Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

Of course it's testable.Remember when we were kids? We'd put a couple of handfuls of dirt into a jar, fill it with water and shake it up. The layers would separate: pebbles on the bottom, then sand, then clay, etc. The heavier materials were on the botton - we understood that when we were eight years old.But that is not what we see in the strata. We sometimes see sandstone on top of limestone, for example. That is not possible in a single event, as our backyard experiment proved.Half a century ago, in our own back yards, we tested your hypothesis and falsified it.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-03-07 11:43 AM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

To be fair, I read it the same way Faith does - that the water rose 15 cubits, i.e. the total depth of water was 15 cubits.I live at the bottom of an ancient lake (now dried up for our convenience) and it is very flat. Fifteen cubits of water would cover everything as far as the eye could see, barring human constructions. (Tower of Babel, anyone? )It could easily be miscontrued as a "worldwide" flood.Of course, the idea of mountains rising after the flood is utterly unscriptural.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Coulda shoulda woulda.Just don't pretend you're getting it from the Bible. You're making it all up.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Reason enough to suspect their accuracy.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC