hey bio girl i recommend u visit kent hovind in jail. take ur laptop with u and ask him all the question in this video. i can guarantee he will answer ur question. hovind has alot of knowledge. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand his teachings. just think about what he has said in the youtube videos, it make more sense than having faith that everything came from a rock. including uranium from oxygen and oxygen from nothing where did all the energy came to produce all this. Godistru
It is simple, as the water level rose it would have pushed the air columb up, so the air pressure would remain the same as at sea level. Believe me, as a submariner I am familiar with this principle. The waste would simply be jettisoned overboard. As for species, evolution predicts all species came from a simple single cell organism. But all species came from the kinds that were on the ark. Case in point, the wolf, fox, dingo, and all breeds of dogs descended from the canines on the ark.
Do they really teach that stuff in sunday school in the US? I mean, I used to go to church and sunday school as well when I was a kid, but we were never told to take these stories literally. And if they had, I wouldn't have believed it. All the species that ever existed on one ship?Plus all the food and water required?And what about the copious amounts of feces?And the flood higher than Mount Everest (hypothermia, altitude sickness)? How anyone can seriously believe that is beyond me.
...scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 2 Peter 3:3.
If you don`t believe the account of the flood, why are so many worried about it...enough so to viciously attack it and those who believe the Word of God as truth? It is because you hate God and reject Jesus Christ who, by the way, is your only hope for salvation and eternal life. You reject the author of life and there by embrace death.
Im sure that water was the biggest problem...lol it was a flood. The lady is humorous but dead wrong. The fact there is a fossil record at a predictable level is evidence of a world wide flood. The insects and plants managed to survive global ice ages.
Who else riduculed the flood? The people who died in the flood. But the judgment that awaits you will not be water, but fire. This is not about science, this is about you refusing to acknowledge God as creator and Lord. Therefore He has given you over to a strong delusion so that though hearing, you do not understand, and seeing you do not perceive.
@wardmjwrd: Come the Ragnarok, you will rise from the grave as a zombie to fight on behalf of Hel, only to be splattered by the hammer of mighty Thor and your gooey remains fried into an omelet by the fires of the Demon King Sutr. Renounce your cowardice; only those who die in battle will know the glories of Valhalla!
The god of Noah must have been a master of quantum mechanics to fit six million animals on a 45 foot boat, along with all the food and water necessary to feed that many animals. Not that any of that matters since "waters pass the highest mountain" putting the ark at about 30 thousand feet freezing all the animals or depriving them of oxygen. Not that matters either as when they got off the ark they wouldn't have enough genetic diversity to reproduce Still believe Christians? Enjoy Fantasy land.
I'm gonna get you started right now! How come you cannot grapple the idea of two dinosaurs together. I mean, didn't you ever catch an episode of The Flinstones? Anyhoo, this story never sat well with me ever since I was a kid. It just didn't make logical sense to be true. Funny how other grow up still believing it still. By the way, that moment at 8:30 is funny as hell.
@marcsimac Why is it that people that don't believe are bitter and angry, it's more like sick and tired of you morons with your heads up your ass trying to force this bullshit on everybody. What do you care what people believe, your the ones with the problem, you have a god you can't prove, and yet tens of thousands of scientists are wrong! Go stick your nose into that comic book you call a bible and read it with an open mind, OH, you don't have one!
Everything died, that was the point of the flood. The question is, how long did it take to recover, what did the animals eat when they got off the boat, how did the kangaroos get to Austrialia and other mammals didn't, and on and on and on.
Thanks Biogirl52. This video is the perfect thing I need for my project on why things in the Bible don't check out. . . . perhaps if I've had this video to show to my christian shcool teachers all those years ago I wouldn't be so bitter and angry at religion now. Anyways, thanks!
have you heard of raft events, or rafting events, can't remember which. i think a lot of insects could survive. i have certainly wondered about the travel of animals, just in terms of timeline, and the effect on sea life, i would think many fish could've went extinct at that time, and the sea would be quite different afterwards. thought about plants too, but i've seen them survive some amazing things (seeds). interesting and good questions but i don't find the flood concept or reason absurd.
@weberly2 Insects would not survive on floating rafts of vegetation, They breath through their sides from holes called a spherical. These would get blocked by salt crystals and they would suffocate. As for fish, they would have all died, even the whales and dolphins. The oceans in such an event would be a biological train wreak. First you have 40 days of rain, so it is claimed, enough to cover the world, diluting the oceans. Then you have run off of trillions of tons of dirt, mud and vegetation
@weberly2 Then you have a muddy ocean, no plankton = no life. Tell me, where did all the worms, bacteria, fungi, trees, grasses and the rest of the critters that live on land come from, they can't live under saltwater, for that matter, fresh water fish? They would be dead in hours. And very few seeds can survive saltwater. Then there is the age old ? Who put everything back? Not interesting and good questions! The whole thing is absurd and to think millions believe it makes it even more so!
That's interesting, but he was also naked and drunk. Therefore god exist and is naked and drunk. This is why Christianity is backwards because right from the start they had to approach their "father" backwards without looking. Did I mention he was naked and drunk?
interesting and logical indeed, but lets look at this as a thought, the IQ of man is increased per generation so going backwards to explain evolution and billions of years to someone who had the mentality of a 10 year old kid would have been impossible, so it says that god created the earth in 7 days, but further it says one of gods days are "countless upon countless generations for man kind" being that they only understood a generation. Look I agree with you 100% but the earth isnt flat either.
there were never any dinosaurs. the world is not even 6000 yrs old and it doesnt spin. the sun orbits the earth and the universe is small. humanity fell from paradise into this low world and continued to fall until the flood resulted then in the fallen post flood scar of a world humanity continues to fall and this is where we are today. this generation is probably the worst generation of humanity to have ever existed. pornographic, satanic, bloody, sadistic, arrogant, selfish, cold hearted, low
"You assume far too much. That's a common trait with evolutionists."
I make assumptions about your character based on the hundreds of your bretheren I've talked to, and so far you're playing the part of a willfully ignorant creationist perfectly.
As for "Evolutionists", the only assumption a scientist should make is that the Universe Exists and its not just an illusion.
"*sigh* I know evolution doesn't include abiogenesis or astrology."
Astrology? I'm a Leo.
"He's asking to prove any of it. Any of the widely accepted theories that go against the Bible."
Great, so he's asking us to prove something that YOU know and WE know is NOT WHAT WE'RE CLAIMING.
Its not $250,000 to PROVE evolution, which is scientifically verifiable, its $250k to DISPROVE the bible, a process which science DOESNT DO. (Science provides evidence of existence, not nonexistence).
And as I read up on this baraminology, I find that it isn't subject to testing..."Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[15] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924"
I'm searching, and I cant even seem to find a classification system, so I think you're shitting me that YOU even know about this...
Ah yes, creationism... The religious belief that all of the many hundreds to thousands of alleles within the human genome arose from 8 people within 4,000 years.
If you're saying that animals were not created by god in the very same form as the are today, then you're asserting that animals change over time. Evolution.
And your comment hints that you didn't watch the video.
"Please provide proof that creationists deny there being different dog breeds."
Not what I said. I said that its bullshit because your terms are not defined. "Kind" is pretty general, and by changing that one word, you somehow think you're able to separate that classification. The trouble is that your classification is too broad, and Taxonomy is the result of science already having gone through and figured out the exact details of what a "Kind" is.
i agree about those changes (and fresh rainwater, haha) but what are you referring to scripturally as far as predators? never heard of this, and why do you think predators would have developed after the flood? i know that things were quite a bit different in the garden, is that what you mean? i really think those changes took place quite immediately, when their ordinary food became unavailable. plus i think adaptation is fairly rapid, although human life spans apparently shortened gradually.
There was probably some kind of a huge flood but most likely not as big as described in the Bible. My point is - lots of people, animals, etc. were killed... so the survivors made a legend of it. I guess not only Christians have that story.
What's the point of figting over God's image? Even the Church wo't tell you "hey, God has big blue eyes, long grey hair..." They basically don't know, and as far as I know (former Catholic) they admit it.
Geology most definitely does not say yes to a world wide flood and don't bother pointing to the Grand Canyon as evidence.
What I cannot understand is that creationists always complain that we haven't got fossils from billions of years ago but that this the biggest wooden boat ever built, landed on Mount Ararat less than 10,000 years ago and nobody has ever found any trace of it. Not a section, not a plank and not even a splinter.
You honestly expect to see wood last for 4,000 years?
And geology does say yes to a worldwide flood- for several reasons.
Transcontinental rock layers, sea-creature fossils on mountaintops, no (or rapid) erosion between rock strata, strata laid down in rapid succession (sedimentation), fossils of animals clearly buried very quickly (such as in the process of eating, or giving birth), and sediment transported over very long distances.
