I thought id post this as it was a good article http://www.physorg.com/news90171847.html

The article you posted poses the water is a natural phenomena, i.e. I don’t see any proposal that it is anything other than this.

If you are proposing it is Noachian flood water, you will need a theory to explain why it is found where it is. You might find that will have a more detailed explination.

Notice the first response to the article.



Always the first concern of any find in the scientific world. Proof of the bias against creation. But it has already been located. Science just ignores it because of evolutionist's phobia of God.

http://www.ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html

The find here is just confirmation of the other find.

As far as how it got down there:



So what would the boiling point be at 1920 atmospheres? Enough to go into the mantle without boiling off.

Evolutionist like to bring up the problem of kinetic energy being produced during the flood. But forget one thing. During the flood, there was no sun light. No light equals no heat source. So to keep the earth warm like the sun, how much kinetic energy would you need?



And because heavy rain clouds hover closer to the earth, the travel distance and speed are effected. Which also effects the actual kinetic energy.

Kinetic energy: Energy that a body has as a result of its motion. Mathematically, it is defined as one-half the product of a body's mass and the square of its speed. The form of energy associated with the speed of an object. Its equation is: KE=1/2mv2(squared); or kinetic energy= ? mass x velocity squared.

So the kinetic energy produced by the rain would have to exceed the energy of the sun to broil the earth, as evolutionists like to claim that it would. So to prove this more to a point, they would have to first prove that this energy exceeded the sun's. I have not seen any evolutionist do this.

Would anyone like to show a math formulation that would show how rain can produce enough kenetic energy to exceed the energy (heat) produced by the sun?

And would someone like to explain how naturally that water did get down into the mantle without boiling off?

And where was this water before it went down there? And how was all the oxygen made for the water we see, the water we can't see, plus our atmospheric oxygen?

At what point in the formation of the earth was this much oxygen present to make this much water? You would have to have a highly enriched oxygenated atmosphere to convert to water. But, you would also have to have twice as much hydrogen. Which poses another problem.

Hydrogen is very explosive. To have that much in our atmosphere to convert to that much water at any given time. Would turn the earth into a planet size hydrogen bomb. One volcanic eruption, one lightening strike, and the earth is no more.

Beyond this, A non reducing atmosphere makes abiogenesis impossible.

Yep, newly formed amino acid structures cannot take a highly enriched oxygenated atmosphere. Neither can they take the UV rays of the sun while no ozone layer was present.

To give an idea of how much water this is, since it is enough for a global flood. It would take 9,016,000 Cubic Miles of water to flood the earth to the highest mountain.

Anyone care to take a stab in where all the the oxygen and hydrogen came from to make this much water?

Comet strikes? I believe someone was doing an isotopic survey to see if comet water and sea water had similar ratios. I'll see if I can find it later.

*edit* sorry, this was intended as an explanation for where water came from for our current supply. As to where 9 million cubic miles of floodwater came from, I'm happy to say that is i) not my problem and ii) surely nowhere near enough?!

Comet strikes? I don't think the earth would still be here of that many comets hit it to obtain the water needed.



The math was obtained from someone I used to debate on this subject: http://geocities.com/arikayx/mathofflood.html

I also don't think that this is leftover global floodwater. There is simply not enough of it.

I also think there is an ample supply of hydrogen and oxygen in the solar system to account for all the water we find here. Comet strikes aren't a problem because if the prevailing theory of the formation of the moon is correct then the early proto planets can take one heck of a big hit without shattering.

Why would you think that? I mean - what would have happened to the Earth if "that many comets hit it to obtain the water needed".

Comets are like bombs. Upon being heated up in our atmosphere, they explode either in our atmosphere, or upon impact with the ground. You get enough explosions, something is going to be destroyed.

Did the atom bomb create anything upon it's usage besides death and radiation?

Okay - but before water Earth would have been a hot ball of rock and magma. I am assuming you mean the destruction of the planet Earth in the sense that Earth would have no longer existed (except as bits of space debris). But you have to realize that even if you broke the Earth apart, the gravity from all of the pieces would just pull it right back together again. That is unless the impact was from one big giant comet (instead of many small comets) with a large velocity such that it would have been big enough to impart enough momentum to the early Earth that each piece could have overcome the gravitational effects of each other. That scenario is unlikely.

All of this aside, many small main-belt comets over time is the idea I think.

So why are not comets hitting us now? It would take so may millions of small comets to fill the oceans, water underground, plus water in the mantle. So how many small comets would you say it took to produce all that water?

Gravity and pulling back together again? Has this ever been observed? And did you know that smaller pieces would not have the gravity of the whole planet?

If solar wind can reach escape volosity to remove itself from the sun. It's not as hard as you might think that the earth would blow apart and never go back. For the sun's gravity is how many times stronger than the earth's? But yet untold billions of particles escape the pull of it's gravity every 24 hours.

And has science figured out what gravity is yet? No? But they will sure try to explain it as if they know.

So if I were to look at this like most atheist look at creation. I could see some things here.

1) The comet god (oort god), that magically rained down only small comets. No big comets allowed. And no more than needed to fill the earth with water. Then with held anymore comets just for our protection.

2) The gravity god that cannot be seen, or explained. But is the explaination for all things unexplainable. The gravity god would never let the earth come apart and never go back. In fact the graviy god had a doing in making the moon as the comet god just happen to hurl the correct size comet that would take a chunk out of the earth, and the debri would be gathered by the gravity god. And he would form the moon.

That scenario is unlikely.

Easy - if you accept Nebular Theory (which you probably don't but many scientists do) then you would know that the solar system formed from a Nebula that collapsed under its own gravity forming the Sun the planets the asteroids and the comets. In those early days there would have been more asteroids and comets and even plantesimals drifting around colliding into each other.



Gravity is an inverse square law that applies easily to a whole planet becuase you can treat the center of mass as being the center of the planet. If the planet is broken up it becomes much more complicated. Each piece would exert gravity on the other and the pieces closer to the center of our Earth debris cloud would experience a a stronger gravitational force. Unless enough momentum was imparted to the planet to a. break it apart and b. scatter the pieces I don't think it would be likely. It would involve one giant collision, many small ones just wouldn't do. Computer simulations have been run that observe what would happen if a Mars sized plantesimal collided with the early Earth and the Earth was not destroyed - it just aquired a moon.



Yes but solar wind is mostly high energy protons and electrons with energy of 1keV. These are relativistic particles have very tiny masses. If you are suggesting that the Earth would have been blown apart into protons and electrons - well - that is extremely unlikely. Pieces of rock are much much much more massive than protons and electrons. It is very easy for an electron to reach escape velocities from the Sun and from the Earth.



Not quite - but we have a pretty good understanding what it does and some strong mathematical relationships that make incredible predictions which are found to be true through observation. Where it gets tricky is when we are talking about a black hole singularity that is both tiny and massive - this requires an understanding of gravity on the quanutm level. But quantum mechanics and gravity (general relativity) do not jive well together so scientist are working on a theory that would involve both (like string theory, quantum loop gravity...).



But isn't that kind of what you believe? . I mean - whereas I would like a scientific explanation of phenomena you are satisfied with a supernatural one. But number 2 just shows that you do not understand physics. You are arguing against basic physics here by the way. A large collection of gas (let alone rock) can collapse under its own gravity - this is why stars are still being born today. A body that is in a collision will not scatter unless that body has enough kinetic energy imparted to it to cause each piece to scatter away. So where you see a gravity god most scientist see a natural phenomenon.

I suppose what I am trying to get at is that the Earth can take quite a beating and survive. As can the moon - just look at the number of craters on the moon. We don't see stuff hitting the moon frequently today but those craters came from somewhere.

To claim all these things happened just so, also denies the odds of chance and probability (what are the odds). But since science has become used to everyone always taking them at their word regardless, it would be understandable why you believe what you believe even though the odds can't even be calculated.

Computer simulations don't make up reality. You can program a computer to simulate anything. A computer can be programed to simulate how God created, as well as your moon formation theory. But neither prove if either of them actually actually happened just because it can be simulated.

Written parameters by the ones who want to prove something, can make the simulation go in any direction they want. I could program the simulation to make the earth blow up upon impact. Just as you can make it form a moon. Proves nothing. Only that there is a possibility. But then you have to weight the odds. I bet the odds were never factored in, were they? I'd like to see where they did this? Any math on this? If not it just proves that odds are not a part of science anymore. And that science has gone into teaching doctrinal beliefs through faith. Because only faith requires you to ignore odds, correct?

