Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

quote:

---

What's the big rush to end this?? Many threads go on for months. This's only been going for two or three weeks. If it slows down, so be it, but I'm not throwing in my towel unless I can be fairly and soundly refuted and that just hasn't happened though some want to make it look that way. Are you getting nervous about links I'm putting on supporting my argument? There's more out there too and I need some time to dig them up.

---

Nervous? I think not. Dont' delude yourself into thinking I feel threatened somehow by your assertations, which have not been supported by the links you provided and have already been refuted by solid physics. I point you to Coragyps' calculations, which show that your 'canopy' idea does not work - could you possibly show some that do? No - because there are none that stand up to serious scrutiny.You have been fairly and soundly refuted in your scientific assumptions. You just haven't been listening, and you continue to repeat the same tired mantras - and I am getting tired of watching all the members here constantly posting the same proof against them.If you are not willing to learn or admit you are wrong then you are wasting our time.The Rock Hound------------------
"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."

quote:

---

OK, buz. We'll only evaporate 0.1% of the oceans for your future event, and for Noah as well - even if that makes for a piss-poor pitiful little flood - maybe not even "worldwide". That'll only require a minimum temperature of 150 degrees F, at 100% humidity. That's even hotter than downtown Houston in August, and I don't think I would call it "survivable." Houston sure isn't.

---

Suppose you have a phemonena of no wind blowing on the earth for an undesignated period of time. This is prophesied in Revelation 7:1

quote:

---

I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

---

The four corners of the earth in scripture refers to the four directions or in this case likely what is known as the four winds.This phenomena would even out the global temps so as to not allow for cold fronts to condense the vapor. So as happens often locally even at todays climate, there would not be the cold to condense the clouds. Yes, the average temps would be hotter but not hot enough to kill life. This would also disperse the vapor evenly globally to form the canopy. The atmosphere could hold much more water as it would be evenly dispersed.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-11-2003]

quote:

---

If you are not willing to learn or admit you are wrong then you are wasting our time.

---

Nobody's hog tying you to this thread, so as to waste your time, if that's the way you feel. Glad you're aboard, but please don't feel compelled to be here.

quote:

---

Do you or do you not want to argue this on a basis of the science? Do you want to instead use miracles? Fairly straight forward questions. You've avoided answering them for several posts now.

---

1. This is a Biblical forum where the supernatural is implied and a thread where at the onset I included the supernatural factor.
2. This thread is also about science.
3. It is on this basis that the thread is being discussed.

quote:

---

This would also disperse the vapor evenly globally to form the canopy. The atmosphere could hold much more water as it would be evenly dispersed.

---

You're not reading very well. The math presented assumes 100% humidity throughout the atmosphere, which is as even a dispersal as you can get, unless you think you can get over 100 in some spots. Besides, to get an actual "canopy" with a clear boundary, you'd have to have uneven dispersal, with lower humidity below the canopy and higher (100%, I suppose?) within it. That just further reduces the ability of the atmosphere to support so much water without becoming unlivably hot.FYI, "phenomena" is the plural form of "phenomenon."

quote:

---

1. This is a Biblical forum where the supernatural is implied and a thread where at the onset I included the supernatural factor.
2. This thread is also about science.
3. It is on this basis that the thread is being discussed.

---

HOLD UP.This forum is about Accuracy and Inerrancy. That means that we are debating whether the events in the Bible took place exactly as described. When you start postulating miracles not described in the Bible, you're outside the boundaries of discussion.

quote:

---

This forum is about Accuracy and Inerrancy. That means that we are debating whether the events in the Bible took place exactly as described.

---

The events in the prophecies I've cited are to be fulfilled in the future, so what are you talking about,"took place??"

quote:

---

When you start postulating miracles not described in the Bible, you're outside the boundaries of discussion.

---

Please cite specifics you're referring to. Imo, the proophecies I've cited support my statements.

Buz,
Just had some questions about this point from your original post:I do as the scientists do who state emphatically exactly how things were hundreds of millions to billions of years ago on the planet and how they think everything existing did itself up into what we presently observe all by itselfy. I use the data my sources posted on this thread provide and build my theory on these factors.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-11-2003]

quote:

---

The Amos prophecy predicts the rebirth of Israel, Buzz. It's already happened. Since the other parts of the prophecy about one growing season passing immediately into the next have not happened, the prophecy is wrong.

---

Yes Israel is back in their land as prophesied, but the following in this chapter of Amos have yet to be fulfilled.1. Amos 9:11 says the temple must be rebuilt. Not happened yet.
2. Amos 9:12 They shall possess the land of Edom (Now Jordan I believe) Not happened yet.
3. Amos 9:13 Plowmen shall plow for new crop as soon as old crop is reaped. Not yet happened in recorded history.
4. Amos 9:13 Grapes grown in mountains and hills shall melt. (fall according to other prophecies) Not Yet happened.
5. According to the earlier verses in this chapter, before the above Israels enemies shall all be obliterated. Not yet happened.

quote:

---

Evolution is considered fact because of the millions and millions of pieces of evidence from diverse fields of science which support the theory.

---

This you've repeated rather repeadedly. I repeat, we creationists consider all these millions of data to support the flood and Genesis record. It's all in how you interpret what is observed.

quote:

---

Except that Christian Creationist Geologists rejected the notion of a worldwide Noachic flood 180 years ago, as I explained to you, and that you have ignored.

---

180 years ago, how many Christian geologists were around, and how much less data available than now. The more data that comes up, the greater grows the number of Biblical geologists who are claiming the flood to be fact. Some of these originally set out to prove the Bible erroneous.

No, all the (well most all) the geologists were Christian and accepted the flood. They found evidence which demonstrated that the flood COULD NOT have happened. The evidence they had is enough, it hasn't gone away.All additional evidence has either not been pertenant to the flood or has added to the disproof.If you think there has been any new data that actuall supports the flood AND NOT regular geology please put that data forward AND explain how it accomplishes what you want.

Buz,
You mentioned the sea shells on mountain tops several times. I can't remember whether this issue has been brought up before but I will now (or again).Buz, if the shells were put there by a global flood over only 1 year just 6,000 years ago what would you expect to see when you looked at the shells?Tell me if you think this is correct.It all happened over a short period of time AND the waters MUST have been reasonably "stirred up" to be able to life the shells out of the ocean and up the mountains (even if the mountains were lower). In fact it must have been pretty violent as the shells are lifted and carried far from the ocean.Is that correct?The shells found on the mountain tops would be the same ones found lower down because they all came from the same place at the same time. Is that correct?The shells would be a mix of all sorts, many of them shells that are around today. Is that correct?Please demonstrate that you understand your theory better than I do by fleshing the above out with more detail and adding other consequences of your idea of what happened as contrasted to what geolgists think has been happening.

Buz, in response to your reply: 1. I had a hard time understanding what you were trying to say here. Do you believe that this planet existed "hundreds of millions to billions of years ago"? If so, do you think this was when the flood occurred? If not, when?2. I've also checked all of the sources you've posted on this thread (all 16 pages)--none of them answer even one of my questions concerning your conditions as posited in post number 1 of this thread [except perhaps question 5 as indicated above]. I can include all your source linkings, but for the sake of space, I will summarize that they either related to current weather [forest fires] or weather definitions [barometric pressure, etc].3. Here are the questions I have concerning your initial conditions, which I would really appreciate an answer to:a. Can you show me your source for asserting that the atmosphere was thick and high before the flood?
b. Could you tell me approximately how high? or how thick?
c. Can you tell me what the relative smoothness was of the planet earth in that time?
d. Can you show me the basis for claiming that the earth had small oceans and likely about 70% of the planet's surface as continent?
e. Can you also tell me what time, like how many years ago, this was?Thanks,
Geno

quote:

---

I repeat, we creationists consider all these millions of data to support the flood and Genesis record. It's all in how you interpret what is observed.

---

Then you are being intellectually dishonest, because any intelligent, unbiased and honest person who conducts an even fairly cursory study of the available evidence (such as the links I gave you) will conclude, at the very least, that the Creationist explanation is very weak and unlikely indeed. In fact, the Creationist "interpretation" tends to either need supernatural events to make them happen, or they tend to ignore or misrepresent evidence that exists which contradicts their interpretation.Speaking of those links, did you enjoy them? Which ones did you find most compelling or difficult? You must be a really quick reader to have gotten through all of them before you replied....hey, wait. You didn't mention any of the links in your reply. I wonder if you bothered to read any of them at all, Buzsaw.What are you afraid of, Buz? Is your faith so weak that a bit of actual study and learning about science will shake it?At any rate, am I to conclude, since you seem to have no comment or objection to any of the evidence at those links, that you concede that evolution is a fact just as strongly supported as the theory of a heliocentric solar system?You wouldn't be one of those head-in-the-sand Creationists that simply reject evidence without even reading it or considering it, are you?------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."