| Creation & Evolution Forum 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. |
 | | 
17th October 2009, 05:15 AM
|  | Member
    
| | Join Date: 27th July 2009 Location: UK
Posts: 287
Blessings: 68,193 My Mood 
Reps: 38,330,407,492,018 (power: 38,330,407,495) | | | 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? |
17th October 2009, 10:49 AM
| | Newbie
18 
| | Join Date: 25th March 2009
Posts: 360
Blessings: 1,048,313 My Mood 
Reps: 9,233,282,706,633,012 (power: 9,233,282,706,636) | | 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.  |
17th October 2009, 11:18 AM
| | Newbie
22
| | Join Date: 30th August 2009 Location: Russia/Denmark/England
Posts: 34
Blessings: 58,930
Reps: 1,925,599,481 (power: 1,925,602) | | 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. |
17th October 2009, 01:42 PM
| | Member
23 
| | Join Date: 15th January 2008
Posts: 219
Blessings: 73,220
Reps: 79,700,827,809,033 (power: 79,700,827,814) | | Originally Posted by godsmission  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?
Says who? |
17th October 2009, 01:46 PM
| | Member
| | Join Date: 27th July 2009 Location: UK
Posts: 287
Blessings: 68,193 My Mood
Reps: 38,330,407,492,018 (power: 38,330,407,495) | | Originally Posted by Parogar Says who?
Creationists. |
17th October 2009, 04:47 PM
|  | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57     
 | | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,161
Blessings: 2,934,947,572 My Mood 
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | Originally Posted by godsmission 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.
Some things we just consider historical.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
|
17th October 2009, 05:02 PM
|  | Defeated dad.
 
| | Join Date: 13th August 2009 Location: Steering Cabin
Posts: 784
Blessings: 2,065,905
Reps: 718,338,897,473 (power: 718,338,900) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET 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.
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. |
17th October 2009, 05:16 PM
| | SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
57
| | Join Date: 18th June 2006 Location: United States
Posts: 2,126,161
Blessings: 2,934,947,572 My Mood
Reps: 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (power: 9,223,372,036,856,908) | | Originally Posted by Thistlethorn None of those conflict with observed reality. The flood story does. Evidence is needed, otherwise it should be considered bunk.
I'll consider it history --- thank you.
__________________ GOD SAID IT -- THAT SETTLES IT
|
17th October 2009, 05:17 PM
| | Defeated dad.
| | Join Date: 13th August 2009 Location: Steering Cabin
Posts: 784
Blessings: 2,065,905
Reps: 718,338,897,473 (power: 718,338,900) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET I'll consider it history --- thank you.
You can consider it pasta bolognese for all I care. It doesn't make it so. |
17th October 2009, 05:20 PM
| | Senior Member
 
| | Join Date: 11th June 2006 Location: Maryland
Posts: 732
Blessings: 92,772
Reps: 596,997,442,336,088 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by AV1611VET I'll consider it history --- thank you.
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. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
