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

[KWCrazy]

For every act of Creation, there had to be processes involved-the geological and fossil records show that to be true..Neolithic man just couldn't understand what was involved..Genesis is a simplified account..so that those who it was written for could relate to it.

So as a Christian it's your contention that:
Genesis is mythology
The Scriptures are NOT the word of God
There was no flood
Jesus lied when He spoke of the flood
The six day creation is a lie
The Forth Commandment is a lie
God did NOT create Adam
God did NOT create Eve from Adam
Jesus lied when He spoke of the first man and woman
Jesus lied when he said that the Scriptures were worthy of using for instruction
The authors of the New Testament lied when they mentioned the first few chapters in Genesis over 200 times
All 333 miracles listed in the Bible are false because they violate established natural law

Okay, if that's what you believe, it's what you believe. However, as a fellow Christian I'm certain that you would willingly show me the error of my beliefs.

Can you provide passages in the Scriptures to back up all that you believe? Can you provide reasons to deny the word of the Lord OTHER THAN that science claims otherwise?

 

[AV1611VET]

When someone chops up a post like you did..puts it in quotes and attributes it to another poster, that ain't cool.It no longer is that other poster's words.
If you want to quote me,quote all of the sentence!That way, it won't look like I said something entirely different.

Fair enough.

AV,that is NOT a process..That's like the three or four words I was alluding to.
I'm talking about the chemical and biological processes involved..not a magical "poof and there it was".

How astute of you.

 

[freezerman2000]

So as a Christian it's your contention that:
Genesis is mythology
The Scriptures are NOT the word of God
There was no flood
Jesus lied when He spoke of the flood
The six day creation is a lie
The Forth Commandment is a lie
God did NOT create Adam
God did NOT create Eve from Adam
Jesus lied when He spoke of the first man and woman
Jesus lied when he said that the Scriptures were worthy of using for instruction
The authors of the New Testament lied when they mentioned the first few chapters in Genesis over 200 times
All 333 miracles listed in the Bible are false because they violate established natural law

Okay, if that's what you believe, it's what you believe. However, as a fellow Christian I'm certain that you would willingly show me the error of my beliefs.

Can you provide passages in the Scriptures to back up all that you believe? Can you provide reasons to deny the word of the Lord OTHER THAN that science claims otherwise?

I, unlike you, do not have blinders on..I see God's Creation in progress..and it has processes involved..
You believe in a magical "poof"I do not..The flood..local,not global,yet catastrophic to the area and people it affected.God created Adam and Eve in his SPIRITUAL image,giving mankind the awareness of Him.God is spirit..do we look like a spirit?
I do not need to defend my faith..it is strong.
BTW, you are coming mighty close to telling me that I am not a Christian..if you do, you will be in violation of forum rules.
John3:16 trumps Genesis and Noah all day long..
Whether I believe that Genesis has to be taken literally or not has no bearing on my belief in Christ or my Salvation.

 

[freezerman2000]

Fair enough.

How astute of you.

Thanks..
What I was alluding to was that a "poof" is not a process..just so you understand where I was coming from.
I appreciate your position and the fact that you are not like others who sound like they want to be in a bully pulpit.That makes talking to you a lot more of a pleasure.

 

[KWCrazy]

I, unlike you, do not have blinders on..I see God's Creation in progress..and it has processes involved..

Specious contention. I believe 100% in science and in the magesty of God's creation, yet I were no blinders, nor do I pretend that the creation is greater than God who created it.

You believe in a magical "poof"I do not..

I believe in the word of God over the claims of man. There is no support for evolution in the Scriptures.

The flood..local,not global,yet catastrophic to the area and people it affected.

There is no support for a local flood in the Scriptures. Christ, whom you serve, taught that it happened as described.

God created Adam and Eve in his SPIRITUAL image,giving mankind the awareness of Him.God is spirit..do we look like a spirit?

Did Adam and Even have parents? Was Adam created from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib?

I do not need to defend my faith..it is strong.

The question was, is it based on the Scriptures. I specifically asked for passages to suppot your beliefs. Predicatably, you cannot provide them.

When I was young I was taught that the earth was billions of years old and that man had evolved since the earliest man was created by God. My mom believed in Theistic Evolution because that's what she had been taught. When I grew older and actually READ the Bible I could find no support for it whatever. In fact if you add up the time frame of the genaologies the Bible is pretty specific in revealing exactly how old creation is. It is equally specific that the flood of Noah is a literal event that covered the entire world and extinguished the life of everything that breathed air which was not on the ark. To deny this is to deny the Scriptures.

Gid made man in His image. We don't get to return the favor. We can't re-define God to suit what we want to believe. He is the same God today as He was in the time of Abraham. The Scriptures are the Word of God. If what you believe has any basis in truth, you should be able to produce passages to support your belief. After all, as a Christian you no doubt study the word of God, right? You do, after all, have the Holy Spirit to help you find the truth. You need to share that truth with the rest of us, because I have yet to find a passage of Scripture to support an old earth or evolution.

BTW, you are coming mighty close to telling me that I am not a Christian..if you do, you will be in violation of forum rules.

I never said you weren't. I'm asking to see passages in the Scriptures which support your position.

John3:16 trumps Genesis and Noah all day long..

John 3:16 doesn't contradict the Scriptures. In fact, John 1 says:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

The word of God cannot be polluted by the lies of men. If the Scriptures don't support your claims, They prove your claims false.

Whether I believe that Genesis has to be taken literally or not has no bearing on my belief in Christ or my Salvation.

Christians follow Christ. What did Christ believe? If the Son of God, who was there to witness the history of man, believed that the Scriptures were absolutely correct and were the inspired word of God, why would one who follows Him believe otherwise? This is a LEGITIMATE question. All followers of God find peace and solace in the Scriptures. What PASSAGES (not words taken out of context) do you find to support what you believe? Faith is hard. It flies in the face of what scientists and educators tell us every day. Everything I post regarding religion is rooted in the Scriptures. What are the roots of your beliefs?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Specious contention. I believe 100% in science and in the magsty of God's creation, yet I were no blinders, nor do I pretend that the creation is greater than God who created it.

I believe in the word of God over the claims of man. There is no support for evolution in the Scriptures.

But there is a mountain of evidence for evolution in 'God's' creation. Personally, I think it is beyond credulity that anyone can regard the words in a book written by men as trumping the evidence of the world around them. It doesn't matter what the book is, if the contents are at odds with the real world world we live in, then the book has no business being treated as a reliable. It's as simple as that. I can't see how it is possible to view it any other way.

 

[AV1611VET]

But there is a mountain of evidence for evolution in 'God's' creation.

Then why do atheists exist?

Obviously, to them, creation isn't saying, "Look what I [God] did!"

To them, it is saying, "Look what Mother Nature did!"

Thus the Bible comes along to factor God into the equation.

But instead of factoring God into the equation, atheists refuse to do that for some reason.

Theists, on the other hand, start with God, then factor His creation into the equation.

 

[florida2]

You can research into anything you want to, but the wishfulness of a theory deosn't make it any more accurate. The first law of thermodynamics renders origination impossible and Louis Pasteur proved that abiogenesis does not happen. Until you can invalidate the first law you have no explanation for the origination of the universe, and until you can replicate abiogenesis you cannot claim that it's scientific. You are basing your "scientific" beliefs in things that are the antithesis of science.

Science is limited to what can be seen, observed and tested. It cannot account for the supernatural and can ONLY BE accurate with things that have a natural causation. It can recognize spontaneous combustion if oily rags are kept in an enclosed container, but it cannot account for fire raining out of the sky. It cannot measure the age of a world that was created intact by God. It cannot use lights from a star as a method of dating if that light was visible from earth the instant that star was created. It can't use radiometric dating if that isotope was NEVER in 100% integrity. It can't explain the origin of a man God created by breathing onto a mound of dirt. And can't prove or disprove anything in the Bible. Archeologists use the Bible to find lost cities and find it to be incredibly accurate, but the supernatural actions of God fly in the face of natural law. Science can't explain how a single miracle happened. Science can't explain how the Holy Spirit functions, but millions have experience His presence. Millions have seen angels. Millions have seen demons. Millions have witnessed miracles. An honest assessment of science admits that there are things it cannot confirm or falsify. It only relates to the study of the physical world.

If causation is supernatural in nature, then science cannot possibly ever discover the truth.

Exactly! How it works. Science can only speculate about origination because origination violates all physical laws. Science can tell you that a star is a thousand light years away, but it can't explain why man saw the light from it the first night after he was created.

Hiow do you find repeatable, testable evidence of something supernatural? You CAN test it. You can reach out to evil spirits and if they want to respond they will, but there's no promise that they will, or once they come there is no promise they will ever leave. If you proclaim that there has never been a haunting then most will consider you a fool. If you say there has never been a demonic possession then how would you explain Jesus and the disciples casting out unclean spirits? It has been said that the greatest trick the devil ever performed was to convince the world he didn't exist. Why, then, would he prove it to you?
Absolutely false. Evidence has been gathered, but it's usually inconclusive. Voices are heard on tapes but they blend in with white noise. Orbs of light or light figures which occur on film are dismissed as either hoaxes or anomalies of the development process. Eyewitnesses tosupernatural phenomenon are called delusional. It is human nature to resist admitting there are things we cannot control and things that we cannot explain through the science of the physical world.
No. How would I know that? By your rejection of the Scriptures? By your rejection of the teachings of Christ? I look at the argument you post, not the icon you choose. Your belief or disbelief is between you and God. I'm defending the Scriptures against all it's enemies, foreign or domestic. Christ proclaimed that the Scriptures were accurate. He mentioned Noah by name and spoke about Adam and Eve. He taught that the words of Moses were inspired by God. He could have corrected ANYTHING in the Old Testament, but He did not. He came to fulfill the Scriptures, not to destroy them. Christ never once said that man evolved from simple life forms, or that the Great Flood was local, yet He corrected the high priests on their mistranslations and taught from the Scriptures as one with authority.

However, we don't know what the original condition was, how the flood may have changed the earth's geography or whether that speed is constant.

If we use current freeze/thaw cycles, sure. We have no idea if they reflect a static cycle or if things were dramatically different earlier. Also, since the earth was created in its mature state, we don't know the original condition. We use inductive reasoning to extrapolate what we know into what we think we know, but that's the most inaccurate form of reasoning.

From science.

Look it up. Actually, the souces I've found more recently are saying 95%.

You're a Christian, do you think God lied when He showed Noah the first rainbow as his promise that He would never again destroy the world by flood?

If there were no rainbows before, the atmospheric condition changed, didn't it?

Golly, Gee. Let's all color a peace pony and worship our God of lies who made up a story about the fiorst rainbow. NO! It can't just be a nice story, because God DOES NOT LIE!

So you're saying that Jesus, who was there to witness it, also lied about the Great Flood so that over two thousand years after His death people would finally discover the truth? Naaaw. I'll leave that to people who have no faith in the Scriptures and who teach others that it's only a book of mythology.

Will at least one of you local flood believers show me ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where a local flood could cover a mountain peak and take a year to subside?

You mean Jesus didn't know either? He believed that all living things that breathed air and were not on the ark perished as well.

Please explain further how light didn't reflect inside raindrops to produce rainbows and what changed to allow this.

I look at the scriptures but I also look at reality. The evidence for no global flood, evolution and whatever else you may reject is overwhelming.

God cannot lie - why would we find one thing in reality and another thing in a book written by men? There are wonderful and fearful stories in the Bible which can teach us a lot about life and the nature of God. I cannot take them all literally since the evidence in reality simply does not agree. God cannot lie so they must be allegorical.

If you want to respond to this please do not dole out more bile and anger like you have done before. I'm really getting tired of your attitude towards me and anyone else who dares to disagree with you.

 

[KWCrazy]

But there is a mountain of evidence for evolution in 'God's' creation. Personally, I think it is beyond credulity that anyone can regard the words in a book written by men as trumping the evidence of the world around them. It doesn't matter what the book is, if the contents are at odds with the real world world we live in, then the book has no business being treated as a reliable. It's as simple as that. I can't see how it is possible to view it any other way.

