Noah's ark myth never happened, and the earth was never completely flooded at any point in its history.
People may lie, but the rock record doesn't.
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
68 points (97.2% liked)
Ask Lemmy
35609 readers
1546 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Have you seen the heat argument?
In short, the Young Earth Creationist position is that all the plate tectonics and radiological dating issues happened because of the flood. This means the plates would have to have moved very fast, and the resulting friction creates heat. Incredible amounts of heat. Likewise, radioactive decay releases heat, too. To do all the changes necessary to do that in the space of about a year it would generate enough heat to turn the entire planet into a plasma.
This may actually be "checkmate, YEC!", at least in a sense. Not because they'll change their mind about God or anything, but because they prefer to have physical solutions if possible. It's easier to convince other people if you keep reliance on the supernatural to a minimum. But there's just no way around this one. You have to rely on the supernatural to fix it. There's just too much heat, otherwise.
That's what I'm eluding to in another reply. The two most common YEC arguments are "hydro plate" and "catastrophic plate techtonics". Both of them have the same heat problem.
While there is technically enough water locked in underground rock to cover the land completely, water has a high heat capacity.
On my last project we were working with gypsum, which is a hydrated Calcium sulfate. Above around 60°C/120°F that water is driven off to produce anhydrite. There are hydrate minerals that require much more heat to dehydrate them.
At 120°F and 100% humidity, human life would be impossible.
I thought that the Earth was molten rock, then cooled, then rained/flooded, and then sometime later, single cell organisms/life.
Nope, at no time has there ever been enough free water to completely submerge all land.
kagis
According to a new, Harvard-led study, geochemical calculations about the interior of the planet’s water storage capacity suggests Earth’s primordial ocean 3 to 4 billion years ago may have been one to two times larger than it is today, and possibly covered the planet’s entire surface.
“It depends on the conditions and parameters we look at in the model, such as the height and distribution of the continents, but the primordial ocean could have flooded more than 70, 80, and even 90 percent of the early continents,” said Junjie Dong, a Ph.D. student in Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, who led the study. “In the extreme scenarios, if we have an ocean that is two times larger than the amount of water we have today, that might have completely flooded the land masses we had on the surface of the early Earth.”
They're saying that there isn't enough water on the surface today, but that an undetermined amount of water that used to be on the surface is now below the surface, and it's possible that that amount is sufficient that all land was at one point submerged.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That being vegan is an ethical choice compared to not being vegan.
Sure, if you don't mind breeding vegetables for your own greedy enjoyment, I guess you can get on a high horse just because you don't also abuse animals.
most people don't abuse animals
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(18 replies)
I convinced three crown attorneys that Macron did Notré Dame. That says a lot about the Canadian justice system, I just don't know what.
Define winning.
I could win why there is no god but many people can not accept this since it would literally destroy them with this belief, hence reject it as self protection. That's just how humans work.
Bringing me back to the question. What even is 'winning an argument'?
(If you feel the urge to downvote: go ahead but ask yourself - do you feel threatened?)
It's as simple as asking why over and over. Toddlers do it.
What is? Me or them?
Asking is natural and usually makes you know more about the world, it's what science is built on.
I meant you can win an argument against theism by just asking why repeatedly.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
That Barry Bonds deserves to be in the HOF. And how sports writers should not be the only bar for an exceptional athlete is being snubbed (Clemens included even though I think he's a jerk).
That corporate greed is the root of almost every problem we have as a society. The game is fixed and it needs to change.
I can argue the uselessness of most American gun laws. I should note, a great many of the arguments rely on the fact of the 2nd Amendment and our court's historical interpretation of it.
Almost every law I see proposed either runs afoul of the 2nd, is useless, and worse, many are counterproductive.
Ooh thats a good one.
Can I ask what your solution is to the problem besides going door to door and raiding people's homes? Because youre never going to get the guns away from people who have them. I have yet to see a solution.
In establishing universal healthcare and universal basic income, we will do more to solve violence problems than any gun-centric approach ever could.
I challenge anyone to debate me about deez nutz
Nowadays nothing. Part of the problem is im not really looking to win an argument. Im looking to discuss but I have my own conclusions since at this age there is little to nothing I have not thought about at some point. When I say conclusions though that is just a current end state not some sort of this is it and could never be different thing. All the same its not like someone stating they really really think its different or this written thing in my belief is definitive fact is going to cause me to jump up and change.
That AI is currently sentient and represents an example of a silicon based life form.
I might not be technically correct but I will absolutely shift the ontological and philosophical framing until I cannot be proven wrong.