I would expect a boat that size to have left some evidence but not a trace. All those animals afloat in a boat for that length of time. Just like Moses and his 40 years in the desert but despite having searched high and low no evidence can be found for that either another myth. As for the rest of your answer, all from answers in genesis a real paragon of scientific truth. How come we never find a rabbit in pre cambrain layers or a lion or a kangaroo.
"How come we never find a rabbit in pre Cambrian layers or a lion or a kangaroo."
Straw man.
Rabbits, lions or kangaroos were most likely not on the ark. The biblical "kinds" (or baramin) were not the same animals that we see today. The taxonomic rank "family" is the closest biological classification of the baramin.
The fossil record is a fine example of a whole lot of dead things that were buried.
Complex life appearing in the cambrian rock layers, with nothing beforehand.
Immense variation of life that we don't see today is exactly what creationists would predict, because of pre-flood diversification. Post flood diversification resulted in the species that we have today.
Everything points to a creation, and then a massive flood.
Is that why so many people have spent so much time searching and failed to come up with anything despite knowing where this mythical boat came to rest. Are you seriously suggesting that an old man of some 500 years and his family built the biggest wooden boat ever built and then collected all those animals and despite it being structurally unsound given the size and material were able to stay afloat all that time? I wonder why Ken Hamm does try that as an experiment, I would gladly donate.
Then find me a rabbit in an older rock layer than that containing a dinosaur. Quite apart from the nonsense suggesting that there were dinosaurs on the ark which by all accounts despite those teeth were not at all wild, one suggestion being they used those teeth to eat pineapples.
It would be impossible in this day and age for a similar group of men in the same time scale to assemble a structure this size having to obtain and craft the materials and then to obtain all the necessary specimens to stock it. Then to float the structure on a pond let alone anything more. I would support an experiment to test this project but I note all the ones built are safely ensconced inside creationist museums on dry land.
You want for someone to find evidence of a wooden boat that landed over 4000 years ago.
You also want someone to build an ark, to scale, just to prove that it can be done?
That's why we have naval engineers, structural engineers, and computer programs that simulate real environments. We don't have to build one to know that I would have floated.
When Noah was first mentioned, he was 500 years old.
When he entered the ark, he was 600.
It wasn't a weekend project. It took quite some time. Also, there is no way to know how many people helped construct the ark. It's possible that he hired people to help.
Also, the models that have been made are not hidden inside creation museums. They've been tested over and over, and the dimensions of the ark (as written in the bible) are perfect for a stable ride.
The smaller arks in museums might float but a wooden boat the size of this mythical ark would be structurally unsound unless it was constructed of steel. For all their modelling none of them will construct an ark and actually prove this theory because they know the result so that is rubbish. Given the technology of those days there is no way he could have constructed a boat that size and filled it full of animals apart from all the other problems he would have faced with a boatload of animals.
The longest wooden ship ever built (i.e. historically verified) was the USS Wyoming. This vessel, which was, at 110 meters long, a full 50% shorter than Noah's ark, was found to be so unstable that it could only be used for short coastal hauls to avoid rough conditions further out in the sea.
The huge structural stresses that developed in the USS Wyoming made the ship sag and, well, it leaked. Water thus had to be pumped out continuously to prevent the ship from sinking. Now, here we have Noah's ark, built with wood, before the invention of steel and hydraulic pumps, undergoing the turbulent conditions of the flood unscathed. It is simply an engineering impossibility.
You use the same old disproven arguments over and over again, don't you? You get shut down on one comment section and go to the next and sart anew at going through your list of tired rationalizations. It's as if you can just put all the condemning observations you've read into your mental "recycle bin"...
Amazing then that others have launched so many expeditions to find it including using satellites. We even had one fraud going up and bringing down a piece of wood which he claimed was from the ark but the guide give the game away when he revealed that the same man had taken the wood up previously. So much effort and not a trace just like the other bible myths.
you're talking about modern construction techniques, the ancient methods were really superior especially suited to the materials available, although i don't know of a ginormous example, there are some incredibly built early ships, very labor intensive, such as literally sewing boards together.
"the ancient methods were really superior" that just shows how stupid this arguement is. They were several thousand years behind the technology of today and yet their methods were superior. Right and what did they do in their free time jet around the universe in their warp drive boats.
i'm talking about wood specifically, most of what we do now is to save time or money. check it out sometime, the ancients accomplished some things that we have no way of duplicating with all our tools and knowledge with regards to construction, particularly stone.
The ancients were incapable of constructing a wooden ship that was capable of sailing any distance from the shore that is why their empires were concentrated along the coast they were incapable of building a seaworthy craft. You are living in a dream world suggesting that we are incapable in this day and age of building better wooden boats than they could ever dream of with their primitive techniques.
True and given its load and the fact they did not even have pumps in those days the whole thing would have gone to the bottom in 5 minutes. That is why all these smart alecs who think it would have stayed afloat construct and keep their models on dry land. A wooden boat that size would not have lasted 5 minutes see my earlier comments regarding other wooden boats and their maximum sizes.
Yes I was wondering when that would come, when the technical and scientific arguments fail bring in the magic man. Have you ever asked why this omnipotent god had to keep popping up and sorting things out? I guess he was needed to also get all the animals back to where they are now like Australia. Since then of course no trace has ever been found of this huge boat despite numerous expeditions and attempted deceptions.
And so convenient that all the marsupials decided they would settle in Australia and nowhere else. As for that Turkish site please pull the other one that was proved long ago to be a fake but it still attracts the gullible who want this myth to be true.
Well firstly most animals travel in groups, stick with their own kind, increases survivability.
Secondly, why do you think they aren't in other countries? You couldn't possibly know that they aren't. The only way you could know that for sure is to be in every single place on Earth at exactly the same time.
My father saw a wallabie in the countryside here in England.
In their travels from the starting point some would have remained or did they decide "lets all stick together lads and settle in Australia". The only Wallaby your father saw in England probably escaped from a zoo or was in a wildlife park. As for being in the same place at the same time to prove something that really does expose the silliness of your argument
Not at all. OK, prove that kangaroos don't live anywhere apart from Australia.
I spose you take the scientists' word for everything, just like you would have done when they said the Earth was flat and if you sailed too far you would have fallen off the edge. Or when they said heavy things fall faster than lighter things.
I prefer to put my faith in the Alimghty God who created everything, rather than a man who He created.
It is the Bible that says the earth is flat even the ancient greeks and egyptians had worked out it was round. Do you remember the verse where god was going to take him to the highest mountain and show him all the cities of the world, You cannot do that with a round earth and yes there were cities on the other side of the globe during that period. We can test what scientists say and yes sometimes they do make mistakes but other scientists correct them. Not like your magic man.
We cannot test everything scientists say. We cannot test macro evolution. We cannot test that the world is billions of years old. If you bring up the distance of stars, go watch my videos. Scientists claim they cannot measure much more than 100 light years at best.
Luke 4.5 where Satan takes Jesus and shows him all the kingdoms of the world, how can you do that other than on a flat earth. Yes we can prove the age of the earth radiometric testing, the evidence for macro evolution is overwhelming, Deneb is 20,000 light years away what are you talking about, Andromeda Galaxy, which is about 2.5 million light years away. Sombrero Galaxy, about 10 million light years away. Try studying some real science not the micky mouse comics you rely on.
Unfortunately for you radiometric dating can accurately date the earth and the scientific method is well known. You have been reading the convicted fraudster Hovind who states in an unknown laboratory an unknown scientist using an unknown method was able to speed up radioactive decay. He refuses to give disclose where, who or what. The nuclear industry has never heard of this and this would solve all their problems regarding nuclear waste if they could render it safe by speeding up this process.
Parallaxes give us distances to stars up to perhaps a few thousand light years. Beyond that scientists have developed so many methods with which to measure the distance, Stellar motions, Moving clusters,Inverse-square law,Period-luminosity relation etc. What you actually mean is that they are not part of the convicted fraudsters Hovind's science. Why don't you try educating yourself and not dismissing things just because of some stone age book
Wikipedia: "In modern times, they are well-known for being the dominant group of mammals in Australia, though there are also a number of species found in the Americas, as well as on the island of New Guinea. There are a few species of marsupials still living in Asia, especially in the Sulawesi region of Indonesia"
Scientists of today don't know what materials they had back then. They can call the era what the hell they like, for funding.
Edo Berger of the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics reporting on the photograph taken of a gamma ray burst 13 billion light years away "the most distant object ever seen by humanity". I wonder how Ken Ham will explain that one.
