The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C · 12-04-2013 11:31PM

Geomy wrote: »

Did you hear about that moth that appeared on a volcanic island that's miles from anywhere,and too far from any mainland to fly to that Island...

I was told about it by some open minded scientist,he says this moth makes a mockery of Darwinism :S

You may be talking about Surtsey Island which emerged out of the sea off Iceland in the 1960's and has developed geologically and ecologically very rapidly. It mocks an 'old Earth' rather than Darwinism.

http://youngearth.com/surtsey-island-on-claims-of-required-geologic-ages

J C · 12-04-2013 11:38PM

tim3000 wrote: »

Triceratops was a reptile .

... and do you also think that a snake is a Mammal?!!!:D

... so is a Rhinoceros a 'reptile like mammal' ... or a 'mammal like reptile' or just a Mammal?:D

tim3000 wrote: »

Also how are we supposed to date this ark without carbon dating which is so notoriously unreliable

With considerable difficulty. Dendrochronology could help.

Geomy · 12-04-2013 11:39PM

J C wrote: »

You may be talking about Surtsey Island which emerged out of the sea off Iceland in the 1960's and has developed geologically and ecologically very rapidly. It denies an 'old Earth' more so than Darwinism.

http://youngearth.com/surtsey-island-on-claims-of-required-geologic-ages

It's interesting alright

doctoremma · 12-04-2013 11:45PM

J C wrote: »

Unfortunately Emma has linked to a leading Evolutionist site that says that even if it is found exactly as described in Genesis, they still won't accept that it is the Ark.

It says that even if a vessel were to be found (which it hasn't) that matches the physical dimensions given in Genesis, it won't be accepted as Noah's ark.

The size of a boat (that hasn't been found) is not the key feature that implicates it (if it existed) as Noah's ark.

If someone tells me where Shergar is buried, and I go to the spot and find bones, that does not prove it is Shergar. It is worthy of further investigation, for sure, but not Shergar.

J C · 12-04-2013 11:59PM

doctoremma wrote: »

It says that even if a vessel were to be found (which it hasn't) that matches the physical dimensions given in Genesis, it won't be accepted as Noah's ark.

The size of a boat (that hasn't been found) is not the key feature that implicates it (if it existed) as Noah's ark.

If someone tells me where Shergar is buried, and I go to the spot and find bones, that does not prove it is Shergar. It is worthy of further investigation, for sure, but not Shergar.

Obviously provenance is important ... if a thoroughbred stallion's bones were to be found somewhere in Ireland, where nobody ever legitimately buried a horse before ... you'd be well on the way to proving it was Shergar.

Similarly, if you found a vessel that perfectly matched the Genesis account on the slopes of Ararat ... you'd be well on the way to proving it was Noah's Ark ... unless you are an Evolutionist, apparently!!!:)

The Concrete Doctor · 13-04-2013 12:24AM

J C wrote: »

Obviously provenance is important ... if a thoroughbred stallion's bones were to be found somewhere in Ireland, where nobody ever legitimately buried a horse before ... you'd be well on the way to proving it was Shergar.

Similarly, if you found a vessel that perfectly matched the Genesis account on the slopes of Ararat ... you'd be well on the way to proving it was Noah's Ark ... unless you are an Evolutionist, apparently!!!:)

If such a boat was found, in such a place, it would probably be the most significant artifact ever discovered. I understand Emma's point but in the event, a huge hole would be punched in the skeptic's arguments. Likewise, it would boost your position immeasurably.
I would rate the chances of such a discovery about the same as a UFO landing at the arrivals gate in Dublin Airport.....Nah, reflecting on that comparison, sorry, it is not accurate, UFO's are more likely to exist.

Geomy · 13-04-2013 01:46AM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

If such a boat was found, in such a place, it would probably be the most significant artifact ever discovered. I understand Emma's point but in the event, a huge hole would be punched in the skeptic's arguments. Likewise, it would boost your position immeasurably.
I would rate the chances of such a discovery about the same as a UFO landing at the arrivals gate in Dublin Airport.....Nah, reflecting on that comparison, sorry, it is not accurate, UFO's are more likely to exist.

