Noah's Ark

[Pegg]

Even if there was flooding that doesn't mean that there was a global flood. Such an event would have wiped out most of life on earth including plant life.

there is a global ocean... to me it is evidence of a global flood.

 

[Krok]

...not if mountains were not as high back then as they are now. The fact is we dont know what the land was like or how high the mountains were.

Actually, we definitely do know what the land was like and how high the mountains were.

For example, do you realise that the minerals formed during metamorphism of a rock provides you with the pressure and temperature conditions existing when the rock was metamorposed? This also gives you the height of the mountains above the rock when it was formed.

And this is just one of the ways. We have more than one.

Voila.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

there is a global ocean... to me it is evidence of a global flood.

Because water exists, there was a global Flood?

Do I need to put the , or do you accept that as-read?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

there is a global ocean... to me it is evidence of a global flood.

Even if we melted the polar ice caps, there wouldn't be enough water to submerge all of the land on earth. So, where did all that extra water come from or go?

 

[Krok]

Even if we melted the polar ice caps, there wouldn't be enough water to submerge all of the land on earth. So, where did all that extra water come from or go?

I know the answer to that one: "Goddidit".

In normal language: Magic!

Then they will pretend that "The Global Flood" is "science". And even tell untruths about "geology supporting a global flood".

 

[Krok]

there is a global ocean... to me it is evidence of a global flood.

Please explain exactly why you think "a global ocean is evidence for a global flood". Use verifiable evidence, please.

 

[Krok]

...the account ...

No, the story you want to believe with absolutely no verifiable evidence involved....

.... says that God caused the water of the springs to burst forth...for them to do that the earth above them needed to be cracked open or force apart...if God did that, it could certainly explain why the earth is broken into many pieces.

Actually, the Theory of Plate Tectonics offers a non-magical, verifiable explanation of why the "earth is broken into many pieces".

It's not the earth itself "that is broken in many pieces", it's the crust. You can actually see exactly how and why it is "broken", yourself. The Great African Rift Valley and Iceland are two excellent real-time examples. And don't forget the Himalayas getting higher every year. You can even measure the crust moving, yourself. And everyone else who measures it gets the same measurement, whether that person is Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist, etc. Even atheists get the same measurement!

You see, science works on verifiable evidence. Not old stories or myths or what you want to believe.

 

[Looncall]

not if mountains were not as high back then as they are now. The fact is we dont know what the land was like or how high the mountains were.




the account says that God caused the water of the springs to burst forth...for them to do that the earth above them needed to be cracked open or force apart...if God did that, it could certainly explain why the earth is broken into many pieces.

Yet the breaking accords with the mechanism that is now very well understood. Wouldn't it be a big coincidence if that matched the effects of your mythical flood? In fact, there is no need to use old myths to explain the shape of the world.

I am curious how it is you are so resistant to reality, and so attached to such an incidental story from the bible.

 

[David M]

Never said you could. I only said the salinity wouldn't have been lethal for those on the ark.

But it would have been fatal for almost all marine fish species for example, which is just another problem with the global flood story. Oh, that and the death of all coral reef ecosystems.

not if mountains were not as high back then as they are now. The fact is we dont know what the land was like or how high the mountains were.

Yes we do if you are talking about a few thousand years ago.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

not if mountains were not as high back then as they are now. The fact is we dont know what the land was like or how high the mountains were. [

You can't be serious....??????

We do in fact know know how high they were a few thousand years ago. These mountains are millions of years old and very little change has taken effect in the past few thousand years.

NOVA Online | Everest | Birth of the Himalaya
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Geneva]What ultimately formed Mt. Everest, about 60 million years ago, was the rapid movement of India northward toward the continent of EuroAsia"[/FONT]

the account says that God caused the water of the springs to burst forth...for them to do that the earth above them needed to be cracked open or force apart...if God did that, it could certainly explain why the earth is broken into many pieces.

Land mass movement happens by the shifting of plates.
Earthquakes and Plate Tectonics
Understanding plate motions [This Dynamic Earth, USGS]
Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Take note that the first two links are from the USGS. They totally refute your claim.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

But it would have been fatal for almost all marine fish species for example, which is just another problem with the global flood story. Oh, that and the death of all coral reef ecosystems.

Yeah, the fish would have been screwed. If not by the massive drop in salinity then by the the sheer force of the water either falling from the sky or coming up from the ground (doesn't really matter which).

