Time cannot possibly be infinite , or there would be an infinite amount of time leading up to this moment , and this moment in time would not occur , because there is infinite amount of time BEFORE ME!
Do you understand that?
If time exists , it exists because it is caused by something other than more time.
@alexross8: but time DIDN'T have a beginning...that's the point...time can't begin.
I understand what you want to say, but you're wrong no matter what. Your imaginary friend who lives outside of existence, doesn't solve the problem either, according to your reasoning.
By your reasoning, at some point, there was no time. Then tell me: how long did it take for God to create time? God is supposedly infinite, so an infinite amount of time would've passed before he made time...see your problem?
@PJDesseyn You dont understand, infinity has a beginning. God is eternal that means no beginning no end. God exists in the past present and future, yesterday today and forever. Atleast that is what the bible says. Time is the measure of changes in matter. Matter cant be be eternal or even infinite, thus time must have had a beginning, even scientist agree time had a beginning. It is impossible for an ifinite or never ending amount of time to have passed before this momment in time.
@modernrocks: matter may not be eternal nor infinite, but energy is. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and thus always existed and always will exist. They're like God, only real and non-sentient.
Also note that, if time had a beginning, then God must have a beginning as well, because something can't exist without time, as there would be no moment when it exists. There is no "before time" or "outside the realm of time", as time is a requirement for existence and especially for actions.
@PJDesseyn You didnt pay attention to my words, I said cgod the eternal who is not made of matter exists always, in all times at the same time. Energy is eternal god is energy. God(energy) created matter(e=mc2,works both ways), once matter existed time or the measure of changes in matter began.if you read by last comment and this you shopuld see my point.
@modernrocks: you assert God exists and is energy, without any evidence whatsoever. Please first prove God exists, without using any further baseless claims, before you can claim he's energy.
To clarify: you can't say "God created X" before proving God exists.
It's one of those questions theists can never answer...
@modernrocks: anyway, short answer: energy is eternal and completely natural, and God is known to be imaginary (like any other god), so how about we all accept reality and not worship non-existing beings, okay?
@alexross8 Actually, what has this got to do with Noah's Flood? That's a question that was settled long ago by geologist and chemists. It didn't happen. You're asking about things that even theoretical physicists have a hard time explaining coherently to the general public. Let's get back on point: No flood, period. The evidence found in the Earth's crust directly precludes it.
To you , I proved the "coulds" of the bible , not the "woulds" .
The water can completely cover the Earth.
The ark can be made of wood , yet survive the greatest storms .
You said the freshwater animals wouldn't exist , I proved that they could.
You said it yourself , this video wasn't meant for a debate , so there is no reason for me to debate you , considering you are too closed minded to grasp such things. Obviously , you don't even know how to debate.
@alexross8: no, to me, you've proven yourself mentally unstable and a danger to children...
No, the water cannot completely cover the Earth, as it's not flat. Yes, the ark can be made of wood, but CANNOT survive the greatest storms. I said the freshwater fish would die when the salt water mixed with the fresh water. You proved your insanity.
I'm not closed-minded at all. I'm a realist. Reality gets through, bullshit is kept out.
At the time , I had seen a few philosophical problems with science. My youtube friends told me that philosophy is wrong anyways. "Science is the only right thing".
But it occurred to me that philosophy couldn't be wrong. Philosophy is the understanding of the world through the eyes of a baby. It's why we have science in the first place. In fact , science is a branch of philosophy. I used Rene Descartes' method of systematic doubt , and I traded every belief for reason and rationality.
@alexross8: philosophy can easily be wrong and has nothing to do with babies. Philosophy is a way how to view reality. Many are wrong, some are right. Science, which is indeed derived from a philosophy (thank you Greeks!) is certainly correct, as it can be observed, demonstrated, tested, etc.
Science can get things wrong, but science itself isn't. The only problem is that we don't know enough yet. That's why we need to keep building on what we already know, not on fairy tales.
Depending on the type of wood , you could get the ship as big as you want , as long as it was fresh wood.
It takes a year to dry wood , because houses warp if the wood is freshly cut.
Being made out of fresh wood , the ark would tighten up , and would slightly warp , but it would definitely be sturdy enough. Dry wood would actually be best in that situation , because you only need the ark for about a year , not a whole lifetime.
@alexross8: no, you couldn't. Even the best wood would break if it's too big. The "Pretoria", one of the largest wooden ships ever built, was 103 meters long AND was reinforced with steel on the most important parts, like archs, beams, etc. It sank in a storm, on the Great Lakes...Now, Noah's Ark would be 137m long, and NOT reinforced with steel, and would have to go through the most violent storms on any scale, for 40 days, and then survive for the rest of the year, without resupplying...
@alexross8: yes, a ship...a STEEL REINFORCED ship...and one regular storm on the Great Lakes, and it sank. The Ark, which would be completely WOOD, may be sturdier than regular WOODEN ships, but wouldn't be stronger than a STEEL REINFORCED ship. And it certainly wouldn't be able to withstand global devastation. "the ark was built heavy", so were the mastodons of the sea, yet they weren't submerged too deeply. Remember, it's WOOD, wood floats...especially arks, which float even better.
Even reinforced with steal , the ship was built out of wood , and it's the wood that affects the ship the most. The big differences with a ship and an ark , is the fact that Ships were designed for speed and size. Arks , just for size. Ships today are designed in a way , so they can be taken apart in the future.
The whole ark was put together like a puzzle piece. Every piece of wood was locked in place.
