"Do your research"

[AV1611VET]

Magic again.

So written records are no longer available because of magic?

Hmmm ...

 

[partinobodycular]

So written records are no longer available because of magic?

Hmmm ...

No, the magic comes in selectively deleting all evidence of the most profound geological events in all of human history...visible to everyone, everywhere...while leaving evidence of the mundane intact. That takes magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the magic comes in selectively deleting all evidence of the most profound geological events in all of human history...visible to everyone, everywhere...while leaving evidence of the mundane intact. That takes magic.

Um ... again ... how do you know other nations did not write of the earth being split up, and that said writings did not crumble into dust?

If you think otherwise, then may I make some suggestions?

1. Keep looking.
2. Consider they simply didn't write anything.
3. Wait until your technology is sufficiently advanced to detect written documents underground.
4. Make sure you're not misinterpreting documentation you have already discovered.

Don't give up the ship prematurely.

 

[partinobodycular]

Um ... again ... how do you know other nations did not write of the earth being split up, and that said writings did not crumble into dust?

I don't, but if those writings somehow crumbled into dust while more mundane ones didn't then that's nothing less than an appeal to magic. Something which more and more seems to be your only tenable argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is an extrapolation from a very limited data set.

A incredible extrapolation, probably the greatest scientific extrapolation ever seen.

All the movies and book, science fiction, is generated from scientific theories.

For example, people believe in aliens without a whisper of evidence.

People believe we can travel through the universe, to other planets and stars. Because they think science is saying that we can.

On and on it goes.

So just more empty claims and outright falsehoods.

There is massive data that supports the Big Bang theory. You may be making a typical creationist mistake. You may be assuming that the original data was the only data. There is far more now than there was almost a hundred years ago.

And scientists say that there are probably aliens out there based upon evidence and logic. They do not make the error of assuming that aliens have visited the Earth. Almost all of the believers that UFO's are visitors from outer space are incredibly ignorant people when it comes to the sciences.

 

[Opdrey]

I wouldn't know.

Thankfully there are people out there who do. I can understand your personal lack of knowledge in certain areas, but is that something that God shares? God wouldn't necessarily be as limited in knowledge of genetics as perhaps you are right?

 

[Opdrey]

The two pieces I think He left behind are the white cliffs and meandering rivers.

The White Cliffs would have been around when Noah was. Also meandering rivers is something related to GRAVITY. It predates the Noachian flood. (Unless the Bible says gravity wasn't invented until after the FLood).

Everything else was cleaned up for sanitary and safety reasons

How would it have been unsanitary or unsafe to have a layer of sediment remain in the rock record?

In God's case though, He is able to "clean His room" so effectively as to not leave any evidence around.

He sounds like he'd make a great breaking-and-entering kind of criminal! Again, doesn't sound like a God who is interested in people finding Him.

Could a 15 year old go to Louisiana today and know that Hurricane Katrina hit it?

Yes, quite easily.

You've probably been taught that God "hid the evidence," not "cleaned up His mess."

No, YOU invented the idea of God cleaned up his mess. That's all you. I have never heard that from another human being in my entire life. It's a nice way to fix the problems but it still means God hid stuff that could have been a great witness. I know the "rainbow" is the sign of his covenant of not flooding anymore, but that's physics, not miracles.

And as long as you use that word HIDE, you're not going to understand what I'm saying.

No, I understand what you are saying. And as long as you are 100% invested in your own pet theory that's great. It "fixes" God for you. Unfortunately you lack the ability to convince me.

You call yourself a seeker, and I'm beginning to wonder what it is you're seeking.

I'm seeking whatever people like you are not selling. Sorry to say it.

 

[Opdrey]

Why do creationists have to speak out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand God cleaned it up. But on the other hand there's evidence for it everywhere, geologists et al are just too blind/stupid see it. So which is it? Is there evidence or isn't there? Pick one and stick with it.

I sense that folks like AV understand that there is no physical evidence whatsoever for the Flood but they rely on the "documentation" of the Bible. AV isn't necessarily going to have the same opinion as other creationists who think that things like one random rock formation is for them evidence of the flood.

The problem is that there are about a zillion different "ways" to justify the Flood and its lack of obvious evidence while science has a pretty good way to find these things.

No one thinks the absence of evidence is evidence of absence but if the Flood was real it would have to have left SOME evidence. The fact that folks like AV think God "cleaned it up" are being quite honest and realistic. God did a GREAT job of cleaning it up.

