Prove to me creationism is real

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Perhaps my time would be better spent talking about molecules and space travel after all:unsure:

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Step aside please, I'll take this one Scott.

Without so much as cracking a book open, or looking up something in some dusty textbook.

There is eveidence that there was a "great flood" perhaps not bilical, let's say it has nothing to do with the bible at all.

Ask yourself this....How can you find fossils of of what appears to be water borne creatures...On the side of mountains?

I am almost positive that almost the entire planet at some point was practically covered with water, Bible aside.

*taps foot waiting for AEF*

====:ninja

Could it be........

..........flying water borne creatures?

 

[gLing]

Perhaps my time would be better spent talking about molecules and space travel after all:unsure:

Start a warp drive thread. I would love to read that as long as you dumb it down enough for me to understand.

 

[Tim]

I would also like to point out that if there was a global flood, then there would be a sediment layer found at the same depth across the globe. There should be evidence of marine fossils everywhere this layer is identified, not on only a few select mountains. But this layer has never been found or identified.
Geologists have found other sediment layers that cover the globe. One which happened 65 million years ago when a meteor wiped out over 70% of all species it was called the Cretaceous-Tertiary Mass Extinction event. This layer can be found everywhere on the planet. It is very consistent in depth and consists of the same material....

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

A flood does not fit with the presence of marine fossils on the side of mountains for the following reasons:

1. Floods will erode mountains and the soil on them and deposit their sediments in the valleys.

2. The marine fossils are in the same positions as they lived, not scattered all over as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was observed in the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci.

3. Fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

4. Shells do not float. So a flood would not wash them up onto a mountain regardless if an additional body of water covered the oceans.

Alrighty then.

Sooooooooo..........given that the marine organisms, fossils etc were buried on the side of mountains, assuming high...............how did they get there again?

Ok, you say that it shows that the mountain region was once under the sea right? That would make whatever below the water level under the sea wouldn't it?

 

[Tim]

Something else to point out... The tallest mountain on earth is Mt. Everest at 29,029 ft above sea level. It is growing at a rate of 2.4 inches a year... so if you do a little math, at given rate of growth, the peak could have been below sea level less than 150,000 years ago... That's nothing in geologic terms. Now I'm sure that it wasn't under the sea 150,000 years ago. There are too many variables and I can venture a educated guess that it's rate of growth is not consistent or predictable.

 

[SRC]

I would also like to point out that if there was a global flood, then there would be a sediment layer found at the same depth across the globe. There should be evidence of marine fossils everywhere this layer is identified, not on only a few select mountains. But this layer has never been found or identified.
Geologists have found other sediment layers that cover the globe. One which happened 65 million years ago when a meteor wiped out over 70% of all species it was called the Cretaceous-Tertiary Mass Extinction event. This layer can be found everywhere on the planet. It is very consistent in depth and consists of the same material....

I watched a documentary a Sunday ago .. on Discovery Channel .. about this very thing .. they were exploring the Antarctic regions.

The world was not competely inhabited at the time of the "flood" .. only limited parts of it. Who is to say that the part they lived in was not at some point where it is now cold, or that the part that is now cold wasn't affected by the flood, or that the WHOLE earth was flooded and not just parts of it? Continents have shifted, merged, broke apart .. ect. way before we knew where they started out.

They are currently digging up sections of ice in Antarcta .. where layers of earth have been found in between layers (something that shouldn't really "be" ); which incidently has been found to be melting at an alarming rate btw .. which is how they keep finding these fossils where they shouldn't be.

Most of the marine fossils they keep finding are located in these regions (or that I've seen documentaries on myself). Who's to say the the mountains aren't erroded .. how would we "know" they aren't .. we can nly judge by how they are now .. and the earth has changed severely.

A great flood would alter the eco system greatly .. perhaps this is why we have Antartica? The flood wouldn't have gone away immediantly (especially in areas where large bodies of water were already present .. like an ocean?) .. and marine animals wouldn't have just been washed up there .. they would have swam/crawled/placed themselves where they were found while they were alive I would imagine .. and possibly then died in the locations where they have been found.

Just because they have found some in certain areas doesn't mean that there aren't any in others .. just no one is loking for them in other areas .. because none have been unearthed yet .. they are looking in the areas where they have been found .. because they were found there.

You find a dino body in Egypt .. you don't go dig in Arkansas trying to find more .. ya know?

*** oh and btw .. how many dino's have been found in your state? They don't just find them everywhere .. they're usually all in the same areas .. or relatively close in geographic location. They do find them in other place s.. but not normally.

