Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (13779)	2/19/2011 11:23:54 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

Noah's flood covered the entire land. It topped Mount Ararat at over 16800 feet above mean sea level. That simply did not happen. As for the Burgess Shale, that is 530 million years old. Plenty of time for a shallow marine deposit to be plate-tectonicked deep into British Columbia. (Much more recently, less than thirty million years were needed to place marine fossils in the highest strata of the Himalayas. Before plate tectonics became accepted, some scientists tried to use those fossils as serious support for the great flood.) The timescale is other than the one I'd specified in my earlier post, when I talked about the flood having its assigned window of occurrence during "human memory", generously allotted at ten thousand years. If a great flood had happened so recently, the land would show massive hydrological scars. A wonderful example of this is Washington States channeled scablands, scoured out when Glacial lake Missoula let go in a flood event, that while metaphorically biblical in scale, was a slow seep compared to the sort of water needed to inundate Mount Ararat. Do you recognize a difference between teaching and advancing an argument? I am doing the latter here with you. It is neither my perception nor my intention that I am doing the former. It could be mere semantics. <edit> From answersingenesis.org - a pro-biblical site: "Let me urge you to read carefully Genesis 6-9—chapters dealing with the Flood. If God was really trying to describe a local flood, He surely could have written a little more clearly, for over and over again the wording demands a global flood. In fact, I have counted more than 100 times when the wording implies a global flood. It is true that some of the individual words could be understood in a local sense, but in the context, no other position than that of a global flood is defensible. Consider these few quotes of the many: ‘the face of the earth (i.e. planet)’ (6:1); ‘end of all flesh… the earth is filled with violence … I will destroy them with the earth’ (6:13); ‘destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven, and everything that is in the earth shall die’ (6:17). If God had intended to describe a global world-destroying flood, He couldn’t have said it any more clearly. Furthermore, God promised never to send another flood like Noah’s Flood (9:11,15), but there have been many local floods, even regional floods, since Noah’s time. If Noah’s Flood was only local, then God lied to us. Likewise, there was no need for Noah to build an ark for his survival. He had up to 120 years’ warning (6:3), long enough to walk anywhere on the earth, certainly out of the region of the coming local flood."