Ya creationists hate astronomy. According to them we shouldn't be able to see constellations further away than 6000 years. But we can. According to creationists all the stars are close to us. But science fact is lost on these cretins. Besides they'll just claim it's the work of satan. Creationists are among the dumbest fux on the planet.
We also cannot test what they say about the "Ort Cloud". Nobody has ever seen this Ort Cloud. It's as made up as Santa Claus, in order to fit their theory about comets as to why they still exist after the supposed "billions of years" lol.
You are quite right about the Ort cloud it is a an explanation for what astronomers observe and one day we will find the proof for that just as science gradually shows that much of what was in the bible was nothing but fairy tales which unfortunately people such as you take as the literal truth.
Obviously you don't know about radiometric dating, otherwise you wouldn't be making these incorrect claims. I suggest you go read up on it. AIG's website gives plenty of technical details.
In that case you might like to name any of them and the peer reviewed scientific papers they have published or some scientific discovery that one of them has made or perhaps even a Nobel prize winner amonst their ranks. Or perhaps their founder Ken Ham who has zero scientific qualifications and runs that ridiculous museum.
Kenneth Miller is a Catholic he has no problem with his scientific papers. Many scientists are Christians, Muslims, etc and they have no problems. Ken Ham isnt even a scientist and has never bothered studying science and yet he is the authority you rely on. Now give me the your evidence to support that statement, "denied a Nobel Prize because he was a YEC" is that the sort of thing they claim on this site. Nobody is interested in your beliefs when you publish a scientific paper only the science.
Answers in Genesis is not a one man band. Scientist = someone who is an expert in science. Ken Ham has studied science, he has a degree in it.
Raymond V Damadian was denied a Nobel prize, even though the other 2 of the trio won one.
Their beliefs count for a great deal. He's on the board for the Institute for Creation Research. The scientific community didn't want to award a creationist such an award.
RCs generally don't believe in the lots of the Bible.
Ken Ham has a bachelors degree which hardly suggests he is anything like an expert in any field of science. R V Damadian denied that his beliefs had anything to do with the failure to win the Nobel prize in fact he has received numerous awards from the scientific community. Ham is being sued by his colleagues in Australia that began with a challenge to the power Mr Ham allegedly wielded over the ministries. Disagree with Mr Ham and your out, in other words science is what he says it is.
That is your opinion. I've been to 2 AIG seminars, one of which was done by Ham. I've read his books and watched his videos and I can tell you he knows a lot about science, the Bible and today's society.
Damadian did not deny that, he claimed he didn't know about it. Why was he excluded from the Nobel prize when it was a joint thing by 3 people? 3 people can win it for the same project.
Ham is a man who believes that all scientific knowledge is contained in a book written several thousand years ago by people who lived in tents, believed the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe and comets were signs from god. Any scientific discovery that contradicts this must be wrong, now there is an open scientific mind.
Damadian isnt the only one who people thought deserved the Nobel but didnt get it, Hoyle was another, it happens. However he was recognized with many scientific awards hardly someone who was persecuted because he was a YEC. Newton had some very weird beliefs but everyone recognizes him for the great scientist he was. Ham is a charlatan who makes a mockery of science and if you think he is knowledgeable then you must be very gullible.
I've yet to see any theories by creationists win ANY science award. You would think they could produce just one study to back their absurd claims. The bottom line is you have to be brainwashed to believe in such nonsense. The brainwashed are automatons. You can't talk sense to them. They are robots. They've lost the ability to think for themselves. Their minds are gone.
@ericinnit1 I supposed that one Kangaroo said I know a good place to live, but it's about 5,000 miles from here so we're going to have to swim for it? Asshole!
@ericinnit1 Proved to be a fake? By who? Everyone with a brain! Drogue stones, rivets? Drogue stones are BS, made up to further your cause and hundreds of tons of stone would be needed and would not have worked. And rivets? It was the Bronze age jerk! No iron or steel. And there are no Marsupials in Asia, the Americas, Australia and New Guinea. Research before opening your mouth!
@ericinnit1 You've been listening to kent again! Care to tell us how tropical critters traveled across several thousand miles of ice with nothing to eat but snow? A road sign pointing the way to Noah's Ark. It's nothing but a rocky outcropping
@ericinnit1 No where in the bible did it say that god helped noah in any way! LIAR! No trees that grew in that area would have been big enough for this vessel, we're talking about the spine of the ship, that would be about 6 or 8 ft. square to hold the massive ribs of the ship and cutting these would require precision, not likely with a copper ax, no iron or steel involved. And by the way, where did noah's son find a wife? Did he marry his sister? Or one of the chimps?
@gateman42 Why could none of the trees have been big enough? What makes you an expert on the trees in the area before all life was destroyed by the flood?
Things were bigger back then, even the people and the animals. Noah's sons already had wives (from different families) and were on the ark too.
@ericinnit1 Stay afloat? Have you ever seen what happens to a ship or boat that lost power in the ocean and gets hit broad side by a wave? IT ROLLS OVER AND SINKS! The ark had no engines, sails, keel or a rudder of any kind and would not last long. And taking into account the biblical record, it had 1 door, that door exposed to saltwater for a year would never be able to be opened. The wood would have expanded and salt crystals would caked it shut. Maybe he used his COPPER AX? Dumbass!
That's why it had drogue stones hanging off the sides to keep it stable.
You are wrongly assuming the water would be as salty as it is today. The oceans are getting saltier, meaning they used to be less salty. In fact, there would be hardly any salt content to the water during the time of the flood.
@weberly2 You idiot! You except people to believe that 4,400 (Bronze Age) years ago a man who wasn't a carpenter, built a 400 or 500 ft. ship using a copper ax? No bolts, glue, clamps, no chains, steel saw blades, accurate measuring devices, no trees big enough and most of all no way of incorporating the use of steam to bend these enormous planks. Sewing boards together? WTF? Tell me how using rope to hold these giant planks together would survive 30, 40 and even 50 ft. waves?
The earth wasn't in the same condition at the time of the flood- it was much different.
There's a large amount of evidence that points to a much smaller earth, where every plate fit together nicely. Not in a pangea form, but more like a solid hunk of land.
This video doesn't present any evidence that hasn't already been explained. It sounds like you read it once, and are now ranting on why it's not possible- even if you don't remember the whole story.
This entire video, you're assuming that the animals that were on the earth at the time of the flood were the animals that we have here today- which is not true.
After the flood, diversification made the animals from the ones on the ark.
Also, the water retreated to the newly opened underwater caverns because of the movement of the plate tectonics (that caused the flood).
Why do people alway's add a picture of zues for God, we don't know how God looks, we know He is like us but I suppose God looks like Jesus Christ, not an old man with grey hair and a grey beard, that's more like the myth zues.
I would say that is a rather nit picky thing to point out. However, it is generally how God is portrayed in popular culture. A personification and nothing more.
Comparable to giving a face to Jesus to act a recognizable measure (specifically one with blue eyes and very white skin).
How it is portrayed by athiests, but the Christian view is Like Jesus, we're not sure wether He had white or dark skin, but for sure He had long hair and a beard, but taht doesn't matter, what matters is he gave His life for all of us, so you just live your life, you don't believe in God or in evolution?
I said in popular culture, and even so it is not portrayed exclusively by atheists that way. Example A: the Sistine CHAPEL.
Anyways, as I said before, one one insignificant visual point in my video. If you wish to continue to comment, comment on the actual POINT of my video. Noah's Ark.
@gateman42 your replying to something i wrote months if not a year or two ago. although i am still a Christian, most of the stuff i probably wrote was not good. and please don't tempt me into a debate with what Jesus said. why would you debate what in your belief is a myth? i wouldn't bother debating someone who said unicorns exist and claimed there is tons of evidence. so why even bother?
Cee, I read somewhere that for there to have been enough water to cover every land mass on Earth during Noah's flood, there would have to be so much water in the air now (because it's not covering the ground anymore, riiighhhttt?), that breathing would literally be: impossible. you should try and find that on the internet somewhere! :-D
You realize, of course, that any brainless creationist can "refute" this in about five seconds.
"Durrr... Life was different back then. Animals of that time could adapt much faster than animals of today. There ere are no errors in the Bible, so stop trying."
And yes, I'm aware of all the question-begging fallacies in that, just so you know.
I do enjoy your videos, because they bring up points that I've never thought of before, including that of shallow-water species. Good job!
Thanks. Those refutations being based on NO evidence of course :P.
Taking the science out of it and just moving to the pure mechanics of taking care of all the animals is in itself impossible. I'm also curious how those koala bears got back to Australia :P. Someone riddle me THAT one.
Well, Hovind will just tell you that they didn't ORIGINATE from Australia, which really is an irrelevant point. (He's such a moron.) The conundrum of animals traveling to exclusive habitats still stands.
