Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood is true?

[ding]

Massive crater under Greenland’s ice points to climate-altering impact in the time of humans

Is it possible that the allegorical account of a great flood, which all ancient cultures have, is true?

Wrong I have the correct guy

Show me where I discuss an ark, Einstein?

 

[LittleNipper]

That’s what they are trying to decide. The team that discovered think it was about 12,000 years ago at the tail end of the last ice age.

Maybe. I'll have keep an eye out for it.

How many impacts occurred during this time? One large or many?

As I recall reading there was a 2nd crater site that was identified. Not sure if it has been confirmed or if more will be discovered later.

why do you ask?

Just trying to find the evidence. Who is peer reviewing it? Creation scientists?

Christian ministries do no research and don’t peer review. Their conclusions are predefined.

About Us - creation.com

• Our Motto: Proclaiming the truth and authority of the Bible
• Our Vision: To see the Lord Jesus Christ honoured as Creator and Saviour of the world
• Our Mission: To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.

The “creation ministries” in one word: “The gawds did it”. Well, one slogan, anyway.

Atheism in three words, "Stuff simply happens."

 

[LittleNipper]

And when Creationist come up with a testable prediction, evolutionists use the excuse, "There MUST be contamination."

Radiocarbon in Yet Another Dinosaur Fossil

Creation-based thinking made a testable prediction. If Noah’s Flood formed dinosaur and other fossils only 4,500 or so years ago, then they may still contain measurable amounts of the short-lived radioactive isotope carbon-14—also called radiocarbon. On the other hand, any fossil deposited...

www.icr.org

 

[LittleNipper]

Radiocarbon found in 1,000.000 year old fossils -------- IMPOSSIBLE!

 

[james bond]

Radiocarbon found in 1,000.000 year old fossils -------- IMPOSSIBLE!

This is the norm because the Earth is only around 6,000 years old.

 

[Hollie]

Radiocarbon found in 1,000.000 year old fossils -------- IMPOSSIBLE!

That's so silly.

 

[Hollie]

Radiocarbon found in 1,000.000 year old fossils -------- IMPOSSIBLE!

This is the norm because the Earth is only around 6,000 years old.

That's so silly.

 

[Hollie]

And when Creationist come up with a testable prediction, evolutionists use the excuse, "There MUST be contamination."

Radiocarbon in Yet Another Dinosaur Fossil

Creation-based thinking made a testable prediction. If Noah’s Flood formed dinosaur and other fossils only 4,500 or so years ago, then they may still contain measurable amounts of the short-lived radioactive isotope carbon-14—also called radiocarbon. On the other hand, any fossil deposited...

www.icr.org

The supernatural is testable?

That's so silly.

 

[james bond]

Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies? Based on a true story. You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.

 

[Hollie]

Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies? Based on a true story. You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.

I think you will find that movies such as Armageddon, Poseidon and many other Hollywood films are not based on true stories. Hollywood doesn't always make documentary films. You know that, right?

 

[Newtonian]

Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies? Based on a true story. You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.

The catastrophism vs uniformitarian debate. Both are likely true - uniform rate change between catastrophic events. Of course, relatively uniform rates differ in different environments.

Your point is well taken - many scientists believe in comet and asteroid extinction events but deny the possibility that earth's accretion of water can in some cases have been catastrophic (as in the Noachian flood) rather than always uniform. I think the reason is bias.

 

[Hollie]

Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies? Based on a true story. You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.

The catastrophism vs uniformitarian debate. Both are likely true - uniform rate change between catastrophic events. Of course, relatively uniform rates differ in different environments.

Your point is well taken - many scientists believe in comet and asteroid extinction events but deny the possibility that earth's accretion of water can in some cases have been catastrophic (as in the Noachian flood) rather than always uniform. I think the reason is bias.

Scientists have no reason to "believe in" comet and asteroid extinction. The data leads to those conclusions. Similarly. there's no reason to "believe in" a global flood and Noah's Ark unless you "believe in" Christianity.

Why would a rational person unconditionally "believe in" something there is no evidence for?

 

[james bond]

Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies? Based on a true story. You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.

The catastrophism vs uniformitarian debate. Both are likely true - uniform rate change between catastrophic events. Of course, relatively uniform rates differ in different environments.

Your point is well taken - many scientists believe in comet and asteroid extinction events but deny the possibility that earth's accretion of water can in some cases have been catastrophic (as in the Noachian flood) rather than always uniform. I think the reason is bias.

Scientists have no reason to "believe in" comet and asteroid extinction. The data leads to those conclusions. Similarly. there's no reason to "believe in" a global flood and Noah's Ark unless you "believe in" Christianity.

Why would a rational person unconditionally "believe in" something there is no evidence for?

You mean atheist scientists who assume no God. They are wrong. I believe atheist scientists who have died such as God hater Victor Stenger is suffering already. These are the kind of beliefs I have in regards to Christianity. I believe in a global flood due to the evidence. There really isn't good evidence that dinosaurs became extinct via a large asteroid. Instead, the evidence points to they died in a water based disaster. Most dinosaur graveyards are found near water areas.

 

[Hollie]

Where do you think we get the catastrophe movies? Based on a true story. You guys think the world can get destroyed by a large asteroid, but can't believe a world calamity has happened already.

The catastrophism vs uniformitarian debate. Both are likely true - uniform rate change between catastrophic events. Of course, relatively uniform rates differ in different environments.

Your point is well taken - many scientists believe in comet and asteroid extinction events but deny the possibility that earth's accretion of water can in some cases have been catastrophic (as in the Noachian flood) rather than always uniform. I think the reason is bias.

Scientists have no reason to "believe in" comet and asteroid extinction. The data leads to those conclusions. Similarly. there's no reason to "believe in" a global flood and Noah's Ark unless you "believe in" Christianity.

Why would a rational person unconditionally "believe in" something there is no evidence for?

You mean atheist scientists who assume no God. They are wrong. I believe atheist scientists who have died such as God hater Victor Stenger is suffering already. These are the kind of beliefs I have in regards to Christianity. I believe in a global flood due to the evidence. There really isn't good evidence that dinosaurs became extinct via a large asteroid. Instead, the evidence points to they died in a water based disaster. Most dinosaur graveyards are found near water areas.

Creationist quacks will convince you of anything they want you to believe.

 

[james bond]

Creationist quacks will convince you of anything they want you to believe.

Newtonian already said the reason is bias. I would add prejudice and disbelief. Also, I think going to hell would be a catastrophe, but you think the present is the key to the past; That sounds like a non sequitur.

 

[Hollie]

Creationist quacks will convince you of anything they want you to believe.

Newtonian already said the reason is bias. I would add prejudice and disbelief. Also, I think going to hell would be a catastrophe, but you think the present is the key to the past; That sounds like a non sequitur.

You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.

 

[james bond]

You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.

Prove it.

 

[Hollie]

You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.

Prove it.

Your comments,

Proved

Done!

 

[james bond]

You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.

Prove it.

Your comments,

Proved

Done!

Fountains of the deep


Underwater civilizations

Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.

I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out? I think it means great tribulations.

 

[Hollie]

You allow yourself to be a victim of fear and superstition.

Prove it.

Your comments,

Proved

Done!

Fountains of the deep


Underwater civilizations

Myths of a great flood from all around the world based on a true event.

I've already proved it to you and ding, but can I help it if both of you can't figure it out? I think it means great tribulations.

The myth of the god flood a few thousand years ago is a myth.

Thank you.