Mechanical Bliss:
First thing I would say that even if I would concede that the flood was isolated to the area where the modern scientific proof of the flood was. What would be the word in an infant language for the area of all known things, the word that would be translated to English to be ?World? that?s what.
And there is now current defiant way to prove or disprove at the current level of geological science that the flood did of didn?t happen.
As to your second point, did you not read what I said?
People often forget that the bible teaches that a day for God is not the same as a day for humans, thus I do not believe nor do I think anyone should believe that the earth is 6,000 year old.
Not to Jet Black:
Thank you for the question?
Well let?s start with the creation of the universe. The theory of the Big Bang or any other theory I have read on the creation of something from nothing seem to me unfounded. This is because there is no way that something can come from nothing or that something
Can exist without first being nothing.
I was so confused on this topic in till I read my bible and apply it to a theory I was introduce to in my study of ancient culture.
It states that for every something there must be an equal nothing because something cannot come to exist innless it was first nothing. Then it states that because of this nothing is truly 100% something, it states that in order to exist, any something must flash in and out of what we call existence. However to flash, there must be a point where something equals nothing.
This theory seems far-fetched and probably is to most people, but it seems to me to be the only explanation that explains how it both follows the rules yet in a way breaks them.
Of course this is theory is not complete for there is still chaos, the only way to bring order, which we are in a state of. The Point that something equals nothing must then have a way to control its? awesome power of creation. I then realize that my bible offers the answer, for you see God tell us that he is the beginning and the end, the end is nothing and the beginning is something or the opposite depending on how you look at it, that then means that God both exists and does not, he is the point, he is the power of creation.
But I understand that may not be enough, its still to far-fetched
So lets look at evolution, which because of its existence many alternatives are based on.
Which of course the most obvious answer to is It doesn?t explain Inherent behavior or lack there of. And don?t somehow tell me it does cause it does not.for if you adapt the theory to include how inherent behavior is given, it then does not explain why it does not exist in some.
I did an experiment in making a program that used the principle of evolution to make another program. I completed it and it work.
It made a program, however the program never ran right, it accomplish nothing and crashed constantly. Knowing that it could have just been probability I ran a loop and it ran 5000 times. This took 7 months to do its course. At the end the checked the computer and found that 0 did any useful function,0 did the function they where designed, 0 did not have at least 1 crash in the first 5 seconds of use. I understand that this experiment didn?t have very many controls however enough to make conclusions. You see even despite the fact the program was design to prevent crashes one sub effected the other and all crashed. The point in time in which the program was compiled was random and had no effect on the outcome.
Then I added two functions to the main program the ability to give laws, and the ability to check up on the program, the same function we believe God to be doing. Then with my help all programs function, and most did their task or a different task and only 8/234 tested crashed. What does this prove, a simple fact that the probability vastly improves when there is a God, and that the probability needs to be improved!
I see no flaws in Gods creation plan (genesis) each step is logically place, each aspect explained. Then there is the theories based only on human knowledge and they offer nothing more then contradictions and a lot of far-fetched hope. If you would like me to explain further I have a hard time mainly because this is such a large topic, and I have a very hard time explaining myself. So please give me more specifics in rearguards to a theory that is a good alternative.
