I'm pretty sure this is a story in the bible, Noah's Arc or something? Anyway I want to know if this is even scientifically possible.
No! There is only so much water on our planet. Even if all of the ice melted it would not have covered the earth. And where did it drain away to if the earth was saturated? Merely another ridiculous ancient myth!
I believe in the time of Noah the earth was not completely populated, there were many places where there no human inhabitants. So there was not need to flood the whole earth. But people seem to be so literal and don't want to even consider the context in which it was written.
So, the earth is flooded all the time in different parts of the world. This just happened in Noahs part of the world at that time.
Then wouldn't it have been easier for God to tell Noah to travel to high ground instead of building the ark for decades? How does one tell which parts of the bible to take literally? Pray on it?
I like your little serpent picture at least it lets us know who we are dealing with. How kind of you to be so straight forward. lol
Thank you! I feel the same about your armpit avatar!
Hey you, that made me pee my pants with the armpit -nicely done as always, do hope all is good!
Randys not always correct but he is indeed straight up hehe
I am too always correct, EK! Except for when arguing with you, of course!
Pumpkin Soup? EEEWWWWW!!
How ever, I do like pumpkin pie..
It would have had to flood Mt. Ararat, though, And that is right beside the Mediterranean, which empties into the Atlantic ocean, which connects to all the other seas. You won't have to cover Mt. Everest to the top (even though that's what the story says happened) to kill all animals but you WILL have to cover the entire surface to the height of Mt Ararat.
In addition, don't forget that Noah had to save all the animals; that would only be necessary if all animal species were in danger as well and means the entire earth.
That is true! Of course, all of the fish in the oceans would die if the world were flooded because of all the fresh water pouring into the oceans. But perhaps Noah also had a giant aquarium on the ark to keep a pair of all of the whale species plus pairs of all other salt water creatures.
A hell of a aeration pump would be called for too! Wonder what powered it?
Considering the size of the aquarium to hold 2 of each sea life I would think the moon would cause enough tidal action to do the job.
Although I haven't tried it I understand it's almost impossible to keep an octopus in an aquarium; they're too dang smart and their suckers let them climb glass walls. Wonder how Noah did it?
I wonder if Noah collected 2 of those deep sea worms around the volcanic vents?
Of course! He used electric eels to power his gopher wood submarine!
You may have just found the answer. A submarine certainly makes more sense that a floating marine zoo.
perhaps those animals didn't evolve into existance until later after the flood.
I like this serpent guy. His jokes are funny because THERE TRUE!!! And they point out some of the many absurd tales in the "Good Book." I wonder if M. Night Shamalan wrote the bible in a past life.
Red pill ,blue pill are you related
The Bibles been around a lot longer than all of us,so logically its got merit.
Personally its the best book out there for instructions in living IMO....of course its not for everyone and never ever will appeal to the self centred ,selfish heart
"The Bibles been around a lot longer than all of us,so logically its got merit."
I guess by that standard, Mein Kampf has got logical merit too. It's been around a lot longer than most of us too.
The Flood - Physical Evidences
The Flood "myth" is not just some ancient allegory meant to teach us about God's judgment on sin. The Flood was a real historical event and earth's crust bears witness to this in many compelling ways. Consider the fossil record: billions of dead things buried in sedimentation ("laid-down-by-water rock") found all over the earth. Geologist Dr. John Morris explains, "Sedimentary rocks, by definition, are laid down as sediments by moving fluids, are made up of pieces of rock or other material which existed somewhere else, and were eroded or dissolved and redeposited in their present location."  Over 70% of the earth's surface rock is sedimentary rock (the rest of earth's surface rock is volcanic igneous and metamorphic rock). In these sedimentary rock layers, geologists find some very odd features. For example, fossilized trees buried at all angles, upside-down and right-side-up, often passing through multiple rock layers, obviously the result of a marine cataclysm. These "polystrate" fossils (poly, meaning more than one; strate, meaning rock layer) are a worldwide phenomenon.
Consider the ratios of dead things we find buried in this sedimentary rock: "95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates, particularly shellfish. Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils (4.74%). 95% of the remaining 0.25% consists of the other invertebrates, including insects (0.2375%). The remaining 0.0125% includes all vertebrates, mostly fish. 95% of the few land vertebrates consist of less than one bone. (For example, only about 1,200 dinosaur skeletons have been found.)" 
Also consider the abundant fossil remains of marine life found atop every mountain range in the world. For example, clusters of hundreds of gigantic (300kg/650lbs) oysters found atop the Andes Mountains in South America.
Hope this helps.
I wrote a long response and in getting the Hub I'm offering. I lost it...damnit!
"Diastrophism" is responsible for changes in the earths surfaces.
