The Flood of Noah's Day

[CoreyD]

The rocks say absolutely nothing. Rocks cannot see, hear, or speak.
They are inanimate.

 

[dlamberth]

The rocks say absolutely nothing. Rocks cannot see, hear, or speak.
They are inanimate.

That's true only for those who don't know how to listen.

 

[BPPLEE]

The rocks say absolutely nothing. Rocks cannot see, hear, or speak.
They are inanimate.

Luk 19:40 - And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[CoreyD]

That's true only for those who don't know how to listen.

There could be some truth to that, but I am not sure if you mean those that say one thing contrary to those that say another.
Which of the two don't know how to listen?

 

[CoreyD]

Luk 19:40 - And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Thanks for reminding me of the scriptures.

I would not have chosen that if I were going to argue that rock do speak though, since Jesus was clearly speaking metaphorically, but I understand that there are quite a lot of folk who read practically everything in the Bible literally.

Two verses that come to mind which are similar to Luke 19:40, are Psalm 98:7, 8, and Isaiah 55:12

Let the sea thunder and roar, and all the things it contains, The world and those who dwell in it. Let the rivers clap their hands; Let the mountains sing together for joy and delight

You will indeed go out with joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.

Jesus is actually saying, that his disciple will not be silenced. In other words, as rocks do not speak, it is impossible for his disciples not to speak out.
We have this same figure of speech used at Psalm 72:7, 8

In His days the righteous shall flourish, And abundance of peace, Until the moon is no more.
He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth.

Since the moon will always be, and no end, th righteous will flourish and their peace will never end.
Where is the ends of the earth? It simply means everywhere on the earth, or the entire earth.

The scriptures I would use if I wanted to argue that the features of the earth 'speak', I would use Psalm 19:1 - The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands., and Romans 1:20 - God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

Would people like @dlamberth readily agree with anyone saying to them creation tells us God is? No.
The rocks do not say a word. They are silent. The geologist are the ones speaking, and interpreting what they see.

We see the heavens, and we perceive that they were designed by an intelligent creator.
In other words I dismiss the skeptics' metaphor - the rocks speak, in the same way they dismiss the metaphor -the heavens declare the glory of God.

Interpretations; perceptions; That's what we are looking at.
Either that, or the inanimate things have a double tongue... saying two different things.

For example, in his book 'The Flood', Alred M Rehwinkel describes rocks - Large masses of granite and hard metamorphic rock - Some of these blocks are of an immense size, weighing thousands of tons - which can be traced to Scandinavia, scattered over the plains of Denmark and northern Germany.
He says the same phenomenon is found in America, in the New England States, and in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, in eastern and western Canada, and elsewhere. In many cases the distance over which they have been transported is very great, and sometimes they are found at an elevation apparently much higher than their source.

How these rocks were moved, are not told by the rocks themselves.
The rocks said nothing. None of them said, "glaciers moved me here", or otherwise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For example, in his book 'The Flood', Alred M Rehwinkel describes rocks - Large masses of granite and hard metamorphic rock - Some of these blocks are of an immense size, weighing thousands of tons - which can be traced to Scandinavia, scattered over the plains of Denmark and northern Germany.
He says the same phenomenon is found in America, in the New England States, and in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, in eastern and western Canada, and elsewhere. In many cases the distance over which they have been transported is very great, and sometimes they are found at an elevation apparently much higher than their source.

How these rocks were moved, are not told by the rocks themselves.
The rocks said nothing. None of them said, "glaciers moved me here", or otherwise.

Odd how the rocks speak of their glacial origin through their placement on glacial features and deposits. Hmm. Of course, if you want them to be carried by rushing water, then you'll have flows that can make ripples (a different thread) and the ripple like features near glacial erratics are drumlins pointed in the wrong direction to be ripples.

 

[dlamberth]

How these rocks were moved, are not told by the rocks themselves.
The rocks said nothing. None of them said, "glaciers moved me here", or otherwise.

The rocks tell a story. When we have a pile of rocks lined up in a long multi-mile line called "moraines", whose original location is hundred of miles from where they are now piled up, that's a pretty good indication where the edge of a Ice Age glacier was at one time. With tools like Surface exposure dating of the moraine rocks we can know when those rocks were deposited by the glaciers and the extent of the glaciers reach. Glacier movement over bed rock leaves a distinctive scouring mark on the rock that lets us know a glacier was once there. Rocks tell us a lot.

