The 10 most ridiculous things people believe.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Stop being religious people, beliefs are wrong, conform to atheism.Get over it people. The majority of the Bible is false. To even consider the fact that a boat held thousands up thousands of animals and kept them alive for 40 days is absurd. The people who believe this will obviously believe anything. Thats why they believe the Bible.
akuma_od3
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
No, how is the word "Perhaps" stating "God did it"? It says that animals had the instict to go to the Ark, and Animals had the ability to aestivate (Lay Dormant).
GabuEx
So all of a sudden, all of the animals in the world instinctively knew to go get on this guy's huge boat, and then they all hibernated without the need of food for months on end? And they did all this without the help of God? Have you ever seen animals do that before?
"Doubters of the flood ask how plants could survive the flood when the salinity and pressure, and lack of sunlight, would most likely kill most plants. Their argument assumes that the salinity and pressure would in fact be high. As shown above, the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think.
They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water. If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them. And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem. Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight, and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been. Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived—as Darwin himself proved"http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood#Pre-flood_and_Post-flood_differences
Snipes_2
Fresh water: salt-water fish die.
Salt water: fresh-water fish die.
Yet we still seem to have salt-water fish and fresh-water fish...
Also, how in the world do they conclude that Mount Everest rose up during the flood? A large downward pressure force generally does not inspire things to go up. Or are they claiming that the world was constantly quaking the entire time?
IT never said it rose up It says it never reached the Altitude of Mount Everest. How do we know if the water was Saltwater or Freshwater? It could be a combination if the flood was Global.
In my other post it says Noah Fed the animals. IT also says how he accomplished such a task.
[QUOTE="Josh5890"]
I believe in Noah's Ark and I believe that God created us. I'm sorry if you think that is ridiculous and I am very offended by the comment about young boys and priests.
Atmanix
Why do you believe in Noah's Ark? I'm just curious, I won't bash you. I just want to know how you think it makes sense.
It makes about as much sense as you and people on these boards continually asking for logic or proof when dealing with God. God is beyond human perceptions of logic. Saying something is illogical (Noah's Ark) is great in human terms, but through God's perspective, it obviously is not only logic, but possible. I find it hilarious that people take stuff in science on faith alone but refuse to accept religion..... Imagine looking at a telephone cable from a large distance away - it looks like a flat black line. That is your perspective. It is wrong. An ant walking on the telephone pole realizes it is three dimensional. Humans ALWAYS seem to believe that their perspective is correct. They fail at looking outside of it and realizing everything doesn't follow the rules of logic and reason.......IT never said it rose up It says it never reached the Altitude of Mount Everest. How do we know if the water was Saltwater or Freshwater? It could be a combination if the flood was Global.
Snipes_2
1. Yes, it did say it rose up:
"Mount Everest rose up during the Flood"
Did you even read your own source?
2. You can't have water being both salt water and fresh water if it's the same body of water. Salt in water is in solution, which means that, with no outside force, it will eventually spread out to become the same concentration in the entire body of liquid.
Assuming everything in that is true, it dodges the point. Plants drown. If two of every animal in the world was put into the Ark then there could not possibly have been enough surviving vegetation for them and their offspring. Any surviving seeds would have to root and grow in drowned soil, which would take years. The Flood could not and did not happen, at least not globally. Look up Hinduism and their near-identical Ark myth.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
"Doubters of the flood ask how plants could survive the flood when the salinity and pressure, and lack of sunlight, would most likely kill most plants. Their argument assumes that the salinity and pressure would in fact be high. As shown above, the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think.
They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water. If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them. And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem. Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight, and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been. Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived-as Darwin himself proved"http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood#Pre-flood_and_Post-flood_differences
Snipes_2
And use your own words, rather than quoting from some creationist website.
It's Wikipedia.
"Creationwiki" is not Wikipedia.
How does it dodge the point that plants survive?
PLANTS. DROWN. You saying there was no water with Noah?
I don't put stuff in my own words anymore when arguing over the internet, I tried, and others wrote it off as my "Opinion, With no Facts".
Now you're giving me your opinion from the mouths of other people.
"They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water.
If it wasn't, all the salt water fish died.
If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them.
This is insipid. Plants drown. Flood a plant with water and watch what happens: it dies.
And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem.
It's still significantly higher than normal and high enough to drop a boat on a mountain, according to them.
Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight,
Not the plants and animals we have back then and now.
and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been.
So what? Those flooded plants wouldn't be part of it.
Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived-as Darwin himself proved""
Picking and choosing what science to believe.
