| 18-01-2025 09:09 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(22922) |
Stop whining and making shit up. |
| 19-01-2025 23:00 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1795) |
Into the Night wrote:
Stop whining and making shit up.
The Bible says UNAMBIGUOUSLY that climate CAN change and DOES change.
As we accept the Bible's authority that it was the CHICKEN and not the egg that came first. The dissenting opinion continues to be that two birds, neither of which was a chicken, conceived a MUTANT OFFSPRING chicken EGG.
It is tempting to simply RIDICULE the Biblical references to climate change, and I'll succumb to that temptation in a moment.
Of much greater value is to amplify the valid natural history science lessons found in the Bible, such as how two of the four great rivers dried up after the "thorns and thistles" curse upon the land came and made waste of the Garden of Eden.
And this is the wrong thread for that.
So, the jury might be hung about whether we call Noah's flood "climate change" or just "extreme weather" (on steroids)
About 30 mm per minute rainfall is the most extreme intensity ever recorded in recent centuries.
That is to say, three centimeters per minute is the MOST we've ever seen during the most extreme minutes of the most extreme storms.
But for Noah's flood to have even raised sea level by 4000 meters, not quite drowning everyone, the rain would have to have been falling at TWICE that rate the ENTIRE 40 days and 40 nights.
It would have required a rainfall rate of 60 mm per minute for Noah's flood to have even gotten to the 4000 meter sea rise mark in 40 days.
4000 meters of rain in 40 days = 100 meters per day
100 meters of rain per day = about 4 meters, 4000 mm, per hour
4000 mm per hour = more than 60 mm per minute
More than TWICE the intensity of the peak rainfall during the most intense storms ever recorded, sustained for 40 days and 40 nights. And the high mountains would have still been dry, so to pull it off in 40 days it would have taken a MORE intense rate of rainfall than that.
Therefore, I'm not taking the Noah's flood stuff literally as actual natural history of climate change.
There are other parts of the Bible that offer far more valid natural history science lessons, and they are of great value for discussion of climate change.
I'm glad we're allowed to cite the Bible now. Thank you, Into the Night.
Edited on 19-01-2025 23:22 |
| 20-01-2025 00:37 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(22922) |
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Stop whining and making shit up.
The Bible says UNAMBIGUOUSLY that climate CAN change and DOES change.
The Bible does not mention climate.
Im a BM wrote:
As we accept the Bible's authority that it was the CHICKEN and not the egg that came first. The dissenting opinion continues to be that two birds, neither of which was a chicken, conceived a MUTANT OFFSPRING chicken EGG.
So you have your religion, and I have mine.
Im a BM wrote:
It is tempting to simply RIDICULE the Biblical references to climate change, and I'll succumb to that temptation in a moment.
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
Of much greater value is to amplify the valid natural history science lessons found in the Bible, such as how two of the four great rivers dried up after the "thorns and thistles" curse upon the land came and made waste of the Garden of Eden.
Climate is not a river. Science is not 'natural history'.
Im a BM wrote:
And this is the wrong thread for that.
Yet, here you are.
Im a BM wrote:
So, the jury might be hung about whether we call Noah's flood "climate change" or just "extreme weather" (on steroids)
Climate cannot change.Climate has no precipitation.
Im a BM wrote:
About 30 mm per minute rainfall is the most extreme intensity ever recorded in recent centuries.
What 'recent' century??
Im a BM wrote:
That is to say, three centimeters per minute is the MOST we've ever seen during the most extreme minutes of the most extreme storms.
Argument from randU fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
But for Noah's flood to have even raised sea level by 4000 meters, not quite drowning everyone, the rain would have to have been falling at TWICE that rate the ENTIRE 40 days and 40 nights.
Argument from randU fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
It would have required a rainfall rate of 60 mm per minute for Noah's flood to have even gotten to the 4000 meter sea rise mark in 40 days.
4000 meters of rain in 40 days = 100 meters per day
100 meters of rain per day = about 4 meters, 4000 mm, per hour
4000 mm per hour = more than 60 mm per minute
Argument from randU fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
More than TWICE the intensity of the peak rainfall during the most intense storms ever recorded, sustained for 40 days and 40 nights. And the high mountains would have still been dry, so to pull it off in 40 days it would have taken a MORE intense rate of rainfall than that.
Argument from randU fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
Therefore, I'm not taking the Noah's flood stuff literally as actual natural history of climate change.
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
There are other parts of the Bible that offer far more valid natural history science lessons, and they are of great value for discussion of climate change.
Climate cannot change. 'Natural history' is not science.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm glad we're allowed to cite the Bible now. Thank you, Into the Night.
You can cite the Bible anytime, but it's not science.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 20-01-2025 23:22 |
Im a BM★★★★☆
(1795) |
Argument from randU fallacy. RQAA.
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Stop whining and making shit up.
The Bible says UNAMBIGUOUSLY that climate CAN change and DOES change.
The Bible does not mention climate.
Im a BM wrote:
As we accept the Bible's authority that it was the CHICKEN and not the egg that came first. The dissenting opinion continues to be that two birds, neither of which was a chicken, conceived a MUTANT OFFSPRING chicken EGG.
So you have your religion, and I have mine.
Im a BM wrote:
It is tempting to simply RIDICULE the Biblical references to climate change, and I'll succumb to that temptation in a moment.
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
Of much greater value is to amplify the valid natural history science lessons found in the Bible, such as how two of the four great rivers dried up after the "thorns and thistles" curse upon the land came and made waste of the Garden of Eden.
Climate is not a river. Science is not 'natural history'.
Im a BM wrote:
And this is the wrong thread for that.
Yet, here you are.
Im a BM wrote:
So, the jury might be hung about whether we call Noah's flood "climate change" or just "extreme weather" (on steroids)
Climate cannot change.Climate has no precipitation.
Im a BM wrote:
About 30 mm per minute rainfall is the most extreme intensity ever recorded in recent centuries.
What 'recent' century??
Im a BM wrote:
That is to say, three centimeters per minute is the MOST we've ever seen during the most extreme minutes of the most extreme storms.
Argument from randU fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
But for Noah's flood to have even raised sea level by 4000 meters, not quite drowning everyone, the rain would have to have been falling at TWICE that rate the ENTIRE 40 days and 40 nights.
Argument from randU fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
It would have required a rainfall rate of 60 mm per minute for Noah's flood to have even gotten to the 4000 meter sea rise mark in 40 days.
4000 meters of rain in 40 days = 100 meters per day
100 meters of rain per day = about 4 meters, 4000 mm, per hour
4000 mm per hour = more than 60 mm per minute
Argument from randU fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
More than TWICE the intensity of the peak rainfall during the most intense storms ever recorded, sustained for 40 days and 40 nights. And the high mountains would have still been dry, so to pull it off in 40 days it would have taken a MORE intense rate of rainfall than that.
Argument from randU fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
Therefore, I'm not taking the Noah's flood stuff literally as actual natural history of climate change.
Climate cannot change.
Im a BM wrote:
There are other parts of the Bible that offer far more valid natural history science lessons, and they are of great value for discussion of climate change.
Climate cannot change. 'Natural history' is not science.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm glad we're allowed to cite the Bible now. Thank you, Into the Night.
You can cite the Bible anytime, but it's not science. |