That's why you're an atheist.

I'm not seeking common ground with atheists, because there is none. We have diametrically opposing world views. I believe in an all powerful God who created the world and everything in it; who told us exactly how he did things. I think the beauty of Genesis is that it was written not for the people of that time, but for our time. The Israelites had the prophets among them who could talk with God. They had no concept that the very sequence of creation as described in genesis violates all natural laws. They didn't understand those laws, but they knew the prophets fortold the future so they knew God revealed Himself to them.

Today we have the New Covenant; whereby man comes to God through faith and faith alone. As we become more modern we see ever increasing challenges to that faith. The question is, will we fold under pressure or accept that God is testing us the same way He tested Abraham; holding our faith to the fire to see if it melts or tempers.

If you understand that God has ALWAYS demonstrated His magesty by violating natural law then it comes as no surprise that every miracle described in the Bible is impossible according to science. They were impossible at the time. People knew an axhead couldn't float, they just didn't know about density. They knew water couldn't turn to wine, though they had no clue about how the molecules worked. They knew a man couldn't return after being dead three days, they just didn't understand the decomposition process.

There is evidence in the world to support an old earth, but God is NOT of this world and the evidence we are supposed to look to is the Scriptures. It's a challenge of faith and I can see how many fail. If I'm wrong, then the answers can be found in the Scriptures to prove it. Nobody can find justification in the word of God, only in man's interpretation of the physical world.

This is not the real world. The real world is eternal. This is only a short testing ground where our faith is put to the test in a fabricated environment. There is no death; only an end to our time in this physical existence. There is another existence. There are angels. Many have seen them. There are demons. I have seen them. The Holy Spirit exists. I've felt His presence. These truths that you deny can be easliy found by those who seek them. Atheist never do. Denial is easy. Facing a significant truth is not.

My question to those who proclaim themselves to be followers of a God they deny is this; where are the passages to support your position? I understand the scientific arguments. I made them myself for a decade until there were no more to make; no more to discover. What I want to know is how people justify believing as they do. I back my contentions in the Scriptures. You back yours in natural law. What do they back theirs in, when what they believe conflicts with both?

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

That's why you're an atheist.

I'm not seeking common ground with atheists, because there is none.

As a follower of Jesus, I most certainly seek common ground with atheists. And everybody else. Common ground provides a basis for friendship.

My atheist friends and I have much common ground. We care about our families and friends. We care about our communities. We share the common ground of wanting to enjoy peace. But what we obviously share in forums like this one is a curiosity for the world around us. And we are all interested in TRUTH.

But I'm not at all clear how the previous post addresses the question:
Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

Has that question already been thoroughly answered?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Please explain further how light didn't reflect inside raindrops to produce rainbows and what changed to allow this.

The earth may have been watered by dewfall rather than rainfall before the flood. If you've ever been in Miami in February you'll know what a heavy evening dewfall is. Or maybe it only rained at night before the flood. That would actually be perfect; rain at night, sunny days. When I was a kid I often awoke to the ground being wet from an evening rainfall, which dried up shortly after sunrise. It was years before I saw an actual rainbow. At first I didn't believe they existed because I heard about them but never saw one.

Scripture reveals the best evidence. Genesis 2:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6 But there went up a mist (or water vapor) from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.


The but indicates that instead of rain, which normally provides moisture only locally, a heavy dewfall encompassed a larger area, the whole face of the ground, or earth.

Later, beginning with the flood, God poured out water from above, as through a 'window' ("the windows of heaven were opened"), in the form of violent rain.

It is also notable that metaphorically, and actually, the atmosphere represented purity. If actually clean of dust particles rain could not form so moisture would have to condense on the earth in the form of dew in the cool of the day (evening).

Heavy rains often accompany volcanic eruptions as dirt is expelled into the atmosphere. Such eruptions would cause heavy rain to fall if the atmosphere was laden with moisture. A volcanic eruption may have been the beginning of the flood.

Hope this helps.