Rocks can tell us the changes in a rivers course, when a volcanic eruptions happened, when and where a continental plate moved, they give a picture of the interior of the earth, where to find the metals and oil, the foundation of skyscrapers and so much more.

 

[CoreyD]

The rocks tell a story. When we have a pile of rocks lined up in a long multi-mile line called "moraines", whose original location is hundred of miles from where they are now piled up, that's a pretty good indication where the edge of a Ice Age glacier was at one time. With tools like Surface exposure dating of the moraine rocks we can know when those rocks were deposited by the glaciers and the extent of the glaciers reach. Glacier movement over bed rock leaves a distinctive scouring mark on the rock that lets us know a glacier was once there. Rocks tell us a lot.

Rocks can tell us the changes in a rivers course, when a volcanic eruptions happened, when and where a continental plate moved, they give a picture of the interior of the earth, where to find the metals and oil, the foundation of skyscrapers and so much more.

Can glacier move rocks thousands of feet higher than the glacier?
Since this is impossible, the story told is a lie, a fairy tale, and I know of no rocks that do this.
Therefore, the rocks are not the ones telling the story. Rocks do not have a double tongue like humans do.

The interpretations are what you are listening to.
Not rocks.

Hello.

 

[dlamberth]

Can glacier move rocks thousands of feet higher than the glacier?
Since this is impossible, the story told is a lie, a fairy tale, and I know of no rocks that do this.
Therefore, the rocks are not the ones telling the story. Rocks do not have a double tongue like humans do.

The interpretations are what you are listening to.
Not rocks.

Hello.

Nope. "IF" that were to happen, the the study of how that rock got there would be interesting. Where it came from, how long it's been there, did it really happen? Rock could tell the story. Edited later to add: Right now with no information on said rock, I take it as hearsay.

I'm not sure what your questioning. The geology of Ice Age glaciers are well understood as are the dating of the Ice Age Floods. So what's the problem?

Regardless, glacier moraines tell a fascinating story which is what we're talking about.

 

[CoreyD]

Nope. "IF" that were to happen, the the study of how that rock got there would be interesting. Where it came from, how long it's been there, did it really happen? Rock could tell the story. Edited later to add: Right now with no information on said rock, I take it as hearsay.

I'm not sure what your questioning. The geology of Ice Age glaciers are well understood as are the dating of the Ice Age Floods. So what's the problem?

Regardless, glacier moraines tell a fascinating story which is what we're talking about.

We are talking about the flood of Noah's day.
Your saying the rocks tell a different story does not mean it does.

It simply means that some favor believing the story others tell.
During the 18th century, erratics were deemed a major geological paradox. Geologists identify erratics by studying the rocks surrounding the position of the erratic and the rock of the erratic itself. Erratics were once considered evidence of a biblical flood, but in the 19th century scientists gradually came to accept that erratics pointed to an ice age in Earth's past. Among others, the Swiss politician, jurist and theologian Bernhard Friedrich Kuhn saw glaciers as a possible solution as early as 1788. However, the idea of ice ages and glaciation as a geological force took a while to be accepted. Ignaz Venetz (1788–1859), a Swiss engineer, naturalist and glaciologist was one of the first scientists to recognize glaciers as a major force in shaping the earth.

In the 19th century, many scientists came to favor erratics as evidence for the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (ice age) 10,000 years ago, rather than a flood. Geologists have suggested that landslides or rockfalls initially dropped the rocks on top of glacial ice. The glaciers continued to move, carrying the rocks with them. When the ice melted, the erratics were left in their present locations.

It's in effect saying, "We don't favor what "the rocks tell us", so we'll go with the alternative story."
Similar to what it is claimed Creationists do, when they attribute creation of living things to God, rather than the theory of evolution.

I'll see if I can find the information on those rocks for you.
It's just that archive.com has been having issues, and I am not able to log in.

 

[dlamberth]

We are talking about the flood of Noah's day.
Your saying the rocks tell a different story does not mean it does.

There is nothing, not in the rocks, there's no silt, not in the earth itself, nothing tells a story of a Noah's Global Flood. Its' that simple.