Alabama’s oldest fossils are found in the northern part of the state, where the tail end of the Appalachian Mountains is located. They mostly represent marine invertebrates that lived more than 230 million years ago during the Paleozoic Era.

But most of Alabama lies within the Gulf Coastal Plain. Here are found fossils of animals from the Cretaceous Period and several periods of the following Cenozoic Era (the Age of Mammals).
Ancient seas covered much of Alabama well into the Age of Mammals. Thus, dinosaur skeletons are rare. However, a few fossils have been found, including bones from Albertosaurus, perhaps the most formidable predator that ever roamed what is now Alabama.

http://www.geoworld.org/Alabama/Prehistory

 

[All Else Failed]

:24::24:

Don't be a jack ass.

Hey its ok man, I know what its like to be backed into a corner.

 

[All Else Failed]

Step aside please, I'll take this one Scott.

Without so much as cracking a book open, or looking up something in some dusty textbook.

There is eveidence that there was a "great flood" perhaps not bilical, let's say it has nothing to do with the bible at all.

Ask yourself this....How can you find fossils of of what appears to be water borne creatures...On the side of mountains?

I am almost positive that almost the entire planet at some point was practically covered with water, Bible aside.

*taps foot waiting for AEF*

I already explained that. Shifting tectonics heave land that was once underwater upwards to create dry land. It happens very commonly over the Earth's history.

 

[All Else Failed]

oh yeah:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. We would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record. Since the Flood allegedly took place a mere 5000 years ago, this evidence should still remain with very little erosion. But this worldwide blanket does not exist.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]2. We would expect to see no sorting in regard to sediment type and size. The maelstrom of a flood would only permit "dumping" of transported sediment in accord with Stokes Law. Furthermore, HOW could floodwaters have deposited layers of HEAVIER sediments on top of layers of LIGHTER sediments? In other words, if there had been an ultramassive Flood, we would not expect to see limestone strata overlaid by granite. No creationist has ever explained how the Flood could have deposited layers of heavy sediment on top of layers of lighter sediment.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]3. The present day land surface would be expected everywhere to show rounding of the land surfaces in the direction the waters receded. There would be mega-ripples everywhere such as are seen along the Columbia River formed by the rapid movement of the waters off the land surface. Present day landforms would be expected to show a second stage of erosion resulting from this runoff in the common form of valleys eroded below the base level of its tributaries resulting in what are called hanging valleys in glacial terrain. These would be common and not caused by glaciation.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4. There would be no segregation of fossils. If all organisms lived at the same time, we would expect to see trilobites, brachiopods, ammonites, dinosaurs, and mammals (including humans) all randomly mixed together in the worldwide blanket described in point #1. This is not what is observed. The fossil record exhibits an order consistent with the theory of evolution (but inconsistent with creationism), from simple forms to more complex forms, and from creatures very unlike modern species to those more closely resembling modern species. There is not one instance of any fossils that have been deposited "out of order".[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In addition, there would be no extinction events found in the fossil record. There are at least five major extinction events, a situation where fossils are abundant below a certain line within the geological layers, but totally absent above that line. The most notable extinction event is the one that killed off the dinosaurs (and 90% of all other life) 65 million years ago. There is no way to explain these geological features with a global flood.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]5. If, here and there, there were preserved remnants of the pre-flood land surface, its surface would show signs of major erosion.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6. Igneous (volcanic) rocks, if they existed at all in flood sediments, would all be in the form of pillow lava, which are extruded underwater. There could be no segregation of igneous rock types. Basalt would be the only igneous rock type because all activity would have been extrusive. There would be a complete absence of volcanic layers within the strata. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In reality, there are very clearly defined volcanic layers, from which radiometric dates are obtained.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] How can we observe layers of volcanic rock within the strata if there was a Flood at at the time? The lava would have mushroomed up into what is known as "pillow lava", like we see on the ocean floor today. So how can we have flat layers of vocanic rock, compressed between other layers, occuring during an "ultramassive flood"?[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]7. Metamorphic rocks, as they are formed from previously existing rocks, would not exist in the post-Flood geological layers because the necessary heating and cooling require millions of years for large bodies.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8. All radioactive isotopes which would not have completely decayed away in, say 10,000 years, would exist in nature because those with a moderately short half-life would not have had time to decay.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]9. No varves, ice cores, tree ring ensembles, coral cores, or other examples of periodically accumulated accretion should be found to extend back beyond the time of the Flood. They do. Ice cores, drilled from stable ice plains, show 40,000 years of annual layers. Varves, which are mineral deposits, show millions of years of annual layers.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10. Because of the catastrophic force of the marine environment and the lack of exposure of the land during the flood, we would expect to find no examples at all in the geologic record of the following delicate fossils or evidence for land deposition :[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fossilized dinosaur nests[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ant nests[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]termite nests[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]bird nests (of a relative of the flamingo in the Green River Formation in Wyoming)[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fragile wasp nests[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]complex rodent burrows[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]animal dung left in its original position of deposition as it hardened on dry, solid ground[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]trackways of land animals[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]raindrop imprints[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fossilized mudcracks[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]fragile things preserved as fossils, such as bird feathers (Confuciusornis)[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ferns (adjacent to coal beds)[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]insects (Oligocene lake beds near Florrisant, CO),[/FONT]
• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]oxidized rocks layers (redbeds) because there is insufficient oxygen in the water to oxidize (bring up) the iron present.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] All these fragile features are found deep in the geological record. A catastrophic flood would have destroyed them. I would especially like you to consider how raindrop imprints and mudcracks could have become fossilized in a sudden, massive flood.[/FONT]
  
