|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The TRVE history of the Flood... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
That doesn't answer the question. Why is your scenario different from what we observe every day?
Here's how I answered Tanypteryx about the tracks in Message 676
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Well, the flood building up tide by tide makes no sense in the first palce - but even if it did, why wouldn't there be waves? Wherever you have water and wind, you're going to have waves.
Faith writes:
How would the land "dry some" every twelve hours when it was raining the whole time?
... leaving the land damp with twelve hours to sit and dry some.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The problem is that it ISN"T reasonable. We've all SEEN floods and that isn't how they work. there's no other reasonable interpretation of all that layered sediment with fossils in it than the Flood. In a local flood, the water comes down from higher ground bringing silt with it. The water can keep rising even after the rain stops. But if the whole earth was covered with water, the water couldn't keep rising after the rain stopped. And of course you'd still need a special mechanism to get rid of the water.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
On the contrary, making up a bunch of nonsense that contradicts reality is ridiculous. You need to explain WHY it would be different from the reality of real floods.
Comparing a local flood to a worldwide flood is ridiculous. Faith writes:
The windows of heaven are rain.
The rain was not the only source of the Flood water: the "windows of heaven" and the "fountains of the deep" were the main source, neither of which had been opened before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You have never answered anything to anybody's satisfaction but your own. I'll answer what I can when I can but be advised all of it has been answered before many times. You should be looking at the questions and trying to answer them honestly instead of just trying to shoehorn your answers into your existing ad hoc framework. For starters, demonstrate WHY the Flood would behave differently from a real flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Of course that's impossible. The water cycle requires evaporation in one area to produce rain in another. If it rained for forty days an forty nights over the whole earth, all of that water had to be up there beforehand, which is also impossible.
Forty days and nights of rain all over the earth... Faith writes:
So there must have been whales on the Ark. ...and even marine life would die because of all the sediment in the water. The problem with your ad hoc approach is that every "answer" produces so many more questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
I'm not arguing with God. I'm arguing with what YOU claim God said.
You don't get to say what is impossible and argue with God. Sorry. Faith writes:
Nope. This is a science forum. Reality is where we start.
The Bible is where we start, we don't argue it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
That's the opposite of science. You have a hypothesis and you should be trying to see if the observed facts fit your hypothesis, not twisting the facts to fit your hypothesis.
Nooooo, we assume the Flood and try to prove it from the observed facts. Faith writes:
I'm not arguing against the Bible's veracity. I'm arguing against yours. We are not here to argue for the Bible's veracity. I've pointed out many times where your scenario doesn't fit the Bible any better than it fits the observe4d facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Mosse writes:
Since Faith claims that practically all sediments, worldwide, were laid down by the flood, I don't see how that is possible. If there were stretches of ocean with water clear enough for whales, etc. to survive, how would there be layers of sediment below them? Wouldn't you have vast areas of the earth's surface with virtually no geological column?
Actually, I would think that there would be very substantial areas of the ocean that would be isolated enough from this sediment problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
But of course there IS a geological column under the oceans, as Admin has pointed out. There ARE layers of sediment under the oceans - which should not be there if there was no sediment in the water.
Well there are places with no geological column, but you do seem to be forgetting the oceans, where there is also no geological column. Faith writes:
No I was not. I was pointing out that the idea of clear water in the oceans doesn't work.
OK fine but ringo was talking about whales swimming over the land as if he'd forgotten there was an ocean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Why are strata full of dead things not evidence for a lot of small floods?
The strata full of dead things are IN-YOUR-FACE EVIDENCE both for a worldwide Flood....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
But "willy-nilly" would suggest a big flood - lots of dead animals in lots of water with no mechanism to sort them out. What we see is reality is a neatness that has the appearance of happening in small steps. Beecuzz they are buried usually in families within very thick flat sedimentary rocks stacked very very neatly and very deep under ideal conditions for fossilization, and not buried willy nilly. So try again: Why does the evidence suggest one big flood instead of a lot of little ones?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Whales breathe air.
The air breathing critters and the flying critters were doomed to die unless they were in the ark. Maybe I am missing something here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Davidjay writes:
No it doesn't. The sun, moon and stars were visible.
The biblical record states that there was a layer of water (or vapor) above the Earths surface in Genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Davidjay writes:
That isn't even part of the story of the flood. Genesis specifies that God sent the Flood because of man:
To understand why the worldwide flood came you have to study the cross breeding of the fallen angels that produced literal GIANTS.quote:It doesn't even mention destroying any giants or fallen angels.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024