Noahs Ark

[footprints]

Interpreted? You're stepping around a factual basis here. Interpretation to me appears to be a case of "i know there is something wrong here so ill change the story to make the facts fit."

I cannot see how what i do every day is a belief? Theres nothing to believe.

Please explain.

Yes, you are most certainly making the most out of making your own facts fit. So I can only agree with you.

LOL it isn't what you do everyday which is a belief, it is what you derive from the story of Noahs Ark which is a belief.

 

[darkendless]

Yes, you are most certainly making the most out of making your own facts fit. So I can only agree with you.

LOL it isn't what you do everyday which is a belief, it is what you derive from the story of Noahs Ark which is a belief.

See here's the problem. The only reason people are still stupid enough to debate this garbage is because no one will agree on the details.

 

[tumbleweed41]

See here's the problem. The only reason people are still stupid enough to debate this garbage is because no one will agree on the details.

You are wasting your time with this one. Someone who accepts all opinions and interpretations of both fact and fiction as possibilities can never make a concrete statement.

 

[Autodidact]

In order to combat an argument point, a person must have reasonable argument to combat it with. Else they are just debating over points of their own imagination.

Auto needs to get all known facts.

I don't know whether you realize it, footprints, but I concluded weeks ago that you have nothing to contribute of substance, and am not interested in conversing with you. Find someone else's time to waste. If you want to know what timeframe URA is alleging, ask URA.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Hi Penguin, I am aware of what the post was eluding to. Now I am asking for some facts to back up this imaginary perception of history. I certainly wouldn't want people making rational judgements based on irrational knowledge.

Actually...sometime ago way back in this thread I gave plenty of evidence to show...historically there were civilizations living before, during and after said flood. I'm not going to respond to your next post after this one as I feel it is important to do it here. Auto does not need to produce evidence for the claim of a time line of the supposed flood. It wasn't her position to start with. URAVIP2ME suggested this date and on more than one occasion. We have all addressed those dates showing other civilizations were in full stride appearing to have no interruption in their historical time line during said flood.

Creationism covers such a wide scope of beliefs it isn't funny. Let us take the 5,000 odd year belief to start off with, this takes us right out of the dinosaur era.

Regardless of how large you think the field of creationism is it's moot. Claims have been made here in reference to a WWF and the evidence for it is sorely lacking. As far as dinosaurs living with man...the best you could ever hope for are crocodiles/alligators but they didn't appear to be indiganeous to that area.

To completely discount man and dinosaurs coexisting, would take a whole heap of Blind Faith, given our current knowledge.

No....It's a leap of "faith" for people like you to even suggest they did...given the evidence and given our current knowledge. If you are suggesting man did coexist with them then by all means bring forth the evidence because anything else is an exercise in speculation on your part.

Certainly the evidence to date suggests that they never coexisted, albeit it is only suggestion at this point in time.

And that should be sufficient. We can't go around asserting they did coexist when the evidence isn't there to backup the claim. This is the position Hovind and Ham are in now.

As for the dinosaur all becoming extinct nearly instantaneously, personally I do not buy into that theory,

Neither do I nor have ANY scientist suggested thate "ALL" the dinosaurs went extinct at the same time. It's not what they have said at all nor is it what the evidence shows.

Before we can even begin to rationalise a flood we must first understand when this flood was (if it ever occured), exactly where it was and whether or not the reference to a flood is perception based (the whole known world would have been the whole world to ancient people), a metaphor, a simile, or any other thing which the human brain can reconcile.

Get back to me when you're done speculating on that. I have researched it time and time again and there is no evidence for a WWF. There is no evidence for the existence of a man called Noah. It appears the story itself was taken from earlier stories and reworked...

Evidence is now emerging that the world quite possibly went through a dramatic climate change around 5,200 years ago.

DUHHH...!!! What we perceive as drastic happens a lot. Localized flooding happens but the bible says world wide. That didn't happen and the evidence shows there's not enough water on the planet to make it happen.

During such dramatic climate changes it is very much accepted that life dimishes dramatically. This story could even relate to then.

Imagine yourself in a hot sweaty steam room. If you've never been in one I suggest to try it to get my point. Now imagine yourself in that room for a week straight. Now imagine yourself in that room for 40 days and nights straight. What you should realize at this point, if you're not familiar with biology, is that the human body can not deal with such an amount of moisture. The atmosphere at the time of Noah would have been dense full of water and your lungs just can't handle that pressure nor the massive amounts of liquid in the atmosphere. You'd simply drown til death. You most likely would not have survived the first week.

 

[footprints]

See here's the problem. The only reason people are still stupid enough to debate this garbage is because no one will agree on the details.

See here is the problem with your problem, nobody knows for sure if this alledged event ever took place, and if it did, what time period it took place in and if it were a perceptional view, or an actual view of reality to which it pertained to. We cannot even be that accurate pertaining to the area it was supposedly to have occurred in.

What I find even more silly, is some atheists, theists et al, believe they have the answer.

 

[darkendless]

See here is the problem with your problem, nobody knows for sure if this alledged event ever took place, and if it did, what time period it took place in and if it were a perceptional view, or an actual view of reality to which it pertained to. We cannot even be that accurate pertaining to the area it was supposedly to have occurred in.

What I find even more silly, is some atheists, theists et al, believe they have the answer.

Exactly, but its so easy to prove that it didn't. You just don't seem to want to accept that?

 

[footprints]

Actually...sometime ago way back in this thread I gave plenty of evidence to show...historically there were civilizations living before, during and after said flood. I'm not going to respond to your next post after this one as I feel it is important to do it here. Auto does not need to produce evidence for the claim of a time line of the supposed flood. It wasn't her position to start with. URAVIP2ME suggested this date and on more than one occasion. We have all addressed those dates showing other civilizations were in full stride appearing to have no interruption in their historical time line during said flood.

Auto contends that many other civilations existed at the time of the flood, both before, and after. To make such a rash statement the person making the rash statement must logically and rationally then, know when the alleged flood occurred.

Seeing as how you offered this evidence, what was the exact date this alleged flood was supposedly enacted? Evidence would be required. And by evidence I mean either emperical or tangible, which doesn't include, power of suggestion, assumption, opinion, beliefs, or any other such thing based on the imagination.

Regardless of how large you think the field of creationism is it's moot. Claims have been made here in reference to a WWF and the evidence for it is sorely lacking. As far as dinosaurs living with man...the best you could ever hope for are crocodiles/alligators but they didn't appear to be indiganeous to that area.

If you believe creationism is a moot point, I would suggest you better look again, many people can justify it, that is why there are creationists existing. Then again many people can justify that an alleged flood didn't occur, we have the opposite extremes on either side of rationalism.

I would agree with you, a crocodile is a direct descendant to a dinosaur, and many people still live in existance with them.

Please specify the exact area and region where this alleged event took place, since you can conclude they were not indigenous to the region.

No....It's a leap of "faith" for people like you to even suggest they did...given the evidence and given our current knowledge. If you are suggesting man did coexist with them then by all means bring forth the evidence because anything else is an exercise in speculation on your part.

Please keep an objective mind. You have already stated cocodiles, could have included turtles et al. Mankind is still living with animals from the dinosaur era. Perhaps slightly evolved, perhaps slightly manipulated by ID, depending on where your power of suggestion lies, but certainly coexisting.

And that should be sufficient. We can't go around asserting they did coexist when the evidence isn't there to backup the claim. This is the position Hovind and Ham are in now.

A lack of evidence doesn't support any position. All that is left is power of suggestion and power of association.

Suggested evidence does not support your assumption at all. Even by evolution we are still coexisting.

Neither do I nor have ANY scientist suggested thate "ALL" the dinosaurs went extinct at the same time. It's not what they have said at all nor is it what the evidence shows.

Personally I reckon you should read some of the theories as they pertain to the meteorite in the Gulf of Mexico.

Get back to me when you're done speculating on that. I have researched it time and time again and there is no evidence for a WWF. There is no evidence for the existence of a man called Noah. It appears the story itself was taken from earlier stories and reworked...

There doesn't have to have been a world wide flood. To ancient cultures, if the whole known was flooded (local flood), they would have perceived the whole world was flooded. Please keep up with science and not some faith of belief.

DUHHH...!!! What we perceive as drastic happens a lot. Localized flooding happens but the bible says world wide. That didn't happen and the evidence shows there's not enough water on the planet to make it happen.

If we know it didn't happen then reason should tell a person, Possibly, this is not what this ancient culture was talking about, or, we could have the wrong time period. As a matter of fact we don't have any time period specified, I think some people just like to make one up and then go with it.

Imagine yourself in a hot sweaty steam room. If you've never been in one I suggest to try it to get my point. Now imagine yourself in that room for a week straight. Now imagine yourself in that room for 40 days and nights straight. What you should realize at this point, if you're not familiar with biology, is that the human body can not deal with such an amount of moisture. The atmosphere at the time of Noah would have been dense full of water and your lungs just can't handle that pressure nor the massive amounts of liquid in the atmosphere. You'd simply drown til death. You most likely would not have survived the first week.

Sorry I do not play imagination games, especially to try and conclude it as evidence. I understand if you do, many others do the same thing, you wouldn't be alone.

 

[Arlanbb]

Isn't 2400 a round number and not an exact year? It, 2400BC, is a date just like 2401BC is a date and 2399BC is a date.
Couldn't those peoples or cultures have developed after 2370 even though some artifacts may be older than the Flood because people lived before the Flood and some of those found artifacts perhaps adopted by some cultures.How would anyone know how to run the same coulture from before the Genesis deluge as after it if they were not from it to begin with? The biblical story say that only 4 sets of man/wife lived after the deluge so how would they start 8 different cultures after the deluge??

Doesn't the Egyptian culture's Book of the Dead mention destruction by water, a divine cause, warning given, humans spared, preserved in a vessel?

How about all of the other numerous Flood legends? No Flood, No Legends.I bet you have not read any of those stories have you? It is easy to read them ~ just type in in Google "Deluge Legends" and in th wicki section you can read them all. Your going to get a big chuckle out of most of them. They are so illogical you may fall of your seat.:yes:

 

[footprints]

I don't know whether you realize it, footprints, but I concluded weeks ago that you have nothing to contribute of substance, and am not interested in conversing with you. Find someone else's time to waste. If you want to know what timeframe URA is alleging, ask URA.

LOL oh I know that, but on the same token, you do know that is what I conclude of you, don't you?

You do not have to converse with me, I have never asked you to, I will converse with you anytime I choose to, fair enough. I can usually get good mileage out of your one sided postings and the power of suggestions and associations you add to them. Particularly when you make dumb statements like this culture existed before the alleged flood and this culture existed after the alleged flood. Hell you don't even know when the alleged flood was and I think you believe you are making some form of rational point.

 

[footprints]

Exactly, but its so easy to prove that it didn't. You just don't seem to want to accept that?

Oh darkendless, human perception is a powerful thing. I do happen to align with the belief that there wasn't a literal world wide flood. Now every other possible thing which science says may be probable must be taken into consideration.

Like I said to you in the beginning, when human nature (human characteristics) rely on soil samples, I will look you up. There is much more to science than what you are studying.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Auto contends that many other civilations existed at the time of the flood, both before, and after. To make such a rash statement the person making the rash statement must logically and rationally then, know when the alleged flood occurred.

It wasn't a rash statement by Auto. The time line came from URAVIP2ME. If you want evidence on the supposed flood time line then you should be taking it up with him. Auto disagree with him on the date he came up with because current evidence outright refute his claim.

Seeing as how you offered this evidence, what was the exact date this alleged flood was supposedly enacted? Evidence would be required. And by evidence I mean either emperical or tangible, which doesn't include, power of suggestion, assumption, opinion, beliefs, or any other such thing based on the imagination.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding who it was that suggested the date in the first place. It was a creationist that came up with the date. All we did was present historical evidence to show they were incorrect. I know it is laborious but it would help if you stepped back in this thread to get and understanding as to what we are debating before jumping in at the end and making allegations and request.

Let's start here. This should answer you question as to who was it that came up with the date of the supposed flood and how they went about doing so. You'll also see how it was refuted.

I addressed it here;

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/80788-noahs-ark-50.html

Then again here;

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/80788-noahs-ark-61.html#post1695542


Early Dynastic Period of Egypt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Archaic or Early Dynastic Period of Egypt immediately follows the unification of Lower and Upper Egypt c. 3100 BC. It is generally taken to include the First and Second Dynasties, lasting from the Protodynastic Period of Egypt until 2686 BC, or the beginning of the Old Kingdom. With the First Dynasty, the capital moved from Abydos to Memphis where an Egyptian god-king ruled a now unified polity that extended from the Nile Delta to the first cataract at Aswan. Abydos remained the major holy land in the south."

"The Old Kingdom is most commonly regarded as spanning the period of time when Egypt was ruled by the Third Dynasty through to the Sixth Dynasty (2686 BC – 2134 BC)"

If you believe creationism is a moot point, I would suggest you better look again, many people can justify it, that is why there are creationists existing. Then again many people can justify that an alleged flood didn't occur, we have the opposite extremes on either side of rationalism.

Well it is moot considering there's no evidence for it and all to the contrary. But by all means, don't let a little thing like archeology, anthropology and geology stand in your way.

I would agree with you, a crocodile is a direct descendant to a dinosaur, and many people still live in existance with them.

Yea I pretty much agreed to that. Although it does not appear that Crocs and Gators were indigenous to that area. So it doesn't appear likely that the supposed Noah took two of them on board.

Please keep an objective mind. You have already stated cocodiles, could have included turtles et al. Mankind is still living with animals from the dinosaur era. Perhaps slightly evolved, perhaps slightly manipulated by ID, depending on where your power of suggestion lies, but certainly coexisting.

I'm not suggesting the ones we know for a fact coexisting with us. That would be stupid. Take for instance T-Rex. They did not coexist with us at all but some creationist groups suggest they did....to the point of building a museum to promote this belief.

Exhibits | Creation Museum

It is fact that they teach this. They teach that man and the large dinosaurs coexisted. One of the most unfortunate things about this is they start with kids. They start their dishonesty very early by brainwashing children. They have a sub-website devoted to this nonsense.

Videos - Kids Answers

Sample Video

A lack of evidence doesn't support any position. All that is left is power of suggestion and power of association.

Suggested evidence does not support your assumption at all. Even by evolution we are still coexisting.

you said "Certainly the evidence to date suggests that they never coexisted, albeit it is only suggestion at this point in time."

The current enormous amount of evidence contradicts man coexisting with dinosaurs. You know exactly what dinosaurs I'm referring to. I current data shows we didn't then there's no reason to suggest we did unless you can show that we did.

Sorry I do not play imagination games, especially to try and conclude it as evidence. I understand if you do, many others do the same thing, you wouldn't be alone.

Point being is that with the amount of water/moisture in the atmosphere covering the whole planet the pressure would been immense. Our lungs would probably collapse and we'd drown to death trying to breath.

 

[Autodidact]

LOL oh I know that, but on the same token, you do know that is what I conclude of you, don't you?

You do not have to converse with me, I have never asked you to, I will converse with you anytime I choose to, fair enough. I can usually get good mileage out of your one sided postings and the power of suggestions and associations you add to them. Particularly when you make dumb statements like this culture existed before the alleged flood and this culture existed after the alleged flood. Hell you don't even know when the alleged flood was and I think you believe you are making some form of rational point.

Great, then we can just agree not to converse. Bye.

 

[darkendless]

Oh darkendless, human perception is a powerful thing. I do happen to align with the belief that there wasn't a literal world wide flood. Now every other possible thing which science says may be probable must be taken into consideration.

Like I said to you in the beginning, when human nature (human characteristics) rely on soil samples, I will look you up. There is much more to science than what you are studying.

You just don't get it

 

[footprints]

It wasn't a rash statement by Auto. The time line came from URAVIP2ME. If you want evidence on the supposed flood time line then you should be taking it up with him. Auto disagree with him on the date he came up with because current evidence outright refute his claim.

The only credible response to this is, 1) we are not 100% sure if a flood even took place. 2) If a flood did take place we have absolutely no idea of when this period was. 3) To an ancient culture, if their whole known world was flooded, to them the whole world would have been flooded, so it doesn't necessarily mean a world wide flood, it may have been a local flood that appeared as a world wide flood to this ancient culture.

Now we have to start looking at some other scientic theories, let us look at the theory that life began in Africa. Migrated up through the middle east, across Asia Minor and down the land bridge into Australia one way, spreading out throughout Europe the other way. If the alledged flood happened in this time frame, it is entirely possible that there were no people in China et al.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding who it was that suggested the date in the first place. It was a creationist that came up with the date. All we did was present historical evidence to show they were incorrect. I know it is laborious but it would help if you stepped back in this thread to get and understanding as to what we are debating before jumping in at the end and making allegations and request.

It doesn't matter who suggested the date, it is the incredible wrong answer given, which is more to the point.

The current enormous amount of evidence contradicts man coexisting with dinosaurs. You know exactly what dinosaurs I'm referring to. I current data shows we didn't then there's no reason to suggest we did unless you can show that we did.

We do not have an enormous amount of evidence pertaining to this period, in fact what evidence we have is very spasmodic and full of missing links. From this sparse evidence we try to make some sense of it all.

Point being is that with the amount of water/moisture in the atmosphere covering the whole planet the pressure would been immense. Our lungs would probably collapse and we'd drown to death trying to breath.

Point being the whole planet could be covered in water, and providing a person could find shelter and not suffer from hypothermia nothing untoward would happen to them providing they had food, water and kept dry. By the way, have you ever been to tropical rainforests, say in New Guinea, I chocked and gag every time I go there, the local natives though who lived in the mountains where I visit, take it in their stride, it is completely normal to them.

 

[footprints]

Great, then we can just agree not to converse. Bye.

You can agree to whatever you want to, I will agree to whatever I want to. Sounds fair enough to me.

 

[footprints]

You just don't get it

No darkendless I do get it, you want to prove the story wrong by your evidence and your evidence alone. In order to do so you are completely willing to deny what other fields of science are saying. This is your right and this is your prerogative, I hope you do not mind if I take other fields of science just as seriously as I accept your chosen field.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The only credible response to this is, 1) we are not 100% sure if a flood even took place. 2) If a flood did take place we have absolutely no idea of when this period was.

No...this is incorrect. We have an overwhelming amount of data that shows the planet was never covered in water especially during the time of the supposed Noah. What I mean by "time" is.....the time frame that creationist give us for a flood date. We know for certain a WWF event hasn't happened. There simply isn't enough water in the oceans, seas, lakes or frozen to cover the entire planet, let alone being able to cover Mount Everest. If a flood event happened we would, for sure, know that it did and when.

3) To an ancient culture, if their whole known world was flooded, to them the whole world would have been flooded, so it doesn't necessarily mean a world wide flood, it may have been a local flood that appeared as a world wide flood to this ancient culture.

I have no problem with this. I'm only addressing the bible literalist. When such a person suggest it was the entire world and I disagree then I'm free to state my case and form and argument for debate. It is incumbent upon both of us...or all parties involved to present evidence. Those here that disagree have done just that

Now we have to start looking at some other scientic theories, let us look at the theory that life began in Africa. Migrated up through the middle east, across Asia Minor and down the land bridge into Australia one way, spreading out throughout Europe the other way. If the alledged flood happened in this time frame, it is entirely possible that there were no people in China et al.

What "scientific theory" says this?

But (YOUR) hypothesis here is incorrect. We know that the time line given to us by creationist fails in retrospect to the existence of the Egyptian or Chinese cultures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Kingdom
"The Old Kingdom is most commonly regarded as spanning the period of time when Egypt was ruled by the Third Dynasty through to the Sixth Dynasty (2686 BC – 2134 BC)."


NOTE: "WE" didn't make the claim of their being a WWF nor did "WE" come up with a date for the supposed WWF. A creationist did that by giving us a date of 2370. Archeological evidence refutes this claim. The Egyptian dynasty was in full swing before, during and after said flood. Egyptians weren't the only ones either. The Sumerians had an extensive history that existed before and during the supposed flood and their history keeps going even when the supposed flood happeend.

History of Sumer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please take note of the dates and their progression.

It doesn't matter who suggested the date, it is the incredible wrong answer given, which is more to the point.

Who's wrong answer? The only thing that was wrong was an asinine attempt at devising a date for a mythical event taken from Sumerian folklore to try and pass off as if said event actually happened. He and others were wrong. They all are using the same "biblical record" and coming up with different dates for the flood. Archeological evidence, geological evidence, anthropological evidence refutes the hypothesis of a WWF let alone the story that follows.....

We do not have an enormous amount of evidence pertaining to this period, in fact what evidence we have is very spasmodic and full of missing links. From this sparse evidence we try to make some sense of it all.

Biblically speaking you're correct. To say we just don't know or have an enormous amount of evidence is just sheer laziness on your part.

Cuneiform Tablets
"Archaeologists have discovered vast libraries of cuneiform tablets in archaeological sites across the Near and Middle East. King Ashurbanipal’s library in Nineveh, for example, yielded over 22,000 cuneiform documents. The tablets from these libraries have taught archaeologists a great deal about the cultures of the ancient Middle Eastern region. Of more importance to biblical archaeologists, cuneiform tablets have served to verify various aspects of the biblical account, especially names and places."


And that's not all. As I said before we have a wealth of knowledge concerning the Egyptian and Chinese culture as well. All three exited before, during and immediately after said flood events told to us by creationist.

Point being the whole planet could be covered in water, and providing a person could find shelter and not suffer from hypothermia nothing untoward would happen to them providing they had food, water and kept dry. By the way, have you ever been to tropical rainforests, say in New Guinea, I chocked and gag every time I go there, the local natives though who lived in the mountains where I visit, take it in their stride, it is completely normal to them.

And....? These people who live their have adapted to their environment over generations. Like you said, while you were there you choked and gagged. Simply because you weren't used to it. Take Noah and his family and myriad of animals, fill the entire earth with water for 40 days and nights. The air would have been heavy given the amount of moisture. Various animals would not have been able to survive. The pressure would have been great and the stagnant moist air would have killed. Constant extreme moist air coupled with intense atmospheric pressure increasing hour by hour as it rained would kill us. But...really...you believe whatever you want...

 

[footprints]

No...this is incorrect. We have an overwhelming amount of data that shows the planet was never covered in water especially during the time of the supposed Noah. What I mean by "time" is.....the time frame that creationist give us for a flood date. We know for certain a WWF event hasn't happened. There simply isn't enough water in the oceans, seas, lakes or frozen to cover the entire planet, let alone being able to cover Mount Everest. If a flood event happened we would, for sure, know that it did and when.

That is not completely correct and I would suggest you look at some of the suggestions as it pertains to the Carboniforous period. Not that am suggesting this has any relevance to the debate.

Look if you take what some creationist says as gospel, then what can I say. And I doubt that unreasonable suggestions like Mout Everest being covered is going to achieve anything.

I can only agree, if a flood ever occured, there would be residual evidence for it.

I have no problem with this. I'm only addressing the bible literalist. When such a person suggest it was the entire world and I disagree then I'm free to state my case and form and argument for debate. It is incumbent upon both of us...or all parties involved to present evidence. Those here that disagree have done just that

I am not a bible literalist. Uncovering facts of the past is all that matters to me.

What "scientific theory" says this?

We All Originated in Africa - No crossbreeding with Neanderthals - Softpedia

But (YOUR) hypothesis here is incorrect. We know that the time line given to us by creationist fails in retrospect to the existence of the Egyptian or Chinese cultures.

Again I am not interested in what Creationists say, only in facts.

Who's wrong answer? The only thing that was wrong was an asinine attempt at devising a date for a mythical event taken from Sumerian folklore to try and pass off as if said event actually happened. He and others were wrong. They all are using the same "biblical record" and coming up with different dates for the flood. Archeological evidence, geological evidence, anthropological evidence refutes the hypothesis of a WWF let alone the story that follows.....

So then rationally and logically we can rule out a literal world wide flood then?

If that is the case, then let us apply a little bit of common sense and lets not raise this point again for neither of us believe it is valid. One cannot even rationally nor logically use it as counter argument.

Biblically speaking you're correct. To say we just don't know or have an enormous amount of evidence is just sheer laziness on your part.

Please give me a break, how many dinosaurs roamed the earth, how many fossils do we have? How many Homo Habilis were there, how many fossils do we have? How many hominidae and neanderthals lived and how many fossils do we have?

And....? These people who live their have adapted to their environment over generations. Like you said, while you were there you choked and gagged. Simply because you weren't used to it. Take Noah and his family and myriad of animals, fill the entire earth with water for 40 days and nights. The air would have been heavy given the amount of moisture. Various animals would not have been able to survive. The pressure would have been great and the stagnant moist air would have killed. Constant extreme moist air coupled with intense atmospheric pressure increasing hour by hour as it rained would kill us. But...really...you believe whatever you want...

Your steam bath analogy was a very poor association, it doesn't get any better. However if it means something to you, then it means something to you.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That is not completely correct and I would suggest you look at some of the suggestions as it pertains to the Carboniforous period. Not that am suggesting this has any relevance to the debate.

Yes, it's not relevant to this debate because the creationist that have chimed in on the OP don't believe that the earth is older than 13,000 years. There may have been one or two OEC here. As far as the Carboniforous Period I am well aware of that but like I said it wasn't something that needed to be brought up. No one here has ever suggested we have "never" had a massive geological flooding. We just have not had one as described in the bible. Certainly not one in the past 10, 20 or even 30,000 years..etc...etc...which by the way...covers the supposed time line of the Noah deluge.

Look if you take what some creationist says as gospel, then what can I say. And I doubt that unreasonable suggestions like Mout Everest being covered is going to achieve anything.

Well then this debate may not be for you seeing as though you jump in asking the wrong people to produce evidence of something they completely disagreed with from the start. Speaking of "from the start"....this debate centers around the creationist biblical belief and interpretation and since "they" were the ones posting a date then in all fairness those that disagree should have the right to refute it. That we have done and very well might I add.

What about "Mount Everest" is unreasonable for any of us to suggest it was never submerged under water in the fashion as described by the bible?

I can only agree, if a flood ever occured, there would be residual evidence for it.

Yes, and this has been one of our arguments with creationist from the very beginning of the thread.

I am not a bible literalist. Uncovering facts of the past is all that matters to me.

As am I. My original debate was not with you on this matter. Only those that hold a literalistic view of their scripture.

We All Originated in Africa - No crossbreeding with Neanderthals - Softpedia

I see what you mean now. Yes I pretty much agree with this......but wow what a difference a few years makes....considering the most recent news of Ardipithecus ramidus (Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found)

Again I am not interested in what Creationists say, only in facts.

Your point is noted but the debate all along has been about what creationist and other bible literalist believe and they are who we have been dialoging with.

So then rationally and logically we can rule out a literal world wide flood then?

If that is the case, then let us apply a little bit of common sense and lets not raise this point again for neither of us believe it is valid. One cannot even rationally nor logically use it as counter argument.

That's one of the points in debating. This isn't the fist time this subject has come up nor will it be the last. When the debate is started both sides present their case. Should we suspend this circular argument? Heck yeah.....but it won't stop here. We like to debate...that's why we come here.

Please give me a break, how many dinosaurs roamed the earth, how many fossils do we have? How many Homo Habilis were there, how many fossils do we have? How many hominidae and neanderthals lived and how many fossils do we have?

It's not the point in how many we currently have. The fact and point is....we have them. Dinosaurs are an easy one. We have tons (no pun intended) of fossils of them. And it appears we have plenty of fossils when it comes to us.

But really.....your response here has nothing to do with your original comment. You were speaking on the time frame of the supposed flood and the supposed lack of historical records of the time and this is just not true in light of the Sumerian, Egyptian and Chinese dynasties of the time. Paying close attention to the information I listed in regards to the Sumerians and their time line as well as the Egyptians and their time line completely refutes URAVIP2ME's claim of the supposed flood time line.

You suspect that his time line is incorrect because of lack of evidence. Guess what? So do I. The difference between you and I is I'm not just making blanket statements when debating with him or any other creationist on this subject. I'm actually presenting some archeological, anthropological and geological evidence to them.

Your steam bath analogy was a very poor association, it doesn't get any better. However if it means something to you, then it means something to you.

I get what you mean. I was trying to show that such a sudden change to the planet would be detrimental to man as well as animals. It supposedly rained 40 days and nights. If one is to buy that then the atmosphere, over a short period of time, would have consistently been nothing but moist air to breathe. Couple that with the rising sea levels above Mount Everest and a decrease in oxygen. And since it rained day and night, seemingly non-stop, then the sun beaming down during the days would have made it feel as though one was in a steam room.
Atmospheric pressure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know you don't specifically think the story is true but the creationist here do. We're just presenting the data that shows it couldn't have been true.