  
  [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11. Were the earth only some 10,000 years old, metastable aragonite (mother of pearl) would be common in carbonates and especially in deeply buried (relatively high pressure) Paleozoic deposits. In reality, the oldest known aragonite sample is Mississippian. We would also expect to find volcanic glass and opal in rocks of all "ages," including Precambrian rocks that supposedly were created during the creation week only 6,000 years ago. In reality, opal and volcanic glass are rarely, if ever, found in Pre-Cenozoic rocks.[/FONT]
  
  
  [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]12. We would expect Mesozoic and Cenozoic forams and radiolaria to be well mixed in the Mid-Atlantic sediments. They're not.[/FONT]
  
  
  [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

 

[All Else Failed]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]13. There would be no blueschist outcrops. Blueschists are low temperature, high pressure metamorphic rocks that may contain the remains of pillow basalts and even fossils. These rocks would need millions of years to be subducted from the surface to depths of around 15-18 km. Once deeply buried, the blueschist minerals, such as glaucophane, need time to grow, since the temperatures are only about 300-400C.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]14. We would expect to find no thick subsurface evaporites (halite, sylvite, and gypsum). It would be impossible to precipitate them from a marine environment.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]15. There would be genetic evidence of a recent population bottleneck in all extant species. There is no such genetic bottleneck, dating from 6-10 thousand years ago.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16. There would be some remnant evidence of pre-Flood civilization(s) and obviously pre-Flood humans. The Institute for Creation Research has not established any criteria for what a pre-Flood human might be like (instead consigning all "degenerate" fossils like erectus and neanderthal to post-Flood).[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]17. Neither hardgrounds, which prove lithification before deposition of successive layers, nor buried karst terrain, as at the top of the Redwall Limestone in the Grand Canyon, would be found in the geologic record.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]18. We would not find paleosols in the flood record because there was neither time nor a mechanism for sub-aerial exposure.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]19. There would just be one age from the top to the bottom of the geological column. In other words, whether you pick a rock from the top of the Grand Canyon or the very bottom, they both should be dated at 10,000 years old. There would be no reason to find agreement between the layered rocks and their ages, which were determined both stratigraphically and radiometrically. In fact there are very real increases in age as one digs deeper down in the column. If the flood DID happen, then all the geological stratum were laid down in just one year, containing all those pesky bones. Therefore, there would be just one age from the top of the dirt to the bottom of the geographical layers. This is clearly not the case. Ergo, the Flood never happened.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All those "lower" strata, millions of years old, show an increase of complexity and diversity of life on this planet, dating back at least 3.8 billion years ago, when the only life on earth was bacterium. That evidence supports evolution. It refutes the idea that the earth is around 10,000 years old, and that all life appeared suddenly in one week, fully formed in their present state. The geological column clearly shows that humans only appeared very recently in the history of life. [/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]20. We should expect that all mountain ranges (being all formed during or immediately after the Flood) should show similar, near equal amounts of erosion. They don't.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]21. If the flood occurred about 10,000 years ago, the polar ice caps should have no more than 5000 annual layers. Or, at the very least, there should be massive evidence of melting and salt water intrusion at that time.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22. Had a flood occurred, all plants alive today should have seeds which could remain viable in hot, humid conditions for a year, or which can survive prolonged submersion in sea water. All plants should be able to grow with little or no topsoil. In reality, most can't.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]23. If a global flood deposited all strata, we would not expect to find the tilted, 11,600-foot thick, Late Precambrian Grand Canyon Series beneath the horizontally-bedded 4,000-foot thick Cambrian-Permian section in the Grand Canyon. Additionally, had the flood deposited all strata, one must wonder at what everyone between Adam and Noah lived on! Creationists have never identified the bedrock on which these biblical heroes walked.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]24. In regard to fossils, there are three very important predictions if the Global Flood really occurred:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] A) None of the marine fossils would be encrusted by other fossils, or show any sign of boring by organisms after death.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] B) None of the vertebrate fossils should show signs of scavenging or prolonged weathering by exposure on the ground.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] C) None of the vertebrate fossils should be encrusted by pedogenic carbonate, such as the fossils in the Karoo of South Africa and the Badlands of South Dakota are.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] In other words, if the Flood happened, fossil vertebrates should consist only of freshly broken bone exhibiting no sign of scavenging or of having lain on the ground or sea bottom for a long period of time.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]25. Zoogeography should show a dispersal pattern demonstrating that the point of origin of all species is in the Middle East (the disembarking point for Noah's ark). It doesn't. It shows different points of origins for different species.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]26. The Hawaiian Islands and associated coral structures should all be found to be more recent than the Flood. They aren't.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]27. There should be isotopes with half lives of less than 80 million years in the biosphere. The fact that there are none argues very strongly for an earth with an age far older than 10,000 years. (This point is not so much about the flood in particular, but presents an irrefutable argument in favor of an ancient earth. Click here to read a technical explanation). This evidence has never been refuted by any creationist.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]28. Fossilized plants should be represented equally throughout all the geological layers, with no sorting from 'primitive' to 'modern'. This is not the case-- there is clearly segregation of plant fossils from primitive to modern represented in the geological column. Plants have no means by which to "run to higher ground", the infantile method that creationists suggest was used by animals to sort themselves in order of intelligence.[/FONT]