And about the earth taking a beating. I guess we should not worry about all the nukes we have. The earth should not be destroyed by them because they are like tiny comets.

Size control = a God did it answer. Even when it's a theory. Because there is nothing that can control the size of anything in the universe naturally. And if there is, let us know what this force is.

A few quick things:

1. I wish the Big Splat theory were mine - I'd be famous...but alas it is not.

2. The universe is huge. Planets seem to be common. There are billions of stars in each galaxy and billions of galaxies in the visible universe. Odds are that at least one of those solar systems (but really lots of them) is going to have planets that formed their moon via the Big Splat model (if by your own admission it is a possibility). The question is what are the odds that we would be the inhabitants of that planet. But the fact that we are the inhabitants of that planet does nothing to the probability that the Big Splat model would occur somewhere in the universe.


On a side note: Been nice conversing with you - do you mind if we get back to this chat Saturday because I have a hard test coming up this Thursday that I have to study for? Till then...

Cheers,

st_dissent

Tiny Comets!

Yes, we are under constant bombardment by comets. The lucky thing is that the majority will be tiny. Even better, now we have an atmosphere, they'll melt (or vapourize) on the way down. Of course, when there was no life or atmosphere, you could hurl comets a couple of miles wide at the Earth with no ill-effects.

Incidentally, going back to Noah's flood, isn't the fact that both the Egyptians and Chinese have written record before, during and after the supposed time of the events, with no mention of a global deluge, more of a problem for the flood story?

Yes, the Oort god strikes again. Throws comet size snow balls at the earth to make sure it has enough water for life. Oort god always controls the size naturally by having the comet hit things and break up before reaching earth. We should rename him Oort-zilla.

It is also a known fact that some countries faked the dates of their writtings because they wanted to be known as the oldest peoples on the earth. Or the first to write, or discover things.

?

We know massive objects have also hit the Earth. The law of averages suggests that smaller objects are more common. I'm not quite sure why this should be a problem?



Faked the dates of their writings? Surely the people at the time would have no concept of the kudos of being the oldest civilization. That's like us faking writings today to pretend to future generations that we're the oldest civilization!

Why would lack of written flood records pose a problem?

It appears you are making an erroneous assumption here. Let’s accept as fact (as you say) that there are Egyptian and Chinese written records before, during and after the time of Noah’s Flood. What evidence do you have that we have access to 100% of all their written records?

World War Two ended only 60 some years ago and we don’t even have 100% of Nazi Germany’s records. As such I doubt we have 100% of the written records from approximately 4,000 years ago.

The problem isn't a lack of records, it's that records exist at all. The pre-flood records should have suffered from being under 5 miles of water for a year. Post-flood, following the death of every Chinese and Egyptian speaker, how would these populations recover so quickly from only Noah, Ham, Shem and Japheth and use the same language they used pre-flood (and, indeed, why)?

You forget how long they were living before and after the flood, up to a certain point in time. Which means with each generation, the population increased more. And the knowledge from the other side of the flood could be past on easily.

It was not uncommon for each married man to have 10 children or more. Growing the tribes fast was considered your strength and survival. For if an enemy grew faster then you, then he would more than likely fight you and take over. So large family planning was a part of survival.

Passed on by whom? Everybody was killed except Noah and his family.

I moved this from the CvE section since it really belongs here. I'll make the subtopic under Young vs Old section more clear on this.

Fred

When Noah and his kin departed the Ark, they all spoke one language. There remained only one language until the confusion of tounges at the Tower of Babel. As such, Chinese and Egyptian languages begin there, post-flood. If the documents are written in Chinese and/or Egyptian, then they are written post-flood.

Does that mean that the flood was earlier than 4000 years ago? Both Egyptian and Sumerian writings are readily available from that era.

The number 4000 is an approximation.

How approximate? Could it be 5000?

So they were still all speaking english right up until Babel?

I've no idea what that language would be, but I doubt it was English.

Are we to believe that only the area surrounding the middle east was inhabited at the time? It doesn't seem likely that people could have radiated out around the world in that short time (and without the seafaring skills).

Why not? Evolutionist would have us believe that at one time only the area around East Africa was occupied.




