Greg Laurie

[rogue06]

There are lesser degrees of shaming a Christian other than saying "you aren't a Christian if you disagree with me." Even the worst of the anti-evos, like Ray Comfort, don't say that. That's why it's so pernicious.

It's a more subtle shaming than the cartoonish way you expressed it. No one really says that.

I thought you've read some of Jorge's posts.

[whag]

I thought you've read some of Jorge's posts.

[37818]

Do you know where groundwater comes from?

There is a flood view of geology that holds there was large amounts of water in the pre-flood earth's crust.

The water cycle starts with rain, so it's almost as absurd to disbelieve in pre-anthropic weather as it is to disbelieve in pre-anthropic precipitation.

OK.

Are you YEC?

No.
From being a new Christian my view would be best described as OEC. In about 1968 I was persuaded to hold a globle flood view, which I have held for about 47 years. YEC influence. Yet I find find YEC on the whole untenable.

[whag]

There is a flood view of geology that holds there was large amounts of water in the pre-flood earth's crust.

Is that your view?

From being a new Christian my view would be best described as OEC. In about 1968 I was persuaded to hold a globle flood view, which I have held for about 47 years. YEC influence. Yet I find find YEC on the whole untenable.

So you believe the whole world was once covered in water as high as Mt. Everest?

[37818]

Is that your view?

It has been. How do I prove that was never true?

So you believe the whole world was once covered in water as high as Mt. Everest?

[whag]

It has been. How do I prove that was never true?

Read about aquifer geology.

Not my view. But it is commonly believed 400 million years ago what is now its top was underwater.

Mt. Everest is about 70 million years old, so it's not commonly believed that its peak was underwater hundreds of millions of years ago.

[37818]

Mt. Everest is about 70 million years old, so it's not commonly believed that its peak was underwater hundreds of millions of years ago.

http://climbing.about.com/od/Mount-E...nt-Everest.htm

And it is claimed the fossils found are from 400 million years ago. In any case, what was underwater is now found on top of that mountain.

[whag]

http://climbing.about.com/od/Mount-E...nt-Everest.htm

And it is claimed the fossils found are from 400 million years ago. In any case, what was underwater is now found on top of that mountain.

Yes, what is now the peak of Everest was once a seafloor. But I wanted to know if you believed a global flood occured that covered the earth's tallest peaks.

[37818]

Yes, what is now the peak of Everest was once a seafloor. But I wanted to know if you believed a global flood occured that covered the earth's tallest peaks.

When holding the global flood view, as part of that view, mountains as we now know them did not yet exist. Many Christians hold the flood was universal, not global.

[whag]

When holding the global flood view, as part of that view, mountains as we now know them did not yet exist. Many Christians hold the flood was universal, not global.

Yes, it's often overlooked that the flood was an intense period of geological activity, not just a releasing of waters. Still, the evidence for that upheaval does not exist. The geology we see is best explained by short bursts of intense activity (landslides, volcanism, earthquakes) combined with long periods of erosion and tectonic movement. It's best to accept the best explanation, not ones fashioned by men to accord with their particular religious belief system.

[Sparko]

Is that your view?

Not such a ridiculous view. http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge...red-earth.html

[37818]

Yes, it's often overlooked that the flood was an intense period of geological activity, not just a releasing of waters. Still, the evidence for that upheaval does not exist. The geology we see is best explained by short bursts of intense activity (landslides, volcanism, earthquakes) combined with long periods of erosion and tectonic movement. It's best to accept the best explanation, not ones fashioned by men to accord with their particular religious belief system.

Yes. Supposing that this would rule out that universal flood, it not really needing to have been global to really have taken place, even as some have interpreted to it be global.

[whag]

Not such a ridiculous view. http://www.livescience.com/1312-huge...red-earth.html

The ridiculousness of the view isn't that subsurface water exists but that it a) antedated precipitation and b) flooded the entire earth at least to the depth of the planet's tallest peaks.

ETA: much more has been discovered about subsurface water since 2007. You'll discover it's not in an oceanic state but rather locked up in rocks.

[Sparko]

The ridiculousness of the view isn't that subsurface water exists but that it a) antedated precipitation and b) flooded the entire earth at least to the depth of the planet's tallest peaks.

ETA: much more has been discovered about subsurface water since 2007. You'll discover it's not in an oceanic state but rather locked up in rocks.

And your problem is you are forgetting that God is all powerful and can do whatever the heck he likes. Objecting to miracles because they don't fit with your conception of physics is pretty ridiculous in itself.

[Adam]

I don't recall that that is what Whag said.