RE: My Creationist friend
April 20, 2010 at 11:18 am
(This post was last modified: April 20, 2010 at 11:20 am by TheMultiverseTheory.)
They underestimated the sea-life equation. There are creatures that can only survive under salt-water conditions, and then there are life-forms only able to thrive in fresh-water conditions. If the entire planet was flooded, this would mean that it was most likely a salt-water planet, with very, very few pockets of inbetweens as can naturally occur. However, being that this is not a natural occurrance, we can safely assume that many of the fresh-water locales would have been utterly tarnished with the flooding of salt water.
The planet's majority source of water is salted, and this can prove to be fatal to those species, large and small, that can only live in fresh-water conditions. Not too mention microbes that would had to have adapted to the change in only a day's time and the plants that would have been utterly eradicated from the planet due to the drowning and lack of sunlight.
Couple this, with the diseases that can easily spread from animal to animal, and the fact that carnivorous animals needed flesh to stay nourished, yet Noah was only allowed two of each species, then you have a recipe for a story that crumbles upon the very scientific details that it so hastily ignores.
Not too mention, rain is formed by the sun's heat which evaporates the water on the planet. This causes the liquid to become a vapor and rise up into the atmosphere, forming clouds. They only fall once the have become too heavy to be sustained by these clouds. Thus the water returns to the Earth.
With that explanation, not a lot of water really falls down during a rain-storm. A lot may be collected through the cycle, but the rain falling is relative to distinct locations. In order for the entire planet to be flooded, it would have to have a period of rain longer than that of 40d40n as told in the Old Testament. Once the planet would be flooded, it would take even longer for volcanos to form the land that would be needed to breach the waters surface. Our landmasses are not young as would be suggested if the Planet had been flooded. And so this obviously obliterated the hypothesis of Noah's Ark.
I won't go into the details of the animals that were not even remotely in the vicinity of the Ark's original location, as we all know how ridiculous the idea is. Even today we are discovering new species, and so I and every logical individual can highly doubt that Noah found all of these species first and somehow miraculously placed them all back in the appropriate habitats.
Any explanation in favor of Noah's Ark is kindegarten Grade at best. They simply do not stand when details are applied to the hypothesis. Thus, Noah's Ark, as we on the forum know, did not happen.
The planet's majority source of water is salted, and this can prove to be fatal to those species, large and small, that can only live in fresh-water conditions. Not too mention microbes that would had to have adapted to the change in only a day's time and the plants that would have been utterly eradicated from the planet due to the drowning and lack of sunlight.
Couple this, with the diseases that can easily spread from animal to animal, and the fact that carnivorous animals needed flesh to stay nourished, yet Noah was only allowed two of each species, then you have a recipe for a story that crumbles upon the very scientific details that it so hastily ignores.
Not too mention, rain is formed by the sun's heat which evaporates the water on the planet. This causes the liquid to become a vapor and rise up into the atmosphere, forming clouds. They only fall once the have become too heavy to be sustained by these clouds. Thus the water returns to the Earth.
With that explanation, not a lot of water really falls down during a rain-storm. A lot may be collected through the cycle, but the rain falling is relative to distinct locations. In order for the entire planet to be flooded, it would have to have a period of rain longer than that of 40d40n as told in the Old Testament. Once the planet would be flooded, it would take even longer for volcanos to form the land that would be needed to breach the waters surface. Our landmasses are not young as would be suggested if the Planet had been flooded. And so this obviously obliterated the hypothesis of Noah's Ark.
I won't go into the details of the animals that were not even remotely in the vicinity of the Ark's original location, as we all know how ridiculous the idea is. Even today we are discovering new species, and so I and every logical individual can highly doubt that Noah found all of these species first and somehow miraculously placed them all back in the appropriate habitats.
Any explanation in favor of Noah's Ark is kindegarten Grade at best. They simply do not stand when details are applied to the hypothesis. Thus, Noah's Ark, as we on the forum know, did not happen.
T H E • M U L T I V E R S E • T H E O R Y
