The caverns would be under that kind of pressure because they are under many tons of ROCK(which is heavy by the way). Not all of the caverns need to be under that kind of pressure, others could have been much closer to the surface. Your reefs could have been much more widespread then and shoved upward when this all took place, many died of course, but enough survived to continue the ecosystems. As for there being little oxygen in those caverns, there isn't much oxygen at the bottom of the ocean either, and there could have been oxygen seeping into the caverns from below through the vents.
edit: I'm going to bow out of the discussion for tonight at least, need sleep....
Sirus, you keep attacking evolution, but you haven't quite explained the logistics of Noah and the Ark! I mean read the first post and explain each and every conflict. I'm curious to know how you'd explain that, to be honest.
Also, on a geologic point of view, there have been two major wipeouts of life on this planet. Both of which were far before glimmer of a human being set foot on this planet. Evidence does not support massive flooding. Evidence suggests more of a humongous asteroid hitting the earth. Ashes are found all over the place at the same time during these major wipeouts. Quite possibly the ashes wasn't what killed everything, but the blackout of the sun. However, all the same, it wasn't flooding.
It seems obvious to me anyway that all signs point to evolution, not creationism. I think after seeing the logistics of Noah and the Ark in the bible, you can't possibly say the bible is correct word for word. If you accept that premise, it is not but a couple baby steps until you realize that the bible is no where near accurate (maybe they are using stories?), and in fact perhaps it was just a metaphor for evolution all along.
I'd like to see prophets explaining the bible try to explain evolution to a bunch of farmers. "We came from apes?! WHAT?! What sort of God do YOU worship? I'm not worshipping that!" There's your explanation. The bible uses metaphors to convey a message from God. If you don't think the bible uses metaphors, I'd like to see you try to explain Noah and the Ark for me... seriously.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The caverns would be under that kind of pressure because they are under many tons of ROCK(which is heavy by the way). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This doesn't exactly mean that the water underneath is under intense pressure at all. There are many underground lakes and the like which aren't pressurised at all. When I refer to pressure in water, I actually am talking more about the fact that as you have a water column, the water down the bottom is under more pressure than the water at the top.
If this is the case as well, I doubt there would be any life growing in such a system.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not all of the caverns need to be under that kind of pressure, others could have been much closer to the surface.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we already have such caverns (aquifers) but they aren't under pressure, nor are they capable of blasting water into the sky.
You still haven't answered my question about what happens to these caverns. If they remain open the water will go back into them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your reefs could have been much more widespread then and shoved upward when this all took place, many died of course, but enough survived to continue the ecosystems. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is extremely disagreeable. Are you aware of how incredibly massive the great barrier reef actually is? Likewise even to where it is located? This is a really absurd idea, especially because what happened when the water level fell again? Simple: Mass extinction 2 the second blow.
Also if the water was displaced (by land being pushed up) that would just increase the water level more, probably still ensuring the reefs fate.
The damage that would of been done in such a process too would be utterly irreversible (especially going by what has happened to reefs from wars and other such things).
Again, this is extraordinarily unlikely, especially considering the large number of places it would have to occur (there are more than one coral reef, but I focus on the Great Barrier Reef because it is closest to me, and I've read the most about its damage).
Finally, why isn't there a drop of evidence to suggest this around ANY of the reefs? Remembering that if the flood covered the highest mountain (Everest) then we should have some sort of plateu or land mass sticking out to an immense height in one of those reefs.
We do not, therefore evidence suggests this event never happened.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for there being little oxygen in those caverns, there isn't much oxygen at the bottom of the ocean either,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But not as little as such caverns would. You are forgetting an extremely important point: Oceans have currents, such a system that you are suggesting would be stratified. There is an important difference.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and there could have been oxygen seeping into the caverns from below through the vents.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where is this oxygen coming from? Soils are anaerobic environments! Oxygen doesn't emerge from under the earths crust!
I'm afraid without any evidence, or even logical science this idea isn't going to hold any water at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The caverns would be under that kind of pressure because they are under many tons of ROCK(which is heavy by the way).
This doesn't exactly mean that the water underneath is under intense pressure at all. There are many underground lakes and the like which aren't pressurised at all. When I refer to pressure in water, I actually am talking more about the fact that as you have a water column, the water down the bottom is under more pressure than the water at the top.
If this is the case as well, I doubt there would be any life growing in such a system. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree it doesn't <i>necessarily</i> mean that they are under intense pressure, which is part of my point. Some can be, others wouldn't be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not all of the caverns need to be under that kind of pressure, others could have been much closer to the surface.
Yes, we already have such caverns (aquifers) but they aren't under pressure, nor are they capable of blasting water into the sky.
You still haven't answered my question about what happens to these caverns. If they remain open the water will go back into them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did answer, the original rock likely got turned to boulders and silt, which then got deposited on the nearest forming continent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Your reefs could have been much more widespread then and shoved upward when this all took place, many died of course, but enough survived to continue the ecosystems.
That is extremely disagreeable. Are you aware of how incredibly massive the great barrier reef actually is? Likewise even to where it is located? This is a really absurd idea, especially because what happened when the water level fell again? Simple: Mass extinction 2 the second blow.
Also if the water was displaced (by land being pushed up) that would just increase the water level more, probably still ensuring the reefs fate.
The damage that would of been done in such a process too would be utterly irreversible (especially going by what has happened to reefs from wars and other such things).
Again, this is extraordinarily unlikely, especially considering the large number of places it would have to occur (there are more than one coral reef, but I focus on the Great Barrier Reef because it is closest to me, and I've read the most about its damage).
Finally, why isn't there a drop of evidence to suggest this around ANY of the reefs? Remembering that if the flood covered the highest mountain (Everest) then we should have some sort of plateu or land mass sticking out to an immense height in one of those reefs.
We do not, therefore evidence suggests this event never happened. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say that the reefs may have been covering much of the ocean floor before this point, and as the land moved (which I'm not saying was instantaneous), parts of the reefs stayed close enough to the surface to survive, also, there would have been so much torn apart plant matter floating around after such a catastophic event that the coral would likely have had plenty to eat anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for there being little oxygen in those caverns, there isn't much oxygen at the bottom of the ocean either,
But not as little as such caverns would. You are forgetting an extremely important point: Oceans have currents, such a system that you are suggesting would be stratified. There is an important difference. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some aquifers do take in water from porus surrounding land, this water can have oxygen in it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> and there could have been oxygen seeping into the caverns from below through the vents.
Where is this oxygen coming from? Soils are anaerobic environments! Oxygen doesn't emerge from under the earths crust!
I'm afraid without any evidence, or even logical science this idea isn't going to hold any water at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just answered that <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
edit: my qoute tags don't seem to be working properly... edit2: ah, misplaced space edit3:
Found an explaination for where the water went. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ...thanks to the work of a group of Japanese scientists at the Tokyo Institute of technology.? The December 1999 edition of Discover magazine reported their incredible find.? With no intention of helping creationism, they inadvertently discovered that the earth?s mantle is soaking up the world?s oceans at the rate of a billion tons of water a year!? The soluble, permeable rock of the lower crust and upper mantle are soaking up the oceans like a sponge.? If this trend of a billion tons of water a year has been continuing since the Flood, an amazing sum of? 5 x 10^12, or 5,000,000,000,000, or 5 TRILLION TONS of water have been absorbed in the last five thousand years.? To put this into more understood terms, since a gallon of water weighs a couple, say four, pounds, in the last five thousand years, the earth has absorbed 5,000,000,000,000,000, or 5 QUADRILLION GALLONS of water!? Of course the water from the Flood wouldn?t be here today! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://63.111.59.137/archive/output.cfm?ID=1737' target='_blank'>the article the quote speaks of</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--Sirus+Oct 9 2003, 11:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sirus @ Oct 9 2003, 11:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh thank you Decimator. I have to say, Aegeri is extremely well versed in his information, despite that I believe that's it's perfectly feasible, under the correct conditions, and the basis is that this is an act of God, so who is to say that it wouldn't be the right conditions if he wanted to be ?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Okay, here's the root of my problem. Creationists invoke the bible to claim that god created the world in seven days, and that god was the one responsible for bringing life on this planet. Since they only have the bible to go on, and they want to believe the stories it contains, there is no ambiguity as to what it says in there. Either it's true or it isn't. Herein lies the problem, as it pertains to the story of Noah's ark. Noah was a man... someone who apparently lived to be more than 600 years old... and as such he was incapable of god-like functions. Why, exactly, did god bother with saving Noah? Why not just start over from scratch, and make a new, better, more powerful man? If god can do whatever he wants, including opening up the deep fountains and forcing water to cover the entire planet up above the highest mountain peak, why would he even bother going through all that effort? Why not just snap his fingers and start Adam and Eve 2.0?
Ah, we'll never know. This is the story and most Christians believe it. Okay, so... in terms of Evolution vs Creation. I don't think anyone doubts that there are roughly 1.5 million different species on this planet. Many are aquatic, so ruling them out we guess there are 500,000. Like I said before, there are 300,000 species of beetle alone. In order for all of these species to exist on this planet as it sits today... no Adam and Eve 2.0... they must have been saved by Noah and put on his ark. If the story of Genesis is right, and the Earth is between 6 and 7 thousand years old, that is nowhere near enough time for evolution to have created so vastly many different species as we see today. So it's not like Noah saved a handful that in then turned into 500,000. Even if there was enough time, Creationists don't even believe in evolution.