@alexross8: That's bullshit and you know it. Ships are built to be sturdy. To be able to take a punch. Heck, they specially reinforced it with steel, to be stronger than regular wooden ships, and it was. And still it wasn't enough. Now, an ark, completely made of wood, would be even more vulnerable. Its mere size is already a problem, even in calm waters, let alone worse storms ever imagined.
There's no way the ark could survive such conditions.
If a steel bar was holding wooden boards in place , those wooden boards can still be just as easily as damaged. The only thing stopping them from moving , is the reinforced steal.
@alexross8: first of all, it's STEEL, 2 e's. Second, the steel reinforces the most important parts of the ship. This means if a hard wave hits it, it won't crack in 2, as is what happened to another big wooden ship, which wasn't reinforced with steel. It also causes the support beams and so on to be a whole lot stronger and can take far more of a punch than mere wood alone.
If all land was flat , and all land under the water was flat , then water could cover the Earth.
It would cause a lot of pressure build up , and would release , which would be so powerful that it could create mountains and valleys in mere hours.
If water came from the deep (Under the ocean) , it wouldn't necessarily be too hot. At that pressure , the water would go through hundreds of feet of cold water , and hundreds of feet of cold air.
@alexross8: But all land was NEVER flat...that's the whole point...it's not a game of "if this and if that", it's reality here. Any power which can create mountains and valleys in mere hours, would cause so much heat due to friction, that everything around it would vaporise...
Under the ocean, there's rock-solid ground and under that, hot molten magma. And you're just making shit up. Such steaming-hot water releasing in such immensity, would heat everything up to steam. Not "bath water".
The reason we don't notice this little fact , is because of the fact that we live on heightened landmasses ,while the earlier people lived on flatlands. I believe there is something like this called "Pangaea". Even scientists will tell you that there was once no land at all. There wasn't a massive extinction of freshwater fish. Winds and airpressure , at that level , can cause instant freezing , which could keep fish and amphibians alive within ponds.
@alexross8: if there were enough water, the world would currently be flooded...also, the "earlier people" lived on virtually the same lands as we do today. Pangaea was a supercontinent, 250 MILLION years ago...humans have only been in existence for 3 million years, with modern humans only the last 200.000 years, so that's a big NO. "once no land at all": BULL-SHIT! This never happened. And freshwater fish + salt = fishsticks. Instand freezing + freshwater fish = frozen fishsticks.
Being a liquid , it's mass shifts , which can be very forceful.
If ponds instantly froze , the greater lakes would have a solid surface , yet completely unfrozen on the bottom .
Some amphibians can survive freeze . A lot of fish in the lake wouldn't be frozen , because as everyone knows around here , the winter completely freezes the water , yet the fish survive.
@alexross8: if the world wouldn't be flooded, then it's not a global flood, and Noah wouldn't need an Ark in the first place. So you're just bullshitting over here...it's neither reality, nor biblical fiction.
There are many animals that can survive global floods.
Koalas however , cannot. The main reason people often don't allow foreign animals into a country , is because of the natural habitat. A whole environment can be completely destroyed because of one animal. My brother is an expert and he told me that. Noah's sons , having great experience , must have been wise enough to take those concerns into their hands. Not all marsupials live in Australia , btw.
@alexross8: actually, there are none which can survive global floods. I think that's the point of the story...that nothing else survived the flood...Furthermore, it's logistically impossible to gather 2 of every species, even with modern resources and 10 years time. Yet, in this story, we're talking about a 600-year old man (wtf?), thousands of years ago, when the known world didn't reach further than the Middle-East. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!
We couldn't gather all animals , because they are too diverse and scattered. Noah could , however , because there were less animals , and they were closer to him.
After the ark landed , lack of airpressure and oxygen caused mankind's longevity to shorten. After they landed , the sudden burst of UV rays caused them to genetically diversify .
It explains why animals and humans are so diverse.
Im not just thinking of this at the top of my head , i did my research.
@alexross8: No, he couldn't, because there were MORE animals, and they were equally as far for him as for us, with the difference of him not being able to go very far to get them. And then some more ridiculous bullshit you made up on the spot...it has nothing to do with airpressure, oxygen, UV rays (which would kill life btw), etc. Animals (of which humans are part of) are so diverse, because of EVOLUTION. Millions of years of Evolution. You didn't do research at all, you're bullshitting.
Nobody knows exactly how big Noah's ark could have been.
Some say a cubit is 2 feet , others say it was 10 feet.
Even 2feet cubits , the ark would have been big enough to be filled with the youngest of each kind of animal. Also , I believe that it said "Kind" , which didn't refer to a species , but a literal kind of animal. After the flood , the species got diverse.
@alexross8: the Egyptian Royal Cubit was about 52.5 cm (20.6 inches). 10 feet os certainly no cubit. And definitely no, 2 feet cubits is still far too small to house 2 of EVERY species (as that's a "kind") Note that there are already about 60.000 known vertebrate species, not counting all other lifeforms, nor the ones that got extinct or are unknown. Even if you take babies (which gives its own set of problems), the ark would be FAR too small for all species.
I put your video to shame , and now your saying that my comment has no value here , because I believe in the Noah's ark story , even when you accepted that YECs were going to debate with you.
What was the point of the video , if you just wanted someone to make fun of?
You didn't want to teach anyone . You just wanted to show people how stupid you think we all are. of course , that's just my opinion.
@alexross8: you're not right in the head...you're not putting my video to shame at all, you're putting yourself to shame by spouting nonsense and bullshit. I said your OPINION has no value, because of your mental retardation. And accepting the fact that the mentally ill would debate with me, doesn't mean they're not mentally ill.
The point of the video was to show some of the many problems with a global flood, hoping it would make you realise it's just a fairy tale.
I'm not right in the head? I have a mental retardation?
