Noah’s Ark Questions and Answers

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
tesfey: man, there is a lot

tesfey: man, there is a lot you dont understand. Instead of looking into it, you jump to conclusions.

First. Let me apologize for the misspellings of your username. As I typed, I think it came out as "tefsey." Sorry. As I find them, I shall perform edits to correct this mistake.

Again, I apologize and I am sorry.

Now for what I wanted to comment on the quoted text above.

No I do not jump to conclusions and ignore anything. It is just that most of the information you are linking to I have already read over 40 to 45 years ago and have summarily dismissed it as poppycock. I was reading that junk when I was a child in elementary school. It was poppycock back then, and it still is poppycock today.

And the one thing you said I will most definitely and happily agree to: There is a lot I do not understand. However, the obverse is also true. There is a lot you do not understand.

Here is one of my favorite memes. Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I saw it, and I paraphrase:

Atheist/Scientists read lots of different books and feel there is a lot they have to learn.
Absolutists barely read one book and feel they know everything.

You, sir, are definitely an Absolutist. What is an Absolutist you may ask?

Absolutist — anyone belonging to and possessing an unalterable belief in any religion, especially the absolute Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity, Islam – due to their absolutist beliefs system and is truly applicable to any AND all religious believers, and especially the worst subset, Apologists.

You prove this by plagiarizing material from the Rosicrucian web site. Just another one of the many Absolutist Recruit Training Centers.

Now that I think of it, it would have been easier for me to prove I am a geologist by plagiarizing the USGS web site instead of using my own learned and worked for knowledge. Damn. Why can't I be lazier?

The science of geology actually disproves your idea of Lemuria. Plate tectonics would not have caused it to sink into the ocean. Instead, they would have ripped it apart. Just like it actually happened. I can agree that there was a continental landmass situated in the southwestern corner of what is now the Indian Ocean. However, that was 60+ Ma.

Oops. Another defining may be needed. Ga = giga-annums; Ma = mega-annums; Ka = kilo-annums. Giga = billions, mega = millions, kilo = thousands. Us geologists use the term annums due to the facts that the Earth's year used to be shorter than it is now way back into the Ga ages ago. This is a phenomenon known as "scattering" due to "gravitational resonance." When our stellar system first formed, the planets were much closer to Sol than they are today. Thus, the "years" were shorter than today. Thus, us gelologists use the term "annum" for the revolutionary period of our planet Earth. Additionally, this theory also explains how Mars could have had liquid water, and perhaps life, in its ancient past. Mars was in a location similar to where Earth is now. However, Mars was much too small to have enough of a gravitational field to hold the water which was lost due to hydrodynamic and atmospheric escape. An excerpt from a college paper I wrote a long time ago (Me = Earth Masses):

Planets without protection from a geomagnetic field are virtually defenseless from the charged particle winds of their star, and the radiation level on the planet's surface will match that of the local region of space around the planet. The presence of an atmosphere can mitigate the surface radiation somewhat. However, it will not protect against stellar flares and coronal mass ejections. A heavy, thick atmosphere (like Venus) can provide somewhat complete protection, generating their own magnetic field from the interaction of the atmosphere with the charged stellar particle winds, helping to prevent the atmosphere from being completely lost.

Planets with weak or surface-localized magnetic fields have another problem dealing with stellar radiation and stellar winds. The charged particles are not stopped and bombard the atmosphere and the planet's surface directly.

Low gravity planets (0.6 to 0.9 Me) will have their atmosphere stripped away in a matter of a few million years to a couple hundred million years. This atmosphere stripping, known as hydrodynamic escape, formerly known as hydrostatic evaporation, will also ionize water into hydrogen and oxygen gases which will in turn be stripped away. This is what happened to Mars.

On heavier planets (0.8 to 1.25 Me), the charged stellar particles are absorbed by the atmosphere, again causing water to ionize into hydrogen and oxygen. Since hydrogen is so light, it is lost into space as the stellar winds strips it from the atmosphere. Some of the oxygen will usually combine with other substances such as carbon and sulfur, forming heavier gases, but most of the oxygen will also be lost. The planet is able to hold onto heavier gases (such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, etc.), creating a thick, toxic atmosphere. This is what happened to Venus.

And here is an interesting fact for you. Did you know that our Earth loses millions of tons of atmosphere every year? If it were not for Earth's active biosphere and active geomorphology replinishing the atmosphere, even the Earth would become a runaway greenhouse inferno like Venus.

Anyway, back. Yes. The Indian sub-continent tore away from Africa and Antarctica; thus, also from Madagascar. However, this continent they call Lemuria is now largely shoved up under the Asian continent and India is the only part that is left. Well, besides Madagascar. There is no other landmass that sank into the Indian Ocean. They have moved away from each other creating the opening that is now the Indian Ocean.

You know, it would be easier if I plagiarized this crap. However, I am having more fun pulling out of my sick mind. ;-P

Now I gotta go correct those misspellings...

Ta Ta


Sky Pilot's picture
tesfey, You've convinced me.


You've convinced me.

Sky Pilot's picture
Like all biblical stories the

Like all biblical stories the purpose of the Noah story is to demonstrate complete obedience and loyalty to the Boss. If he tells you to build an interstellar space ship when you're old and feeble you hop to it. You don't start whining about how old and feeble you are. And when you finish you go on a nice long ride. When it's over you get drunk and tell your grandkids about your fantastic voyage. Of course they will think you're nuts because everything will be the same as its always been. They know that you're just telling them one of your dreams.

In the Noah story the Bible plainly says that all of the countries around the Garden of Eden and Adam & Eve existed before the flood and after the flood. They never got wet. It's just a generic war story.

NameRemovedByMod's picture
I certainly so not have the

I certainly do not have the book smarts that many of you do, but I have raised some questions to christian people I know.

First two of every kind? It would be impossible to fit every species on earth in there. Christian explanation: They were all babies and god made the waters only rise enough so that the dinosaurs could keep their heads above water and survive.

I doubt the ark and of course noah. I am a doubting Thomas though as I find most bible stories to be just that, stories, Fictional stories. I do know that of course water and floods formed parts of the world, but see no divine intervention and where is this ark? No, not the one that the lunatic built in Kentucky with tax payer dollars!


Attach Image/Video?: 



Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.