Science! Ask you question here. Biscuits NOT included and answers not guaranteed.

Liamario

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSeecpWM8AA

I mean, if they've made a movie out of it, it must be true...right?

Surely there's no flaw in that logic.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

He's awfully, uh, pale, for someone from that area...

Liamario

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Sarky wrote: »

He's awfully, uh, pale, for someone from that area...

Shut your mouth! I'm in the middle of a reconversion here and you're just trying to spoil it for me!!!

iDave

Turtwig

Wonder if they'll address all the logistical problems of storing all the animals. For example, how their excrement was dealt with.:D

Cabaal

OMG! Spoiler!

Jernal wrote: »

Wonder if they'll address all the logistical problems of storing all the animals. For example, how their excrement was dealt with.:D

Also, what about the dinosaurs?

Turtwig

Dinosaurs were hebrivores and lived with humans. Get with the program!

Liamario

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Jernal wrote: »

Dinosaurs were hebrivores and lived with humans. Get with the program!

YEAH!!! They later became carnivores by evolu...... GOD! :mad:

Cabaal

OMG! Spoiler!

Jernal wrote: »

Dinosaurs were hebrivores and lived with humans. Get with the program!

Oh sh*t sorry, I forgot. How silly of me...sure didn't Jesus take care of raptors?
There's even evidence of this in historical books

Delirium

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

just keep Moses off the damn boat!

That fecker will have them run aground with a careless wave of his hands!! :eek::P

Cabaal

OMG! Spoiler!

I'm amazed nobody has pointed out the massive flaw in this film adaption of the fairytale, what the heck is Maximus Decimus Meridius doing driving the boat?

Dades

Pretty sure I saw some unicorns getting washed away in the closing shots!

Turtwig

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm amazed nobody has pointed out the massive flaw in this film adaption of the fairytale, what the heck is Maximus Decimus Meridius doing driving the boat?

Gladiator

Remember at the end of that movie where Maximus is walking in the grass? This film takes place in that grass dream world.

wretcheddomain

I hope the updated version is that of the flood from the Epic of Gilgamesh, always good to have originals etc.

J C

Liamario wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSeecpWM8AA

I mean, if they've made a movie out of it, it must be true...right?

It certainly adds credibility to it.
... and this is just the latest of several films about it.

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

It certainly adds credibility to it.
... and this is just the latest of several films about it.

How the bloody hell does this add any credibility to it JC?

BobbyPropane

Corkfeen

I'm actually sort of interested in seeing this since one of my favourite directors made it, Darren Aronofsky(Requiem for A Dream). Although I suspect it will be the big budget flop of his career. So disappointed that he didn't direct Robocop instead. I'm confused on how a film based on a biblical story makes it more credible. Lord of the Rings happened so or is at least credible ?

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

J C wrote: »

It certainly adds credibility to it.
... and this is just the latest of several films about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

Pherekydes

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

J C wrote: »

It certainly adds credibility to it.
... and this is just the latest of several films about it.

Yep, Noah lived to the ripe old age of 950. He was a youthful 600 or so when he built his floating zoo. Quite credible alright.

Gordon

A Better question would be, would the Dr. have rescued Noah?

Pherekydes wrote: »

Yep, Noah lived to the ripe old age of 950. He was a youthful 600 or so when he built his floating zoo. Quite credible alright.

I wonder if any religious folk ever worry that Noah told a few porky pies. Considering he was the only person to survive a massive god slaughter along with his wife, sons and daughters in law presumably. With nobody else alive, who could possibly refute anything he said? But then I guess that brings a level of reality into things and sways away from blind trust and faith.

J C

iDave wrote: »

Hi iDave
Lets look at the maths ...
Firstly, the wrong calculation has been done in relation to the capacity of the current water on Earth to flood it. Its the sphere depth of the oceans that is the critical measurement.
It is thought that the Earth's surface was smoother than it is today, during the Flood ... with lower hills and less deep ocean basins and trenches.
If the Earth were a smooth sphere there is enough water to cover the entire surface to a depth of over 1.5 miles ... so all of the land on a smoother surfaced Earth could indeed be completely flooded during the Flood.
There is therefore no shortage of water to flood the entire Earth.

Quote Encyclopaedia Britannica
"Actually, all the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres (8,812 feet) deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on Earth’s surface."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424285/ocean

The second point of the film posted by you, was in relation to the capacity of the Ark to hold all of the animals.
Firstly, only land breathing vertebrate animals—corresponding to modern birds, mammals, and reptiles, as well as their extinct counterparts needed to be rescued on the Ark ... so this eliminates any space requirements for fishes and amphibians ... and insects could survive on various 'flotsam and jetsam'.

