The Bible

[jbg]

Are you suggesting the land around Ararat is thousands of feet below sea level and the peak only maybe a hundred or so above? I believe the elevation of 16,946 ft is above sea level; no tidal surge or tsunami or flood could reach that height.

I repeat, I believe that the Noah story falls in the category of a tall tale or legend; a part of an oral history but hardly the most important part.

Where Betsy and I, I hope, would agree is that the important parts of the Bible mandate taking care of the "stranger at the gate" and not injuring or defrauding the helpless.

[BubberMiley]

Besiides, I consider that story, of Noah, to be a legend similar to the FN legends.

I'm a bit of a fundamentalist when it comes to FN legends and totally believe North America was originally a gigantic turtle.

[jbg]

I'm a bit of a fundamentalist when it comes to FN legends and totally believe North America was originally a gigantic turtle.

Who knows?

If something is unlearnable, making it up, i.e. legends are as good an explanation as any.

[betsy]

Ok, let's keep that in mind for a little later.

You have listed "a finished creation" as a fact.

But that "fact" is contradicted by the events described in Noah's flood.

So either your "fact" is wrong, or the account of Noah's flood is wrong.

I've answered that so-called contradiction! I've answered your "volume of water."

Your mind is so wrapped up in one ocean and one region alone, like as if the whole area is barricaded by walls of dam that no water can go through in or out! Like as if the whole world consist of just that one area! That there are no other oceans or seas to draw water from.

And I even gave you the fact about HYDROLOGIC CYCLE - which explains just that! Do you understand how that works?

But the rest of your argument - whether Noah's flood is localized, regional or global - cannot be argued really because nothing is stated as a fact regarding that matter.

Which part of that is hard to understand?

Boy, your way to debate reminds me of those old Newfie jokes. You want to gain entry by trying to climb up a very high wall with nothing but your bare hands, repeatedly falling...and yet ignoring to use the front gate that is wide open!

We're discussing "fact: a finished creation" here, and asking how Noah's flood could have happened if God was finished creating matter after Creation was done.

All of this is irrelevant, because the volume of water required to get a boat to the top of Ararat is so immense that it would require the whole planet to be flooded. You can ask things like ... "b-b-but what if there was a drought somewhere else?" or "b-b-but what if there was another sea that was empty until the flood?" but all you are doing is demonstrating that you have no understanding at all of just how much water we are talking about.

HYDROLOGIC CYCLE.

Drought elsewhere = because all the water that's been taken up are being dumped in one region?

Other seas and oceans - I didn't say "empty" btw - from which to draw water from!

How tall exactly is Mt Ararat? Give me that detail....I probably missed that, if you already did.

But there is only enough water in *the world* to raise the sea level by 60-75 meters. If every glacier melted and every drop of moisture in the air rained into the seas, the sea level would raise by no more than 75 meters, and yet Noah's flood requires the sea level to raise by *thousands* of meters.

Cite. Support that statement.

Edited August 29, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

I've answered that so-called contradiction! I've answered your "volume of water."

Your mind is so wrapped up in one ocean and one region alone, like as if the whole area is barricaded by walls of dam that no water can go through in or out! Like as if the whole world consist of just that one area! That there are no other oceans or seas to draw water from.

And I even gave you the fact about HYDROLOGIC CYCLE - which explains just that! Do you understand how that works?

But the rest of your argument - whether Noah's flood is localized, regional or global - cannot be argued really because nothing is stated as a fact regarding that matter.

Which part of that is hard to understand?

Boy, your way to debate reminds me of those old Newfie jokes. You want to gain entry by trying to climb up a very high wall with nothing but your bare hands, repeatedly falling...and yet ignoring to use the front gate that is wide open!

HYDROLOGIC CYCLE.

Drought elsewhere = because all the water that's been taken up are being dumped in one region?

Other seas and oceans - I didn't say "empty" btw - from which to draw water from!