In all fairness,I think that boat is well rotten away at this stage...

I find it staggering people even contemplate it is still in existence.

Maybe it's at the bottom of the turf bank on the north end of Doughmore beach lol

tim3000 · 13-04-2013 02:37AM

J C wrote: »

... and do you also think that a snake is a Mammal?!!!:D

... so is a Rhinoceros a 'reptile like mammal' ... or a 'mammal like reptile' or just a Mammal?:D

With considerable difficulty. Dendrochronology could help.

No a rhinoceros is a mammal a Triceratops is a reptile a cynodont is a mammal-like-reptile A snake is a reptile It is cold blooded (It must lay in the sun to heat up its body in order to move/hunt) it lays eggs.

I think we have that cleared up. Though I remind you that a rhinoceros has never shared time with a Triceratops and likewise with a cynodont.

As for dating it with dendrochronology why not radiometric dating? Or since wood is extremely carbon rich, carbon 14 dating (which was invented by a Nobel prize winning scientist).

But since this ark has yet to be found this is beside the point. Oh yes I meant to follow up with, How would one prove creationism in laboratory conditions?

Surely you can posit an experiment.

J C · 13-04-2013 09:43AM

Geomy wrote: »

In all fairness,I think that boat is well rotten away at this stage...

I find it staggering people even contemplate it is still in existence.

Maybe it's at the bottom of the turf bank on the north end of Doughmore beach lol

Because the higher areas of Ararat are above the snow line, there is a sporting chance that it may still be there, preserved by the snow and ice.
A group of chinese people claim to have found a large wooden structure embedded in a glacier on Ararat in 2007 but controversy surrounds the find.

Some people claim it was a hoax ... but either way, the stony silence of the mass media at the time (and their wall to wall reporting of the silliest examples of so-called 'evolution') says a lot about the bias present therein against Creationism.

Geomy wrote: »

If such a boat was found, in such a place, it would probably be the most significant artifact ever discovered. I understand Emma's point but in the event, a huge hole would be punched in the skeptic's arguments. Likewise, it would boost your position immeasurably.

I think that a significant wooden structure has been found there. It is too early to be definitive about it. I agree with you about the importance of such a find for all sides on the 'origins' issue ... but even if it is proven to be Noah's Ark, I don't think it will be a 'knock out blow' to all skeptical arguments.
The knock-out blow has already been delivered on the 'God Question' by ID research ... and yet they continue to deny it ... so I think that the reaction of the skeptics to finding Noah's Ark would be like Emma's ... to say something like 'so what, a large boat was found on the top of Ararat'!!!

Geomy wrote: »

I would rate the chances of such a discovery about the same as a UFO landing at the arrivals gate in Dublin Airport.....Nah, reflecting on that comparison, sorry, it is not accurate, UFO's are more likely to exist.

I can confirm personally, that UFOs exist ... so you are dealing with a certainty there ... perhaps not at Dublin Airport ... but UFOs have created problems for Air Traffic Control at other Airports!!!:)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361878/Russian-flight-controllers-UFO-aliens-speak-cat-like-language.html
http://austriantimes.at/index.php?id=10895
http://www.ufodigest.com/article/ufos-mean-more-work-spains-air-traffic-controllers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/9468022/Britain-visited-by-one-UFO-a-month-but-MoD-rules-they-pose-no-threat.html
http://drdavidclarke.co.uk/2012/08/19/air-traffic-control-ufos-and-the-foia/

