Evidence for a World-Wide Flood

[gluadys]

Once again from what I see you guys want me to document more then I stated, so I will state evidence for a global flood from something you can read.

Not at all. I am asking only about what you stated:

Evolutionist ignore the fact that creatures from top to bottom of their evolutionary time table have been found in the same strata, indicating trilobites, dinosaurs, and man all lived simultaneously.

My question is where is the evidence that creatures from the top to the bottom of the evolutionary time table have been found in the same strata.

Yes, I do want documentation of this observation.

Or an honest admission that you can find no such documentation.

You also stated:

Both sides have the same evidence it is just how to interpret it.

I want some clear, logical way to interpret the evidence differently.

Or an honest admission that you cannot find a logically consistent alternate interpretation.

I am not asking for documentation of anything over and above what you yourself have stated.

 

[Jase]

Posting links is that not what you guys was asking for?

Answers in Genesis and Creation ministry websites are not scientific, peer reviewed resources as asked by Gluadys. They are frauds.

 

[spartakis]

Answers in Genesis and Creation ministry websites are not scientific, peer reviewed resources as asked by Gluadys. They are frauds.

I see you deleted your other comments pretty quick. I planned on sitting down tonight when I got time and documenting everything since all my post have been rushed. And I think i miss posted and read about the dinosaurs and seals and was going to explain that. But since I now seen your thought process that everybody is a fraud and don't know what they're talking about if they don't agree with your side of the story I see no reason in doing this. You want me to find somebody bias towards evolution to state the flood happened. You don't have to erase what you said about me and AiG. I don't know what I'm talking about a neither do they in your opinion. In my opinion you don't know what you're talking about And neither do the scientist that are coming up with This hypothesis. You claim to be a Christian but yet deny what happened in Genesis and what Christ said happened in Genesis to make it go to what you believe. You can twist the Bible and twist the evidence in front of you to go with what you believe you put out all the evidence for the flood because it don't line up to your hypothesis. As the Lord and others preached repent the Kingdom is at hand. You are leading others astry. I will stop there God bless.

 

[Papias]

Spartakis wrote:

But since I now seen your (Jase's) thought process that everybody is a fraud and don't know what they're talking about if they don't agree with your side of the story

No, Jase is pointing out that AIG is a fraud based on objective ways to detect frauds. Whether or not they agree is irrelevant.

You want me to find somebody bias towards evolution to state the flood happened.

No, he is asking you to present a competent expert in the relevant fields to state that the flood happened. Someone with a relevant degree from an actual university, and actual research in the field documented in a real, peer-reviewed journal. Their personal biases are irrelevant.

I don't know what I'm talking about a neither do they in your opinion. In my opinion you don't know what you're talking about And neither do the scientist that are coming up with This hypothesis.

Opinions of non-experts are irrelevant. Opinions of actual experts are quite relevant. You too know well enough to use this same logic in most areas of your life. You know that the views of actual doctors about your own personal medical conditions is very relevant, while the view of jim-bob the auto mechanic isn't. You are sensible enough to disregard to views of non-experts, but to listen to legal advice from a real lawyer. Spartakis, can you acknowledge that we all act in ways that show our common understanding that "opinions" are not equal - that the views of experts matter, while those of non-experts don't matter?

Thanks for doing so. Then we can continue the discussion.

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Opinions of non-experts are irrelevant. Opinions of actual experts are quite relevant.

Papias

Who are the experts with regards to the testimony of Scripture regarding the Flood in Genesis or the historicity of Genesis?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[dollarsbill]

Answers in Genesis and Creation ministry websites are not scientific, peer reviewed resources as asked by Gluadys. They are frauds.

Don't you view parts of the Bible the same, frauds?

 

[Mikecpking]

Don't you view parts of the Bible the same, frauds?

Just their interpretation of scripture from my point of view.

Having studied geology, and having done a lot of field work, I have never seen any evidence for a world wide flood. I see multiple events, sorting, uplift, erosion, unconformities etc which is clear evidence for an ancient earth.

 

[dollarsbill]

Just their interpretation of scripture from my point of view.

The Genesis Flood account is not an "interpretation". It is stated as literal throughout the Bible.

 

[NGC 6712]

The Genesis Flood account is not an "interpretation". It is stated as literal throughout the Bible.

Well then the Bible is literally wrong in this instance.

 

[dollarsbill]

Well then the Bible is literally wrong in this instance.

No proof?

 

[Mikecpking]

Well then the Bible is literally wrong in this instance.

Not a world wide flood, but a local flood due to the fact the ice age was coming to an end, where sea level rose nearly 400 feet.

 

[dollarsbill]

Genesis 7:17-24 (NASB)
17 Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. 18 The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. 24 The water prevailed upon the earth one hundred and fifty days.

 

[NGC 6712]

No proof?

Yes - it is called geology. And this was 200 years ago never mind with modern geology.

 

[Keachian]

No proof?

You don't have proof that it was used as literal history, in fact my understanding is that there is one place where it could be viewed as literal history, however all other places use it as an object lesson, why shouldn't we see the last place in the same way but rather as literal historic narrative?

 

[gluadys]

Who are the experts with regards to the testimony of Scripture regarding the Flood in Genesis or the historicity of Genesis?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Biblical scholars, most of whom agree that the Genesis flood story is an ANE myth reworked for the purposes of the biblical writer, who, no doubt, was inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit.

 

[gluadys]

Don't you view parts of the Bible the same, frauds?

No, not at all.

The Genesis Flood account is not an "interpretation". It is stated as literal throughout the Bible.

"Literal" IS an interpretation.

What does it mean to be "stated as literal"?

I don't know of any place in the bible where the flood story is "stated as literal" to the exclusion of any other interpretation.

 

[dollarsbill]

Yes - it is called geology. And this was 200 years ago never mind with modern geology.

Geology doesn't overrule God.

 

[dollarsbill]

You don't have proof that it was used as literal history, in fact my understanding is that there is one place where it could be viewed as literal history, however all other places use it as an object lesson, why shouldn't we see the last place in the same way but rather as literal historic narrative?

The Flood is presented as literal throughout the Bible.

 

[dollarsbill]

No, not at all.

"Literal" IS an interpretation.

What does it mean to be "stated as literal"?

I don't know of any place in the bible where the flood story is "stated as literal" to the exclusion of any other interpretation.

I don't know of any English Bible that didn't translate the Flood as literal. Not saying there aren't any.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

Who are the experts with regards to the testimony of Scripture regarding the Flood in Genesis or the historicity of Genesis?

Grace and peace,
Mark

There are plenty of scholars who actually study Genesis in Hebrew and agree that the story is a re-writing of earlier, similar myths. Because all we have there is the text, any competent examination of any scripture will also include additional information from God himself - by looking at God's other revelation, the natural world (and of course, consulting the experts in the relevant natural fields).

Papias
​