All you wanted to know (but were afraid to ask) about how the animals fitted on the Ark are answered here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/how-could-animals-fit-on-ark

The third point of the film was in relation to the ability of rain (on its own) to flood the Earth ... but the Flood was caused by both rain falling and waters bursting forth from underground, due to enormous world-wide tectonic forces being unleashed ... and its thought that the vast majority of the waters arose from underground sources ... and the heavy rains were only a secondary phenomenon as a result of the condensation of the steam that accompanied the explosive release of the underground waters.

J C

BobbyPropane wrote: »

Fair enough.
However, the Blessing of God and the enlightenment of one's intelligence aren't mutually exclusive ... you can have both.

... but of course, you don't have to have them both, if you don't want them.

gaynorvader

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

J C wrote: »

Hi iDave
Lets look at the maths ...
Firstly, the wrong calculation has been done in relation to the capacity of the current water on Earth to flood it. Its the sphere depth of the oceans that is the critical measurement.
It is thought that the Earth's surface was smoother than it is today, during the Flood ... with lower hills and less deep ocean basins and trenches.
If the Earth were a smooth sphere there is enough water to cover the entire surface to a depth of over 1.5 miles ... so all of the land on a smoother surfaced Earth could indeed be completely flooded duting the Flood.

{...}

Mountains were probably higher back then as they have been shrinking due to erosion, etc.

J C

gaynorvader wrote: »

Mountains were probably higher back then as they have been shrinking due to erosion, etc.

... if mountains really were around for the billions of years claimed, they would have eroded into the oceans of the world long ago!!!

The tectonic forces that released the vast sub-terranean waters in the Flood continued to raise the mountains and to lower the Ocean basins and trenches during the Flood recession phase and since then ... and the 'echoes' from this process continue to resound right up to today, with earthquakes and volcanic activity (on a thankfully, greatly reduced scale and intensity) all over the Earth.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Oh not this bullsh*t again. J C, how many times do you need to be shown that every claim you make about this planet is hopelessly wrong?

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Oh not this bullsh*t again. J C, how many times do you need to be shown that every claim you make about this planet is hopelessly wrong?

Where have you shown this?

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

You know damn well whenever you've tried to pretend you know about anything scientific, someone else has shown up and showed you do be utterly clueless on any subject to which you turn your hand. Look, I'm trying to do you a favour here: Your pathetic flood claims have been done to death. There really is no need for you to embarrass yourself all over again.

Doctor Strange

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Looks like a decent popcorn flick, AND it has Emma Watson. Sold.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

You know damn well whenever you've tried to pretend you know about anything scientific, someone else has shown up and showed you do be utterly clueless on any subject to which you turn your hand. Look, I'm trying to do you a favour here: Your pathetic flood claims have been done to death. There really is no need for you to embarrass yourself all over again.

... so will you be going to see the film?

I can hardly wait ... with the excitement of it all!!!:)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2507265/Noah-trailer-epic-new-biblical-tale-starring-Russell-Crowe.html

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1959490/

gaynorvader

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

J C wrote: »

... if mountains really were around for the billions of years claimed, they would have eroded into the oceans of the world long ago!!!

{...}

Mountains are rising and falling all the time. At the moment I believe most are in decline.

Turtwig

gaynorvader wrote: »

Mountains are rising and falling all the time. At the moment I believe most are in decline.

Have YOU ever seen a mountain rise or fall? How do you know they rose and fell in the past? WERE you there?

gaynorvader

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Jernal wrote: »

Have YOU ever seen a mountain rise or fall? How do you know they rose and fell in the past? WERE you there?

Yes, I saw them and yes.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

He's awfully, uh, pale, for someone from that area...

Australia?

Nah - it's all 'Slip, Slap, Slop - stay out of the bloody sun mate or you get cancer!' down there.

pauldla

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Good cast, according to wiki. Pity they didn't get Michael Fassbender, he's a fine actor. Perhaps he had more sense...?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
... if mountains really were around for the billions of years claimed, they would have eroded into the oceans of the world long ago!!!

gaynorvader
Mountains are rising and falling all the time. At the moment I believe most are in decline.

