The TRVE history of the Flood...

There is only one reason you find those eleven chapters difficult to interpret and that's because they conflict with current scientific dogma.; They are not all that hard to interpret otherwise. There would have been no need for the ark if it hadn't been the whole absolutely whole entire earth. It took a hundred years to build it; In that time God could have herded all the animals to areas that wouldn't be flooded, just as he selected and herded them onto the ark. Noah and family could hike there. It's SO silly to try to make "all" mean "not all." God inspired the Biblical account to be read by p0eople of the time, but also by people thousands of years later.ALL the globe. ALL. Also ALL things on the land died. ALL of them. There is no doubt about this meaning kb, you are fooling yourself.The strata and the fossils are worldwide enormous evidence IMO.I suspect Paul wasn't that stupid either but I'd have to look up that passage to get the context.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I accept the arguments that Continental Drift began as part of the Flood so it's not really off topic. The comment that in the days of Peleg the world was divided probably refers instead to the division into different languages at Babel.

The Flood created the basic topography that rivers then followed. Since then of course there has been thousands of years of river erosion and deposition which has had a large impact on the result we see today.The Niagara falls have been eroding at an average of over 1m/year substantially altering the immediate post flood geography of that area. Similarly the Colorado River will have altered the terrain within it's catchment.[update]
Accurate surveys of erosion of the Falls of Niagara began in 1842.From 1842 to 1905, the average rate of erosion of the Horseshoe Falls was 1.16 meters (3.8 feet) per year.From 1906 to 1927, this rate of erosion was reduced to .70 meters (2.3 feet) per year. This reduction coincided with the large quantity of water being diverted for hydro-electric generation.Edited by CRR, : update as marked

I agree, Faith. Gen 1-11 reads as history and scholars had no difficulty interpreting it as such for thousands of years until "old age" ideas took root. Usher, Newton, and others were able to calculate quite similar dates for Creation from it, agreeing within a few hundred years.

Even Everest has marine fossils in the top strata. It is probable that the Himalaya were much lower in the past rather than the Flood was deep enough cover their current height.

Ok, so all you have to do now is prove that the bible is true rather than just say it is. You have to demonstrate that your premise is correct BEFORE you can draw any conclusions from it.

No not on this thread I don't have to prove it. I can use it as reference.

My view is that the high mountains were pushed up after the Flood by the tectonic force that started Continental Drift.

Then give us a link to the post on this site where you proved it.

One doesn't have to prove that sort of reference. Do try to follow the sequence of the argument. It doesn't go back too very far.

quote:

---

No not on this thread I don't have to prove it. I can use it as reference.

---

This thread is in the Science forums, so yes you do.Even if it wasn't, there are still theological arguments against your position.

Creationists Take the Bible as our source for basic information about the Flood. We don't have to prove that because it's foundational to all biblical creationist arguments. And I think even Percy said so.

You can take it as the basis of your beliefs but you can't use it as evidence that those beliefs are true without showing that it is reliable. Not on this thread.

We've shown that the Bible is God's word many times already, but of course we don't succeed at persuading anyone here. Seems to me if we have the job of proving it to YOU, then you ought to have the job of proving your dating methods to US. How about that for fair?

quote:

---

We've shown that the Bible is God's word many times already, but of course we don't succeed at persuading anyone here.

---

Of course you haven't come close to showing it. I'll refrain from giving my opinion of your arguments but suffice to say they fall far short of rationally convincing.

quote:

---

Seems to me if we have the job of proving it to YOU, then you ought to have the job of proving your dating methods to US. How about that for fair

---

But you see we've provided very strong evidence for scientific dating methods that you can't effectively rebut. So to be fair you should admit that we are well ahead of you.I challenged you to go back to RAZDs dating correlation threads. If you have an argument that the Bible, read literally to the extent that you do, is reliable point me at it. If it hasn't already been shredded I'll do it. And it will be easy.