Excuse me , but I don't think ad hominem attacks are the best way of settling a debate , considering that they are the worst way to settle a debate.
In one of your other videos , you encouraged that we , the Creationists should debate with you , only on the account that we can 100% prove you wrong at least on one of your arguments .
I did exactly what you wanted. I proved to you that the water can cover the Earth.
@alexross8: well, you believe in a magical sky daddy and a magical global flood which leave absolutely no evidence behind, not to mention everything you haven't told me yet, so yes, that's mental retardation. If I told you the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us all and made a global flood of pasta, you'd laugh yourself silly.
I'm not settling a debate, I'm telling you you believe in ridiculous fairy tales.
And no, you did NOT prove that the water can cover the Earth. I'm still waiting...
Personally , I used to believe that all life on Earth were the product of the big bang.
I used to think that we evolved from an amoeba like creature , which evolved with something like a backbone. After a few million years , the water dried up , so the creature had to evolve a new way to jump to other waters. Eventually , the lung had been invented by natural selection , and the amphibians eventually evolved into reptiles. One branch led to dinosaurs , while the other led to mammals.
@alexross8: the Big Bang doesn't concern life. That's Abiogenesis, followed by Evolution. Your idea of Evolution isn't quite right, but the general concept is there...somewhere...and it's a fact. So: first we had single-celled organisms, then multi-celled organisms, then plants, then insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds and eventually mammals like us. The Big Bang is a fact. Abiogenesis is the only possible explanation. Evolution is a fact as well. Ignorance is no answer, Alex.
I know what evolution is. Evolution is a scientific fact. All that nonsense about us evolving from single celled organisms , and the universe coming from nothing , is completely and utterly ridiculous.
@alexross8: It's a fact that we did evolve from single celled organisms and no rational person claims the universe came from nothing. Only theists claim that. "first there was absolutely nothing, then God made everything." -> theists, not scientists/atheists.
Your beliefs are completely and utterly ridiculous. Scientific facts, like Evolution, are not.
@alexross8: Not only do you make a fool out of yourself and do you completely misrepresent reality as scientists present, you also contradict yourself. You say that, if there was something, you believe in infinite regression, after having said "in the beginning, there was God". So you believe in infinite regression then?
No, in reality, space, time and energy are eternal. They've always existed and always will. Everything is made of it and there's nothing simpler than energy. Energy works.
God is outside of time. He is as he was and will be. That is why they call him the Alpha and Omega , because he is the beginning and the end.
Nothing is eternal within time. Time is not eternal.
Imagine a man learns a song from a person who said that he learned it from a little boy years ago. The man then travels back in time and teaches the very same song to the guy that taught him the song. Who created the song? We encounter a paradox like this if time were eternal.
@alexross8: "God is outside of time", so he's outside of existence, meaning he doesn't exist...I completely agree with that! Time is eternal, space is eternal and energy is eternal. This is a fact. The laws of nature dictate that energy cannot be created, nor destroyed...and since it exists, it thus always existed.
And wtf are you talking about? You're making up fairy tales and think it's a problem for reality...sorry, but it isn't! Time, space and energy are eternal and god doesn't exist.
If you say that it simply happened , then that would mean that there was an event that triggered time to come into existence , which is scientifically impossible , because it requires an amount of time.
Time couldn't be infinite , because there would be an infinite time leading up to this moment , therefore this moment didn't take place. The only likely possibility is that time did begin , but not through the process of time.
@alexross8: but I'm not saying time had a beginning...I'm saying time always existed, as does space and energy...and any natural explanation always trumps any supernatural one, so nature FTW.
Also, why can't time be infinite? You claim God is infinite, and as said, any natural explanation always trumps any supernatural one, so if the choice was time vs God, everything else being the same, time always wins.
We live in the present. "this moment" always exists.
@alexross8: ridiculous. If there were infinite rooms, you'd have an infinite amount of rooms to check in. "Yeah, I'll take room 1686418157 if that's okay..." And who the fuck says all rooms are infinitely far away from the door? BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!
Even in a very common creationist argument, you fail. Also note: if God exists outside of time, then there's no moment when he created it. You can't create time, because you need time to create something. You also need space and energy btw.
Time exists as a dimension that God isn't a part of . Even though it's hard to understand how god could affect time , it can still be explained.
It's like looking at a flip note animation , God can go to one page and make something happen , and things will go off from there.
If time is infinite , then how did the big bang come about , considering that there was infinite time before the big bang? Time will never reach the big bang , because big bang is infinitely far away.
@alexross8: time is a prerequisite for something to exist. So for something to exist, you need TIME, SPACE, and ENERGY, as without time, it never exists, without space it exists nowhere and without energy, it's nothing.
How did the Big Bang occur? We don't know. We can't see that far back. Also, you take the "beginning" of time as a point in the past, instead of the present. We live in the present, continuously going forward. Time is infinite in past and future, but lives in the present.
If that room does exist , then room 1 exists , but so does -1 and -1686418157 , and so on. Even if there were a reference point , it wouldn't matter. If there are an infinite number of rooms , what room is first in the hallway?
"First" is an absurdity , it cannot happen.
I can't talk about Noah's flood , because you don't believe in God , so there is really no point.
@alexross8: 0 is the reference point. It then counts 1 as the first room, 2 as the second, etc. or did you miss that part in preschool?
You CAN talk about Noah's flood. You just can't prove it, because it never happened. It CAN'T happen. It violates just about every law of nature. Besides, God has nothing to do with any of this. Flood stories are told around the world. They're just adapted to local superstitions. I prefer the actual facts, not the fiction.
