Don't be dim!
Water wings, duh!
Posted on 09/24/2006 6:00:46 PM PDT by blam
Flood made Britain into an island 'in 24 hours'
By Tim Hall
(Filed: 25/09/2006)
Britain may have become an island after a Biblical-style flood split it from Europe in less than 24 hours, according to new geological research.
The flood would have taken place between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago, sweeping away hills between Britain and what is now France.
The theory could rewrite British prehistory, as current text-books teach that Britain - once a peninsula of continental Europe - split from the great land mass after a long process of erosion and rises in sea levels.
However, surveys of the Channel bed using new sonar techniques have revealed the remains of a huge valley, running south-west from the Strait of Dover.
The sonar survey, led by Sanjeev Gupta, from Imperial College, London, uncovered deep bowls, scour marks and piles of rubble on the sea bed that may have been caused by a torrent of water.
Dr Gupta said in a paper published at an academic conference: "In places, this valley is more than seven miles wide and 170 ft deep, with vertical sides. Its nearest geological parallels are found not on Earth but in the monumental flood terrains of the planet Mars.
"This suggests the valley was created by a catastrophic flood following the breaching of the Dover Strait and the sudden release of water from a giant lake to the north."
According to Dr Gupta's theory, France and Britain would have been linked by a high ridge of chalk hills, running roughly between Dover and Calais. To the north would have been a freshwater lake, fed by rivers, and deepened over thousands of years.
The lake, hundreds of feet above sea level, finally overflowed the chalk ridge and swept down towards the Atlantic. The water washed away the soft chalk hills and left the British Isles a separate land mass.
Dr Gupta's work is outlined in his book Homo Britannicus: the Incredible Story of Human Life in Britain, to be published next week.
More proof of the lies of Darwinists that they’ll try to suppress.
Last I checked, the theory of evolution had nothing to do with flooding. But I'm sure you knew that, Dave.
And "biblical creationism" doesn't predict anything...
Lake Bonneville drained north, via the Snake River. Plenty of suddenly scoured canyons along that path: Portneuf Gap, Snake River Canyon, etc.
Yes, because FR is based in California. < :P
No one disputes that there wasn’t a lot of Ice Age melting in various places. That has nothing to do with a global flood described in Genesis. There is no evidence that what happened in Genesis happened in real life.
Adam and Eve, according to Genesis, could speak as clearly, with as massive of a vocabulary, as you and I. Adam and Eve spoke and understood God’s language and Adam named every animal. Creationists can’t accept that language was evolutionary. There was nothing and then {poof} there was total language.
They didn’t have the ability to see Al Gore’s hologram. He would have shown them the way.
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
When a chemist measures the concentration of a substance in the laboratory or a physicist predicts the orbit of a comet, their results are likely to be accurate to within tiny fractions of a percent. This is because they can repeat their experiments and observations again and again, until they get accurate models, with which they confidently make predictions. During the past few centuries we've used the very accurate results of experimental scientists to make lots of useful things that almost always work the way we expect them to. That has given 'science' the reputation it has, so almost everyone agrees that its a good thing to make decisions based on science.
When a geologist says something is 72 million years old, or an anthropologist says a stage of human development took place 250,000 years ago, no one is particularly suprised if the same people come back five years later and say they were off by 25%. That's because there is only one earth, and they can't go back and repeat all of history a few more times to make sure their observations were correct. Their work is interesting because over time it gives us a clearer picture of the history of our world; however earth science is not usually useful as a basis for policy decisions, because it is simply based on collections of observations rather than repeatable experiments.
It is ironic then, that the groups of people clammoring for policy decisions based on 'science' are not experimental scientists whose work is verifiably accurent, but the 'earth scientists' whose results may well be off by 25%, 50% or an order of magnitude. Skeptics who question the wisdom of policy decisions based on observations of unrepeatable events are not Luddites who reject science. They simply understand the importance of repeatibility to the scientific method.
Yep, and we rightfully don't praise the activities there. We praise God for destroying newborns (infanticide) and the unborn (abortion) using water.
Don't be dim!
Water wings, duh!
"Don't piss off Zeus?"
God screwed with human DNA at the Tower of Babel.
I’m asking myself if ‘the whole world’ could mean the portions of the planet where Adam’s descendants lived, and any places where pre-Adam humans lived were not in the mix. That would allow for the tremendous fload that formed the Black Sea (I think that’s the one) to drown all of Adam’s descendants except those in the Ark, while not requiring a global fload.
I don't know. Slow news day? I've noticed this from other sites as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.