Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 106 of 432 (645144)
12-23-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by edge
12-23-2011 12:05 PM


Re: Water
Hi edge,
edge writes:
Apparently, your studies should continue.
They will until the day I die and then I will learn what it is to die.
edge writes:
I suggest a college level class or two if you really want to know.
At 72 it is a little late for that. I just need access to real information without having to pay a arm and leg to gain access.
edge writes:
I'm not sure how that is possible. Perhaps you mean you are just 'older'?
I believe the universe has always existed in some form in eternity which has a small portion marked off as time for our benefit as described by God in Genesis 1:5-19.
edge writes:
Yes, but it is not in an accesible form.
Only the water that is below the point in the mantle that is over 815C. From there up it is accesible to the surface.
edge writes:
Probably by accretion. That really doesn't bother me since it is not free water.
You know the water is not accesible because ______________.
Science says there is enough water in the mantle to fill our oceans 7 to 10 times.
From what I understand they include everything but the crust as the place that water exists. Water can exist in a form accesible to the surface anywhere it exists above 815C.
edge writes:
Most of the free water is under hydrostatic load. Virtually all of the bound water is lithostatic since it is in the mantle.
What does lithostatic pressure have to do with the water in the mantle being stored in hydrous minerals?
Why would the water that is above the part of the mantel that reaches 815C be stored in hydrous minerals?
Water would be superheated steam at that temperature.
Diamonds are said to be formed at 90 miles below the surface where the temperature is around 1,050 degrees Celsius.
So all the water above 25 miles from the surface should be available to the surface.
So why wouldn't there be a few ocean fulls of water in that 25 mile area that would be available to be released into the ocean?
edge writes:
Realistically, the pressure on a liquid must be somewhere in between, unless it is artificiall overpressured. Your wellhead pressure 0f 10,000psi is not all that huge in geologic terms, and in a subsiding basin, where sediments are being compacted by the sedimentary load, this is not outlandish nor unexpected.
I was being conservative using 10,000 psi the well I was referring to has 22,000 psi on a 36" pipe head.
Now all that water that is in the mantle that is less than 815C that is heated causes upward pressure due to expansion. All water above 4 degrees Celsius is expanding and the higher the degree the more expanded the water becomes.
If a superheated boiler was to blow its door off it would destroy everything in its path for quite a distance.
edge writes:
No. There is no such thing as 'fountains of the deep' in the sense you use it.
I am looking at the fountains of the deep as any opening in the crust of the Earth that water that is in the crust and lithosphere could escape or be forced into the ocean by the pressure it is under.
edge writes:
First, there is little if any free water in the mantle.
You base that upon what facts?
OR assumption?
edge writes:
Second, it is not connected by a plumbing system to get it to the 'fountains'.
The folks that drill the oil wells believe the acquifer system exists under the ocean in the lithosphere and crust. They drill into water that causes them problems.
edge writes:
Third, there is no mechanism for it to go back into the mantle.
Correction there is no way for it to go back into the crust or lithosphere as the pressure would be too much to overcome without and injection method and the places that the water escaped from in the first place would have to be closed.
But there is a mechanism to get the water into the mantle. It is called subduction.
edge writes:
In fact, I'm guessing that such a process as this, if there were one, might freeze plate tectonics.
Why would water being released from the upper lithosphere have any effect on plate tectonics?
The bottom of the lithosphere is what moves over the asthenosphere and all the water released would be above where the lithosphere slides through the asthenosphere. (through is probably a bad word to use as the depth of the continental roots go very deep in some places).
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by edge, posted 12-23-2011 12:05 PM edge has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 107 of 432 (645145)
12-23-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by edge
12-23-2011 5:31 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi edge,
edge writes:
water crystals in the core of the earth
I should have said the water was stored in hydrous minerals in the mantle, so plese excuse my laziness.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by edge, posted 12-23-2011 5:31 PM edge has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 108 of 432 (645147)
12-23-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by ICANT
12-23-2011 4:17 PM