[QUOTE="Atmanix"][QUOTE="Josh5890"]
I believe in Noah's Ark and I believe that God created us. I'm sorry if you think that is ridiculous and I am very offended by the comment about young boys and priests.
seabiscuit8686
Why do you believe in Noah's Ark? I'm just curious, I won't bash you. I just want to know how you think it makes sense.
It makes about as much sense as you and people on these boards continually asking for logic or proof when dealing with God. God is beyond human perceptions of logic. Saying something is illogical (Noah's Ark) is great in human terms, but through God's perspective, it obviously is not only logic, but possible. I find it hilarious that people take stuff in science on faith alone but refuse to accept religion..... Imagine looking at a telephone cable from a large distance away - it looks like a flat black line. That is your perspective. It is wrong. An ant walking on the telephone pole realizes it is three dimensional. Humans ALWAYS seem to believe that their perspective is correct. They fail at looking outside of it and realizing everything doesn't follow the rules of logic and reason.......This is correct. BUT... show me ONE instance of something illogical happening that cannot be explained by science (that does NOT appear in the Bible. I cant stand being quoted scripture).
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
IT never said it rose up It says it never reached the Altitude of Mount Everest. How do we know if the water was Saltwater or Freshwater? It could be a combination if the flood was Global.
GabuEx
1. Yes, it did say it rose up:
"Mount Everest rose up during the Flood"
Did you even read your own source?
2. You can't have water being both salt water and fresh water if it's the same body of water. Salt in water is in solution, which means that, with no outside force, it will eventually spread out to become the same concentration in the entire body of liquid.
Yes, I read my source. IT says "the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think". Again, How do we know the Salinity level was high enough to kill the fish?
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
It's Wikipedia.
Snipes_2
A creationist wiki is not Wikipedia...
It is a free online encyclopedia- Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia
Obviously it's not Wikipedia.org. How does this make it any less informative?
Hahahha! Dude...its CREATIONIST. I.e. its is completely wrong. Unless you actually believe the world is 6000 years old.
Stop being religious people, beliefs are wrong, conform to atheism.[QUOTE="DiabeticVampire"][QUOTE="akuma_od3"]
Get over it people. The majority of the Bible is false. To even consider the fact that a boat held thousands up thousands of animals and kept them alive for 40 days is absurd. The people who believe this will obviously believe anything. Thats why they believe the Bible.
akuma_od3
No. Athiesm is the belief in no God at all. Im not telling people to not believe in God (I believe in God), Im just telling them not to believe the bible, because it is the biggest load of **** I have ever read. Any logical person can surely see how ridiculous the bible is.
I think the biggest pity is God gave us all brains to figure this out for ourselves but religous people are incapable of this. They would rather have a 2000 year old book (written by HUMANS not God) tell them how to think and behave. It's a damn shame it is....
Any logical person can differentiate between myth and historical document.[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
It's Wikipedia.
Snipes_2
A creationist wiki is not Wikipedia...
It is a free online encyclopedia- Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia
Obviously it's not Wikipedia.org. How does this make it any less informative?
You said it was Wikipedia. It was not. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an objective provider of factual information. The purpose of the site you linked to is to put forward solely arguments in favor of their position.
Can you not at least concede this most basic point that what you cited was not in fact Wikipedia?
It makes about as much sense as you and people on these boards continually asking for logic or proof when dealing with God. God is beyond human perceptions of logic. Saying something is illogical (Noah's Ark) is great in human terms, but through God's perspective, it obviously is not only logic, but possible. I find it hilarious that people take stuff in science on faith alone but refuse to accept religion..... Imagine looking at a telephone cable from a large distance away - it looks like a flat black line. That is your perspective. It is wrong. An ant walking on the telephone pole realizes it is three dimensional. Humans ALWAYS seem to believe that their perspective is correct. They fail at looking outside of it and realizing everything doesn't follow the rules of logic and reason.......[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"][QUOTE="Atmanix"]
Why do you believe in Noah's Ark? I'm just curious, I won't bash you. I just want to know how you think it makes sense.
akuma_od3
This is correct. BUT... show me ONE instance of something illogical happening that cannot be explained by science (that does NOT appear in the Bible. I cant stand being quoted scripture).
Yawning.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Assuming everything in that is true, it dodges the point. Plants drown. If two of every animal in the world was put into the Ark then there could not possibly have been enough surviving vegetation for them and their offspring. Any surviving seeds would have to root and grow in drowned soil, which would take years. The Flood could not and did not happen, at least not globally. Look up Hinduism and their near-identical Ark myth.
And use your own words, rather than quoting from some creationist website.
Theokhoth
It's Wikipedia.
"Creationwiki" is not Wikipedia.
How does it dodge the point that plants survive?
PLANTS. DROWN. You saying there was no water with Noah?
I don't put stuff in my own words anymore when arguing over the internet, I tried, and others wrote it off as my "Opinion, With no Facts".
Now you're giving me your opinion from the mouths of other people.
"They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water.
If it wasn't, all the salt water fish died.
If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them.
This is insipid. Plants drown. Flood a plant with water and watch what happens: it dies.
And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem.
It's still significantly higher than normal and high enough to drop a boat on a mountain, according to them.
Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight,
Not the plants and animals we have back then and now.
and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been.
So what? Those flooded plants wouldn't be part of it.
Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived-as Darwin himself proved""
Picking and choosing what science to believe.
These are your "Take" so to speak on my post. Why does it matter if the pressure is higher than normal? There is UNDERWATER PLANT LIFE, if they live underwater how can they drown? How do you know waht animals existed then and now?
The rest is irrelevant. Picking what science to believe? What?
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
IT never said it rose up It says it never reached the Altitude of Mount Everest. How do we know if the water was Saltwater or Freshwater? It could be a combination if the flood was Global.
Snipes_2
1. Yes, it did say it rose up:
"Mount Everest rose up during the Flood"
Did you even read your own source?
2. You can't have water being both salt water and fresh water if it's the same body of water. Salt in water is in solution, which means that, with no outside force, it will eventually spread out to become the same concentration in the entire body of liquid.
Yes, I read my source. IT says "the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think". Again, How do we know the Salinity level was high enough to kill the fish?
You just said "it never said it rose up" when your source specifically said "Mount Everest rose up." How can you claim that you read your source when your own source literally just contradicted, word for word no less, what you said about it?
Fresh-water fish die in salt water. Salt-water fish die in fresh water. What is necessary for the maintenance of one will kill the other. There's no "middle ground" salinity at which they both thrive.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
A creationist wiki is not Wikipedia...
GabuEx
It is a free online encyclopedia- Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia
Obviously it's not Wikipedia.org. How does this make it any less informative?
You said it was Wikipedia. It was not. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an objective provider of factual information. The purpose of the site you linked to is to put forward solely arguments in favor of their position.
Can you not at least concede this most basic point that what you cited was not in fact Wikipedia?
I never said it was Wikipedia.org hence, "It is a free online encyclopedia- Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia". And the sites you posted don't further your/their position?
There is UNDERWATER PLANT LIFE, if they live underwater how can they drown?
Snipes_2
There is underwater plant life, yes. There is also all of the plant life that exists above water. Submerging such plant life entirely in water is generally not a very good thing to do for its health...
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
It's Wikipedia.
"Creationwiki" is not Wikipedia.
How does it dodge the point that plants survive?
PLANTS. DROWN. You saying there was no water with Noah?
I don't put stuff in my own words anymore when arguing over the internet, I tried, and others wrote it off as my "Opinion, With no Facts".
Now you're giving me your opinion from the mouths of other people.
"They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water.
If it wasn't, all the salt water fish died.
If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them.
This is insipid. Plants drown. Flood a plant with water and watch what happens: it dies.
And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem.
It's still significantly higher than normal and high enough to drop a boat on a mountain, according to them.
Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight,
Not the plants and animals we have back then and now.
and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been.
So what? Those flooded plants wouldn't be part of it.
Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived-as Darwin himself proved""
Picking and choosing what science to believe.
Snipes_2
These are your "Take" so to speak on my post. Why does it matter if the pressure is higher than normal? There is UNDERWATER PLANT LIFE, if they live underwater how can they drown? How do you know waht animals existed then and now?
The rest is irrelevant. Picking what science to believe? What?
Do trees, bushes, etc. live in the water? No? So if they were submerged, they would drown, yes? Just like a human will drown but a fish won't.
If evolution is not true then the animals we have now HAD to have been the same animals back then. :lol:
You believe seeds won't die in salt water yet you're arguing against simple fact that plants can drown and evolution.