Tectonic plate movement pushes mountains hi into the sky taking with them the remnants of prior ocean life.
I explained alot but I'm not going to repeat. :
If you are interested to understand the effect the subject of "Diastrophism" has on all life, here's a hub I've written about it. if you'd like to read it, go for it. :
I agree that the tectonic plate movement will move the earths surface,however you can still follow the layers in the plates and discover the age of the material in the plates. Also the tectonic movement is not totally responsible for all of the changes in earths surface.
YES!!! That's what I said. Why else would you have to take two of every animal unless the whole planet was going to be flooded.
It's not completely populated now. 80% of the Middle East in UNINHABITABLE. Especially after 75 years of US INSTALLED MILITARY DICTATORSHIPS.
I'm not so sure Randy. Perhaps humans were much heavier drinkers back then. All that water that was turned into wine had to come from somewhere. Then again, all that water could have come from what is now the Sahara desert.
In Genesis it says that God destroyed man from the face of the earth by means of a flood that covered the earth for 40 days and 40 nights. Scientifically speaking, if all the water in, on or over the world were to sudden end up on it's surface it would cause incredible havoc but probably wouldn't cover it completely. There is the possibility that a water filled meteor could have hit the earth at that time which may have caused the kind of effects mentioned. There are supporting myths of a great flood from other parts of the world at approximately the same time. I might wonder where the water went though. Anyway, it's good to remember that if there is an omnipotent God, He can do pretty much what He wants. Which wouldn't necessarily preclude creating water and then making it disappear. Just food for thought.
Or at the time that these fairy stories were written, it was common belief by the Ancient Eqyptians that the "world" was an island floating on an endless sea and that the sky was a great canapy that was supported by the four mountain ranges rounding Eqypt (the four corners of the earth). Clues in the Noah story point to this ancient belief. Also comets don't contain enough water to do anything major.
I did the calculations once - it would take not only the water on earth but an additional sphere just about the size of Pluto, or about 1,000,000,000 cubic miles. Just as an aside...
FYI. The Earth is 4200 MILES deep, the deepest part of the ocean is 7 miles in one spot. ALL Oceans average 12K and most freshwater is less than 1/4 mile deep. @ a 1 mile average depth over 75% of the Earth's surface... we have about 0.0042% of EARTH AS WATER in all forms.
Friend, THAT IS ALL THE WATER IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE!!!!!!
Europa H2O is speculation at best. SO WHY are we destroying the lungs of the ONLY PLANET WITH WATER within 13.4 BILLION LIGHT YEARS?????
FYI! The rainforests produce the ONLY OXYGEN ATMOSPHERE for 13.4 BILLION LIGHT YEARS as well.
SO, any vote for a RED Party candidate is literally a vote for the GENOCIDE of ALL HUMANITY.
Water is recycled. Flooding the planet would mean the Earth gaining water, but that's not how it works.
The amount of water on Earth 1000 years ago is the same it will be 1000 years in the future (as long as astronauts don't pee in space).
The myth was created by other cultures before the Bible plagiarized it.
I think it's kind of strange to ask, assuming that a document that claims to be authored by an omnipotent being is true, could X have actually happened?
If you start by assuming that God created the universe ex nihilo, then OF COURSE he could have flooded the earth. I happen to believe there is no God, but if there was, he could obviously flood the earth.
If your question is, could the flood have occurred through natural processes, I doubt it... But why ask that question? The Bible doesn't claim it happened through natural processes, it claims that GOD flooded the Earth.
About 2.5 % of the earths water is fresh water.
It has already been figured out that if all the land mass on the earth was flattened to a smooth surface and all the fresh water dumped on it, the depth would be less than 2 inches.
Ooooppss! There I go wuining the "Noah" tale!
I'm sowwy! :
Okay, Qwark, , now add a continuous heavy rain for 40 days and 40 nights over the entire planet. Would the planet flood?
My personal opinion on the Flood & Noah's Ark: Yes, the known world did flood, but not enough to cover the tallest mountains - just as the Mississippi River floods and recedes, so did the 40 day/40 night flood. The ark just didn't travel very far from it's origin b/c it wasn't intended to. (no sails!)
I think I just answered that???
Rainwater is "fresh water."
If all the fresh water (2 1/2% of all earths water) dropped on the earth in 40 days of continuous rain and all land masses were flattened, it would flood the entire land mass with about 2 inches of agua!
Doesn't that give ya an idea about how high the water'd get if there were mountains over 5 miles hi?
C'mon Raf...use the ole noggin!
Some say the grand canyon was a huge body of water in the past...hmm?
