How Hard Was it Raining During the Flood? Could the Ark Survive?

So you would completely abandoned science, and very foundation of modern life because one part conflicts with your religion?That's not very intelligent or educatedWithout science, you wouldn't be typing that post, or probably even be here.And you can believe in a metaphorical version of Genesis and still believe in a orthodox God. I know plenty of conservative, educated Christians who think that literal creationists are absolute idiots and are a massive embarrassment to the religion as a whole.If the bible said that the solar system had two suns, would you believe that on faith regardless of what you can observe?And your God is not the only diety belief. Diests have no problem with evolution.

And I know plenty of conservative educated Christians who think that liberal Christians who compromise the Word are in serious trouble spiritually.

Wow... uneducated? not very intelligent? Not very nice.. heheh.My point is simple and you just helped me. Belief in an Orthodox God and a metaphorical version of Genesis. You just typed that. That also means the same God that created EVERYTHING. He made all the rules of the universe, right? If that is the case, He could do ANYTHING. Maybe the flood was global, maybe not. It doesn't matter to me. The universe and the the intense engineering involved to create everything and allow it (the earth) to be self sufficient and sustaining is good enough for me.Thank you for all the kind words.xXGEARXx

Faith, depends how you take the word. Some see the bible as metaphorical, a book of values. Some see it literally. Now, the number of metaphorical christians in science by far outnumbers the amount of literalists.

xXGEARXx, the truth is rarely pleasant. A Orthodox God is not necessarily a literal God. And your everything creates a serious problem as evil is included. A orthodox God never really made any logical sense in the first place. To have a truly good God, it would be incapable of producing evil, thus not the cause of everything.The Earth isn't self sufficent. If the Earth was where Uranus was, it would be a cold, dead world due to lack of sufficent solar radiation. And the Earth is slowly cooling, which will create a series of events that will reduce its ability to recover.You just admitted your belief in a orthodox is illogical as you support omnipotence. I suppose given a absolute rejection of science that would be no surprise (even if it is severely hypocritical). Also, you basically admit you have no argument except faith.That is why creationists are on the bottom rung of the debate ladder.

I'm not sure anybody is arguing that that He could not have done it. What is being argued, is that He did not do it. All of the evidence is that there never was a global flood.

For those of us who believe that there is a GOD who is the creator, the idea that GOD could crete a flood that coverss the planet is certainly acceptable. IMHO GOD could have done it. However all of the evidence shows that GOD did NOT do it.The flood just never happened.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's fine Faith, but it has nothing to do with either the thread or anything related. This is a science forum.What is needed here is something related to the thread. What you or some other folk might think about spiritual matters is unimportant.Do you have anything relating to some evidence of how hard it might have been raining during the flood?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Assuming constant rainfall, 756,821,205 cubic miles/40 days/24 hours/60 minutes = that can't be right for the absolute minimum necessary precipitation needs. That's way too high. Do I need to then again divide that by surface area assuming even distriburtion of water?I don't think that jar doesn't know what when push comes to shove creationists have no empirical evidence to fall back upon.

Yup you sure do.From your numbers, that calculates out to 4.23 inches per minute.Don't go forgetting the contributions from "The Fountains of the Deep" though

Help me understand why the earth is not self sufficient.. Then you go on to say .. if it was located where Uranus is... I don't even understand why you typed that part. You are throwing out a zinger and I have no clue why. If you are so strung up with facts then it is a fact the earth does its job of keeping everything alive very well.As well, I am not completely aware of all the positions OEC, YEC, and TOE have on the subject of "life". What is interesting though is the fact that I can remember someone saying the earth was NOT the center of the universe. The earth was NOT flat. Brave for the time. Creationism, so to speak, is in its infintile stages as well. Maybe as time goes on better models will be created and a deeper understanding of the sciences will follow with it. Who knows, maybe it will all blend together nicely in the end.What I am trying to say is, just because it is a different spin on how life came to be does not necessarily mean it is wrong. The concept may be sound and parts of the content wrong. Like anything else.What I should do is start a thread asking those that believe God created everything using the TOE, in its entirety. I would like to read how others interpret the Bible to allow for their beliefs to fit accordingly. Anyone know of any that already exist??xXGEARXx

That's ridiculous consider it is just the necessary for sea level. 4.23 inches, that's more then some places get in 6 months.

xXGEARXx, how much education to you have?Life on Earth (except for chemoauthrophs), depends on the sun. Too much solar radiation and life couldn't exist. Too little and no life. Hence if we were at the distance that Uranus is from the sun, we wouldn't get enough solar radiation to sustain life as we know it. Granted, that doesn't mean life isn't possiblem. The Earth is not self sufficent because its primary source of energy for sustaining life comes from a non-Earth based source. Can something be self sustaining when its primary source of fuel is derived from a source other then itself?And Earth doesn't keep things alive all that well. Slight changed in temperature have led to the deaths of millions of ampibians. Mutations have soared way past any record. In a 2 degree temperature change can cause the majority of individuals within a species to die out, how does the Earth keep them alive so well?Creation is wrong because what it claims is wrong. There is no proof whatsoever to support literal creation. It is not wrong because it is a alternative explantion, it is wrong because it is a factless explanation that requires the abandonment of reason. Literal creationism has always been wrong.

I am refering to the food chain, ecosystems, etc. I exhale CO2 (amognst other gases)-plants give out O2(only in light).. Each supports the other. The earth is an endless cycle. Sure it all depends on the sun, but I think you see my point. Just because a planet is the approximate distance from our sized sun does not mean it supports life.Why do you keep asking me about my education? Are you implying something? What is yours?xXGEARXxEdited by xXGEARXx, : No reason given.

Careful, obvious.Address the points, not the pointer.Whatever his/her education may be, what they wrote is what they wrote. Tackle that.Let's have a clean break and come out sluggin'.

---

Trust me.