For example, not only koalas, but a large percentage of the marsupial population in general apparently uniformly decided that their respective species would ONLY migrate to Australia. Isn't that convenient how is just *makes* it look like evolution happened.
I haven't really ever gotten a clear answer on what creationists think about Pangea but.. seriously... how the fuck did koalas or any other animal for that matter get back to their island local?
Right. If he COULD take all the plants in the world, how would he care for all them for a year? Plus, don't forget certain plants indigenous to specific parts of the world far away from Mesopotamia.
Another thing I heard was that mankind and animals lived in harmony up until the Flood. Alas, one thing based on absolutely no evidence :P.
I've noticed that creationists spend more time on the flood than virtually any other part of the Genesis narrative. It's a particularly weak link in their chain. The equivalent strength of damp toilet paper, I might add.
It's even more absurd than the creation itself, and that's saying something! The creation basically asserts that God made the world with HIS BLACK MAGIC!!! The flood, however, makes God look astonishingly stupid.
the thing that stand out most about the flood for me is the god that causes this flood, he is supposed to be all-powerful all knowing ect, and yet the best method to sorting out us humans is global genecide, not very efficient for god is it?
imagine being an ant during the great flood. That should be a movie, like a reboot of bugs life.
KasirRham 4 months ago
Speaking of T. Rex, paleontologists have calculated 500,000 species of dinosaurs walked the earth. Maybe Noah was admiral of the Fleet.
InternetDarkLord 8 months ago
More biological insanity:
Genesis says the pairs were "male and female" but many animals don't have 2 genders.
If the Ark had 1 pair unclean, 7 clean, then clean animals should be 7 times less inbred today.
The oldest clonal aspen is 80.000 years old.
InternetDarkLord 10 months ago
hey bio girl i recommend u visit kent hovind in jail. take ur laptop with u and ask him all the question in this video. i can guarantee he will answer ur question. hovind has alot of knowledge. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand his teachings. just think about what he has said in the youtube videos, it make more sense than having faith that everything came from a rock. including uranium from oxygen and oxygen from nothing where did all the energy came to produce all this. Godistru
yeah4123 11 months ago
It is simple, as the water level rose it would have pushed the air columb up, so the air pressure would remain the same as at sea level. Believe me, as a submariner I am familiar with this principle. The waste would simply be jettisoned overboard. As for species, evolution predicts all species came from a simple single cell organism. But all species came from the kinds that were on the ark. Case in point, the wolf, fox, dingo, and all breeds of dogs descended from the canines on the ark.
wardmjwrd 1 year ago
Do they really teach that stuff in sunday school in the US? I mean, I used to go to church and sunday school as well when I was a kid, but we were never told to take these stories literally. And if they had, I wouldn't have believed it. All the species that ever existed on one ship?Plus all the food and water required?And what about the copious amounts of feces?And the flood higher than Mount Everest (hypothermia, altitude sickness)? How anyone can seriously believe that is beyond me.
Kynos1 1 year ago
@Kynos1 hey, till this day, much of sewer water is dumped in the ocean.
yeah4123 11 months ago
...scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 2 Peter 3:3.
If you don`t believe the account of the flood, why are so many worried about it...enough so to viciously attack it and those who believe the Word of God as truth? It is because you hate God and reject Jesus Christ who, by the way, is your only hope for salvation and eternal life. You reject the author of life and there by embrace death.
wardmjwrd 1 year ago
@wardmjwrd
Im sure that water was the biggest problem...lol it was a flood. The lady is humorous but dead wrong. The fact there is a fossil record at a predictable level is evidence of a world wide flood. The insects and plants managed to survive global ice ages.
smoothpeople33 1 year ago
Who else riduculed the flood? The people who died in the flood. But the judgment that awaits you will not be water, but fire. This is not about science, this is about you refusing to acknowledge God as creator and Lord. Therefore He has given you over to a strong delusion so that though hearing, you do not understand, and seeing you do not perceive.
wardmjwrd 1 year ago
@wardmjwrd: Come the Ragnarok, you will rise from the grave as a zombie to fight on behalf of Hel, only to be splattered by the hammer of mighty Thor and your gooey remains fried into an omelet by the fires of the Demon King Sutr. Renounce your cowardice; only those who die in battle will know the glories of Valhalla!
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
The god of Noah must have been a master of quantum mechanics to fit six million animals on a 45 foot boat, along with all the food and water necessary to feed that many animals. Not that any of that matters since "waters pass the highest mountain" putting the ark at about 30 thousand feet freezing all the animals or depriving them of oxygen. Not that matters either as when they got off the ark they wouldn't have enough genetic diversity to reproduce Still believe Christians? Enjoy Fantasy land.
jisaid08 1 year ago
What I have always found odd is that christians even feel the need to try and find naturalist explanations for the Flood legend.
Surely they should just accept that god spoke the flood into existence.
They fact that they are trying to find naturalistic evidence to me shows a considerable lack of faith.
It is almost like the god of Noah's era was a lot less powerful then the god of creation.
bustermk2 1 year ago
way to go, u got attention from doing this video
bobik624 1 year ago
Can anyone please subtitle this video? I think a lot of non english speaker need to watch this video.
ErikRicardoLC 1 year ago
6:11-6:24 is my favorite part
your videos kick ignorant ass
:)
again 5 stars
and i really like the term intellectual rape :D
Koga33525 1 year ago
I'm gonna get you started right now! How come you cannot grapple the idea of two dinosaurs together. I mean, didn't you ever catch an episode of The Flinstones? Anyhoo, this story never sat well with me ever since I was a kid. It just didn't make logical sense to be true. Funny how other grow up still believing it still. By the way, that moment at 8:30 is funny as hell.
acdc09 2 years ago
one thing, that you must have the spirit of god upon you to see the truth
for the truth will set you free when you
let jesus into your heart.
God bless.
lovesack 2 years ago
@lovesack Your name should be NUTsack ! Take your god and shove him. There is only one truth, it's called SCIENCE! Darwin Rules!
gateman42 1 year ago
ur an (extremely) bitter and angry woman.
marcsimac 2 years ago
@marcsimac Why is it that people that don't believe are bitter and angry, it's more like sick and tired of you morons with your heads up your ass trying to force this bullshit on everybody. What do you care what people believe, your the ones with the problem, you have a god you can't prove, and yet tens of thousands of scientists are wrong! Go stick your nose into that comic book you call a bible and read it with an open mind, OH, you don't have one!
gateman42 1 year ago
@gateman42 I rest my case.
marcsimac 1 year ago
Everything died, that was the point of the flood. The question is, how long did it take to recover, what did the animals eat when they got off the boat, how did the kangaroos get to Austrialia and other mammals didn't, and on and on and on.
gregrutz 2 years ago
you are a smart alec!!! Go change your panties and put them over your head.
stratojamesnz 2 years ago
you need to watch your language young woman
DHammerr 2 years ago
Thanks Biogirl52. This video is the perfect thing I need for my project on why things in the Bible don't check out. . . . perhaps if I've had this video to show to my christian shcool teachers all those years ago I wouldn't be so bitter and angry at religion now. Anyways, thanks!
beyondbedandbathisme 2 years ago 2
have you heard of raft events, or rafting events, can't remember which. i think a lot of insects could survive. i have certainly wondered about the travel of animals, just in terms of timeline, and the effect on sea life, i would think many fish could've went extinct at that time, and the sea would be quite different afterwards. thought about plants too, but i've seen them survive some amazing things (seeds). interesting and good questions but i don't find the flood concept or reason absurd.
weberly2 2 years ago
@weberly2 Insects would not survive on floating rafts of vegetation, They breath through their sides from holes called a spherical. These would get blocked by salt crystals and they would suffocate. As for fish, they would have all died, even the whales and dolphins. The oceans in such an event would be a biological train wreak. First you have 40 days of rain, so it is claimed, enough to cover the world, diluting the oceans. Then you have run off of trillions of tons of dirt, mud and vegetation
gateman42 1 year ago
@weberly2 Then you have a muddy ocean, no plankton = no life. Tell me, where did all the worms, bacteria, fungi, trees, grasses and the rest of the critters that live on land come from, they can't live under saltwater, for that matter, fresh water fish? They would be dead in hours. And very few seeds can survive saltwater. Then there is the age old ? Who put everything back? Not interesting and good questions! The whole thing is absurd and to think millions believe it makes it even more so!
gateman42 1 year ago
but you forgot. It's all magic.
thorungal 2 years ago
I'm in love...
TristanPEJ 2 years ago
Noah was good and righteous and naked and drunk.
