- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,119
- 52,646
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
I'm glad you got it.Your wordplay was actually unusually clever.
I feel like we have reached maximum confusion. My job here is done.
A world wide flood that covered everything to a minimum depth of 50 feet would create enormous tidal forces and currents. Thes swirling across the globe would errode thousands of feet of mateial and deposit it else where.
The geological colum shows what would be expected after a global flood. Layers of different typews of rock sort according to its different weights and containing those creaters whose lack of mobility limited there options to escape the flood water.
That is assuming that the flood was a natural event
that had natural effects on the planet. Becasue we
begin with the premise that it was not a natural event
we don't have to assume it had "natural" results.
Following this reasoning, it's possible that life did
not "drown" in a naturalistic fashion. Jesus could
walk on water and He calmed storms. It's possible
that the flood was not a "normal" flood at all.
I find your explaination why a global flood would not cause enormos errosion highly unconvincing.No it doesn't.
Yeah, maybe it wasn´t even normal water but some supernatural fluid.That is assuming that the flood was a natural event
that had natural effects on the planet. Becasue we
begin with the premise that it was not a natural event
we don't have to assume it had "natural" results.
Following this reasoning, it's possible that life did
not "drown" in a naturalistic fashion. Jesus could
walk on water and He calmed storms. It's possible
that the flood was not a "normal" flood at all.
It would. Just not in the patterns we see.I find your explaination why a global flood would not cause enormos errosion highly unconvincing.
To be fair I reckon that more than 50% of Abraham religious people also do not think the flood happened as described in the bible, it's just plain ludicrous and most recognise that.It would. Just not in the patterns we see.
No non-Abrahamic religious person thinks the Noachian flood actually happened.
I accept that the flood was caused by God's direct action and that is not a 'natura' effect, but once caused water would follow the normal rules of hydrodynamics etc.
A global flood capable of depositing sediment over a mile deep has no need of supernatural causes of death.
The reasonable explaination is the flood was 'normal', that is 'normal' for a golbal flood that destroys all life and rips the world to pieces.
Yeah, maybe it wasn´t even normal water but some supernatural fluid.
That's not a photo f the actual event you know - the description of walking on water is not intended to be taken literally, it is allegorical. Even his disciple had a decent go at water walking at first, so clearly the miracle is not universal to jesus, it's just a parable.I'm just saying it's possible.
Scientifically speaking, perhaps. But one must consider
Take a look at this picture:
Where did all the dirt come from that covered up each layer of representative life?
This is a wild under-estimate, as you would know if you had ever looked at a rock outcrop. There are ten fossiliferous geological systems: Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Paleogene and Neogene. (A geological system consists of the rocks deposited during the geological period of the same name.)I'm not sure how deep fossils go, but imagine only ten feet around the earth.
Thank your for getting the thread back on track.Erosion of the rocks that were there already.
What was the radius of the earth at one time?All these systems have maximum thicknesses of several kilometres (1 km = 3280 feet);
Probably about 6371 km (3959 miles), the same as it is now. There is no reason to think that it has changed measurably during geological time.What was the radius of the earth at one time?
Though I do not find this ever-growing earth IS what evolutionists claim (see post 19), if the gradual accumulation of more and more layers was the theory (i go with the re-shifting and distribution theory) then going back in time would leave the earth a very tiny planetoid and one would have to ASSUME that for billions of years the earth was continually bombarded with a sufficient amount of dust and debris which somehow has stopped over the past 10,000 years or so...which is not fathomable in either camp!
Though I do not find this ever-growing earth IS what evolutionists claim (see post 19),
if the gradual accumulation of more and more layers was the theory (i go with the re-shifting and distribution theory)
then going back in time would leave the earth a very tiny planetoid and one would have to ASSUME that for billions of years the earth was continually bombarded with a sufficient amount of dust and debris which somehow has stopped over the past 10,000 years or so...which is not fathomable in either camp!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?