Here is Wikipedia's account of the Chinese Ark discovery on Ararat:-
"In 2007, a joint Turkish-Hong Kong expedition including members of Noah's Ark Ministries International claimed to have found an unusual cave with fossilized wooden walls on Mount Ararat, well above the vegetation line.
In 2010, Noah's Ark Ministries International l (NAMI) released videos of their discovery of the wood structures. Members of Noah's Ark Ministries International reported carbon dating suggests the wood is approximately 4,800 years old. It is unlikely that there was any human settlement at the site at altitude of 4,000 meters. Randall Price, a partner with Noah's Ark Ministries International from early 2008 to the summer of 2008, stated that the discovery was probably the result of a hoax, perpetrated by ten Kurdish workers hired by the Turkish guide used by the Chinese, who planted large wood beams taken from an old structure near the Black Sea at the cave site. In a response to Price, Noah’s Ark Ministries International stated that they had terminated co-operation with Price in early October 2008, and that he had never been in the location of the wooden structure they identified, and regretted his absence in their find. On their website they say they asked for the opinion of Mr. Muhsin Bulut, the Director of Cultural Ministries, Agri Province. The web site says that his response was that secretly transporting such an amount of timber to the strictly monitored area and planting a large wood structure at an altitude of 4,000 meters would have been impossible. At the end of April 2010, it was reported that Turkey's culture minister ordered a probe into how NAMI brought its pieces of wood samples from Turkey to China."
National Geographic reported on it (with some skepticism ... but nontheless, they reported on it):-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/
Here are three videos on the find ... it certainly merits further investigation:-

J C · 13-04-2013 09:55AM

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

If such a boat was found, in such a place, it would probably be the most significant artifact ever discovered.

I agree.
Something big and wooden does seem to have been found there ... and it's been greeted by silence.
I guess 'the powers that be' don't share either your or my enthusiasm on the matter.
I wonder why?

tim3000 wrote: »

No a rhinoceros is a mammal a Triceratops is a reptile

... it was an endothermic, quadrupedal ungulate with Perissodactyl and Artiodactyl features ... I say it's a Mammal ... you may go and try to milk a lizard ... but I can tell you that you will be wasting your time.:)
You guys need to be more open minded ... and not dogmatically tied to an outdated worldview.:D
The irony of a Creationist having to say this to an Evolutionist ... strange days indeed!!!!

tim3000 wrote: »

I think we have that cleared up. Though I remind you that a rhinoceros has never shared time with a Triceratops and likewise with a cynodont.

They all shared time with a Crocodile ... so there is no reason to believe that they didn't share time with each other.

tim3000 wrote: »

As for dating it with dendrochronology why not radiometric dating? Or since wood is extremely carbon rich, carbon 14 dating (which was invented by a Nobel prize winning scientist).

Carbon Dating can help ... but it isn't always definitive.

tim3000 wrote: »

But since this ark has yet to be found this is beside the point. Oh yes I meant to follow up with, How would one prove creationism in laboratory conditions?

Surely you can posit an experiment.

It's already been proven by ID research ... and the discovery of CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) in living organisms.

J C · 13-04-2013 01:21PM

Here are intriguing reports on the possible discovery of Noah's Ark:-
http://barthsnotes.com/2010/04/27/hong-kong-evangelists-claim-they-ventured-inside-wooden-compartments-on-mount-ararat/

http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.ie/2010/04/scientists-discover-wooden-structure.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2506667/posts

... yet our supposedly investigative media that keeps us all bang up to date on any stray horses that are loose on the roads in Ballygobackwards, has said nothing about this!!!:eek:

... if its a fake ... this also should be reported.

ManMade · 13-04-2013 01:55PM

Light coming stars billions of years away proving the universe is far older than 6000 and fossils, modern sciences understanding of life are rubbish.

But...

Noah's ark: A 500 year old man capturing every species of animal. Building a wooden boat to hold all of them. A giant flood caused by an unproved being. Written in a book over 2000 years old by some shepherds. Completely provable and should be taught in science.

:eek:
As a Christian would say; Jesus wept.

J C · 13-04-2013 02:06PM

ManMade wrote: »

Light coming stars billions of years away proving the universe is far older than 6000 and fossils, modern sciences understanding of life are rubbish.

But...

Noah's ark: A 500 year old man capturing every species of animal. Building a wooden boat to hold all of them. A giant flood caused by an unproved being. Written in a book over 2000 years old by some shepherds. Completely provable and should be taught in science.

:eek:
As a Christian would say; Jesus wept.

Why would a Christian say that?
Jesus personally confirmed the veracity of Noah and the Flood ...

Quote Jesus Christ:-

Matthew 24:36-39
New International Version (NIV)

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

... and for the Roman Catholics amongst us ... St. Peter also confirmed the Genesis Account of the Flood:-
1 Peter 3:20
New International Version (NIV)

20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

... and I don't think that Noah's Ark (or M2M Evolution) should be taught in science class ... they both should be taught in Comparative Religion Class.