It makes about as much sense as you and people on these boards continually asking for logic or proof when dealing with God. God is beyond human perceptions of logic. Saying something is illogical (Noah's Ark) is great in human terms, but through God's perspective, it obviously is not only logic, but possible. I find it hilarious that people take stuff in science on faith alone but refuse to accept religion..... Imagine looking at a telephone cable from a large distance away - it looks like a flat black line. That is your perspective. It is wrong. An ant walking on the telephone pole realizes it is three dimensional. Humans ALWAYS seem to believe that their perspective is correct. They fail at looking outside of it and realizing everything doesn't follow the rules of logic and reason.......[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"][QUOTE="Atmanix"]
Why do you believe in Noah's Ark? I'm just curious, I won't bash you. I just want to know how you think it makes sense.
akuma_od3
This is correct. BUT... show me ONE instance of something illogical happening that cannot be explained by science (that does NOT appear in the Bible. I cant stand being quoted scripture).
Electrons moving from point A to point B instantaneously. Breaks every law in our sciences - But guess what - it is explainable - eventually............. Just because we cannot currently explain something doesn't mean it could not happen. Just because we can't explain how the electron moves from A to B instantaneously doesn't mean it doesn't. Just because we have never seen Noah's Ark in real life doesn't mean it didn't happen. It may be "illogical" (just like my science example), but illogical often just means unexplainable at the time and with the current technology or understanding. Someday, when you are in heaven or hell (oh my, another thing stupid people believe in), you may have a new perspective on what is actually possible and what isn't.Ok...debating this is pointless...the article was obviously biased...and the article in itself was ridiculous...
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
1. Yes, it did say it rose up:
"Mount Everest rose up during the Flood"
Did you even read your own source?
2. You can't have water being both salt water and fresh water if it's the same body of water. Salt in water is in solution, which means that, with no outside force, it will eventually spread out to become the same concentration in the entire body of liquid.
GabuEx
Yes, I read my source. IT says "the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think". Again, How do we know the Salinity level was high enough to kill the fish?
You just said "it never said it rose up" when your source specifically said "Mount Everest rose up." How can you claim that you read your source when your own source literally just contradicted, word for word no less, what you said about it?
Fresh-water fish die in salt water. Salt-water fish die in fresh water. What is necessary for the maintenance of one will kill the other. There's no "middle ground" salinity at which they both thrive.
Because it doesn't say Mount Everest rose up? "The water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think"
But, How do we know the concentration in the water? How do we know what species of fish were alive back then, if they could survive in saltwater or freshwater?
Salmon and Eels can Travel Between Freshwater and saltwater by the way.
"Osmoregulators tightly regulate their body osmolarity, which always stays constant, and are more common in the animal kingdom. Osmoregulators actively control salt concentrations despite the salt concentrations in the environment. An example is freshwater fish. The gills actively uptake salt from the environment by the use of mitochondria-rich cells. Water will diffuse into the fish, so it excretes a very hypotonic (dilute) urine to expel all the excess water."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmoregulation#Regulators_and_conformers
Electrons moving from point A to point B instantaneously. Breaks every law in our sciences - But guess what - it is explainable - eventually............. Just because we cannot currently explain something doesn't mean it could not happen. Just because we can't explain how the electron moves from A to B instantaneously doesn't mean it doesn't. Just because we have never seen Noah's Ark in real life doesn't mean it didn't happen. It may be "illogical" (just like my science example), but illogical often just means unexplainable at the time and with the current technology or understanding. Someday, when you are in heaven or hell (oh my, another thing stupid people believe in), you may have a new perspective on what is actually possible and what isn't. seabiscuit8686Quantum mechanics is science...
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Theokhoth
These are your "Take" so to speak on my post. Why does it matter if the pressure is higher than normal? There is UNDERWATER PLANT LIFE, if they live underwater how can they drown? How do you know waht animals existed then and now?
The rest is irrelevant. Picking what science to believe? What?
Do trees, bushes, etc. live in the water? No? So if they were submerged, they would drown, yes? Just like a human will drown but a fish won't.
If evolution is not true then the animals we have now HAD to have been the same animals back then. :lol:
You believe seeds won't die in salt water yet you're arguing against simple fact that plants can drown and evolution.
The Plants were not fully submerged first off, it says it did not rise above the trees, there were underwater plants.
[QUOTE="akuma_od3"][QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"] It makes about as much sense as you and people on these boards continually asking for logic or proof when dealing with God. God is beyond human perceptions of logic. Saying something is illogical (Noah's Ark) is great in human terms, but through God's perspective, it obviously is not only logic, but possible. I find it hilarious that people take stuff in science on faith alone but refuse to accept religion..... Imagine looking at a telephone cable from a large distance away - it looks like a flat black line. That is your perspective. It is wrong. An ant walking on the telephone pole realizes it is three dimensional. Humans ALWAYS seem to believe that their perspective is correct. They fail at looking outside of it and realizing everything doesn't follow the rules of logic and reason.......seabiscuit8686
This is correct. BUT... show me ONE instance of something illogical happening that cannot be explained by science (that does NOT appear in the Bible. I cant stand being quoted scripture).