Ya haven't read my hub on the subject of "diastrophism."
the redpill, yes it's Noah's Ark. That same story also says that Noah was about 700 years old. I think we have to accept that the ancient Hebrews used different time-scales to us. It was a long time before the Romans was it not?
the subject has been studied by Physics researchers, it would cover the entire Planet with 2 inches of water??????
another hard to believe tale of the Bible
not only that, this water was supposed to top mountains and hang around for another 150 days before slowly going down
If you extrapolate our current environment back to the time before this supposed flood, then 'no'. It's not possible.
If you don't make that assumption, then 'yes'. It's possible.
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
I'm assuming that some on this forum will assume I'm foolish for accepting the flood as literal, but I want to point out that a world-wide flood is possible if we consider that global conditions might have been different.
1. If there really was a canopy of water in the sky, then that would explain where most of the water came from. It might also explain why humans lived longer.
2. If the 'fountains of the great deep' broke forth, this would assume that there were probably also massive volcanoes and earthquakes at the same time as the flood which would provide more water to cover the earth. Plus, this would point to a flatter earth at the time of Noah.
The major flaw with this explanation is that if you assume world-wide floods, massive earthquakes, and super volcanoes don't happen, then neither could the flood in Noah's day.
No, it was Noah's Full Circle, you know, the fable coming 'full circle' from previous myths.
Personally, I don't worry about a world-wide flood. God promised to never again destroy the earth with water.
Now all we gotta watch out for is the fire and brimstone. That one's a given.
It rains all summer here... more than 40 days.
Hasn't flooded yet.
Although.... I haven't looked outside lately...
certainly not if it is Seattle........
The real question is how hard is it raining?
At an inch per hour, that is 960 inches.
At an inch every couple days, it will just cause irration not a flood.
It has been scientifically proven that the event known as 'the flood' from the Hebrew scriptures did not cover the entire earth, but only the area known as the Fertile Crescent, or Mesopotamia (today's Middle East). Man did not live far outside of this area until considerably later than the Flood.
Archaeologists have evidence of a breach of a natural dam where the Bosphorus is now. Consider that global 24/7 news didn't exist 4000 years before Christ and that almost ALL NEWS was oral histories until about 250 years ago.
It's still that way in the GOP as most of them parrot McCarthy;s Ghost as often as they can.
But was there a guy with a boat who could capture penguins AND polar bears without knowing the earth was round?
DO you like the taste of road apples?
We are at water level here in South Florida. When it rains for a whole day we go underwater and turn into frogs.
No! The entire planet would not flood if it rained for 40 days and nights. Not enough water on the planet to do so! Get real!
uh-oh. is this something I haven't learned yet? lol something I heard here, on HP, a while ago...something about the water on earth is condensed into rain? (basically recycled)
It would have to rain at about 363" per hour to get enough water to cover Mt. Everest in 40 days and 40 nights. Only one place on earth, Mt. Waialeale, Hawaii,gets more rain than that in an entire year. That wouldn't be a rain - it would be a waterfall!
That much additional water (1,000,000,000 cubic miles) will decrease the salinity of the oceans to almost nothing, which means that Noah will also have to collect and maintain all marine life. Ever see two blue whales in an ark? Or try to pick out both a male and female phytoplankton?
You're in rare form tonight Randy, I personally am enjoying it. thx for the chuckles and the belly laugh from the eel remark.
Randy there are so many creative new names appearing on HP's now.
Im seriously considering a make-over!
What ya think?
Any ideas,heres a few to start
(they take up too much of my headspace)
Hmmmm. My dad had a saying I think sums up the situation. He would say "two heads are better than one, even if one of them is a goat head"!
Well heck, anyone who bought Joseph Smith's script would have absolutely no problem believing Water World was a true story!
I will not answer this question because I will have to admit to watching "Water World"
I just thought of something else...if Noah and his family were the only humans left after the flood, where the hell (pun intended) did we come from. Are we all descendants of his incestuous family? In Keanu Reeves' voice (whoa!)
And what makes it all even more weird is... they didn't know the world was round. They thought it was a giant plate. Wouldn't the water cascade down into the void once it reached the border of the plate?
The Bible says that Noah, the patriarchal head of this chosen family, the man who "found grace in the eyes of the LORD" (Genesis 6:8), was commanded to build a massive ark. This ark (a.k.a. Noah's Ark) was the implement of their salvation. In the aftermath, eight human survivors disembarked from the ark. These eight were all that remained of the human race: Noah, his wife, their three sons, and their sons' three wives.
That should answer your question. NO Incest.
Um, after the sons and their wives have kids then their kids would have to have sex with their relatives in order for the human race to still be here today. There's no way around incest according to this dumb bible story that you jus explained to me. This is what keeps me from reading that crap. If your telling of the story is correct, it still proves that incest was inevitable. There is no scenario on that ark where one relative would not be sleeping with the other. Even if it was cousins procreating with cousins it's still incest, and first cousins at that. Think about it...wait for it...wait for it...okay get it now?
