• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
72
✟9,884.00
Faith
Other Religion
Today at 01:24 AM mjiracek said this in Post #40

ok well there are other argumentments on the institute for creation research website. type in worldwide flood and they will have an abundance of articles that counter what you just presented

You're new to this "debate" thing aren't you?
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
If you dont want to read our threads, why should we be willing to go read ICR? ;)

Well, if you really want to discuss an article or your ideas. I would say, post it in a new thread.
It makes conversations easier to keep track of. :)

Today at 10:24 PM mjiracek said this in Post #40

ok well there are other argumentments on the institute for creation research website. type in worldwide flood and they will have an abundance of articles that counter what you just presented
 
Upvote 0
also it said the fountains of the deep came forth and the waters of heaven came down. so there were two sources of water. not one or the other. also the amount of ground water in the world far surpasses that of surface water and if that came forth in one torretial period it would be plenty to cover the earth along with the help of heavey rains
 
Upvote 0
a good book to read on the flood is the genesis record written by henry morris. who is a doctor in hydraulic engineering. so he would know about floods and water patterns than most right? he also studied geology and is well aware of the pyshical sciences which is what we are discussing right?
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Really?

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

Shows that the amount of ground water is meaningless compared to the amount of water in the sea. Ground water makes up 0.61% of the entire amount of water on the earth.

My Math of the flood also says that the flood requires 3 times the amount of water on the entire earth.

Today at 10:29 PM mjiracek said this in Post #43

also it said the fountains of the deep came forth and the waters of heaven came down. so there were two sources of water. not one or the other. also the amount of ground water in the world far surpasses that of surface water and if that came forth in one torretial period it would be plenty to cover the earth along with the help of heavey rains
 
Upvote 0
now there is a problem to both evolution and creation arguments. we were never there. so there fore we have to make assumptions off the same evidence. for example you say the grand canyon is old i say its young. we made an assumption off the vidence. however we have recorded canyon making which formed very quickly like mount st helens. so from that creationists assume that the grand canyon formed relativly quickly from the flood....i am not sure why i said that. it just popped in my head. sorry
 
Upvote 0
i think you are wrong there. th ogallala aquifer in central u.s. could cover our entire country in several feet of water. also we assume the world today is like it was back then which is stupid. even evolutionist belive the world has gone through great climactic changes so to say that this land was exposed or wasnt or this much water was needed only applies to earth today not back then
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
The problem is, that creationist arguments seem to ignore or add some of the evidence to come to their conclusions.

Like this argument.

Please, show me the evidence in the grand canyon that shows it formed the same was as the layers and whatnot in the Mt st Helens blast?

Many of the rocks in the grand canyon take a long time to form. The grand canyon Was Not created the same was as the Mt St Helens blast, so its not a good example.

Today at 10:41 PM mjiracek said this in Post #47

now there is a problem to both evolution and creation arguments. we were never there. so there fore we have to make assumptions off the same evidence. for example you say the grand canyon is old i say its young. we made an assumption off the vidence. however we have recorded canyon making which formed very quickly like mount st helens. so from that creationists assume that the grand canyon formed relativly quickly from the flood....i am not sure why i said that. it just popped in my head. sorry
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
i think you are wrong there. th ogallala aquifer in central u.s. could cover our entire country in several feet of water.

The country is not a large place. Can you give me evidence for this?

also we assume the world today is like it was back then which is stupid.

Why is it stupid? The earth was basically the same 4400 years ago.


Today at 10:44 PM mjiracek said this in Post #48

i think you are wrong there. th ogallala aquifer in central u.s. could cover our entire country in several feet of water. also we assume the world today is like it was back then which is stupid. even evolutionist belive the world has gone through great climactic changes so to say that this land was exposed or wasnt or this much water was needed only applies to earth today not back then
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
to rehash a post I made in the "flood" thread. This is just a short bit of info:

Im assuming you are basing the believe that the earth was basically flat before the flood, based on the "hill" line in the bible. Well, besides the fact that the bible also mentions mountains, lets look at the non mountain earth and the flood in general.


What if
If, the mountains arrose before the flood.
Then the flood would have needed much more water than there is on earth.

If, the mountains arrose during the flood.
Then, The ark would have been beached as there wouldnt be enough water to keep it afloat. The flood waters would have boiled because of all the heat created by all that tectonic plate movement and the ark would have been incinerated.

If, The mountains arrose after the flood.
Then, all the animals would have been killed with the heat release of the tectonic activities.

Scriptural evidence?
Please show me scripture that backs up the claim that the mountains arrose after or during the flood?
Generally the scripture used is the Opening and Closing of the "fountains of the deep" However, this is not a description of mountains growing out of the ground, nor of the tectonic plates.
The amount of heat, energy, force and movement that the mountains forming would create, would be more spectacular than a rather small flood. Its rather amazing there is no mention of this in the bible.

World evidence?
There is also no world evidence to show that the mountains were created suddenly. quite the contrary.
Besides, as was mentioned before, the amount of heat created in the large motions of the tectonic plates and volcanos, etc, would fry the world quite a few times over.



Today at 10:48 PM CoHehir said this in Post #50

That's a good point. Did all these mountains (Everest, K2, Kilimanjaro) exist before the flood? What if the world was relatively smooth as far as the land is concerned? What would it take to cover continents that only rose 100-400 feet above sea level?
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
42
Visit site
✟36,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Upvote 0

troodon

Be wise and be smart
Dec 16, 2002
1,698
58
40
University of Iowa
Visit site
✟24,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Today at 10:57 PM Arikay said this in Post #56

There is also no world evidence to show that the mountains were created suddenly. quite the contrary.
Besides, as was mentioned before, the amount of heat created in the large motions of the tectonic plates and volcanos, etc, would fry the world quite a few times over.

You assume that energy existed prior to Noah's flood. Research shows that this is unlikely and it provides an answer to the question of what carnivores on the ark at. Answer: nothing, they need no energy because it don't exist.

 :p
 
Upvote 0
also almost every single culture in the world has a flood story. it doesnot seem to make sense that it would be so. especially in arid climates like australia where the aborigonies reside in the desert and no amounts of rain would cause the disaster they describe to make it apart of their history
 
Upvote 0