Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Creationists are told the flood is true and actually happened,
if the flood was just something to be believed then no evidence is required, but if it actually happened why do they never ask to see the evidence? some even say it happened but you must just believe it happened because God must have cleaned up any evidence, and these are supposed to be reasonable and sensible people, is it any wonder creationists are dismissed as being backward and ignorant?
Well scientific theories are based on evidence and math. It's no surprise why the global flood shouldn't be consider scientific. You should already know it by now.
but if it actually happened why do they never ask to see the evidence?
What? Could your question be rephrased as: "Why don't creationists ask for evidence about a literal interpretation of the bible that is at odds with science?" Implying at the same time that the evidence could sway their view... lol
Would it not be inconsistent, to ask for evidence about the global flood, yet dismiss the evidence against Adam and Eve. Surely both topics come in direct conflict with science, and both are believed literally by some creationists.
if the flood was just something to be believed then no evidence is required, but if it actually happened why do they never ask to see the evidence? some even say it happened but you must just believe it happened because God must have cleaned up any evidence, and these are supposed to be reasonable and sensible people, is it any wonder creationists are dismissed as being backward and ignorant?
if the flood was just something to be believed then no evidence is required, but if it actually happened why do they never ask to see the evidence?
Because we treat the Flood as history.
We don't ask to see evidence of Christopher Columbus, the 1906 Earthquake, the 1871 Chicago Fire, the Civil War, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Gemini Missions, the Lincoln Assassination, the Missouri Compromise, the impressment of American sailors, the sinking of the Titanic, the Boston Strangler, the debut of Leave it to Beaver, the gun battle at the O.K. Corral, Gilligan's Island, Phlogiston, Thalidomide safety reports, the weather report the day the Challenger went up, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, or Kookla, Fran, and Ollie.
We don't ask to see evidence of Christopher Columbus, the 1906 Earthquake, the 1871 Chicago Fire, the Civil War, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Gemini Missions, the Lincoln Assassination, the Missouri Compromise, the impressment of American sailors, the sinking of the Titanic, the Boston Strangler, the debut of Leave it to Beaver, the gun battle at the O.K. Corral, Gilligan's Island, Phlogiston, Thalidomide safety reports, the weather report the day the Challenger went up, Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, or Kookla, Fran, and Ollie.
Some things we just consider historical.
None of those conflict with observed reality. The flood story does. Evidence is needed, otherwise it should be considered bunk.
Except history is well documented and well evidenced. Just because it is documented doesn't mean it is history, it needs the physical evidence to back it up.
Linear Mode
