Why was a flood needed?

well wont respond to everything as i feel like i'm going in circles.'for the question of where all the water for this flood came from and where it went,'well this amazes me,people dont have a problem with water on mars but they fail to see where the water comes from on Earth, listen there is a hell of a lot of water on earth 'and the water of the deep was broken up' this is roughly what the scripture says, personally i think fountains of water burst from way below,as 'broken up' would indicate, i dont think this would have been a major problem for the Creator.'And many, many fossils have been "eaten away",'but the majority?'How can you feel justified in discarding something you do not even remotely understand? 'nice try ,who says your the expert? if your not the expert ,as i am not then i assume you listen to those who know about it , which is what i do.'Mike, you're taking an over-simplified view'well i'm a simple chap,besides i enjoy simplicity ,usually the simplest explanation is the correct one.lol'And this brings us to another point. The vast majority of fossils are marine - sea life'and the ones that are not?'Surely with the Biblical flood it is the land animals that are supposed to have died 'well it doesn't say so thats your assumption.

'Students are still taught fossils are produced by slowly being buried with sediment and therefore the earth is very old, because rocks represent such a long period of time. But this is simply false. In order for animals to be preserved so remarkably in rocks throughout the world they had to be buried rapidly. Therefore the rocks don’t represent millions of years after all. '4066-‘APP and no 'this is crap' this guy is clever , and the real deal!

Mike,I would appreciate a response to this post, #63, before you quit. In reply to your last post: This topic has absolutely nothing to do with water on Mars. It has to do with the amount of water on Earth. I have no problem understanding the water table, what I fail to understand is how this is suppose to rise up and cover the mountaintops and level off to cover the entire earth. Or are you one of the proponents of "the mountains were not as we have them now but were created by the flood and/or after it"? If so, please cite your reasoning.I am glad to see that you do not list the "canopy" argument, as this would create even more problems for you to address.Thank you------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

(boy my fingers are numb lol)'Or are you one of the proponents of "the mountains were not as we have them now but were created by the flood and/or after it"? If so, please cite your reasoning. 'well the bible says the land was gathered into one place , this indicates a super continent . even if the land was lowered ever so slightly it could cover the earth, because of the vast amounts of water.as for Darwin , i simply meant that he knew there were problems and admitted them,evos should be as honest.

as for the water canopy , there is a reference in genesis that says the water in the firmament , i suppose this could have meant a canopy , personally i am undecided on that.

That's because the water is still on Mars, in the form of ice, at the poles. We can totally see it. We can make very good guesses about how much is there, and what it would do if it all melted. yes, but not nearly enough to have covered all the mountains and stuff, nor enough to have suspended all the sediment represented by the geologic column, all at once.Look, when you're talking about a worldwide flood that deposited all the geologic sediment we observe, you're talking about a minimum volume of water. That volume just doesn't exist on this planet. So, if it was here, where did it go?

'Look, when you're talking about a worldwide flood that deposited all the geologic sediment we observe, you're talking about a minimum volume of water. That volume just doesn't exist on this planet. So, if it was here, where did it go? 'didn't it say God raised up the land.even if you lower the land slightly you would get a hell of a covering.

message 77 Crash,i know you enjoy facts ,please read the evidence from this sight. he's an honest aussy chap who only dishes facts.

quote:

---

4066-‘APP and no 'this is crap' this guy is clever , and the real deal!

---

The First one I checked out was the earth is slowing too much leap second argument.As Nasa Physicist Tim Thompson points out it is directly false
http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html

quote:

---

Response:
As explained on the Leapsecond page of the National Earth Orientation Service, the true spindown rate of the earth is 1.5 to 2 milliseconds per day per century. That means that after 100 years, the length of day has systematically increased (on average) 0.0015 to 0.002 seconds. This is also found, for instance, in Kurt Lambecks's book "The Earth's Variable Rotation" (Cambridge University Press, 1980; currently out of print), page 3. This is a long-term secular variation. As Lambeck and numerous others point out, there are variations on the length of day that range from daily to seasonal in scale, so that the true length of day can vary greatly from day to day, over multi-year time scales.

​

The author of this argument has failed to realize that one second as defind by the rotation of the earth is slightly longer than one second as defined by atomic clocks. So the earth-rotation time scale runs about 2 milliseconds per day behind the atomic clock scale (because the two use seconds that are not the same length). The leap second is a convenient device for keeping the two timescales always within 0.9 seconds of each other. It is not a result of the earth slowing down by one second per year.

---

His other arguments are from the PRATT list as well. PRATT stands for Points Refuted A Thousand Times in case you don't know. Your real deal guy is real full of it as expected. I am sure that we can show you how false they are given a little time but I doubt you pay any attention.Randy

When the first part of his website contains miscomprehensions like this:

quote:

---

Evolution is a theory, and is not part of science, or what we can observe.

---

And proceeds to opine thusly:

quote:

---

Evolution is actually a dangerous belief. It is a religion that offers no hope. If you believe in evolution, then there is no life after death. There is no purpose to living.

---

Then any credibility he might have had, in terms of presenting objective evidence in a scientific way, is totally lost.He even cites Hovind as one of his sources. That's the equivalent of me citing people like Fleichman and Pons (the cold fusion guys) in support of my position and then expecting to be taken seriously.If he was serious about science he'd stay away from Hovind. Most creationists won't even touch him. (Look at Answers in Genesis .) Honestly, Mike, as I look around that page I don't find anything I haven't seen refuted here a hundred times. He doesn't even cite primary sources for most of his data; he just quotes out of other creationist books.As far as I can tell, he's not dishing facts - he's dishing misinformation right out of creationist literature.

I think that it is me who is the 'prophet just like Moses' !Check my prophecy at post 20: LOL, now you guys can borrow my wall.Oh and just in case you think I am not a prophet like Moses, from the same post: I rest my case.Two out of two prophecies correct, thats two more than Jesus managed!Brian.

Oh Great Brian,I bow down in humble suplication and ask..."Can you predict if I will win the lottery this week?" ------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

The chances of you winning the Lottery this week are about the same as Jesus finally starting his comeback tour!Sorry to disappoint but I can only say what I see

Oh Great Brian, ------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

After consulting all available references pertaining to the relevent philosophical musings of Galileo, Fisher, Newton, Aristotle, Mayr, Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, Pascal, Lewontin, Russell, Quine, God, Futuyma, Wright, Gish, Parker, Bliss, Provine, Plato, Derrida, Galton, Wolfram, Croizat, Caesar, Levin, Edelman, Mendel, Hegel, Heidegger, Husserl, Kant, Cantor, Chomsky, Dyson, Eigen, Feynman, Boscovich, Pauling, Crick, Fox, Maxwell, Einstein, and of course Zippy the Pinhead, I've concluded that you're all idiots.Cheers,
Adminnemooseus http://zippythepinhead.com/indexns.htm------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-11-2003]