Where Did The (Great Flood) Water Come From And Where Did It Go?

Ad nihilo?

No it doesn't. But that discussion belongs in a Bible thread, not a science thread. Take it over thete so we can show where you're mistaken.

Science does know but that's irrelevant to what the Bible says. In a Bible thread we can see if you're as wrong about the Bible as you are about science.

You should read the post you're answering. I didn't say anything about where the water came from. (Sue me for being off topic.)I said that there is nothing about rapid plant growth in the Bible.Science does know where the water came from - the same place the Tooth Fairy came from, human imagination.

You don't know what science knows. Science only deals with the evidence that we have today. You're just shooting yourself in the foot with fantasies about wormholes. Unless we DO know about wormholes, we can't use them to test the accuracy of the Bible stories. In Genesis One, the earth brought forth fruit trees on the third day - no talk about "planting". The sun was not created until the fourth day, so you have a bigger problem there to solve.In Genesis Two, there is no specific time line.

But chapter two contradicts chapter one on those details. And chapter two has no time line. Huge problem, since we know it can't be done. Or are you going to insert another magical "different nature" in the future to make your beliefs work?

You don't know that. It's just a poor apologetic made up to try to hide the contradictions.What you should know is that the chapter divisions were added later. The first few verses of Chapter Two actually belong to the story in Chapter One. Of course it is, to reality if not to you. Your "different nature" in the past is completely made up, with no connection to reality or to the Bible.

Done.Whether or not you understand it is irrelevant. That's your problem. The first story is finished. Then the second one begins and it's different. Since it IS different, there's no reason to think it's an "explanation" of the first story. It's just a different story with a different purpose.

You have really lost the plot, haven't you? It isn't me against "we". It's YOU against "we".The smart people here aren't afraid to correct me if I'm wrong. In fact, the people on my "side" give me a much harder time than any creationist. That's what science does. Nobel Prizes are won by disrupters, not by cheerleaders.The purpose of EvC, as I understand it, is to expose the nonsense of creationism. Creationists can come here and spout their nonsense - e.g. you - and their errors will be pointed out. Nobody - NOBODY - is trying or even hoping to convince you of anything. That would be like trying to teach origami to a brick wall. You're the straight-man here. You're only here to set up the jokes.Creationism is a rotting corpse. It is not allowed in public schools. That's our goal. We have already won.If YOU want to promote creationism, YOU are the one who has to do the heavy lifting. You're just repeating yourself. Say something substantial.

We, plural, are most of the members of this forum. There are a few drive-by creationists once in a while but they don't usually last long. They're a dying breed. It has nothing to do with believers. We have believers here who understand the reality of evolution and an old earth. Creationists are only a small subset of believers. And will get none, especially in schools.

It's not a prophecy. It's reality. It's what's happening now, no creationism in schools. You might be able to change that by marching in the streets but you won't change it by posting nonsense here.Edited by ringo, : Spalling.

Undoubtedly.But standards remain the same. You still won't get into medical school or law school or engineering school with a diploma from Joe's Creationist Skool.

If you can back that up, start a different topic.

Where's your evidence of that?

That doesn't answer the question. You said the oceans were "shallower" then. Why would isostasy make the oceans shallower then than it does now?