That is the paradox I wish to debate. How did Noah maintain a million animals on this gigantic ark? No speculation about supernatural effects that god might have employed. If he wanted to do that, he should have just started over and not put Noah through so much stress. The least he could have done was build the boat for Noah and saved 120 years of work. The bible wants us to believe that god was allowing man to have his own free will. He made a covenant with Noah not to flood the Earth again. Thus, it seems to me that god did not want to interfere other than when it came time to kill everyone off.
Perhaps the problem stems from the lack of knowledge the person who wrote these chapters about Noah had about animals on this planet. Maybe he did not know there are 1.5 million species, otherwise he could have written something about the feasibility.
There is scientific evidence that there WAS a flood in the Black Sea area, some 7 thousand years ago. There is direct evidence that human populations lived in that area prior to its flooding. You only need to go to the bottom of the Black Sea to find the man-made structures lying there. So I ask this to the Christians out there... is it at least <b>feasible</b> that the great flood mentioned in the chapters about Noah was actually this local flood in the Black Sea? That some of the people who lived there survived to make it out and tell their stories about what happened? Is it <b>feasible</b> that these stories got handed down, generation after generation, civilization after civilization, until they were documented by various religions? Can you at least appreciate the fact that many other religions, not just Christianity, also have stories of a great flood? Disconnect yourself for a minute about the validity of the story itself... don't get so literal in the interpretation of the story in the bible. Because if you do start treating the story literally, you are going to fall under heavy scrutiny for its improbability and many other things are going to be questioned. Instead, imagine what knowledge the author had about the world around him and also of what stories he had been told as a child.
It is easy to make connections between what we can prove happened long ago and the stories that were written about those pre-historic events. One small step in helping people understand how the stories in the bible (and other religious texts) came to be is to analyze actual geologic history and what those major events might have meant to the people living during those times. If you can appreciate the logical origins of the stories, perhaps one day you'll be able to disconnect yourself from the literal interpretation of the bible and instead focus maybe on alternate theories about how life came to be so diverse. Just maybe you'll think that the Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old. Just maybe you'll think that evolution is possible. Maybe you can still hold on to your belief that it was a supreme being, god, who created the very first life form and gave it DNA that was capable of evolving over time. From there, all the diversity you see in this world came to be through a process that <b>he</b> invented and carefully planned. I would be happy with religions accepting this notion about evolution instead of trying to denounce it out of hand. There will come a time where the evidence we uncover for evolution will be overwhelming. Religions will either have to adapt and reconsider their beliefs or fade into history. There certainly won't be any new evidence to come to the aid of Noah. Make the change now and let's move forward, on to greater discoveries.
I'm leaving this to Dec, I simply don't know enough about all the forms of science to debate it. I thought I established this from the beginning, I was talking from a theoretical stance almost all the time and offered other explanations from other sources, not me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sirus, you keep attacking evolution, but you haven't quite explained the logistics of Noah and the Ark!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who cares. I don't agree with evolution, I believe it's incorrectly drawing a conclusion that's contradictory to a real historical event (Jesus Christ), however, without that historical event I would be more understanding of evolution, although even then, I'm skeptical of the fossil record.
I don't need to explain the logistics, understand that they can be mutually exclusive, I can not agree with evolution and still not be able to explain every sequence of events in addition to every circumstance.
Actually if you ask me, most modern science like biology is completely of out of place in the past. I think it should be kept to the Future and present. The reasoning being is that everything is entirely too circumstantial to assume things, and there's dynamic progressions not just linear progressions that make such things extremely difficult. Even now, science has a difficult time analyzing the present, hundreds of murderers get away because they simply can't find a trace yet science can pinpoint ancient creatures around the globe, name their habits, what they eat, their exact characteristics how they progressed, how they thought and the exact progression of the world since "billions of years ago".
Please don't bother to respond to this, don't try to prove my feelings wrong because they're just my feelings. Any attempt to and you're just banging your head against the wall.
Okay, well just try and keep an open mind about things. Sorry you're not interested in discussing it anymore... it's just a shame I can't get you to think about it a little more abstractly. Maybe someone else will join in the fray.
Desicrator will probably take over. And the reason why I left is because :
A. I wasn't up to date on all of the current scientific information. I simply don't even have access to all of that information right now, I would have to order a large amount of information just to recieve it. I also need to do some more studying of the fossil record.
B. I couldn't get the opposition to think more pragmatically it always broke down to the idea that it didn't happen period. Not, "I can understand what you mean, and I think that some things could be effected by a catastrophic flood but I it seems less likely to me", it was always "Absolutely no flood, what about coral reefs (Something), I don't think so, no no no."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Who cares. I don't agree with evolution, I believe it's incorrectly drawing a conclusion that's contradictory to a real historical event (Jesus Christ), however, without that historical event I would be more understanding of evolution, although even then, I'm skeptical of the fossil record.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evolution is irrelevant. The discussion is in your territory now. Believing something that is logistically impossible is like saying "I believe in santa clause even though I know he doesn't exist."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Please don't bother to respond to this, don't try to prove my feelings wrong because they're just my feelings. Any attempt to and you're just banging your head against the wall. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not "banging my head against the wall" anymore than you are trying to defend your case by saying "I believe it just 'cause."
