[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by illusionznc

Like I said, I'm no scientist, but to say there is "no way" it could rain enough rain to cover Mt. Everest is dangerously underestimating what God can do. I dont think any of us could possibly fathom the power of God. Nor would I want to place myself into a position to assume such.

1) It's been calculated that such a large amount of rain would produce enough eat energy to fry the globe. Perhaps God suspended the Laws of nature (Thermodynamics) for the Flood, but I find that extremely hard to believe.

2) According to Kent Hovind's presentation, there are closed, petrified clams on top of Mt. Everest; they would only get that way if they were buried alive in mud or other sediment, not just water. (This points to the Himalayas being created after the flood deposited the clams there.)

Basically, it's a physical impossibility, and there is hard evidence (there and other places) that the mountain ranges we have today were created by catastrophic plate movement. Perhaps this is the point where the plates of the earth's crust were broken up , then smashed around, creating mountains.

Like some have said, the Bible will not fly in the face of true science, and vice versa: God created science, and anything that is true will just line up with the Bible. Other than in miracles (creating something from nothing etc.), God does not break or suspend the Laws of Thermodynamics and Physics, so everything that He brought about in the Bible can and eventually (probably in eternity) will be understood by science.

[Here Am I]

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11)

Sounds to me as if there was some sort of breaking up of a water source, so not just rain created the flood.

In Genesis we read: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." (Genesis 1:1-8)

Could the 'deep' of Genesis 7:11 also be the same as the 'deep' of Genesis 1:2?

The firmament that divided the 'waters' is Heaven, so there is something above and below Heaven that is referred to as 'waters'. Some have theorized that there was a great water above the heavens, and it was that which was broken up at the time of the great flood of Genesis 7.

Thoughts?

[Winman]

Here is a fairly short, but very informative video of the Hydroplate theory by Walt Brown. Walt Brown who holds a PhD from MIT was an evolutionist who through his studies came to believe the Biblical account of creation and became a Christian.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6lw9wSVXcw


Now, no one knows for sure if this is what happened in Noah's time, but it does explain many things like the fossil records, oil deposits, etc...


The other night I watched the History Channel and they had a show about comets. Comets are known to contain ice which is almost unknown in the universe. They thought that our oceans may have come from comets.


I believe the opposite, I believe when the fountains of the deep broke up, huge gysers sent mud, water, and rocks high into the atmosphere. I believe that some of the water actually left our atmosphere and was ejected into space. This could account for the comets. The comets are one of the best evidences for a young earth, as they cannot be over 10,000 years old or they would have been depleted by passing near our Sun over and over again.

I also believe that the pock-marked surface of the Moon may have occured at this time.

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by Winman

The comets are one of the best evidences for a young earth, as they cannot be over 10,000 years old or they would have been depleted by passing near our Sun over and over again.

Oh but wait, you're forgetting about the mythical "Oort Clouds" that exist on the outer edges of the solar system. We've never seen them, but good, intelligent evolu-I mean scientists have hypothesized that there are clouds of water or ice that produce the comets we see. Of course this must be true, since the universe is known to be billions of years old!

</sarcasm>

[Winman]

Yes, it is amazing the lengths non-believers will go to to try to explain away God's creation. Here is an article from NASA where they try to explain our vast oceans being created by comet impacts.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast18may_1.htm

Kind of amazing that our local neighboring planets and Moon do not have oceans as well.

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Oh but wait, you're forgetting about the mythical "Oort Clouds" ...

"Oort Clouds"
LOL, I think I left one of those in the bathroom last night.