All the Animals on Noah’s Ark are in Heat!

(Information from talkorigins.org and biblicalnonsense.com)

I am going to talk today about Noah’s Ark, again, but we are going to focus on one aspect of the story – the water.  Because you can’t have a flood without water!  Right?  Believe it or not, Creationists have not figured out any way that all that water could accumulate around the earth, and how the animals could survive the temperature if there were that much water. 

So, we needn’t talk about the size of animals on the ark, how they got from Alaska to the Middle East, the number of “kinds” of animals, how their food could be stored and not get moldy, or what they ate when they got off the ark and everything was barren, how a dove brought back an olive leaf when there would not even be seeds germinating, or the urine fumes on the ark– because they don’t even have the water necessary for this wonderful flood figured out yet!  (Of course it’s fun to discuss the other things too, for amusement!)

Here are all the different ideas Creationists have proposed for where the water originated from. 

First, we will start with the Water Vapor Canopy “theory.” 

In case you are not up on the latest, Answersingenesis now says that the “Water Vapor Canopy ‘Theory’” should not be used, and give credit to their own researchers for this discovery, of course.  The Water Vapor Canopy Theory was an idea from Creationists that all the water was hanging around in the air in vapor form, and then it “somehow” cooled enough to drop onto the earth as rain.  But if it began as a thick layer of vapor, with its accompanying pressure, any water from it would be superheated!  The flood waters would be boiled away very quickly.  Noah’s little family that we are all supposed to descend from?  Poached.  

What about “It rained for 40 days and 40 nights.”  Well, raining for 40 days and nights would raise the atmospheric pressure, which would raise oxygen and nitrogen to toxic levels.  The water beating down on the ark would be at a rate of 6 inches per minute and would quickly become too hot from all the energy.  The heat generated by the impact of the raindrops falling on the flood surface would have been more than sufficient to boil the water and prevent it from rising.  Any way you try to make the fish swim – they won’t be swimming because the water would evaporate from the intense heat.  And you’d have a fish fry. 

Next let’s talk about the Hydroplate theory.  This is where the water came from underneath the ground. The problem with this is that you need much more water than our earth holds.  The earth contains only 1% of the necessary water for the flood covering the highest mountaintop, so 99% would have to fall from the sky.  

This Hydroplate model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground (Answersingenesis says the water got trapped underground during Creation week), which was released by a “catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust,” shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.  But this cannot work, because even one mile deep the earth is boiling hot, and so all the water ten miles down would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere.  As if we needed further heat for it to be too hot!  As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been charbroiled.

Creationists describe this water coming from underground as having volcanoes erupting underground.  They try to make it seem all chaotic.  But volcanoes erupting would just boil the water further. 

Next we will talk about what I call the “Rocks Falling from Outer Space ” idea.  Creationists have many different rocks they think are responsible for the “world-wide flood.”

Kent Hovind proposed that the flood water came from a comet which broke up and fell on the earth. He actually did!  Again, this has the problem of the heat from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the time it reached the surface of the earth.

Even if the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would raise the temperature past boiling.  

As an aside here, you know that crater called Chicxulub Crater?  Kent Hovind thinks that asteroids hit during this flood wherever we now see craters on earth, including this Chicxulub crater (the one that made the dinosaurs go extinct).  (Yet Hovind claims dinosaurs went on the ark!)  He proposed that asteroids hit along with the flood (so picture that), but unfortunately for Kent Hovind, the heat from the massive impacts would have immediately boiled large quantities of the ocean!  

The last thing we will look at is the idea by John Baumgardner called Runaway Subduction.  He postulates that the earth was all in one piece, the Pangea, 4000 years ago (LOL!), because you see, that helps with their story of how penguins waddled from Alaska to the Middle East. (Another LOL!)  Then he has the plates tearing apart and the continents moving rapidly, by first having the land heat up with friction and then cooling off, just because he doesn’t want things to get too hot. The tearing apart of the layers and twisting, causes the flood to come up from underneath. It sounds so official. But noxious gases like sulfuric acid would erupt.  The runaway subduction process does not work and Baumgardner even admits that it would take supernatural powers to make it work.  He also estimates a heat release of 10²⁸ joules from this runaway subduction process. The lava expected to accompany the subterranean water would also bring the already scalding liquid to its boiling point. The oceans would probably be vaporized!  

So you see, the problems of the water’s source and destination are massive since the entire ocean should almost instantaneously be converted to steam with all their ideas. In fact, the steam rising from the ocean beds would have been concentrated enough to boil off the planet’s atmosphere with the runaway subduction idea.

In closing, Creationists still have got to figure out how to get water for the flood, and find a way for it not to burn Noah, his family and all the animals and fish to death!

The Search for God, and a Great Video about Jesus by Richard Carrier

I posted this video of Richard Carrier because I think it is a very clear look at the belief in Jesus.  Worth watching!

But today, I want to discuss the search for God.  In this quest for God, people used to look just above the clouds and see visions, because God lived on levels in the sky - and occasionally came down on earth to walk around, criticize and command.  We now know so much about our universe; how it can be traced back to simpler organisms, to elements, and on back to the start of the Big Bang.  We even can see the Cosmic Microwave Background when the Universe was 380,000 years old.  As we move further back in time, our Universe gets smaller and smaller. We have theoretical physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss who have evidence that the Universe could start from virtual particles popping in and out of nothing.  So where is God?  People think of God as a huge spirit/being in the sky, starting everything, but Stephen Hawking say that the Universe could easily have begun without God “lighting the match” and that God would just be in the way and redundant.  He continues by stating that with multiverses filling every nook and cranny, there is no room for God.  So the idea of God being huge is perhaps an incorrect idea.  Since we have gotten existence down to the size of virtual particles popping in and out of nothing, what is the next step smaller; the next step backward from virtual particles popping in and out of nothing?  Nothing?  Could that be God?

Red Blood Cells and Evolution

I am going to put what I came up with today – I am pretty certain my information is valid – and if anyone thinks my concepts are wrong, please let me know! 

I was talking about altitude sickness with a co-worker, when he said that people's bodies get used to the altitude by making more red blood cells to carry more oxygen to all parts of the body. This is true.  It occurred to me that this is a very quick adaption to a different environment.  The body adapts - which is a part of natural selection in evolution. 

Here is the definition of natural selection, the very definition that Creationists and “Intelligent Design” proponents want taken out of schools:  “Natural Selection:  The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring.”

Do you see any reason that should be kept from children and teens?  (South Carolina is another state that is now trying to ban teaching evolution in the classroom, and their reasoning is because they do not want to teach “natural selection.”  So let’s continue examining our example:

Taking the high altitude example further, Wiki says that native Andean and Himalayan populations have better oxygenation at birth, enlarged lung volumes throughout life, and a higher capacity for exercise. (This seems to show a permanent change in the population – evolution at work.)  Tibetans have a sustained increase in brain blood flow, lower hemoglobin concentration, and less susceptibility to chronic mountain sickness than other high altitude populations.  (This change in Tibetans is different than other populations who live in the mountains, so these abilities of theirs may help them survive better than the others.  (Re-read the definition of natural selection, because it sure looks like why the Tibetans have permanently evolved.)  It is thought that the Tibetans may have been on the mountains for a longer period of time and that is why they have developed these advantages.  (Evolution – change over time.)

Do these people who are against kids learning about natural selection actually think that a person does not change, but the environment is made to fit the person?  They always talk about the “fine-tuned” environment.  Do they not realize that some people die because their heart cannot handle the high altitude?  That is not fine-tuned, and the examples of the high altitude populations show natural selection, not fine-tuning of the environment.

Aluminum and Vaccines - What Is Worth Knowing

What I learned about aluminum today:

People who are against vaccines (those shots that save millions of lives) claim that many of the vaccines contain aluminum. That is true. So do soil, water, air, fruits and vegetables, fish, meats, cooking utensils, cosmetics and cheeseburgers. The average person consumes 2 to 8 mg of aluminum per day. Automatically, the body flushes most of it out.

I personally do not cook with aluminum, nor do I take antacids or use baking powder with aluminum. I am learning where else I can cut down on aluminum and other elements that can collect in the brain or body. I do however, believe in vaccinations and have no qualms about the small amount of aluminum in some of the shots. Most of that minute amount gets flushed out of the body. 

During the first 6 months of life, babies could receive about 4 milligrams of aluminum from vaccines. During the same period, babies will also receive about 10 milligrams of aluminum in breast milk and about 40 milligrams in infant formula. Shall we stop breast feeding because of the 10 mg of aluminum?  It doesn't make sense, does it.  Vaccines protect, breast milk protects. Breast milk contains more aluminum than vaccines.

I thought it was kind of funny to blame the mothers' breast milk! Some antacids contain up to 100 mg of aluminum per dose. Think about the antacid you do not worry about at 100 mg., the antacid you might take two of every few hours, and then compare it with the vaccines given to a baby that total 4 mg of aluminum.

Aspirin with an enteric-coating has aluminum too! (The aluminum helps the aspirin travel past the stomach where the aspirin might cause stomach bleeding, and dissolve later.) Some aluminum is released into the environment from coal-fired power plants and incinerators. Why are the anti-vaxers even talking about the aluminum used to make the vaccine dose effective? It stimulates the immune response so the baby will become immune to those diseases for which he/she is being vaccinated. 

All of this information came from the CDC Website.  None of it is hidden.




After posting the above on Facebook, I received a response that no aluminum should be in vaccines at all.  I would have to agree and disagree.  They would not put aluminum in vaccines unless it performed an important function, especially with all the controversy. There are many things I want out of vaccines and we can request and petition if we choose, so that they will know we want them to search for substitutes.  But getting that minute amount of aluminum in our systems is better than not being vaccinated and spreading dangerous diseases.

Here are the vaccines that do use aluminum:  vaccines that prevent hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae type b, human papillomavirus and pneumococcus.   Most of us and our children do not get all of these vaccines, but certainly the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine is important.  1 in 20 who gets diphtheria dies of the disease.  1 in 5 who gets tetanus dies.  Vaccinations save lives.

My grandfather died of tuberculosis (other countries must vaccinate against this disease - the U.S. does not currently have a problem with tuberculosis) and left a little boy shuffled between relatives and on the streets alone a lot of the time, until his mother remarried.  (She became the first female taxi-driver in Michigan and also took in sewing to make a living.)  Losing his father was pretty rough on my dad.  My dad was deaf in one ear due to mumps at age six.  It kept him from becoming a commercial pilot – one of his dreams in life. 
The vaccines that DO NOT use aluminum are the live viral vaccines:  the ones that prevent measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox and rotavirus. 

Aluminum is present in certain vaccines to improve the immune response.  Aluminum allows for lesser quantities of the vaccine and fewer doses.  Until they find a substitute, this is what needs to be used.