It's not impossible just as much as evolution is impossible for you. If God really exists how is there any debate about anything anyways ? If he did exist he's completely omnipotent and can do whatever he wants supernatural or not.
Is there a debate over that ? I think not. You're banging your head against a wall.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree it doesn't <i>necessarily</i> mean that they are under intense pressure, which is part of my point. Some can be, others wouldn't be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then how does the water get out?
This isn't sounding very plausible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did answer, the original rock likely got turned to boulders and silt, which then got deposited on the nearest forming continent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've failed to answer what happens to the HOLE. You know, if you have an ABSENCE of water you must therefore happens to a space. What happens to the space for this water? If it doesn't fill in then the water can go back in (which is my point).
In addition to this, explain to me why the ones under no pressure go off.
This is making less sense now than even a firmament in the sky!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd say that the reefs may have been covering much of the ocean floor before this point<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you've missed a key point here: Coral reefs REQUIRE sunlight and are photosynthetic. They can only cover CERTAIN parts of the ocean, and even then those that are of the right temperature.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and as the land moved (which I'm not saying was instantaneous), <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they aren't bought up to just under everest height the hole lot of them die.
Again, this is NOT plausible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->parts of the reefs stayed close enough to the surface to survive,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, they would need to be put just under 300 ft below everest. WHERE IS THIS HUGE SPIKE IN THE OCEAN SIGNIFYING THIS?
There isn't any, therefore there is no evidence this ever occured.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->catastophic event that the coral would likely have had plenty to eat anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please read my posts:
CORALS ARE PHOTOSYNTHETIC.
Thank you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some aquifers do take in water from porus surrounding land, this water can have oxygen in it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But water can also drain into these thus reducing pressure, and also reducing the amount of water going into them (also draining the aquifier over time if it isn't being replaced). This happens on the canturbury plains for example, where rainwater from mountains continually replaces the water in an aquifer.
Also you have again forgotton that these are NOT moving bodies of water, as such they stratify. There will hence be a trend in oxygen/H2S levels up and down the water column. There will hence be an anoxygenic and oxygenic zone in the water. However, in underground lakes the oxygen content is far less (oxygen is lost for a wide variety of things, including being used by bacteria) overall.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and in another <b>billion</b> years the oceans will be gone<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering there was more water dumped on the earth then there there ever was now, and considering their own prediction is for it to be gone in a few billion years (meaning the water loss isn't half as exaggerated as you claim), I'm not really convinced.
[Troll] What if Noah's Flood was a local flood and not a world wide flood. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->776 'erets (eh'-rets) from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *taken from <a href='http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB7.htm#S776' target='_blank'>http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/...TRHEB7.htm#S776</a>
This is the word that is translated earth in the account of Noah's flood. Notice that the last meaning for the word is world. It should be noted that the first few meanings are often the most correct. [/Troll]
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited October 2003
I think whats really amazing is how the story got written in the first place. I mean, did Noah sat down and wrote these things (On what if I may add?) and did he tell the story to his grandson which passed it on to their grandson to finally someone would write it down?. If so, couldnt the history just be slight off? Exaggerated, with a tiny bit of thruth (perhaps)?
Moses wrote the first five books of the bible with divine inspiration to explain to the isralites how they came to be stuck in the desert, and what they should do to get out of it
<!--QuoteBegin--Epidemic+Oct 15 2003, 11:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Epidemic @ Oct 15 2003, 11:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think whats really amazing is how the story got written in the first place. I mean, did Noah sat down and wrote these things (On what if I may add?) and did he tell the story to his grandson which passed it on to their grandson to finally someone would write it down?. If so, couldnt the history just be slight off? Exaggerated, with a tiny bit of thruth (perhaps)? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No... my assumption is that it was a story, like so many others, told verbally by grandparents to their grandkids for amusement. Like fairy tales. The basis for the story was the actual flood of the Black Sea area circa 5500 BC. Since the flood was not documented physically until much later, the only way for the story of that flood to survive was through hand-me-down storytelling. As successive generations told the story, flavor was inserted to make it more interesting. So much flavor that you get intertwined with religion and then the animals, and well you know how it goes. Lots of religions have stories of a great flood. These are all variants of the same original event, just told to different people and spread through different channels. The story itself evolved.
So now you have the spectacle of this 600-year-old man building the largest wooden vessel <b>ever</b> constructed... more than 1.5 football fields in length. Once the story was documented in the bible, however, it was locked in stone. Can't change it. So now under scientific and logical scrutiny, the story doesn't make sense. But 2000 years ago, it probably seemed very feasible. Well, the Earth was flat back then, the Earth was also the center of the Universe, and there was no such thing as dinosaurs or fossils.
so its down to exageration then? thats still really weird i think, i can see people passing down a story of a real flood.. i can imagine perhaps the boat got bigger and bigger as the generations went on.. but where did all this stuff about animals come from?!
do you think the real noah had any animals at all? or that was just added in?!
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Oct 15 2003, 01:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Oct 15 2003, 01:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> so its down to exageration then? thats still really weird i think, i can see people passing down a story of a real flood.. i can imagine perhaps the boat got bigger and bigger as the generations went on.. but where did all this stuff about animals come from?!
do you think the real noah had any animals at all? or that was just added in?! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> At some point some green peace hippie got his hands on the story and added in the animals so people would stop eating sheep.
Oh and as far as Noah building the ark did anyone say 'Majeek' yet?
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Oct 15 2003, 07:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Oct 15 2003, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, the Earth was flat back then, the Earth was also the center of the Universe, and there was no such thing as dinosaurs or fossils. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The earth has never been flat, or the centre of the universe.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 15 2003, 02:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 15 2003, 02:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Oct 15 2003, 07:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Oct 15 2003, 07:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, the Earth was flat back then, the Earth was also the center of the Universe, and there was no such thing as dinosaurs or fossils. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The earth has never been flat, or the centre of the universe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well duh. His point was that back then such things were considered to be true, so the rediculous story of Noah and his big-**** Ark was easier to swallow.
Comments
edit: I'm going to bow out of the discussion for tonight at least, need sleep....
I mean read the first post and explain each and every conflict. I'm curious to know how you'd explain that, to be honest.
Also, on a geologic point of view, there have been two major wipeouts of life on this planet. Both of which were far before glimmer of a human being set foot on this planet. Evidence does not support massive flooding. Evidence suggests more of a humongous asteroid hitting the earth. Ashes are found all over the place at the same time during these major wipeouts. Quite possibly the ashes wasn't what killed everything, but the blackout of the sun. However, all the same, it wasn't flooding.
It seems obvious to me anyway that all signs point to evolution, not creationism. I think after seeing the logistics of Noah and the Ark in the bible, you can't possibly say the bible is correct word for word. If you accept that premise, it is not but a couple baby steps until you realize that the bible is no where near accurate (maybe they are using stories?), and in fact perhaps it was just a metaphor for evolution all along.
I'd like to see prophets explaining the bible try to explain evolution to a bunch of farmers. "We came from apes?! WHAT?! What sort of God do YOU worship? I'm not worshipping that!" There's your explanation. The bible uses metaphors to convey a message from God. If you don't think the bible uses metaphors, I'd like to see you try to explain Noah and the Ark for me... seriously.
This doesn't exactly mean that the water underneath is under intense pressure at all. There are many underground lakes and the like which aren't pressurised at all. When I refer to pressure in water, I actually am talking more about the fact that as you have a water column, the water down the bottom is under more pressure than the water at the top.
If this is the case as well, I doubt there would be any life growing in such a system.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not all of the caverns need to be under that kind of pressure, others could have been much closer to the surface.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, we already have such caverns (aquifers) but they aren't under pressure, nor are they capable of blasting water into the sky.
You still haven't answered my question about what happens to these caverns. If they remain open the water will go back into them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your reefs could have been much more widespread then and shoved upward when this all took place, many died of course, but enough survived to continue the ecosystems. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is extremely disagreeable. Are you aware of how incredibly massive the great barrier reef actually is? Likewise even to where it is located? This is a really absurd idea, especially because what happened when the water level fell again? Simple: Mass extinction 2 the second blow.
Also if the water was displaced (by land being pushed up) that would just increase the water level more, probably still ensuring the reefs fate.
The damage that would of been done in such a process too would be utterly irreversible (especially going by what has happened to reefs from wars and other such things).
Again, this is extraordinarily unlikely, especially considering the large number of places it would have to occur (there are more than one coral reef, but I focus on the Great Barrier Reef because it is closest to me, and I've read the most about its damage).
Finally, why isn't there a drop of evidence to suggest this around ANY of the reefs? Remembering that if the flood covered the highest mountain (Everest) then we should have some sort of plateu or land mass sticking out to an immense height in one of those reefs.
We do not, therefore evidence suggests this event never happened.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for there being little oxygen in those caverns, there isn't much oxygen at the bottom of the ocean either,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But not as little as such caverns would. You are forgetting an extremely important point: Oceans have currents, such a system that you are suggesting would be stratified. There is an important difference.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and there could have been oxygen seeping into the caverns from below through the vents.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where is this oxygen coming from? Soils are anaerobic environments! Oxygen doesn't emerge from under the earths crust!
I'm afraid without any evidence, or even logical science this idea isn't going to hold any water at all.
The caverns would be under that kind of pressure because they are under many tons of ROCK(which is heavy by the way).
This doesn't exactly mean that the water underneath is under intense pressure at all. There are many underground lakes and the like which aren't pressurised at all. When I refer to pressure in water, I actually am talking more about the fact that as you have a water column, the water down the bottom is under more pressure than the water at the top.
If this is the case as well, I doubt there would be any life growing in such a system.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree it doesn't <i>necessarily</i> mean that they are under intense pressure, which is part of my point. Some can be, others wouldn't be.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Not all of the caverns need to be under that kind of pressure, others could have been much closer to the surface.
Yes, we already have such caverns (aquifers) but they aren't under pressure, nor are they capable of blasting water into the sky.
You still haven't answered my question about what happens to these caverns. If they remain open the water will go back into them.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did answer, the original rock likely got turned to boulders and silt, which then got deposited on the nearest forming continent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Your reefs could have been much more widespread then and shoved upward when this all took place, many died of course, but enough survived to continue the ecosystems.
That is extremely disagreeable. Are you aware of how incredibly massive the great barrier reef actually is? Likewise even to where it is located? This is a really absurd idea, especially because what happened when the water level fell again? Simple: Mass extinction 2 the second blow.
Also if the water was displaced (by land being pushed up) that would just increase the water level more, probably still ensuring the reefs fate.
The damage that would of been done in such a process too would be utterly irreversible (especially going by what has happened to reefs from wars and other such things).
Again, this is extraordinarily unlikely, especially considering the large number of places it would have to occur (there are more than one coral reef, but I focus on the Great Barrier Reef because it is closest to me, and I've read the most about its damage).
Finally, why isn't there a drop of evidence to suggest this around ANY of the reefs? Remembering that if the flood covered the highest mountain (Everest) then we should have some sort of plateu or land mass sticking out to an immense height in one of those reefs.
We do not, therefore evidence suggests this event never happened.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say that the reefs may have been covering much of the ocean floor before this point, and as the land moved (which I'm not saying was instantaneous), parts of the reefs stayed close enough to the surface to survive, also, there would have been so much torn apart plant matter floating around after such a catastophic event that the coral would likely have had plenty to eat anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
As for there being little oxygen in those caverns, there isn't much oxygen at the bottom of the ocean either,
But not as little as such caverns would. You are forgetting an extremely important point: Oceans have currents, such a system that you are suggesting would be stratified. There is an important difference.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some aquifers do take in water from porus surrounding land, this water can have oxygen in it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
and there could have been oxygen seeping into the caverns from below through the vents.
Where is this oxygen coming from? Soils are anaerobic environments! Oxygen doesn't emerge from under the earths crust!
I'm afraid without any evidence, or even logical science this idea isn't going to hold any water at all.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just answered that <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
edit: my qoute tags don't seem to be working properly...
edit2: ah, misplaced space
edit3:
Found an explaination for where the water went.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
...thanks to the work of a group of Japanese scientists at the Tokyo Institute of technology.? The December 1999 edition of Discover magazine reported their incredible find.? With no intention of helping creationism, they inadvertently discovered that the earth?s mantle is soaking up the world?s oceans at the rate of a billion tons of water a year!? The soluble, permeable rock of the lower crust and upper mantle are soaking up the oceans like a sponge.? If this trend of a billion tons of water a year has been continuing since the Flood, an amazing sum of? 5 x 10^12, or 5,000,000,000,000, or 5 TRILLION TONS of water have been absorbed in the last five thousand years.? To put this into more understood terms, since a gallon of water weighs a couple, say four, pounds, in the last five thousand years, the earth has absorbed 5,000,000,000,000,000, or 5 QUADRILLION GALLONS of water!? Of course the water from the Flood wouldn?t be here today!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://63.111.59.137/archive/output.cfm?ID=1737' target='_blank'>the article the quote speaks of</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, here's the root of my problem. Creationists invoke the bible to claim that god created the world in seven days, and that god was the one responsible for bringing life on this planet. Since they only have the bible to go on, and they want to believe the stories it contains, there is no ambiguity as to what it says in there. Either it's true or it isn't. Herein lies the problem, as it pertains to the story of Noah's ark. Noah was a man... someone who apparently lived to be more than 600 years old... and as such he was incapable of god-like functions. Why, exactly, did god bother with saving Noah? Why not just start over from scratch, and make a new, better, more powerful man? If god can do whatever he wants, including opening up the deep fountains and forcing water to cover the entire planet up above the highest mountain peak, why would he even bother going through all that effort? Why not just snap his fingers and start Adam and Eve 2.0?
Ah, we'll never know. This is the story and most Christians believe it. Okay, so... in terms of Evolution vs Creation. I don't think anyone doubts that there are roughly 1.5 million different species on this planet. Many are aquatic, so ruling them out we guess there are 500,000. Like I said before, there are 300,000 species of beetle alone. In order for all of these species to exist on this planet as it sits today... no Adam and Eve 2.0... they must have been saved by Noah and put on his ark. If the story of Genesis is right, and the Earth is between 6 and 7 thousand years old, that is nowhere near enough time for evolution to have created so vastly many different species as we see today. So it's not like Noah saved a handful that in then turned into 500,000. Even if there was enough time, Creationists don't even believe in evolution.
That is the paradox I wish to debate. How did Noah maintain a million animals on this gigantic ark? No speculation about supernatural effects that god might have employed. If he wanted to do that, he should have just started over and not put Noah through so much stress. The least he could have done was build the boat for Noah and saved 120 years of work. The bible wants us to believe that god was allowing man to have his own free will. He made a covenant with Noah not to flood the Earth again. Thus, it seems to me that god did not want to interfere other than when it came time to kill everyone off.
Perhaps the problem stems from the lack of knowledge the person who wrote these chapters about Noah had about animals on this planet. Maybe he did not know there are 1.5 million species, otherwise he could have written something about the feasibility.
There is scientific evidence that there WAS a flood in the Black Sea area, some 7 thousand years ago. There is direct evidence that human populations lived in that area prior to its flooding. You only need to go to the bottom of the Black Sea to find the man-made structures lying there. So I ask this to the Christians out there... is it at least <b>feasible</b> that the great flood mentioned in the chapters about Noah was actually this local flood in the Black Sea? That some of the people who lived there survived to make it out and tell their stories about what happened? Is it <b>feasible</b> that these stories got handed down, generation after generation, civilization after civilization, until they were documented by various religions? Can you at least appreciate the fact that many other religions, not just Christianity, also have stories of a great flood? Disconnect yourself for a minute about the validity of the story itself... don't get so literal in the interpretation of the story in the bible. Because if you do start treating the story literally, you are going to fall under heavy scrutiny for its improbability and many other things are going to be questioned. Instead, imagine what knowledge the author had about the world around him and also of what stories he had been told as a child.
It is easy to make connections between what we can prove happened long ago and the stories that were written about those pre-historic events. One small step in helping people understand how the stories in the bible (and other religious texts) came to be is to analyze actual geologic history and what those major events might have meant to the people living during those times. If you can appreciate the logical origins of the stories, perhaps one day you'll be able to disconnect yourself from the literal interpretation of the bible and instead focus maybe on alternate theories about how life came to be so diverse. Just maybe you'll think that the Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old. Just maybe you'll think that evolution is possible. Maybe you can still hold on to your belief that it was a supreme being, god, who created the very first life form and gave it DNA that was capable of evolving over time. From there, all the diversity you see in this world came to be through a process that <b>he</b> invented and carefully planned. I would be happy with religions accepting this notion about evolution instead of trying to denounce it out of hand. There will come a time where the evidence we uncover for evolution will be overwhelming. Religions will either have to adapt and reconsider their beliefs or fade into history. There certainly won't be any new evidence to come to the aid of Noah. Make the change now and let's move forward, on to greater discoveries.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sirus, you keep attacking evolution, but you haven't quite explained the logistics of Noah and the Ark!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who cares. I don't agree with evolution, I believe it's incorrectly drawing a conclusion that's contradictory to a real historical event (Jesus Christ), however, without that historical event I would be more understanding of evolution, although even then, I'm skeptical of the fossil record.
I don't need to explain the logistics, understand that they can be mutually exclusive, I can not agree with evolution and still not be able to explain every sequence of events in addition to every circumstance.
Actually if you ask me, most modern science like biology is completely of out of place in the past. I think it should be kept to the Future and present. The reasoning being is that everything is entirely too circumstantial to assume things, and there's dynamic progressions not just linear progressions that make such things extremely difficult. Even now, science has a difficult time analyzing the present, hundreds of murderers get away because they simply can't find a trace yet science can pinpoint ancient creatures around the globe, name their habits, what they eat, their exact characteristics how they progressed, how they thought and the exact progression of the world since "billions of years ago".
Please don't bother to respond to this, don't try to prove my feelings wrong because they're just my feelings. Any attempt to and you're just banging your head against the wall.
A. I wasn't up to date on all of the current scientific information. I simply don't even have access to all of that information right now, I would have to order a large amount of information just to recieve it. I also need to do some more studying of the fossil record.
B. I couldn't get the opposition to think more pragmatically it always broke down to the idea that it didn't happen period. Not, "I can understand what you mean, and I think that some things could be effected by a catastrophic flood but I it seems less likely to me", it was always "Absolutely no flood, what about coral reefs (Something), I don't think so, no no no."
Evolution is irrelevant. The discussion is in your territory now. Believing something that is logistically impossible is like saying "I believe in santa clause even though I know he doesn't exist."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Please don't bother to respond to this, don't try to prove my feelings wrong because they're just my feelings. Any attempt to and you're just banging your head against the wall. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not "banging my head against the wall" anymore than you are trying to defend your case by saying "I believe it just 'cause."
It's not impossible just as much as evolution is impossible for you. If God really exists how is there any debate about anything anyways ? If he did exist he's completely omnipotent and can do whatever he wants supernatural or not.
Is there a debate over that ? I think not. You're banging your head against a wall.
Then how does the water get out?
This isn't sounding very plausible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I did answer, the original rock likely got turned to boulders and silt, which then got deposited on the nearest forming continent.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've failed to answer what happens to the HOLE. You know, if you have an ABSENCE of water you must therefore happens to a space. What happens to the space for this water? If it doesn't fill in then the water can go back in (which is my point).
In addition to this, explain to me why the ones under no pressure go off.
This is making less sense now than even a firmament in the sky!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd say that the reefs may have been covering much of the ocean floor before this point<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you've missed a key point here: Coral reefs REQUIRE sunlight and are photosynthetic. They can only cover CERTAIN parts of the ocean, and even then those that are of the right temperature.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and as the land moved (which I'm not saying was instantaneous), <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they aren't bought up to just under everest height the hole lot of them die.
Again, this is NOT plausible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->parts of the reefs stayed close enough to the surface to survive,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, they would need to be put just under 300 ft below everest. WHERE IS THIS HUGE SPIKE IN THE OCEAN SIGNIFYING THIS?
There isn't any, therefore there is no evidence this ever occured.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->catastophic event that the coral would likely have had plenty to eat anyway.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please read my posts:
CORALS ARE PHOTOSYNTHETIC.
Thank you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some aquifers do take in water from porus surrounding land, this water can have oxygen in it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But water can also drain into these thus reducing pressure, and also reducing the amount of water going into them (also draining the aquifier over time if it isn't being replaced). This happens on the canturbury plains for example, where rainwater from mountains continually replaces the water in an aquifer.
Also you have again forgotton that these are NOT moving bodies of water, as such they stratify. There will hence be a trend in oxygen/H2S levels up and down the water column. There will hence be an anoxygenic and oxygenic zone in the water. However, in underground lakes the oxygen content is far less (oxygen is lost for a wide variety of things, including being used by bacteria) overall.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just answered that <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I disagree.
From the article:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and in another <b>billion</b> years the oceans will be gone<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Considering there was more water dumped on the earth then there there ever was now, and considering their own prediction is for it to be gone in a few billion years (meaning the water loss isn't half as exaggerated as you claim), I'm not really convinced.
It is also a very controversial idea too btw.
What if Noah's Flood was a local flood and not a world wide flood.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->776 'erets (eh'-rets)
from an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land):--X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
*taken from <a href='http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/STRHEB7.htm#S776' target='_blank'>http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/...TRHEB7.htm#S776</a>
This is the word that is translated earth in the account of Noah's flood. Notice that the last meaning for the word is world. It should be noted that the first few meanings are often the most correct.
[/Troll]
No... my assumption is that it was a story, like so many others, told verbally by grandparents to their grandkids for amusement. Like fairy tales. The basis for the story was the actual flood of the Black Sea area circa 5500 BC. Since the flood was not documented physically until much later, the only way for the story of that flood to survive was through hand-me-down storytelling. As successive generations told the story, flavor was inserted to make it more interesting. So much flavor that you get intertwined with religion and then the animals, and well you know how it goes. Lots of religions have stories of a great flood. These are all variants of the same original event, just told to different people and spread through different channels. The story itself evolved.
So now you have the spectacle of this 600-year-old man building the largest wooden vessel <b>ever</b> constructed... more than 1.5 football fields in length. Once the story was documented in the bible, however, it was locked in stone. Can't change it. So now under scientific and logical scrutiny, the story doesn't make sense. But 2000 years ago, it probably seemed very feasible. Well, the Earth was flat back then, the Earth was also the center of the Universe, and there was no such thing as dinosaurs or fossils.
thats still really weird i think, i can see people passing down a story of a real flood..
i can imagine perhaps the boat got bigger and bigger as the generations went on..
but where did all this stuff about animals come from?!
do you think the real noah had any animals at all?
or that was just added in?!
thats still really weird i think, i can see people passing down a story of a real flood..
i can imagine perhaps the boat got bigger and bigger as the generations went on..
but where did all this stuff about animals come from?!
do you think the real noah had any animals at all?
or that was just added in?! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
At some point some green peace hippie got his hands on the story and added in the animals so people would stop eating sheep.
Oh and as far as Noah building the ark did anyone say 'Majeek' yet?
The earth has never been flat, or the centre of the universe.
The earth has never been flat, or the centre of the universe. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well duh. His point was that back then such things were considered to be true, so the rediculous story of Noah and his big-**** Ark was easier to swallow.