Just Like Heaven · 13-04-2013 02:08PM

In fairness JC has ya there. Jesus said so.

rose red · 13-04-2013 02:11PM

How in the world could all the animals even fit into the Ark?

ManMade · 13-04-2013 02:20PM

J C wrote: »

Jesus also confirmed the veracity of Noah and the Flood ...

Quote +Jesus Christ:-

Matthew 24:36-39
New International Version (NIV)

36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

Jesus said so..... A conman said so...
As an atheist..[Sarcasm] I am sold[/Sarcasm]

Jesus may have existed. His supernatural abilities are sorta questionable. So using his supernatural ability to prove...

ManMade wrote: »

Noah's ark: A 500 year old man capturing every species of animal. Building a wooden boat to hold all of them. A giant flood caused by an unproved being. Written in a book over 2000 years old by some shepherds. Completely provable and should be taught in science.

.. May cause a few to questions and eyebrows to be raised by me and anyone who isn't a fundamental Christian or really anyone who's sat Junior Cert science.

Just Like Heaven · 13-04-2013 02:22PM

How old was Moses actually? I've heard 120, 500 and 900 years of age.

ManMade · 13-04-2013 02:55PM

fewtinsoffroth wrote: »

How old was Moses actually? I've heard 120, 500 and 900 years of age.

500.
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%205.32

Jack and the beanstalk is more likely.

Edit:Just noticed he was older than 500 hundred when he had his children. Sweet Jesus his balls must've dragged a mile behind him :eek:

J C · 13-04-2013 03:13PM

fewtinsoffroth wrote: »

In fairness JC has ya there. Jesus said so.

I have ye everywhere!!!:)

... and I also note that ye are still very shy about talking about your pet 'origins' story of Abiogenesis and M2M Evolution.

The law is forcing everyone to talk about M2M Evolution in glowing terms in Science Class ... surely you don't want it to only be Creationists who say nice things about it ... nice things like the love of M2M Evolution by Evolutionists is a well established fact ... and such like.:D

J C · 13-04-2013 03:32PM

ManMade wrote: »

500.
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%205.32

Jack and the beanstalk is more likely.

Edit:Just noticed he was older than 500 hundred when he had his children. Sweet Jesus his balls must've dragged a mile behind him :eek:

Your juvenile crudity adds nothing to your case.:(

For the record, Noah lived to the ripe old age of 950 Years ... and he was in late middle age at the time of the Flood (when he was 600 years old).

Genesis 9:29
New International Version (NIV)

29 Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died.

ManMade · 13-04-2013 03:44PM

J C wrote: »

Your juvenile crudity adds nothing to your case.

For the record, Noah lived to the ripe old age of 950 Years.

Genesis 9:29
New International Version (NIV)

29 Noah lived a total of 950 years, and then he died.

Yet the idea that a man can build an ark and capture every animal at the brittle age of 500 survive the worst unproven catastrophe in history and live another 450 years, and leave zero trace ain't juvenile.

The idea that a man lived for nearly a thousand years is fantasy, the idea that a mans private areas wouldn't fair well at that age is reality.

J C · 13-04-2013 03:53PM

ManMade wrote: »

Yet the idea that a man can build an ark and capture every animal at the brittle age of 500 survive the worst unproven catastrophe in history and live another 450 years, and leave zero trace ain't juvenile.

... here's the thing ... it wasn't without trace ... the evidence for a Worldwide Water-based catastrophe and extinction event is there in the sedimentary rocks that are found all over the Earth ... and even the Ark seems to now have been discovered ... and we would know about it, if the people who run the media, weren't so preoccupied with showing us endless repeats of Sit-coms and the other 'tom-foolery' ... to divert us from reality!!!:)
... and Noah was 600 years old at the time of the Flood ... just coming into his prime ... at that time!!!

ManMade wrote: »

The idea that a man lived for nearly a thousand years is fantasy, the idea that a mans private areas wouldn't fair well at that age is reality.