Coral reefs are another problem, because there are examples around the world which just couldn't have grown in a few thousand years.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Actually, the Theory of Plate Tectonics offers a non-magical, verifiable explanation of why the "earth is broken into many pieces".

Not to mention that this phenomenon is actually observable. We have the historical record to support it. California and Japan should be a good example for her. to start with....:sad:

 

[Pegg]

I am curious how it is you are so resistant to reality, and so attached to such an incidental story from the bible.

because i dont believe God has any reason to lie to us and Jesus also believed in the flood of noahs time. Jesus would have been an eyewitness observer to the flood and its effects seeing he had a pre-human existence in heaven with God.

So if both God and Jesus believe in the flood, then I have no reason to doubt them.

If there seems to be no evidence in the eyes of some, its because they are not looking for evidence or they are explaining the evidence away as a natural phenomenon....such as 'plate tectonics or ice ages' for example.

 

[Pegg]

Because water exists, there was a global Flood?

Do I need to put the , or do you accept that as-read?

to ask why i think the flood was global, and where is the evidence for it, is a pretty silly question to ask though, you gotta admit that.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Well, it's not really silly.. but I guess it turned out being silly.

 

[Looncall]

because i dont believe God has any reason to lie to us and Jesus also believed in the flood of noahs time. Jesus would have been an eyewitness observer to the flood and its effects seeing he had a pre-human existence in heaven with God.

So if both God and Jesus believe in the flood, then I have no reason to doubt them.

If there seems to be no evidence in the eyes of some, its because they are not looking for evidence or they are explaining the evidence away as a natural phenomenon....such as 'plate tectonics or ice ages' for example.

Let's get specific. If there was a global flood, there would be signs of disturbance found worldwide that date to the same time. Do you dispute this?

 

[Pegg]

Let's get specific. If there was a global flood, there would be signs of disturbance found worldwide that date to the same time. Do you dispute this?

no i dont dispute that. I can certainly see evidence of worldwide disturbance

water covering entire globe
land ridges deep under the sea
river beds extending deep into the ocean floor
seashells on mountain tops
sunken gorges all over the place
marine fossils found in deserts

that is all plenty of evidence for a world wide flood imo...of course others do not view it as evidence, i know that. But why dont they, that is the question.

 

[Road Warrior]

seashells on mountain tops

Do you know how mountains form, Pegg? The massive flooding in New South Wales due to torrential rains isn't going to suddenly cause an influx of sea shells, much less a build of of thousands or millions of years worth of sea shell sedimentary layers. Take heart, Pegg. Just because the Bible isn't literally true in all respects doesn't mean that there is no God. It just points out that then, like now, mankind is human and, therefore flawed.

There is a difference between land sinking and flooding the Earth to cover to the point where Mt. Everest and the Himalayas are underwater. Also, during previous Ice Ages, enough water was locked up in ice that the ocean levels dropped. Hence, both present Siberia and Alaska were also linked by a land bridge which is currently underwater.

Lastly, there is this little gem: Pangaea

BTW, Pegg, how old do you think the Earth and Universe is?

 

[Looncall]

no i dont dispute that. I can certainly see evidence of worldwide disturbance

water covering entire globe
land ridges deep under the sea
river beds extending deep into the ocean floor
seashells on mountain tops
sunken gorges all over the place
marine fossils found in deserts

that is all plenty of evidence for a world wide flood imo...of course others do not view it as evidence, i know that. But why dont they, that is the question.

You are ignoring the "dating to the same time" part. In any case, there are other good explanations for those observations, so an exotic explanation is not required.

Continuing: if a location can be found that dates to the purported time of the flood, yet shows no disturbance, does that refute the occurrence of a global flood at that time?

 

[gnostic]

You are ignoring the "dating to the same time" part. In any case, there are other good explanations for those observations, so an exotic explanation is not required.

Continuing: if a location can be found that dates to the purported time of the flood, yet shows no disturbance, does that refute the occurrence of a global flood at that time?

They (literal creationists) don't get it.

You can explain it to them, you can show them the physical evidences and the findings of geologists or paleontologists, but they won't understand the procedures of datings or the scientific processes. They don't want to understand it, because those evidences conflict with their dogma.

They will never understand it, because they want to understand and they don't want to learn. They are living in the wrong period; it would have been better if they were born in the Dark Ages in western Europe.