How tall exactly is Mt Ararat? Give me that detail....I probably missed that, if you already did.

Cite. Support that statement.

The probability of a regional drought, whether or not it is cited as a fact, is indeed a subject for debate. Is it possible, yes or no?

And unless the geology of the whole Middle East and Eastern Asia was different that what it was today, a flood that would bring an ark to the flanks of Mt. Ararat could not have been localised.

Mt. Ararat sits at a bit over 16000 feet (someone else put the numbers here, correct me if I am wrong. Which means that the water needs to rise to over 16000 feet in that particular area of the world, the Mesopotamian plain and the mountains to the north.

So let's argue for a second that there was a drought so severe that was no water anywhere inthe word, and that all the water in the lakes and oceans of the world started to flow to the plain.... and rising, and rising...

1500 feet... the water is spilling out the lower parts of the plain into most of what is now Iraq and the eastern parts of the Arabian peninsula.

3000 feet... by now, the water is spilling into most of the Arabian peninsula. southern Turkey, Israel, Syria (except the mountainous areas),... most of Africa, and one third of Iran, half of Afghanistan, most of the Indian sub-continent, Indochina, huge parts of China, Korea, southeastern Siberia

10000 feet.... the only parts of the Eurasian continent NOT flooded are some parts of the Alps, the Caucasus, the Hindu Kush, the Tibetan plateau, the Himalayas, and some Siberian mountain ranges. Africa is entirely under water, except for parts of the Eastern African plateau, the Tibesti and Maroccan Atlas.

And I haven't even taken into account the fact that water would also spill out into the oceans.

You can talk all you want about the water cycle (and misunderstand in the process that wate r is still subject to gravity between the time in is on the goround and it evaporates), you can talk all you want about droughts elsewhere in the world. Doesn't change one simple fact... unless you build a wall around Mesopotamia that is at least 16000 feet, water will spill out from the area into other areas long before you reach your mark. The flood, if it indeed occured at all, would have HAD to be global to bring an Ark to the flanks of Mount Ararat.

If you don't believe me (and I know you don't), try a little experiment at home. Put a small shallow bucket in your bathtub... that the Mesopotamian plain. On the wall, about three inches above the bathtub, put a mark - that's Mount Ararat. Your tub is the rest of the Middle East, the bathrom the rest of the World. Then start pouring water in the bucket. You can even similate the water cycle by running the tap in the sink, taking water from there and dumping it in the bucket. If you can manage to raise the level of water in the bucket to the level of your mark without filling the bathtub and making a mess of your bathroom, I'll stop posting on this thread. Deal?

Edited August 29, 2011 by CANADIEN

[cybercoma]

betsy, are you being serious? kimmy addressed every single one of those points. It's as if you didn't even read her post. You're definitively trolling now. Your posts have become nothing more than an exercise in absurdity.

Flood waters need to raise 16,000ft (give or take maybe a hundred feet or so given storm surge and waves) above sea level (the height of the resting place of the Ark). kimmy explains how one body of water flows into the next and that all of them would eventually tie in together, meaning that the entire earth would be flooded. She also pointed out that there's not enough water in all of the polar ice caps and atmosphere to cause the sea levels to rise 16,000ft. In fact, she gave a very specific number about the maximum amount the oceans could rise. Yet, you turn around and say that it's still the hydrologic cycle and a local flood. You are indeed an absurd little joke.

[betsy]

We're discussing "fact: a finished creation" here, and asking how Noah's flood could have happened if God was finished creating matter after Creation was done.

All of this is irrelevant, because the volume of water required to get a boat to the top of Ararat is so immense that it would require the whole planet to be flooded. You can ask things like ... "b-b-but what if there was a drought somewhere else?" or "b-b-but what if there was another sea that was empty until the flood?" but all you are doing is demonstrating that you have no understanding at all of just how much water we are talking about.

To reiterate:

Noah's flood would require the sea level to raise by thousands of meters.

