Honest opinions from Christians please

[McBell]

link is here, #3 point of the OP....

LOL

Sorry, I was unsure which point three you meant cause my post included so many threads.

I have not replied to your points merely because I happen to agree with them.
However, if you like, I can play the devils advocate and make stuff up (though you will needs let me know if I should make up new stuff or regurgitate the old stuff).

 

[my opinion]

If you believe the Bible's account, then all the different cultures are descended from Noah's family; thus, they all share the same flood story that was no doubt changed here and there by it passing down from generation to generation. Simple explantion with no assumptions made beyond common sence.

If they all come from the same family, then stop quoting it as impartial, neutral evidence to support the flood theory. You keep referencing other cultures of having reported the flood and use this as your proof, but if they are all great great granfathers and mothers and cousins then it hardly constitutes proof...

 

[Ghostkill221]

Thank you for the feed back yes. you're correct i was assuming you were referring to species prior to homo sapien sapien which is the correct genus for the current form of us. although according to almost all the sites i visited they state that they are actually .2 million years old. I was incorrect in my assumption I am sorry. However, the earliest recorded civilizations ever discovered are only from about 6500 BC (not BCE because that was a cheap shot) Realize that the genealogy of the bible has about a 3000 more or less lenience because it doesn't say the exact age everyone was when they had their kids.

So my question is this you mentioned undoubtable proof several times but that by itslef really isn't helpful to your case because unless you explain what it is it's just an arbitrary statement. I can't say the bible is true because everyone smart says so because that's circular reasoning. beyond a shadow of a doubt would mean I shouldn't doubt too right?.
one last thing on this topic at least you use the word science a little loosely as if it by itself contradicts both the Bible and creation but currently over 40% of scientists especially ones in the field of DNA research have actively signed a petition that they disagree with evolution. in fact modern probability laws set the possibility of the planets being in working order alone at over 1: 10 to the 300000 power or almost an this entire post of zeros. that makes doubting a much safer bet than accepting.

As for the flood: I'm actually gonna do another post entirely about that in one second

 

[Ghostkill221]

This is about the Flood and at least some compelling evidence that it was global and over 30k feet deep

First off here is one of the more scientific commonly accepted theories of how the flood happened and it explains several other things I'll point out along the way with italics. at first it does seem a little far fetched but so does creation AND evolution (and scientology which no one loves) :cold:

ICE ATMOSPHERE THEORY: In the bible in Genesis 7:10 and 11 it says
"And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. 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." now here is one of the main questions : if the flood is global and deep enough to cover arafat (the mountain the ark came to rest on) that would be far too much water to have in circulation. so where did it come from?
The theory is that Pre flood there was a Layer of ice that surrounded the earth this sounds way worse than it actually would be: it would actually help a great deal it would keep out a good deal of harmful radiation keep the temperature of the earth regulated, condense the oxygen so that things would grow much bigger and live much longer "Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. " this also explains how after the flood happened, the unusually long lives documented in the bible dropped off really sharply.

any way a meteor came and hit the layer of ice causing it all to melt aind rain in the atmosphere for 40days "Frozen mammoths and Mammoth bones are found in large numbers in Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Europe. Some of these were in such good preservation that Eskimos would feed their dogs meat from them when they became exposed due to melting ice and snow: that is, if wolves didn't get their first. For those who want to know more see: grahamkendall.net/Unsorted_files-2/A312-Frozen_Mammoths.txt[/url] " i add this because in several cases the mammoths have been found with intact plants in them which unless the mammoth was frozen in under a minute would have began to dissolve only temperatures from space can do this.

The flood ended and the oxygen content was sharply reduced and the few dinosaurs that lived on land and Noah had saved died because of the size of their noses and lungs in proportion to their body. the ones in the water may have lived giving us most modern legends like the Locke Ness monster or "Pleiasour"

Here is some back up evidence:
Two American oceanographic vessels pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment. Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera. While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the temperature and salinity of the water. When they reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that bottom ... carries a record of climates that may go back more than 100 million years. Every inch of core may represent as much as 1000 years of the earth's past.
The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years ago. To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood.
Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water, surface salinities were... reduced by about ten percent.

last thought: Most likely those people in all those countries who have those legends about the flood got there the same way evolution says they got there: they moved, on either boats or by walking.
Thank you for listening,
feel free to criticize any of this as long as you can actually point out any fallacies I might not have noticed and not just refuse to accept any of this as true because "its bull" or you don't want it to be.
PS: I'm not the best with personal skills so if anything i said came off as condemning or spiteful; i'm sorry and could you point that pout too so i will be able to not make the mistakes in the future?
// Ghostkill221 (BTW Mestemia ispent like 3 minutes trying to get those bugs off my screen )

 

[Ghostkill221]

to my opinion: the idea that they are from the same family is actually the goal of the proof so assuming it is so to extract evidence is a valid procedure such as saying " If gravity exists it explains why every thing comes back to the ground and it explains the earths orbit. the things it explains are the actual proof it is just a predication to strengthen a viewpoint .