At an average erosion rate of just 0.1 mm per year, a mountain that was 100,000 metres would be eroded in a billion years ... and Everest's puny 8,848 metres would be completely eroded at an average erosion rate of just 9 microns (um) per year.
To put this into context, the diameter of Human hair varies from 17 um to 100 um.

... and the reason that most mountains are in decline is because the Earth is cooling down as time goes by as the after-shocks of the Flood's tectonic processes subside.

Obliq

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

J C wrote: »

... and the reason that most mountains are in decline is because the Earth is cooling down as time goes by as the after-shocks of the Flood's tectonic processes subside.

Epic trolling. Well done - with this latest inanity, you are truly spoiling us JC.

Days 298

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Imagine if JC taught Junior Cert geography and history....

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

At an average erosion rate of just 0.1 mm per year, a mountain that was 100,000 metres would be eroded in a billion years ... and Everest's puny 8,848 metres would be completely eroded at an average erosion rate of just 9 microns (um) per year.
To put this into context, the diameter of Human hair varies from 17 um to 100 um.

... and the reason that most mountains are in decline is because the Earth is cooling down as time goes by as the after-shocks of the Flood's tectonic processes subside.

Oh, JC, still peddling the same old creationist bullsh1t I see.

It's amazing how you can fit so much stupid into such a short post.

Anyway, as usual, you're wrong. And here's why.

Firstly, Mt. Everest isn't a billion years old. The bulk of Everest, i.e. the North Col formation dates only to the middle Cambrian or about 500 million years.

Secondly, the summit of Everest is covered by approximately 3.5m of snow and ice. This has the effect of severely reducing any effect of erosion by wind or water.

Finally, the effect of erosion, even by your first estimate (0.1mm/year) is more than offset by the effect of uplift caused by positive movement between the Indian and Eurasian plates. This effect increases the elevation of Everest by 4-6mm per year.

So, once again you're wrong. And it wouldn't be the first time your claims about the flood have been shown to be wrong. You might remember this and this and this

Delirium

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

:pac:

iDave

J C wrote: »

Hi iDave
Lets look at the maths ...
Firstly, the wrong calculation has been done in relation to the capacity of the current water on Earth to flood it. Its the sphere depth of the oceans that is the critical measurement.
It is thought that the Earth's surface was smoother than it is today, during the Flood ... with lower hills and less deep ocean basins and trenches.
If the Earth were a smooth sphere there is enough water to cover the entire surface to a depth of over 1.5 miles ... so all of the land on a smoother surfaced Earth could indeed be completely flooded during the Flood.
There is therefore no shortage of water to flood the entire Earth.

Quote Encyclopaedia Britannica
"Actually, all the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres (8,812 feet) deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on Earth’s surface."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/424285/ocean

The second point of the film posted by you, was in relation to the capacity of the Ark to hold all of the animals.
Firstly, only land breathing vertebrate animals—corresponding to modern birds, mammals, and reptiles, as well as their extinct counterparts needed to be rescued on the Ark ... so this eliminates any space requirements for fishes and amphibians ... and insects could survive on various 'flotsam and jetsam'.

All you wanted to know (but were afraid to ask) about how the animals fitted on the Ark are answered here:-
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab3/how-could-animals-fit-on-ark

The third point of the film was in relation to the ability of rain (on its own) to flood the Earth ... but the Flood was caused by both rain falling and waters bursting forth from underground, due to enormous world-wide tectonic forces being unleashed ... and its thought that the vast majority of the waters arose from underground sources ... and the heavy rains were only a secondary phenomenon as a result of the condensation of the steam that accompanied the explosive release of the underground waters.

Don't quote answer in genesis filth to me again as for the rest, pure white noise.

Pherekydes

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Days 298 wrote: »

Imagine if JC taught Junior Cert geography and history....

Imagine if he learned JC geography and history!


Hehe, JC geography and history.

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

JC

If Noah built his ark in what is now known as the middle east how did animals such as Kangaroo's, Monotremes and Koala bears that are indigenous to Australia get to the middle east?

PopePalpatine

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

bumper234 wrote: »

JC

If Noah built his ark in what is now known as the middle east how did animals such as Kangaroo's, Monotremes and Koala bears that are indigenous to Australia get to the middle east?

Magic, duh.

robindch

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

bumper234 wrote: »

If Noah built his ark in what is now known as the middle east how did animals such as Kangaroo's, Monotremes and Koala bears that are indigenous to Australia get to the middle east?

