Originally posted by FreakyKBHHuh?
Huh.
Good ol' Bible strikes gold.
Again.
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?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo 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?
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]
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?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe 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.
[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]
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.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo, 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?
....all the fountains of the great deep ...
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.
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.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by vivifyThere'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?
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.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by vivifyNext time by fire.
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.
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.
Originally posted by PatNovakThe Ark was thermally insulated with all the animal dung.
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.
FIX'D
14 Jun 14
Originally posted by PatNovakThe pressure and boiling temps could provide a mechanism for propellling water to to the surface.
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.
Also, isn't the temperature at the bottom of the ocean fairly cold? If so, this would cool the temps at least a little.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtPlants 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.
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?