So the Leftists and green freaks cry about world wide flooding from the ice caps melting, but cannot abide by a biblical flood. Interesting... and expected.
Torrential rain plus melted ice caps would be nothing but a thing... but global warming will swamp the world. lol What a bunch of laughs.
Have ya studied the subject: "precession?"
Give it a shot on Google.
It's a very interesting take on global warming.
I will look into it. But I believe your talking about a change in the oreintation of the earths axis. We wobble, and we also know that the latest earthquakes around the world have knocked us some 12 inches or more... so?
The 36 k yr wobble is responsible for changes in seasons...and weather patterns... yes.
There is no doubt that we humans are adding to what may be happening as a natural event.
So many don't know about this "wobble."
In order to believe that humans have affected the atmosphere in the way the Leftists and green freaks want us to, we have to totally ignore the fact that massive volcanic eruptions have and still are occurring which blast more acids and carbons and other pollutants into the atmosphere and gee... somehow the world has filtered it.
Even that volcano in iceland in 2009... how much do you think that blasted into the air?... And where is it? now consider events such as Toba or Krakatua and the too many others to name, whaich it could be argued have blasted more pollutants into the atmosphere than man in all his years of the industrial age has ever done. And imagine that... though we had affects of cooling and agricutural issues... in the end our atmosphere filtered it out and continued on. I find it hard to believe that we are doing anything near what most massive and super massive eruptions have. Just a thought.
Oh I agree with you intoto.
But there is no doubt that the growing use of fossil fuels is adding to global warming IF "it" in fact is happening.
How have you been Quark? And I will agree to dis-agree on the "no doubt" aspect of our conversation.
Life is good TM. : I hope it is for you too! :
NP at all...:
First it must be a certainty that we are indeed experiencing a global warming trend. That hasn't yet been absolutely determined.
Something IS happening and IS always happening in the life of our planet.
Mother Gaia and her fermaments are "alive" and active.
I am more concerned about the viability of our species than I am about the longevity of this planet. She will be here long after man is no longer a memory.
It is very good indeed, Quark. other than dying for 75 minutes in Dec of 2010, I am having a blast and doing fine.
I am not sure about your boast of the planet being here long after we are gone. The moon will be gone, I believe, long before mankind disappears from this planet. I hope we can get into space before that clock runs out. It, the moon, is leaving us at 1.5 inches per year, and that is fairly quick in astronomical times. So.....?
First of all, no AGW proponents who know anything about science claim that global warming will "swamp" the world, only certain low lying areas of the world. Complete melting of the current Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (which wouldn't finish for hundreds of years even under the worst global warming scenarios) would increase sea levels by 80 meters, or about 262 feet, which would still leave plenty of land above water.
Here are some sample maps of the US and Europe with 80 meters of sea level rise:
http://the100metreline.blogspot.com/200 … erica.html
http://the100metreline.blogspot.com/200 … great.html
Secondly, volcanoes currently produce a typical min-max range of 65-319 million tons of CO2 per year, depending on the level of activity. Human activities such as fossil fuel burning currently produce approximately 30 billion tons of CO2 per year. In other words, humans currently produce approximately 94 to 460 times the amount of CO2 per year as volcanoes. Volcanoes have had significant impacts on climate in the past, but that was during periods of much higher volcanic activity than the present.
TM, please show me where anyone concerned with the melting of ice caps has stated this will create a flood of biblical proportions. I believe they state that some of the lower islands and areas like florida will be covered by water. I believe they state coast lines will move inland as much as 100 miles in low lying areas. I beleive you need to get your head out of your a$$ and use a little common sense. One has nothing to do with the other except in the ramblings of weak minded fools.
obviously the answer is "it's not possible".
There's not that much water in the world.
To prove this, go outside and see how there isn't any water flooding you.
I haven't said it would, or would not, Evan. I am simply stating a fact about the Left and the way they think in such contradictory ways. If it works for them, they say it. And later, if it doesn't, they deny it. It a Leftist thing.
Where I live now has been under water many times in the past, although I live around 100 miles from the coast. Ice ages come and go, but when the earth loses much of it's forests (hint-the animals didn't cut down the trees) the earth's climate is affected to a different extent than in the past.
No one ever claimed the entire earth would flood because of global warming. It's people like you who cause all of the confusion regarding climate change because of your ignorance of science.
rofl, i wasn't denying you! I was responding to the OP. I haven't even read what you wrote!
I just saw the OP, and said "no, of course not".
Human Evolution, talk about myths. Right up there with aesops fables.
Yes we know Evolution itself exists, ie;micro-evolution, but the fact is Evolution as applied to the animal kingdom and Humans is far from settled science. Though I would give more weight to Evolution in the Animal Kingdom, than the Human. Way too many thing about man that cannot be explained through Evolution.
