Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[createdtoworship]

I came here to CF after reading an essay by another "CF refugee" who lamented the dismal science-ignorance on this forum. I had to see for myself.

It isn't simply that the creationists here are ignorant of basic science. It is that they are arrogant in that ignorance and think themselves well informed, simply by quoting from creation science website nonsense.

The harm to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is enormous. They no doubt think that they are defending the Bible. In fact they are defending their own ignorance of the Bible and of the world God created.

This visit to CF has been very depressing. I will look around a bit more just for my own curiosity but I could not handle more than a brief dosing of the trolling and ignorance that RickG has so aptly described. (When I read in the editorial that creationists here were claiming that Noah's flood got drained to Neptune and that Noah lived in New Jersey, I thought that had to be a joke. No wonder the world thinks we Christians are childish fools who want to impose our fantasies on the public schools.)

So, RickG, I think you have made a wise decision for the sake of your own mental health.

I too found it depressing to debate on forums of oposing views, it is one thing to prey on the weak and innocent, but quite another to debate amongst adults who know what they are talking about. I debated a few forums (actually in this CF) that were extremely one sided (against me). I was stumped, humbled and walked away with my head down (hence the depression). Weeks, months passed by....I got up and started treking again (hard at it). This time with more facts, and science behind my views. I am more of a YEC, IDer than ever! I have a more solid belief in the Bible than ever! But I do take exeption with your use of old creationistic quotations, which are used as a way to "poison the well" another logical fallacy. Most do not adhere to those views now, if ever before. I am unsure where in fact you are getting your info (noah lived in NJ) etc. Please no emails, or pictures of a New Jerseyan Noah! What I am saying is that simply because there are some "left field" views in Creationism, doesn't mean that All YEC or ID is invalid.

Thanks again for the comment.

also: regarding the neptune drainage of noahs flood, this is a urban legend/myth that the amount of water was too much as such to drain onto the earths surface. It is best explained in this description of an evolutionary fallacy from creationmoments.com

" A very common example of this comes in the form of, "There wasn't enough water in the Biblical Flood to cover all the mountains" or "Where did all the water go?"

What they are asserting is that there wasn't enough water to cover the present-day mountains. This is fallacious because they are presuming evolutionary time scales for the rates of the mountains forming – that is, millions of years. This means that the mountains we have today would have been nearly identical in height just 4,500 years ago at the time of the Flood. This is begging the question because the premise of their argument assumes long ages are true in order to argue that long ages are true (and, thus, that the Flood could not have happened).

If, as creationists say, the mountains we have today formed rapidly, starting during the Flood, then there is no problem with the amount of water we have today covering the Earth. Thus, the Flood account only seems inconsistent if you don't use all of the Flood model's premises. Taken together, the Flood model explains consistently the evidence we have in the geologic record.

above clip from
LOGICAL FALLACIES OF EVOLUTION 101: BEGGING THE QUESTION | Creation Moments

 

[Joshua0]

I too found it depressing to debate on forums of opposing views

You would not have a debate if you were not trying to defend something. It is difficult to debate against evolution because so much of it is accepted as fact. That just makes it a challenge to show people where they are deceived. As they say a little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down. They will give you a lot of fact to get you to believe a little bit of error.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

It would be innacurate to assume all or most moderators are YEC, when OEC is a very popular standpoint at the moment in christiandom, especially amongst predominantly liberal congregations. Any search at ARIS report.com or Galluppoll.com will conclude that there is only a 11-12% difference between evolutionists and YIC (or ID) amongst religionists (in which a Christian forum is based opon).

Secondly your comment distinguishing "here" (i.e. CF) and "scientific forums" supposes that Christian forums is "less" scientific than other forums. And resultingly moderators at (so called) "scientific" forums would feel the need to crack down on those less scientific. There are several problems with this premise. (and thank you for the comment). I disagree that CF moderators are more lenient with those of similiar dispute, if anything christians are to "exhort one another as we see the day approaching" as recommended in the Holy Scriptures. It has been my experience to see comments moderated and Rude Christians removed from the forums under suspension (pending improvment). By nature Christianity is stricter with those of similiar tastes than with those who are of a different belief pattern (where Christians are to be patient, apt to teach, and to be gentle with). Christians hold each other to a higher standard than to those of different beliefs, or are supposed to.

