T
triumphguy
Guest
And…
How does that deny anything I’ve said (written)?
You know it doesn’t.
How does that deny anything I’ve said (written)?
You know it doesn’t.
- Status
A
atheistgirl
Guest
From Talkorigins with references:
- The Flood Itself
Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.
•How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
•If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
•If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
•A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
•Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.
Hydroplate.Walt Brown’s model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth’s crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.
•How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth’s crust, doesn’t float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah’s time, or Adam’s time for that matter.
•Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
•Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.
Comet. Kent Hovind proposed that the Flood water came from a comet which broke up and fell on the earth. Again, this has the problem of the heat from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the time it reached the surface of the earth.
Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]
•The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn’t work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
•Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
•Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
•Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]
New ocean basins. Most flood models (including those above, possibly excepting Hovind’s) deal with the water after the flood by proposing that it became our present oceans. The earth’s terrain, according to this model, was much, much flatter during the Flood, and through cataclysms, the mountains were pushed up and the ocean basins lowered. (Brown proposes that the cataclysms were caused by the crust sliding around on a cushion of water; Whitcomb & Morris don’t give a cause.)
•How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or temperature of at least a quarter of the earth’s crust fast enough to raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models.
•Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Baumgardner’s own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins [Baumgardner, 1994], so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick. [Poldervaart, 1955]
•Where’s the evidence? The water draining from the continents would have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar flooding in the Scablands of Washington state (from the draining of a lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
•How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth’s topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.
References
Austin, Steven A., John R. Baumgardner, D. Russell Humphreys, Andrew A. Snelling, Larry Vardiman, & Kurt P. Wise, 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global flood model of earth history. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 609-621.
Brown, Walt, 1997. In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. ( www.creationscience.com/onlinebook)
Baumgardner, John R., 1990a. Changes accompanying Noah’s Flood. Proceedings of the second international conference on creationism, vol. II, pp. 35-45.
Baumgardner, John R., 1990b. The imparative of non-stationary natural law in relation to Noah’s Flood. Creation Research Society Quarterly 27(3): 98-100.
Baumgardner, John R., 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah’s Flood. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 77-86.
Carroll, Robert L., 1997. Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, Cambridge University Press.
Matsumura, Molleen, 1997. Miracles in, creationism out: “The geophysics of God”. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(3): 29-32.
Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth’s crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
Sarah x
E
edwest2
Guest
Sad. Why stick to Vatican II? Which I know was the right thing for the Church to do at the time. Have you read up on the Church Fathers? Do you know what they believed?
Feel free to ask me questions but don’t ever assume to know what I know and don’t know.
And you are twisting words. In Humani Generis, the Pope wanted careful study both for and against.
Pope John Paul II did not say it was “reasonable.” He did say it was more than a hypothesis.
Pope Benedict has come out, University Professor-style, and tells us it’s impossible to verify or disprove the theory. We can’t haul all those generations into the lab and perform tests. As you know, reproducibility by others is required or the theory goes down the drain.
usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm
I’m not against science or using the intellect. In fact, where I work, I’m the science and tech go-to-guy, and I have to fact check and provide credible references to anything I say (I work in book publishing).
But what I see here way too often is a blind belief in and glorification of science. I mean, if a scientists says it, a little drool begins to form at the edges of the mouths of some. But if the Church says anything - “you’re biased” “stay in your Church buildings!” “Listen, while you pray for me, I’ll think for you” “backwards, antiquated.” “when I got to college I was turned into an atheist once Science opened my eyes to the troof!!” Yes, I meant to write troof.
Peace,
Ed
T
triumphguy
Guest
Don’t be sad Ed.
The Church Fathers didn’t have the benefit of 2000 years of scientific knowledge.
In fact until Aquinas we didn’t have the means to think scientifically since Aristotle had not yet been translated from the Arabic.
It is the church that taught the world HOW to think scientifically!
I don’t think the Church is biased or antiquated. I think however that it is far more sophisticated than you seem to give it credit for.
Or you have a different agenda.
BTW what does more than a hypothesis mean? A hypothesis is a theory. What does more than a theory mean? Reasonable. Unless you are deliberately misreading what Blessed John Paul II said.
Finally - I don’t drool out of the corner of my mouth - I’m level headed
Scientists can be dumb, wrong, stupid, evil, misguided all those human traits.
But science itself cannot since science is based on creation.
Yes scientific knowledge can be misused, but so can theological knowledge.
P
Pheonix
Guest
May I ask what your point is? Is there a problem with geologists simply voicing the facts (i.e. there is no evidence supporting a global flood)?
I thought truthfulness was a good thing…
Trying to reduce my argument to a mere argumentum ad ignorantiam won’t help you here.
Let’s go ahead and define some terms, because there is a distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.
[SIGN]Absence of evidence is simply a condition in which no valid conclusion can be inferred from an absence of detection.[/SIGN]
I fail to see how scientists concluding that a global flood never occurred based on lack of geological evidence is an invalid conclusion.
After all, a catastrophic, global flood would have definitely left a huge amount of evidence behind to support it.[SIGN]Evidence of absence, on the other hand, is the successful variation of the absence of evidence argument. It’s a conclusion that uses specific knowledge in conjunction with negative detection to deduce the absence of something. [/SIGN]
For example, I reach into my desk drawer to find my car keys. I don’t find them, but I’m confident that my search would have yielded my keys if they were in the drawer.
Similarly, scientists have done observations and experiments concerning flooding before. Yet, no evidence supporting a global flood has been found. Scientists are confident, however, that if there was any evidence supporting a global flood, then it would have been detected.
And as I’ve already said before, we do have evidence of localized flooding in the ancient world. If we have evidence of smaller, ancient floods, then why is there no evidence supporting a much larger, ancient flood?
[SIGN]Now, if we have a given method of detection, and we know this method is sensitive enough and reliable enough to detect the presence of X when it’s present, then one CAN exclude the possibility that X may be both undetected and present. [/SIGN]
In other words, if this “null result” is received, then we have one of two possible conclusions:
- X is not present, and was not detected.
- X is present, but it just may not have been detected.
In order to show that Option 2 is still a valid conclusion, buffalo, you must demonstrate that there are glaring flaws in the research methods used by geologists.
F
Farsight001
Guest
But absence of evidence is not what geologists have. They genuinely have evidence of absence. Evidence of drought is evidence that there was no flood. Evidence of evergreen growth is evidence that there was no flood. If you ever decided to actually study the subject, you’d know this. Try opening a book some time instead of spouting off on something you clearly know nothing of.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Good point. AND… when Jesus spoke about the flood and Genesis they are not considered one of the parables of Jesus which identifies a fictional story to explain a larger point.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Amen brother!Don’t be sad Ed.
The Church Fathers didn’t have the benefit of 2000 years of scientific knowledge.
In fact until Aquinas we didn’t have the means to think scientifically since Aristotle had not yet been translated from the Arabic.
It is the church that taught the world HOW to think scientifically!
I don’t think the Church is biased or antiquated. I think however that it is far more sophisticated than you seem to give it credit for.
Or you have a different agenda.
BTW what does more than a hypothesis mean? A hypothesis is a theory. What does more than a theory mean? Reasonable. Unless you are deliberately misreading what Blessed John Paul II said.
Finally - I don’t drool out of the corner of my mouth - I’m level headed
Scientists can be dumb, wrong, stupid, evil, misguided all those human traits.
But science itself cannot since science is based on creation.
Yes scientific knowledge can be misused, but so can theological knowledge.
B
buffalo
Guest
New info - Vast amounts of water are locked up in rocks in the crust. In addition, a huge ocean has been found under China. Plenty of water.From Talkorigins with references:
Where did the Flood water come from, and where did it go? Several people have proposed answers to these questions, but none which consider all the implications of their models. A few of the commonly cited models are addressed below.
- The Flood Itself
Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.
•How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
•If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
•If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
•A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
•Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.
Hydroplate.Walt Brown’s model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth’s crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.
•How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth’s crust, doesn’t float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah’s time, or Adam’s time for that matter.
•Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
•Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.
Comet. Kent Hovind proposed that the Flood water came from a comet which broke up and fell on the earth. Again, this has the problem of the heat from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the time it reached the surface of the earth.
Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]
•The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn’t work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
•Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
•Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
•Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]
New ocean basins. Most flood models (including those above, possibly excepting Hovind’s) deal with the water after the flood by proposing that it became our present oceans. The earth’s terrain, according to this model, was much, much flatter during the Flood, and through cataclysms, the mountains were pushed up and the ocean basins lowered. (Brown proposes that the cataclysms were caused by the crust sliding around on a cushion of water; Whitcomb & Morris don’t give a cause.)
•How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or temperature of at least a quarter of the earth’s crust fast enough to raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models.
•Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Baumgardner’s own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins [Baumgardner, 1994], so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick. [Poldervaart, 1955]
•Where’s the evidence? The water draining from the continents would have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar flooding in the Scablands of Washington state (from the draining of a lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
•How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth’s topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.
References
Austin, Steven A., John R. Baumgardner, D. Russell Humphreys, Andrew A. Snelling, Larry Vardiman, & Kurt P. Wise, 1994. Catastrophic plate tectonics: a global flood model of earth history. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 609-621.
Brown, Walt, 1997. In the beginning: compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. ( www.creationscience.com/onlinebook)
Baumgardner, John R., 1990a. Changes accompanying Noah’s Flood. Proceedings of the second international conference on creationism, vol. II, pp. 35-45.
Baumgardner, John R., 1990b. The imparative of non-stationary natural law in relation to Noah’s Flood. Creation Research Society Quarterly 27(3): 98-100.
Baumgardner, John R., 1994. Patterns of ocean circulation over the continents during Noah’s Flood. Proceedings of the third international conference on creationism, technical symposium sessions, pp. 77-86.
Carroll, Robert L., 1997. Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution, Cambridge University Press.
Matsumura, Molleen, 1997. Miracles in, creationism out: “The geophysics of God”. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 17(3): 29-32.
Poldervaart, Arie, 1955. Chemistry of the earth’s crust. pp. 119-144 In: Poldervaart, A., ed., Crust of the Earth, Geological Society of America Special Paper 62, Waverly Press, MD.
Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
Sarah x
Even without these two new findings - just leveling the ocean basins would raise the current sea level to around 8000 feet.
Water is not the issue.
Next.
B
buffalo
Guest
What evidence would the global flood leave?May I ask what your point is? Is there a problem with geologists simply voicing the facts (i.e. there is no evidence supporting a global flood)?
I thought truthfulness was a good thing…
Trying to reduce my argument to a mere argumentum ad ignorantiam won’t help you here.
Let’s go ahead and define some terms, because there is a distinction between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.
[sign]Absence of evidence is simply a condition in which no valid conclusion can be inferred from an absence of detection.[/sign]
I fail to see how scientists concluding that a global flood never occurred based on lack of geological evidence is an invalid conclusion.
[sign]Evidence of absence, on the other hand, is the successful variation of the absence of evidence argument. It’s a conclusion that uses specific knowledge in conjunction with negative detection to deduce the absence of something. [/sign]
For example, I reach into my desk drawer to find my car keys. I don’t find them, but I’m confident that my search would have yielded my keys if they were in the drawer.
Similarly, scientists have done observations and experiments concerning flooding before. Yet, no evidence supporting a global flood has been found. Scientists are confident, however, that if there was any evidence supporting a global flood, then it would have been detected.
And as I’ve already said before, we do have evidence of localized flooding in the ancient world. If we have evidence of smaller, ancient floods, then why is there no evidence supporting a much larger, ancient flood?
[sign]Now, if we have a given method of detection, and we know this method is sensitive enough and reliable enough to detect the presence of X when it’s present, then one CAN exclude the possibility that X may be both undetected and present.
[/sign]
In other words, if this “null result” is received, then we have one of two possible conclusions:
Option 2, however, can effectively be eliminated by any form of carefully designed research (e.g. the scientific method).
- X is not present, and was not detected.
- X is present, but it just may not have been detected.
In order to show that Option 2 is still a valid conclusion, buffalo, you must demonstrate that there are glaring flaws in the research methods used by geologists.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Seriously
Michael Wysession was asked this exact question, if this water could be the waters that burst forth for Noah’s flood.
Have you done any reading about this? By the way, it’s not a new discovery, it’s 5 years ago or more lol.
It’s not an ocean.
It’s not a body of water.
It’s just moisture locked up in rocks.
Just a lot of rocks
Sarah x
B
buffalo
Guest
5 years is a new finding.
Seriously
Michael Wysession was asked this exact question, if this water could be the waters that burst forth for Noah’s flood.
Have you done any reading about this? By the way, it’s not a new discovery, it’s 5 years ago or more lol.
It’s not an ocean.
It’s not a body of water.
It’s just moisture locked up in rocks.
Just a lot of rocks
Sarah x
There either is enough water or not. Don’t obfuscate. .
Many oceans worth of water are locked into the rocks. At 500 PPM across the entire mantle results in 30 oceans worth. Plenty of water is available.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Do you have training and qualifications in this field?
Or are you picking out bits and pieces of impressive sounding information from creationist websites and reposting them because they agree with your world view?
Do you have a link to a peer reviewed geological study that backs up any of these claims?
Sarah x
T
triumphguy
Guest
Now could you really imagine Jesus saying something like
Matthew 24:37-39 'As it was in Noah’s day (though truly I say to you that in future years the whole flood thing will come under scrutiny by geologists), so will it be when the Son of man comes. For in those days before the Flood people were eating, drinking, taking wives, taking husbands, right up to the day Noah went into the ark, and they suspected nothing till the Flood came and swept them all away. This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes.
May be Jesus WASN"T saying, “the Flood was real, get over it.” Maybe he wasn’t talking about whether we should read the bible literally
Maybe Jesus was indicating that He was the new Ark of the new Covenant, the one in whom and through whom all creation and all peoples will be made new.
When I say maybe, being English, I mean that it is more than likely that this is what He was saying.
B
buffalo
Guest
So this is your belief?Do you have training and qualifications in this field?
Or are you picking out bits and pieces of impressive sounding information from creationist websites and reposting them because they agree with your world view?
Do you have a link to a peer reviewed geological study that backs up any of these claims?
Sarah x
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=4483
Let’s start here:
The Ocean Within
Nolet envisions hidden oceans all over the world, wherever plates once plunged into the mantle. Rough calculations suggest that a volume of water equal to that in the oceans on Earth’s surface may be trapped in these reservoirs. This water might be crucial to many geologic processes. If the mantle plume below New Hampshire hadn’t hit water, for example, creating bubbles of buoyant magma, the White Mountains might be much smaller today. And when water squirts out of the subducted slabs, it may make the dehydrating rock shudder, creating the enigmatic earthquakes that occasionally rumble deep inside the planet–like the one under Bolivia last June that was felt as far north as Toronto.
The buried oceans may also be important to the surface ones we’re familiar with. The old water cycle that researchers once envisioned is being replaced by a new one: some subducted water quickly goes back to the surface through volcanoes, but some flows down to reservoirs 250 miles underground. Mantle plumes that pass through them force the water out and gradually back up to the surface. But Nolet points out that in coming eons, as the interior of Earth cools, mantle plumes may occur less frequently. Then more water will go down than comes up. The surface oceans will gradually drain into Earth’s interior, making our planet a dry world like Venus or Mars. In the end Jules Verne may have the last laugh: of all Earth’s oceans, only his may remain.
F
Farsight001
Guest
Not even close, not that you have any conclusive evidence of this anyway(and no, a single fringe study does not qualify as conclusive evidence). 500 m3 of water equals 1 million m3 of mantle. volume of the entire earth is 1.08x10^12 km3, leaving 540 million km3 of water at 500 ppm. The mantle is roughly half the earth, so cut that in half and leave 270 million km3. The current volume of the ocean is estimated to be 1.3 billion km3. That’s 4 ocean’s worth, not 30. And 4 ocean’s worth is nowhere near enough to cover the entire land. 30 probably isn’t even enough.
T
triumphguy
Guest
Isn’t the word envisions rather critical here?
He would have to envision it wouldn’t he in order to believe what he believes.
It’s only Wiki but:
B
buffalo
Guest
I have posted over and over again - only empirical science (observable, repeatable and predictable) in the science classroom. Evolutionism and ID should be taught in mandatory philosophy classes.
B
buffalo
Guest
How many more do I need to post about being enough water?
Can we agree there is enough water yet?
Can we agree there is enough water yet?
F
Farsight001
Guest
No we cannot, because as I mathematically proved, there is not enough water.
- Status