It would be fantasy today, in our current state of increasing genetic entropy. In Noah's day living to 1,000 years was something to be aimed at!!!
... as for his age ... I find that 'the older the fiddle, the sweeter the tune' ... or so my wife tells me!!!

... these young fellas fustering about ... and not knowing what they are at ... frustrates most women!!!:D:p

ManMade wrote: »

.. May cause a few to questions and eyebrows to be raised by me and anyone who isn't a fundamental Christian or really anyone who's sat Junior Cert science.

Says the guy ... who claims to be spontaneously evolved from Pondslime!!!:)

tim3000 · 13-04-2013 04:04PM

J C wrote: »

... it was an endthermic, quadrupedal ungulate with Perissodactyl and Artiodactyl features ... I say it's a Mammal ... you may go and try to milk a lizard ... but I can tell you that you will be wasting your time.:)
You guys need to be more open minded ... and not dogmatically tied to an outdated worldview.:D
The irony of a Creationist having to say this to an Evolutionist ... strange days indeed!!!!

They all shared time with a Crocodile ... so there is no reason to believe that they didn't share time with each other.

Carbon Dating can help ... but it isn't always definitive.

It's already been proven by ID research ... and the discovery of CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) in living organisms.

I'am very confused about the above post especially this " it was an endothermic, quadrupedal ungulate with Perissodactyl and Artiodactyl features ... I say it's a Mammal" if you could clarify as to what animal you are referring to.

You do know that dendrochronology is used to calibrate radiocarbon dating?

J C · 13-04-2013 04:18PM

tim3000 wrote: »

I'am very confused about the above post especially this " it was an endothermic, quadrupedal ungulate with Perissodactyl and Artiodactyl features ... I say it's a Mammal" if you could clarify as to what animal you are referring to.

A Triceratops.

tim3000 wrote: »

You do know that dendrochronology is used to calibrate radiocarbon dating?

I do ... and timber rings of similar ages often give widely divergent C14 readings depending on what age the tree was when it was felled, for example.

tim3000 · 13-04-2013 05:15PM

J C wrote: »

A Triceratops.

I do ... and timber rings of similar ages often give widely divergent C14 readings depending on what age the tree was when it was felled, for example.

A triceratops is not a mammal. It is a reptile the name "dinosaur" literally means terrible lizard. There is no evidence whatsoever that a Triceratops was a mammal. Mammals only flourished after the K-T extinction 65mya. Which was caused by a large asteroid hitting earth near present day Mexico. But mammals did exist before and with dinosaurs as did birds and reptiles.

Yes but dendrochronology is only used to date things that are at most 11000 years old. That is why Carbon 14 and Radiometric dating is used for older fossils.

J C · 13-04-2013 05:54PM

tim3000 wrote: »

A triceratops is not a mammal. It is a reptile the name "dinosaur" literally means terrible lizard.

So ... here is a Lizard

... and here is a 'terrible Lizard'!!!

I see ... dream on !!!:P:pac:

tim3000 wrote: »

There is no evidence whatsoever that a Triceratops was a mammal. Mammals only flourished after the K-T extinction 65mya. Which was caused by a large asteroid hitting earth near present day Mexico. But mammals did exist before and with dinosaurs as did birds and reptiles.

No evidence ... except that it was an endothermic, quadrupedal ungulate with Perissodactyl and Artiodactyl features ... and I have never seen a lizard (terrible or otherwise) with these features ... and if I did ... I'd classify it as a Mammal!!!:)

tim3000 wrote: »

Yes but dendrochronology is only used to date things that are at most 11000 years old. That is why Carbon 14 and Radiometric dating is used for older fossils.

Older fossils aren't C14 dated ... because the maximum dates with C14 is about 20,000 evolutionist years.

tim3000 · 13-04-2013 07:25PM

J C wrote: »

So ... here is a Lizard

... and here is a 'terrible Lizard'!!!

I see ... dream on !!!:P:pac:

No evidence ... except that it was an endothermic, quadrupedal ungulate with Perissodactyl and Artiodactyl features ... and I have never seen a lizard (terrible or otherwise) with these features ... and if I did ... I'd classify it as a Rhino!!!:)

Older fossils aren't C14 dated ... because the maximum dates with C14 is about 20,000 evolutionist years.