Most importantly, he was naked and drunk.
lowcomedy 2 years ago
Don't forget he was also naked and drunk.
camino1ca 2 years ago
Did you know... That Noah, was naked AND drunk?
lowcomedy 2 years ago
That's interesting, but he was also naked and drunk. Therefore god exist and is naked and drunk. This is why Christianity is backwards because right from the start they had to approach their "father" backwards without looking. Did I mention he was naked and drunk?
camino1ca 2 years ago
interesting and logical indeed, but lets look at this as a thought, the IQ of man is increased per generation so going backwards to explain evolution and billions of years to someone who had the mentality of a 10 year old kid would have been impossible, so it says that god created the earth in 7 days, but further it says one of gods days are "countless upon countless generations for man kind" being that they only understood a generation. Look I agree with you 100% but the earth isnt flat either.
EliasGourvelos 2 years ago
there were never any dinosaurs. the world is not even 6000 yrs old and it doesnt spin. the sun orbits the earth and the universe is small. humanity fell from paradise into this low world and continued to fall until the flood resulted then in the fallen post flood scar of a world humanity continues to fall and this is where we are today. this generation is probably the worst generation of humanity to have ever existed. pornographic, satanic, bloody, sadistic, arrogant, selfish, cold hearted, low
iorixs 3 years ago
So many problems so little time.
I wish religious people would just take off those damn blinders then maybe they would have a little objectivity.
jlburnitt 3 years ago
Intellectual rape. I will steal that term.
VampireSaviorX 3 years ago
5/5 and favorite!
soulinite 3 years ago
"You assume far too much. That's a common trait with evolutionists."
I make assumptions about your character based on the hundreds of your bretheren I've talked to, and so far you're playing the part of a willfully ignorant creationist perfectly.
As for "Evolutionists", the only assumption a scientist should make is that the Universe Exists and its not just an illusion.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
"All supposed evidence has been debunked. It's misinterpreted. "
BULLSHIT kid. I want your source. You've never even looked at the evidence, much less considered if it's been debunked!
You just speak as Kent and the others tell you to think.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
Of course I've looked at it. Creationists always keep up to date with the theory and it's supposed evidences.
You assume far too much. That's a common trait with evolutionists.
ericinnit1 3 years ago
"Of course I've looked at it. Creationists always keep up to date with the theory and it's supposed evidences."
Bullshit. You're still claiming downright that there are no "Transitional forms" when I doubt you even know what the definition of one is.
Creationists always keep up to date?
Is that why they always ask me where the "Fossil of an animal with half a lung" is?
Furthermore, Do you have any idea what an Endogenous Retrovirus is?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
"I do not need to bet, a reward for proof has already been put forward."
HAHAHAHHA! Kent Hovinds $250,000 Challenge?
The one that says "Prove Evolution *
*Meaning God didn't create the big bang, Matter came from nothing, life evolved from rocks, etc..."
This piece of shit fraud? I bet you're too thick to understand why this isn't applicable, so I'll sing it for you:
THIS ISN'T WHAT EVOLUTION CLAIMS, NOR IS IT SCIENTIFIC!
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
*sigh* I know evolution doesn't include abiogenesis or astrology.
He's asking to prove any of it. Any of the widely accepted theories that go against the Bible.
ericinnit1 3 years ago
"*sigh* I know evolution doesn't include abiogenesis or astrology."
Astrology? I'm a Leo.
"He's asking to prove any of it. Any of the widely accepted theories that go against the Bible."
Great, so he's asking us to prove something that YOU know and WE know is NOT WHAT WE'RE CLAIMING.
Its not $250,000 to PROVE evolution, which is scientifically verifiable, its $250k to DISPROVE the bible, a process which science DOESNT DO. (Science provides evidence of existence, not nonexistence).
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
"For defined kinds, refer to baraminology."
And as I read up on this baraminology, I find that it isn't subject to testing..."Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[15] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924"
I'm searching, and I cant even seem to find a classification system, so I think you're shitting me that YOU even know about this...
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
FUCKING SHIT, It's weedgreenpowerranger. My roomate left his account on. Please respond to WGPR.
Piewack1t 3 years ago
In the face of monumental stupidity, merciless sarcasm is an appropriate response and you, ma'am, are delivering in spades ;)
rozeboosje 3 years ago
Gracias, sir!
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Biogirl, I suggest you go back and watch the rest of Hovind's particular video on this subject. Then you will have answers for your problems.
You also make too many assumptions. You assume the animals alive today are exactly the same as they were during the flood 4500 years ago.
You also assume the Earth is as it was before the flood, when it isn't.
Also, there weren't predators before the flood, if you actually read the Bible.
The rain provided fresh water in abundance.
Very poor video.
ericinnit1 3 years ago
"You also make too many assumptions. You assume the animals alive today are exactly the same as they were during the flood 4500 years ago."
What, a Hovind Follower asserting that animals CHANGE OVER TIME?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
I guess you aren't familiar with creationism.
ericinnit1 3 years ago
"I guess you aren't familiar with creationism."
Ah yes, creationism... The religious belief that all of the many hundreds to thousands of alleles within the human genome arose from 8 people within 4,000 years.
Super-evolution anyone?
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
"I guess you aren't familiar with creationism."
I guess you arent familiar with evolution.
If you're saying that animals were not created by god in the very same form as the are today, then you're asserting that animals change over time. Evolution.
And your comment hints that you didn't watch the video.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
If you knew about creationism, you would know that we don't argue against small changes within animal kinds. This much we can observe.
What we argue against is kind to kind evolution - macro evolution - that we do not observe.
ericinnit1 3 years ago
Ah, I see, the Micro-Macro debate.
Yet you'll also probably assert that mutations are only negative.
"macro evolution - that we do not observe. "
Wanna bet?
Piewack1t 3 years ago
"If you knew about creationism, you would know that we don't argue against small changes within animal kinds. This much we can observe."
Um, yeah, I call bullshit, because you cant even seem to define what a "Kind" is.
And the only reason you dont deny it anymore (Creationists USED to), is because its fucking impossible to deny.
Do you also assert that No new information can develop in any given genome?
Piewack1t 3 years ago
Please provide proof that creationists deny there being different dog breeds.
For defined kinds, refer to baraminology.
I do not need to bet, a reward for proof has already been put forward.
All supposed evidence has been debunked. It's misinterpreted.
ericinnit1 3 years ago
"Please provide proof that creationists deny there being different dog breeds."
Not what I said. I said that its bullshit because your terms are not defined. "Kind" is pretty general, and by changing that one word, you somehow think you're able to separate that classification. The trouble is that your classification is too broad, and Taxonomy is the result of science already having gone through and figured out the exact details of what a "Kind" is.
What Kind are you? Homo Sapien.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
I am mankind. Heard of it?
ericinnit1 3 years ago
Mankind?You Patriarchal piece of shit; respect the fairer of the sexes.
In laymans terms youre HUMAN.
Here's the Taxonomic KIND you are:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata. consists of animals with spinal cords
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates. includes humans and all apes, monkeys, gorillas, etc
Family: Hominidae. hominids include humans and closest cousins, chimps, gorillas.
Genus: Homo. family of humans, including extinct predecessors, Homo erectus,neanderthals.
Species: sapiens.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
You can call yourself whatever you wish. Do not call me names. You are so very childish. Oh and Power Rangers have always sucked.
Bye.
ericinnit1 3 years ago
"You can call yourself whatever you wish. Do not call me names. You are so very childish."
You're the one who hasn't provided a single piece of evidence, and I'm the child here?
"Oh and Power Rangers have always sucked."
You son of a bitch.
"Bye."
Oh come on kid, if God's on your side, then you should be able to trounce me easily!
Get back here, Primate!
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
Go cry.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 3 years ago
i agree about those changes (and fresh rainwater, haha) but what are you referring to scripturally as far as predators? never heard of this, and why do you think predators would have developed after the flood? i know that things were quite a bit different in the garden, is that what you mean? i really think those changes took place quite immediately, when their ordinary food became unavailable. plus i think adaptation is fairly rapid, although human life spans apparently shortened gradually.
weberly2 2 years ago
Nicely done... ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 3 years ago
You know what I think?
There was probably some kind of a huge flood but most likely not as big as described in the Bible. My point is - lots of people, animals, etc. were killed... so the survivors made a legend of it. I guess not only Christians have that story.
What's the point of figting over God's image? Even the Church wo't tell you "hey, God has big blue eyes, long grey hair..." They basically don't know, and as far as I know (former Catholic) they admit it.
DaKlimo 3 years ago
It's actually quite astounding how many ancient cultures have flood legends.
The ark (as described by the bible) is the only one that has dimensions that would have been suitable for seafaring.
There was a flood.
Geology says yes.
