Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
37 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,774 Year: 16,810/19,786 Month: 935/2,598 Week: 181/251 Day: 10/59 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Using the Bible as fact...
William E. Harris
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 113 (13846)
07-20-2002 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by compmage
03-27-2002 1:23 AM


One of the perplexing problems in the bible as history, is the volume of water in the flood of Noah and the survival of all present genera of animals.
The volume of water necessary to cover 17,000 foot Mount Ararat and place the ark on it, would require nearly two more oceans full of water. It would require three more oceans full of water to cover 29,000 foot Mount Everest. Atmospheric water could account for about 0.0023% of the needed flood water.
In the ocean crust and mantle there is a fair amount of water, but not enough to do the job, and would not be available without catastrophic volcanic activity that would destroy the world. If the water was generated in this manner---questionably inferred from the fountains of the deep being broken up----the reverse operation of putting the water back in the rocks would also be necessary. Although some water may have been produced from the earth's crust, along with melting glaciers (which would actually decrease the volume of flood water), this improbable scenario for producing the major part of the flood water and then reabsorbing it, requires us to look for another theory.
No scientific theory can account for the needed flood water. Evolutionists do not believe that the flood covered all the mountains---but creationists also have a hard time believing. One explanation is that a monsoon or tsunami swept up from the Persian Gulf to inundate all of Mesopotamia and carry a boat to the upper Euphrates----which goes nearly to Ararat. Some suppose that it rained so hard that a considerable depth of water covered the whole earth even while it was flowing down mountains. Others suppose that the entire earth was not flooded, Noah just assumed that it was. - - - - -
Now that I have laid that groundwork (and you will have to guess where I am going with this), I will would ask if you would change your mind about the bible as history, it the ARK was actually discovered on Ararat?
William

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by compmage, posted 03-27-2002 1:23 AM compmage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by compmage, posted 07-22-2002 2:22 AM William E. Harris has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-22-2002 3:04 AM William E. Harris has responded

  
William E. Harris
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 113 (13959)
07-22-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Tranquility Base
07-22-2002 3:04 AM


Tranquility base
I do not believe I stated that I did not belive in a universal flood thate covered all the earth. I just said that my studies in geology has conviced me that it could not have been produced by the "fountains of the deep" and rain alone--along with the replacement of the water. I believe the majority of the water came from elsewhere. I expect the ark to be discovered on Ararat, with full coverave by the media, within 20 years--especially if global warming helps to melt the glaciers there.
William

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-22-2002 3:04 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-22-2002 10:39 PM William E. Harris has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019