But there is only enough water in *the world* to raise the sea level by 60-75 meters. If every glacier melted and every drop of moisture in the air rained into the seas, the sea level would raise by no more than 75 meters, and yet Noah's flood requires the sea level to raise by *thousands* of meters.

And as I've just explained, the hydrological cycle can't account for all that water. The clouds contain only the most miniscule fraction of the water necessary to float a boat onto Ararat. If it happened, then God must have created all of that water, then destroyed it later. -k

I don't know why I'm even responding and explaining about hydrologic cycle and asking questions about Mt Ararat.

My answer still stands: There is no argument for the simple reason that Noah's Flood is not listed as a fact.

You may be trying to contradict the listed fact on finished creation, however, Noah's flood does not contradict it!

How can you contradict a fact - finished creation - by using a supposition - Noah's flood?

We're just surmising about Noah's flood! I don't know. You don't know. But you're using it like as if it's fact! Where is the evidence?

I have stated that my view - that it's a regional flood - may even possibly change depending on any future discoveries.

As for regional flooding - I think that's what it is! A major catastrophe in those days!

Was it apocalyptic in scope? Was it like a miracle - something impossible that did happen?

We don't know.

And as I've reiterated, Genesis does not seem to give a blow-by-blow account. Maybe it's a summary. I don't think we'll ever know....unless there's another scroll out there that will be discovered - like the dead sea scroll - and perhaps shed light into this.

How do we know that Noah's Ark is not allegorical?

If I am able to believe that Creation did not happen in 6 actual days....why shouldn't I think that Noah's Ark is only allegorical - God's way of emphasizing about sin and repentance, redemption and punishment?

Edited August 29, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

I don't know why I'm even responding and explaining about hydrologic cycle and asking questions about Mt Ararat.

My answer still stands: There is no argument for the simple reason that Noah's Flood is not listed as a fact.

Less we forget. It is only when you decide something is a fact, meaning that it cannot be contradicted, can one debate it (with the understanding that you have already won the debate). Sorry, doesn't work that way.

You may be trying to contradict the listed fact on finished creation, however, Noah's flood does not contradict it!

How can you contradict a fact - finished creation - by using a supposition - Noah's flood?

Actually, neither kimmy, or myself, cybercoma, or anyone else here has mentioned finite creation and the Flood in the same post.

We're just surmising about Noah's flood! I don't know. You don't know. But you're using it like as if it's fact! Where is the evidence?

Earth to betsy. The whole point put forward by kimmy, cybercoma, myself, is that the Flood was physically IMPOSSIBLE. How you can miss the FACT that this is what we are getting at is quite frankly beyond baffling.

I have stated that my view - that it's a regional flood.

And the impossibility of a regional flood that would lift a boat to the top of Mount Ararat has been demonstrated.

If I am able to believe that Creation did not happen in 6 actual days....why shouldn't I think that Noah's Ark is only allegorical - God's way of emphasizing about sin and repentance, redemption and punishment?

WOOHOO, betsy. That's the point. It IS an allegory.

Edited August 29, 2011 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

Less we forget. It is only when you decide something is a fact, meaning that it cannot be contradicted, can one debate it (with the understanding that you have already won the debate). Sorry, doesn't work that way.

A fact cannot be contradicted by a supposition.

The facts listed did not become facts merely by my decision. All the facts listed on this board are facts - supported and documented.

If you want to contradict the listed facts, then do so. But support your reasons with irrefutable facts!

You can deny them....but that is merely your own opinion. In a debate, personal opinion that's not properly backed up is worth nothing. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

Actually, neither kimmy, or myself, cybercoma, or anyone else here has mentioned finite creation and the Flood in the same post.

Who's talking about you or cybercoma?

I'm responding directly to Kimmy's post.

WHy don't you read her post again?

Earth to betsy. The whole point put forward by kimmy, cybercoma, myself, is that the Flood was physically IMPOSSIBLE. How you can miss the FACT that this is what we are getting at is quite frankly beyond baffling.

And the impossibility of a regional flood that would lift a boat to the top of Mount Ararat has been demonstrated.

Hello, Canadien? Yoo-hoo. Can you hear me? Can you read or the words appear jumbled to you? Not getting enough oxygen, are we?

And?

So, it's physically impossible. Where's the argument?

You're the ones who keep bringing it up like as if Noah's Ark is already a fact!

You're arguing with no one!

So I'll just set your so-called argument aside and ignore ....because I guess you just like to argue for the sake of arguing.

WOOHOO, betsy. That's the point. It IS an allegory.

BINGO!

It could be.

Since there's still debate going on - and who knows what future discoveries might be unearthed - we cannot make any definite conclusion!

So you see, there's really nothing to argue about it!

My supposition only happened to include other possible scenarios like "it's only the summary that was given, the account is therefore not complete," or that the flooding was a regional in the sense that it's probably the worst flooding they've ever had - a catastrophe - and never seen before.

Just like we still hear about the destruction made by Katrina - they've had their own "Katrina."

Why do you think I'm stating out clearly that my view could possibly shift?

Because I don't consider it as an irrefutable fact!

Edited August 30, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

A fact cannot be contradicted by a supposition.

FACT. You're doing who speaks about a finite creation and the Flood in the same sentence. Nobody else.

The facts listed did not become facts merely by my decision. All the facts listed on this board are facts - supported and documented.

If you want to contradict the listed facts, then do so. But support your reasons with irrefutable facts!

This thread and others are littered with debunked so called facts of yours. The notion that the Bible describes gravity or the expending universe being only the first two that comes to mind.

Who's talking about you or cybercoma?

I'm responding directly to Kimmy's post.

WHy don't you read her post again?

Not kimmy, but also cybercoma, and I, and probably about everybody on this site who has an understanding of science KNOWS that a flood that would life an ark about 16000 ft above sea level without flooding eveything on the planet is a physical impossibility. And we have posted on this issue as well. As far as the Flood is concerned, we share the same position.

And yes, I have read Kimmy's post. One reading was enough to prove to me that she KNOWS that the Flood is a physical impossibility. Anyone who concludes that Kimmy's is acting as if the Flood occured needs to go get English reading lessons. starting at the daycare level.

As for the rest of your exercise in self-confusion, I was about to address it line by line, but why bother. Your comments about the Flood can be summarized as: "Well, I agree that the Flood is an impossibility. So there's no argument. But wait, there's this, and this, and this that could have made it possible. Oh well, it is impossible so there's no argument. But wait, there is still a debate going on, and who knows, maybe some day there will be a proof of it, and there are other possible scenarios, so I cannot say for sure it is impossible. Therefore, there's no argument. And why do you keep using a supposition (the impossibility of the Flood, which I agree is a fact, but think is a supposition) to contradict another fact I have posted and which you don't even mention?"

Even at their worse, politicians could learn from you about the fine of backtracking and self-contradiction.

As for kimmy's position, which also happen to be mine on this issue, it can be summarized as: "a local Flood that would result in an ark ending on top of Mount Ararat is a physical impossibility, and so is a global Flood that would have had the same result." Could not be clearer, and your insistence that we are talking about other things or that kimmy acts as if the Flood occured is simply a demonstration of your poor reading skills.

You say the argument is over. Fine. So stop arguing, will you?

PS: Katrina didn't bring any object, man-made or otherwise, to the top of the highest peaks of the Rockies.

Edited August 30, 2011 by CANADIEN

[g_bambino]

You say the argument is over.

For her, this particular one is, and she's free to say so because of her convenient "literal when I want it, figurative when I want it" mode of operation. I'm saying it again: it's the way she can keep convincing herself that she's always right. Even about whether or not you're a Christian!

[CANADIEN]

For her, this particular one is, and she's free to say so because of her convenient "literal when I want it, figurative when I want it" mode of operation. I'm saying it again: it's the way she can keep convincing herself that she's always right. Even about whether or not you're a Christian!

If it were over, she wouldn't keep coming back to it. What I find particularly laughable is that even when she agrees with others (re the Flood), she backtracks, claims weare saying things we're not saying, that we are talking about things we do not even mention, starts to argue then says there is nothing to argue about.

Edited August 30, 2011 by CANADIEN

[GostHacked]

Mount Ararat is over 16,000 ft. high.

You'd need one hell of a storm surge to even bring a (for arguments sake) a tsunami to have a boat ride a wave 16,000 feet tall to get to the top of this mountain.

[cybercoma]

What if it were just REALLY high tides? :lol: :lol:

Edited August 30, 2011 by cybercoma

[betsy]

The particular so-called argument about Noah's Ark/flood and Kimmy's so-called "contradiction"

of the fact, A Finished Creation, is over for the simple reason of another logical fact:

You cannot contradict a fact by using a supposition!

Is all. Simple.

Hey, I didn't write the rules....that's just the way it is with rational people.

And that reminds me of another characteristic. Gotta go nextdoor.

Edited August 31, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

The particular so-called argument about Noah's Ark/flood and Kimmy's so-called "contradiction"

of the fact, A Finished Creation, is over for the simple reason of another logical fact:

You cannot contradict a fact by using a supposition!

Is all. Simple.

Hey, I didn't write the rules....that's just the way it is with rational people.

And that reminds me of another characteristic. Gotta go nextdoor.

You win betsy, you win. And I will stop doing it... the moment you stop arguing that 1 + 1 = 7. After all, if I have toi stop doing something that I'm not doing, fairness demands that you stop doing something you're not doing.

Edited August 31, 2011 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

You win betsy, you win.

Of course I win! Any rational person will clearly see that!

And I will stop doing it... the moment you stop arguing that 1 + 1 = 7. After all, if I have toi stop doing something that I'm not doing, fairness demands that you stop doing something you're not doing.

Go for it. This is a free country. You can debate how you want - however all I'm saying is that rational people wouldn't consider your argument if you're contradicting a fact with a supposition.

Perhaps you can debate with other people. Inmates at the Royal Ottawa comes to mind. They'll debate with you most likely. That is, if, you're nice.

Edited August 31, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Perhaps you can debate with other people. Inmates at the Royal Ottawa comes to mind. They'll debate with you most likely. That is, if, you're nice.

Speaking from experience, I see.

[g_bambino]

Of course I win!

And it's already been explained precisely how you come to that conclusion: intellectual dishonesty and sheer stubbornness.

[cybercoma]

I think we lost because we didn't use enough giant font and smilies.

[jbg]

I think we lost because we didn't use enough giant font and smilies.

Can you get bigger than seven point font?

[g_bambino]

I think we lost because we didn't use enough giant font and smilies.

Right! I knew I forgot something. Betsy "wins" via intellectual dishonesty, sheer stubbornness, THE BIGGEST, MOST ITALICISED, BOLDED FONTS, and the most .

(Interestingly, composing that led me to discover that there's actually a limit on the number of emoticons that can be included in a post. Surely betsy must've hit that limit; I wonder, though, if she ever paused to think about why it was put in place.)

[cybercoma]

I wonder, though, if she ever paused to think

I'm pretty confident she never has.

[g_bambino]

I'm pretty confident she never has.

Obviously, I didn't pause, either, or I would've realised the fallacy!

[betsy]

Can you get bigger than seven point font?

I was also asking if I can make that 7 point font flash....you know, psychedelic, disco-style? Something really eye-catching. Maybe in candy colors?

All this time I though I'm talking to the blind and deaf here (since they seem to overlook and skip important, pertinent details).....but maybe I'm debating with children!

Edited September 1, 2011 by betsy