Whales

Two facts you are assuming that may not be accurate;
1) to cover Mt. Everest
2) over 11 feet of rain per hour for 40 days

1- you don't know factually that what is now Mt Everest even existed then; it just may be that "any hill over 500 ft. was created post-flood."

2- Although it may have been possible THEN for 11 ft/hr to fall for 40 days, the following scripture gives another source of part of the water

You will note that I opened with the following: "Two facts you are assuming that may not be accurate"

No human today KNOWS what the conditions were then, and all we have is God's word to tell us.
Science looks at evidence and reaches a conclusion. Is that conclusion correct? You (generic "you" for evolutionists/OE) believe science is correct, so you deem God's word NOT LITERAL. We (generic "we" for creationists/YE) do not believe the science conclusions are correct because we deem God's word to be just as He states it.

Therefore we are right back to "Who do you believe, God or man?", since there is absolutely no way to PROOVE either side!

 

J-W-P,

I kind of know what you're saying, but I was forced to reject this line of thought years ago. It simply is just too "magical" for me. It's what I've heard atheists call the "goddidit" argument.

So if there are any problems between modern science and The Bible, we can just flatten Mt. Everest, guess that several quadrillion gallons of water were kept below ground for just this purpose, kangaroos hopped over to Noah, Kangaroos hopped their way back from Mt. Arrarat, penguins waddled to and from, all of the earth's plant life somehow survived below several miles of water, Noah figured out a way to keep the lions from eating the sheep, Noah and company somehow had enough eucalyptus to feed the pandas (hey, it's no problem, the pandas were hibernating).

I want answers (in general that is, I'm not demanding them from you ) and my mind will not allow me to stop at "God can do whatever he wants".

 

Or is it Koalas that eat eucalyptus? Oh well.