Spirituality
29 Jul 15
11 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo what happened to the water after that big so-called flood? You do know it is an absolute fact that the deeper you go the hotter it gets, right? So water cannot exist as a liquid much more than a couple miles down. You do know that, right? So where is all that water?
I see that you go for these big budget productions.
11 Aug 15
7 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThe water is deep in the oceans and the seas and the lakes and the rivers and the Gulf of Mexico and in the clouds above the Earth and even frozen as ice and snow at the poles of the Earth. Perhaps you should go on a vacation cruise or travel across the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans in a ship and take a look for yourself. 😏
So what happened to the water after that big so-called flood? You do know it is an absolute fact that the deeper you go the hotter it gets, right? So water cannot exist as a liquid much more than a couple miles down. You do know that, right? So where is all that water?
P.S. If you decide to take an Atlantic cruise ship be sure to jump in when you get about have way across to Europe and see if you can touch bottom.
http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2012-04-27/atlantic-cruise-bargains-travel-deals-repositioning
http://www.royalcaribbean.com/findacruise/destinations/home.do?dest=T.ATL
12 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSo let's see. The 'flood' covered the earth, all the mountains. Then receded. Mt Everest is about 6 miles high, so 30,000 extra feet of water covered the Earth. So now we are to believe it just sank into impervious rock? Even YOU must wonder about that. Wait, forget I said that, sorry.
The water is deep in the oceans and the seas and the lakes and the rivers and the Gulf of Mexico and in the clouds above the Earth and even frozen as ice and snow at the poles of the Earth. Perhaps you should go on a vacation cruise or travel across the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans in a ship and take a look for yourself. 😏
P.S. If you decide to take an ...[text shortened]... deals-repositioning
http://www.royalcaribbean.com/findacruise/destinations/home.do?dest=T.ATL
12 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseMT Everest was not near as high at the time of Noah's flood and the seas were not as deep. You seem to overlok the fact that all the fountains of the great deep burst open.
So let's see. The 'flood' covered the earth, all the mountains. Then receded. Mt Everest is about 6 miles high, so 30,000 extra feet of water covered the Earth. So now we are to believe it just sank into impervious rock? Even YOU must wonder about that. Wait, forget I said that, sorry.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.…
(Genesis 7:11-12 NASB)
And after the Flood the mountains rose and the valleys sank down.
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they fled,
At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.
The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them. You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth.…
(Psalm 104:6-9 NASB)
12 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsExactly how are you going to prove Mt. Everest was not that high back then? In your mythology, how high was Mt. Everest before the flood?
MT Everest was not near as high at the time of Noah's flood and the seas were not as deep. You seem to overlok the fact that all the fountains of the great deep burst open.In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the flood ...[text shortened]... not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth.…
(Psalm 104:6-9 NASB)
13 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouse
Exactly how are you going to prove Mt. Everest was not that high back then? In your mythology, how high was Mt. Everest before the flood?
I can't tell you how high any mountain was when Noah's flood occurred. However, there is no doubt among geologists that mountains rise higher. The only doubt is the processes by which it happens and how rapid mountains rise. Common sense would tell us that Mt. Everest was not always as high as it is today. If one believes the record of the Holy Bible, then it is clear that there was a quick rise of the mountains and a sinking of the valleys to provide a place for the flood waters to recede from covering the whole earth and to keep all that water from ever covering the whole earth again.
Mountain Ranges Rise Much More Rapidly Than Geologists Expected
In the June 5 issue of Science, Carmala Garzione, associate professor of geology at the University of Rochester, says this rapid uplift means the current theory of plate tectonics will have to be substantially modified to include a process called "delamination."
The work of one of Garzione's post-doctoral research fellows, Gregory D. Hoke, corroborates the swift-rise theory and shows that not just the mountains, but a broad region more than 350 miles wide rose to some degree with the Andes. In research soon to be published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Hoke describes his findings on how rivers carved deep canyons into the flanks of the Andes as the mountain range rose. By dating the incisions and mapping the depth and extent of the canyons, Hoke shows that the surface uplift that occurred in the sedimentary basin where Garzione took her measurements must have happened across the entire width of the Andes Mountain range.
Garzione and her colleagues show that with the addition to their new findings, a broad range of geologic indicators, including the history of folding and faulting, erosion, volcanic eruptions, and sediment accumulation suggest a hotly debated tectonic process called delamination likely at work, says Garzione. Although delamination has been proposed for decades, Garzione says it has been controversial because mechanical models of mountain building have a hard time reproducing it, and, until the new findings, there has been a lack of reliable paleoelevation measurements.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080605150912.htm
13 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsMt. Everest is growing at about 4 mm per year, so 10,000 years ago it would have been about 40 meters shorter. Not exactly a quick growth.
[quote]I can't tell you how high any mountain was when Noah's flood occurred. However, there is no doubt among geologists that mountains rise higher. The only doubt is the processes by which it happens and how rapid mountains rise. Common sense would tell us that Mt. Everest was not always as high as it is today. If one believes the record of the Holy Bi ...[text shortened]... le paleoelevation measurements.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080605150912.htm
What you refuse to understand is the tremendous tectonic forces that would have to have been in place to make Everest rise quickly, something like 10,000 feet in say 4000 years? 3 feet per year for 4000 years? You have zero conception of the forces involved and the level of earthquakes that would result. You just blithely state nonsense to shore up your receding defense as to the flood and everything else in the bible. That kind of rise level would have been happening all over the planet and there would have been earthquakes like the one that leveled Jericho but one per hour for thousands of years. You cannot get around that, those are just the forces of tectonics in action.
14 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat makes you more qualified to know what happened at the time of the flood than God? 😏
Mt. Everest is growing at about 4 mm per year, so 10,000 years ago it would have been about 40 meters shorter. Not exactly a quick growth.
What you refuse to understand is the tremendous tectonic forces that would have to have been in place to make Everest rise quickly, something like 10,000 feet in say 4000 years? 3 feet per year for 4000 years? You ha ...[text shortened]... housands of years. You cannot get around that, those are just the forces of tectonics in action.
14 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSince there was neither, we can count on our own brains to work out the details. Just poo-pooing the true age of Earth does not give you validation, only proving you to be in the nutter category unable to wake up and smell the coffee.
What makes you more qualified to know what happened at the time of the flood than God? 😏
14 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYou and your evilutionists friends are the ones that are poo-pooing the true age of Earth of about 6000 years. There is no way the earth could be 4 billion years old. That is complete nonsense.
Since there was neither, we can count on our own brains to work out the details. Just poo-pooing the true age of Earth does not give you validation, only proving you to be in the nutter category unable to wake up and smell the coffee.
14 Aug 15
Originally posted by RJHindsIn your deluded self-lobotomized preprogrammed brainwashed tenth century demonized mind only.
You and your evilutionists friends are the ones that are poo-pooing the true age of Earth of about 6000 years. There is no way the earth could be 4 billion years old. That is complete nonsense.
15 Aug 15
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsI started to have a reasonable discussion with Kelly Jay on this subject in the other thread (creation vs Evolution), where I pointed out the geological evidence that we have today on plate tectonics and continental drift. That also explains why the Himalayas are rising.
You and your evilutionists friends are the ones that are poo-pooing the true age of Earth of about 6000 years. There is no way the earth could be 4 billion years old. That is complete nonsense.
KJ opted out. Would you like to take a look at that, or do you just say: that is only my opinion.
So the sequence was:
1. Volcanoes spew up molten magma which turns into rocks
2. These get eroded over a long period of time by wind and water and ice and form sand
3. Plants grow and get deposited in swamps. Over long periods, these deposits add up to a few hundred feet. They get compressed and form coal. This can obviously not be done in Flood Year
4. Other sand sediments get deposited over the layers of plants, forming what is now shale layers between the coal seams. Long periods are needed for this.
5. The subcontinent of India breaks off from Africa and travels North and East. Long periods are needed for this, even if the rate has once been higher than the now measured two inches per year. This can also not have happened during the Flood Year.
The physical evidence of all this is undisputable, it is not conjecture.
Any comments on this, other than Hallelujah?