Originally posted by RJHinds'Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred."
So then you believe these scientists are wrong in thinking this is evidence for Noah'w flood?
That is what the article actually says. You love to point out 'could be', maybe it could have happened this way and so forth in regards to such subjects as age or rocks or evolution evidence but when you see something you want to latch onto as proof of some biblical fairy tale, all of a sudden what they say NOW is golden and could be's and so forth are totally ignored.
In other words, total hypocrisy in action.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, I believe you are wrong in thinking the scientists think it is evidence for Noah's flood. In reality, the scientists think there was a catastrophic flood in the region of the Black Sea. The article goes on to suggest that that flood may have lead to the story of Noah's flood, although it is not clear who did that speculating. But whoever it was doing the speculating, they were basically saying: the Noah's flood story is based on a local flood that took place in the region of the Black Sea. So this could reasonably be taken as evidence against a global flood. Thus the OP you posted thinking you were providing evidence for Noah's flood, is in fact the opposite - it is evidence against Noah's flood (as you believe it).
So then you believe these scientists are wrong in thinking this is evidence for Noah'w flood?
Originally posted by twhiteheadAS sonhouse stated, I latched on to the title, "Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard" as meaning he really believed it. On additional reading I began to realize he was trying to explain Noah's flood away, but I still thought he might be on to something. But as you say, it might not be evidence of anything to do with Noah's flood. It is probably just more speculation that many scientists are known for.
No, I believe you are wrong in thinking the scientists think it is evidence for Noah's flood. In reality, the scientists think there was a catastrophic flood in the region of the Black Sea. The article goes on to suggest that that flood may have lead to the story of Noah's flood, although it is not clear who did that speculating. But whoever it was doing ...[text shortened]... Noah's flood, is in fact the opposite - it is evidence against Noah's flood (as you believe it).
Originally posted by RJHindsGiven that your reading comprehension is so terrible that it has taken 4 pages of posts and multiple people explaining it to you before you realised you had got it all wrong, you would be well advised to consider the possibility that you are equally error prone when reading the Bible.
AS sonhouse stated, I latched on to the title, "Evidence Noah's Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard" as meaning he really believed it. On additional reading I began to realize he was trying to explain Noah's flood away, but I still thought he might be on to something. But as you say, it might not be evidence of anything to do with Noah's flood. It is probably just more speculation that many scientists are known for.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI haven't realized I have it ALL wrong. But I did realize that they associated this with Noah's flood to gain more interest than it may have otherwise deserved. I also realized this is not convincing evidence of Noah's flood, since it could just as easily be explained in other ways.
Given that your reading comprehension is so terrible that it has taken 4 pages of posts and multiple people explaining it to you before you realised you had got it all wrong, you would be well advised to consider the possibility that you are equally error prone when reading the Bible.
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd mores the pity.
I haven't realized I have it ALL wrong.
I also realized this is not convincing evidence of Noah's flood, since it could just as easily be explained in other ways.
What you don't yet seem to have yet realised, is there is no explanation in which it could be explained as having to do with Noahs flood - except as an explanation for the origin of the story that contradicts your own beliefs.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, I doubt I ever will realize that.
And mores the pity.
[b]I also realized this is not convincing evidence of Noah's flood, since it could just as easily be explained in other ways.
What you don't yet seem to have yet realised, is there is no explanation in which it could be explained as having to do with Noahs flood - except as an explanation for the origin of the story that contradicts your own beliefs.[/b]
Originally posted by RJHindsSo tell me why a god, who can create universes, WHY would it kill all the land animals to get to a few thousand bad ass humans? IT created those animals, right? It LOVED its creation, RIGHT? Don't you see that as a huge plot hole in that story? The writers should have done their god homework a bit better don't you think?
Well, I doubt I ever will realize that.
God, YOU HUMANS TICK ME OFF, ZAP, no more humans, and it didn't have to go to all that work to off all the land animals AND create all that water and then watch over the whole affair for a month or more and then magically find another planet to dump all that water. Very energy inefficient, much simpler to just go ZAP, no more nasty humans and those 8 in the Ark, just let them go and start things up again.
Seems like a much simpler situation for said god.
Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
We now know, of course, that the earth has plenty of water to launch a global flood. It has been calculated that if the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet. But is there enough water to cover a 29,035 foot mountain?
The key is to remember that the Flood didn't have to cover the present Earth, but it did have to cover the pre-Flood Earth, and the Bible teaches that the Flood fully restructured the earth. "The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished" (II Peter 3:6). It is gone forever. The earth of today was radically altered by that global event.
That Flood accomplished abundant geologic work. Eroding sediments here, redepositing them there, pushing up continents, elevating plateaus, denuding terrains, etc., so that the earth today is quite different from before. Today even mountain ranges rise high above the sea.
Mt. Everest and the Himalayan range, along with the Alps, the Rockies, the Appalachians, the Andes, and most of the world's other mountains are composed of ocean-bottom sediments, full of marine fossils laid down by the Flood. Mt. Everest itself has clam fossils at its summit. These rock layers cover an extensive area, including much of Asia. They give every indication of resulting from cataclysmic water processes. These are the kinds of deposits we would expect to result from the worldwide, world-destroying Flood of Noah's day.
At the end of the Flood, after thick sequences of sediments had accumulated, the Indian subcontinent evidently collided with Asia, crumpling the sediments into mountains. Today they stand as giants—folded and fractured layers of ocean-bottom sediments at high elevations. No, Noah's Flood didn't cover the Himalayas, it formed them!
Thus we find the Biblical account not only possible, but also supported by the evidence. A pre-Flood world with lessened topographic extremes could have been covered by the Great Flood. That Flood caused today's high mountains and deep oceans making such a flood impossible to repeat. This is just as God promised, back in Genesis.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/520/270/
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd more blah blah blah. I ask you again, why would a sane god destroy half the creation of life forms on Earth it allegedly created just to kill some bad ass humans? It just made an entire universe according to your mythology. So it would be less than a flick of its rhetorical finger to off a few thousand humans and avoid all that work of getting things back to normal afterwards.
Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
We now know, of course, that the earth has plenty of water to launch a global flood. It has been calculated that if the earth's surface were completely flat, with no high mountains and no deep ocean basins, that water would cover the earth to a depth of about 8,000 feet. But is ...[text shortened]... eat. This is just as God promised, back in Genesis.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/520/270/
So how can a grown man in the 21st century buy that crock?
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is the word of God.
And more blah blah blah. I ask you again, why would a sane god destroy half the creation of life forms on Earth it allegedly created just to kill some bad ass humans? It just made an entire universe according to your mythology. So it would be less than a flick of its rhetorical finger to off a few thousand humans and avoid all that work of getting things back to normal afterwards.
So how can a grown man in the 21st century buy that crock?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Mediterranean dried out and then refilled with water over five million years ago.
Not according to the OP.
[b]There are submerged coastlines all around the world from Britain to India.
And in the case of the Mediterranean, is believed by some, to have dried out completely in the past.[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Did you reply to my question yet RJHinds?
This passage - " ... the gospel, which you heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, of which I Paul became a minister." (See Colossians 1:23)
Did the Holy Spirit mean every termite and cockroach under heaven in, say, the Amazon Jungle, had the gospel announced to them when Paul wrote those words under inspiration ?
You want me to be hyper literal about Noah's Flood right? It can ONLY be understood to cover what we know today as the entire planet.
So is "all creation under heaven" to be taken the same way?