bong_0000007

Older layer was a lakes with many kinds of marines organisms that covered by mud flow and ashes of the volcanic eruptions from the higher area after the local rain.

Mammoth proved that earth was really divided suddenly in pelegs days.
http://biblicalsciencewisdom.blogspot.com/

WVIncagold

I lost 4 IQ points just trying to wade through this nonsense. It has got to be the dumbest website i have ever looked at.

Blackclaw

I don't even know what point you are trying to make. Are you putting forth arguements that the global flood described in Genesis actually happened? Is this suppose to somehow act as evidence against the geological and fossil evidence that supports an old earth?

The idea that certain places that are now dry were once covered by water is nothing new. The concept of continental drift has been around for some time. None of these things refutes any evidence that supports evolution. Nor do any of these things challenge the current geological estimated age of the earth.

bong_0000007

Where could you get soils that makes several layers or strata? If it takes thousands or millions of years to form,Why it was not washed away by rain to the ocean?

The idea that certain places that are now dry wereis nothing new.
Where did the sands,stones goes after the wet places becomes dry?
While in Global flood only small amount of sands was carried to the dry lands.

Blackclaw

In a way, it is.

http://www.fi.edu/fellows/payton/roc...e/sediment.htm

This whole website is a pretty good resource for understanding rock formation.

http://www.fi.edu/fellows/payton/roc...ate/index.html


They stayed right there. That's why we can find fossils of sea creatures in areas that are now dry land.

I may be misunderstanding your point, but there's sand everywhere.

There was no global flood. There is not enough water on Earth to cover every land mass at the same time. Depending on what time era you put the flood in, there may be evidence that shows the existence of human civilizations that survived, indeed didn't even notice, what was suppose to be a global flood.

There have been massive floods in the history of our planet. Place yourself in the point of view of a person living in what is now the Black Sea. If water floods into every single place that you know of, to you, it is a "global flood." You would have no idea of even the existance of continents on the other side of the world and no way of knowing that the flood that hit your region, which might encompass thousands of miles, had no effect elsewhere.

bong_0000007

How thick are the sands at sea?
We found marine fossils at the top of mount everest.
It was not fossilized on the stones and sands but on mud or soils that was already there at the time of global flood.

There is not enough water on Earth to cover every land mass at the same time.
What do you think can an omnipotent God do with this?Did you heard that God made red sea to divide for the Israelites?
In the Bible God open the heaven to rain.The rain came from outside of the earth.

Keith&Co.

God opened little doors in the solid sky to let the 'Waters Above' rain down.
You really offer this nursery-tale cosmology as proof of the Books' divine sourcing?

Blackclaw

Which sea? And where in which sea? It varies due to a number of factors such as currents and river mouths.

Sand thickness cannot lead to evidence of a global flood. What we'd need to see is a distinct world-wide marking in the geological strata along with a fossil record of a massive animal die off.

To support the notion of a world wide flood, we'd need to see something like the KT boundary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-T_boundary

Although we would not be looking for a radium line, but the world wide evidence that a flood covered the entire planet at once. The geologic record does not support that.

In fact, quite the opposite.

http://evolution.mbdojo.com/flood.html


Mount Everest is part of the Himalaya mountain chain. It was formed 60 million years ago due to plate tetonics. Before the collision of theIndian and EuroAsia plates, there was no Mount Everest and the land that now forms it was underneath a now vanished ocean.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/everest/earth/birth.html

So God instantly created a massive amount of water for the sole purpose of killing off the wicked humans and he instructed Noah to build a boat so that some humans would survive?

You are describing a God that can't even do precision targeting. The Human race with laser and GPS guided bombs are currently more accurate in killing one another than the God of the old testament was. If we are going to fall back to the arguement that God has supernatural powers and thus can make and vanish water at will, then why could he not instead have just snapped his fingers and have every single evil person on the planet fall over dead? There's no need for an all powerful God to slaughter all those animals, all those plants, all the children of the wicked... to utterly wreck his own creation by drowning the whole thing.

There's no need to give up faith in God to understand that the story of Noah's ark is just that, a story. It's not even an original story.

http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

And no, that doesn't mean that the flood event was recorded around the world. The flood stories differ in what god or gods started the flood and who survived. In Babylon Utnapishtim survived the flood. In China it was a fellow named Fuhi. In Greece, Zeus caused trhe flood and Deucalion and his family were warned by Prometheus.

These are stories of gods who were powerful, but brutal, and had limited foresight. These stories are fiction.

If there is a God, there's no need to confine him to the limited understanding that our ancient ancestors had. There are many deep discussions to be had on the nature and origin of the universe and just what kind of spiritual, if any, connection we have to that universe.

But there is no need to try and make up evidence to support stories told around the campfire thousands of years ago.