Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9049 total)
418 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 417 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,600 Year: 5,246/14,102 Month: 167/677 Week: 26/26 Day: 8/6 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?
Member (Idle past 3510 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011

Message 53 of 432 (643010)
12-03-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by jar
12-03-2011 6:52 PM

Re: It's your model!
That model seems to consist of very little:

KJV GEN 7:4 writes:

For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

KJV GEN 7:11-12 writes:

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

KJV GEN 7:20...24 writes:

And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days [...] Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

KJV GEN 8:2-3 writes:

The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained. And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.

Pretty light on detail and not much of a model. The problem is that this opens up every crackpot to expand on what the "fountains of the deep" and "windows of heaven" actually are, without any supporting evidence. The problem is even further exacerbated by the fact that whatever 'theory' they come up with can be claimed as being "supported by scripture".

In the end, what one usually ends up with is a finger snap of "God Did It". Which is fine, as long as one admits that they don't actually have any evidence, and don't go trying to twist what we know of history and geology into the flood narrative.

Alas, "mechanisms" for this normally end up being less believable than the technobable of your average star trek episode.

Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by jar, posted 12-03-2011 6:52 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021