Noah's Flood

[Nathan Poe]

Water is there, that is why compared to land, water covers much more of the earth.

The Bible says water kept for 40 days and 40 nights.

Water covers about 70% of the earth. What happened to all the water that supposedly submerged the other 30%?

 

[FEZZILLA]

Noahs flood is the only thing that answers the question of, "how did the Ice age happen". the ice age would have been a direct result sometime after the flood.
Noahs flood also explains the Grand Canyon much clearer than evolution theories. Fast Erosion expainns the Canyons!

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Water is there, that is why compared to land, water covers much more of the earth.

It doesn't cover all the earth. Why? Because there is not enough water on earth for it to be flooded as per your biblical interpretation.

The Bible says water kept for 40 days and 40 nights.

Actually it doesn't say that. What it does say in Gen 7:24 is

And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

 

[revolutio]

Umm Fezz, what evolution theory says anything about the Grand Canyon?

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Noahs flood is the only thing that answers the question of, "how did the Ice age happen". the ice age would have been a direct result sometime after the flood.

Substantiate or retract.

Noahs flood also explains the Grand Canyon much clearer than evolution theories. Fast Erosion expainns the Canyons!

False.

The rocks that comprise the Grand Canyon represent a wide variety of depositional environments and could not have formed quickly. Furthermore, erosion was caused by the Colorado River. It must be fluvial erosion, otherwise there would not be meanders in the canyon at all.

Furthermore, what you are talking about isn't evolution; it's geology.

 

[Alessandro]

A simple explanation would be drainage probably resulting form the weight of the water, evaporation etc. but no matter how much it only uncovered about 30%

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

If it evaporated, it would have had to precipitate again. The fact is that there is no source of water that can flood the earth.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Im used to debating people who don't argue what they don't know about. In other words; im used to academical debates not bias ones that make up lies like people do on this board.
Telling lies for personal gain won't get you anywhere.
this board is not scientific nor does it keep up with science journals.


im bored

 

[Alessandro]

Dont forget the drainage, which is what mostly contributed to the lowering of the water levels.

 

[Michali]

I'm beginning to feel that I mustn't limit God to his own laws of science. If then he did create everything, then he must be able to do whatever he wants. If you accept that there is a God, you accept that all things are possible. Whether people choose to accept this is a matter of choice. Or in my belief, a matter of life and death.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Im used to debating people who don't argue what they don't know about.

What is your background in the geological sciences then? Are you really suggesting that I know nothing about geology?

In other words; im used to academical debates not bias ones that make up lies like people do on this board.

Substantiate your claim or retract your insult.

this board is not scientific nor does it keep up with science journals.

In general, no it's not scientific because creationists are too keen on preserving their preconceived conclusion about the world as derived from their biased interpretation of a religious text.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Dont forget the drainage, which is what mostly contributed to the lowering of the water levels.

There is nowhere else for the water to go. What you see is what there is.

 

[Alessandro]

That is correct my friend, but we must also put our side of the argument in terms they may be familiar with.

 

[Alessandro]

What you see is what there is now, but not what was there during the flood, and before.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

What you see is what there is now, but not what was there during the flood, and before.

The earth has not substantially changed in the past few thousand years.

 

[Alessandro]

No disagreement there except, after the flood, things have changed a bit, but then no major changes would have occured.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

There is no evidence to support your assertion. The earth's geology has remained relatively unchanged for as old as you claim the earth to be.

 

[Alessandro]

The evidence is there all around you. Should you disregard it as supporting other things is another matter.

 

[Michali]

I'm beginning to feel that I mustn't limit God to his own laws of science. If then he did create everything, then he must be able to do whatever he wants. If you accept that there is a God, you accept that all things are possible. Whether people choose to accept this is a matter of choice. Or in my belief, a matter of life and death.

Suddenly I now realize the fact of my faith. Theism is the representation of all that is impossible. Science cannot prove nor disprove a theory that believes that all things are possible. Through theism we can prove that something is possible because of this. If this is so, let us believe what is written so we might not limit an almighty God. We must remember that he is impossible to impress without faith. Jesus was actually in awe of a human with great faith.

If this is true, then trying to prove a miracle from God is futile. His reasoning behind not providing evidence? To find who is faithful and wise? Also, it is futile to prove that a miracle never occured through God. It is impossible to say that an all-possibility being cannot do something. All this is true only if you believe in the God.

I am not saying that a miracle is impossible to prove with scientific discovery. I am only saying we as christians should not alter a miracle into anything less than miraculous.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The evidence is there all around you. Should you disregard it as supporting other things is another matter.

I seek explanations that rely on explaining all available evidence.