It simply means that some favor believing the story others tell.
During the 18th century, erratics were deemed a major geological paradox. Geologists identify erratics by studying the rocks surrounding the position of the erratic and the rock of the erratic itself. Erratics were once considered evidence of a biblical flood, but in the 19th century scientists gradually came to accept that erratics pointed to an ice age in Earth's past. Among others, the Swiss politician, jurist and theologian Bernhard Friedrich Kuhn saw glaciers as a possible solution as early as 1788. However, the idea of ice ages and glaciation as a geological force took a while to be accepted. Ignaz Venetz (1788–1859), a Swiss engineer, naturalist and glaciologist was one of the first scientists to recognize glaciers as a major force in shaping the earth.

In the 19th century, many scientists came to favor erratics as evidence for the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (ice age) 10,000 years ago, rather than a flood. Geologists have suggested that landslides or rockfalls initially dropped the rocks on top of glacial ice. The glaciers continued to move, carrying the rocks with them. When the ice melted, the erratics were left in their present locations.

It's in effect saying, "We don't favor what "the rocks tell us", so we'll go with the alternative story."
Similar to what it is claimed Creationists do, when they attribute creation of living things to God, rather than the theory of evolution.

Geology has matured a lot since those days.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Can glacier move rocks thousands of feet higher than the glacier?
Since this is impossible, the story told is a lie, a fairy tale, and I know of no rocks that do this.
Therefore, the rocks are not the ones telling the story. Rocks do not have a double tongue like humans do.

The interpretations are what you are listening to.
Not rocks.

Hello.

Where are these glacial landscapes where glacial erratics are found thousands of feet above the glacier. The ice sheets from the last glacial maximum were themselves thousands of feet thick. The landscape of most of these places are today below the top of the ice sheets.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Convinced me of what? That the Earth is old?

No - you were the only one who brought up the age of the Earth. Which is not the topic.

I was on topic when I asked you "what led you to conclude that the rocks have claimed that there was no global Flood event."?

It was just one of the facts in the books I read, lessons I was taught, and TV shows I watched as a child. There was no "bit" or "a ha" moment. It was just the facts, jack.

You claim that you were convinced of this "fact" - yet you are unable to point to any specific example from any of these supposed sources as to why you believe it?

You also willingly admit that you never had an "aha moment" - meaning that you never had any moment of insight or discovery in relation to this topic. It didn't "click"?

You are unable to recall what "fact" led you to this belief - you admit that none of these sources actually convinced you - you just absorbed the information presented and eventually just accepted it as "fact" without actually knowing about it or having it proven to you.

Perhaps some people remain unconvinced is because they don't have as much faith in these sources as you do?

No consideration of any "young Earth" alternative ever came into it. It was such that when I learned of "young Earth" people (like with creationists) I was a bit astonished that anyone believed such a thing. It was far more disturbing in adulthood to learn that a large fraction of people believed such things contrary to evidence.

"Evidence" that you are unable to present or recall or even allude to.

I understand that it might be difficult to come to the realization that people can come from different backgrounds than you.

It may be hard to reconcile the fact that people have come to different conclusions than you have on various topics.

I can also understand how that fear of those different than you can cause you to immediately reject their alternative ideas - without ever considering or even knowing them.

However - just so you know - the age of the Earth was still never the topic. I never made any claim to the age of the Earth.

It's not "a fact", but a long collection of data and analyses.

You claimed that it was a fact.

After I asked you to share what led you to conclude that the rocks claimed that there was no global Flood event, you said (in Post #94),

"Awareness of basic geological history. It isn't exactly hiding. It takes effort to reject established scientific fact." (Bold and italics added)

Not only did you claim that it was a "fact" - but you will notice that you still were unable to share what led you to that conclusion.

The more "detail" I present, the more details you are likely to reject.

As I said in Post #93 - no one is asking you to present all these details.

All that was asked of you was to share what led you to believe what you do.

There are geology people here on this site and if they want to get into you about geology and how it shows the Earth is old and never flooded completely, I would welcome it.

It is an actual scientific fact that the entire Earth was under water at some point.

What people are debating is when that took place, how it happened, for how long, etc.

It is incontrovertible that the entire Earth was under water at some point. There is no getting around that.

And again - the age of the Earth was never the topic. I don't know why you want it to be the topic.

I will stick to the things I know well enough to argue clearly even with the fact resistant.

Oh! Is this why you keep trying to turn this conversation about what the rocks claim about the global Flood event into a conversation about the age of the Earth?

You know more about that topic - so you keep trying to pivot to it? And right after you made a claim about the rocks in relation to the global Flood event that you cannot substantiate?

You trying to save face makes sense - reminds me of Joey on Friends - when he was sick of looking ignorant in front of everyone - but all he had was the Encyclopedia for "V" words - so he kept trying to steer conversation to things like Volcanoes and the Vietnam War - but they all started talking about the Korean War instead.

The camera zooms in on Joey nodding away sadly - obviously not knowing what anyone was talking about - and we all felt bad for him.

A common belief, not knowledge.

All you have shared is your own belief - cobbled together by unspecified books, lessons and TV shows - which never gave you an "aha moment" - but you just accepted as "fact" without really considering it and you still not knowing anything about it.

Not history "of rocks" but history "in rocks". The history of the Earth that the rocks *tell*.

Semantics is a losing mansion.

One of those complex stories is that there was never an epoch of rapid global flooding.

Really? Which unspecified book, lesson or TV show did you obtain this "fact" from? You know that "fact" that you could never share or provide a source for?

Another is that some are very, very old. (Most are quite old by human civilization standards as few rocks are less than 100,000 years and most of those are from volcanoes.)

Aw Joey. *Camera zooms in* So sad.

For starters, please don't tell me what my wants or cares or motivations are directly to me. (Or do that to anyone.)

Sure - when you start being honest.

You also assume I don't know the biblical narrative of "the flood" as if it wasn't just two pages of text and a story I'd heard or read dozens of times. Nothing about knowing it makes me think it was true, quite the opposite.

You claimed that the Bible supported the idea that it rained everywhere on the planet all at once.

You used that erroneous claim as a reason to reject the Biblical narrative.

I neither want nor desire nor need to "discredit the bible". It doesn't mean enough to me to want to discredit it. The topic is the story of Noah and his flood.

This is very surprising for you to say considering that you have attempted to make the age of the Earth the topic at every turn, Joey.

That story does not match geologic history and that it doesn't match what happened does not need to discredit the bible.

On what do you base this conclusion?

Most people who claim that "the flood" is demonstrated by the rocks also claim the rocks are much younger than they are.

I will again remind you that I never claimed that the global Flood event could be demonstrated or "proven" - and I explained at length why that was so.

I also never made any claim about the age of the Earth.

The age of the Earth is a much simpler fact told by the rocks and one I could actually discuss with reasonable knowledge.

Or Volcanoes? Or the Vietnam War? *Camera zooms in* Poor Joey.

My disagreements with the bible have nothing to do with the Noah story. I never took that one seriously anyway. Both my objections and me are not the topic anyway.

You have yet to say much about Noah's story save false claims about it and that you disagree with it based on unspecified "facts" that you are unable to divulge.

And you still have yet to answer my question - you made a claim about my interpretation of religious text that made no sense to me.

Yet - when I asked you to clarify you gave me an emoji rolling its eyes - which I don't think belongs anywhere let alone here.

You are not offering anything or adding anything. You make claims then act like people are wrong or crazy for disagreeing or for asking questions.

Sigh. I thought this was because when you went to HS there was just one lone lighter object that far out in the disk of the Solar system, but then I checked your bio and see that by the time you graduated from HS there would have been several known. Knowing that there are other similar objects doesn't change the orbit of Pluto or what it is made of or how it formed. All it changes is what bin it gets put in when looking for comparison objects. Having "friends" in the large Kuiper belt objects makes it easier to understand the dwarf planet Pluto than when it was just a lone weirdo at the edge of the gas giants.

Completely irrelevant to my point and you know it.

The point being that "basic knowledge" or things learned in High School have been known to change.

Any claim about what is or is not "basic knowledge" cannot be used to excuse your inability to share what led you to your conclusions about the global Flood event.

Native Americans got to North America from Siberia to Alaska whether they traveled south after that by boat or on land. This hasn't fundamentally changed.

No one is claiming that ancient peoples did not travel by that method - only that it was not the only method of travel.

The Siberian Land Bridge Only theory has always been contested and there are many who speak out against it who claim to have evidence supporting their claims.

You should know that this comes off as a public declaration of a poor understanding of science and how it works. The age of the Earth was worked out in the mid-20th century and hasn't changed since it was worked out. The non-existence of a global flood (particularly when humans were around) has been recognized for about 200 years and hasn't changed.

Yeah - and Pluto was a planet for over seventy years. What Man discovers or claims to be true is not necessarily true.

I already did. Basic learning as a child. The time when all of us should have learned the age of the Earth and related basic facts.

Sorry Joey - but we were never talking about the age of the Earth.

All of this has been an attempt at divert from the fact that you cannot back up the initial claim that you made.

Your attempted ad hominem and claims about the age of the Earth - all of it - a distraction.

It's fine. You don't know why you believe it - you just do. You have faith in those unspecified books, lessons and TV shows. And that's fine.

God bless.

 

[CoreyD]

There is nothing, not in the rocks, there's no silt, not in the earth itself, nothing tells a story of a Noah's Global Flood. Its' that simple.

Is it okay I remind you that you agreed it is a matter of 1) interpretation; 2) perspective; 3) understanding.
So, since others have a different interpretation, then there are different perspectives, so it's not as simple as your claim being true.

Did you know that scientists debated theories, and they are still doing the same today?
Why is that? Is it not because while they are looking at the same evidence, they have different interpretations, and the perspectives are different?
Does that make any of those scientists more of a "real" scientist, than the other? It doesn't, does it.

Because others see the evidence, which others do not see, doesn't mean there isn't any.
Many debates are not solved.

Geology has matured a lot since those days.

Sciences have matured, yet many people don't accept the stories scientists tell them.
For example, the giant-impact hypothesis is up against so many other explanation, and that is not the only one.

Ideas may stand for some time, as has been the case with many theories, but whether in a decade, or fifteen decade, they are not too infallible to crumble, and be replaced.
That is how science works.

 

[CoreyD]

Where are these glacial landscapes where glacial erratics are found thousands of feet above the glacier.

When, or if I get that information, I will get back to you.

The ice sheets from the last glacial maximum were themselves thousands of feet thick. The landscape of most of these places are today below the top of the ice sheets.

That may be true, but I don't have the details to discuss this.

 

[dlamberth]

Is it okay I remind you that you agreed it is a matter of 1) interpretation; 2) perspective; 3) understanding.
So, since others have a different interpretation, then there are different perspectives, so it's not as simple as your claim being true.

OK. Let's start with the silt. Where's the silt from a supposed Global Flood? All of the mud and muck stirred up by the violence of rushing water would have settled creating a think layer of silt. We should see a world wide layer from an event like that. Where is it? It's either there or it's not. It would be clear as day for all to see if it actually existed. Even more so from a global flood event that supposedly happened only 4000 years ago. We need something, anything, to interpret before we can to any further. Show me the silt from your Global Flood.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No - you were the only one who brought up the age of the Earth. Which is not the topic.

I was on topic when I asked you "what led you to conclude that the rocks have claimed that there was no global Flood event."?

You claim that you were convinced of this "fact" - yet you are unable to point to any specific example from any of these supposed sources as to why you believe it?

You also willingly admit that you never had an "aha moment" - meaning that you never had any moment of insight or discovery in relation to this topic. It didn't "click"?

You are unable to recall what "fact" led you to this belief - you admit that none of these sources actually convinced you - you just absorbed the information presented and eventually just accepted it as "fact" without actually knowing about it or having it proven to you.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? The idea of a global flood in the age of humans is not a serious idea. It is not supported by evidence and no child should ever be taught it. I don't recall the first time I found out some people believed such things, but I'm sure it was baffling. Like most children I learned about the actual history of the Earth, not some tale about a flood killing everyone.

Perhaps some people remain unconvinced is because they don't have as much faith in these sources as you do?

I have no use for faith.

"Evidence" that you are unable to present or recall or even allude to.

I certainly alluded to it. Demonstrating something *didn't* happen requires a lot of data, and yet the early geologists pulled it off about 200 years ago. The problem for what you want from me (a non-geologist) is that the only kind of books that you are going to find that directly challenge the notion of a global flood are those intended to debunk the specific religous position you hold, and you might find such a text to be an attack on your beliefs. The other things would be standard geology texts which cover the full geological history of the Earth and will just not mention what didn't happen.

I understand that it might be difficult to come to the realization that people can come from different backgrounds than you.

It may be hard to reconcile the fact that people have come to different conclusions than you have on various topics.

I can also understand how that fear of those different than you can cause you to immediately reject their alternative ideas - without ever considering or even knowing them.

It isn't about fear. It isn't even about pity. I no longer have pity for those who reject facts.

However - just so you know - the age of the Earth was still never the topic. I never made any claim to the age of the Earth.

You claimed that it was a fact.

Check the context of the old post it was about "a fact".