Re: Miles of rock
ICANT writes:
But to answer your questions the water is liquid in the lithosphere as it is on the continents and as you go deeper the water would become steam as it is heated by the core. If you go deeper the water would become superheated steam which would produce tremendous upward pressure due to the extreme heat.
If this lot comes out in one go as the fountains of the deep have you any idea how much heat would be transferred to the surface where Noah and his menagerie are waiting? In all probability they'd be broiled!
ICANT writes:
If you take a 16 ounce glass and put 4 ounces of water in it and then begin to add sand to the glass until the water runs out of the glass or you have a layer of dry sand on top you will find depending on how dry the sand was an inch of dry sand at the top of the glass. You can get the water out of the sand by exposing it to the sun and the water will evaporate or you can put the sand under enough pressure and you can retreive a lot of the water.
Sorry, that's irrelevant nonsense. There are many ways to get water out of sand, but nothing you've proposed here allows you to cause a massive flood. Allowing the water to evaporate has the opposite effect and I've no idea how you propose to squeeze all the water out at the same time with pressure.
ICANT writes:
First I got to get the water in the acquifers under the oceans to be available to the fountains of the deep. Which I have presented the mechanism to accomplish that job.
Yes, but the mechanisms you have proposed preclude its availability to burst forth and cause a flood.
ICANT writes:
And you don't think those large asteroids added any mass to the Earth.
Where did I say that? All I asked for was clarification from you of where the extra mass came from.
How do you reconcile the following?
ICANT writes:
In Genesis 1:2 all land mass was covered with water.
In Genesis 1:9 dry land appeared when the water was gathered into one place. This was accomplished probably by an uplifting of the land mass. If God took Moses back in time an allowed him to observe what happened Moses would not have realized the land lifted but that the water moved to one place as that is what he would have seen.
ICANT writes:
In Genesis 1:1 when the Heavens and the Earth was created there was no seas. There was only a river that forked into 4 rivers that went out to water the land.
Let's move on to land elevation. Previously you stated that there was no textual requirement for any elevation and I've provided you with the text which demonstrates that there is an absolute requirement for land elevation. I've even quoted the text from the KJV which explicitly states that land elevation existed. You're only answer to that is to say
ICANT writes:
There would have to be elevation to have which is translated hills.
The text does not say how high those hills were. But you say they were mountains. Well actually that was added by the translators as they translated as mountains as well as hills.
Now you admit that there had to be elevation to end up with "hills" in the translations. How do you reconcile that with your previous assertion that existence of hills is not required to satisfy the texts? For the record I didnot say they were mountains in my previous post, I provided word for word quotes from the text which called them both hills and mountains. What you are doing here is wriggling. You have made an assertion which I have demonstrated to be false and you have retreated into translational arguments. Whatever the original text said, whatever the original writer meant, whatever errors the translators made is irrelevant because the word "hill" requires some land to be higher than other land. In addition, how else are you going to account for the tops of some of the land appearing as the flood receded? The word that was used and the context in which it was used cannot be interpreted in any other way.
I'd appreciate some input from geologists, physicists etc to calculate the effect of millions of cubic kilometres of superheated steam belching into the atmosphere would have on global temperatures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2011 4:17 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2011 10:04 PM Trixie has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 109 of 432 (645162)
12-23-2011 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Trixie
12-23-2011 7:02 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi Trixie,
Trixie writes:
If this lot comes out in one go as the fountains of the deep have you any idea how much heat would be transferred to the surface where Noah and his menagerie are waiting? In all probability they'd be broiled!
After x amount of water is ejected the pressure would equalize and no more flow would occur. There would be a lot of water above the steam which would cool as it came towards the surface and when it reached the water at the bottom of the ocean the water would cool quickly.
Water at 1,000 m is 4C and drops to - 4C at 3,000 meters.
Water at 4,000 m is -5C.
Water temperature begins to rise below 4,000 m due to heat from adiabatic heating.
Water at 6,000 m is in the range of 1C to 2.5C.
Water exiting from thermal hydrothermal vents may reach as high as 464C at exit.
Hydrothermal vent water would be much hotter than the water from the lithosphere that would be forced to the surface.
So I don't see the problem you do.
Trixie writes:
Sorry, that's irrelevant nonsense.
You are the one that is becoming irrelevant.
We were talking about how to cover the water with material dropped on the Earth.
I gave you an experiment that proves it can be done and you say it is nonsense.
If that is the best rebuttal you have why am I wasting my time answering your posts?
Trixie writes:
Yes, but the mechanisms you have proposed preclude its availability to burst forth and cause a flood.
Can a well driller go out and drill a well and get water? Yes is my answer.
Can a oil well driller drill a well and get water? Yes is my answer.
Is there contintental crust on the bottom of the Atlantic ocean? Yes is my answer.
How did it get there? It got there because at one time it was not covered with water.
That would mean it would have a aquifer as the oil well drilling engineer said. So the water is still there when the land gets covered with water.
The water is there.
The water is under great pressure.
If released the water will exit into the ocean.
If you don't think there is water there tell me what that stuff is that comes out of hydrothermal vents?
Trixie writes:
"hill"
Is an English word that was used as the definition of a Hebrew word that the archaic meaning is summit.
I said in the beginning there was at least 1 inch of elevation as there was dry land. I will stick with that conclusion.
As far as the elevation of any other height the original text does not give any.
To get one I would have to make an assumption which I refuse to do.
Trixie writes:
I'd appreciate some input from geologists, physicists etc to calculate the effect of millions of cubic kilometres of superheated steam belching into the atmosphere would have on global temperatures.
So now you are building a strawman.
There would be no superheated steam belching into the atmosphere. It would not even reach the floor of the ocean as it would push the water that was above it upward as it cooled on its journey.
When it reaches the -5C temperature water it will cool rather quickly.
Oil at 20,000 feet below the sea-bed will boil an egg. At 30,000 feet it is 400F and begins to boil off gas.
The water should not be too different from the oil.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Trixie, posted 12-23-2011 7:02 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 12-23-2011 10:12 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 113 by Trixie, posted 12-24-2011 6:00 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2011 11:02 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 119 by edge, posted 12-24-2011 11:03 PM ICANT has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 110 of 432 (645163)
12-23-2011 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
12-23-2011 10:04 PM