To find information regarding your doubts, you only have to put aside your preconceived notions. It’s not that hard to find. Here is just one source to help you get started on a quest for truth.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp


As for the seafaring skills, well your only 29 so you may have never heard of the Ra Expeditions:

http://www.plu.edu/~ryandp/RAX.html


…or the Kon-Tiki Expedition

http://www.kon-tiki.no/Expeditions/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki

Yes, but the "why not" bit is answered with "because ancient civilizations appear to exist all over the Earth".

And I'm not discussing problems here with reaching today's population over that period of time (although I think there are a few). Nor whether people could *possibly* have sailed from the Levant to Australia (funnily enough I was reading about the Kon-Tiki expedition just two days ago)...

...The problem I have is with the whole thing. The Tower of Babel was post flood. We have to radiate everyone around the world. Civilizations rise and fall. History is written etc.

If the flood's 4004 years ago and then one of Noah's grandchildren is responsible for the arrogance that leads to the tower of Babel, I'm thinking we've not got a lot to pack into not very much time. After the Babel fiasco, the people lose their technological know-how and yet old civilizations in Greece, South America, Egypt and the Far East (to name but a few) all rediscover the technology to build civilizations that in some cases have long disappeared.

Did you actually read any of my references posted above? The answer is there. I'll post the link again.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp




Why do all the ancient civilizations have so much in common? ...their legends, creation stories, architecture, etc.

I wasn't arguing that the population growth was a possibility (I think it is - why assume a constant growth rate? How many people died in plagues and wars?) I was arguing about the rise and falls of empires that we know about. We have monuments in this country older than the flood and a trail of history on top of them of all of the cultutres that came after.



Do they? Which ones?

Meso-America, Egyptian, Medio-Persia, Greco-Roman, Ancient China, Indian Sub-Continent.... there are more....

These things where covered in school when I was in grade school and high school. If they are not covered today, then perhaps there is a reason this information is being withheld.

Here is a link to help you get started: http://killeenroos.com/link/anchist.htm.

For those who are truely interested, finding more information is not hard. You just have to have a sincere desire for truth and be willing to look. You will find it.

With all due respect I was asking *you* what *you* thought the similarities were, not asking for a bare link.

If, for example, you are suggesting that the architecture of meso-America and Egypt bears similarities in their pyramids, I'd have to disagree. I've been to the Jucatan and seen a lot of the Mayan ruins there. They aren't much like Giza except inasmuch as the only building the ancients could build that large, had to be pyramidal to hold its own weight. The Greeks and Romans discovered the wonders of arches - amongst other things - which allowed them to build things like the Parthenon and Colliseum.

If you're suggesting that the myths of the Americas, Australasia and the Levant and Middle East are in any way similar, I'm going to have to disagree again. The indigenous Australian myths have animals on a par with man back in the dreamtime, the Mediterraneans (and Scandinavians) have battles between gods and giants etc.

One way I found easy in resolving this question is to compare both the evolution time-table to the Biblical one. Both have a geological time-scale for the young-earth, before man and animals were roaming the lands. The evolution of the earth shows that there was nothing but land and little water anywhere. Then from nowhere comes the oceans! Evolutionists have no explanation of where the water came from. Like everything else in the theory, things "just happen" from nowhere.

Now consider the science of the Flood. The Bible records it. The pagan historians never denied it. No one in the world denied it until the Darwin/Marx area. The Bible records mostly land mass in the young earth. Mainly rivers and one large sea. Genesis also records underground water that came up and watered everything.

Ok., the Flood comes and we see rapid erosion that would continue even up to the days of Job who recorded what he observed, the physical process of rapid erosion:

"But as a mountain erodes and crumbles
and as a rock is moved from its place,
as water wears away stones
and torrents wash away the soil,
so you destroy man's hope."
~Job 14:18-19 2000 B.C.)

What is written cannot be denied. Job observed erosion before any geologist made it science.

Now the entire earth had been subject to the pysical process of erosion has recorded in Job. Anyone deny erosion? Good; I'll continue. When the Flood was over the waters "receded" and thus erosion was evident. Today we have large oceans as a reminder of the Flood that happened thousands of years ago. Now what would happen if we could, say, undo the erosion? Lets say we lifted the ocean floors to sea level where they originally were, then bring up all the ground water and then have it rain again!! We would have a global problem with flooding! It fact, it would a great Flood!!

When did the Tower of Babel fall?

The exact date I'm uncertain about. The Tower of Babel happened some years after the Flood, I'd say between 200 and 400 years or so.

@Jason78,

I had to refresh my fading memory and relook into the chronology between the Flood and Babel. I had studied this deep some years back but had been involved with so many other topics I was left with only a quess last time I posted.
Now my quess would be more accurate with the time between the Flood and the birth of Nimrod. In fact, Nimrod would have probably been born already by the time Noah died (Noah lived 350-years after Flood). However--and this is important--Moese did not total up the years between the Flood and Abraham. The reason for not doing so is somewhat uncertain to me.
The total of years between the Flood and Abraham need not be interpretated as a strict and rigid chronology. There are lots of hints in Genesis 10-11 that indicate small gaps in the timeline. There may indeed be many centuries between Babel and Abraham, and I will say even up top 1000 years (give or take) between the Flood and Babel. Its real tough research and no actual date is provided. The total date between Adam and today cannot extend past 10,000 years.

Your question is perhaps one of the most challenging questions to ask a Christian. But keep in mind that the unexplained isn't always unexplanable. Moses supplied us with an already ancient chronology of the history of human chronology. The mathematical problems are really nothing to sweat over when you look at a more detailed analysis other than the one I provided in this short reply.

Uniformitarianism is evolution's biggest weapon against the history of God provided in the Bible. But not only does the Bible mention dinosaurs ("dragons") but they are also mentioned in other ancient history as well, like the Gilgamesh Epic (most widely accepted date of conposition is 1300 B.C.). Plus, dinosaurs have been found in every strata, so uniformitarianism has become a bankrupt theory. Indeed, the entire framework of evolution history is based merely on assumption, like Dan Brown's book.
Consider this challenge: during the time Russia was captive to evolutionary humanism, the who country thought the Romanov Royal Family were still living --that is until a couple of Geologists uncovered the graves of the murdered Royal Romanov Family and exposed the discovery after the fall of humanism in Russia. There soon came an unresolvable mystery. Scientists from Russia and the U.S. could not agree on the identification of the missing daughters. Knowing this, how could any of these scientists know the identification and personal history of a so-called "hominid" let alone date him back 3-million years ago. The truth is, knowable history doesn't date much past 2000 B.C.

I apologize if this has already been brought up, but the sheer requirement of water needed to flood the entire surface of the earth would be much more water than is in the oceans today. I think it was upwards of five times as much. That much water just doesnt exist on Earth, or for that matter, in it. The Earth's crust is only about 40-50 miles thick. Below that is heavy, molten rock. Water cant be there, because it wouldnt stay liquefied for very long. And it cannot soak into bedrock or the granite that is just less than a mile under all soil, so it couldnt be there either. The only place it could really come from is in precipitation. However, if even a fraction of it came from the clouds, the air pressure would be so immense it would have crushed everything on the surface, and would have required over boiling temperatures constantly to keep that much water in the air.

So, what am i saying? A global flood would not have occurred, simply because there is not enough water to do it. However, as Biblical writers did write legends and myths about local events, it could have easily been a local flood. I believe the story came from another culture, in fact. And it was only a local flood in the Middle Eastern area. A big one, but not Earth-sized big. So that is what the story is probably about.

Wanna bet?

Do a little research on the Hypsographic Curve of the Planet earth.



As you see all the land above the water can easily fit below the water.

I trust you stand corrected on this issue.

Thats a lot of water... But you still need to add more.

You still need to cover Everest completely, as you can easily see.

So, tell me, how much more water do you need to pump up the level to above that. Looks like you need about... 8,948 meters more to the height of the water. Now, for some math. Take 8,948 and multiply it by the entire surface area of the Earth (In meters). Lets see if i can find that little tidbit of information...

510,065,600 Km squared. Ok, so take that number, multiply it by 8.948 (Have to convert it up to km). What number is that? Lets see...

4,564,066,988.8 Km cubed of water needed to completely raise that water level above all of the Earth's land area.

Now, water doesnt go away. So where is that approximate 456,034,988.8 cubic km of water? Its not in the oceans, or the air, or in the ground. Point out where it is please.

(Accidently did a calculation wrong, but now it is right due to edit. Also, i found the volume of all the water in the oceans, which is a mere 1,347,000,000 cu km. Still need 3,217,066,988.8 cubic meters of water to find)

I guess you do not consider that the earth has water in it's upper mantle? A mineral called wadsleyite, holds enough water to fill thirty of our oceans. This is more than enough to flood the earth. And is the reason you get water with each volcanic eruption.

http://www.ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html

Oh, that is very interesting. However, there is a bit of a flaw in saying that the water come from there.

First, if the water was there for a long time, it would be under such conditions that it would burst out at any moment. There would be nothing to prevent it from exploding out at any time, before or after the supposed flood. So, there isnt really anything holding it back if it were to get to that critical level.

But lets say, by coincidence, it popped out right when Noah made his arc. Well, remember what the upper mantle is?

Molten Rock.

Yea. Thats a bunch of water kept only as water because of pressure. If you break that, its like pulling the top off of a pressure cooker. What happens? Super-hot steam bursts out. If that happened, and any water popped out from this upper mantle area (In fact, any area below a mile of ground would be hot enough to cause this to occur) would be so hot, it would literally cook Noah and boil the oceans.

Yea. But, that is interesting that there is water down there. But it would cook your mythological hero and every critter he saved if it actually bubbled up.

Having debated this issue many times, I already knew exactly what you were going to say. But instead of answering your post, I heed you with a warning.

Your disrespect for what is believed at this forum will not be tolerated. Either make what you say debatable, with out the mocking comments. Or I can flick you off the board.

If you agree, I will delete this post and your's. And you can try again.

Rule: Pointless chatter -- though there is some leeway for occasional friendly banter or brief humor in good taste.

Need to click on the rules at the top left.

Huh? My intention was not be to be snide or disrespectful. I type a certain way, and apparently some things are misinterpreted as being rude. Apologies for that. However, i was being sincere when i said your link was interesting, and the questions and certain humorous words would used only to enhance the reading experience. It does people good to break out of the monotony of a boring debate if you add a little fun to it. Hopefully you can agree.



It wasnt pointless actually. All i said on there was debatable. The only parts that were not were a compliment to your link, and a question to remind of what your claim was. The rest, albeit with somewhat unprofessional terms, was legitimate, and you can debate that all you want. Besides, this rule says that i can have some leeway for friendly banter and brief humor, and all of it was in good taste.

So, sorry for making you think i was insulting you in any way. I just like to write in a happy way, because it is much more fun than using technical terms all the time (I doubt people would like that either).

P.S. Since we have that cleared up, would you continue with your rebuttal of my statement please.

Since God (my hero as you imply) is mythological, I guess my explaination would be treated much the same? This was the point I was making.

Anyway. In the bible, there were three sources for the water from the flood. 1) Rain. 2) Fountains of the deep. 3) Windows of heaven (from God). The water that is in the mineral was created and brought through the windows of heaven. So it was not brought up from the mineral. It was put down into the mineral at the end of the flood.

No, i was talking about Noah and all the animals he would have saved. God wouldnt be toasted by any means, right?



Ok, lets look at those sources:

Rain) Well, 40 days of rain over all the world would be quite a bit of precipitation. In fact, how much water would be up there? The clouds would be so dense, that the temperature would drop, and the world would freeze. OR, the cloud cover would be so thick, all the heat would be trapped inside, and would raise the temperature to boiling. Either way, not alot of rain could have fallen, and not 40 days worth.

Fountain of the Deep) Meaning the water underground. The groundwater is not nearly enough to supplement the rainfall to produce a flood over the entire world. Also, there would be no real reason it would come to the surface, since water runs downhill, not up. Unless you are referring to the superheated water, it would not come up. And we already know what the pressure-heated water would do.

Windows of Heaven) Space? Ok, if you are suggesting a comet or such made of a chuck of ice hit the planet, it would be like Armageddon (The movie) where it would decimate everyone on Earth. The sheer size of it would need to be bigger than a continent to give enough water to even affect the sea level enough to make this theory even plausible, and that would seriously destroy everything on Earth.

So, looks like a global flood theory is dead. Also, if there was fountains and rain and comets flooding the entire Earth, there would be ample evidence of it. But, there is no evidence of earth fountains, of a comet hitting, or of forty days of rain globally.