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.
This assumes that all the land masses and topography that exit today existed in Noah’s day.If a global flood occur why aren't there global canyons? Why does it only have to be one or two canyons in different states? Hmm? Just checking..
I dont assume to know the earth past conditions based on our present conditions. But you are free to make such assumptions if you like.Just for some numbers: The Sumatra Earthquake of 2004 had a net slip on the fault of about 1.5 meters over an area of 210,000 square kilometers. This translates into about 315 cubic kilometers of displaced water. The volume of water on the Earth is roughly 1,358,263,000 cubic kilometers.
A number of earth quakes occurring around the world accompanied tsunamis, and days of very heavy rainfall, and throw in a few geysers into the mix, and I think you would have a recipe for a flooded earth.Japan does not confirm Noah's flood. If you want a mechanism, just keep saying "Goddidit" but don't try and use ANY physical evidence to prove it because no physical evidence lends to creationism.
That's pretty low, don't you think?
That's not low, AV. It's true. I wrote earlier to you that sincfe I joined this forum, and I read your rantings I have been moving constantly more to strong atheism.That's pretty low, don't you think?
Seen this?
YouTube - DANCING WITH UNICORNS: Creationism
It outlines creationism as sectarian, false, contrary to Christianity and anti-faith. By a bishop in one of the oldest, most conservative parts of Christianity no less.
I agree with him. Wholeheartedly.
i read an interesting piece in the New Yorker involving if a large comet hitt in the Atlantic. The author had a tsunami building over the grand banks and hitting Manhatten, 500 ft high.
i wonder,is there a theoretical limit to how high a wave could be?
A significant asteroid or comet could surely produce a wave to flood a considerable area!
But then, the story is about rain, and events about 3000 years ago.
An asteroid would in fact create a large tsunami but, if it was large enough, it would also liquefy a large part of the crust and send not just a wave of water, but a wave of earth as well. And I'm not sure that an ark would survive a wave of crustal debris and liquefied rock and magma.
I would imagine, if the Bible we as cut and dry as you say it is, then there would be no debate...
(bold emphasis mine)Look at this verse:
1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
That's the main message of the Bible in 19 one-syllable words; yet the 'educated' cannot understand it, because they will not understand it.
That's not what AV1611Vet said at all.So, you're saying, that god delivered us the Bible in it's current state, in order that we will not understand it? Brilliant.
Well, seeing as how you completely misinterpreted a bible verse, I can see why AV1611VET said what he did.Well, this only raises more questions for me, but something tells me you don't want me to pursue. So be it.
I find it curious that you are so quick to dismiss a global flood story simply because scientific investigation suggests this not to be possible, but yet you readily accept a 2000 year old story of a dead man being restored to life despite the fact that scientific investigation shows this not to be possible.Even so. It's clear this flood was not global. It isn't mirrored in biodiversity, geology, there's not enough water around... It was local.
Science has done a whole lot more than show that a dead man being restored to life is impossible, it's shown that it absolutely cannot happen.Science has done a whole lot more than show that a global flood is impossible,
Its also shown that it absolutely did not happen.
Science has done a whole lot more than show that a dead man being restored to life is impossible, it's shown that it absolutely cannot happen.
Science has done a whole lot more than show that a dead man being restored to life is impossible, it's shown that it absolutely cannot happen.
Yes, you can prove a negative.Science nor anything else can prove a negative. That had been figured out long before the 19th century.
Yes, you can prove a negative.
Ever heard of DNA testing?
Science has done a whole lot more than show that a dead man being restored to life is impossible, it's shown that it absolutely cannot happen.
Well, in her defense, she did say 'long before the 19th century' -- and that would have been a time when they didn't have DNA testing.AV is correct about this. We can prove certain negatives. However, we won't ever see science find evidence that you cannot bring a person back from death under any circumstance. In fact, we know it's possible to do so in specific cases.
Well, in her defense, she did say 'long before the 19th century' -- and that would have been a time when they didn't have DNA testing.
Kinda like the time I was talking about evidence for the Flood being global, and I said to a poster, 'keep looking', and he came back with: 'We stopped looking 200 years ago.'
You're not the Bible, so I'm not obligated to look anywhere.If I told you 'there is a giant pink dinosaur-rabbit cyborg in your basement!' how long would you look before you stopped looking?
You wouldn't have to tell me to 'keep looking'; I wouldn't look in the first place.However long it is, I could always tell you to "keep looking" and insist it's real.
It's not my position -- I didn't write it.Your position is thoroughly falsified.
To look at all makes no sense.To keep looking would make no sense.
Go for it, if that's your interpretation. It's your money.It's like continuing looking for evidence of - say - the hard dome above the earth Job describes.
And we KNOW it's right.We KNOW it's wrong.
If you stop looking, then don't tell us it didn't happen; or 'keep looking' is an appropriate response.Why keep looking?
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?