 

[my opinion]

So my question is this you mentioned undoubtable proof several times but that by itslef really isn't helpful to your case because unless you explain what it is it's just an arbitrary statement. I can't say the bible is true because everyone smart says so because that's circular reasoning. beyond a shadow of a doubt would mean I shouldn't doubt too right?.
one last thing on this topic at least you use the word science a little loosely as if it by itself contradicts both the Bible and creation but currently over 40% of scientists especially ones in the field of DNA research have actively signed a petition that they disagree with evolution. in fact modern probability laws set the possibility of the planets being in working order alone at over 1: 10 to the 300000 power or almost an this entire post of zeros. that makes doubting a much safer bet than accepting.

Well. I don't even know what your point is with this statement...I never said I believed, for example, that the planets worked alone...I said I don't not swallow the christian or muslim theory. As far as evolution goes...well I've never subscribed to that theory either...it has many gaps and it not believable...what happens in the future of this research remains to be seen...
Unless you quote it is hard to address your statements about proof as so many posts have been made so I don't know which ones you are referring to:
Bible accounts put man at approx 5000 years old. Carbon dating proves this incorrect.

Bible accounts state a global flood. Geology says this is not so from the absence of physical proof that would be left behind.

As far as the earth orbiting the sun as opposed to the christian belief that the earth stands still and the sun does all the travelling:

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.”
-1 Chronicles 16:30

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”
-Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”
-Ecclesiastes 1:5 (New International Version bible)

Now that we have the intelligence, technology and instruments to prove that the earth does in fact move...and rotate on it's axis, while it the same time orbiting the sun this seems to be a double whammy for Christians...not only have their assertion of the earth not moving proven false...it's been proven false twice...rotating on axis...orbiting sun... I think our supreme force has a fantastic sense of humour.

 

[Jose Fly]

Taking things one at a time (and because I'm short on time)...

currently over 40% of scientists especially ones in the field of DNA research have actively signed a petition that they disagree with evolution

Where?

EDIT: Added questions...

Also Ghostkill, why did you ignore my question about the "ice canopy" and atmospheric pressure?

And how does "the salinity in the Gulf of Mexico changed 11,000 years ago" = "there was a global flood"?

 

[McBell]

one last thing on this topic at least you use the word science a little loosely as if it by itself contradicts both the Bible and creation but currently over 40% of scientists especially ones in the field of DNA research have actively signed a petition that they disagree with evolution.

Really?
And where is this petition?

in fact modern probability laws set the possibility of the planets being in working order alone at over 1: 10 to the 300000 power or almost an this entire post of zeros. that makes doubting a much safer bet than accepting.

Please.
calculating the odds of something happening after the fact is always 1 to 1.

 

[Comet]

As far as the earth orbiting the sun as opposed to the christian belief that the earth stands still and the sun does all the travelling:

Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.”
-1 Chronicles 16:30

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.”
-Ecclesiastes 1:5

The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”
-Ecclesiastes 1:5 (New International Version bible)

Now that we have the intelligence, technology and instruments to prove that the earth does in fact move...and rotate on it's axis, while it the same time orbiting the sun this seems to be a double whammy for Christians...not only have their assertion of the earth not moving proven false...it's been proven false twice...rotating on axis...orbiting sun... I think our supreme force has a fantastic sense of humour.

I have already addressed the Ecclesiastes verse with you and got no responce, so there is no sence in looking at that further.

As for the I Chronicles 16:30 verse: you take it out of context yet again. This is a song of praise sung by Asaph and his brethren. They are not saying the Earth stands still and that the sun goes up and down. They are speaking of praising the Lord for all must tremble before him, but they stand unwaivering in their praise of him, and that the Lord can make the earth tremble or stand still. Read the whole thing if you will and see it is a song of praise to the Lord as writen (again) by men.

Thanks for the verses, though I assumed one for you. Again, where is this Christian belief that you claim to know of that says they believe the Earth does not move?

 

[Comet]

Really?
And where is this petition?

I would love to see this myself :yes: Please show us where you got this information Ghostkill

 

[jtartar]

I ask these questions as I am truly perplexed, not having a go at you.

