30,000 feet of water?????

[1213]

....We know how much carbon is in a square meter of a fossil fuel like coal or oil. we know how much carbon is available in a square meter of living biological matter and even using the maximum amount of that carbon content everywhere in the world there would not be enough to produce the coal or oil seen even in a single specific location much less all of the deposits of fossil fuels.

Would be nice to see the calculations that supports your belief.

yet you also claimed that "Orogenic mountains are the results of flood carrying vast amount of sediments from the lines where the original continent was broken."
So which is it?

Ok, maybe I should have said it more accurately, I think they are largely what they are because of the flood and how it moved material. But, this does not mean all of the mountains are what they are just because of the flood.

 

[1213]

...claiming that God is a liar in the process.

Why are you making false claims?

 

[1213]

..Tests cannot be of facts that you already know the answer to...

That is funny claim. Can you show a theory that doesn't have tests with no answers?

 

[1213]

How Aron Ra Disproves Noah's flood

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world

www.youtube.com

Why do you believe anything he says?

 

[blü 2]

Bible tells there was one area of dry land, which can be understood as single continent.

As you know, having read up on tectonics, the supercontinent Pangaea began to break apart about 200 million years ago ─ see >Pangaea - Wikipedia<. It had come apart to form the present continents by 60 million years ago.
.

Bible also tells under the dry land there was great deep, lot of water.

That's irrelevant.

What you have to find is that extra 1.1 billion cubic miles of water so as to lift the present mean sea level some 5.5 miles higher than it now is.

And that universal flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor.

And those genetic bottlenecks in all species of land animal, all dating to the same date as the flood layer.

Without those, your version has no credibility ─ it simply could not have happened in reality, only in stories.

And my list is by no means complete, but those three are all sine qua non for your argument.

 

[Argentbear]

Would be nice to see the calculations that supports your belief.

Facts not beliefs

Fact : West Virginia is estimated to have 28 million tons of coal
Fact : it takes approximately 5 tons of plant mass (along with pressure, heat and time) to make one ton of coal
Fact :West Virginia has an estimated has 500 million tons of plant mass. Estimated plant mass for the Coniferous Period was much higher than today so lets say at the time what would become West Virginia had 800 million tons of plant mass
Fact More than 99% of decaying plant material is recycled by the next generation of plant life Being generous that means in a given year there would have been 8 million tons of plant material available to be sequestered and potentially be transformed into coal. Being very generous we can say that half of this mass actually made it to coal. This means in a given year about 700,000 tons of coal would form. multiplying it about it woudl take 57 million years to produce the coal in West Virginia. and hey...the Coniferous period lasted 60 million years.

Ok, maybe I should have said it more accurately, I think they are largely what they are because of the flood and how it moved material. But, this does not mean all of the mountains are what they are just because of the flood.

Can you explain how a flood would move 800 million pounds of Granite around to form Mt. Everest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is funny claim. Can you show a theory that doesn't have tests with no answers?

Oh my! Were you ever allowed to know the answers to a test ahead of time? In school that is called "cheating".

You failed. Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why are you making false claims?

I am not. You need to remember that you do not understand the sciences at all and you refuse to learn the basics. That leaves you without the ability to judge whether I was telling the truth or not.

Are you willing to learn?

 

[dfnj]

Yes, but we have insufficient evidence to believe that such a god exists. If our analysis of the myth is that this could have happened by magic, then there is nothing to discuss. Since we don't see magic in the universe, we shouldn't entertain such a suggestion seriously.

I understand your point about "insufficient evidence," but I would go even further to assert that there is no evidence at all. However, framing the debate as one of insufficient evidence misses how people of faith and superstition typically operate. A superstitious person would argue that all of existence itself serves as proof of God’s presence. They often claim faith precisely because they perceive a lack of empirical evidence.

I've encountered many rational thinkers with a scientific mindset who question the relevance of discussing God when evidence is absent. This is a valid perspective. Yet, it’s important to recognize that people of faith often believe that having God in their lives brings them greater meaning and fulfillment.

Reflecting on my experiences, I've observed that some atheists I know struggle with suicidal thoughts and self-destructive behaviors, which suggests there may be some truth to the notion that faith can provide a sense of purpose. If we were to assume the universe is entirely devoid of meaning—an indifferent expanse governed solely by the laws of physics, where no arrangement of matter or energy holds more significance than another—this perspective can be profoundly bleak.

Consider Friedrich Nietzsche: at age 44, he experienced a collapse that led to a complete loss of mental faculties, paralysis, and likely vascular dementia, ultimately requiring his mother's care until his death. This stark reality exemplifies the dark side of a nihilistic worldview.

While some may argue that belief in God lacks scientific basis, it's worth noting that individuals who frequently experience profound moments of joy, fulfillment, or transcendence—often referred to as "peak experiences"—may enjoy better overall health and well-being.

You might identify as a nihilist and view belief in the divine as delusional, but I would contend that I am perhaps a bigger nihilist than you. Nietzsche's fundamental error was not just recognizing that everything is meaningless, but that the very acknowledgment of meaninglessness itself is also meaningless. In that light, it really doesn’t matter how one chooses to interpret existence.

So, I choose to believe in the divine, not only to irritate atheists but also to show that I can embrace nihilism to a greater extent than they can. I go so far down this path of meaninglessness that I include the idea that it doesn't matter whether I entertain delusions about God and the divine.

Ultimately, I’ve never had any of my peak experiences come from religion anyway, so I think the specific delusions a person holds dear may not matter too much in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Valjean]

What the Bible describes is physically impossible.
Did you watch any of Aron Ra's videos?

 

[Valjean]

Why do you believe anything he says?

Because what he says is backed by observable, well established, testable, physical facts.
What is the Bible's claim backed by?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What the Bible describes is physically impossible.
Did you watch any of Aron Ra's videos?

There really is no difference between believing in the Noah's Ark myth and believing in a Flat Earth. In fact one could easily say that the myth is a Flat Earth belief. It simply cannot work on a globe.

 

[1213]

As you know, having read up on tectonics, the supercontinent Pangaea began to break apart about 200 million years ago ─ see >Pangaea - Wikipedia<. It had come apart to form the present continents by 60 million years ago.

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

What you have to find is that extra 1.1 billion cubic miles of water so as to lift the present mean sea level some 5.5 miles higher than it now is.

Not really, because at the point situation was not the same as now. After the flood, things below the water have been compressed so that it looks like mountains are higher. In other words, ocean floors have gone down so that it looks like more water would have been necessary.

And that universal flood layer all over all continents and islands and the ocean floor.

That shows you still don't understand how and what happened in that flood event. It was not like some small river flood. It was a massive event that formed many different layers, in different phases of the flood. And, because earth is not homogeneous, it would be impossible to form uniform global flood layer. It is ignorant and irrational to even assume such would be the result.

And those genetic bottlenecks in all species of land animal, all dating to the same date as the flood layer.

there is no good reason to assume there should be such a bottleneck. And also, I don't think humans would have any way to notice it, even if there would be, because humans have nothing to compare before and after the flood.

 

[1213]

Fact : West Virginia is estimated to have 28 million tons of coal

Fact: Estimation is no the same as a fact.

Fact : it takes approximately 5 tons of plant mass (along with pressure, heat and time) to make one ton of coal

For example in Finland we have approximately 2500 million tons of trees. Finland is about 5 times larger land area than West Virginia. From this we could calculate that West Virginia could easily have had 460 million tons of trees at one point of time. If they would all have been buried in a flood event, it could have formed over 90 tons of coal easily.

So, thank you for your calculations, they fit well to the flood theory.

Can you explain how a flood would move 800 million pounds of Granite around to form Mt. Everest?

Why do you think it should have been moved?

 

[1213]

Because what he says is backed by observable, well established, testable, physical facts.

Please give one example.

What is the Bible's claim backed by?

I say only that I believe what is said in the Bible, because world looks the way it would, if the Bible is true.

 

[blü 2]

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

You read it carefully, then. What exactly is the problem, and I'll see if I can help.

Not really, because at the point situation was not the same as now.

You can't make claims about real things like that unless you have satisfactory evidence. So what do you mean by "point situation" and what evidence shows that it used to be different, and when?

After the flood, things below the water have been compressed so that it looks like mountains are higher.

Some things, largely organic things, are significantly compressible in some circumstances, but others ─ not least rocks and soil ─ are not. And regardless, you can't have the weight of the water in the argument until you can point to that missing 1.1 billion cubic miles of water without which your argument has already failed.

In other words, ocean floors have gone down so that it looks like more water would have been necessary.

That strikes me as nonsense, so I invite you to persuade me otherwise with real examples and real evidence to that effect.

That shows you still don't understand how and what happened in that flood event. It was not like some small river flood. It was a massive event that formed many different layers, in different phases of the flood.

Again, you're yet to provide the water your argument needs. I think the lack of understanding isn't on my side of the argument here.

And, because earth is not homogeneous, it would be impossible to form uniform global flood layer.

It will be uniform in the sense that all parts of it represent the one event. The details will obviously differ from place to place, but the age ─ what are you claiming, some 6000 years? ─ and the method ─ a single flood event ─ will be uniform.

It is ignorant and irrational to even assume such would be the result.

I respectfully suggest you refrain from calling others ignorant and irrational until after you've found that 1.1 billion cubic miles of extra water, that simultaneous genetic bottleneck in all species of land animals, and that single ubiquitous flood layer.

there is no good reason to assume there should be such a bottleneck.

Tell me, what do you think a genetic bottleneck is? And then set out your reasons why a genetic bottleneck wouldn't be the case with all the living things on Noah's ark after the flood.

Be specific. Persuade me that you know what we're talking about here.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

Yet those most knowledgeable about the subject, the geologists, do believe it, and science doesn't accept something without pretty good evidence. Why do you think they believe this? Are you familiar with the evidence supporting it?

Not really, because at the point situation was not the same as now. After the flood, things below the water have been compressed so that it looks like mountains are higher. In other words, ocean floors have gone down so that it looks like more water would have been necessary.

This is uninformed speculation; making up hypotheticals to fit the facts you want to support. Your speculation does not fit known physical or geological processes or facts.

That shows you still don't understand how and what happened in that flood event. It was not like some small river flood. It was a massive event that formed many different layers, in different phases of the flood. And, because earth is not homogeneous, it would be impossible to form uniform global flood layer. It is ignorant and irrational to even assume such would be the result.

What were these phases, and where are these non-uniform layers? Again, you're dismissing the known, observed, understood geological evidence. You're calling all of geology ignorant and irrational.

there is no good reason to assume there should be such a bottleneck. And also, I don't think humans would have any way to notice it, even if there would be, because humans have nothing to compare before and after the flood.

How could the gene pool be so reduced without creating a bottleneck?
We have the species' genome, don't we? We know the habitat, ecology, and reproductive details, don't we?

 

[Valjean]

Please give one example.

There are multiple facts presented in each video. If you refuse to look at the evidence your opinion on the matter is invalid.

Where did all the water come from? Where did it go?
How did settlements, trees, &al exist continuously through the proposed flood period, with no evidence of any disturbance?
How did a handful of people feed and care for so many animals, when large zoos require a huge staff and daily supplies just to care for a fraction of the animals on the arc?
How would the latent heat of vaporization of so much water not have cooked the whole planet -- including Noah's menagerie?
How were all the animals collected and returned to so many far-flung regions?

I say only that I believe what is said in the Bible, because world looks the way it would, if the Bible is true.

How would the world look different if the biblical stories were all folklore; if the scientific explanations of how the world works were correct?

 

[Argentbear]

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

Evidence is a reason. More accurately you have no desire to beleive

Not really, because at the point situation was not the same as now. After the flood, things below the water have been compressed so that it looks like mountains are higher. In other words, ocean floors have gone down so that it looks like more water would have been necessary.

and I have no evidence to beleive this

That shows you still don't understand how and what happened in that flood event. It was not like some small river flood. It was a massive event that formed many different layers, in different phases of the flood.

How?

And, because earth is not homogeneous, it would be impossible to form uniform global flood layer. It is ignorant and irrational to even assume such would be the result.

Why?

there is no good reason to assume there should be such a bottleneck.

Aside from logic

And also, I don't think humans would have any way to notice it, even if there would be, because humans have nothing to compare before and after the flood.

yet you go on and on about things before during and after this flood

 

[Argentbear]

Fact: Estimation is no the same as a fact.

Can you provide a more accurate number?

For example in Finland we have approximately 2500 million tons of trees. Finland is about 5 times larger land area than West Virginia. From this we could calculate that West Virginia could easily have had 460 million tons of trees at one point of time.
If they would all have been buried in a flood event, it could have formed over 90 tons of coal easily.

You may have noticed I said that West Virginia had 800 million tons of plant mass.

and yep at 100% conversion rate in the magical flood that would have produced about 90 tons. so where did the other 27,999,910 tons of coal come from?

So, thank you for your calculations, they fit well to the flood theory.

you might want to check your figures again

Why do you think it should have been moved?

You are the one who said ""Orogenic mountains are the results of flood carrying vast amount of sediments from the lines where the original continent was broken." The Himalayas are orogenic mountains.