@denn034 Excuse the two other removed comments due to wanting to get this just right. Two videos on Youtube entitled The Ark of Noah by BereanBeacon and Does Noah's Ark still exist by dcpromo72 are recommended to you. The very existence of the ark on Ararat is positive proof that you're wrong. Let me finish by saying that you're long on assertions and short on proof for your view if the truth be told.
@denn034: let me remind you that this "ark on Ararat" is first of all NOT on Ararat, and second of all is a HOAX. This has been conclusively proven by REAL scientists and is denied by religious fucktards like yourself. Sorry if the truth hurts, but I must tell you anyway.
The global flood is physically impossible and this is proven by nature itself. Everything we find, proves there never was a global flood. Short on proof? That's because you deny everything. The truth is out there, go find it.
@PJDesseyn Didn't see the videos that I recommended, huh? Honestly, I was hoping you'd say the ark on Ararat was planted after the videotaped evidence from the recent expedition disproved your "not on Ararat" statement. The wood found with that ark is petrified and that makes it a glorified boulder that would have to be planted intact, all 2 million pounds of it. Sorry, only solid rocket boosters could plant it on Ararat!
1) the "ark" still isn't on Ararat, but on a mountain NEAR Ararat (not the same)
2) it's not actually an ark, but is said to be such, because the Turkish government gets some extra cash through that hoax.
Again, even if we were to say it's a real ark on mount Ararat, then STILL the global flood is completely and utterly IMPOSSIBLE. It could not and did not happen. So either way, it's a hoax. Your turn. (PS: why watch a video if you already know it's wrong?)
@PJDesseyn Agreed that the official Turkish site isn't the site of the ark. Where Ararat is concerned, if the wood is carbon dated back 4,800 years and a wooden structure is on Ararat as the Bible claims, then, a truly rational person can only call it Noah's Ark. Where Noah's flood is concerned, if a 2012 type worldwide flood is possible as per scholars combined with the 1 1/2 foot sedimentary layer worldwide and worldwide flood legends all combine to favor the worldwide flood.
@denn034: actually, if it were the biblical ark, it would've been 4400 years old, so this wood is 400 years older, plus it's no ark, plus there was no way to get an ark up there (unless they built it there), plus there never was any global flood at all in the entire history of planet Earth. A truly rational person can NEVER call it Noah's Ark, as this never existed and the events never happened as the bible describes.
The geological record 100% disproves any claim of a global flood. 2012? lol!
@denn034: some proof: (see video) - the ship is both too big and too small - collecting all animals was impossible - dinosaurs were already dead and wouldn't fit either way - not enough water on Earth for the flood - the method of the water getting here would kill all life anyway - amount of salt (or lack thereof) in water would kill lots of fish - amount of food not obtainable - carnivores couldn't eat vegetables - etc. If you listened to the video, you'd realise how impossible the story is.
This is absurd. Everyone knows the universe was created by manbearpig when the penguins drowned in coca cola after the polar bears ice melted and Obama restled Lucifer into submission and made him return the cotton candy back to Mario and Luigi who subsequently sold Santa Claus into slavery.
Confused? That's how hearing creationism bs makes me feel!
It could not have been Pepsi as the Xiliens created the DC center universe in Atlanta, where colonel sanders was arrested for treason against the Kebler elves.
It could not have been salt-water taffy because salt is only a figment of our imaginations created by the biased left-wing commie media system known as TBS.
PJ- this confirms the image I had of you sounding unconvincing & unsure of your own position - you exhibit an immature lame understanding of basic science - the comment about salt content in flood water is a prime example of biased narrow preconceived limitations evolutionists deliberately apply to bibilical accounts of early history. Fish adapted accordingly to their environments as salt content changed over time; some species simply became less able to cope with new environmental conditions
The way that I sound is subjective, so I cannot argue with you about the way I sound. However, this doesn't mean I actually feel that way. I'm in fact very convinced and certain of my own position. I exhibit a lame understanding of basic science? You DENY science...
Okay: what evidence do you have to support your claims? What evidence is there to show that fish were able to adapt to a new, extremely violent environment, within a few days? Anything to scientifically support your claims?
the Black Sea deluge and the Santorini eruption. The first might even be the best choice, since it happened like 10.000 years ago, so stories could change a lot in that time.
Well, I think it's based on actual events, but seriously exaggerated. A big local flood, killing a lot of people and animals, with some survivors (maybe even in an ark), but certainly not as the bible describes it.
If time had a beginning , then what started time?
Time cannot possibly be infinite , or there would be an infinite amount of time leading up to this moment , and this moment in time would not occur , because there is infinite amount of time BEFORE ME!
Do you understand that?
If time exists , it exists because it is caused by something other than more time.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: but time DIDN'T have a beginning...that's the point...time can't begin.
I understand what you want to say, but you're wrong no matter what. Your imaginary friend who lives outside of existence, doesn't solve the problem either, according to your reasoning.
By your reasoning, at some point, there was no time. Then tell me: how long did it take for God to create time? God is supposedly infinite, so an infinite amount of time would've passed before he made time...see your problem?
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn You dont understand, infinity has a beginning. God is eternal that means no beginning no end. God exists in the past present and future, yesterday today and forever. Atleast that is what the bible says. Time is the measure of changes in matter. Matter cant be be eternal or even infinite, thus time must have had a beginning, even scientist agree time had a beginning. It is impossible for an ifinite or never ending amount of time to have passed before this momment in time.
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: matter may not be eternal nor infinite, but energy is. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and thus always existed and always will exist. They're like God, only real and non-sentient.
Also note that, if time had a beginning, then God must have a beginning as well, because something can't exist without time, as there would be no moment when it exists. There is no "before time" or "outside the realm of time", as time is a requirement for existence and especially for actions.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn You didnt pay attention to my words, I said cgod the eternal who is not made of matter exists always, in all times at the same time. Energy is eternal god is energy. God(energy) created matter(e=mc2,works both ways), once matter existed time or the measure of changes in matter began.if you read by last comment and this you shopuld see my point.
modernrocks 1 year ago
@modernrocks: you assert God exists and is energy, without any evidence whatsoever. Please first prove God exists, without using any further baseless claims, before you can claim he's energy.
To clarify: you can't say "God created X" before proving God exists.
It's one of those questions theists can never answer...
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@modernrocks: anyway, short answer: energy is eternal and completely natural, and God is known to be imaginary (like any other god), so how about we all accept reality and not worship non-existing beings, okay?
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@alexross8 Actually, what has this got to do with Noah's Flood? That's a question that was settled long ago by geologist and chemists. It didn't happen. You're asking about things that even theoretical physicists have a hard time explaining coherently to the general public. Let's get back on point: No flood, period. The evidence found in the Earth's crust directly precludes it.
NorthForkFisherman 1 year ago
To you , I proved the "coulds" of the bible , not the "woulds" .
The water can completely cover the Earth.
The ark can be made of wood , yet survive the greatest storms .
You said the freshwater animals wouldn't exist , I proved that they could.
You said it yourself , this video wasn't meant for a debate , so there is no reason for me to debate you , considering you are too closed minded to grasp such things. Obviously , you don't even know how to debate.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: no, to me, you've proven yourself mentally unstable and a danger to children...
No, the water cannot completely cover the Earth, as it's not flat. Yes, the ark can be made of wood, but CANNOT survive the greatest storms. I said the freshwater fish would die when the salt water mixed with the fresh water. You proved your insanity.
I'm not closed-minded at all. I'm a realist. Reality gets through, bullshit is kept out.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
At the time , I had seen a few philosophical problems with science. My youtube friends told me that philosophy is wrong anyways. "Science is the only right thing".
But it occurred to me that philosophy couldn't be wrong. Philosophy is the understanding of the world through the eyes of a baby. It's why we have science in the first place. In fact , science is a branch of philosophy. I used Rene Descartes' method of systematic doubt , and I traded every belief for reason and rationality.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: philosophy can easily be wrong and has nothing to do with babies. Philosophy is a way how to view reality. Many are wrong, some are right. Science, which is indeed derived from a philosophy (thank you Greeks!) is certainly correct, as it can be observed, demonstrated, tested, etc.
Science can get things wrong, but science itself isn't. The only problem is that we don't know enough yet. That's why we need to keep building on what we already know, not on fairy tales.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Depending on the type of wood , you could get the ship as big as you want , as long as it was fresh wood.
It takes a year to dry wood , because houses warp if the wood is freshly cut.
Being made out of fresh wood , the ark would tighten up , and would slightly warp , but it would definitely be sturdy enough. Dry wood would actually be best in that situation , because you only need the ark for about a year , not a whole lifetime.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: no, you couldn't. Even the best wood would break if it's too big. The "Pretoria", one of the largest wooden ships ever built, was 103 meters long AND was reinforced with steel on the most important parts, like archs, beams, etc. It sank in a storm, on the Great Lakes...Now, Noah's Ark would be 137m long, and NOT reinforced with steel, and would have to go through the most violent storms on any scale, for 40 days, and then survive for the rest of the year, without resupplying...
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
Actually you could.
The Pretoria was designed as a ship .
The Ark wasn't designed to drive. It was designed to hold.
Also , the ark was built heavy , so it was often mostly submerged , which gave it the upper hand , because a wave couldn't crash it as easily .
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: yes, a ship...a STEEL REINFORCED ship...and one regular storm on the Great Lakes, and it sank. The Ark, which would be completely WOOD, may be sturdier than regular WOODEN ships, but wouldn't be stronger than a STEEL REINFORCED ship. And it certainly wouldn't be able to withstand global devastation. "the ark was built heavy", so were the mastodons of the sea, yet they weren't submerged too deeply. Remember, it's WOOD, wood floats...especially arks, which float even better.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
Even reinforced with steal , the ship was built out of wood , and it's the wood that affects the ship the most. The big differences with a ship and an ark , is the fact that Ships were designed for speed and size. Arks , just for size. Ships today are designed in a way , so they can be taken apart in the future.
The whole ark was put together like a puzzle piece. Every piece of wood was locked in place.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: That's bullshit and you know it. Ships are built to be sturdy. To be able to take a punch. Heck, they specially reinforced it with steel, to be stronger than regular wooden ships, and it was. And still it wasn't enough. Now, an ark, completely made of wood, would be even more vulnerable. Its mere size is already a problem, even in calm waters, let alone worse storms ever imagined.
There's no way the ark could survive such conditions.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
If a steel bar was holding wooden boards in place , those wooden boards can still be just as easily as damaged. The only thing stopping them from moving , is the reinforced steal.
Steal does not help all so much.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: first of all, it's STEEL, 2 e's. Second, the steel reinforces the most important parts of the ship. This means if a hard wave hits it, it won't crack in 2, as is what happened to another big wooden ship, which wasn't reinforced with steel. It also causes the support beams and so on to be a whole lot stronger and can take far more of a punch than mere wood alone.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
If all land was flat , and all land under the water was flat , then water could cover the Earth.
It would cause a lot of pressure build up , and would release , which would be so powerful that it could create mountains and valleys in mere hours.
If water came from the deep (Under the ocean) , it wouldn't necessarily be too hot. At that pressure , the water would go through hundreds of feet of cold water , and hundreds of feet of cold air.
At the very least , it would feel as bath water.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: But all land was NEVER flat...that's the whole point...it's not a game of "if this and if that", it's reality here. Any power which can create mountains and valleys in mere hours, would cause so much heat due to friction, that everything around it would vaporise...
Under the ocean, there's rock-solid ground and under that, hot molten magma. And you're just making shit up. Such steaming-hot water releasing in such immensity, would heat everything up to steam. Not "bath water".
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
There was enough water , and there still is.
The reason we don't notice this little fact , is because of the fact that we live on heightened landmasses ,while the earlier people lived on flatlands. I believe there is something like this called "Pangaea". Even scientists will tell you that there was once no land at all. There wasn't a massive extinction of freshwater fish. Winds and airpressure , at that level , can cause instant freezing , which could keep fish and amphibians alive within ponds.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: if there were enough water, the world would currently be flooded...also, the "earlier people" lived on virtually the same lands as we do today. Pangaea was a supercontinent, 250 MILLION years ago...humans have only been in existence for 3 million years, with modern humans only the last 200.000 years, so that's a big NO. "once no land at all": BULL-SHIT! This never happened. And freshwater fish + salt = fishsticks. Instand freezing + freshwater fish = frozen fishsticks.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
The world wouldn't be flooded.
Water is very heavy.
Being a liquid , it's mass shifts , which can be very forceful.
If ponds instantly froze , the greater lakes would have a solid surface , yet completely unfrozen on the bottom .
Some amphibians can survive freeze . A lot of fish in the lake wouldn't be frozen , because as everyone knows around here , the winter completely freezes the water , yet the fish survive.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: if the world wouldn't be flooded, then it's not a global flood, and Noah wouldn't need an Ark in the first place. So you're just bullshitting over here...it's neither reality, nor biblical fiction.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
There are many animals that can survive global floods.
Koalas however , cannot. The main reason people often don't allow foreign animals into a country , is because of the natural habitat. A whole environment can be completely destroyed because of one animal. My brother is an expert and he told me that. Noah's sons , having great experience , must have been wise enough to take those concerns into their hands. Not all marsupials live in Australia , btw.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: actually, there are none which can survive global floods. I think that's the point of the story...that nothing else survived the flood...Furthermore, it's logistically impossible to gather 2 of every species, even with modern resources and 10 years time. Yet, in this story, we're talking about a 600-year old man (wtf?), thousands of years ago, when the known world didn't reach further than the Middle-East. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
We couldn't gather all animals , because they are too diverse and scattered. Noah could , however , because there were less animals , and they were closer to him.
After the ark landed , lack of airpressure and oxygen caused mankind's longevity to shorten. After they landed , the sudden burst of UV rays caused them to genetically diversify .
It explains why animals and humans are so diverse.
Im not just thinking of this at the top of my head , i did my research.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: No, he couldn't, because there were MORE animals, and they were equally as far for him as for us, with the difference of him not being able to go very far to get them. And then some more ridiculous bullshit you made up on the spot...it has nothing to do with airpressure, oxygen, UV rays (which would kill life btw), etc. Animals (of which humans are part of) are so diverse, because of EVOLUTION. Millions of years of Evolution. You didn't do research at all, you're bullshitting.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Nobody knows exactly how big Noah's ark could have been.
Some say a cubit is 2 feet , others say it was 10 feet.
Even 2feet cubits , the ark would have been big enough to be filled with the youngest of each kind of animal. Also , I believe that it said "Kind" , which didn't refer to a species , but a literal kind of animal. After the flood , the species got diverse.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: the Egyptian Royal Cubit was about 52.5 cm (20.6 inches). 10 feet os certainly no cubit. And definitely no, 2 feet cubits is still far too small to house 2 of EVERY species (as that's a "kind") Note that there are already about 60.000 known vertebrate species, not counting all other lifeforms, nor the ones that got extinct or are unknown. Even if you take babies (which gives its own set of problems), the ark would be FAR too small for all species.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
Excuse me , but I don't think the Egyptian cubit was quite accurate . Things change.
Whole languages can change in a matter of a few hundred years.
It would be extremely unlikely for a single word to not change.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: considering the fact that you think a global flood happened, your opinion has no value here.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
LOL!
I put your video to shame , and now your saying that my comment has no value here , because I believe in the Noah's ark story , even when you accepted that YECs were going to debate with you.
What was the point of the video , if you just wanted someone to make fun of?
You didn't want to teach anyone . You just wanted to show people how stupid you think we all are. of course , that's just my opinion.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: you're not right in the head...you're not putting my video to shame at all, you're putting yourself to shame by spouting nonsense and bullshit. I said your OPINION has no value, because of your mental retardation. And accepting the fact that the mentally ill would debate with me, doesn't mean they're not mentally ill.
The point of the video was to show some of the many problems with a global flood, hoping it would make you realise it's just a fairy tale.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
I'm not right in the head? I have a mental retardation?
Excuse me , but I don't think ad hominem attacks are the best way of settling a debate , considering that they are the worst way to settle a debate.
In one of your other videos , you encouraged that we , the Creationists should debate with you , only on the account that we can 100% prove you wrong at least on one of your arguments .
I did exactly what you wanted. I proved to you that the water can cover the Earth.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: well, you believe in a magical sky daddy and a magical global flood which leave absolutely no evidence behind, not to mention everything you haven't told me yet, so yes, that's mental retardation. If I told you the Flying Spaghetti Monster created us all and made a global flood of pasta, you'd laugh yourself silly.
I'm not settling a debate, I'm telling you you believe in ridiculous fairy tales.
And no, you did NOT prove that the water can cover the Earth. I'm still waiting...
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
Personally , I used to believe that all life on Earth were the product of the big bang.
I used to think that we evolved from an amoeba like creature , which evolved with something like a backbone. After a few million years , the water dried up , so the creature had to evolve a new way to jump to other waters. Eventually , the lung had been invented by natural selection , and the amphibians eventually evolved into reptiles. One branch led to dinosaurs , while the other led to mammals.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: the Big Bang doesn't concern life. That's Abiogenesis, followed by Evolution. Your idea of Evolution isn't quite right, but the general concept is there...somewhere...and it's a fact. So: first we had single-celled organisms, then multi-celled organisms, then plants, then insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds and eventually mammals like us. The Big Bang is a fact. Abiogenesis is the only possible explanation. Evolution is a fact as well. Ignorance is no answer, Alex.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
I didn't say that it did concern life.
I know what evolution is. Evolution is a scientific fact. All that nonsense about us evolving from single celled organisms , and the universe coming from nothing , is completely and utterly ridiculous.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: It's a fact that we did evolve from single celled organisms and no rational person claims the universe came from nothing. Only theists claim that. "first there was absolutely nothing, then God made everything." -> theists, not scientists/atheists.
Your beliefs are completely and utterly ridiculous. Scientific facts, like Evolution, are not.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
No , in the beginning , there was God , and God created the heavens and the earth.
In the beginning , there was nothing , and nothing happened , and nothing will happen , because nothing cannot do something.
Saying that there was something , means that you believe in infinite regression , which creates a problem.
Saying that nothing caused the universe , is like saying that cause&effect does not exist , which would create so many paradoxes.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: Not only do you make a fool out of yourself and do you completely misrepresent reality as scientists present, you also contradict yourself. You say that, if there was something, you believe in infinite regression, after having said "in the beginning, there was God". So you believe in infinite regression then?
No, in reality, space, time and energy are eternal. They've always existed and always will. Everything is made of it and there's nothing simpler than energy. Energy works.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
God is outside of time. He is as he was and will be. That is why they call him the Alpha and Omega , because he is the beginning and the end.
Nothing is eternal within time. Time is not eternal.
Imagine a man learns a song from a person who said that he learned it from a little boy years ago. The man then travels back in time and teaches the very same song to the guy that taught him the song. Who created the song? We encounter a paradox like this if time were eternal.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: "God is outside of time", so he's outside of existence, meaning he doesn't exist...I completely agree with that! Time is eternal, space is eternal and energy is eternal. This is a fact. The laws of nature dictate that energy cannot be created, nor destroyed...and since it exists, it thus always existed.
And wtf are you talking about? You're making up fairy tales and think it's a problem for reality...sorry, but it isn't! Time, space and energy are eternal and god doesn't exist.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
If time had a beginning , how did it begin?
If you say that it simply happened , then that would mean that there was an event that triggered time to come into existence , which is scientifically impossible , because it requires an amount of time.
Time couldn't be infinite , because there would be an infinite time leading up to this moment , therefore this moment didn't take place. The only likely possibility is that time did begin , but not through the process of time.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: but I'm not saying time had a beginning...I'm saying time always existed, as does space and energy...and any natural explanation always trumps any supernatural one, so nature FTW.
Also, why can't time be infinite? You claim God is infinite, and as said, any natural explanation always trumps any supernatural one, so if the choice was time vs God, everything else being the same, time always wins.
We live in the present. "this moment" always exists.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn If the amount of rooms within a hotel were infinite , there would be absolutely no way to have a reservation for a certain room.
Lets say a party were to be held in the hotel in a room .
The party would never take place , because the rooms are infinitely far away from the door of the hotel.
Just like that scenario , it will be an infinite number of years before a "big bang" ever take place , so it's not even possible.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: ridiculous. If there were infinite rooms, you'd have an infinite amount of rooms to check in. "Yeah, I'll take room 1686418157 if that's okay..." And who the fuck says all rooms are infinitely far away from the door? BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!
Even in a very common creationist argument, you fail. Also note: if God exists outside of time, then there's no moment when he created it. You can't create time, because you need time to create something. You also need space and energy btw.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
Time exists as a dimension that God isn't a part of . Even though it's hard to understand how god could affect time , it can still be explained.
It's like looking at a flip note animation , God can go to one page and make something happen , and things will go off from there.
If time is infinite , then how did the big bang come about , considering that there was infinite time before the big bang? Time will never reach the big bang , because big bang is infinitely far away.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: time is a prerequisite for something to exist. So for something to exist, you need TIME, SPACE, and ENERGY, as without time, it never exists, without space it exists nowhere and without energy, it's nothing.
How did the Big Bang occur? We don't know. We can't see that far back. Also, you take the "beginning" of time as a point in the past, instead of the present. We live in the present, continuously going forward. Time is infinite in past and future, but lives in the present.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn
How can you take room 1686418157?
In infinity , there is no reference point.
If that room does exist , then room 1 exists , but so does -1 and -1686418157 , and so on. Even if there were a reference point , it wouldn't matter. If there are an infinite number of rooms , what room is first in the hallway?
"First" is an absurdity , it cannot happen.
I can't talk about Noah's flood , because you don't believe in God , so there is really no point.
alexross8 1 year ago
@alexross8: 0 is the reference point. It then counts 1 as the first room, 2 as the second, etc. or did you miss that part in preschool?