Parbroiled?
I haven't been paying much attention to this thread as there is simply too much nonsense here.
But one statement caught my eye.
There would be no superheated steam belching into the atmosphere. It would not even reach the floor of the ocean as it would push the water that was above it upward as it cooled on its journey.
And did I see somewhere here that the volume of water needed for the flood was some seven times that on the surface?
And that you are proposing that this water comes from under the earth as superheated steam?
Could you supply some numbers for the equivalent of 7x earth's surface water being condensed from superheated steam, along with the temperature of the resulting ocean when that additional water is added? It would seem to me that the 7:1 ratio would result in an extremely hot ocean, easily killing off Noah and his traveling zoo.
But you proposed this, so you must have some figures you can share with us.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2011 10:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 12-23-2011 10:24 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 130 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2011 5:55 PM Coyote has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 111 of 432 (645164)
12-23-2011 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Coyote
12-23-2011 10:12 PM


Re: Parbroiled?
And what was that expansion factor when water is turned to steam, something like 1600 to 1 or such?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Coyote, posted 12-23-2011 10:12 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 112 of 432 (645179)
12-24-2011 4:23 AM


I'm puzzled as to why not more creationists accept hovind's explanation. Out of all the proposed, hovind's makes the least nonsense.

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 113 of 432 (645188)
12-24-2011 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
12-23-2011 10:04 PM


