Originally Posted by adamt
well tyburn, a century is 100 years and noah was at least 600 when the flood happened
also if the water shot out of the cracks it would fall back as rain
also, i think the glaciers were from flood waters freezing, not the other way around
anyways, this is my theory to a 'T', i just never had a name for it
i think it is amazing how things happened, here in iowa we have the loess hills, they are made up of loess silt soil, the only other place it is found is in china, it is obvious to me that this is the particular silt that was left in a certain area as the water drained away, the same way it happens on my farm after a flood except on a much huger scale
i also imagine that if someone took this theory to it's complete scientific and geological conclusion you could accurately predict oil deposits, diamond deposits and gold deposits
i also think that the land masses had a floating effect, it wasn't the water draining off as much as the land coming to the surface of the water.
See its not my theory...and i'll tell you the point it went crackpot to me...it was the talk about the meteors. Knowing what I know about astronomy I know that the earth cant be the source of that much falling matter....you only need to see the asteroid belt in a geostationary orbit to know that the amount of rubble that isnt going anywhere but round and round is more then the earth could produce if the entire planet had been distroyed....the other inaccuracy is that bacteria found on asteroids is so rare, that scientists who are complete athiests, do not believe the amount could infect the earth and be the cause of life...they would rather it appeared from cooincidence of liquids...then arrived whole on a rock. If they dont jump at the easiest theory of the origins of life from an atheistic approach because they consider it too rare...I wouldnt be using it as my prime example.
For someone to believe that, when the evidence isnt logical...tells me the extent of which he can believe what is not probable....and how do I know he hasnt applied that to his other theories.
To me...that ruined it...the moment he tried to justify his theory using asteroids with life on them...coz whilst I dont know much about sizemology...I do know enough about astronomy to know that his asteroid presumption doesnt fly.