Re: Scientific Proof of the Great Flood

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> Augray wrote:
>> On 1 Sep 2005 12:26:41 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote in news:<1125602801.791633.83970@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> > I know all about a hose and prisms.
>> >
>> > Genesis is saying that the natural phenomenon was created by God as a
>> > sign that He would not destroy by flood ever again.
>>
>> Vertebrate eyes require the same physical laws to function as those that
>> result in the rainbow. If the laws of physics were different in
>> antediluvian times, were eyes different as well?
>>
>>
>> > Nobody can prove that it did not rain prior to 3145 BC.
>> >
>> > Rainbow = proof of Great Flood = deny = not loyal to evidence.
>
> Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
> to the past.

It assumes no such thing. He just wants to know whether refraction is
a post-flood phenomenon, and if so, how eye lenses worked before then.


> The Old world was very different.
>
> If you were standing on a bridge looking down at the water beneath,
> prior to 3145 BC if you looked up you would see the same thing - a
> water canopy.
>
> This canopy emitted a continual mist that watered the ground and
> prevented the harmful rays of the sun from getting through. This is one
> fact which explains the length of life back then.
>
> Many persons have pointed out that it could never rain hard enough over
> 40 days to flood the earth - true.
>
> The Bible says two things happened: the canopy burst AND waters of the
> deep gushed from beneath.

So... how much water gushed up from beneath, and where is it now?


> Atmospheric conditions such as these, and the total evasion by
> Darwinists, account for the absurdity of the Miller-Urey experiment.
>
> The best evidence of the Flood is the worldwide accounts and their
> common denominators.

What about the points where the accounts differ?

Keep the evidence you like, throw out the rest?


> Darwinian evasions of this database of evidence show what liars they
> are and how they turn a blind eye to evidence.

You should actually be blaming geologists. They had already
recognized that no such flood ever happened by 1820.


--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Global Flood
    ... These water sources are still with us today. ... the earth was watered by a mist before the flood. ... Sir Lanka is evidence that many such earthquakes happening ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientific Proof of the Great Flood
    ... were eyes different as well? ... >>> Ray Martinez ... > water canopy. ... What is your evidence that harmful rays from the sun place a significant ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Global Flood
    ... These water sources are still with us today. ... taking place prior to Noah's flood. ... Remember, that the earth was ... Sir Lanka is evidence that many such earthquakes happening ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: An updated Laminar Flood Theory
    ... We have as evidence eye witness accounts that it rained ... of water available as well as the rate of rainfall required. ... Various absurd criticisms of the flood have focused on the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Global Flood
    ... These water sources are still with us today. ... taking place prior to Noah's flood. ... Remember, that the earth was ... Sir Lanka is evidence that many such earthquakes happening ...
    (talk.origins)