(There is NO evidence for a global flood. Even if you melted the ice caps and the mountains, there wouldn't be enough water to cover Mount Everest. Underground water would not have been enough.)
Arent you asuing that Mount Everest was there to start with? The Bible speaks of how the land rose, so Mount Everest didnt hafto be there, it came after the flood. And BTW! There is alot of proof of a world wide flood. Petrified vertical trees, petrified clams in the closed position, same fossils found in different continents, etc.
36 comments
Definitely a candidate for the "So Close, Yet So Far" Award.
Somebody introduce Eduard392 to mid-20th century science -- namely, plate tectonics and continental drift. I remember reading about this in about 6th or 7th grade and wondering what was so surprising about it, since Africa and South America clearly matched up like puzzle pieces. It was the only theory that made sense, and physical confirmation made it ironclad.
But even decades after the scientific community has accepted the physical fact of plate tectonics, nuts like this look at the same information and somehow, in total denial of geology and physics, see it as evidence of a global flood, blithely ignoring every inconvenient contradiction. It amazes me that people like this can interact meaningfully with the real world at all.
Do you mean 'horizontal trees'? Or do you think trees that look just like the ones out my window now, but fossilized, are evidence for a flood?
I think you are talking about evidence for Pangea, and/or oceans moving and such. as is bound to happen on an earth so many billions of years old.
The chances of the people who wrote the first bits of the OT knowing about Mount Everest aren't so great.
It's funny, with your spelling, let me doubt about your sources. And the Mount Everest, according to recent studies, is at least 10,000 years old. What the Bible says is irrelevant. Probably they didn't know about it anyway. And for the record, there are not fossilised vertical trees(all trees are vertical, unless you cut them down), the clams.................whatever you considser them to be. And the presence of fossiles is very easily explained.
Current: "And when exactly do you place the apparition of Mount Everest?"
It undoubtedly occurred when someone with faith the size of a mustard seed moved it there. (Matthew: 17:20) Apparently, this occurred in the prehistoric era and no one since has had that much faith.
Well at least she knows a little about paleontology, it's a start i guess.
Now, if she only understood it as well
Aren't you assuming that the Bible makes some sort of coherent sense? The Bible generally talks bollocks, and its "scientific" statements are being disporved one by one. And BTW! If there was a worldwide flood, it sure as hell wouldn't leave fossils. Do you actually think that anything could settle on sediments at the bottom of the sea and survive water pressures if the sea level was tens of kilometres high?
Idiot.
Petrified vertical trees??
There are vertical trees outside RIGHT NOW! They're everywhere! Holy crap, we must be having a flood!
Moron.
"same fossils found in different continents, etc."
That would be proof of Pangea, the super continent of 200 million years ago.
Yes, the things you mention could indicate biblical creation... with a bit of imagination. They could also indicate a lot of other things.
Not evidence... you lose.
Everest is 8848 m...the Himalaya orogen is estimated to rise at a rate of 5mm annually...assuming a constant rate of growth, the post-collision upthrust process began over 1.5 Mya.
We have very clear worldwide evidence of a meteoric cataclysm 65 Mya. We have nothing on the same scale to support the notion of a global flood within the past few millenia.
The fossils of shallow-sea fauna were found high up in the Himalayas.
Biblical conclusion: Flood.
Geological conclusion: Himalaya was a seabed once upon a time.
Puck's conclusion: Clams got legs!
Ambrielle-- I puzzled over that too. My best speculation is that they're closed, so they aren't food that has been transported from the sea, eaten, and then disposed of in the trash (open).
But there's just no telling.
I once heard a fundie claim that Everest was sediment left behind when the flood receded.
However, the water would still have to be higher than the mountain to leave that much sediment behind. He couldn't seem to understand that part.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