Also... The fossil record shows no evidence of transitional fossils, and on top of that the multiple explosions of life throughout history sort of stupify the Evolutionists. One minute nothing, the next 96% of life is there. Where did that evolve from? Where are the fossils, transitional and otherwise to prove it?
Nope... way too many holes in that theory for it to be even considered near a fact as of yet. But I guess we could debate all day whether or not it takes as much faith to believe in alot of Scientific theories, as it does to believe in God. But it does.
Where in the heck did you get your education regarding evolution and fossils? Are you from Texas or something?
So your going to argue that a fossil record, of which we are missing 99.99% of, is a true and accurrate guide to Evolution? That is like me dumping a billion piece puzzle set in my state scattered around, and you trying to guess what it is with 3 or 4 pieces in your hand. That is a laugh.
Do you believe a geneticist can take an almost invisible sample of your skin and find relatives you never knew existed? And where did you get the 99.99% figure from?
Genetics will tell us so much about our past in the future. Along with the fossil record, genetic research will eventually give us the complete story of evolution for all animals, man included of course.
We as of yet have decoded what?.. about 4 to 6% of the genetic code, if that. You base alot of claims off very slim evidence, Randy. Genetics may tell us relation, but not if we had 5 eyes and 27 toes, not as of yet.
And there is no evidence it ever will tell us such things. But good try Randy. And Yes I know we have DNA similar to other critters here on earth. but genetics is not so cut and dry as this gene does this, and this alone. Or this gene does these things and these alone. Nope. Not so cut and dry.
And then once we figure out each gene's functions, we have the additional task of seeing if genetic combanations create new or unknown functions as of yet unknown to us.
Are you a scientist randy? Cause you sure throw Theories around as facts just like one.
I have studied science for decades, TM. Not merely genetics and fossils, but many other of the sciences. I have been involved with, and produced genetically altered crops for quite a while. So while I do not have a degree, I do have experience in some fields.
We are only beginning to touch the surface of the potential genetic research will provide us. Today's super computers will only get faster and more complex which will enable us to understand more and more of the genetic code.
Or do you think we will just give up and say "god dunnit" like indoctrinated fundies do?
Have I said that?
You are a touchy one.
I don't care if you breed pigeons, actually I would consider that more experience that master genetic farmer, but anyways, your making statements which are over-blown exagerations of what is... and what is not, known.... and that is my point.
Sure! What is, or what is known....by you!
What are your experiences in the sciences Mr. Helper?
Lets just say I do not breed plants, nor pigeons.
Actually I work for the CIA destabilizing countries for the take-over.
I have at least as much experience in the Physical Sciences and Genetics as yourself. At least.
Well, I'm not very concerned with us losing the moon any time soon, so I doubt your scientific expertise concerning evolution and genetics especially. I'm outta here, but watch them commies now, ya heah!
Can you not look at, and into, the future? We are discussing the end of humanity, or the earth. A long way into the future, Randy. And the moon is moving away. That is a scientific fact that is not in dispute. We have measured that movement with lasers for decades now. Man if you do not know that... then...
Of course I know that, TM! The moon was once so close it pulled the seas around and across the earth itself. But you haven't said how long in the future we will lose the moon, have you?
And how in the heck can you have 10 profile score, that's the most amazing thing I have seen you do, by far! Seriously how did you get a score that low?
If you didn't already know this, we are losing the moon at a rate of about 1 inch a year. :
Sure, any child knows this if they care for science at all. Heck, even TM knew this. I merely asked TM why he was so concerned about it and when we would lose our moon. In other words, we won't be here when it happens.
Really? Such as what?
The fossil record IS a record of transitional fossils.
*hint* They aren't in the bible.
Yes, believers who have no clue about evolution make that statement all the time. Funny how they are yet to ever poke a hole even through a wet tissue, relatively speaking.
The argument that "God created everything" has quite a few gaps in it as well.
I DEMAND THAT CHURCHES TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!!!
IF ID were correct... then...
- Why would god create such a pathetic eyeball!? Really - a blind spot?! lame.
- Why would god make unhealthy food taste good?
- why would he make it so that we get back problems due to bi-pedalism?
... and on and on.
I understand evolution ,but I sure dont have the faith that you do ,to think that we evolved from primates..
Common mistake - we evolved with and as part of the primate family or species. No faith required, it is pretty clear from the fossil record that homo sapiens developed in this way, just how in every detail is not so clear - but that we did is beyond scientific dispute.
But if humans kept adapting and evolving ,why didnt the other primates?
For that matter, why didn't the dinosaurs ?
How do you know that the other primates have not changed and adapted ? adaptation and evolution to different forms is driven by need, if a food source becomes unnavailable animals change their diet, maybe man could not compete in the trees with the primates with longer arms, those that are smaller and faster and those that are bigger. We developed reasoning and language and went our way, that is hard to see as overwhelmingly successful, while they ver successfully developed their niche markets up in the tress.
We may or may not be more successful than a chimpanzee or an aboriginal australian, in the next cataclysmic event, ice age, some random space rock crashing into us again, or one of our own invention, we are less likely to survive than many of these other creatures, which of is the most developed ?
Thinking we are special because we are aware of ourselves is arrogance of the species, thinking ability is only useful in thinking situations, if the world should seriously flood then ability to swim and survive in an aquatic environment would be far more useful if not so entertaining. Whales and dolphins are an example of just that, they evolved from land mammals that evolved back to the sea.
Man has one glaring evolutionary fault when compared to other animals.
While many animals will occasionally kill one of their own species, only man does it wholesale. So far he has been able to overcome this with a rapid birth rate, but as his ability to kill improves and the birthrate goes down it could very easily spell his demise as a species.
If so, home sapiens sapiens will go down as one of the shortest lived of earths billions of species throughout history.
I can agree with this - I was tryong to get across the idea of evolutionary time with an advanced language class and drew a line across the board divided into the various periods and couldnot draw a thin enough line at the end to represent the time man has been around, even making it a round million years. It has been done many times before but doing it again and trying to explain brings it home.
Man seems to be man's natural predator.
Yup. Evolution is not some sort of progression toward particular features (such as conscious thought); it's a progression towards perfect adaptation in a particular niche. Some of the most perfectly evolved creatures on the planet are some of the most simple. For example, horseshoe crabs have scarcely changed for at least 245 million years. They haven't needed to, because their aquatic environment hasn't changed much in that time.
Conditions on land tend to change much faster than those in water, driving faster evolutionary change. To say that primates have not continued to evolve and adapt is not accurate. The human family split from the chimpanzee family about 5-8 million years ago, but modern chimpanzees have only been around for about 1 million years. Humans are younger than chimpanzees - about 200,000 years old - but not dramatically enough that you could safely argue that primates "stopped" evolving while humans continued to do so. There is a subspecies of gorilla, for example, that scientists believe has only existed for about 17,800 years.
Dinosaurs also evolved constantly during their reign on Earth. Many popular depictions of them tend to be misleading. For example, t-rex and stegosaurus are often depicted together, when in fact they lived about 90 million years apart. Stegosaurus's plates and spikes were used to fight off the smaller Allosaurus, and T-rex was actually one of the last species of dinosaur on Earth before the comet hit, at a time when many of its relatives had already turned into birds. (T-rex is from a family of dinosaurs called coelurosaurians that is closely related to birds - some paleontologists think they may have had feathers!)
you should see my cat, she does the cross word every day..... with her specs on
No, you don't understand evolution, not in the least, you have made that quite evident in your posts.
Again, I don't have faith as you do, I have an understanding. That is what separates you from understanding evolution.
It is so blatantly obvious why you don't think.
Yes we are loosing it, and no I didn't put a tme frame down.
Just as I have nnot seen a time frame for the extinction of humanity quark mentioned. Time frames were not the discussion, other than in general as regards the existence of humanity at the time the world ends.
So you can keep up your non-answers. It simply sshows you do not have any real answers.
I've never considered man becoming extinct.
There may be another mass extinction. It would be the 6th.
We may perpetrate it ouselves.
I agree with Hawking when he said that man is a greater danger to himself than is anything arriving from the cosmos.
WE now have the potential to cause that mass extinction and, being the pessimist I am, I also feel we have a
desire to do it.
I think we humans will survive but will suffer a massive reduction in population.
I have a gut feeling it will happen this century.
Of course the "world" will not end. She will probably survive for another 3 1/2-4 billion yrs...possibly longer as our sun runs out of fuel and expands, eventually taking out most of our solar system.
We've got about 2 billion yrs to "become" or disappear. :
I was talking about your remark about humans being gone before the world is destroyed.
That was you? I thought.
But I could be wrong, it was a long way back. If not I apologize Quark.
But that was the conversation as to Humans and the world ending, and which would come first. As I said if you didn'tsay it, or say it that way, I apologize.
Then I apologize, Quark. I have been answering on too many threads tonight and have lost track of who is saying what.
I believe we will lose the moon before the sun begins to burn out and expand to a red giant. I have not done the math... but I am of the impression we would see the moon leave before the sun dies. It is simply the way i see it. Your so concerned with it Randy ,then do the math and show me I am wrong.
