Why I don't believe the story of the Great Flood...

[Guest]

Good old science constantly proving everything and yet really affirming nothing

"Just 2% to 3% of the Earth's surface would have been dry land, compared with 28% today."
now for those that would like to discredit this evidence by the 2.5 billion year timeline, feel free to distract yourselves...but 2.5 billion years or 6,000 years really does not influence the notion that we can assume, with a great deal of probability, in the ability for the earth to actually be completely covered with water...whenever it may have been.

[_Themis]

Good old science constantly proving everything and yet really affirming nothing

"Just 2% to 3% of the Earth's surface would have been dry land, compared with 28% today."
now for those that would like to discredit this evidence by the 2.5 billion year timeline, feel free to distract yourselves...but 2.5 billion years or 6,000 years really does not influence the notion that we can assume, with a great deal of probability, in the ability for the earth to actually be completely covered with water...whenever it may have been.

I see nothing here that supports a world wide flood in which only 8 humans survived.

[_LittleNipper]

Good old science constantly proving everything and yet really affirming nothing

"Just 2% to 3% of the Earth's surface would have been dry land, compared with 28% today."
now for those that would like to discredit this evidence by the 2.5 billion year timeline, feel free to distract yourselves...but 2.5 billion years or 6,000 years really does not influence the notion that we can assume, with a great deal of probability, in the ability for the earth to actually be completely covered with water...whenever it may have been.

I see nothing here that supports a world wide flood in which only 8 humans survived.

I see nothing refuting it either...
What is telling is that Uniformitarians/evolutionists always seem to eventually contradict themselves. First they say there is no way and no proof that the earth was ever entirely covered with water, and then they say, "Oh, but indeed there is proof..." They just don't want to agree with Creationists.

[Guest]

I see nothing refuting it either...
What is telling is that Uniformitarians/evolutionists always seem to eventually contradict themselves. First they say there is no way and no proof that the earth was ever entirely covered with water, and then they say, "Oh, but indeed there is proof..." They just don't want to agree with Creationists.

Where do they say there is no way the earth was never covered in water? I find it funny that those who want to promote their dogma attack science which has none.

[_Franktalk]

SomeOne, AnyOne, WhoEver!!!! If you believe that there was a flood and Noah was aboard his boat just tell me WHEN it happened.

Flood happened: 3554 BC

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/scriptchron.htm

This is a good analysis of scripture and how it relates to a time line. It assumes no gaps. If however the beginning is the start of a dispensation then the creation of the earth verses a reshuffle leaves us with no information as to when it was made in whole, or how. I do believe there have been major and minor dispensations going back for a long time.

[_SteelHead]

And the various civilizations that went right on through this period mean what?

[_LittleNipper]

I see nothing refuting it either...
What is telling is that Uniformitarians/evolutionists always seem to eventually contradict themselves. First they say there is no way and no proof that the earth was ever entirely covered with water, and then they say, "Oh, but indeed there is proof..." They just don't want to agree with Creationists.

Where do they say there is no way the earth was never covered in water? I find it funny that those who want to promote their dogma attack science which has none.

I have been told time and again by evolutions that there is no way the entire earth was flooded. There is no evidence (according to some) that the entire earth was under water. Now, someone is lying about something or they simply do not know what they are talking about. In either case, it doesn't look good for those who try to disprove the possiblity of Noah's Flood. THE REALITY COULD BE A MISINTREPRETATION OF DATA. One little mistake is all it takes to throw off an equasion.

[_Themis]

I have been told time and again by evolutions that there is no way the entire earth was flooded. There is no evidence (according to some) that the entire earth was under water.

So you can't show where the science states the earth was never covered mostly by water. I assume most of the people you are talking to are not scientists and they referring to recent geological time of thousands of years ago and not 2.5 billion.

Now, someone is lying about something or they simply do not know what they are talking about. In either case, it doesn't look good for those who try to disprove the possiblity of Noah's Flood. THE REALITY COULD BE A MISINTREPRETATION OF DATA. One little mistake is all it takes to throw off an equasion.

Could you be specific. At this point I can only see you have no idea what you are talking about and seem to have some very ignorant ideas about science.

[_SteelHead]

The volume of a sphere is 4/3 pi x r^3. The volume of water required to cover the himalayas simply does not exist on the planet.

[Guest]

Where do they say there is no way the earth was never covered in water? I find it funny that those who want to promote their dogma attack science which has none.

I have been told time and again by evolutions that there is no way the entire earth was flooded. There is no evidence (according to some) that the entire earth was under water. Now, someone is lying about something or they simply do not know what they are talking about. In either case, it doesn't look good for those who try to disprove the possiblity of Noah's Flood. THE REALITY COULD BE A MISINTREPRETATION OF DATA. One little mistake is all it takes to throw off an equasion.

I agree, but could the mistake be in your belief equation?