Electrons moving from point A to point B instantaneously. Breaks every law in our sciences - But guess what - it is explainable - eventually............. Just because we cannot currently explain something doesn't mean it could not happen. Just because we can't explain how the electron moves from A to B instantaneously doesn't mean it doesn't. Just because we have never seen Noah's Ark in real life doesn't mean it didn't happen. It may be "illogical" (just like my science example), but illogical often just means unexplainable at the time and with the current technology or understanding. Someday, when you are in heaven or hell (oh my, another thing stupid people believe in), you may have a new perspective on what is actually possible and what isn't.Um, an "Illogical boat" or whatever you are actually suggesting and tracyons (those A - B instant electrons) are really quite different. There are a lot of things that cannot be explained by science, yet. But there are also things that are simply impossible. Fitting hundreds of thousands of species onto a boat and keeping them alive and fed for 40 days is one of those things.
Perspective is a physical, human trait. If (not WHEN) I go to heaven (or more likely Hell, seeing as I dont have a problem with gay people and have had sex before marriage), I doubt my perception will have changed since my body will still be in the ground.
Face it. Your parents lied to you. Your faith lied to you. You are lying to yourself.You are actually talking to me about "illogical boats" (with an absolute straight face) and you think the rest of us have problems? Ridiculous.
Quantum mechanics is science... Sadly, your understanding of Quantum is either skewed, or you never really understood it. Quantum does not explain instantaneous travel of electrons. It also doesn't explain how shooting a single photon moving through a single slit in the double slit experiment still causes an interference pattern. AKA the photon moves through both at the same time and interferes with itself. Show me evidence of any Quantum theory that explains those (actually, I will save you time as a physicist...don't, because there isn't anything).[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"] Electrons moving from point A to point B instantaneously. Breaks every law in our sciences - But guess what - it is explainable - eventually............. Just because we cannot currently explain something doesn't mean it could not happen. Just because we can't explain how the electron moves from A to B instantaneously doesn't mean it doesn't. Just because we have never seen Noah's Ark in real life doesn't mean it didn't happen. It may be "illogical" (just like my science example), but illogical often just means unexplainable at the time and with the current technology or understanding. Someday, when you are in heaven or hell (oh my, another thing stupid people believe in), you may have a new perspective on what is actually possible and what isn't. BumFluff122
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
There is UNDERWATER PLANT LIFE, if they live underwater how can they drown?
GabuEx
There is underwater plant life, yes. There is also all of the plant life that exists above water. Submerging such plant life entirely in water is generally not a very good thing to do for its health...
How do we know the submerged plantlife didn't adapt to life above sea level? Again, we don't know what species of plants existed back then, considering the amount of plant species we know of today, I think we can assume that the plant life, or some species of them, survived and adapted.
Because it doesn't say Mount Everest rose up? "The water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think"
Snipes_2
"Mount Everest rose up during the Flood" (Third paragraph, second sentence.)
But, How do we know the concentration in the water? How do we know what species of fish were alive back then, if they could survive in saltwater or freshwater?
Snipes_2
What exactly are you suggesting - that at the time of the flood there were superfish that could survive equally well in salt water as in fresh water?
Salmon and Eels can Travel Between Freshwater and saltwater by the way.
"Osmoregulators tightly regulate their body osmolarity, which always stays constant, and are more common in the animal kingdom. Osmoregulators actively control salt concentrations despite the salt concentrations in the environment. An example is freshwater fish. The gills actively uptake salt from the environment by the use of mitochondria-rich cells. Water will diffuse into the fish, so it excretes a very hypotonic (dilute) urine to expel all the excess water."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmoregulation#Regulators_and_conformers
Snipes_2
Again, do you even read your own sources? From that very link, only two sentences later:
"Most fish are stenohaline, which means they are restricted to either salt or fresh water and cannot survive in water with a different salt concentration than they are adapted to."
I mean, I'm fine if you want to do my research for me, but it's generally considered more standard to present sources that support your position... :P
How do we know the submerged plantlife didn't adapt to life above sea level? Again, we don't know what species of plants existed back then, considering the amount of plant species we know of today, I think we can assume that the plant life, or some species of them, survived and adapted.
Snipes_2
You "think we can assume" that why? Because it's convenient to your argument to do so?
Do you believe that all above-water plant life came from plants that survived underwater and then were also able to survive out of water?
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
These are your "Take" so to speak on my post. Why does it matter if the pressure is higher than normal? There is UNDERWATER PLANT LIFE, if they live underwater how can they drown? How do you know waht animals existed then and now?
The rest is irrelevant. Picking what science to believe? What?
Snipes_2
Do trees, bushes, etc. live in the water? No? So if they were submerged, they would drown, yes? Just like a human will drown but a fish won't.
If evolution is not true then the animals we have now HAD to have been the same animals back then. :lol:
You believe seeds won't die in salt water yet you're arguing against simple fact that plants can drown and evolution.
The Plants were not fully submerged first off, it says it did not rise above the trees, there were underwater plants.
If the water did not rise above trees then please explain where the Ark is and who carted it up Ararat.Also explain how the creatures that couldn't climb trees managed to eat.
Electrons moving from point A to point B instantaneously. Breaks every law in our sciences - But guess what - it is explainable - eventually............. Just because we cannot currently explain something doesn't mean it could not happen. Just because we can't explain how the electron moves from A to B instantaneously doesn't mean it doesn't. Just because we have never seen Noah's Ark in real life doesn't mean it didn't happen. It may be "illogical" (just like my science example), but illogical often just means unexplainable at the time and with the current technology or understanding. Someday, when you are in heaven or hell (oh my, another thing stupid people believe in), you may have a new perspective on what is actually possible and what isn't.[QUOTE="seabiscuit8686"][QUOTE="akuma_od3"]
This is correct. BUT... show me ONE instance of something illogical happening that cannot be explained by science (that does NOT appear in the Bible. I cant stand being quoted scripture).
akuma_od3
Um, an "Illogical boat" or whatever you are actually suggesting and tracyons (those A - B instant electrons) are really quite different. There are a lot of things that cannot be explained by science, yet. But there are also things that are simply impossible. Fitting hundreds of thousands of species onto a boat and keeping them alive and fed for 40 days is one of those things.
Perspective is a physical, human trait. If (not WHEN) I go to heaven (or more likely Hell, seeing as I dont have a problem with gay people and have had sex before marriage), I doubt my perception will have changed since my body will still be in the ground.
Face it. Your parents lied to you. Your faith lied to you. You are lying to yourself.You are actually talking to me about "illogical boats" (with an absolute straight face) and you think the rest of us have problems? Ridiculous.
Obviously missing the point. First....wtf is a tracyon - learn physics or get out..........and second, even if there was a word "tracyon" and it explained it, 5 years ago they didn't even exist in science. It was an unexplainable event. Just because you don't understand something now doesn't mean it is impossible.....[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
"Mount Everest rose up during the Flood" (Third paragraph, second sentence.)
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
But, How do we know the concentration in the water? How do we know what species of fish were alive back then, if they could survive in saltwater or freshwater?
GabuEx
What exactly are you suggesting - that at the time of the flood there were superfish that could survive equally well in salt water as in fresh water?
Salmon and Eels can Travel Between Freshwater and saltwater by the way.
"Osmoregulators tightly regulate their body osmolarity, which always stays constant, and are more common in the animal kingdom. Osmoregulators actively control salt concentrations despite the salt concentrations in the environment. An example is freshwater fish. The gills actively uptake salt from the environment by the use of mitochondria-rich cells. Water will diffuse into the fish, so it excretes a very hypotonic (dilute) urine to expel all the excess water."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmoregulation#Regulators_and_conformers
Snipes_2
Again, do you even read your own sources? From that very link, only two sentences later:
"Most fish are stenohaline, which means they are restricted to either salt or fresh water and cannot survive in water with a different salt concentration than they are adapted to."
You were quoting the wrong source and it says "This passage tells us". It doesn't state that it actually happened, "Creationists do not claim that the Flood covered Mount Everest to its current height" and "So the real question is whether it is possible for Mount Everest to have risen to its current height fast enough to fit a time-scale consistent with the Flood. The earthquake that caused the Indonesian tsunami of December 26, 2004 caused an uplift of at least 20 feet (six metres) in a few minutes, which is a speed of about 240 feet per hour (84 metres per hour). At that rate Mount Everest could have reached its current height in about five days. Forces observed in earthquakes are sufficient, if extended long enough, to quickly raise the highest mountain to its current height in just a few days.". And a Sentence or two after yours it says "However, some fish show a tremendous ability to effectively osmoregulate across a broad range of salinities; fish with this ability are known as euryhaline species, e.g. Salmon."3
I'm also curious how a boat the size of the ark could float on water that was not taller than the trees.If the water did not rise above trees then please explain where the Ark is and who carted it up Ararat.
Also explain how the creatures that couldn't climb trees managed to eat.
Theokhoth
You were quoting the wrong source and it says "This passage tells us". It doesn't state that it actually happened, "Creationists do not claim that the Flood covered Mount Everest to its current height" and "So the real question is whether it is possible for Mount Everest to have risen to its current height fast enough to fit a time-scale consistent with the Flood. The earthquake that caused the Indonesian tsunami of December 26, 2004 caused an uplift of at least 20 feet (six metres) in a few minutes, which is a speed of about 240 feet per hour (84 metres per hour). At that rate Mount Everest could have reached its current height in about five days. Forces observed in earthquakes are sufficient, if extended long enough, to quickly raise the highest mountain to its current height in just a few days.".
Snipes_2
What on Earth do you mean that I'm quoting the wrong source? I am quoting the exact source you just posted only a few minutes ago! The same one you said didn't say that Mount Everest rose during the flood!
And a Sentence or two after yours it says "However, some fish show a tremendous ability to effectively osmoregulate across a broad range of salinities; fish with this ability are known as euryhaline species, e.g. Salmon."3
Snipes_2
Which does not explain in any way, shape, or form why on Earth so many fish exist today that cannot live in both salt or fresh water, if indeed the water all across the world was at one point in time one single salinity. Did they all evolve in the last five thousand years or so?
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Do trees, bushes, etc. live in the water? No? So if they were submerged, they would drown, yes? Just like a human will drown but a fish won't.
If evolution is not true then the animals we have now HAD to have been the same animals back then. :lol:
You believe seeds won't die in salt water yet you're arguing against simple fact that plants can drown and evolution.
Theokhoth
The Plants were not fully submerged first off, it says it did not rise above the trees, there were underwater plants.
If the water did not rise above trees then please explain where the Ark is and who carted it up Ararat.Also explain how the creatures that couldn't climb trees managed to eat.
The Animals were fed with grain. Ararat obviously wasn't that tall during the time of Moses.
I'm also curious how a boat the size of the ark could float on water that was not taller than the trees. And why such an Ark was even necessary.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
If the water did not rise above trees then please explain where the Ark is and who carted it up Ararat.
Also explain how the creatures that couldn't climb trees managed to eat.
BumFluff122
If the water did not rise above trees then please explain where the Ark is and who carted it up Ararat.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
The Plants were not fully submerged first off, it says it did not rise above the trees, there were underwater plants.
Snipes_2
Also explain how the creatures that couldn't climb trees managed to eat.
The Animals were fed with grain. Ararat obviously wasn't that tal during the time of Moses.
:roll: Yes, Noah and friends had enough grain to feed two of every animal species. :lol: And what? :lol: It takes centuries for a mountain to grow even a tiny bit (a few feet); it was quite massive during Noah's time, and it did not grow thousands of feet into the air between then and now. :lol:[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
You were quoting the wrong source and it says "This passage tells us". It doesn't state that it actually happened, "Creationists do not claim that the Flood covered Mount Everest to its current height" and "So the real question is whether it is possible for Mount Everest to have risen to its current height fast enough to fit a time-scale consistent with the Flood. The earthquake that caused the Indonesian tsunami of December 26, 2004 caused an uplift of at least 20 feet (six metres) in a few minutes, which is a speed of about 240 feet per hour (84 metres per hour). At that rate Mount Everest could have reached its current height in about five days. Forces observed in earthquakes are sufficient, if extended long enough, to quickly raise the highest mountain to its current height in just a few days.".
GabuEx
What on Earth do you mean that I'm quoting the wrong source? I am quoting the exact source you just posted only a few minutes ago! The same one you said didn't say that Mount Everest rose during the flood!
And a Sentence or two after yours it says "However, some fish show a tremendous ability to effectively osmoregulate across a broad range of salinities; fish with this ability are known as euryhaline species, e.g. Salmon."3
Snipes_2
Which does not explain in any way, shape, or form why on Earth so many fish exist today that cannot live in both salt or fresh water, if indeed the water all across the world was at one point in time one single salinity. Did they all evolve in the last five thousand years or so?
Wow, I said when you quoted me before, it was the wrong quote. Who knows how the animals evolved since the time of Moses. There's no way to be sure.
Here's your post with the quote:
Snipes_2 wrote:No, how is the word "Perhaps" stating "God did it"? It says that animals had the instict to go to the Ark, and Animals had the ability to aestivate (Lay Dormant).
So all of a sudden, all of the animals in the world instinctively knew to go get on this guy's huge boat, and then they all hibernated without the need of food for months on end? And they did all this without the help of God? Have you ever seen animals do that before?
Snipes_2 wrote:"Doubters of the flood ask how plants could survive the flood when the salinity and pressure, and lack of sunlight, would most likely kill most plants. Their argument assumes that the salinity and pressure would in fact be high. As shown above, the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think.
They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water. If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them. And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem. Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight, and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been. Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived—as Darwin himself proved"
http://creationwiki.org/Global_flood#Pre-flood_and_Post-flood_differences
GabuEx wrote:
Fresh water: salt-water fish die.
Salt water: fresh-water fish die.
Yet we still seem to have salt-water fish and fresh-water fish...
Also, how in the world do they conclude that Mount Everest rose up during the flood? A large downward pressure force generally does not inspire things to go up. Or are they claiming that the world was constantly quaking the entire time?
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"] If the water did not rise above trees then please explain where the Ark is and who carted it up Ararat.
Also explain how the creatures that couldn't climb trees managed to eat.
Theokhoth
The Animals were fed with grain. Ararat obviously wasn't that tal during the time of Moses.
:roll: Yes, Noah and friends had enough grain to feed two of every animal species. :lol: And what? :lol: It takes centuries for a mountain to grow even a tiny bit (a few feet); it was quite massive during Noah's time, and it did not grow thousands of feet into the air between then and now. :lol:Prove to me using a reliable source that he didn't/couldn't have enough grain.
"The "Mountains of Ararat" in Genesis clearly refer to a general region, not a specific mountain. Biblical Ararat corresponds to Assyrian Urartu (and Persian Arminya) the name of the kingdom which at the time controlled the Lake Van region, which in later centuries, beginning with Herodotus, came to be known as Armenia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountains_of_Ararat
Wow, I said when you quoted me before, it was the wrong quote.
Snipes_2
OK, now I'm just confused.
How in the world do they conclude that Mount Everest rose up during the flood?
GabuEx
IT never said it rose up
Snipes_2
1. Yes, it did say it rose up:
"Mount Everest rose up during the Flood"
GabuEx
Where, exactly, is the "wrong quote" in this chain?
Who knows how the animals evolved since the time of Moses. There's no way to be sure.
Snipes_2
Well, let me answer the question for you. Today, there are around 400,000 known species of plant life. Of those, around 4,000 are marine plants. That means that, if we assume that all 4,000 of those plant species survived the great flood and no other, then over the course of 5,000 years, 390,000 new plant species came into being. That's 78 new species per year, and 6.5 new species every month.
If what you are saying is true, then why are we not seeing new species evolve like clockwork all around us? Did that insanely fast evolution suddenly stop for some reason?
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]
1. Yes, it did say it rose up:
"Mount Everest rose up during the Flood"
GabuEx
Where, exactly, is the "wrong quote" in this chain?
Who knows how the animals evolved since the time of Moses. There's no way to be sure.
Snipes_2
Well, let me answer the question for you. Today, there are around 400,000 known species of plant life. Of those, around 4,000 are marine plants. That means that, if we assume that all 4,000 of those plant species survived the great flood and no other, then over the course of 5,000 years, 390,000 new plant species came into being. That's 78 new species per year, and 6.5 new species every month.
If what you are saying is true, then why are we not seeing new species evolve like clockwork all around us? Did that insanely fast evolution suddenly stop for some reason?
I thought you were referring to this quote:
"Doubters of the flood ask how plants could survive the flood when the salinity and pressure, and lack of sunlight, would most likely kill most plants. Their argument assumes that the salinity and pressure would in fact be high. As shown above, the water level wasn't nearly as high as the present altitude of mount Everest and not as high as they'd consider, so the pressure would not be high enough to flatten trees and such as they'd think.
They further assume that the water flooding the earth, had to be salt water. If it wasn't, then it would more than likely "water" the plants underneath rather than poison them. And because the water altitude wasn't nearly as high as they anticipated, sunlight filtration becomes less of a problem. Indeed, thousands of sea creatures and plants today can live in seawater at great depths with minimal sunlight, and they are submerged deeper than those flooded plants would have been. Furthermore, even if the water flooding the earth was highly saline, seeds could have easily survived—as Darwin himself proved"
Again, I don't know how the species evolved. I wasn't alive during that time period. How do we know no other plant life could have survived. IT's impossible to tell.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment