(October 19, 2017 at 11:15 am)Astreja Wrote: IMO, anyone who believes that the Biblical flood actually happened is a lunatic.  It's painfully obvious that it's a tall tale based on stories of smaller regional floods.

Notice that Huggy completely ignored my point about genetic diversity being required to avoid inbreeding and continued asking questions as if I had never mentioned it.

(October 19, 2017 at 3:00 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 19, 2017 at 2:06 am)Mathilda Wrote: The global flood.

Show me where science has thoroughly debunked the flood.

:rollseyes:

Huggy, I wouldn't want to leave you without the proper form to use when calculating your ark's stability. Here is the standard form that Chief Officers must fill out prior to holds inspections for ships loading grain:

https://natcargo.org/gscf.pdf

Once the ship gets to its anchorage for inspection, a National Cargo Bureau surveyor and representatives of the USDA board the vessel, inspect the holds for cleanliness, and then review the C/O's calculations to ensure that the proposed stowage of the grain falls within acceptable parameters for safety. The reason for this is that grain shifts in ships' holds while at sea, causing changes to the vessel's angle of heel. Too much and the vessel could sink.

The numbers have to be right, or the ship will not pass inspection and the stow plan must be reworked. C/Os don't get to say, "Well, something, something, magic, something . . . I'm sure it will all work out."

It should go without saying that two live specimens of every species on board a vessel in a worldwide flood will shift even more than grain.

So get to it. I look forward to your solution.

An impossible boat rides out an impossible flood with an impossible cargo...leaving no trace whatsoever of any of it having occurred.  Meanwhile, what traces do remain..from all relevant and available fields of inquiry.....demonstrates that even if it were possible..say...by magic, that it just didn't happen regardless.

The bible uses the words "kind" and "sort" because the primitive shits who wrote it had no concept of what a "species" meant, dumbass.

(October 19, 2017 at 11:20 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(October 19, 2017 at 11:04 am)Huggy74 Wrote: When people speak of the animal pairs that went into the ark they ALWAYS assume that it was a pair of the exact same animal and not a pair of the same species.

The Bible uses the word "kind" and "sort" which have the same meaning as "species".

Ah right now you're moving the goal posts. You asked:

(October 19, 2017 at 12:43 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Name one thing in the Bible that scientific knowledge has debunked.

You didn't ask us to name one thing in the Bible given careful and selective interpretation to mean something that could possibly be answered.

But no matter, by saying this you then exacerbate another existing problem. A wooden ark could not have been big enough to two of each species, yet alone many specimens of the same species sorted into similar "kinds".

Because yet again science has falsified the Bible, this time by demonstrating that wooden ships can only be built so large before they sink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_(schooner)

Quote:Because of its extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold (see hogging and sagging). Wyoming had to use pumps to keep its hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, it foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands.

Strange how the ark conveniently dropped all the animals off back to the same parts of the world from where they came from. Or did they all manage to walk back after the floods receded without leaving behind any fossils?

*Emphasis mine*

According to your article, the Wyoming appears to measure 450 ft. overall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_treasure_ship

Quote:The size and dimensions of the treasures are heavily debated. According to British scientist, historian and sinologist Joseph Needham, the purported dimensions of the largest of these ships were 137 m (450 ft) by 55 m (180 ft), which would make them at least twice as long as the largest European ships at the end of the sixteenth century. These dimensions have been challenged on engineering grounds and on the reliability of their sources; some have claimed they could not have been more than 61–76 m (200–250 feet) or that they could only have been used on special occasions in the relative safety of the lower Yangtze River. However, in 1962 a large rudder was unearthed in the Treasure Ship Yard in Nanjing with dimensions corresponding with a 600-ft long ship.

Oops!

---

(October 19, 2017 at 11:53 am)Minimalist Wrote: The bible uses the words "kind" and "sort" because the primitive shits who wrote it had no concept of what a "species" meant, dumbass.

"Kind" and "sort" are synonymous with "species" buddy.

Your point being Huggy? We know that the Wyoming only managed to stay afloat by pumping out water and eventually sank. Yet your ark not only has to carry two of each species, but multiple specimens of each species, enough to maintain genetic diversity so that the species can surviv in the wild (remember the minimum viable population I mentioned). You'd need a ship much larger than 600 feet to achieve that. Not that we know whether a 600 foot ship, if it was ever built even sailed without sinking because or that the rudder was even used on a ship that large because all they have is a rudder.

(October 19, 2017 at 10:41 am)Huggy74 Wrote: How do you reconcile the above quote with this

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/12/us/wha...m-sea.html

Quote:Scientists have found fossils of whales and other marine animals in mountain sediments in the Andes, indicating that the South American mountain chain rose very rapidly from the sea.

Quote:When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments.

And this
The Andes have been a mountain chain for much longer than previously thought, new research from the University of Bristol, UK suggests.

Quote:With collaborators at Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre and partially funded by BHP Billiton, Dr Evenstar analysed large boulders from 2km high in the western margin of the Andes. She has shown that the Andes were already near their present elevation 14 million years ago.

What? Huggy are you telling me that flood happened tens of millions years ago?

Considering your article(s) I don't see the problem. You quoted only parts of articles and I presume you try to say that sea animals died on Andes that were already high mountains, but the articles do explain themselves you should just read more:
"Among the fossils the scientists reported bringing back were the bones of whales and other marine animals found at altitudes of more than 5,000 feet. When these animals died from 15 million to 20 million years ago, their carcasses settled to the ocean floor and were embedded in submarine sediments. But since then, the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains. In geological terms, the time the fossils took to rise from ocean floor to mountain top was relatively brief."

So there you go. In other article you show how some scientist said that Andes where full length 14 million years ago: so let's say they died 20 million years ago and then next 6 million years ago "the violent upthrusting of the Andean chain has carried the sediments to the tops of mountains". What's the problem? Andes are very volcanic so they did grow relatively fast, but still millions of years.

Place I live used to be the floor of a tropical devonian sea.  Apparently, it would have looked alot like home to me back then.  Sharks, coral and sponges..... and big fucking shrimp.  

Coarse, you have to pull rock out of the mountains to know that...and the coral certainly didn't settle up there in the space of a month or two..........but it goes to show that the dates for the deluge by reference to the above must be wrong. This was at least 358 million years ago, and god -did- say he'd never flood the world again.

(October 19, 2017 at 12:14 pm)Mathilda Wrote: Your point being Huggy? We know that the Wyoming only managed to stay afloat by pumping out water and eventually sank. Yet your ark not only has to carry two of each species, but multiple specimens of each species, enough to maintain genetic diversity so that the species can surviv in the wild (remember the minimum viable population I mentioned). You'd need a ship much larger than 600 feet to achieve that. Not that we know whether a 600 foot ship, if it was ever built even sailed without sinking because or that the rudder was even used on a ship that large because all they have is a rudder.

It is known that all species of cats (for example) that exist today, have a common ancestor.




This shows that all that was required on the ark was two cats, not EVERY species of cat that existed, so that reduces the number of animals required significantly.