I agree that the baby mammoth was frozen. But it had to be quick frozen to be so well preserved, not frozen over time.
There was a cataclysmic event a few thousand years ago that would have produced a quick freeze as the earth lost its protective covering and tilted due to a lot of water that came down over a forty day period.
Of course.....global warming may have thawed it out.
Bad day for evolutionists who just don't get it.
30 comments
The babble claims that the water covered the highest peaks, Mount Everest is 8,848 meters tall and extends roughly 2/3 into the atmosphere. If this actually happened the atmosphere would be dissolved and well I guess you could call it hell on earth. you fail.
Freeze? In order for enough rain to fall in 40 days to cover the entire earth up to its highest peak, it would have to fall so fast that the friction it caused against the atmosphere would cause it to vaporize before impact, thus scalding most of the planet.
But it had to be quick frozen to be so well preserved, not frozen over time.
That was in Siberia. Try dropping dead in the Yamal Peninsula and see how fast you freeze ...
If there is water on the Earth now...presuming there were oceans 5000 or so years ago...then where the hell would all the water come from? And where would it go? And how would it make the Earth any "heavier" because the mass of water is conserved.
Oh wait, I can't expect you to have a logical explanation for all that.
Don't know why there's no sun up in the sky, stormy weather, just can't get my poor self together, keeps rainin' all the t-i-i-i-me.
How long do you think it takes for a body to freeze in temperatures below -50°C?
What 'protective covering' are you babbling about? The only outer 'covering' on our earth - at any point in time - is the atmosphere.
I'm not even going to bother explaining the absurdity of the planet 'tilting' due to excess water weight.
That's a lame attempt at fantasy, cameron.
You seriously don't think that's history in any way...?
No, "evolutionists", whoever they might be, are probably having a good laugh at you.
You agree about the baby mammoth? Good.
I know this is the leats of this post's problems but what exactly did he mean by
"Of course.....global warming may have thawed it out"
That god thawed it out instead?
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons Gen. 1:14
If the earth wasn't tilted before the flood, there wouldn't have been any "seasons". Pay attention in science class.
Wait a minute, time out! This hypothetical flood covered the whole Earth equally according to your Bible, right? Now, how the fuck does something equally spread out cause an imbalance and a tilt???? DUH!!!! Actually no matter how you try to spin it, it looks like a truly bad day for a all you creationists. How do you explain finding a 40,000 year old mammoth carcass on a 6000 year old planet? Or is your God a lying deceiver who put it there as a test?
@flipper - It can't be 40,000 years old. Carbon dating is always wrong, and evilutionists always lie.
Get your creationist arguments straight. ;-)
"In order for enough rain to fall in 40 days to cover the entire earth up to its highest peak, it would have to fall so fast that the friction it caused against the atmosphere would cause it to vaporize before impact, thus scalding most of the planet."
I don't know what church this fundie went to, Patches, but in every church I went to when we read Genesis I was taught that since the bible says God opened up the earth to release the rain (Genesis 7:11), it was actually precipitation coming up from the ground, not falling from the sky like it is now, (even though the next verse they read us in the NIV bible says it "fell"), and they said rain only falls from the sky now because the earth's atmosphere changed after the flood.
...
Yes, at one time, I believed things like this. They had an answer for everything, if you were willing to ask enough people until you got an answer, and the fact that at least one of them HAD an answer for every question (even if it doesn't make sense under scrutiny) was enough to convince me that what they taught was right. Now that I'm out of the fundie bubble, I can see that's a bassackwards way of doing "research," but at the time it seemed logical. I imagine it's the same for most fundies.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