How do you continue to believe and have faith in the bible when it is rife with misinformation, misleading and at times outright lies. My examples are:
Mankind is around 4000-6000 years old. Science has proven beyond any doubt that we are at least 60, 000 years old for homo-sapiens, then we have all of the other variations of man prior.

Noah's flood was global. It was regional! Sediment layers, ice cores and many many other facts provea global flood as incorrect.

The sun goes up and down. The earth orbit the sun and may give this appearance to assuming people- but if the bible was the word of god then this literary error would not have occurred.
If the bible really and truly is the word of god, how did these very fundamental facts get so wrong? There are literally hundreds more, but I use these 3 are they have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

my opinion,
First, let's consider exactly what is being said here. Does man know more than God, who created all things??
Contrary to what many believe none of the things you mentioned have been proven. These are beliefs of Pseudoscientists. Many are the ranks of true scientists that recognize the truth of God's word.
According to Bible chronology Adam was created 4026BC. WHY THE DISCREPANCY???
All living things absorb carbon while living. When they die the carbon begins to decay. The remaining carbon 14 is measured, thereby telling the age of the object. A very easy to understand answer is given in the Holy Scriptures, but since many pseudoscientists refuse to give any credence to the scriptures, they will never get to the real truth. The reason for the erroneous ages lies in the amount of carbon originally absorbed!! The Bible tells us that there was a thick band of clouds around the earth before the flood. This limited the amount the living entity absorbed during it's life, Gen 1:6,7,Job 38:9, Prov 8:28. This thick layer of clouds kept living things from absorbing much carbon while living, when they are later checked, there is very little carbon left. They then seem much older than they really are.

The flood of Noah's day was global, according to the Holy Scriptures, Gen 7:17-20.
Recently, there is much evidence of a global flood that has been found.
Notice that the Bible even gives reason for the seeming overly amound of water that it took to cover all the mountains. The weight of the water caused the valleys to sink, Ps 104:6-8, therefore a smaller amount of water was needed to cover the mountains. It is only a matter of time and investigation before evidence will emerge to prove the Holy Scriptures accurrate in this, just as it has been proven accurate in many, many things that man questioned. Mankind is so limited in knowledge,it is foolish to question the Almighty Creator, the One perfect in knowledge, Job 36:4, 37:16.
As for the term, the sun goes up and down. This is an expression that was used by inspired writers, that was for clear understanding. If God had inspired His penmen to write a scientific paper on the orbits of the sun and moon, do you think it would have been useful or understandable 3,000 years ago?? Think about the many expressions that we use today. Do we still not say that the sun rises and sets?? People even use the term, the ends of the earth, and the four corners of the earth, even though we know the earth is a spheroid. When you see something rising from the place you are, do we not say it is going UP.
Things are written in relation to how things seem to the person seeing it.
When we see a color, the color of the object is NOT the color we see. The fact is, the color we see is the color the object is NOT. The color it is not is reflected into our eyes, so we see the color that it is not. It would not make sense to always say things that are scientifically correct.
In the Holy Scriptures this is called ACCOMMODATION, and ANTHROPOMORPHISM. This means that God had His writers put things in a way that was easily understood by the people at the time it was written.

 

[Draka]

my opinion,
First, let's consider exactly what is being said here. Does man know more than God, who created all things??
Contrary to what many believe none of the things you mentioned have been proven. These are beliefs of Pseudoscientists. Many are the ranks of true scientists that recognize the truth of God's word.
According to Bible chronology Adam was created 4026BC. WHY THE DISCREPANCY???
All living things absorb carbon while living. When they die the carbon begins to decay. The remaining carbon 14 is measured, thereby telling the age of the object. A very easy to understand answer is given in the Holy Scriptures, but since many pseudoscientists refuse to give any credence to the scriptures, they will never get to the real truth. The reason for the erroneous ages lies in the amount of carbon originally absorbed!! The Bible tells us that there was a thick band of clouds around the earth before the flood. This limited the amount the living entity absorbed during it's life, Gen 1:6,7,Job 38:9, Prov 8:28. This thick layer of clouds kept living things from absorbing much carbon while living, when they are later checked, there is very little carbon left. They then seem much older than they really are.