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Again, I am not saying it's true, but:

Undersea explorer finds new evidence of great flood

Artifacts found at the bottom of the Black Sea. The beam, left, shows signs of being worked by tools or implements
September 13, 2000
Web posted at: 10:07 AM EDT (1407 GMT)

In this story:

From freshwater lake to saltwater sea

Structures found in underwater river valley

RELATED STORIES, SITES


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The first evidence that humans lived in an area now covered by the Black Sea -- perhaps inundated by the biblical flood -- has been found by a team of explorers.
"Artifacts at the site are clearly well preserved, with carved wooden beams, wooden branches and stone tools," lead researcher Robert Ballard said.
"We realize the broad significance the discovery has and we're going to do our best to learn more," Ballard said in a telephone interview Tuesday from his ship off the northern coast of Turkey, west of the community of Sinop.

VIDEO CNN's Ralitsa Vassileva probes the bottom of the Black Sea

Play video
(QuickTime, Real or Windows Media)

MESSAGE BOARDScience & religion


Fredrik Hiebert of the University of Pennsylvania, the team's chief archaeologist, said the discovery "represents the first concrete evidence for occupation of the Black Sea coast prior to its flooding."
"This is a major discovery that will begin to rewrite the history of the cultures in this key area between Europe, Asia and the ancient Middle East," Hiebert said.
The remnants of human habitation were found in more than 300 feet of water about 12 miles off the coast of Turkey.
From freshwater lake to saltwater sea

Many ancient Middle Eastern cultures have legends of a great flood, including the Bible story of Noah.
Columbia University researchers William Ryan and Walter Pittman speculated in their 1997 book "Noah's Flood" that when the European glaciers melted, about 7,000 years ago, the Mediterranean Sea overflowed into what was then a smaller freshwater lake to create the Black Sea.
Last year Ballard found indications of an ancient coastline miles out from the current Black Sea coast. The new discovery provides evidence that people once lived in that now inundated region.
Ballard, a National Geographic Society explorer in residence, said he studied shells found along the ancient coastline and found two types. One group is an extinct type of freshwater shell, while the second is from saltwater shellfish.
The saltwater shells date from the present back 6,500 years, while the freshwater shells all date to 7,000 years ago and older.
"So we know that there was a sudden and dramatic change from a freshwater lake to a saltwater sea 7,000 years ago," he said Tuesday.
"And we know that as a result of that flood a vast amount of land went under water.
"And we now know that land was inhabited. What we don't know is who these people are, we don't know how broad their settlements were ... but we're expanding our studies to try to determine that."
Structures found in underwater river valley

Ballard said his team, using remote-controlled underwater vessels with cameras, located a former river valley beneath the sea, and in the valley was the collapsed structure. Remains include preserved wooden beams that were worked by hand.
The structure was "clearly built by humans," and was characteristic of stone-age structures built 7,000 years ago in the interior of Turkey, Ballard said. It contained a stone chisel and two other stone tools with holes drilled through them, he said.

