Evidence for a Global Flood?

[LifeToTheFullest!]

This thread is intended to be a place where creationists can come to post their evidence in support of a worldwide (global) flood, that lasted for one year, approximately four thousand years ago.

Your understanding of the scientific process not withstanding, what evidedence would you bring forth? Assume you are giving a lecture to 120 university students in a freshman geology course.

Let's have it.

 

[atomweaver]

I'm certain we have at least a half dozen similar threads. They're all evidence-free. Good luck with this one, tho'...

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I'm certain we have at least a half dozen similar threads. They're all evidence-free. Good luck with this one, tho'...

No doubt.

Keeping creationists on track is a bit like trying to herd cats!

The 'buy an ark' thread got derailed, so I thought I'd give 'em a special place to come and convince us.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your understanding of the scientific process not withstanding, what evidedence would you bring forth? Assume you are giving a lecture to 120 university students in a freshman geology course.

I would tell those students to simply do this:

Go with what scientists tell you, as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible.

Be like Paul:

I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

If you are with scientists who say there is no evidence for the Flood, then as far as you're concerned, there's no evidence for the Flood.

If you are with scientists who say the K-T Boundary is evidence for the Flood, then as far as you're concerned, the K-T Boundary is evidence for the Flood.

If you are with scientists who say Mt. Rushmore was carved by the Flood, then as far as you're concerned, Mt. Rushmore was carved by the Flood.

But in no instance --- ever --- do you violate the Prime Directive and let scientists contradict the Bible.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I would tell those students to simply do this:

Go with what scientists tell you, as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible.

Be like Paul:If you are with scientists who say there is no evidence for the Flood, then as far as you're concerned, there's no evidence for the Flood.

If you are with scientists who say the K-T Boundary is evidence for the Flood, then as far as you're concerned, the K-T Boundary is evidence for the Flood.

If you are with scientists who say Mt. Rushmore was carved by the Flood, then as far as you're concerned, Mt. Rushmore was carved by the Flood.

But in no instance --- ever --- do you violate the Prime Directive and let scientists contradict the Bible.

Ok. A bit irrational, but whatever floats your paradigm and lets you sleep at night.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok. A bit irrational, but whatever floats your paradigm and lets you sleep at night.

It wouldn't be my paradigm though --- it would be the paradigm of the scientists with whom I am with at the time.

 

[JustMeSee]

This is going to be a long night.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If you are with scientists who say there is no evidence for the Flood, then as far as you're concerned, there's no evidence for the Flood.

If you believe there's evidence for the Flood why would you say otherwise? If you feel there's no evidence for the Flood why would you believe there was a Flood?

If you stand for nothing you'll fall for anything, as they say.

 

[thaumaturgy]

It wouldn't be my paradigm though --- it would be the paradigm of the scientists with whom I am with at the time.

This sounds like the end justifies the means. Is that what I am reading here? By whatever means to save souls?

Would it ever be possible, were I a scientist hanging with you, for me to know what it is you actually believe?

 

[AV1611VET]

Would it ever be possible, were I a scientist hanging with you, for me to know what it is you actually believe?

What would it matter what I believe?

I'm not a scientist, and the Bible doesn't cover that aspect --- so what I believe is moot.

But for the record, I personally hold out a hope that one day a scientist is going to dig just one layer deeper and find something.

If he doesn't --- no big deal.

And until he does --- I'll go with the flow and agree that there is zero evidence for the Flood.

 

[juvenissun]

This thread is intended to be a place where creationists can come to post their evidence in support of a worldwide (global) flood, that lasted for one year, approximately four thousand years ago.

Your understanding of the scientific process not withstanding, what evidedence would you bring forth? Assume you are giving a lecture to 120 university students in a freshman geology course.

Let's have it.

The earth has too much water on the surface.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm not a scientist, and the Bible doesn't cover that aspect --- so what I believe is moot.

Fair enough! I concur, the Bible is not a science textbook. Finally we agree on something! (I just wonder if it's not just because you're talking to me here, and that I'm not just agreeing with myself)

But for the record, I personally hold out a hope that one day a scientist is going to dig just one layer deeper and find something.

Good for you. Keep hope alive. But otherwise you are saying you believe in something physical here on earth (the Flood) without any evidence for it. Right?

If he doesn't --- no big deal.

My wife, a geologist, would take umbrage at that insinuation.

And until he does --- I'll go with the flow and agree that there is zero evidence for the Flood.

So do you believe in the Flood? (I rather thought you did).

I don't believe in the Flood. Do you agree with me here? Or do you simply agree that there's no evidence for the Flood?

This is where it gets interesting.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The earth has too much water on the surface.

Too much water for what?

 

[atomweaver]

The earth has too much water on the surface.

*clap clap clap* Great freshman geology lecture, juvenissun, thanks.

 

[juvenissun]

*clap clap clap* Great freshman geology lecture, juvenissun, thanks.

A typical freshman reaction.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

So to recap, we have;

As long as it doesn't contradict the bible.
There's too much water.










Wow, so compelling.

 

[AV1611VET]

So to recap, we have;

As long as it doesn't contradict the bible.
There's too much water.










Wow, so compelling.

How about changing that to: zero evidence?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Sure, ok.

 

[Baggins]

Too much water for what?

I don't think Juvenissum had thought that far ahead

 

[juvenissun]

So to recap, we have;

As long as it doesn't contradict the bible.
There's too much water.


Wow, so compelling.

What is wrong with this answer?