Re: Miles of rock
ICANT writes:
We were talking about how to cover the water with material dropped on the Earth.
I gave you an experiment that proves it can be done and you say it is nonsense.
Your experiment depends on factors which do not exist in your proposed pre-flood world, namely the water being confined by the bottom and sides of the 16 oz glass. There are no confining factors in your model. In addition you've already got much of the water being removed as it is covered in your model by stating that, under pressure the water would come out. Have you any idea how much material it would take to cover water in your single sea model? Have you any idea of the pressure the bottom layers would be under?
ICANT writes:
Can a well driller go out and drill a well and get water? Yes is my answer.
Can a oil well driller drill a well and get water? Yes is my answer.
That does not give any idea of your proposed mechanism for releasing the water to cause the flood, unless you're proposing that God ran around drilling muckle great holes.
ICANT writes:
Is an English word that was used as the definition of a Hebrew word that the archaic meaning is summit.
I said in the beginning there was at least 1 inch of elevation as there was dry land. I will stick with that conclusion.
As far as the elevation of any other height the original text does not give any.
To get one I would have to make an assumption which I refuse to do.
That doesn't address my point that the text, contrary to your assertion, absolutely requires some land to be elevated above other land. If the lowest land has to be a minimum of 1 inch there must be land which is higher than that for the word to be used, whether it be translated as hill, mountain or summit. Additionally, you earlier said that there were four rivers. How do you think they managed to flow if the river beds were all at the same level? (Hint, water in a level area doesn't flow and if your rivers didn't flow they're canals) You're more than happy to make assumptions about everything else, why are you so reluctant to make even an educated guess here? I'll make an educated guess that once you commit to any figure, even a ballpark one, your model can be tested for viability (for example how much latent heat would be released into the atmosphere) and you're reluctant for that to happen. Additionally, you think that if you keep your land elevation to an absolute minimum you'll minimise the amount of water required by the text and therefore minimise the obvious difficulties whith your model.
Do you really believe when Moses wrote "hill/summit/whatever" he was intentionally describing a mound that was 2" above sea level? Do you think that when God described the flood to Moses he was talking about a 2" mound? I think that this idea can best be described, in technical terms, as crap.
ICANT writes:
So now you are building a strawman.
There would be no superheated steam belching into the atmosphere. It would not even reach the floor of the ocean as it would push the water that was above it upward as it cooled on its journey.
When it reaches the -5C temperature water it will cool rather quickly.
You do realise that 1 unit of water becomes 1600 units of steam? Even on your ridiculous 1" elevation, you're talking about an awful lot of steam. I suggest you show some calculations to support your assertion that all of this water will be cooled by the time it reaches the ocean floor.
ICANT writes:
Oil at 20,000 feet below the sea-bed will boil an egg. At 30,000 feet it is 400F and begins to boil off gas.
The water should not be too different from the oil.
There's a big difference between oil and water. The pertinent one is that the specific heat of water is 4.186 Joule/gram C, the specific heat of crude oil is around 2.130 Joule/gram C. That means that it takes twice as much energy input to heat water by 1C compared with the same volume of oil. It also means that water has twice as much energy to release int it's surroundings as it cools. Can I also point out that
The water should not be too different from the oil.
is an assumption which is incorrect and easily checked. I thought you didn't make assumptions.
Remember, this is your model, you are proposing it, so you have to work out how much heat you're dealing with and the effects of such heat. Saying "Well, it will cool down before it reaches the ocean floor" is only going to help your model if you work out how much heat you're dealing with in the first place and how that heat will be transferred so you need some idea of the volume of water required to cause a global flood before you even start. How about you work out how much water it would take to increase the diameter of the planet by 1"? That will give you the absolute minimum amount of water that your model needs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2011 10:04 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 114 of 432 (645217)
12-24-2011 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
12-23-2011 10:04 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Is an English word that was used as the definition of a Hebrew word that the archaic meaning is summit.
"Hill" is an English word used to translate the Hebrew word meaning hill.
I said in the beginning there was at least 1 inch of elevation as there was dry land. I will stick with that conclusion.
As far as the elevation of any other height the original text does not give any.
To get one I would have to make an assumption which I refuse to do.
Surely you need more than 1 inch of water to ... y'know ... drown people? As I understand Genesis, God did not merely punish the wicked by giving them damp feet.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2011 10:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Trixie, posted 12-24-2011 1:24 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 117 by Panda, posted 12-24-2011 4:05 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2011 4:53 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 115 of 432 (645224)
12-24-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dr Adequate
12-24-2011 11:02 AM


Re: Miles of rock
He's going to need at least 1" plus 15 cubits!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2011 11:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Trixie, posted 12-24-2011 1:52 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


