1. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    13 Jun '14 19:46
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core.html#.U5tTycrD_cd

    Huh.
    Good ol' Bible strikes gold.
    Again.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    13 Jun '14 20:01
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Huh.
    Good ol' Bible strikes gold.
    Again.
    Huh?
    Good ol' Bible takes credit for something it didn't do.
    Again.

    Where in that article does it say that they used the Bible to discover this?
    Answer: nowhere.
    So you must be claiming that the Bible actually told you about that water? If so, why didn't you speak up before the scientists wrote an article on it?
  3. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    13 Jun '14 20:481 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Huh?
    Good ol' Bible takes credit for something it didn't do.
    Again.

    Where in that article does it say that they used the Bible to discover this?
    Answer: nowhere.
    So you must be claiming that the Bible actually told you about that water? If so, why didn't you speak up [b]before
    the scientists wrote an article on it?[/b]
    So you must be claiming that the Bible actually told you about that water? If so, why didn't you speak up before the scientists wrote an article on it?
    Oh, little one: always quick with the temper and slow with the wit.

    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.
    -Genesis 7:11

    Does the account in Genesis qualify as pre-dating this recent finding?

    With an amount of water estimated at three times that presently found in the oceans of the world, I wonder how much ground such a flood would have covered?
  4. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78534
    13 Jun '14 21:32
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [b]So you must be claiming that the Bible actually told you about that water? If so, why didn't you speak up before the scientists wrote an article on it?
    Oh, little one: always quick with the temper and slow with the wit.

    [i]In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day [ ...[text shortened]... ntly found in the oceans of the world, I wonder how much ground such a flood would have covered?[/b]
    The total volume of water in the world's oceans is around 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water. The total volume of water in this reservoir is then about 4 billion cubic kilometres. Which would cover the earth to a depth of about 8 kilometres. However it has long been known that water is needed to lubricate the earth's tecktonic plate movement. So that some should be down there is not new. The surprise is the quantity.

    However it is not going to well to the surface. If that could happen then it would do so regularly and then all land life would be extinct. There is no evidence for a global flood, and this quantity of water is too great to create a local flood.

    Besides, I'd wait until it is confirmed by other groups before believing it.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    13 Jun '14 21:33
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    ....all the fountains of the great deep ...
    So, lets see. You found a book that says 'fountains of the deep' and you think it 'struck gold' because that vaguely resembles a modern scientific finding that there is water in the earths mantle?
    If striking gold were that easy, we would all be rich.

    Does the account in Genesis qualify as pre-dating this recent finding?
    Of course the account in Genesis pre-dates this recent finding. However the account in genesis does not say the same thing as this recent finding, which is why I asked why you (and not the account in genesis) failed to speak up earlier?
    Perhaps you could tell us something else in genesis that we currently do not know but that you expect to be confirmed scientifically in the future? Here's you chance to be famous.
  6. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    13 Jun '14 22:281 edit
    Whoa, now. This is actually huge for creationists. Here, there's enough water to kill every living thing on the surface (or in the world). We ask creationists for evidence, and here, we have something substantial (for a change). Rather than instinctively attack the poster, let's let this play out. Congrats to creationists.

    In the meantime, geologists have thoroughly refuted a global flood, for reasons beside the amount of water. That's the creationists next hurdle.
  7. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78534
    13 Jun '14 22:34
    Originally posted by vivify
    Whoa, now. This is actually huge for creationists. Here, there's enough water to kill every living thing on the surface (or in the world). We ask creationists for evidence, and here, we have something substantial (for a change). Rather than instinctively attack the poster, let's let this play out. Congrats to c creationists.

    In the meantime, g ...[text shortened]... d a global flood, for reasons beside the amount of water. That's the creationists next hurdle.
    There's more problems than that. As I remember the story Noah took breeding pairs of all the animals that were due to survive. But no mention is made of plants. So there are several problems. Why are there any plants? Why is anything living on land masses not connected with the Middle East? How did life reproliferate so quickly (5,000 odd years really isn't that long for this)? Why isn't every species, including humans, ridiculously inbred?
  8. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110622
    13 Jun '14 22:53
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Huh.
    Good ol' confirmation bias strikes gold.
    Again.
    FIX'D
  9. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    13 Jun '14 22:54
    Originally posted by vivify
    Whoa, now. This is actually huge for creationists. Here, there's enough water to kill every living thing on the surface (or in the world). We ask creationists for evidence, and here, we have something substantial (for a change). Rather than instinctively attack the poster, let's let this play out. Congrats to creationists.

    In the meantime, geo ...[text shortened]... d a global flood, for reasons beside the amount of water. That's the creationists next hurdle.
    Next time by fire.
  10. Joined
    13 Apr '11
    Moves
    1231
    13 Jun '14 23:11
    Besides the obvious problem of a mechanism to get all this water to quickly come to the surface, there is also the issue of what this water would do if it did reach the surface. Water at this depth is under enormous temperatures and pressures. If it were to rise quickly to the surface, I am thinking the likelihood of boiling oceans and scalding atmosphere would make a worldwide flood seem minor in comparison.
  11. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    14 Jun '14 00:10
    Originally posted by PatNovak
    Besides the obvious problem of a mechanism to get all this water to quickly come to the surface, there is also the issue of what this water would do if it did reach the surface. Water at this depth is under enormous temperatures and pressures. If it were to rise quickly to the surface, I am thinking the likelihood of boiling oceans and scalding atmosphere would make a worldwide flood seem minor in comparison.
    The Ark was thermally insulated with all the animal dung.
    FIX'D
  12. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    14 Jun '14 00:10
    Originally posted by PatNovak
    Besides the obvious problem of a mechanism to get all this water to quickly come to the surface, there is also the issue of what this water would do if it did reach the surface. Water at this depth is under enormous temperatures and pressures. If it were to rise quickly to the surface, I am thinking the likelihood of boiling oceans and scalding atmosphere would make a worldwide flood seem minor in comparison.
    The pressure and boiling temps could provide a mechanism for propellling water to to the surface.

    Also, isn't the temperature at the bottom of the ocean fairly cold? If so, this would cool the temps at least a little.
  13. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    14 Jun '14 00:14
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    Next time by fire.
    I suppose this is how a loving god destroys his children.
  14. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8563
    14 Jun '14 00:231 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    I suppose this is how a loving god destroys his children.
    I suppose your concept of a "loving" God is one who should allow anarchy of evil doing to spread unchecked.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    14 Jun '14 00:52
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    There's more problems than that. As I remember the story Noah took breeding pairs of all the animals that were due to survive. But no mention is made of plants. So there are several problems. Why are there any plants? Why is anything living on land masses not connected with the Middle East? How did life reproliferate so quickly (5,000 odd years really isn't that long for this)? Why isn't every species, including humans, ridiculously inbred?
    Plants grow from seed. There could be seeds in the ground that sprouted up afer the flood. There could also be seeds in the poop of the animals. There are too many possiblities to worry about listing.
Back to Top