Quick Question

Chat viewable by general public

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Sotomone
Student
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Pocatello ID

Quick Question

Post #1

Post by Sotomone »

Well I've looked around and tried to find information. There is two things I am extremely curious about. Site links, scientific information appreciated in advance. Or a simple answer will be fine.

First Question: I looked and looked and cannot find what year Noah's Ark took place. I've even read the chapter on it and there is no time line. So if someone can tell me what year Noah's Ark possibly took place it would be greatly appreciated. And thanks in advance.

Second Question: This involves the same as last from some accounts and being told. I have looked for this information by google but maybe I am not typing in the correct search words. But was the amount of water on the planet different from the time of Noah's Ark, and changed at all up to the year of 2010? Hope I asked these questions right.

User avatar
Wyvern
Under Probation
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:50 pm

Re: Quick Question

Post #2

Post by Wyvern »

First Question: I looked and looked and cannot find what year Noah's Ark took place. I've even read the chapter on it and there is no time line. So if someone can tell me what year Noah's Ark possibly took place it would be greatly appreciated. And thanks in advance.
I went to wikianswers and got a range of between may 21, 4990bce and approximately 2300 bce.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_year_w ... ah's_ark
Second Question: This involves the same as last from some accounts and being told. I have looked for this information by google but maybe I am not typing in the correct search words. But was the amount of water on the planet different from the time of Noah's Ark, and changed at all up to the year of 2010? Hope I asked these questions right.
This is a lot less sensical but according to the websites I found the waters of the flood came from the ocean or possibly aquifers and then returned to those same places after god rebuked the waters. At the same time god supposedly did a major revision of the earth itself.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig ... ter.html

Hope this helps you.

User avatar
Sotomone
Student
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Pocatello ID

Post #3

Post by Sotomone »

Thank you very much for answering. Now to return to the research. =D
Edit: Ok well I read through the information. And well is there any other possible references you can provide towards these wordings other than blibical? I'm sorry I don't mean to knit pick and understand that it might be hard to provide certain things. But if you can it would be much appreciated. Scientific theory's and so on. If you can't it's fine. Thanks again for the information.

User avatar
Wyvern
Under Probation
Posts: 3059
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:50 pm

Post #4

Post by Wyvern »

Sotomone wrote:Thank you very much for answering. Now to return to the research. =D
Edit: Ok well I read through the information. And well is there any other possible references you can provide towards these wordings other than blibical? I'm sorry I don't mean to knit pick and understand that it might be hard to provide certain things. But if you can it would be much appreciated. Scientific theory's and so on. If you can't it's fine. Thanks again for the information.
As you know(I hope) the biblical flood is not accepted as a scientific theory and as such if you need specific reference to the flood you wont get it from a scientific website. If you need knowledge on historic water amounts though I would suggest looking up the hydrologic cycle. In essence nearly all the water that is on earth has always been here with only small amounts being lost and gained from space.

http://www.coexploration.org/howsthew ... rth.html

Hope this helps.

User avatar
Sotomone
Student
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Pocatello ID

Post #5

Post by Sotomone »

As you know(I hope) the biblical flood is not accepted as a scientific theory and as such
Yeah I know. As it would be a very discounted theory. But what I want to know is theorized amounts coursing from different spans. As I could find any such thing or any theory's on possible difference that might of had a major impact on the earth. But you pretty much told me what I wanted to know.

Some quick answers. What I'm actually doing is trying to piece together the time frame of the entire bible and research the scientific facts or falsity's of each and every event. This is just me lacking full knowledge of everything said in the bible and the the either scientific backing of certain things or discrediting of such things. So for the flood I was researching the possibilities of flooding of the earth, I knew that for several years it's impossible without leveling all of the mountains and completely melting the ice caps. And so I had to look up the side that states between water mass and water loss between the time frames if any. And of course I could not find anything on it.

Well I just thought I would clarify what I'm doing here. And thanks a lot for your help in my studying. Btw this is all to debate on this forum and being a lot better debater. xP[/quote]

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #6

Post by McCulloch »

Of course, there is a good summary on Wikipedia, including biblical citations for the do it yourself version.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Sotomone
Student
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Pocatello ID

Post #7

Post by Sotomone »

I use wiki quite often for a lot of my in-query's(sp?) Not to certain if that's the right word. But what I've heard wiki is not always a creditable enough option I don't know if that's just a matter of opinion or not but what I've read makes a lot of sense and very logical. But sometimes I just can't find what I'm looking for on that either. =/

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #8

Post by Goat »

Sotomone wrote:I use wiki quite often for a lot of my in-query's(sp?) Not to certain if that's the right word. But what I've heard wiki is not always a creditable enough option I don't know if that's just a matter of opinion or not but what I've read makes a lot of sense and very logical. But sometimes I just can't find what I'm looking for on that either. =/
I find it to be reasonably accurate. The main thing about Wiki is while it might not be good for the perfect authoritative source, it does attempt to provide a good balance, and references.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
Sotomone
Student
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:03 pm
Location: Pocatello ID

Post #9

Post by Sotomone »

That is true goat. I can't help but say I've found my self indulging in article, after article on wiki. Endless information easy access. xD! And much more information.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #10

Post by Goat »

Sotomone wrote:That is true goat. I can't help but say I've found my self indulging in article, after article on wiki. Endless information easy access. xD! And much more information.
As long as you realize it's limitations, it is a great jumping off point for further information.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

Post Reply