Ancient cultures say yes.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Geology most definitely does not say yes to a world wide flood and don't bother pointing to the Grand Canyon as evidence.
What I cannot understand is that creationists always complain that we haven't got fossils from billions of years ago but that this the biggest wooden boat ever built, landed on Mount Ararat less than 10,000 years ago and nobody has ever found any trace of it. Not a section, not a plank and not even a splinter.
Tridhos 3 years ago
It's a WOODEN BOAT!
You honestly expect to see wood last for 4,000 years?
And geology does say yes to a worldwide flood- for several reasons.
Transcontinental rock layers, sea-creature fossils on mountaintops, no (or rapid) erosion between rock strata, strata laid down in rapid succession (sedimentation), fossils of animals clearly buried very quickly (such as in the process of eating, or giving birth), and sediment transported over very long distances.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
I would expect a boat that size to have left some evidence but not a trace. All those animals afloat in a boat for that length of time. Just like Moses and his 40 years in the desert but despite having searched high and low no evidence can be found for that either another myth. As for the rest of your answer, all from answers in genesis a real paragon of scientific truth. How come we never find a rabbit in pre cambrain layers or a lion or a kangaroo.
Tridhos 3 years ago
... precambrian?
We don't find anything in precambrian rock layers.
The place that we start to find everything is at the "cambrian" rock layer.
It's called the "cambrian explosion" and its the point where everything just appears, with no precursors.
Wood falls apart, decomposes, and is eroded. Unless the wood became petrified, there is no way that it could ever last 4,000 years.
Petrified wood is similar to a fossil- and Noah's ark wasn't fossilized.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
"How come we never find a rabbit in pre Cambrian layers or a lion or a kangaroo."
Straw man.
Rabbits, lions or kangaroos were most likely not on the ark. The biblical "kinds" (or baramin) were not the same animals that we see today. The taxonomic rank "family" is the closest biological classification of the baramin.
Rabbits = Leporidae
Lions = Felidae
Kangaroos = Macropod
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
The fossil record is a fine example of a whole lot of dead things that were buried.
Complex life appearing in the cambrian rock layers, with nothing beforehand.
Immense variation of life that we don't see today is exactly what creationists would predict, because of pre-flood diversification. Post flood diversification resulted in the species that we have today.
Everything points to a creation, and then a massive flood.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Is that why so many people have spent so much time searching and failed to come up with anything despite knowing where this mythical boat came to rest. Are you seriously suggesting that an old man of some 500 years and his family built the biggest wooden boat ever built and then collected all those animals and despite it being structurally unsound given the size and material were able to stay afloat all that time? I wonder why Ken Hamm does try that as an experiment, I would gladly donate.
Tridhos 3 years ago
Then find me a rabbit in an older rock layer than that containing a dinosaur. Quite apart from the nonsense suggesting that there were dinosaurs on the ark which by all accounts despite those teeth were not at all wild, one suggestion being they used those teeth to eat pineapples.
Tridhos 3 years ago
It would be impossible in this day and age for a similar group of men in the same time scale to assemble a structure this size having to obtain and craft the materials and then to obtain all the necessary specimens to stock it. Then to float the structure on a pond let alone anything more. I would support an experiment to test this project but I note all the ones built are safely ensconced inside creationist museums on dry land.
Tridhos 3 years ago
So... what exactly do you want again?
You want for someone to find evidence of a wooden boat that landed over 4000 years ago.
You also want someone to build an ark, to scale, just to prove that it can be done?
That's why we have naval engineers, structural engineers, and computer programs that simulate real environments. We don't have to build one to know that I would have floated.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
When Noah was first mentioned, he was 500 years old.
When he entered the ark, he was 600.
It wasn't a weekend project. It took quite some time. Also, there is no way to know how many people helped construct the ark. It's possible that he hired people to help.
Also, the models that have been made are not hidden inside creation museums. They've been tested over and over, and the dimensions of the ark (as written in the bible) are perfect for a stable ride.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
The smaller arks in museums might float but a wooden boat the size of this mythical ark would be structurally unsound unless it was constructed of steel. For all their modelling none of them will construct an ark and actually prove this theory because they know the result so that is rubbish. Given the technology of those days there is no way he could have constructed a boat that size and filled it full of animals apart from all the other problems he would have faced with a boatload of animals.
Tridhos 3 years ago
The longest wooden ship ever built (i.e. historically verified) was the USS Wyoming. This vessel, which was, at 110 meters long, a full 50% shorter than Noah's ark, was found to be so unstable that it could only be used for short coastal hauls to avoid rough conditions further out in the sea.
Tridhos 3 years ago
The huge structural stresses that developed in the USS Wyoming made the ship sag and, well, it leaked. Water thus had to be pumped out continuously to prevent the ship from sinking. Now, here we have Noah's ark, built with wood, before the invention of steel and hydraulic pumps, undergoing the turbulent conditions of the flood unscathed. It is simply an engineering impossibility.
Tridhos 3 years ago
Wow, Elijah.
You use the same old disproven arguments over and over again, don't you? You get shut down on one comment section and go to the next and sart anew at going through your list of tired rationalizations. It's as if you can just put all the condemning observations you've read into your mental "recycle bin"...
twothlesswonder 3 years ago
Amazing then that others have launched so many expeditions to find it including using satellites. We even had one fraud going up and bringing down a piece of wood which he claimed was from the ark but the guide give the game away when he revealed that the same man had taken the wood up previously. So much effort and not a trace just like the other bible myths.
Tridhos 3 years ago
you're talking about modern construction techniques, the ancient methods were really superior especially suited to the materials available, although i don't know of a ginormous example, there are some incredibly built early ships, very labor intensive, such as literally sewing boards together.
weberly2 2 years ago
"the ancient methods were really superior" that just shows how stupid this arguement is. They were several thousand years behind the technology of today and yet their methods were superior. Right and what did they do in their free time jet around the universe in their warp drive boats.
Tridhos 2 years ago
i'm talking about wood specifically, most of what we do now is to save time or money. check it out sometime, the ancients accomplished some things that we have no way of duplicating with all our tools and knowledge with regards to construction, particularly stone.
weberly2 2 years ago
The ancients were incapable of constructing a wooden ship that was capable of sailing any distance from the shore that is why their empires were concentrated along the coast they were incapable of building a seaworthy craft. You are living in a dream world suggesting that we are incapable in this day and age of building better wooden boats than they could ever dream of with their primitive techniques.
Tridhos 2 years ago
The Ark wasn't built to sail anywhere, all it had to do was stay afloat.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
True and given its load and the fact they did not even have pumps in those days the whole thing would have gone to the bottom in 5 minutes. That is why all these smart alecs who think it would have stayed afloat construct and keep their models on dry land. A wooden boat that size would not have lasted 5 minutes see my earlier comments regarding other wooden boats and their maximum sizes.
Tridhos 2 years ago
I can't find your other comments apart from the one I replied to and the one about warp drive boats.
Skeptics always assume he had way more animals than he actually needed.
Have you taken into account the type of wood and the fact God looked after the boat?
The fact this boat held the whole of mankind and the dry land animal kingdom means that God wouldn't let the boat sink.
God does intervene sometimes.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
Yes I was wondering when that would come, when the technical and scientific arguments fail bring in the magic man. Have you ever asked why this omnipotent god had to keep popping up and sorting things out? I guess he was needed to also get all the animals back to where they are now like Australia. Since then of course no trace has ever been found of this huge boat despite numerous expeditions and attempted deceptions.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Coz we have a tendancy of messing things up.
There was an event called the Ice Age that occured shortly after the flood which made it possible to cross oceans.
There have been traces found. That's why Turkey have setup a visitor centre and put up a road sign pointing the way to Noah's Ark.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
And so convenient that all the marsupials decided they would settle in Australia and nowhere else. As for that Turkish site please pull the other one that was proved long ago to be a fake but it still attracts the gullible who want this myth to be true.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Proved to be a fake? By who? The evidence is there. Drogue stones, rivets...
Marsupials don't just live in Australia. They live in Nort, Central and South America and also in parts of Asia.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
Science see Journal of Geosciences Education, v. 44, 1996, p. 439-444. Always inconvenient when scientists are allowed to examine things.
Now how come Kangaroos are in Australia why did they all end up there why are they not all over the world.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Well firstly most animals travel in groups, stick with their own kind, increases survivability.
Secondly, why do you think they aren't in other countries? You couldn't possibly know that they aren't. The only way you could know that for sure is to be in every single place on Earth at exactly the same time.