I don't really want to get into an in depth criticism of the CF moderators, as they are liable to blow up if their attention is drawn to a discussion about their shortcomings, but I will stick by my view that their sympathies lie with one side of the creationism v evolution debaters rather than the other. In fact, I believe the idea of shutting down this sub-forum altogether is one that wouldn't displease them.

I will note though that you rightly say you have seen posts from rude Christians removed and the offenders suspended. That is all to the good. But it is standard fare for any atheist poster here. I doubt there are many atheists who have posted much and not received a moderator warning of some kind as a result of a reported post, often for blasphemy or some other religious offence that was completely unforeseen. And suspensions tend to become bans a little more rapidly too. This is just my own personal observation.

Thirdly like I said, "hardcore creationism" is not "the order of the day."

I was referring to the posters on the forum.

The rest of your post wanders off in an attempt to back up the claim that ID and creation science use the scientific method. I don't really feel the need to comment on that myself except to note that it was that sort of stuff that finally made RickG throw his hands up in despair.

 

[createdtoworship]

You would not have a debate if you were not trying to defend something. It is difficult to debate against evolution because so much of it is accepted as fact. That just makes it a challenge to show people where they are deceived. As they say a little bit of sugar makes the medicine go down. They will give you a lot of fact to get you to believe a little bit of error.

thats the thing...

facts are typically conclusions that have been based upon supporting evidence and premises based on supporting evidence.

Most today think that evolution is fact based on a very basic fallacy:

argumentum ad populum

there is a very inciteful commentary from creationmoments.com on this (couldn't have said it better myself-believe me Ive tried)

""There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.

Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?

By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."

Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed."

Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101: Argumentum Ad Populum | Creation Moments

thanks for the comment!

 

[KWCrazy]

It isn't simply that the creationists here are ignorant of basic science. It is that they are arrogant in that ignorance and think themselves well informed, simply by quoting from creation science website nonsense.

You have people who study science who share your opinion that natural law, not God's law, controls the universe. We have people who study sceince who share our opinion that God's law, not natural law, controls the universe. The two do not see eye to eye on much, and frequently look at the same information and come to diametrically different conclusions. If you believe the world to be billions of years old, to you all evidence of a young earth are automatically falsified, and likewise to those who know that if God had used billions of years to create He wouldn't have tols us otherwise. This thread is about seashells on mountain peaks. If you think that there is one universally accepted explanation through science that is 100% provable then you, sir, are woefully ignorant. If you can't handle such discussions involving interpretations based on a world view that God's will supersedes latural law, then perhaps debating science on a CHRISTIAN forum is not for you. Coming to a Christian forum is expecting the participants to be universally atheistic is not the act of a rational individual. Perhaps the name should have given you a clue as to the make-up of those who frequent this forum.

The harm to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ is enormous.

False. How can defending the Bible against those who call it mythology in any way harm the Kingdom of Heaven? Even if we are wrong we are still showing more faith than any of you who deliberately misrepresent what the Bible actually states and can never present passages to validate your claims. Understand; a miracle may or may not leave evidence of what happened, but it will NEVER leave evidence of HOW it happened.

They no doubt think that they are defending the Bible. In fact they are defending their own ignorance of the Bible and of the world God created.

Another blatant falsehood from someone who cannot provide passages to support their misrepresntations. Frankly, I have more respect for atheists who do not believe than for those who claim their attacks on the Scriptures are somehow supportive of the word of God. It's a mutually exclusive position.

This visit to CF has been very depressing. I will look around a bit more just for my own curiosity but I could not handle more than a brief dosing of the trolling and ignorance that RickG has so aptly described.

If you come here seeking to attack those who do not share your beliefs as ignorant, then perhaps you have very little to contribute. If you can converse intelligently without thinking yourself omniscient and all others unenlightened, then perhaps we can all share our knowledge together.

(When I read in the editorial that creationists here were claiming that Noah's flood got drained to Neptune and that Noah lived in New Jersey, I thought that had to be a joke. No wonder the world thinks we Christians are childish fools who want to impose our fantasies on the public schools.)

Actually, one person that I know of says that, and I'm not sure whether it's a sincere belief or a challenge to anyone to prove him wrong. It's as good an explanation as most of the things I've heard from evolutionists, including nonsense like quantum theory used to explain origination.

