Re: Scientific Proof of the Great Flood


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.
> >
> >
> > Ray Martinez

Your post assumes uniformitarian nonsense that the present is the key
to the past.

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.

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

Ray Martinez

.

Quantcast