Posted on 05/04/2009 7:42:04 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Worldwide FLOOD Worldwide EVIDENCE
When the Bible refers to a worldwide Flood in Genesis 7–8, that’s exactly what it means. Not local, not metaphorical, not some crazy dream—the waters covered the whole earth. Don’t just take our word for it, though. Take a look at the evidence right beneath your feet...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Also see:
It doesn't prove or disprove any particular one of them.
It belongs in either opinion or religion.
Probably religion.
I’m going to the beach this week regardless.
I don’t need evidence … God’s Word says it, therefore it is true.
The ORIGINAL “Climate Change”.
LOL...and one the God sent the sign of a rainbow to remind us He will never again destroy the world in a flood!
There never was any ‘prehistoric’ era; its all recorded history, from the first day.
For the Genesis judgement, there is information spread through the entire Bible, giving fairly vivid pictures of what happened. It was alot more than a flood; it was a total remake of the crust of the Earth.
LOL!
damn the solid evidence of a world wide flood, full darwinspeed ahead......
Who wrote it all down between Adam and Moses, and who witnessed Creation?
SITREP
Did you read the article? Or are you just reacting to the title?
The Kaibab formation in the southwest is well known and an ancient sea is the reason there are marine fossil deposits in Arizona.
“To form such a vast fossil graveyard required 24 cubic miles (100 km3) of lime sand and silt, flowing in a thick, soup-like slurry at more than 16 feet (5 m) per second (more than 11 mph [18 km/h]) to catastrophically overwhelm and bury this huge, living population of nautiloids.”
Or it could be an ancient sea bed deposit which i stated above. This is an example of misinformation and manipulating data, if there was any data at all. Does this statement actually make any sense? It gives a distance/time rather than a volume/time. How did they know the width and height of the “slurry?” How do they know the amount of time it took to flow. Sounds like they made up information to fit their data.
“We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents—even between continents—and physical features in those strata indicate they were deposited rapidly.”
They are repeating the theory of continental drift but stating the cause is a flood. If the gravel really was swept off of one continent coast why would it travel all the way into Arizona in it's final resting place rather than being deposited mainly into the deepest point. Would we not see evidence of the rock being left behind in some places? Yes we would...if a flood were the cause.
If anyone would like to defend this article, please feel free to do so.
There needed to be some evidence at some time that the books that got included in the Bible were in fact God's Word.
While I indeed think they are, I should be a fool not to have expected at least some corroborating evidence. I'm not saying this means that every single thing in the Bible needs evidence supporting it. I'm just saying that there has to be some amount of evidence, archaeological and otherwise, that would reasonbly support the claim that the Bible could be the Word of God.
For example, if some prophet had claimed detailed knowledge of some major civilization in the Americas, I would expect that some archelogical evidence of the civilization be around before I would accept having it added to the Bible.
Be a Biblical literalist if you want, but this article is just idiocy.
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.