Skip to comments.
Noah's Flood Hypothesis May Not Hold Water
RPI ^
| June 14, 2002
| Jun Abrajano
Posted on 06/14/2002 7:32:58 AM PDT by aculeus
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 281-297 next last
To: stuartcr
I don't question what God says, I question what humans say. That's good.
I believe that throughout history, it's always been a human that has said that the bible is the word of God.
If you don't believe the Bible is the word of God, how would you know God's words?
To: Tai_Chung
I just checked my Bible and it does not say God flooded the globe...
God states "I, on my part, am about to bring the flood on the earth, to destroy everywhere all creatures in which there is the breath of life; everything on earth shall perish"(Genesis 6.17)
How far had all life on earth spread out from Eden by the time of Noah?
The flood might be only need to be local to kill all life
To: blam
Something else written by God..... through a person, also mentions....
"They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts."
Ephesians 4:18
103
posted on
06/14/2002 10:48:22 AM PDT
by
Icthus
To: aculeus
To: aculeus
I'm outta here, this has turned into a religious thread and I do not discuss religion on FR. Anyone who wants my opinion on the flood in this article, FR mail me. Bye!
105
posted on
06/14/2002 10:49:31 AM PDT
by
blam
To: Physicist
There physically isn't enough water on Earth to do it. And if somehow it happened anyway, 100,000 years would not suffice for its effects to be overcome. Obviously, if there is an omnipotent being undertaking such an activity, he or she could create water from scratch, destroy it when done, etc., and contain or limit the consequences of the event in any way desired.
According to the Bible, these kids were stained with the original sin, and therefore bound for hell.
What a crock. "Original sin" is a man-made unbiblical concept. I challenge you to provide any Scripture that teaches damnation of children.
106
posted on
06/14/2002 10:51:22 AM PDT
by
Sloth
To: blam
'40 days and 40 nights' was a phrase used to denote a moderately long, unspcific amount of time. It was used much the same way we may use the phrase, several months, a littel while, one moment etc.
To: willyone
We cannot know all of God's mind - of course not. But we know the important stuff through His word. (Well, you don't even have that, because you reject the idea that it is His word.)
108
posted on
06/14/2002 10:55:21 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: Physicist
Are you SURE there isn't physically enough water to flood the whole earth? How much water, on average, is in the clouds on any given day? How much frozen at the poles? I'm curious as to how you are so sure of your ascertion.
109
posted on
06/14/2002 10:57:22 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: Michael_S
I'm at work so haven't had time to read all the posts. Did anyone EVER provide any kind of support for the statement that the 40 days of rain were not 40 literal days?
110
posted on
06/14/2002 10:58:32 AM PDT
by
MEGoody
To: proud to be breathing
I certainly don't claim to know how plausible this is, but I had read an article once concerning the ante-delugian atmospheric hydrogen stating that the molecular hydrogen content was much higher than present day and that the switching of the neutron and proton spin axis create a radio frequency consistant with the biblical account that the "morning stars sang together", and that this molecular hydrogen existed in sufficient quantity to trigger overwhealming flooding if ignited, in addition to the ground springs which "burst forth".
The article claimed this hydrogen would have burned from the top, down, thus the hydrogen supply would have been exhausted before the oxygen content would reach the critical point. It had credited the former hydrogen "shell" of the atmosphere as causing a perfect "greenhouse effect" which aided the longer life pre-flood humans were known for. This "shell" could have been ignited by an astroid (which also could have opened those groundsprings on impact), but surface flames couldn't ignite it because the resident hydrogen altitude was too great. Also, it was suggested that the sun's highest radiation was restricted from reaching the earth's surface and this caused the water vapor not to rise as fast as present day, thus thundershowers and rainstorms were not possible. In scripture, only after the flood do we find God promising that heat and cold will continue on the earth, indicating the climate of pre-flood days may have been more constant or temperate - concurrent with the "greenhouse" conditions.
Whether true or not, I don't know. But it certainly correlates well with scriptural descriptions of that era of earth's history...
To: MEGoody
I came across an interesting item of note recently....I live along the coast in NW Florida and recently spoke with an archeologist that stated they routinely find artifacts (via fishing nets) as far offshore as 9 miles. For you non-coastal types...you lose sight of land around here at about 9 or 10 miles out.
112
posted on
06/14/2002 11:02:18 AM PDT
by
Icthus
To: Tai_Chung
I believe the word of God is inherent in each human being.
To: stuartcr
Not being a Christian, I have no problem.I hear what you say...but you may have a bigger problem to consider.
To: azhenfud
Huh?
115
posted on
06/14/2002 11:08:56 AM PDT
by
Junior
To: eleni121
There is plenty of scientific support for Creation - the Flood, et al. Linking to a creationist group that uses the Bible to "prove" scientific claims does not equal "scientific evidence"
116
posted on
06/14/2002 11:09:04 AM PDT
by
gdani
To: blam
I'm outta here, this has turned into a religious thread and I do not discuss religion on FR. Anyone who wants my opinion on the flood in this article, FR mail me. Bye!Then why did you begin in the first place? The topic is Noah's flood, which is in a religious text called the Bible.
To: Physicist
According to the Bible, these kids were stained with the original sin, and therefore bound for hell.
The Bible doesn't say that anywhere.
To: OldDominion
This happens. A science discussion often turns into a religion discussion and the scientific types go away. If the discussion became metaphysical, even I might stay, but it doesn't seem to be happening.
To: gdani
Linking to a creationist group that uses the Bible to "prove" scientific claims does not equal "scientific evidence"I guess it depends on whether you consider the geological evidences of the topic (i.e, the flood of Noah), science.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140 ... 281-297 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson