> First the addition of vast amounts of water would distort the crust of the earth forcing some areas down and others up so having water over 29000 feet deep isn’t necessary.
I think I’d prefer to see some science on that assertion. There is NO EVIDENCE that massive distortions of the earth’s crust on that scale has happened in the past 6,000 years.
> And there’s plenty enough water to cover mountains that might well have been lower before the flood. If the earth were smooth water would cover it to a depth of several thousands of feet.
Let’s see some maths to prove that, please. I have heard that even the outrageous AlGore Inventor of the Internet is only touting a 20 foot rise in the sea level should the polar ice caps melt. Twenty feet! Not twenty thousand feet, twenty ONLY.
That certainly isn’t going to submerge Mt Ararat. It won’t even cover a half-decent hill. So where did all the rest of the water come from? And more to the point, where is it now?
> “OUR BELIEFS”?
Yes, our Christian beliefs. The ones that matter, and the ones that we, as Christians, are expected to preach. The Gospel, which is the Good News of the Kingdom of God and the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Unless that isn’t something that you buy into, I think “Our Beliefs” is a perfectly accurate way to describe them.
> How to call one’s self Christian while accepting the beliefs and doctrines of the atheists and evolutionists in The Temple of Darwinism.
It’s actually quite easy to “crack that nut”, as you say. I’ve explained how in my post previous to this one.
> You’re afraid the atheists and evolutionists will laugh at YOU if you aren’t one of them.
I’m actually not “afraid” of anything or anyone on this earth or in this life.
> It is YOU who is embarrassed at what Christ believed not he or us.
No, I’m actually embarrassed by the jolly nonsense that some of my fellow Christians, such as yourself, hold forth to be “Truth” in the face of irrefutable fact. I am embarrassed by your jolly nonsense, and embarrassed for you.
It’s rather like having a daft uncle who gets drunk at family gatherings and farts loudly and moons the in-laws. It’s unseemly and embarrassing.
> Right. A history likely taught them by the anthropologists themselves.
Is that a serious assertion? That hundreds of thousands of Maori were taught their individual family trees by anthropologists, and that these family trees corroborate, cross-check and agree? Or more likely you’re just being silly.
I see no necessity for you to insult the Maori in order for you to try to defend your indefensible position. They take their family’s (”Iwi”) Heritage every bit as seriously as my fellow Scots take their clans. And with a dam’n sight more accuracy, too.
> The Genesis account has an accurate written history covering a much longer period of time.
The Genesis record, in particular the first few Chapters dealing with Creation, the fall of Mankind, and the Flood, are accurate but not to scale. In part they are parable, in part they are allegory. Their purpose is to explain what happened, and to explain why things happened the way they did. Their purpose is not necessarily to explain how things happened. Evolution does that task much better.
> Supposedly moas walked to New Zealand on a land bridge now under water but then sea levels rose, So where were all these flightless birds when New Zealand was submerged?
A “land bridge”? A land bridge from where? The waters around New Zealand aren’t like the waters between Britain and France — shallow — and the land masses aren’t close together. The water is deep and it always has been. And it is a very long way to our nearest neighbor, across the Tasman Sea to Australia. Not a land bridge in sight. Impossible.
There is no evidence of any “land bridge” over which these flightless birds could have traveled to NZ over the past 6,000 years. Heck, there is no evidence of any smaller-scale land bridges between North and South Islands over which they would have needed to cross, if land bridges were how they got here.
They may have used a land bridge when New Zealand was a part of Gondwannaland, but that was millions of years ago. More likely they evolved here in situ.
Ever hear of glacial rebound? Geologists say where glaciers once were the earth's crust is still rebounding from being depressed by the weight of the glaciers and that's over crust that is three or four times the thickness of oceanic crust with water being even heavier than ice by volume.
What would happen if a sudden weight of water was laid down on the earth's crust? How would affect the movement of crustal plates? and a host of other things? And where is it now? Oceans, seas, deep ocean trenches, thousands of square miles of open water.
No evidence? Says you.
I said there was plenty of water.....your reply:
“Let’s see some maths to prove that, please. I have heard that even the outrageous AlGore Inventor of the Internet is only touting a 20 foot rise in the sea level should the polar ice caps melt. Twenty feet! Not twenty thousand feet, twenty ONLY.”
From the Encyclopedia Britannica,
“Actually, all the elevated land could be hidden under the oceans and the Earth reduced to a smooth sphere that would be completely covered by a continuous layer of seawater 2,686 metres deep. This is known as the sphere depth of the oceans and serves to underscore the abundance of water on the Earth’s surface.”
And from somewhere I can't recall if you need the math:
The total volume of the oceans is 1.3 billion cubic kilometers. The surface area of the Earth is 510,072,000 square kilometers. Dividing the volume by the surface area, we get a depth of 2.5 kilometers.
A bit rough but you should see the point.
and finally,
“Yes, our Christian beliefs. The ones that matter, and the ones that we, as Christians, are expected to preach. The Gospel, which is the Good News of the Kingdom of God and the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Luke's ability to trace Jesus linage back to Adam was part of that Good News, he said he was going to trace all things with accuracy, so when did his genealogy become parable and allegory?
“I see no necessity for you to insult the Maori in order for you to try to defend your indefensible position. They take their family’s (”Iwi”) Heritage every bit as seriously as my fellow Scots take their clans. And with a dam’n sight more accuracy, too.”
And I see no reason to insult those who accept the Scriptures over Darwin. Luke's record had far, far more support than the traditions of the Maori and is certainly taken just as seriously.
“It’s rather like having a daft uncle who gets drunk at family gatherings and farts loudly and moons the in-laws. It’s unseemly and embarrassing.”
But it's your daft uncle not mine and there's more important things than your pride.
“The Genesis record, in particular the first few Chapters dealing with Creation, the fall of Mankind, and the Flood, are accurate but not to scale. In part they are parable, in part they are allegory. Their purpose is to explain what happened, and to explain why things happened the way they did. Their purpose is not necessarily to explain how things happened. Evolution does that task much better”
“Evolution does that task much better” is your belief not “ours”.