I ran across some interesting material in reviewing some of the Noah's Ark evidence. Apparently there are some Christian scientists that believe that at one point there was a significant amount of atmospheric moisture, and possibly a vast collection of deep aquifers that were let loose during the global catastrophe.

Perhaps there is a bit of credibility to the creationists after all...

That's pretty fascinating...

If only "Christians scientists" believe this, isn't that biased science? Aren't these just people who are trying to stretch theories to embrace ancient doctrines?

Jeanniebean onece said that if she was God she would have just beamed Noah and his family on board her spaceship and taken them to a whole new planet.

Just think about that for a moment.

The people who wrote the flood story were of the mindset that all that existed was just heaven and earth. They were totally unimaginative in being able to imagine that there are entire galaxies of planets all thoughout the universe.

There are just so many things that an all-powerful God could have done that would have been wiser than to flood the planet.

They say that with God all things are possible. Well, if that's true then what not do what Jeanniebean would have done. No need to kill the sinners at all. Just let them wallow in their sinful behavior if they like it so much.

Why break up the party?

Or, if you really want to get read of them just wave your magic wand and turn them all in to pillars of salt. Why bother with a nasty flood. That's so messy.

Why even turn them into salt? What not turn them into dark chocolate?

Clearly if God could wave his magic wand to flood the planet he could have done anything he wanted to do.

People have no problem believing that God can cure their cancer. Well, if he can cure cancer why not dish it out?

He could have given all the sinners heart attacks. Supposedly they were all having sex anyway. It would have looked natural.

From my point of view, the very idea that an all-wise, all-powerful God would flood the entire planet to solve a problem like this just doesn't sound very wise to me at all.

I personally believe that the story was sparked by an abnormal local flood caused by an earthquake that broke a natural dam, or something like that. Maybe it was even a tsunami?

I don't doubt that the fable was inspired by a real event. A ancient person who had experienced a tsunami or other type of natural flood would indeed have believed that the whole earth had been flooded out. Their whole world would have been flooded out.

The tales just grew. Question came up about how anyone was able to survive at all, and what about the animals?

Bingo, the story of Noah and the Ark is born.

I think it might be possible that the story of Noah and his Ark in the bible could have been based on observations or depictions of events that actually occurred. Say there was an old man named Noah and he was senile or nuts and for whatever reason started building a boat because he was paranoid and delusional. He might have then started loading animals on board. You figure he might have boarded animals that were important to them during that time period for farming like sheep, goats, cattle, horses maybe? Whatever animals were common to herding in biblical times. Now it’s very possible someone observed this and wrote down a story about it. Maybe even told people and it kind of grew and was built up. These people did not have TV. They told stories!

Why? Why would the "belief" of a few Christian scientists (which by the way is a separate denomination of Christianity, and does not mean that they are actually scientists)

..but why would the fact that they believe something about some atmospheric moisture and aquifers give any credibility to creationists?

Sorry, I don't get the connection. You may have to be a little more specific.

JB

Today we have flood insurance and other insurances to cover acts of God. This makes me think that insurance is a necessary evil. It used to be that some types of insurances weren't necessary but the state and federal regulations have made many mandates and rules. Even though one can get insurance against acts of God it seems like acts of God are still carried out to this day.

That's funny. Insurance against "acts of God."

Did you see that show on television where this guy was suing the Catholic Church because his insurance company did not cover "acts of God?" He figured that since the Catholic Church and the Pope claimed to be the representative of God on earth, that he should be able to sue them.

It put the Church in a position to have to defend itself by proving that God did not exist.

Gee I can't remember how it came out. Hmmmmm...

JB

that might just explain the Grand Canyon.

Go stand above it, and then go stand below, in it.

It will make you see how grandiouse whatever carved that was.

It is still eroding its cliff faces.

go from year to year and witness the changes to the toe of any slope consistently and you will see that the carving of it was sudden and relatively recent by virtue of the continual erosion from the rains each year.

Then extrapolate the magnitude of that event.

It boggles the mind to contemplate such an event.

I know what is said aBOUT THE gRAND cANYON AS HAVING BEEN CARVED OTHERWISE.

I do not personally buy into that as an explanation for it.

I did not get to see the show but I have heard that the Vatican has lots of money.

So the rate of erosion in the Grand Canyon is much greater than estimated? I guess that is plausible if water flow were much much higher, but where is all the sediment? That would leave some serious sand bars somewhere...