 

[KWCrazy]

Please explain further how light didn't reflect inside raindrops to produce rainbows and what changed to allow this.

I don't know what may have been different in the atmospheric conditions unless there was simply a lack of water vapor, but there were no rainbows prior to the flood.

I look at the scriptures but I also look at reality.

The Scriptures ARE reality. This world is a construct.

The evidence for no global flood, evolution and whatever else you may reject is overwhelming.

Nonsense. You can't find evidence of something that didn't happen, and you can't ascribe physical reactions to a supernatural event. Moreover, you can't do a pre-flood and post-flood analysis of the earth because you weren't there.

God cannot lie - why would we find one thing in reality and another thing in a book written by men?

Because you believe the interpretations of man over the word of God. It's not supposed to be possible. Miracles aren't.

There are wonderful and fearful stories in the Bible which can teach us a lot about life and the nature of God.

The Scriptures are not Aesop's Fables.

I cannot take them all literally since the evidence in reality simply does not agree.

You of little faith. God's word doesn't match your perceptions of reality so God's word must be wrong?

God cannot lie so they must be allegorical.

God doesn't lie, but men do. Lack of faith leads men to make assumptions based on the belief that there is no God. It doesn;t make those assumptions correct.

If you want to respond to this please do not dole out more bile and anger like you have done before.

Get serious. I don't dole out anger. I simple speak what is written in the Scriptures. It's easier to be right when you simply quote the word of God. However, if you want to lie and commit blaspheme as others have before, don't exspect me to heap praise upon your insights. Real truth lies in the Creator, not in the creation. You can't find the answers of the univers in rocks.

I'm really getting tired of your attitude towards me and anyone else who dares to disagree with you.

I'm rather tired of those who disagree with me being unable to back their statements. If you claim to believe in God, show me how what you are saying is reflected in His word. If you don't believe in God, show me how natural law can violate itself and create everything out of nothingness. As a Christian I believe that God, not science, is the Lord of the universe. I believe that all the miracles in the Bible happened as stated because God simply cannot and does not lie.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

I don't know what may have been different in the atmospheric conditions unless there was simply a lack of water vapor, but there were no rainbows prior to the flood.

Where does the Bible say that there were no rainbows prior to the flood?

 

[freezerman2000]

Specious contention. I believe 100% in science and in the magesty of God's creation, yet I were no blinders, nor do I pretend that the creation is greater than God who created it.

I believe in the word of God over the claims of man. There is no support for evolution in the Scriptures.

There is no support for a local flood in the Scriptures. Christ, whom you serve, taught that it happened as described.

Did Adam and Even have parents? Was Adam created from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib?

The question was, is it based on the Scriptures. I specifically asked for passages to suppot your beliefs. Predicatably, you cannot provide them.

When I was young I was taught that the earth was billions of years old and that man had evolved since the earliest man was created by God. My mom believed in Theistic Evolution because that's what she had been taught. When I grew older and actually READ the Bible I could find no support for it whatever. In fact if you add up the time frame of the genaologies the Bible is pretty specific in revealing exactly how old creation is. It is equally specific that the flood of Noah is a literal event that covered the entire world and extinguished the life of everything that breathed air which was not on the ark. To deny this is to deny the Scriptures.

Gid made man in His image. We don't get to return the favor. We can't re-define God to suit what we want to believe. He is the same God today as He was in the time of Abraham. The Scriptures are the Word of God. If what you believe has any basis in truth, you should be able to produce passages to support your belief. After all, as a Christian you no doubt study the word of God, right? You do, after all, have the Holy Spirit to help you find the truth. You need to share that truth with the rest of us, because I have yet to find a passage of Scripture to support an old earth or evolution.

I never said you weren't. I'm asking to see passages in the Scriptures which support your position.

John 3:16 doesn't contradict the Scriptures. In fact, John 1 says:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

The word of God cannot be polluted by the lies of men. If the Scriptures don't support your claims, They prove your claims false.

Christians follow Christ. What did Christ believe? If the Son of God, who was there to witness the history of man, believed that the Scriptures were absolutely correct and were the inspired word of God, why would one who follows Him believe otherwise? This is a LEGITIMATE question. All followers of God find peace and solace in the Scriptures. What PASSAGES (not words taken out of context) do you find to support what you believe? Faith is hard. It flies in the face of what scientists and educators tell us every day. Everything I post regarding religion is rooted in the Scriptures. What are the roots of your beliefs?

Blinders are designed to keep horses from seeing things that might spook them from the side.Religious blinders keep people from seeing evidence that is right before their eyes.Anytime religion keeps someone from seeing a broader creation other than what was written by another man, that person has blinders on.

What science?

I never said that creation is greater than God..The more I find out about the processes involved,the greater God gets.

Where is the physical evidence of a global flood? There isn't any..(AV, I already know YOUR take on this..BTW,Pluto is a GAS giant,not a water planet.)

I don't look anything like a spirit,but God's Spirit is in me..

I'm not contesting John 1..if I were contesting that passage,I would be saying that there is no God in the first place.period.

The way you worded your response,you most certainly were close to telling me that I am not a "proper" Christian,because I don't look at Genesis the same way that you do..reminds me of the preacher that told me that if I didn't believe like he did and didn't worship the same way,I was going straight to Hell.

You just did it again..telling me that my "claims" are false.
My "claims" may be false to you,but my faith is strong regardless of what you say.period

I'll let you reply to this, then be prepared to go into my "iggy" bin..I'm done with you.
Maybe when your attitude changes,I'll talk to you more.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Then why do atheists exist?

I can only answer for myself but I can remember when I first came to the conclusion that there wasn't a God, and evolution wasn't a part of my thinking at that time.

Obviously, to them, creation isn't saying, "Look what I [God] did!"

True.

To them, it is saying, "Look what Mother Nature did!"

No, it isn't saying anything for anyone: it's no-one's vanity project. It just is.

Thus the Bible comes along to factor God into the equation.

There are many reasons as to why and how the Bible "came along", as I'm sure you know from your extensive study of Bible history.

But instead of factoring God into the equation, atheists refuse to do that for some reason.

How uncooperative of them.

Theists, on the other hand, start with God, then factor His creation into the equation.

I'm not sure that is true. As creation itself is taken to be the best evidence you have of God and His work, it is not slotted into anything else, or treated as something to be fitted into something else. It is primary evidence number 1. After all, the Bible is a part of creation, not the other way round. That is why demonising and demeaning the study of God's creation is something that many Christians on these boards find infuriating, some even to the point of blowing up and leaving in disgust.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can only answer for myself but I can remember when I first came to the conclusion that there wasn't a God, and evolution wasn't a part of my thinking at that time.

So did you do this in spite of creation, or with respect to it?

I'm also under the assumption that theists call it "creation," while atheists prefer to call it "the universe."

So, at what point did "creation" become "the universe" to you?

After all, if "the universe" speaks of "creation," then why are there atheists around?

 

[Loudmouth]

[/COLOR]
...(E)arth’s limestone holds a thousand times more calcium and carbon than today’s atmosphere, oceans, coal, oil, and living matter combined. A simple, visual examination of limestone grains shows that few are ground-up seashells or corals, as some believe....


Today, when limestone forms at the earth’s surface, the released CO2 enters the biosphere—the atmosphere, soil, and surface waters of the earth. Before the flood, vast amounts of limestone steadily precipitated onto the subterranean chamber floor, but the released CO2 was confined to the chamber, unable to escape into the biosphere.

Evidence please.

Different researchers, different conclusions, differing opinions regarding origins.

The difference is that the creationists have no evidence to back up their claims. Geologists do. You are simply making it up as you go along.

Plate tectonics doesn't solve the issue that there WERE mountains at the time, including the mountains of arart and that they were covered by water.

You have no evidence that the mountains of ararat were covered in water 4,400 years ago.

How many 10,000 foot deep floods have you studied?

Geologists have studied quite a few of them. In fact, we have continual flooding. We call them oceans. Guess what we don't see? We don't see hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone forming in a single year. We don't see hundreds of feet of chalk forming in a single year. We don't see any of the fantasies that creationists claim.