This topic was covered at length in 2008, in An Earlier Thread. Here's the redoubtable Scofflaw on the trip from Mount Ararat to Australia, creationist-style:

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm afraid this argument almost exactly demonstrates the difference between the scientific and the pseudo-scientific approaches.

On the one hand, we know scientifically that lots of animals can only live on a restricted diet - more often the herbivores than the carnivores, in fact - koala bears being a very good example, since they eat only eucalyptus leaves. Fructivores, of course, would have been equally badly off, since soft fruit would neither survive the flood, nor be available again for perhaps years afterwards. Insectivores would also find it impossible to survive, since insects were not taken onto the ark. While some insects may have survived clinging to the famous 'mats of vegetation', you're not talking about a whole ant colony (a) surviving, and (b) digging themselves a new nest in time to become dinner for a hungry pangolin - and pangolins eat pounds of insects each day.

On the other hand, in the broad brush-strokes of pseudo-science, we have "carnivores eat meat, carrion is meat, therefore carnivores were OK", or "insectivores eat insects, there were insects, therefore insectivores were OK" - and the debate is over.

The whole point is moot, of course, since these animals were mutating every 3.5 hours anyway, while trying to get from Ararat to their eventual 'destinations' quickly enough to leave no fossil traces of their passing - in the case of the koala bears, down to Australia and across the Wallace Line along with every single other marsupial, presumably carrying eucalyptus seeds. I pity them, for they had only tiny little leggies, and thousands of miles to travel.

Corkfeen

This thread has become wonderful !

Cabaal

OMG! Spoiler!

JC,

I like how you try to believe that a fairytale actually was a real event, so while we're doing that lets continue to ignore all logic and reality and I put to you that there is more evidence of the events from Lord Of The Rings being real then Noah's ark.

So lets begin,
- First off Hobbits, they existed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis
- The bird taxi's in Lord Of The Rings really existed, there's evidence of numerous giant birds throughout the earths fossil records
- Nazgûl-birds's really existed, ok they changed the look in the films but giant flying creatures of this nature again exist in our fossil record - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatlus As you can see these are more than capable of carrying a Nazgûl King.
- A written record of the events exists
- They made films of the events, just like Noah...this adds credibility to it according to you.
- Mt Doom, it existed but was later destroyed because clearly Mt Doom was a super volcano, this ultimately destroyed middle earth but it was the only type of Volcano able to create the one ring.
- Dwarfs clearly introduced the skills of metal working and mining to the human race, Dwarfs also mated with humans, This explains dwarfism among the human race.
- People with powers such as Wizards and Witches existed, the catholic church feared them and ultimately murdered them.
- The Elves did leave middle earth just as in the written texts, they went to Antarctica. Unfortunately due to layers of ice we have not found evidence of their settlements.
- The story of lord of the rings teaches us the very basic moral of good against evil, this teaching became the basis for all future faiths and morals for the entire human race,

Next up, I'm going to outline how the story of Rapunzel was clearly a real event set in Ireland because we have round towers a plenty in Ireland. Again, this is more evidence then we have of god and it also teaches morals!

Bannasidhe

Cabaal wrote: »

Next up, I'm going to outline how the story of Rapunzel was clearly a real event set in Ireland because we have round towers a plenty in Ireland. Again, this is more evidence then we have of god and it also teaches morals!

Makes more sense then the current claim that round towers were built as a defense against those wily seafaring Scandinavians who presumably also carried with them some as yet undiscovered, but very fast and not requiring roads, mode of land transportation so they could attack quite far inland where the majority of round towers are situated.

I suspect this as yet undiscovered transport was the proto-type for self-assembly IKEA furniture and any day now some one will find ye olde allen key in a bog.

Sarky

OMG! Spoiler!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Makes more sense then the current claim that round towers were built as a defense against those wily seafaring Scandinavians who presumably also carried with them some as yet undiscovered, but very fast and not requiring roads, mode of land transportation so they could attack quite far inland where the majority of round towers are situated.

I was taught that in primary school. Then again I was also taught that everyone from the UK was an evil merciless c*nt. Oh catholic education...

mikom

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

AND it has Emma Watson.

Is she Joan of Arc?

bumper234

FYI: This is Option Number Twenty-Five. Isn't this being a bit, uh, mean on the hamsters?

Sarky wrote: »

I was taught that in primary school. Then again I was also taught that everyone from the UK was an evil merciless c*nt. Oh catholic education...

WE ARE!!!!!

MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA:D