To you people who don’t believe in a universal Flood, what about it is so hard to believe?
Mar 31, 2009 Universal Records
Posted by
Admin
It wasn’t just evaporated water; God also caused “the fountains of the deep” to open up. How much water is contained both on the Earth and IN it? Could a universal Flood, which killed almost all the animals, account for the “fossil record” you atheists are so quick to mention? As well as cause the decay of vegetation that has provided us with fossil fuels?
That’s possible, no?
March 31st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Then who was phone?
Fail Post is Fail
March 31st, 2009 at 8:28 pm
We expect a better brand of troll here.
You can do better.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:13 pm
It is impossible, not to mention ludicrous
March 31st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
god is fictional. the noahs ark/epic of gilgamesh stories are complete fiction.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Ha ha ha is he serious? Are you serious?
March 31st, 2009 at 9:56 pm
That flood is proved to be false, because if something that drastic occurred, we’d be able to find overwhelming evidence of it, alas, we have found absolutely none. We have found dried up bodies of water from millions of years ago, we’d certainly be able to find one from just a few thousand years ago that covered the entire earth. It’s hard to believe because it’s impossible and untrue.
March 31st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
It’s more likely that it flooded what they viewed as their whole world (i.e their country) in noah’s ark than the whole world. It’s highly improbable
so stop getting excited
March 31st, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Many cultures have a “great flood” myth, so actually I think there may have been one.
On the other hand, even a regional flood like the one in Indonesia a few years ago would SEEM universal and catastrophic to a primitive people without global communication, so the various cultures could just be talking about their own floods.
In no sense do I believe in a single flood that buried all land on earth. That’s geologically unlikely at best.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Ok, I can see how you could think that.
But what about Carbon dating? No amount of water affects the rate at which C-14 decays.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:01 am
No, that’s not possible.
There have been cataclysms, yes, but no semi-Biblical “flood.” The flood stories of the Mediterranean region, of which the Abrahamic ones are late to the party, are more likely due to the collapse of a barrier lake in the region of what is now the Black Sea than anything else.
April 1st, 2009 at 12:36 am
Look, even some Moderate Christians know that the universal flood was impossible
April 1st, 2009 at 12:48 am
No, it’s not possible. If you read this you may understand why. Too much to explain here, Mr. Chapman.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
April 1st, 2009 at 1:19 am
Its very possible a flood happened as it was recorded in many books written long ago. The world could flood again if the ice caps were to melt. (Although global warming would then break your gods promise to the people.)
Anyway, its kind of a non-issue, who really cares if there was a huge flood or not. The ‘world’ to them back then was the middle east, which is really not hard to imagine that flooding.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:13 am
Geologists say this didn’t happen. They’ve been looking for proof for years. When, or if, they do I will gladly reconsider my position. You also need to learn more about fossil records and fuel.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:08 am
Carbon dating puts fossils far before the bible claims the flooding to have happened, try again troll.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:23 am
You do realize that using quotation marks kills your own thunder.
April 1st, 2009 at 3:50 am
Are you saying that besides the animals…two of every possible animal known to exist and the animals that have not been discovered yet…also included the dinosaurs that we find fossils of? So dinosaurs were on the ark too? Or did god tell noah to specifically leave them off? And where did you read that?
I thought fossil fuels were the result of the decay of non vegetative matter. Why else would they be called fossil fuels and not vegi fuels?
April 1st, 2009 at 4:33 am
Your idea of the fountains of the deep explains nothing. That much water could still not have covered the earth within the 40 days stated. And the fossil record you describe would mean a massive uniform layer of fossils which does not exist. And it is not the decay of vegetation that produces oil but actually the decay and fossilization of carbon rich plankton from shallow seas that accounts for the vast majority of oil deposits around the world, which by the way, would not be produce within a few thousand year time frame the bible allows for.
April 1st, 2009 at 4:49 am
Im a what you call atheist. I think you writing this on a message board is very lame. People will always believe in different things. What we need to try to do is except it and move on. Why do u care so much? If that’s what you think then think it, why do you need to question my belief?
April 1st, 2009 at 5:17 am
Most evolutionists insist that the occurrence of evolution is an indisputable fact, even if it’s exact mechanism must remain speculative. Since evolution is believed to occur far too slowly to be discernible in the time frame of human observers, we must examine prehistoric evidence in the fossil record if we are to observe the “fact” of evolution. In his book Historical Geology, evolutionist C.O. Dunbar said: “Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.” But what does the fossil evidence say, and does it really support the evolutionary view of origins – or is it perhaps more consistent with Creation?
Fossilization typically occurs when organisms (either living or dead) are deposited from water into sediment. In some instances, the sediment solidifies making a cast of the entombed organism; in others, the organic material of the organism itself is replaced by mineral to form a stony replica. Conditions must be perfect for fossilization to occur, which perhaps explains why there is so little evidence of fossils being formed today. Both the burial of the organism and the hardening of the sediment must occur very quickly or the inevitable decay process will destroy the organism before it can become fossilized.
Evolutionists believe that fossilized organisms were gradually deposited in layers of sediment over hundreds of millions of years, giving us a visual record of at least some of the stages of evolution from the first simple organisms to the most complex. Most creationists, on the other hand, believe that nearly all fossils were formed over a relatively short period of time during and after a world-wide Flood. Thus creationists believe the fossil record reveals organisms that were mostly contemporary – not an evolutionary sequence extending over millions of years. As these beliefs are sufficiently different, it should be quite easy to determine which is more consistent with the fossil record as it actually exists today.
To be consistent with evolution, the fossil record should show how organisms slowly transformed one into another through countless intermediate or transitional stages. Evolutionists, for example, claim that over one hundred million years were required for the gradual transformation of invertebrates into vertebrates; thus we would expect that the fossil record should show at least some of the progressive stages of this large-scale transformation. To be consistent with creation, on the other hand, the fossil record should show no obvious transitional stages between distinctly different kinds of organisms, but rather each kind of organism should appear all at once and fully formed.
It is now a generally recognized fact that the fossil record shows few if any unambiguous intermediate stages in the evolution of an organism into a distinctly different kind of organism. David B. Kitts, an evolutionist and paleontologist, said:
“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ’seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps’ in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.” (Evolution, 28:467)
Evolutionists have been aware of these missing intermediate or transitional forms since the time of Darwin, and have tried to dismiss the whole problem by appealing to the “incompleteness” of the fossil record. Evolutionists cling to the hope that the “missing links” which they believe formed a continuous chain of evolution may yet be found. But this seems unlikely, since most paleontologists believe that the majority of all existing fossilized species of plants and animals have already been found and identified. Even most currently living kinds of plants and animals have been found in essentially their present form in the fossil record! David Raup, a paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History, reported that the growth in our knowledge of the fossil record since Darwin’s time provides even less support for evolutionary transformations. Raup writes:
“We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much – ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.”
Some evolutionists have argued that the absence of transitional forms is simply an “artifact” of classification. Others insist that the gaps occur only among the higher taxonomic groups, while still others insist that the gaps occur only among the lower taxono
April 1st, 2009 at 5:34 am
There’s a lot about a universal flood that I find hard to believe.
No, a universal flood would not account for the fossil record, since it would not explain why fossils are found at varying levels of depth throughout different layers of rock. If a universal flood had killed every creature on the planet at the same time, and then somehow transformed their drowned carcasses into fossils through supernatural means, you could expect that they would all appear at the same layer in the rock.
No, a universal flood also does not explain the existence of fossil fuels, because coal, oil and natural gas require more than a few thousand years to form from biological material.
It is possible, but very, very, very unlikely.
April 1st, 2009 at 6:18 am
No. It’s not possible.
There is not enough water contained in the earth to flood the entire planet to a point where the tops of the mountains would be under water. Even the relatively short mountains in the Mesopotamian area. And then where did it go when the flood was finished? There would be no place for it to drain to.
Way back when dinosaurs were first discovered, there was a theory called “Catastrophism” which was used to explain the various extinct animals – the theory was that there were several floods before the one mentioned in Genesis. Thing is, the more they learned about geology and paleontology, the more “floods” they needed to explain all the layers – one flood was reasonable, 40 or 50 wasn’t – and it didn’t explain how flood layers got up to the top of mountains.
And no, the fossil fuels were formed by very long periods of heat and pressure applied to layers of organic material. There have been no conditions that would produce that at the surface of the earth (which is where all that material would have had to have started, in the case of a flood) and no reasonable mechanism whereby oil and coal could wind up under all those other layers.
Please go study some geology before you start talking about what’s “possible”. Please.
April 1st, 2009 at 7:07 am
No, it’s not possible.
First, calculations *have* been done to account for the total amount of water available on the earth, on the surface, underground, and as water vapor in the air. There’s not nearly enough (not even close) to cover the entire earth and all the land.
Second, the process that creates fossil fuels takes *millions* of years — it can’t happen in the time frame claimed for your flood, not even with the most liberal bible interpretation.
Third, we find fossils in literally hundreds of layers of sedimentary deposit, laid down over billions of years. What we *don’t* find are all fossils in one layer of sediment laid down in one “global flood” — nowhere on the earth is anything found to support that (and lots and lots of people have tried to find such evidence, and failed).
Biology, geology, plate tectonics, meteorology, paleontology, anthropology, archeology, astronomy, cosmology — all of these sciences provide verified, decisive evidence that shows there was never any such thing as a global flood. Yet because some bronze-age goat herders wrote down a myth they copied from another society, you think it’s absolute truth…why is that? There’s no evidence to support it. None.
Peace.
February 13th, 2011 at 7:14 am
Habbo Retros…
Habbo Retros are slowly attracting more users with each passing day, most people prefer to play Habbo Retros with pets according to a recent google study, further evidence also supports that Habbo Retros have lead to an annual decrease in revenue for s…