By the way. Christ believed that the Scriptures were true, that Adam and Eve were actually the forst man and woman, and that the flood happened as written. He even called Noah by name. How can you call that all a fantasy and yet call yourself a Christian? How can you claim to follow a God who believed in a fantasy? You are claiming two mutually exclusive arguments are you expect us to consider YOU the enlightened one? Forgive me if I find your position to be remarkably poorly thought out.

By the way. We don't want our religion taught in schools by non-believers. We just want our kids to be taught that scientific theory is not scientific fact, and that evolution, while believed by millions, is only a theory of origins for those who do not believe that God created everything.

Now then. Please explain what you mean by "our fantasies." How do you share in "fantasies" in which you do not believe? Why should we have any confidence in your credibility when you come off as a poser?

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't really want to get into an in depth criticism of the CF moderators, as they are liable to blow up if their attention is drawn to a discussion about their shortcomings, but I will stick by my view that their sympathies lie with one side of the creationism v evolution debaters rather than the other. In fact, I believe the idea of shutting down this sub-forum altogether is one that wouldn't displease them.

I will note though that you rightly say you have seen posts from rude Christians removed and the offenders suspended. That is all to the good. But it is standard fare for any atheist poster here. I doubt there are many atheists who have posted much and not received a moderator warning of some kind as a result of a reported post, often for blasphemy or some other religious offence that was completely unforeseen. And suspensions tend to become bans a little more rapidly too. This is just my own personal observation.

I was referring to the posters on the forum.

from your perspective, it may in fact BE that there seems to be more hardcore creationists. But from my perspective I tend to see the oposite: that the vocal majority in the forum tends to be evolutionists, mainly because they have come to the conclusion that science is behind them entirely. When in fact evolution is becoming a dated theory and becoming more and more stale as time goes on. (RE: the vocal majority not actual numbers of each group.)

The rest of your post wanders off in an attempt to back up the claim that ID and creation science use the scientific method. I don't really feel the need to comment on that myself except to note that it was that sort of stuff that finally made RickG throw his hands up in despair.

I see. Well thank you for the concerns. I will try not to wander too much. But the meat of the controversy is in fact over what "science" is: is ID, Creationism, GID etc to be considered "scientific," only partially scientific or not at all? It depends on who you talk to. Personally, I believe that only a portion of Creationism is intended to be "scientific" (To the disapointment of some....)Namely portions of ID & GID that have gone off on their own financially & philosophically and have separated themselves from what is considered to be a religious textbook(s). Allthough the Bible is a very scientific book in and of itself, it is not intended by God to be a science textbook regarding earth science, chemistry etc. What I mean is, it was not intended as a reference book for a typical public science class. Don't get me wrong, I believe there is science within the Bible, and that there is no contradiction between the Bible and science, nevertheless not something you teach a class learning about DNA and Chemistry. There are groups that disagree, but that number is dwindling (see Discovery Institute website) If some Christians here disagree with me, it's okay. I would recommend browsing discovery institute on this matter (or emailing them I did last year).

it's a heated debate out there, AIG for example criticises IDer's like DI (discovery institute) as too secular, while DI criticises some aspects of Biblical Creationism (AIG) as too un scientific. So there is a wide variety out there on what constitutes "creationism" in general.

A Little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, be sure not to lump all creationists into one group.

(on the downside, the best seminars on creation within church settings/private schools seem to be AIG'S, they have got that Beat hands down -IMO)

In a public school setting funded by federal/state tax dollars:

well that would be more of an ID thing (Discovery Institute)

I have finished my digression-

 

[createdtoworship]

You have people who study science who share your opinion that natural law, not God's law, controls the universe. We have people who study sceince who share our opinion that God's law, not natural law, controls the universe. The two do not see eye to eye on much, and frequently look at the same information and come to diametrically different conclusions. If you believe the world to be billions of years old, to you all evidence of a young earth are automatically falsified, and likewise to those who know that if God had used billions of years to create He wouldn't have tols us otherwise. This thread is about seashells on mountain peaks. If you think that there is one universally accepted explanation through science that is 100% provable then you, sir, are woefully ignorant. If you can't handle such discussions involving interpretations based on a world view that God's will supersedes latural law, then perhaps debating science on a CHRISTIAN forum is not for you. Coming to a Christian forum is expecting the participants to be universally atheistic is not the act of a rational individual. Perhaps the name should have given you a clue as to the make-up of those who frequent this forum.

False. How can defending the Bible against those who call it mythology in any way harm the Kingdom of Heaven? Even if we are wrong we are still showing more faith than any of you who deliberately misrepresent what the Bible actually states and can never present passages to validate your claims. Understand; a miracle may or may not leave evidence of what happened, but it will NEVER leave evidence of HOW it happened.

Another blatant falsehood from someone who cannot provide passages to support their misrepresntations. Frankly, I have more respect for atheists who do not believe than for those who claim their attacks on the Scriptures are somehow supportive of the word of God. It's a mutually exclusive position.

If you come here seeking to attack those who do not share your beliefs as ignorant, then perhaps you have very little to contribute. If you can converse intelligently without thinking yourself omniscient and all others unenlightened, then perhaps we can all share our knowledge together.

Actually, one person that I know of says that, and I'm not sure whether it's a sincere belief or a challenge to anyone to prove him wrong. It's as good an explanation as most of the things I've heard from evolutionists, including nonsense like quantum theory used to explain origination.

By the way. Christ believed that the Scriptures were true, that Adam and Eve were actually the forst man and woman, and that the flood happened as written. He even called Noah by name. How can you call that all a fantasy and yet call yourself a Christian? How can you claim to follow a God who believed in a fantasy? You are claiming two mutually exclusive arguments are you expect us to consider YOU the enlightened one? Forgive me if I find your position to be remarkably poorly thought out.

By the way. We don't want our religion taught in schools by non-believers. We just want our kids to be taught that scientific theory is not scientific fact, and that evolution, while believed by millions, is only a theory of origins for those who do not believe that God created everything.

Now then. Please explain what you mean by "our fantasies." How do you share in "fantasies" in which you do not believe? Why should we have any confidence in your credibility when you come off as a poser?

thank you for taking up the side of Biblical Creationism. Also it is just as important to address what evolutionists are really against, and it isn't faith persay....it's the public role of the Bible in the public School system! This is their greatest argument against creationism/science. Biblical creationism is a legitimat endeavor, but it too has some weaknesses when it comes to the problem of legislating religion publically or verbalizing it's views among the public sector (in schools)...but I don't want to open up that can of worms on a thread about sea shells, God forbid. LOL



good post!

(see my last post on the matter, as a continuation of the thought of ID and Creationism)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As stated before how would you contain the water?

You don't contain the water of the great flood, although some might have been held in some basins forming inland seas that eventually evaporate or force breaches and drain away later.

I base my belief in the flood on my belief that the earth and life upon it is a supernatural wonder created by God, who can manipulate it as He chooses. Science doesn't accept the earth, life, and laws, to be anything but 'natural'. To me there's nothing 'natural' about it. The natural state of the (known) universe is dead matter. Earth with it's life is unique in all the universe. This is the foundation of my belief in the flood and other miracles, but I do believe that when properly understood the flood evidence, or absence of it, will be clearly seen.

 

[toolmanjantzi]

Do you mean the Noah living around 4300 years ago? When you get to Heaven perhaps you could attend his class on whatever he is currently teaching on. Then perhaps you will get a chance to talk to him and ask him any questions you may have.

Is that Kat Kerr answer?

 

[toolmanjantzi]

So YEC beliefs are on a par with what you say to your kids about the Easter bunny and Father Christmas. Glad you agree.

The question was brought up to subduction; because of his YEC comment. I don't lie to my children, but maybe he does.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you mean the Noah living around 4300 years ago? When you get to Heaven perhaps you could attend his class on whatever he is currently teaching on. Then perhaps you will get a chance to talk to him and ask him any questions you may have.

I'm looking forward to it!

 

[AV1611VET]

So YEC beliefs are on a par with what you say to your kids about the Easter bunny and Father Christmas. Glad you agree.

While others are on a par with Mother Nature and Father Time.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have people who study science who share your opinion that natural law, not God's law, controls the universe. We have people who study sceince who share our opinion that God's law, not natural law, controls the universe. The two do not see eye to eye on much, and frequently look at the same information and come to diametrically different conclusions. If you believe the world to be billions of years old, to you all evidence of a young earth are automatically falsified, and likewise to those who know that if God had used billions of years to create He wouldn't have tols us otherwise. This thread is about seashells on mountain peaks. If you think that there is one universally accepted explanation through science that is 100% provable then you, sir, are woefully ignorant. If you can't handle such discussions involving interpretations based on a world view that God's will supersedes latural law, then perhaps debating science on a CHRISTIAN forum is not for you. Coming to a Christian forum is expecting the participants to be universally atheistic is not the act of a rational individual. Perhaps the name should have given you a clue as to the make-up of those who frequent this forum.

False. How can defending the Bible against those who call it mythology in any way harm the Kingdom of Heaven? Even if we are wrong we are still showing more faith than any of you who deliberately misrepresent what the Bible actually states and can never present passages to validate your claims. Understand; a miracle may or may not leave evidence of what happened, but it will NEVER leave evidence of HOW it happened.

Another blatant falsehood from someone who cannot provide passages to support their misrepresntations. Frankly, I have more respect for atheists who do not believe than for those who claim their attacks on the Scriptures are somehow supportive of the word of God. It's a mutually exclusive position.

If you come here seeking to attack those who do not share your beliefs as ignorant, then perhaps you have very little to contribute. If you can converse intelligently without thinking yourself omniscient and all others unenlightened, then perhaps we can all share our knowledge together.

Actually, one person that I know of says that, and I'm not sure whether it's a sincere belief or a challenge to anyone to prove him wrong. It's as good an explanation as most of the things I've heard from evolutionists, including nonsense like quantum theory used to explain origination.

By the way. Christ believed that the Scriptures were true, that Adam and Eve were actually the forst man and woman, and that the flood happened as written. He even called Noah by name. How can you call that all a fantasy and yet call yourself a Christian? How can you claim to follow a God who believed in a fantasy? You are claiming two mutually exclusive arguments are you expect us to consider YOU the enlightened one? Forgive me if I find your position to be remarkably poorly thought out.

By the way. We don't want our religion taught in schools by non-believers. We just want our kids to be taught that scientific theory is not scientific fact, and that evolution, while believed by millions, is only a theory of origins for those who do not believe that God created everything.

Now then. Please explain what you mean by "our fantasies." How do you share in "fantasies" in which you do not believe? Why should we have any confidence in your credibility when you come off as a poser?

And nowhere in this long rant can I find a single reference as to why hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone at the top of mountains is evidence of a year long global flood.

Nowhere do you reference any evidence that contradicts evolution, old ages, or a geologic history that is devoid of any evidence for a global flood.

All you have is empty assertions and dogma. Nothing else.

 

[Loudmouth]

thank you for taking up the side of Biblical Creationism. Also it is just as important to address what evolutionists are really against, and it isn't faith persay....it's the public role of the Bible in the public School system! This is their greatest argument against creationism/science. Biblical creationism is a legitimat endeavor, but it too has some weaknesses when it comes to the problem of legislating religion publically or verbalizing it's views among the public sector (in schools)...but I don't want to open up that can of worms on a thread about sea shells, God forbid. LOL



good post!

(see my last post on the matter, as a continuation of the thought of ID and Creationism)

Why does the case of Biblical Creationism require you to ignore the reality that exists outside of the Bible? For a book supposedly explaining the origin of the creation, why is it contradicted by the creation itself?

 

[Joshua0]

And nowhere in this long rant can I find a single reference as to why hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone at the top of mountains is evidence of a year long global flood.

The mountains were created by plate tectonics after the global flood caused Pangea to be broken up into the continents we have today. Even though science rejected this creationist theory in Darwin's day, they pretty well accept it today. Noah's flood was a shadow of the world wide flood that took place millions of years ago. Back when Satan was thrown out of Heaven and down to the Earth.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why does the case of Biblical Creationism require you to ignore the reality that exists outside of the Bible? For a book supposedly explaining the origin of the creation, why is it contradicted by the creation itself?

the Bible does not tackle every single subject in the known universe, only such subjects God intended for His supernatural Revelation. Public School Chemistry is not one such subject, again however the Bible MAY not actually contradict any such science, it simply is not a Science TEXTBOOK.

my last post I believe addressed this more clearly, but let me know if there is anything confusing about it.

 

[KWCrazy]

And nowhere in this long rant can I find a single reference as to why hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone at the top of mountains is evidence of a year long global flood.

re·sponse

/rɪˈspɒns/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled [ri-spons] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun 1. an answer or reply, as in words or in some action.



Did it ever occur to you that when a person is respnding specifically to another post and even more specifically to statements made in that post that perhaps it is actually the post that the person is responding to, and not "why hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone at the top of mountains is evidence of a year long global flood?"

Now as to your question, those of us who have the cpacity for reasoning might indeed ask why there are fossils on mountain peaks, and more importanly, why evidence of fossils at high altitudes would NOT be evidence that those peaks were indeed under water. However, that was not the point of my post, so I have reason to question your comprehension skills.

As to the presence of fossils on mountain peaks, you can post your theory and another can posit their theory. That doesn't mean that either is going to believe the other's sources or take their opinions as anything other than opinions.

If thre was no flood, there should be no fossils. There are fossils everywhere. There are whale fossils found in the desert and in Michigan. Almost every culture records the same story; that a global flood destroyed all of life except a few saved in a boat. That doesn't fit with your world view so you refuse to accept it. A billion year old doesn't fit with MY world view either, nor does the findings of science which some people mistakenly believe to be synonymous with truth. The Great Flood was not a scientific phenomenon, it was a supernatural happening. You approach this with the mindset that the only reality is that which can be proven through science, which I consider to be the mother of all ignorance.

Science cannot account for origination, yet it claims to know everything that happened from the next second onward. Sorry. It doesn't work like that. Science convinces the foolish that the natural world is all that exists, despite an entire world of evidence to the contrary that you can't see because you're blind.

All you have is empty assertions and dogma. Nothing else. You can't prove that the physical world is all that exists, you can't disprove God, you can't disprove miracles, and you can't prove how fossils got on mountain peaks. You can say they COULD HAVE pushed upward after fossilization occurred and indeed some could have; not all mountains.

Regardless, even if there was only one mountain on the earth and if it was only 1,000 feet high, you STILL can't invalidate the flood and your theories of the topography of the earth are only unsubstantiable theories.

Your guess ISN'T as good as mine. I have God's word. You have unprovable theories.

 

[florida2]

If thre was no flood, there should be no fossils. There are fossils everywhere. There are whale fossils found in the desert and in Michigan.

Why should there be no fossils?

That doesn't fit with your world view so you refuse to accept it.

No, it doesn't fit with the evidence - big difference between evidence and religious belief

Science cannot account for origination, yet it claims to know everything that happened from the next second onward. Sorry. It doesn't work like that. Science convinces the foolish that the natural world is all that exists, despite an entire world of evidence to the contrary that you can't see because you're blind.

1. The origin of life is an area which science doesn't exactly know what happened, which is why research is taking place as we speak. When science doesn't know something it presents an opportunity for increasing knowledge, not a sign of weakness.
2. Science only deals with the natural world - that's the whole point! Science is to look at the universe and figure out how it all works. If there was demonstrable, repeatable evidence for God and other supernatural goings on then it would be part of science.

All you have is empty assertions and dogma. Nothing else.

I cannot believe you have the gall to say that! Pot, meet kettle.

You can't prove that the physical world is all that exists

Science has only been able to prove the physical world exists. If there was evidence otherwise it would have been seen and would be part of science.

you can't disprove God, you can't disprove miracles

Though at the same time you can't prove them. If you wish to prove scientifically that God and miracles exist then you need to come up with proof. It's not up to science to disprove your un-proven claims. If you believe in God then that's fantastic but don't go attacking science for it.

and you can't prove how fossils got on mountain peaks. You can say they COULD HAVE pushed upward after fossilization occurred and indeed some could have; not all mountains.

Plate tectonics, a phenomenon which is measurable and tested, is responsible. Why not all mountains?

Regardless, even if there was only one mountain on the earth and if it was only 1,000 feet high, you STILL can't invalidate the flood and your theories of the topography of the earth are only unsubstantiable theories.

No idea what you are trying to say or prove here.

Your guess ISN'T as good as mine. I have God's word. You have unprovable theories.

How is plate tectonics unprovable?

Have a nice day

 

[Joshua0]

you STILL can't invalidate the flood

Everyone agrees ON the flood. They just do not agree on WHEN the flood happened.

 

[florida2]

Everyone agrees ON the flood.

No they don't. Do not put words into other people's mouths.

All cultures who started near a river are at some point going to experience a flood. Since they may not know about the existence of any other people or how big the world is, it is likely they would assume it was a flood to destroy the world. Not to mention how tales such as this can become exaggerated through the passage of time.