You CAN talk about Noah's flood. You just can't prove it, because it never happened. It CAN'T happen. It violates just about every law of nature. Besides, God has nothing to do with any of this. Flood stories are told around the world. They're just adapted to local superstitions. I prefer the actual facts, not the fiction.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
Comment removed
denn034 1 year ago
Comment removed
denn034 1 year ago
@denn034 Excuse the two other removed comments due to wanting to get this just right. Two videos on Youtube entitled The Ark of Noah by BereanBeacon and Does Noah's Ark still exist by dcpromo72 are recommended to you. The very existence of the ark on Ararat is positive proof that you're wrong. Let me finish by saying that you're long on assertions and short on proof for your view if the truth be told.
denn034 1 year ago
@denn034: let me remind you that this "ark on Ararat" is first of all NOT on Ararat, and second of all is a HOAX. This has been conclusively proven by REAL scientists and is denied by religious fucktards like yourself. Sorry if the truth hurts, but I must tell you anyway.
The global flood is physically impossible and this is proven by nature itself. Everything we find, proves there never was a global flood. Short on proof? That's because you deny everything. The truth is out there, go find it.
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Didn't see the videos that I recommended, huh? Honestly, I was hoping you'd say the ark on Ararat was planted after the videotaped evidence from the recent expedition disproved your "not on Ararat" statement. The wood found with that ark is petrified and that makes it a glorified boulder that would have to be planted intact, all 2 million pounds of it. Sorry, only solid rocket boosters could plant it on Ararat!
denn034 1 year ago
@denn034: 2 problems with your reply:
1) the "ark" still isn't on Ararat, but on a mountain NEAR Ararat (not the same)
2) it's not actually an ark, but is said to be such, because the Turkish government gets some extra cash through that hoax.
Again, even if we were to say it's a real ark on mount Ararat, then STILL the global flood is completely and utterly IMPOSSIBLE. It could not and did not happen. So either way, it's a hoax. Your turn. (PS: why watch a video if you already know it's wrong?)
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
@PJDesseyn Agreed that the official Turkish site isn't the site of the ark. Where Ararat is concerned, if the wood is carbon dated back 4,800 years and a wooden structure is on Ararat as the Bible claims, then, a truly rational person can only call it Noah's Ark. Where Noah's flood is concerned, if a 2012 type worldwide flood is possible as per scholars combined with the 1 1/2 foot sedimentary layer worldwide and worldwide flood legends all combine to favor the worldwide flood.
denn034 1 year ago
@denn034: actually, if it were the biblical ark, it would've been 4400 years old, so this wood is 400 years older, plus it's no ark, plus there was no way to get an ark up there (unless they built it there), plus there never was any global flood at all in the entire history of planet Earth. A truly rational person can NEVER call it Noah's Ark, as this never existed and the events never happened as the bible describes.
The geological record 100% disproves any claim of a global flood. 2012? lol!
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
PJDesseyn 1 year ago
This is absurd. Everyone knows the universe was created by manbearpig when the penguins drowned in coca cola after the polar bears ice melted and Obama restled Lucifer into submission and made him return the cotton candy back to Mario and Luigi who subsequently sold Santa Claus into slavery.
Confused? That's how hearing creationism bs makes me feel!
beyondbedandbathisme 2 years ago 3
You are wrong. It was NOT Coca Cola, it was Pepsi.
It was not Cotton Candy, it was Salt-Water Taffy.
Please get your FACTS right!
; )
PT109Boat 2 years ago
It could not have been Pepsi as the Xiliens created the DC center universe in Atlanta, where colonel sanders was arrested for treason against the Kebler elves.
It could not have been salt-water taffy because salt is only a figment of our imaginations created by the biased left-wing commie media system known as TBS.
Please get YOUR facts straight!
: )
beyondbedandbathisme 2 years ago
I pronounce this the most absurd, ridiculous, and most stupid video ever to rear its ugly head in the history of YouTube.
FirstFreedomFighter 2 years ago
And unless you have any solid arguments or proof to go against it, you'll just have to accept it.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
PJ- this confirms the image I had of you sounding unconvincing & unsure of your own position - you exhibit an immature lame understanding of basic science - the comment about salt content in flood water is a prime example of biased narrow preconceived limitations evolutionists deliberately apply to bibilical accounts of early history. Fish adapted accordingly to their environments as salt content changed over time; some species simply became less able to cope with new environmental conditions
ClaudiaShipman 2 years ago
The way that I sound is subjective, so I cannot argue with you about the way I sound. However, this doesn't mean I actually feel that way. I'm in fact very convinced and certain of my own position. I exhibit a lame understanding of basic science? You DENY science...
Okay: what evidence do you have to support your claims? What evidence is there to show that fish were able to adapt to a new, extremely violent environment, within a few days? Anything to scientifically support your claims?
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Ah yes, but you forget, the inside of the ark is exactly like Dr. Who's Tardis....
theatheistguy 2 years ago 2
=O Well that changes everything! *poof* Now I'm a believer, hallellujah! Praise Dr. Who!
Hehe, luckily, they don't make those arguments yet...maybe they haven't watched the show...
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
lol love it! They must never see that show or we're all screwed :P
theatheistguy 2 years ago
Yeah, isn't there evidence of a rather large flood in north africa? Isn't that about where they said noah lived?
Anyway tall tales are kind of silly.
fmaneko217 2 years ago
There are 2 things that might get close:
the Black Sea deluge and the Santorini eruption. The first might even be the best choice, since it happened like 10.000 years ago, so stories could change a lot in that time.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago
Noah's Ark is the technology myth of it's time like Scientology's space craft that looked like DC9s.
samten54 2 years ago 4
Well, I think it's based on actual events, but seriously exaggerated. A big local flood, killing a lot of people and animals, with some survivors (maybe even in an ark), but certainly not as the bible describes it.
PJDesseyn 2 years ago