They aren't found in the middle of mountains.

Yes, they are. Limestone makes up the layers in mountains. These seashells are found in the MIDDLE of mountains. For example, the picture on this page:

http://wilderness.org/article/why-rocky-mountain-front

Those banded sediments include limestone layers. They contain fossils. They are in the middle of mountains. How does a flood do that?

We aren't discussing fossils found in aquatic areas where one could expect them to be found, we are speaking on fossils throughout the world including and especially on mountain peaks.

Yes, where we would expect them due to slow uplift by plate tectonics.

Regardless, let's say that the mountains described in the Bible are only 500 feet high, and that's the tallest mountain on earth. The fact is, to cover it would still require a global flood because gravity will pull the water to a uniform depth (sea level) in relation to the center of the earth.

You don't get hundreds of feet of limestone deposition in a year long flood. Doesn't happen.

Evidence? Sure. Proof? No. Any evidence posted will immediately be attacked and theories will be offered about how it "could have" happened. Offering alternative explanations only constitutes a refutation in the mind of an evolutionist.

Still no evidence?

Good way to duck the statement. It can't tell the origin of the earth, of the universe, of life etc.

Of the Earth it can. Of the others, science is still working on it. There is nothing inherent in origins that precludes science from studying it.

You don't want evidence, you want proof. You can't handle the proof.

Why don't you present some and see if I can't handle it.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So did you do this in spite of creation, or with respect to it?

I'm also under the assumption that theists call it "creation," while atheists prefer to call it "the universe."

So, at what point did "creation" become "the universe" to you?

After all, if "the universe" speaks of "creation," then why are there atheists around?

I was talking to you in your terminology so you would understand what was being said more easily.

In spite of creation or respect to it? Neither. I came to the conclusion, as far as I remember, on the basis that human conscious experience is entirely dependent on the state of one's brain. Alter the biochemistry and the experience changes. Damage the brain and consciousness is compromised. Prevent the brain from working altogether and there is no further consciousness. If the brain dies, so does consciousness, therefore no more you being you, therefore no afterlife. No afterlife, no religion. It was fairly straightforward stuff, but I've heard other atheists say similar logic led them to their first teenage convictions.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

There is no support for a local flood in the Scriptures.

There is no support for a GLOBAL flood in the Scriptures. So what's your point with this?

The "support" is in the wording of the Hebrew text. It says that the land was flooded. It doesn't define or describe the land in any way, other than that it is the land which Noah knew. (And apparently the only area where the descendants of Adam lived. We know that because it says that all of them would be wiped out in the coming deluge.) But there's certainly not anything in the text requiring a planet-wide interpretation of the Hebrew word that normally means a single region, land, or country.

Christ, whom you serve, taught that it happened as described.

I can agree with that statement. But it sounds like you assume that YOUR interpretation was Christ's interpretation. And though that is a traditional presupposition among Christians, it holds no evidentiary value. (I'm always amused whenever my Christian brethren tell me, "That's not my opinion. I'm merely telling you God's opinion on the matter!" Thanks for that!)

[Suggestion: As a courtesy to those responding to your posts, could you please turn off the COLOR=SIENNA flags throughout your comments? They not only make replies more tedious and time-consuming, it makes your posts harder to read. I would guess that I'm not the only person wishing that you would adopt the default Black so that older eyes would find reading them easier and the editing would be much easier.]

 

[AV1611VET]

I was talking to you in your terminology so you would understand what was being said more easily.

In spite of creation or respect to it? Neither. I came to the conclusion, as far as I remember, on the basis that human conscious experience is entirely dependent on the state of one's brain. Alter the biochemistry and the experience changes. Damage the brain and consciousness is compromised. Prevent the brain from working altogether and there is no further consciousness. If the brain dies, so does consciousness, therefore no more you being you, therefore no afterlife. No afterlife, no religion. It was fairly straightforward stuff, but I've heard other atheists say similar logic led them to their first teenage convictions.

Then what's up with this remark?

But there is a mountain of evidence for evolution in 'God's' creation.

You sound like you're contradicting yourself.