You can't just reclassify whole genus and species to suit an agenda. A rhinoceros cannot exist in the same class as a dinosaur for many other reasons including those I have previously mentioned. A rhino is a mammal. All dinosaurs are reptiles These two types of animals never crossed paths.

And while we are at it there is debate as to whether Dinosaurs were cold-blooded. It is thought that they were warm blooded since modern day birds are (who are the cousins of dinosaurs). Though it is by no means certain.

Do you know that there are whole branches of modern science that indirectly or directly confirm an Old Earth hypothesis.

Botany,Climatology,Genetics,Paleontology,Archaeology,Biology,Physics, Astronomy, Geology etc. All rely on an old earth hypothesis in some form or another.

There are many more avenues of attack open to those who believe in this hypothesis. Instead we are getting bogged down in the difference between a mammal and a reptile.

How old do you actually think the world is? And if you truly believe that then why do you think there are thousands of well educated science personnel that ascribe to evolution? Do you think it is a conspiracy?

J C · 13-04-2013 08:20PM

tim3000 wrote: »

You can't just reclassify whole genus and species to suit an agenda. A rhinoceros cannot exist in the same class as a dinosaur for many other reasons including those I have previously mentioned. A rhino is a mammal. All dinosaurs are reptiles These two types of animals never crossed paths.

You must go where the evidence leads ... and in the case of the Triceratops, it has Mammal 'written all over it'!!!:)

tim3000 wrote: »

And while we are at it there is debate as to whether Dinosaurs were cold-blooded. It is thought that they were warm blooded since modern day birds are (who are the cousins of dinosaurs). Though it is by no means certain.

Dinosaurs have been found with birds in their stomachs ... so they were created separately ... and birds aren't descended from Dinosurs.

tim3000 wrote: »

Do you know that there are whole branches of modern science that indirectly or directly confirm an Old Earth hypothesis.

Botany,Climatology,Genetics,Paleontology,Archaeology,Biology,Physics, Astronomy, Geology etc. All rely on an old earth hypothesis in some form or another.

They don't rely on 'long ages' ... but they have fallen in line with long age ideas that are providing the deep time needed to prop up Spontaneous Evolution ideas.

tim3000 wrote: »

There are many more avenues of attack open to those who believe in this hypothesis. Instead we are getting bogged down in the difference between a mammal and a reptile.

You're claiming that something that looks like an Ungulate and had the broad anatomy of an Ungulate is a lizard!!!
... and I am trying to stop you destroying whatever little credibility that M2M Evolution has, by continuing to argue that a Triceratops was a lizard!!!
The term Dinosaur (or terrible lizard) was coined by Creation Scientist and Darwin protagonist Sir Richard Owen in 1842 ... but Creation Science has come a long way since then ... and we now recognise that not all of the Dinosura were, in fact, lizards.

tim3000 wrote: »

How old do you actually think the world is? And if you truly believe that then why do you think there are thousands of well educated science personnel that ascribe to evolution? Do you think it is a conspiracy?

Its not a 'conspiracy' ... no more than a belief in a 'young earth' is a conspiracy either.
'Long ages' beliefs are genuinely held by many people ... as a means of propping up their belief in Materialistic Evolution ... which, in turn, provides support for the idea that there is no God to whom we must account.

ManMade · 13-04-2013 08:29PM

Where did all the water come from/go?
Must have been multiple of earths actual reserves to cover everything including mountains and still keep the seas full.

This is a picture of earth vs the total amount of water on the planet.

J C · 13-04-2013 09:09PM

ManMade wrote: »

Where did all the water come from/go?
Must have been multiple of earths actual reserves to cover everything including mountains and still keep the seas full.

This is a picture of earth vs the total amount of water on the planet.

If the Earth had a smooth surface, the water currently on Earth would totally cover it to an average depth of 2.5 Km or 1.6 miles ... plenty of water to cover the entire Earth before the current mountains were upthrust and the ocean basins were downthrust during the giant tectonic movements during the latter stages of the flood.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env300.htm

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments