Changes

: You might like to have a look over the articles [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3037/ here].  I can't say, though, whether those specific points are addressed, but then you've not been too specific about the effects.  The ''intention'' was to destroy the world (in a sense, but perhaps not the sense you mean?).  And although I'm sure that the volcanic activity ''affected'' the atmosphere, suggesting that it would have "[changed] the very chemical make-up" of it seems a bit overboard.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)

: You might like to have a look over the articles [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3037/ here].  I can't say, though, whether those specific points are addressed, but then you've not been too specific about the effects.  The ''intention'' was to destroy the world (in a sense, but perhaps not the sense you mean?).  And although I'm sure that the volcanic activity ''affected'' the atmosphere, suggesting that it would have "[changed] the very chemical make-up" of it seems a bit overboard.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 19 February 2008 (EST)

::I don't think so. I think that, according to many descriptions of life, much of our atmosphere is affected by the gases released from volcanoes, and if the activity of these volcanoes was increased enormously, then they may have the capacity to alter the climate and atmospheric conditions. My argument is this; 1. The movement of tectonic plates on a small scale, as seen today, causes worldwide catastrophes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami's. 2. If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article - then the plates would have needed to move astronomical distances between the time of Noah's flood - several thousand years ago - and the time when the modern world existed in its current format, at least as long ago as the Greeks. 3. If this change in tectonic plates did occur in this period of roughly 2-3000 years, then given the catastrophic consequences of slow-moving tectonic plates now, then the consequences of these - positively speeding - quicker plates would have been astronomical and immeasurable. It would surely have created a planet so volatile that human kind could not possibly have existed.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:55, 17th November 2008(EST)

::I don't think so. I think that, according to many descriptions of life, much of our atmosphere is affected by the gases released from volcanoes, and if the activity of these volcanoes was increased enormously, then they may have the capacity to alter the climate and atmospheric conditions. My argument is this; 1. The movement of tectonic plates on a small scale, as seen today, causes worldwide catastrophes, such as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunami's. 2. If Pangaea existed at the time of Noah's Ark landing - as implied by the article - then the plates would have needed to move astronomical distances between the time of Noah's flood - several thousand years ago - and the time when the modern world existed in its current format, at least as long ago as the Greeks. 3. If this change in tectonic plates did occur in this period of roughly 2-3000 years, then given the catastrophic consequences of slow-moving tectonic plates now, then the consequences of these - positively speeding - quicker plates would have been astronomical and immeasurable. It would surely have created a planet so volatile that human kind could not possibly have existed.--[[User:Entheogenicorder|Entheogenicorder]] 07:55, 17th November 2008(EST)