The flood of Noah's day was global, according to the Holy Scriptures, Gen 7:17-20.
Recently, there is much evidence of a global flood that has been found.
Notice that the Bible even gives reason for the seeming overly amound of water that it took to cover all the mountains. The weight of the water caused the valleys to sink, Ps 104:6-8, therefore a smaller amount of water was needed to cover the mountains. It is only a matter of time and investigation before evidence will emerge to prove the Holy Scriptures accurrate in this, just as it has been proven accurate in many, many things that man questioned. Mankind is so limited in knowledge,it is foolish to question the Almighty Creator, the One perfect in knowledge, Job 36:4, 37:16.
As for the term, the sun goes up and down. This is an expression that was used by inspired writers, that was for clear understanding. If God had inspired His penmen to write a scientific paper on the orbits of the sun and moon, do you think it would have been useful or understandable 3,000 years ago?? Think about the many expressions that we use today. Do we still not say that the sun rises and sets?? People even use the term, the ends of the earth, and the four corners of the earth, even though we know the earth is a spheroid. When you see something rising from the place you are, do we not say it is going UP.
Things are written in relation to how things seem to the person seeing it.
When we see a color, the color of the object is NOT the color we see. The fact is, the color we see is the color the object is NOT. The color it is not is reflected into our eyes, so we see the color that it is not. It would not make sense to always say things that are scientifically correct.
In the Holy Scriptures this is called ACCOMMODATION, and ANTHROPOMORPHISM. This means that God had His writers put things in a way that was easily understood by the people at the time it was written.

Now that is absolutely absurd and has no basis whatsoever. I just love when people come into an argument and spew crapola while offering nothing to back it up...since there is nothing in the first place.

What in the holy hell is this rubbish? Magic clouds that affect carbon??? Are you freakin serious or just seriously off your rocker?

What part of "there is not enough water on the entire planet to cover the entire planet" do people like you have such a hard time with? I don't care if there were no valleys all over the world and the ground was completely flat...even if you melt the ice at the poles you STILL wouldn't have enough water to cover all the land on earth. It is impossible.

Just what has been proven accurate??? What? Genesis? Nope. Flood? nope. Even Jesus' existence can't be proven, let alone his actions, crucifixion and resurrection. WHAT, pray tell, has been proven?

We see the color it is not? Things aren't all colors but one. They reflect or emit a certain wavelength perceived as a particular color by our eyes. That doesn't mean they are all colors but one though. That truly is an odd description of color, but then with the rest of your post, what can one expect?

 

[Jose Fly]

jtartar,

I think before we get into anything else, you should answer the following...

since many pseudoscientists refuse to give any credence to the scriptures, they will never get to the real truth

So in your view, if anything disagrees with your reading of scriptures, it is automatically wrong, no matter what?

 

[my opinion]

This is about the Flood and at least some compelling evidence that it was global and over 30k feet deep

First off here is one of the more scientific commonly accepted theories of how the flood happened and it explains several other things I'll point out along the way with italics. at first it does seem a little far fetched but so does creation AND evolution (and scientology which no one loves) :cold:

ICE ATMOSPHERE THEORY: In the bible in Genesis 7:10 and 11 it says
"And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth. 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." now here is one of the main questions : if the flood is global and deep enough to cover arafat (the mountain the ark came to rest on) that would be far too much water to have in circulation. so where did it come from?
The theory is that Pre flood there was a Layer of ice that surrounded the earth this sounds way worse than it actually would be: it would actually help a great deal it would keep out a good deal of harmful radiation keep the temperature of the earth regulated, condense the oxygen so that things would grow much bigger and live much longer "Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. " this also explains how after the flood happened, the unusually long lives documented in the bible dropped off really sharply.

any way a meteor came and hit the layer of ice causing it all to melt aind rain in the atmosphere for 40days "Frozen mammoths and Mammoth bones are found in large numbers in Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Europe. Some of these were in such good preservation that Eskimos would feed their dogs meat from them when they became exposed due to melting ice and snow: that is, if wolves didn't get their first. For those who want to know more see: grahamkendall.net/Unsorted_files-2/A312-Frozen_Mammoths.txt[/url] " i add this because in several cases the mammoths have been found with intact plants in them which unless the mammoth was frozen in under a minute would have began to dissolve only temperatures from space can do this.

The flood ended and the oxygen content was sharply reduced and the few dinosaurs that lived on land and Noah had saved died because of the size of their noses and lungs in proportion to their body. the ones in the water may have lived giving us most modern legends like the Locke Ness monster or "Pleiasour"

