AV, do you think that the actions of the floodwaters offers an explanation for why the rocks on Earth date as billions of years old using the various radiometric dating techniques?
Upvote
0
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.
No -- the age of the rocks was handled directly by God, Himself; and the Flood contributed nothing in that area.AV, do you think that the actions of the floodwaters offers an explanation for why the rocks on Earth date as billions of years old using the various radiometric dating techniques?
Yes. About 1.4 billion cubic kilometers. If it all came up to sea level it would still be 20,000 feet short of what you need to cover the mountains.</p>
Do we actually know how much water is in the seas?
And this supposed surge rushed up over all the high mountains during this gently rising flood you have been talking about for several posts now. You are contradicting yourself.Also, I said before that the floodwater doesn't have to be even as high as the highest peak. All it has to do is cover it at some point in the event. A surge or swell from levels well below the peak could cover it momentarily, fulfilling the baptism type (which it certainly was).
There is no natural mechanism for this occur and you still need many thousands of feet of water even if it did.Also, like a volcano's lava dome the seafloor may have been lifted up but not ruptured widely. At the same time a corresponding sinking of the continents may have occured, as when you sqeeze a balloon in the middle the ends bulge out.
A metor strike large enough to change the shape of the earth significantly would would killed everything Noah included.Or there also may have been an enormous power surge within the earth resulting from a giant 'meteor' strike that changed the earth's shape.
It has been smacked by a lot of things in the past but if something big enough to change its orbit had hit the ark would not have survived.After all the earth is slightly out of kilter both in axis and orbit which means it might have been smacked by something in the past.
No -- you would think that should be in there.I also don't recall reading about a meteor strike in Genesis, you'd think that would be in there.
I don't know about explaining the Flood, but it explains why the moon looks as it does as well; as well as where the Grand Canyon came from.Does it explain why we have an account of the flood and plagues and all sorts of other nasties, but not a meteor strike large enough to reshape the Earth?
Because God wanted one in Arizona?If you think that the floodwaters created the Grand canyon, perhaps you could explain why we don't find similar canyons all over the place...
You've put the emphasis on the wrong part of my question. I'm asking if it explains why there's no account of this phenomenally large meteor strike, when there are accounts of floods and other, somewhat less dramatic, disasters.I don't know about explaining the Flood, but it explains why the moon looks as it does as well; as well as where the Grand Canyon came from.
(Note to Gap theorists: If I'm wrong here, please correct me.)
I'll just give a link: Sodom and Gomorrah found beneath Dead SeaWhat makes you think Sodom and Gomorrah were located in where is now the Dead Sea? Got any references for this, either Biblical or scholarly? Feel free to respond in a new thread if you don't want to derail this one.
Author's preference?You've put the emphasis on the wrong part of my question. I'm asking if it explains why there's no account of this phenomenally large meteor strike, when there are accounts of floods and other, somewhat less dramatic, disasters.
I'll just give a link: Sodom and Gomorrah found beneath Dead Sea
It's pretty obvious that you will write and quote whatever makes you look like someone who is not very clever,Author's preference?
If they don't know it by now, I have a feeling they'll never know it.... are you trying to show everyone here that you are a true creationists?
And this supposed surge rushed up over all the high mountains during this gently rising flood you have been talking about for several posts now. You are contradicting yourself.
There is no natural mechanism for this occur and you still need many thousands of feet of water even if it did.
A metor strike large enough to change the shape of the earth significantly would would killed everything Noah included.
It has been smacked by a lot of things in the past but if something big enough to change its orbit had hit the ark would not have survived.
</p>Yes. About 1.4 billion cubic kilometers. If it all came up to sea level it would still be 20,000 feet short of what you need to cover the mountains.
.
This would not happen with the gently rising water you have claimed early. Your "model" is not internally consistent.A giant swell could have been caused by the mountains themselves as the water surged up and over. like a tsunami that breaks when it has no other place to go. Such a surge would not have been felt by the ark as it was hundreds of miles away from the highest peaks.
Here is another indication that you have no knowledge of physics and no idea what you are talking about.The possible meteor (or something) would not have struck in Noah's day. It would have been prehistoric but the power surge would still be banging around inside the earth.
I'm guessing that a single impact in the past is the energy source that cracked the earth's crust, moved it slightly out of orbit, tipped it's axis, and began the tectonic plate movements.
While there are evidences of mass extinction there is evidence of continous life on earth at least since the precambrian.Based on all of the above I place the impact site at Hudson Bay. Of course it would have killed everything on earth. God replaced the critters with others suited to the new devastated environment. I'm guessing these cataclysms occurred more than once. Genesis reveals that the earth was in pretty bad shape from a probably recent devastation. That's the gap theory anyway.
Both.Are you asking me or telling me?