(1)
Message 116 of 432 (645227)
12-24-2011 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Trixie
12-24-2011 1:24 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Taking the smallest estimate for a cubit, the flood would require the land to be covered with 6.48 metres of water (15 cubits + 1"). Previously I calculated the volume needed to cover the earth to 4000 metres was 2046 million cubic kilometres so to cover the earth to a depth of 6.48 metres we'd need 2046 million/(4000/6.48) =3.13 million cubic kilometres of water which equates to 5303.2 million cubic kilometres of steam.
So what would be the effect of 5303.2 million cubic kilometres of steam bursting through the ocean floors? How much would it have cooled down before it reached the ocean floor? How much could it heat the oceans and the atmosphere by?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Trixie, posted 12-24-2011 1:24 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by jar, posted 12-24-2011 4:18 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(3)
Message 117 of 432 (645239)
12-24-2011 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Dr Adequate
12-24-2011 11:02 AM


Re: Miles of rock
Dr A writes:
Surely you need more than 1 inch of water to ... y'know ... drown people?
And god sent a great puddle.
Noah looked at the puddle and he looked at the ark and he looked at his family.
"My bad."

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-24-2011 11:02 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 118 of 432 (645241)
12-24-2011 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Trixie
12-24-2011 1:52 PM


Re: Miles of rock
To convert one pound of water at 100C to steam at 100C requires that you add 965 BTU.
If you then convert one pound of steam at 100C back to water at 100C you add 965 BTU to the surrounding environment.
Crispy Critters either way.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Trixie, posted 12-24-2011 1:52 PM Trixie has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 119 of 432 (645283)
12-24-2011 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by ICANT
12-23-2011 10:04 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Is there contintental crust on the bottom of the Atlantic ocean? Yes is my answer.
Also, wrong is your answer. If there is continental crust at the bottom of the oceans it is an exceedingly small piece.
If you don't think there is water there tell me what that stuff is that comes out of hydrothermal vents?
Recycled seawater. This has been prety well established. Really, it is little different from terrestrial springs which are ultimately rainwater.
You are too wrong on too many points here, IC. I think from this point is is clear that you are wasting our time with stubborn, uneducated assertions.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ICANT, posted 12-23-2011 10:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ICANT, posted 12-25-2011 4:40 PM edge has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 120 of 432 (645310)
12-25-2011 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by edge
12-24-2011 11:03 PM


Re: Miles of rock
Hi edge,
edge writes:
Also, wrong is your answer. If there is continental crust at the bottom of the oceans it is an exceedingly small piece.
You give me too much credit for my imagination. I don't make this stuff up. I read it where scientest with Phd's have said there is continental crust underwater in the Atlantic and Indian ocean.
And no they are not talking about a little bit. They talk about a lot.
Question: I live in central Florida we are at 49 feet above sea level. If the water in the oceans was to rise 100 feet would land mass that is Florida cease to be continental crust just because it was under water at that time?
Science tells me it was covered at one time with water.
edge writes:
Recycled seawater. This has been prety well established. Really, it is little different from terrestrial springs which are ultimately rainwater.
When did sea water cease to be water?
The process of evaporation when changing the saltwater to unsalted water by superheating, is called distillation.
edge writes:
You are too wrong on too many points here, IC. I think from this point is is clear that you are wasting our time with stubborn, uneducated assertions.
Then produce the evidence that proves I am wrong.
As far as wasting your time, it is impossible for me to waste your time. All I can waste is my time.
You may feel you are wasting your time replying to my posts but I am not holding a gun to your head making you post an answer to my posts.
Then on the other hand you could quit wasting your time answering my post with your assertions and post information with references that proves what I say is wrong.
I will agree with you that if you are only going to type the words "You are too wrong on too many points here, IC."
Then not state the specific point's where I am wrong and then present the refuting information along with references you are wasting your time. You are not educating me or anyone who reads your posts.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by edge, posted 12-24-2011 11:03 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by edge, posted 12-25-2011 9:55 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 12-26-2011 8:47 AM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024