My father saw a wallabie in the countryside here in England.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
In their travels from the starting point some would have remained or did they decide "lets all stick together lads and settle in Australia". The only Wallaby your father saw in England probably escaped from a zoo or was in a wildlife park. As for being in the same place at the same time to prove something that really does expose the silliness of your argument
Tridhos 2 years ago
Not at all. OK, prove that kangaroos don't live anywhere apart from Australia.
I spose you take the scientists' word for everything, just like you would have done when they said the Earth was flat and if you sailed too far you would have fallen off the edge. Or when they said heavy things fall faster than lighter things.
I prefer to put my faith in the Alimghty God who created everything, rather than a man who He created.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
It is the Bible that says the earth is flat even the ancient greeks and egyptians had worked out it was round. Do you remember the verse where god was going to take him to the highest mountain and show him all the cities of the world, You cannot do that with a round earth and yes there were cities on the other side of the globe during that period. We can test what scientists say and yes sometimes they do make mistakes but other scientists correct them. Not like your magic man.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Which verse is that?
We cannot test everything scientists say. We cannot test macro evolution. We cannot test that the world is billions of years old. If you bring up the distance of stars, go watch my videos. Scientists claim they cannot measure much more than 100 light years at best.
God isn't "my magic man".
ericinnit1 2 years ago
Luke 4.5 where Satan takes Jesus and shows him all the kingdoms of the world, how can you do that other than on a flat earth. Yes we can prove the age of the earth radiometric testing, the evidence for macro evolution is overwhelming, Deneb is 20,000 light years away what are you talking about, Andromeda Galaxy, which is about 2.5 million light years away. Sombrero Galaxy, about 10 million light years away. Try studying some real science not the micky mouse comics you rely on.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Radiometric dating cannot date the Earth. Thousands or millions of light years cannot be measured and are therefore not part of science.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
Unfortunately for you radiometric dating can accurately date the earth and the scientific method is well known. You have been reading the convicted fraudster Hovind who states in an unknown laboratory an unknown scientist using an unknown method was able to speed up radioactive decay. He refuses to give disclose where, who or what. The nuclear industry has never heard of this and this would solve all their problems regarding nuclear waste if they could render it safe by speeding up this process.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Parallaxes give us distances to stars up to perhaps a few thousand light years. Beyond that scientists have developed so many methods with which to measure the distance, Stellar motions, Moving clusters,Inverse-square law,Period-luminosity relation etc. What you actually mean is that they are not part of the convicted fraudsters Hovind's science. Why don't you try educating yourself and not dismissing things just because of some stone age book
Tridhos 2 years ago
@ericinnit1 Your Brain also cannot be measured either.
gateman42 1 year ago
@gateman42
Wikipedia: "In modern times, they are well-known for being the dominant group of mammals in Australia, though there are also a number of species found in the Americas, as well as on the island of New Guinea. There are a few species of marsupials still living in Asia, especially in the Sulawesi region of Indonesia"
Scientists of today don't know what materials they had back then. They can call the era what the hell they like, for funding.
ericinnit1 1 year ago
Edo Berger of the Harvard Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics reporting on the photograph taken of a gamma ray burst 13 billion light years away "the most distant object ever seen by humanity". I wonder how Ken Ham will explain that one.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Ya creationists hate astronomy. According to them we shouldn't be able to see constellations further away than 6000 years. But we can. According to creationists all the stars are close to us. But science fact is lost on these cretins. Besides they'll just claim it's the work of satan. Creationists are among the dumbest fux on the planet.
TheStrangeRanger 2 years ago
We also cannot test what they say about the "Ort Cloud". Nobody has ever seen this Ort Cloud. It's as made up as Santa Claus, in order to fit their theory about comets as to why they still exist after the supposed "billions of years" lol.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
You are quite right about the Ort cloud it is a an explanation for what astronomers observe and one day we will find the proof for that just as science gradually shows that much of what was in the bible was nothing but fairy tales which unfortunately people such as you take as the literal truth.
Tridhos 2 years ago
A? You must be tripping on something.
Obviously you don't know about radiometric dating, otherwise you wouldn't be making these incorrect claims. I suggest you go read up on it. AIG's website gives plenty of technical details.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
AIG now there is a real scientific forum, who are you kidding, a complete bunch of scientific morons, read what real scientists say not those clowns.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Haha, rich coming from you!
They are real scientists. I knew you were too ignorant to read any of it.
Ignorance is bliss eh.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
In that case you might like to name any of them and the peer reviewed scientific papers they have published or some scientific discovery that one of them has made or perhaps even a Nobel prize winner amonst their ranks. Or perhaps their founder Ken Ham who has zero scientific qualifications and runs that ridiculous museum.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Why might I? It doesn't take peer reviewed scientific papers or a Nobel prize to make a scientist.
In any case they'd deliberately be rejected based on their beliefs.
The main guy who invented the MRI brain scan was denied a Nobel prize because he is a young earth creationist.
You can find a list of creation scientists on AIG's website.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
Kenneth Miller is a Catholic he has no problem with his scientific papers. Many scientists are Christians, Muslims, etc and they have no problems. Ken Ham isnt even a scientist and has never bothered studying science and yet he is the authority you rely on. Now give me the your evidence to support that statement, "denied a Nobel Prize because he was a YEC" is that the sort of thing they claim on this site. Nobody is interested in your beliefs when you publish a scientific paper only the science.
Tridhos 2 years ago
Answers in Genesis is not a one man band. Scientist = someone who is an expert in science. Ken Ham has studied science, he has a degree in it.
Raymond V Damadian was denied a Nobel prize, even though the other 2 of the trio won one.
Their beliefs count for a great deal. He's on the board for the Institute for Creation Research. The scientific community didn't want to award a creationist such an award.
RCs generally don't believe in the lots of the Bible.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
Ken Ham has a bachelors degree which hardly suggests he is anything like an expert in any field of science. R V Damadian denied that his beliefs had anything to do with the failure to win the Nobel prize in fact he has received numerous awards from the scientific community. Ham is being sued by his colleagues in Australia that began with a challenge to the power Mr Ham allegedly wielded over the ministries. Disagree with Mr Ham and your out, in other words science is what he says it is.
Tridhos 2 years ago
That is your opinion. I've been to 2 AIG seminars, one of which was done by Ham. I've read his books and watched his videos and I can tell you he knows a lot about science, the Bible and today's society.
Damadian did not deny that, he claimed he didn't know about it. Why was he excluded from the Nobel prize when it was a joint thing by 3 people? 3 people can win it for the same project.
ericinnit1 2 years ago
Ham is a man who believes that all scientific knowledge is contained in a book written several thousand years ago by people who lived in tents, believed the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe and comets were signs from god. Any scientific discovery that contradicts this must be wrong, now there is an open scientific mind.
Tridhos 2 years ago 2
Damadian isnt the only one who people thought deserved the Nobel but didnt get it, Hoyle was another, it happens. However he was recognized with many scientific awards hardly someone who was persecuted because he was a YEC. Newton had some very weird beliefs but everyone recognizes him for the great scientist he was. Ham is a charlatan who makes a mockery of science and if you think he is knowledgeable then you must be very gullible.
Tridhos 2 years ago 2
>The scientific community didn't want to award a creationist such an award.
The scientific community doesn't award charletons, con men and frauds.
TheStrangeRanger 2 years ago
@ericinnit1 ken ham nor kent hovind have a degree in anything science releated, that, asshole is a proven fact.
gateman42 1 year ago
I've yet to see any theories by creationists win ANY science award. You would think they could produce just one study to back their absurd claims. The bottom line is you have to be brainwashed to believe in such nonsense. The brainwashed are automatons. You can't talk sense to them. They are robots. They've lost the ability to think for themselves. Their minds are gone.
TheStrangeRanger 2 years ago
@ericinnit1 I supposed that one Kangaroo said I know a good place to live, but it's about 5,000 miles from here so we're going to have to swim for it? Asshole!
gateman42 1 year ago
@ericinnit1 Proved to be a fake? By who? Everyone with a brain! Drogue stones, rivets? Drogue stones are BS, made up to further your cause and hundreds of tons of stone would be needed and would not have worked. And rivets? It was the Bronze age jerk! No iron or steel. And there are no Marsupials in Asia, the Americas, Australia and New Guinea. Research before opening your mouth!
gateman42 1 year ago
@ericinnit1 You've been listening to kent again! Care to tell us how tropical critters traveled across several thousand miles of ice with nothing to eat but snow? A road sign pointing the way to Noah's Ark. It's nothing but a rocky outcropping
gateman42 1 year ago
@ericinnit1 No where in the bible did it say that god helped noah in any way! LIAR! No trees that grew in that area would have been big enough for this vessel, we're talking about the spine of the ship, that would be about 6 or 8 ft. square to hold the massive ribs of the ship and cutting these would require precision, not likely with a copper ax, no iron or steel involved. And by the way, where did noah's son find a wife? Did he marry his sister? Or one of the chimps?
gateman42 1 year ago
@gateman42 Why could none of the trees have been big enough? What makes you an expert on the trees in the area before all life was destroyed by the flood?
Things were bigger back then, even the people and the animals. Noah's sons already had wives (from different families) and were on the ark too.
What's a rocky outcropping?
ericinnit1 1 year ago
@ericinnit1 Stay afloat? Have you ever seen what happens to a ship or boat that lost power in the ocean and gets hit broad side by a wave? IT ROLLS OVER AND SINKS! The ark had no engines, sails, keel or a rudder of any kind and would not last long. And taking into account the biblical record, it had 1 door, that door exposed to saltwater for a year would never be able to be opened. The wood would have expanded and salt crystals would caked it shut. Maybe he used his COPPER AX? Dumbass!
gateman42 1 year ago
@gateman42
That's why it had drogue stones hanging off the sides to keep it stable.
You are wrongly assuming the water would be as salty as it is today. The oceans are getting saltier, meaning they used to be less salty. In fact, there would be hardly any salt content to the water during the time of the flood.
Now who's the dumbass?
ericinnit1 1 year ago
@weberly2 You idiot! You except people to believe that 4,400 (Bronze Age) years ago a man who wasn't a carpenter, built a 400 or 500 ft. ship using a copper ax? No bolts, glue, clamps, no chains, steel saw blades, accurate measuring devices, no trees big enough and most of all no way of incorporating the use of steam to bend these enormous planks. Sewing boards together? WTF? Tell me how using rope to hold these giant planks together would survive 30, 40 and even 50 ft. waves?
gateman42 1 year ago
The earth wasn't in the same condition at the time of the flood- it was much different.
There's a large amount of evidence that points to a much smaller earth, where every plate fit together nicely. Not in a pangea form, but more like a solid hunk of land.
This video doesn't present any evidence that hasn't already been explained. It sounds like you read it once, and are now ranting on why it's not possible- even if you don't remember the whole story.
BTW- Noah wasn't an amateur either.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
There were ships on the earth at the time, and he would have known how to build an ark.
He did foresee the evil, but he also have us free will.
Also, these objections are nothing more than philosophical.
Koalas were most likely not on the ark.
Their descendants were- and modern koalas are a result of interbaraminic diversification.
DonExodus' video is a terrible straw man argument.
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
This entire video, you're assuming that the animals that were on the earth at the time of the flood were the animals that we have here today- which is not true.
After the flood, diversification made the animals from the ones on the ark.
Also, the water retreated to the newly opened underwater caverns because of the movement of the plate tectonics (that caused the flood).
XyoungearthX 3 years ago
Why do people alway's add a picture of zues for God, we don't know how God looks, we know He is like us but I suppose God looks like Jesus Christ, not an old man with grey hair and a grey beard, that's more like the myth zues.
NoMansLandProduction 3 years ago
I would say that is a rather nit picky thing to point out. However, it is generally how God is portrayed in popular culture. A personification and nothing more.
Comparable to giving a face to Jesus to act a recognizable measure (specifically one with blue eyes and very white skin).
Biogirl52 3 years ago
How it is portrayed by athiests, but the Christian view is Like Jesus, we're not sure wether He had white or dark skin, but for sure He had long hair and a beard, but taht doesn't matter, what matters is he gave His life for all of us, so you just live your life, you don't believe in God or in evolution?
NoMansLandProduction 3 years ago
I said in popular culture, and even so it is not portrayed exclusively by atheists that way. Example A: the Sistine CHAPEL.
Anyways, as I said before, one one insignificant visual point in my video. If you wish to continue to comment, comment on the actual POINT of my video. Noah's Ark.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
@NoMansLandProduction How do you know? Were you there? NO! It's said in the bible that jesus said that long hair is an abomination.
gateman42 1 year ago
@gateman42 your replying to something i wrote months if not a year or two ago. although i am still a Christian, most of the stuff i probably wrote was not good. and please don't tempt me into a debate with what Jesus said. why would you debate what in your belief is a myth? i wouldn't bother debating someone who said unicorns exist and claimed there is tons of evidence. so why even bother?
NoMansLandProduction 1 year ago
Ironically for you, you don't know what Jesus looks like, either.
LULZ!
Who gives a fuck? Seriously.
HeadoftheHydra 3 years ago
Ok, where are the cookies?
A11ex 3 years ago
Um.....
The Congo?
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Awesome. Can't wait for the next part
rowsdowersavesus 3 years ago
The noah's ark story is always fun to pick apart. :) I can't believe there are adults who still believe that actually happened.
Brianswers 3 years ago
Another great video by you and some epic watching by me ;) Keep up the great work!
Bleatmop 3 years ago
Dandy ol' chap. Lmao. Loved it, you're amazing! 5 stars.
whineybtch 3 years ago
Cee, I read somewhere that for there to have been enough water to cover every land mass on Earth during Noah's flood, there would have to be so much water in the air now (because it's not covering the ground anymore, riiighhhttt?), that breathing would literally be: impossible. you should try and find that on the internet somewhere! :-D
gradymcguire 3 years ago
Ouu... thanks grady babe :D. Yeah I didn't quite get the chance to get to whole rain shindig because the video was getting long enough.
luff you bff ;).
Biogirl52 3 years ago
You realize, of course, that any brainless creationist can "refute" this in about five seconds.
"Durrr... Life was different back then. Animals of that time could adapt much faster than animals of today. There ere are no errors in the Bible, so stop trying."
And yes, I'm aware of all the question-begging fallacies in that, just so you know.
I do enjoy your videos, because they bring up points that I've never thought of before, including that of shallow-water species. Good job!
Neilsama 3 years ago
Thanks. Those refutations being based on NO evidence of course :P.
Taking the science out of it and just moving to the pure mechanics of taking care of all the animals is in itself impossible. I'm also curious how those koala bears got back to Australia :P. Someone riddle me THAT one.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Well, Hovind will just tell you that they didn't ORIGINATE from Australia, which really is an irrelevant point. (He's such a moron.) The conundrum of animals traveling to exclusive habitats still stands.
For example, not only koalas, but a large percentage of the marsupial population in general apparently uniformly decided that their respective species would ONLY migrate to Australia. Isn't that convenient how is just *makes* it look like evolution happened.
Funny that.
Neilsama 3 years ago
Yeah. How tricky is Satan? Very tricky.
I haven't really ever gotten a clear answer on what creationists think about Pangea but.. seriously... how the fuck did koalas or any other animal for that matter get back to their island local?
Biogirl52 3 years ago
This was wonderful.
jebus6kryst 3 years ago
I know the bible doesn't say so, but he must've put all hte plants on the Ark too. You're video does a good job explaining why.
I'm glad that Noah saved the Saguaro and Octillo Cactus'. And and the mighty Sequoia.
But did he have to save Poison Ivy?
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
Right. If he COULD take all the plants in the world, how would he care for all them for a year? Plus, don't forget certain plants indigenous to specific parts of the world far away from Mesopotamia.
Another thing I heard was that mankind and animals lived in harmony up until the Flood. Alas, one thing based on absolutely no evidence :P.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Too easy to destroy, yet so believable to the "FAITHFUL". Humanity is in trouble.
Danmill23 3 years ago
Ridiculously easy story to refute. In fact, so much that it's pathetic.
Grown men believe it. This makes my head hurt.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
I've noticed that creationists spend more time on the flood than virtually any other part of the Genesis narrative. It's a particularly weak link in their chain. The equivalent strength of damp toilet paper, I might add.
It's even more absurd than the creation itself, and that's saying something! The creation basically asserts that God made the world with HIS BLACK MAGIC!!! The flood, however, makes God look astonishingly stupid.
Or cruel.
Neilsama 3 years ago
the thing that stand out most about the flood for me is the god that causes this flood, he is supposed to be all-powerful all knowing ect, and yet the best method to sorting out us humans is global genecide, not very efficient for god is it?
Erech01 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LOL. Good point, Neilsama.
Biogirl52 3 years ago
Stoopidest story ever told! Good stuff!
bigevasive 3 years ago
wow wonderfully put!
IllegalAlien1 3 years ago
fanfriggintastic video biogirl! five stars.
CapeandCowl 3 years ago
Aw, you're too sweet!
Biogirl52 3 years ago
btw, I should know this, but what is the song you use as your intro?
alienspy07 3 years ago
Speed of Sound by Coldplay :)
Biogirl52 3 years ago
I always wondered why God didn't just snap his fingers and kill every human but Noah and his family. Doesn't make any sense to me.
alienspy07 3 years ago