The narrative bible concerning Noah and his Ark is mythology and it's amazing to have to explain that to people.

There is a problem with the theory that a mist covered the earth until a flood that happened approximately five thousand years ago. It's painfully sad to know that Christians follop around themselves to get all this to make sense for them. What about all the countless varieties of animal/plant life that live in desert environments. Why did camels have the water storing humps if there were no deserts? and we wouldn't have had deserts or desert animals at all if the whole earth was a greenhouse with no rain. Some plants depend on fire to seed. Was there another creation of desert life three thousand years ago, after the flood, when the mists went away? No rain? It's crazy when you do the math. Rain feeds rivers and gets things flowing - it's called the water cycle. There's so much more I could say, but it's a big of a waste of time eh? We're very adapt at believing myths and legends it seems.

And was it the very first rainbow they tell us. I thought a mist would have refracted the sun's light and created many rainbows if you go with the mist theory - did the laws of refractive light and the fundamentals of physics get a do over.

source - http://www.mothrust.com/2007/02/first-rainbow.html



http://www.theforumlounge.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3115&stc=1&d=1233797333

I love rainbows

me too, although looks as if someone airbrushed the shit outta the picture.

Had to of. it is missing pimples and cooch crabs

me too, although looks as if someone airbrushed the shit outta the picture.

Yep, that was my Halloween costume a few years ago. The artist did a good job touching it up.

Nice Butt

lol

The thing I am still trying to figure out about the flood is how YZF knows/theorizes that pre-flood carbon levels were somehow higher than those after the flood, and thus throwing off the C14 dating model. Often times, he talks about the literal "interpretation" of Genesis; what is said is what it was. However, he will then seemingly contradict this statement by saying somethings need to be deduced in order to fully understand the Lord's word.

I am sure he will pipe up in here about all this.

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

See, I don't buy into this. We can leave the age of the Earth out of this and assume that a worldwide flood destroyed vast quantities of life on this planet what we can guess to be close to 5,000 years ago (based on Biblical text and archealogical findings). So you're going to tell me that in those 5,000 years, all the organic material from living beings destroyed by a massive flood decompossed into what we know of as coal and oil today? You can call all the "reverse extrapolation" you want, but I just don't think we can get this amount (remember, in order of 500 times the amount of carbon-based life-forms from present day) of decomposition in that "short" amount of time.

I'll agree with the fluctuations in C14 in the atmosphere, I just don't think it is in the order that your link states.

The propensity for error with C14 increases exponentially beyond several thousand years, there could be a number of factors involved.

Of course, and after researching further into how C14 dating works, I too can't help questioning the validity of ages beyond several thousand years. Perhaps I am willing to accept a few thousand further out than you are :bigthumb:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

also, in regard to cz's comment, there is nothing to indicate deserts and relatively cold areas did not exist prior to the Flood (and specialized life associated with those areas), the idea is that the earth was far more temperate than it is now, and apparently the land mass was all one "super continent"

In other words he really doesn't know anything. So if you have any further questions or require programing refer to his cult.

so says the guy with his own head buried in a cult

he can make his own mind without your control, dipshit

Did you get that from an AIG article?

ICR, dipshit

I figured as much. To bad all of those morons are out of content. You keep posting the same out of date bullshit (including your insults).

lol

what a moron...just a little hate filled atheist ganshing his teeth, stalking me here, dime a dozen....weeds/trash/refuse

AIG?

the idea is that the earth was far more temperate than it is now, and apparently the land mass was all one "super continent"

Prove it...just one simple passage in the bible to back up you claim


PROVE IT.

FACT IS: you cant. Its wild ass speculation that has no basis and is even less evidence than the current scientific model.

STFU with this shit, its pure garbage 'science' using the bible as a scientific document, and is pure B.S......

Its just plain sickening....You will be humbled.

there is nothing to indicate deserts and relatively cold areas did not exist prior to the Flood (and specialized life associated with those areas), the idea is that the earth was far more temperate than it is now, and apparently the land mass was all one "super continent"

your model of a super continent is interesting. I can see where the floods drained into what are our oceans of today. What I think your claims are mistaken is, are the foliage living under these conditions; meaning at 100% humidity year round. surely todays plants can not tolerate these conditions. in fact my plants i have in my front yard aren't native to Arizona; which is to say, once the frost hits them, they die.

of course, maybe you have to accept the fact that if you use your model, living things did 'evolved' into what we see today, huh?

dang oak. looking sweet brah
http://www.theforumlounge.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3115&d=1233797333

I apologize, call me stupid or whatever but i have no clue of how your model is even do-able. because it looks good on paper if we are only going to talk about a couple ideal scenario, which isn't reality here.

There are so many tangibles out there that your model isn't plausible. For example, smaller lifeforms we have today (insects, plankton, etc) that may not survive under high constant humidity.
source http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/reprint/9/2/222.pdf

Genesis only offers a snap shot before noahs time. plant eaters on the ark did suggest rain did come.

I am trying to understand 'your' model of a misty shroud that hid the rainbow from humans. if the mist was that thick, humidity had to be set at a constant 100%. With that, Man's vision was set at 30 feet or so with temperatures low enough to hold a constant level as so to condense the moisture at ground level. Humans were walking around in pea soup, otherwise a rainbow would have been exposed to view.

Is it wise to continue with your model?