Two objects, possibly tools, with holes indicating they were drilled by a human, provide new evidence that humans faced a great flood
Nothing has been removed from the site. "When you first find a site you don't just run in there and start picking up things," he said.
The group is now mapping the site and looking for other structures in the area.
"This is a work in progress," Ballard said. "It is critical to know the exact era of the people who lived there, and to that end we hope to recover artifacts and wood for carbon dating so we can figure out what sort of people lived there and the nature of their tools."
The discovery occurred within coastal waters of Turkey, whose Directorate of Monuments and Museums has a representative on the research vessel.
Ballard, best known for finding the remains of the ships Titanic, Bismarck and Yorktown, among other discoveries, operates the Institute for Exploration in Mystic, Conn.
His expedition is sponsored by the National Geographic Society, which is planning a book and television programs on Ballard's Black Sea research.

Copyright 2000 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

I can google too ​

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

I watched a documentary a Sunday ago .. on Discovery Channel .. about this very thing .. they were exploring the Antarctic regions.

The world was not competely inhabited at the time of the "flood" .. only limited parts of it. Who is to say that the part they lived in was not at some point where it is now cold, or that the part that is now cold wasn't affected by the flood, or that the WHOLE earth was flooded and not just parts of it? Continents have shifted, merged, broke apart .. ect. way before we knew where they started out.

They are currently digging up sections of ice in Antarcta .. where layers of earth have been found in between layers (something that shouldn't really "be" ); which incidently has been found to be melting at an alarming rate btw .. which is how they keep finding these fossils where they shouldn't be.

Most of the marine fossils they keep finding are located in these regions (or that I've seen documentaries on myself). Who's to say the the mountains aren't erroded .. how would we "know" they aren't .. we can nly judge by how they are now .. and the earth has changed severely.

A great flood would alter the eco system greatly .. perhaps this is why we have Antartica? The flood wouldn't have gone away immediantly (especially in areas where large bodies of water were already present .. like an ocean?) .. and marine animals wouldn't have just been washed up there .. they would have swam/crawled/placed themselves where they were found while they were alive I would imagine .. and possibly then died in the locations where they have been found.

Just because they have found some in certain areas doesn't mean that there aren't any in others .. just no one is loking for them in other areas .. because none have been unearthed yet .. they are looking in the areas where they have been found .. because they were found there.

You find a dino body in Egypt .. you don't go dig in Arkansas trying to find more .. ya know?

*** oh and btw .. how many dino's have been found in your state? They don't just find them everywhere .. they're usually all in the same areas .. or relatively close in geographic location. They do find them in other place s.. but not normally.

I'm leaning towards this. Makes sense.

 

[All Else Failed]

I don't see how that even suggests a great flood. A relatively small area that was once dry being covered by water isn't anything weird. Look at Venice. Its sinking for shit's sake!

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I don't see how that even suggests a great flood. A relatively small area that was once dry being covered by water isn't anything weird. Look at Venice. Its sinking for shit's sake!

Okay, let's throw away the GLOBAL UNDERWATER thing, let's just throw it the hell away, and look at the possibility that, areas were flooded, by a GREAT FLOOD, not a planetary flood.

Read it at its merit, do not make it look like I am making something appear that is clearly not there.

 

[SRC]

Who said it had to be a small area? and last time I checked .. Antartica .. not all that small.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Who said it had to be a small area? and last time I checked .. Antartica .. not all that small.

Jesus, what I am saying is THROW OUT THE GLOBAL FLOOD, and look AT AREAS, big and small, just not the entire planet under water.

 

[SRC]

Jesus, what I am saying is THROW OUT THE GLOBAL FLOOD, and look AT AREAS, big and small, just not the entire planet under water.

Jesus .. who said i was talking to you

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Jesus .. who said i was talking to you

Cause.....Cause.......

I tried to steal your boyfriend is why:24:

Sorry, back on topic. Okay, you were not then

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Something else to point out... The tallest mountain on earth is Mt. Everest at 29,029 ft above sea level. It is growing at a rate of 2.4 inches a year... so if you do a little math, at given rate of growth, the peak could have been below sea level less than 150,000 years ago... That's nothing in geologic terms. Now I'm sure that it wasn't under the sea 150,000 years ago. There are too many variables and I can venture a educated guess that it's rate of growth is not consistent or predictable.

oh yeah:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. We would expect to observe a uniform, worldwide blanket of randomly sorted boulders, cobbles, sand, and silt overlain by a layer of clay. This blanket would overlie any pre-existing geologic record. Since the Flood allegedly took place a mere 5000 years ago, this evidence should still remain with very little erosion. But this worldwide blanket does not exist.[/FONT]

Which of these two things are not the same?