Here is some back up evidence:
Two American oceanographic vessels pulled from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment. Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera. While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a chemical record of the temperature and salinity of the water. When they reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the bottom. A cross-section of that bottom ... carries a record of climates that may go back more than 100 million years. Every inch of core may represent as much as 1000 years of the earth's past.
The cores were analyzed in two separate investigations, by Cesare Emiliani of the University of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and Nicholas Shackleton of Cambridge University. Both analyses indicated a dramatic change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood of fresh water into the Gulf of Mexico. Using radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of the University of Miami dated the flood at about 11,600 years ago. To Emiliani, all the questions and arguments are minor beside the single fact that a vast amount of fresh melt water poured into the Gulf of Mexico. 'We know this,' he says, 'because the oxygen isotope ratios of the foraminifera shells show a marked temporary decrease in the salinity of the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It clearly shows that there was a major period of flooding from 12,000 to 10,000 years ago... There was no question that there was a flood and there is no question that it was a universal flood.
Emiliani's findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett and Shackleton, who concluded that there was a 'massive inpouring of glacial melt water into the Gulf of Mexico via the Mississippi River system. At the time of maximum inpouring of this water, surface salinities were... reduced by about ten percent.

last thought: Most likely those people in all those countries who have those legends about the flood got there the same way evolution says they got there: they moved, on either boats or by walking.
Thank you for listening,
feel free to criticize any of this as long as you can actually point out any fallacies I might not have noticed and not just refuse to accept any of this as true because "its bull" or you don't want it to be.
PS: I'm not the best with personal skills so if anything i said came off as condemning or spiteful; i'm sorry and could you point that pout too so i will be able to not make the mistakes in the future?
// Ghostkill221 (BTW Mestemia ispent like 3 minutes trying to get those bugs off my screen )

Well after reading various entries in science periodals etc, about the scientists you mention and their research and theories, this is talking about climate change, ices ages, and the fact that the glaciers melted, thereby causing a drop in salinity in the oceans, and the raising of water levels. It's a far cry from a global flood handed out by god.

 

[fantome profane]

currently over 40% of scientists especially ones in the field of DNA research have actively signed a petition that they disagree with evolution.

This is nothing more than a complete blatant lie. Why is it so often those attacking evolution show such a complete lack of ethical standards?


List of Scientists Rejecting Evolution- Do they really?

 

[RemnanteK]

I ask these questions as I am truly perplexed, not having a go at you.

I do not seek answers, I have studied enough! I wanted to know how ordinary Christian people, in the true face of reality as it is today can keep on believing what you believe. That is what my post is all about.

If you are going to ask questions and not seek answers what is the point of debating.

Well after reading various entries in science periodals etc, about the scientists you mention and their research and theories, this is talking about climate change, ices ages, and the fact that the glaciers melted, thereby causing a drop in salinity in the oceans, and the raising of water levels. It's a far cry from a global flood handed out by god.

If we believed every theory we could invent and took it for truth we would live on a flat world at the center of the universe.

The point you are trying to make is not your own. You are taking someone else's work and making it your without having proven it to yourself.
And you might come back with me doing the same thing with the bible, and that is far from true.
The point of me being a Christian is to find the truth for myself and live by the truth that I find.
Taking a group of people word because they are trying to prove something wrong or right with science or a religious book is obserd.
What truths do you know that you have proven to yourself to be true?
Do you believe everything people tell you? Do you believe the Government when they tell you we are not in a depression?
No theory is 100% true, it's a true as the date given into the equations.
I say don't believe what anyone tells you, you have to find out for yourself what is true and not true.
Then and only then can "YOU" be 100% sure that "YOU" are making the right choice.

Ask your heart this, whenever you felt/feel love, where do you feel it. Is it in your head or your heart.
Well sir, I don't know if you get that feeling when you "prove" there is no God.
But I tell you what, I get the feeling when I know there is one.

 

[starlite]

Now that is absolutely absurd and has no basis whatsoever. I just love when people come into an argument and spew crapola while offering nothing to back it up...since there is nothing in the first place.

His post is accurate....the evidence is there...just open your mind and see it.

 

[starlite]

Wrong!

A global flood is a global flood..there is no mention in the bible about subterranean
seepage. Geology does not support global flooding or seepage no matter what way you look at it.

Since, as the Genesis account says, “all the tall mountains” were covered with water, where is all that water now? Evidently it is right here on the earth. It is believed that there was a time when the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, as is evidenced by river channels extending far out under the oceans. It should also be noted that scientists have stated that mountains in the past were much lower than at present, and some mountains have even been pushed up from under the seas. As to the present situation, it is said that “there is ten times as much water by volume in the ocean as there is land above sea level. Dump all this land evenly into the sea, and water would cover the entire earth, one and one-half miles deep.” (National Geographic, January 1945, p. 105) So, after the floodwaters fell, but before the raising of mountains and the lowering of seabeds and before the buildup of polar ice caps, there was more than enough water to cover “all the tall mountains,” as the inspired record says.—Ge 7:19.

 

[painted wolf]

That is an honest opinion.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

So Comet, are you asserting that one time the entire earth was covered in water, with no land showing at all? Over the tops of the mountains? Around when do you think this happened?