Almost as if He was trying to hide something. You know, like cleaning fingerprints off a crime scene or something. I personally feel God only makes sense if He acts honorably and clear in all His actions. And that means leaving SOMETHING to alert us to the fact that the Flood was real.

God surely knows that humans are capable of making up stories. We do it all the time. If God wanted to ENSURE that things like the Flood might be interpretted as "just stories" when they were actually real He did a PERFECT JOB OF IT. It's almost like He could see that SOME PEOPLE would fail to find evidence for Him and thus be damned to hell for eternity.

That kind of God doesn't make any theological sense to me.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Don't stop there.

Grow a tree, get some tens of thousands of animals off the Ark and have every one of them recover from this bottleneck event.

Get Noah and his family off the Ark and have them replenish the earth in quick-time.

And they didn't grow that tree.

As I said, that tree would have taken years to grow; but one week it wasn't there, and the next week it was.

Everyone, including the animals, would have died of thirst from not having potable water.

You still haven't shown where the bible says God removed all evidence of a flood. It's as if you can't support your assertion.

Remind us - what does the bible say about adding to it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

There is massive data that supports the Big Bang theory. You may be making a typical creationist mistake. You may be assuming that the original data was the only data. There is far more now than there was almost a hundred years ago.

Indeed. It is between the Big Bang and the Standard Model which has the most data for it. The standard model has all of the data generated in collider experiments and the Big Bang huge astronomical surveys of galaxies. Nothing else is even close.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

One scientist against evolution disproves the theory

There's always one...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What evidence?

If scientists thought it was wrong all along, why did they go out and look for it 200 years ago?

There must have been a time when scientists thought it was a search worth undertaking.

That's not how it works - they didn't "think it was wrong all along". Most would have grown up believing the biblical stories - special creation, the flood, etc. Like good scientists, they went looking for the evidence predicted by those stories; i.e. they treated them as hypotheses. What they found - no evidence whatsoever - falsified those hypotheses, so they are no longer of interest - unless or until new evidence makes them interesting again.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not how it works - they didn't "think it was wrong all along". Most would have grown up believing the biblical stories - special creation, the flood, etc. Like good scientists, they went looking for the evidence predicted by those stories; i.e. they treated them as hypotheses. What they found - no evidence whatsoever - falsified those hypotheses, so they are no longer of interest - unless or until new evidence makes them interesting again.

Do they have a right to say there was no Flood, based on science?

 

[sfs]

Do they have a right to say there was no Flood, based on science?

Sure, in the same way that you have a right to say there is no unicorn standing in my living rooms based on the fact that no one can see, touch, taste, smell, or hear a unicorn there. Someone is always free to disbelieve the evidence of their senses and be convinced of the reality of the invisible unicorn or of the invisible Flood, but the rest of us are under no obligation to treat their beliefs seriously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure, in the same way that you have a right to say there is no unicorn standing in my living rooms based on the fact that no one can see, touch, taste, smell, or hear a unicorn there. Someone is always free to disbelieve the evidence of their senses and be convinced of the reality of the invisible unicorn or of the invisible Flood, but the rest of us are under no obligation to treat their beliefs seriously.

But isn't science more than just empirical observation?

 

[Astrid]

There's always one...

But not a one with dara

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do they have a right to say there was no Flood, based on science?

They have the right to draw that provisional conclusion from the total lack of evidence for the proposed flood.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But isn't science more than just empirical observation?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

They have the right to draw that provisional conclusion from the total lack of evidence for the proposed flood.

Drawing a conclusion and keeping it to oneself is one thing, but what about straight-up announcing there was no flood?

And have you ever noticed how an academian will never say, "We CONCEDE there was no global flood"?

They'll be more than happy to say how wrong YOU are, but won't admit that their forefathers were forced to CONCEDE they were wrong as well.

"Ya ... we went out 200 years ago and concluded YOU were wrong all along."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Drawing a conclusion and keeping it to oneself is one thing, but what about straight-up announcing there was no flood?

And have you ever noticed how an academian will never say, "We CONCEDE there was no global flood"?

They'll be more than happy to say how wrong YOU are, but won't admit that their forefathers were forced to CONCEDE they were wrong as well.

"Ya ... we went out 200 years ago and concluded YOU were wrong all along."

I'm not sure what drives your ill-informed antipathy to the scientific establishment (Pluto?), but it lacks traction.