"Pastor Dave" <noway@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:8km80396kk7ameedagbsr7ogdqsm9120ee@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 22:35:08 GMT, "Shrike!"
<suffocate@withbag.es> claimed:
..
Has the earth recovered?
Listen to me. I'm going to make this very simple.
If it were from the rain, the carbon dioxide problem
would have made sure that no life exists any more.
That is a fact!
Now, I already provided the verse that showed you
where most of the water came from. You can believe
the Bible or not believe it. Your choice. But if you
claim to believe it, then why did you snip that verse?
If all the water came from the fountains of the earth - what filled the
empty space inside the earth while it was covered with the water no longer
there?
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second
month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day
WERE ALL THE FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP
BROKEN UP, and the windows of heaven were opened."
- Genesis 7:11
What exactly are the "fountains of the deep?" What took the place of all
the water removed from these fountains? And was this water fresh or salt?
You do realize almost all plant life would be killed after being submerged
for months don't you? You also realize almost all fish would also die since
neither has much tolerance for salty-fresh or fresh-salt water, each must
stay within certain bounds.
What happened to the floodwaters after the
Flood? They must have drained into the sea basins.
How?
Your problem. If the mountains arose,
How much did they raise during the flood?
then the basins
would have become larger and besides, there is a lot less
land now than there was, which was part of what was
presented, so you, like the rest, are ignoring whatever
doesn't suit your presupposition, even after these facts
are presented to you.
What facts? So for these are all your ASSUMPTIONS, not facts. There is no
evidence of a worldwide flood.
Scientists believe that the continents rest on huge plates.
ScienTIST is a different word than SCIENCE.
That's a cop-out reply.
why have scientists found no trace of it?
That is a load of *****, plain and simple.
Plenty of evidence has been found.
Where? All evidence so far points to local floods.
But
because they are just as determined as
you are to disbelieve the flood, they ascribe
it to local floods, repeatedly.
Because thats what the evidence shows.
And maybe one day, you'll stop placing men on pedestals
and you will stop claiming that because someone has a
degree, they can't be wrong.
But all you've presented so far are YOUR beliefs and assumptions. Do you
have proof the flood was worldwide and how the animals on the ark survived
with no food or drinkable water when the ark landed in the rotting,
stinking, vegetationless muck?
I have nothing to discuss with you.
Usenet is for discussion. If you don't want to discuss things why are you
here?
You already showed
your dishonesty, by snipping the verse I quoted, because
you decided it would be easier to argue against rain,
than underground water being released, which you know
you cannot disprove.
What underground water? The earth is solid molten rock deep down-- not
water. If it was water, what took the water's place during a flood miles
deep?
You do not understand science, but you will feel free
to remain in your ignorance and accuse others of
the same.
Enjoy your ignorance. :)
What ignorance? Why do you call everyone who questions your unscientific
beliefs ignorant?
Enjoy your ignorance. :)
--
SA........
L Perez bleated: BEWARE! there are people on this newsgroup who are only
here to slander and
lie about Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not offer any alternative
organization...
Note: No other organization can even come close to the WTS' record of six,
false-alarm end-of-the world predictions in the 20th century.
(Credit to RLM)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