After I asked you to share what led you to conclude that the rocks claimed that there was no global Flood event, you said (in Post #94),

"Awareness of basic geological history. It isn't exactly hiding. It takes effort to reject established scientific fact." (Bold and italics added)

Not only did you claim that it was a "fact" - but you will notice that you still were unable to share what led you to that conclusion.

As I said in Post #93 - no one is asking you to present all these details.

All that was asked of you was to share what led you to believe what you do.

It is an actual scientific fact that the entire Earth was under water at some point.

What people are debating is when that took place, how it happened, for how long, etc.

It is incontrovertible that the entire Earth was under water at some point. There is no getting around that.

And again - the age of the Earth was never the topic. I don't know why you want it to be the topic.

Oh! Is this why you keep trying to turn this conversation about what the rocks claim about the global Flood event into a conversation about the age of the Earth?

You know more about that topic - so you keep trying to pivot to it? And right after you made a claim about the rocks in relation to the global Flood event that you cannot substantiate?

You trying to save face makes sense - reminds me of Joey on Friends - when he was sick of looking ignorant in front of everyone - but all he had was the Encyclopedia for "V" words - so he kept trying to steer conversation to things like Volcanoes and the Vietnam War - but they all started talking about the Korean War instead.

The camera zooms in on Joey nodding away sadly - obviously not knowing what anyone was talking about - and we all felt bad for him.

All you have shared is your own belief - cobbled together by unspecified books, lessons and TV shows - which never gave you an "aha moment" - but you just accepted as "fact" without really considering it and you still not knowing anything about it.

Semantics is a losing mansion.

Really? Which unspecified book, lesson or TV show did you obtain this "fact" from? You know that "fact" that you could never share or provide a source for?

Aw Joey. *Camera zooms in* So sad.

Sure - when you start being honest.

You claimed that the Bible supported the idea that it rained everywhere on the planet all at once.

You used that erroneous claim as a reason to reject the Biblical narrative.

This is very surprising for you to say considering that you have attempted to make the age of the Earth the topic at every turn, Joey.

On what do you base this conclusion?

I will again remind you that I never claimed that the global Flood event could be demonstrated or "proven" - and I explained at length why that was so.

I also never made any claim about the age of the Earth.

Or Volcanoes? Or the Vietnam War? *Camera zooms in* Poor Joey.

You have yet to say much about Noah's story save false claims about it and that you disagree with it based on unspecified "facts" that you are unable to divulge.

And you still have yet to answer my question - you made a claim about my interpretation of religious text that made no sense to me.

Yet - when I asked you to clarify you gave me an emoji rolling its eyes - which I don't think belongs anywhere let alone here.

You are not offering anything or adding anything. You make claims then act like people are wrong or crazy for disagreeing or for asking questions.

Completely irrelevant to my point and you know it.

The point being that "basic knowledge" or things learned in High School have been known to change.

Any claim about what is or is not "basic knowledge" cannot be used to excuse your inability to share what led you to your conclusions about the global Flood event.

No one is claiming that ancient peoples did not travel by that method - only that it was not the only method of travel.

The Siberian Land Bridge Only theory has always been contested and there are many who speak out against it who claim to have evidence supporting their claims.

Yeah - and Pluto was a planet for over seventy years. What Man discovers or claims to be true is not necessarily true.

Sorry Joey - but we were never talking about the age of the Earth.

I have no idea what this ramble was about. I got bored and stopped reading.

All of this has been an attempt at divert from the fact that you cannot back up the initial claim that you made.

Your attempted ad hominem and claims about the age of the Earth - all of it - a distraction.

Distraction from the non-existent flood?

It's fine. You don't know why you believe it - you just do. You have faith in those unspecified books, lessons and TV shows. And that's fine.

God bless.

Faith is useless to me.

 

[dlamberth]

It is an actual scientific fact that the entire Earth was under water at some point.

Source please

What people are debating is when that took place, how it happened, for how long, etc.

Source please

It is incontrovertible that the entire Earth was under water at some point. There is no getting around that.

Source please
There's been some speculation of a snowball earth...maybe. But that's it.

 

[Gene2memE]

Source please

Source please

Source please
There's been some speculation of a snowball earth...maybe. But that's it.

They're right, it's just that humans are separated from the last 'waterworld earth' by at least 3 billion years.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

 

[Hans Blaster]

They're right, it's just that humans are separated from the last 'waterworld earth' by at least 3 billion years.

Science | AAAS

www.science.org

3 thousand years, 3 billion years, what's the big deal about 6 zeros when we are trying to deal with facts...