be stacked high from every square inch of the planet? Btw, where are all of the should be human fossils? Well, it's there, Coyote, I assure you. You just need an objective eye to detect it. Harder yet for some is a willingness to acknowledge it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Really? Well I estimate that's wrong. I estimate that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I estimate that the continents used to all be joined together in one supercontinent that I'll call Buzdumb.Gee, this is really easy if we don't need any evidence.First, let's see any evidence to support the average of 2.5 children and lifespan of 40 years for the past 4300 years. Then present the calculations to support the "estimate."If you can actually support either of those averages with reliable evidence I'll eat my computer.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

As this is Free For All, there is little challenge to insulting you, Buzsaw, so I'm going to try a different tack. I'll not be specifically tactful, but I will try to be sincere in my correspondence.Now, as gently as I can, I ask that you respond in simple, everyday English. You too often attempt to introduce a bit of erudite flair into your writing, but you're a rubbish pen. And as you've no talent for it, all you succeed in doing is making your posts utter murk; exempli gratia: I have to ask if I misinterpret your intent, not of this abomination of an expression, but if it is even your intent to get a cogent idea across. I often think you are attempting to hide your meaning in an ambiguous mire of leitmotif confusion to cop deniability; or, at least in the hope that we will assume some meaning. If you know what I mean?So, Buz, is this quote supposed to mean something? Could it be parsed? What is the subject? What is the predicate? This would be an outstanding sentence in spite of the surfeit "ever", and it appears from the replies you've gotten to that post that that is how it it has been read, ignoring everything that follows. And there lies the rub. I don't want to have to ignore these other words. I want to understand what it is you meant, not what I am able to rescue.So much for the example. On to your thesis.

---

---

---

Firstly, I want to ask you a few questions* about Noah's flood to set the stage. An "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable.

1. When did Noah's flood take place? How many years ago? A lengthy train of Biblical citations will not be clarifying: I will not understand the answer "in the 26^th year of Bazagildon's reign." Please do not confuse the answer with something other then a number.
   ​
2. Another number: How deep was the flood? I realize that the answer is not so straight forward: the landforms may not be the same, or a whole host of other complications, real or imagined, but I intend to ask you about those presently. Let us use Noah's sea level. How many meters above Noah's sea level was the resultant flood?
   ​
3. What was the mean depth of the sea before Noah's flood? Currently, the mean depth of the sea is 3,720 meters with a maximum of 11,033 m.
   ​
4. What was the mean elevation of the land before Noah's flood? Currently, the mean elevation is 686 meters with a maximum of 8,848 m.
   ​
5. What was the percentage of Earth's surface was sea/land before Noah's flood? Currently, the the percentage is 72%/28%.
   ​
6. What was the Earth's mean radius before Noah's flood? currently, the Earth's mean radius is 6.37110⁶ meters.
   ​
   This Information will allow us to calculate the total volume of water involved in Noah's flood.
   ​
   More questions:
   ​
7. Of the total volume of Noah's flood, what percentage came from the vapor canopy, and what percentage came from the fountains of the great deep.
   ​
8. What was the mean hight, minimum hight and maximum height of the water held in the vapor canopy?
   ​
9. Was the vapor canopy homogenous and evenly distribute horizontally and vertically about the Earth?
   ​
10. What was the mean depth, minimum depth and maximum depth of the Fountains of the Great Deep?
    ​
11. Were the Fountains of the Great Deep homogenous and evenly distribute horizontally and vertically about the Earth?
    ​
12. Does the plural use of fountains imply multiple pockets of water or multiple points of egress?

I'll end for now. I look forward to your response. *[list=A] will produce an alphabetized list.

---

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

In the flood (allegedly) impossible thread, Taq suggested I list what the flood would not produce. Perhaps I should have mentioned that in the OP. That is why my OP list has the intentional negative conotation.So why is it silly? You were in on the flood (alleged) impossible thread, weren't you, when I added science's researched meteor strike to my evidence stache in that from the magnitude of it, the massive cooling effect of it on a pre-flood warm & wet atmosphere would have condenced my alleged vapor canopy and allegedly flooded the planet? Yes? Does it really now, considering the above? 1) Flood evidence not all geological. Where did you get the notion that it was.2) Calm static canopy atmosphere, void of direct sun rays = no rainbow. No? Oh. Well, I'm old but not creatiously so, so I don't know for sure. It's just that if the volumn of water to cover the hills and all were once above, I figure the oceans would deepen and enlarge from the relative sized before the alleged flood.Am I mistaken that scientists agree with me that once the continents were connected and oceans relatively small compared to now?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

So there was no sunlight for your made up pre-flood world? Your imaginary scenarios just keep getting stupider.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

It's a regional off topic strawman having no resemblence to my Genesis model. Would't you have to agree, Coyote.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

It's really quite impossible to argue against you, since you simply put forth conclusions based on complete caca.Let's look at it this way.You farted out the "hypothesis" of a water canopy above the earth before the flood that "explains" where the water for the flood came from. Well, what can we conclude about a planet with such an atmosphere, based on actual evidence?Compare it to the planet Venus. According to Wiki: Certainly a kilometer of water wouldn't begin to cover the entire planet, so the atmospheric pressure would actually be much higher, unless you want to fart out the "hypothesis" that the Earth was flatter pre-flood. So, while you're farting out "hypotheses," you're going to need to explain how all the life on Earth was able to survive atmospheric pressures 100 times what we have now.Edited by subbie, : Subtitle

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

I took a class under the mechanical engineering department at UNM back in 1983. The name of the class was thermodynamics. It primarily concerned physical changes of state (gas, liquid, solid) in all normal matter (that is, with protons, neutrons, and electrons bound together as atoms).These changes of state are expressed by the phase diagram, a two or three dimensional graph whose axes are pressure, temperature and sometimes volume (for 3D). Notice radioactive decay rates are not one of the axes, nor should they be.To my knowledge the phase diagram has never been shown throughout all of recorded history to have been violated (super-heating is a well understood phenomena that is not considered a violation but rather a specific condition). In fact because all steam generating power plants act in complete accordance with the diagram on a continuous basis (along with everything else), it can be stated that like gravity, it is continuously, and therefore infinitely, evidenced.Any vapor canopy needed to even slightly augment a global flood would boil off the oceans due to increased pressure, as pointed out by virtually everyone here.The evidence for this is infinite, because just like gravity, it is continuous. Continuous evidence is infinite evidence because time can be chopped down into infinitely small increments.Like everyone else, you are welcome to do the calculations yourself.In order for the Buzsaw hypothesis concerning any purported vapor canopy to be correct, the basic laws of physics and chemistry must have been different prior to 4350 BCE.There is not one shred of evidence that the laws of physics and chemistry are different either due to time or distance although there is a huge amount of astronomical evidence to the contrary.There is not one single piece of evidence that normal matter acts in any way differently than according to the phase diagram.So what is one to believe, an infinite amount of evidence, or absolutely no evidence?This is one reason why your hypotheses are not in any way related to science, or for that matter logic, or even what most people call reality.Edited by anglagard, : Someone would bring up super-heating sooner or later.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

quote:

---

In the flood (allegedly) impossible thread, Taq suggested I list what the flood would not produce. Perhaps I should have mentioned that in the OP. That is why my OP list has the intentional negative conotation.

---

As I pointed out, Taq asked: Message 86As I said, It was a nice try at making Bible-believers looking stupid and dishonest. Messing up your own post so badly just to pretend to be answering a question you weren't answering at all ! However, I think that descending into parody hurts your argument more than it helps.

quote:

---

So why is it silly? You were in on the flood (alleged) impossible thread, weren't you, when I added science's researched meteor strike to my evidence stache in that from the magnitude of it, the massive cooling effect of it on a pre-flood warm & wet atmosphere would have condenced my alleged vapor canopy and allegedly flooded the planet?

---

Buz, only a complete moron would think that a meteorite strike or the loss of a vapour canopy are floods. And there is no evidence connecting the meteorite strike to a flood at all or any significant evidence of this alleged vapour canopy whatsoever. But I like the complete stupidity of ignoring all the climate changes BEFORE the Cretaceous ! What about the dry conditions of the Triassic for a start ?

quote:

---

Yes? Does it really now, considering the above?

---

So now you are saying that your point dealt with above is so silly that the others could not possible be sillier ! I, however disagree. Simply ignoring the record of climate change and confusing the alleged effects of losing the alleged vapour canopy with those of the flood is not nearly as silly as what follows.

quote:

---

1) Flood evidence not all geological. Where did you get the notion that it was.

---

Can you please stop this parody Buz ? You don't have to make yourself look like an idiot who can't even be bothered to read the posts that he is replying to - again.
As anybody who reads my post knows nobody suggested any such thing.

quote:

---

2) Calm static canopy atmosphere, void of direct sun rays = no rainbow. No?

---

In other words you mean that "you" (the Bible-believing idiot you pretend to be) would ASSUME that the hypothetical vapour canopy would block out the sunlight to the extent that rainbows would be impossible. That's hardly an inference FROM the Flood !
(Perhaps you would like to figure out the volume of water required and how it fits with a wet climate with high sea levels ?)

quote:

---

Oh. Well, I'm old but not creatiously so, so I don't know for sure. It's just that if the volumn of water to cover the hills and all were once above, I figure the oceans would deepen and enlarge from the relative sized before the alleged flood.

---

Exactly - you predict a rise in sea levels. The exact opposite of what happened. How silly is that !

quote:

---

Am I mistaken that scientists agree with me that once the continents were connected and oceans relatively small compared to now?

---

You would be utterly mistaken to think that scientists said that that was the case in the late Cretaceous ! But again, you are making a mistake in your presentation - why use a view even stupider than the idiocy of standard YEC beliefs as your example ? At least they, by placing the onset of the Flood far "earlier" in the geological record and attributing the vast majority of continental drift to the period of the Flood or even later don't have to deal with Cretaceous conditions.

Let's see it then. It's probably just as bad as your "exodus" video, and I doubt we'll actually see any research in it whatsoever.

quote:

---

It's a regional off topic strawman having no resemblence to my Genesis model. Would't you have to agree, Coyote.

---

In other words "you" are saying that the Flood is nothing like a massive flood and it is a complete strawman to suggest that it is.Really, Buz, don't you think that you are going too far on the parody ?

Hi Guys
Is it weird my brain hurt so badly when I read Buz's posts? Normally I am quite good to see through the mud but this, seriously.....Fuck Me Sideways

Jonesy, what is really stupid is to think no direct sun rays means no sunlight, given the information which I posted. That's a really, really dumb assumption on your part.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Care to distinguish for us the difference between sun rays and sun light?You really are dense as a brick, aren't you.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Why is obvious. Nobody who goes on the world wide web and insults the supreme designer creator of all of the observed wonderful array of design and complexity in the universe would ever want to acknowledge that evidence and become accountable to such an almighty entity.

1. Jehovah, the Biblical god is not a man. You should know that, Onifre.
   ​
2. Itsy bitsy humans with itsy bitsy brains on itsy bitsy Earth planet should be wise enough to assume that their itsy bitsy level of intelligence is not all there is, given all of the magnanimous array of design and complexity observed in the universe by their itsy bitsy eyes.
   ​
3. The highly intelligent seers you call ass clowns have made some really remarkable predictions, many having been historically verified as fulfilled and many in the process of fulfillment in these turbulent last days, alluded to by them. Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend, before it's eternally too late for your immortal soul!

Hopefully some day the light will shine in your understanding as it has in mine and so many others, my friend.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.