Quark said about 3.5 to 4 billion years till the sun begins to die... ( I believe it was quark)- I think the moon is moving fast enough to go before that. As I said I could be wrong... but I have seen no proof I am not. other than your opinion, and that isn't proof.
You do realize that the Moon is responsible for more of our gravitational pull (ocean tides, etc.) than the sun, and that without it it really wouldn't matter when the sun dies? The moon leaving alone could be enough to start a domino effect that could kill us all.
That is exactly my point, red. Thank you.
The only question is which will occur first. I believe the moon will be gone before the sun dies. Appearently they do not.
... I don't know about you guys, but the moon ain't going nowhere for a LO~~~ONG time.
Every year it moves away from us by about 4cm / year.
It would be quite easy to remedy this if we really needed to keep the moon in orbit.
Because the moon always has the same side facing the Earth, we'd just have to put a rocket (or something) on the opposite side of the moon and have it generate a force equivalent to that which is pulling it away in the opposite direction.
... this is not really difficult to understand, nor solve. A mild, constant force applied in the direction toward earth would keep the moon in orbit forever.
Just to take the math one step further - let's calculate how much "tide-force" we're losing each 25,000 years due to the 1 km increase in distance.
Well, gravitational force decreases as distance increases. With other things being equal, the force of the moon on Earth (and vice versa) is determined by the distance from each other squared; the force is weaker as distance increases.
So, if the average distance is 380,000 today, and the average distance increases to 380,001 in 25,000 years...
... then the force only decreases by (1/380,000^2) - (1/380,001^2)
= (6.925207756232687 e -12) - (6.925171307914687 e -12)
= about 3.64 e -16
So, the ratio of the farther force to the closer force is about 0.000364 / 6.9252 = 0.00005256
This means that every 25000 years, the percentage weakening in force due to the moon getting farther away from us is
NO!!! 25,000 YEARS FROM NOW THE TIDES WILL BE 0.0000525% WEAKER!!!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!
Actually we were debating or discussing whether the moon will leave first, or the sun will become a red giant first. that is all. Everthing else is filler evan. Would you happen to have the math for the time the moon and sunn will be in competition to kill us all... which will win?
I don't think that the moon leaving would ever kill us.
Nor do I think that IF IT WOULD Kill us, we would let it -- like I said, a simple rocket on the opposite side would solve everything.
So, the sun would kill us before the moon, which has about 5 billion or so years to go.
But by that time we might know of a way to reverse fusion, or to fly to another solar system.
So... The sun is clearly a larger threat to us than the moon.
Unless I'm slipping a decimal somewhere, that's around 160,000 km in 4 billion years (when the sun dies), or an orbit or around 1/2 a million km. An orbit of 1 million km would be nothing new in the system - sinope orbits jupiter at a distance of nearly 24 million kim.
Would it actually be possible to rain everywhere in the world for 40 days and 40 nights? I'm sure the UK has experienced relentless rain for that long - well, Wales, for sure - but it would have to rain over the entire surface area of the earth. Then, maybe it would flood.
At one time there was more water on the earth than there is now. All you've got to do is look along the shoreline of Lake Huron. We had a cottage there that was about a 1/4 of a mile from the beach and you could see where the shoreline once was.
Why couldn't there have been more water on the earth at that time than there is now?
There certainly was more water on our planet in earlier times as Kay stated, all you have to do is look around at the low lying areas of most deserts and check the sedement. You will see different levels of dead animal and plant life that could only have been placed there during times of large changes in the water level in those areas. Science is wonderful and can be quite helpful.
No, there was not more water on the earth, at least not much more unless you want to count a comet striking the earth and the last known comet impacted over 65,000,000 years ago.
You people apparently do not understand the many ice ages this planet has experienced, much less tectonic activity. Oceans rise when ice caps melt-they fall when the ice caps build up at the poles. No gods needed for this to happen. The account of the biblical flood is a myth and nothing more.
Awww, really! Who gives a dang wilderness? :
We've got about a billion yrs to make up our minds as to whether or not to leave this planet and head "out-there," or move the damn thing and it's moon further out to keep ouselves cool enuf to continue on until we can figger out a way to git outa this life.....alive!
I ain't takin' it seriously yet tho.....too busy tryin' to stay alive now.
Ya know, that everyday, there's a "thousand ways to die!"
Death is not so bad, Quark.
I passed away in Dec on the 11th of 2010. I recieved extreme measures for 75 minutes, CPR atrapine neuro epi, etc- and I was brain dead, clinically dead for about 20 continuous minutes, and then on and off, as they would get me back for a half a minute or less then dead again. But all in all I did not mind being dead.
It was rather pleasant where i was.
Oh I agree TM.
It's not death that's worrisome for me, it's the dying.
It can be painful or painless.
It's the disappointment in knowing that that's all there is that would cause the consternation as the time nears.
By the way, I'm glad ya made it! :
I know you won't believe me... but there is more, Quark. I will leave it at that.
And thank you.
: You know me TM...:
I appreciate that you've experienced a mind altering experience.
I can only respond: "of course there's more!"
The "more" is, for me, an eternity of ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
For you? Death is but another beginning.
We, amiably, agree to disagree. :
I hear ya friend.
And I wil only say that my faith was there before that occurred, and is still intact. Nothing altered. I was not an atheist at that point, so my conversion was not due to that. I took up my faith a long time ago, after years of Atheism. My faith has to do with other things than that experience. But it did solidify it some, I cannot dispute that.
Life is to be enjoyed!
What you "believe" satifies your needs and it comforts ya.
That is commendable. You have found a niche that fits your life needs. Many do not.
What you do with it will determine your future happiness.
"Live well and prosper!"
Could you possibly do a hub on that?
I would think it most interesting to know what you found out when you were dead.
I mean that respectfully.
TM, I second John's request.
By the way, great seein' you around here again.
Hey Girl, hope all is well, what a slow Saturday it seems. Could just be me though
I have been doing great Brenda. And yourself, hun? I have missed seeing you on facebook... where have you been?
Nursing my R.A.
And watching the liberal agenda take over my Country.
But although I'm outta the battle, I'm not outta the war yet.
Hey, I've got some great pix of my grandkids, including the newest one, on Facebook. But I'm not on there very much. Will try to stop by your page and say hello next time.
Of course I will. And have you seen my profile pic on Face?.. That is my grand-daughter with me. I just met my daughter last year and now I am a father and grand-father in under a half a year. It is pretty cool. I had never known she existed.
You know I have been savoring the eperience. And to be honest the first time I told anyone was today with quark. I was thinking about a hubon it... but it is just so hard to vocalize the emotion and sensation of the experience. I will try to put something together ina while. And I appreciate the interest John. And I would not assume you meant it any other way. You know I have read the ER report over and over... it doesn't seem like I should be here... but here I am. Thank God. And I could probrably scan them in for the hub.
What if the entire world was not so much completely under water, but huge swaths of water sloshing around the surface and swamping the world in different areas, in effect flooding the world?
non shit... hahahaaaaaaaa... Are you paying attention to the conversation? We are discussing how water could flood the earth. I think that might be a valid way. Not so much a total covering of the earth, but a sloshing mess or two, or three, slopping everywhere all over the world. geez... lolllll
The flood topic - with any religous wand waving taken away - is a stroy that exists in many oral histories world wide. The various theories (that I am aware of) suggest either that there was a local flooding of the world 'known' to those peoples, there was a mass event like a giant tsunami or it is a popular way of answering impossible questions for people without science to provide the answers.
Man has been here through several ice ages where the water levels have risen and fallen considerably. There are clear geological records of vast areas being inundated with water as huge inland lakes and seas burst out of their confines and flooded equally vast areas of lowlands around them. The earth's crust moves, the North Sea was once a vast plain of what is thought to be inhabited land, until the surrounding geography rose at the end of the last ice age and the bit in between sank 100 feet or so. This apparently would have taken place over only one generation or so and may be responsible for the beaker-people civilisation that pre-dated Stonehenge.
If it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, it would just mean you are living in Wales.
by Castlepaloma 8 years ago
Noah's Arc left behind most people and animalsWas that an Evil or a Good act?My thoughts is Safety first! Automatic I've would of thrown out life jackets or peaces of wood for all of God's creatures to be saved during the flood. If God made everything perfect, why would God have 95% of Land Animals...
by Dan Harmon 10 years ago
I've always been intrigued with the biblical story of Noah and the ark, so I thought I would examine what might have happened at that time.First of all, some assumptions were necessary. In the immortal words of Bill Cosby "I'm going to make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights and drown 'em...
by Andrew Petrou 6 years ago
Should AI ethics systems scientifically examine the entire evolution of ethics?Ethics and law evolved slowly out of ancient and modern religions.To create ethics for new AI technology the only scientific thing to do would be to look at the entire history and evolution of ethics.Ideas of compassion...
by Oscar Jones 8 years ago
Do you believe in the biblical flood in the days of Noah? it was recorded as a cataclysmic earth-covering flood, and mentions waters flowing from the deep, (out of the earth, as well as all the water previously being held in a cloud canopy over the earth falling as the first rain on the...
by Savio Koman 8 years ago
What would you do, if you are the only person left on Earth?What would you do, if mysteriously everyone on this planet has just zapped off.. You are the only one left. What would you do? Of course, after all the tears and heart breaks of not being able to see your loved ones again. What would you...
by ngureco 8 years ago
Why Do Christians Refuse To Fast For 40 Days and Nights?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|