Fossil Record not consistent with Global Flood

[Aman777]

How is any of that evidence?

It's evidence that you have inherited the unique superior intelligence which only God and Adam have. Gen 3:22

*** Please explain why mutation and selection are insufficient for producing human intelligence.

Because NO amount of time nor mutations produces superior intelligence in innocent animals. They don't have the ability to know both good and evil and to Judge others. Human destiny is have dominion or rule over EVERY other living creature when Jesus returns to our Earth. Gen 1:28 That is WHY Humans have been given a mind which can be compared to God's. Amen?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's evidence that you have inherited the unique superior intelligence which only God and Adam have.

That is the claim, not the evidence. Do you really not know the difference between a claim and evidence?

Because NO amount of time nor mutations produces superior intelligence in innocent animals.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Aman777]

That is the claim, not the evidence. Do you really not know the difference between a claim and evidence?

Based on what evidence?

Based on the Truth of ALL of the rest of Nature since NO other creature has repeated the magical transformation from Ape to Human, and CAN NEVER repeat this magic because that's one of the rules, which evolutionists have made up, to explain their inability to be consistent.

Claim = Whatever scientists say is true is true.
Evidence = Whatever scientists say is true is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Based on the Truth of ALL of the rest of Nature since NO other creature has repeated the magical transformation from Ape to Human, and CAN NEVER repeat this magic because that's one of the rules, which evolutionists have made up, to explain their inability to be consistent.

Those are all claims. Where is the evidence?

 

[VirOptimus]

Based on the Truth of ALL of the rest of Nature since NO other creature has repeated the magical transformation from Ape to Human, and CAN NEVER repeat this magic because that's one of the rules, which evolutionists have made up, to explain their inability to be consistent.

Claim = Whatever scientists say is true is true.
Evidence = Whatever scientists say is true is true.

Animals dont "transform". They evolve. All that is needed is that the offspring isnt exactly like the parent and that there are natural selection forces in nature.

The magic claims are not found on the science side (ToE), its on the religious side.

 

[The Cadet]

A few of the many Biblical reasons for believing in the global Flood are briefly summarized below. For those who believe in the Bible as the inerrant word of God, these should be sufficient.

I'm not going to go after the main thrust of your argument here; I don't think it's particularly relevant whether the new testament teaches flood theology or not, because if it does, that means that it is necessarily errant! It's downright trivial to find ways in which our observations of and understanding of nature completely contradict the flood narrative no matter how you frame it, at which point only a few options remain:

1. God flooded the world, then later hid all the evidence and instead made the world look like it was at least 4.5 billion years old.
2. God flooded the world, then satan later hid all the evidence and God just let him.
3. The new testament is wrong.

Notice how, for options one and two, you need to not only accept that supernatural forces are conspiring to hide evidence from us (at which point I'm not sure why you couldn't use that as an excuse to accept or reject literally anything you want to, making it an epistemological non-starter), but you also have to accept that God himself has essentially painted a gigantic lie onto the face of the world - or allowed someone else to do so. The evidence unambiguously points to the global flood not having happened. If the new testament supports flood theology, then the new testament is wrong.

 

[Athée]

I'm not going to go after the main thrust of your argument here; I don't think it's particularly relevant whether the new testament teaches flood theology or not, because if it does, that means that it is necessarily errant! It's downright trivial to find ways in which our observations of and understanding of nature completely contradict the flood narrative no matter how you frame it, at which point only a few options remain:

1. God flooded the world, then later hid all the evidence and instead made the world look like it was at least 4.5 billion years old.
2. God flooded the world, then satan later hid all the evidence and God just let him.
3. The new testament is wrong.

Notice how, for options one and two, you need to not only accept that supernatural forces are conspiring to hide evidence from us (at which point I'm not sure why you couldn't use that as an excuse to accept or reject literally anything you want to, making it an epistemological non-starter), but you also have to accept that God himself has essentially painted a gigantic lie onto the face of the world - or allowed someone else to do so. The evidence unambiguously points to the global flood not having happened. If the new testament supports flood theology, then the new testament is wrong.

This is how I see it as well. My post was aimed at the claim we have seen on this thread that there was a localized flood. I personally have no problem with a local flood (obvious problems with a global one) but I think the New Testament teaches global which is problematic for believers that hold to a local one. Hopefully they will chime in and explain where my analysis of thier text is errant.

 

[Aman777]

Animals dont "transform". They evolve. All that is needed is that the offspring isnt exactly like the parent and that there are natural selection forces in nature.

The magic claims are not found on the science side (ToE), its on the religious side.

Not so, since the evolutionist view is premised on FALSE data which ASSUMES that life first appeared some 3.77 Billion years ago, on Planet Earth but they cannot agree on how life got here or from where. It came at God's command that "every living creature that moveth" be created and brought forth from Water on the 5th Day of the Creation. Gen 1:20-21

No magic involved. The Father spoke and the Son brought the living creatures forth all over Adam's world AND the present Cosmos. Everywhere we will go where there is liquid water, contains life, because God (Elohim-The Trinity) commanded that it be so yesterday on the 5th Day. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

This is how I see it as well. My post was aimed at the claim we have seen on this thread that there was a localized flood. I personally have no problem with a local flood (obvious problems with a global one) but I think the New Testament teaches global which is problematic for believers that hold to a local one. Hopefully they will chime in and explain where my analysis of thier text is errant.

Consider this:

As the solid firmament filled with water and sank in Lake Van, Turkey 11,000 years ago, the Ark came on the face of the waters into the Lake. This totally destroyed Adam's world (Kosmos) ll Peter 3:6 and all of it's living creatures but saved Noah and his 3 sons and their wives. These were the direct descendants of Adam (Humans) and they would grow into some 7 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) alive on planet Earth today. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Those are all claims. Where is the evidence?

There is another online who uses the same tactic that you do. When his argument falls apart, he resorts to asking for evidence. Over and over he asks, but never accepts any evidence except that which agrees with the accepted definition of a consensus of men who THINK they know more than God. Keep looking for evidence but you cannot know God without faith. No Jesus, no life. Know Jesus, know life.

 

[Athée]

Consider this:

As the solid firmament filled with water and sank in Lake Van, Turkey 11,000 years ago, the Ark came on the face of the waters into the Lake. This totally destroyed Adam's world (Kosmos) ll Peter 3:6 and all of it's living creatures but saved Noah and his 3 sons and their wives. These were the direct descendants of Adam (Humans) and they would grow into some 7 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) alive on planet Earth today. Amen?

So it seems like you agree that Christians should hold to a global flood.
I am not near WiFi at all today, do you have a source that is not a YouTube video for your position about this lake and the firmament and the ark etc?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is another online who uses the same tactic that you do. When his argument falls apart, he resorts to asking for evidence. Over and over he asks, but never accepts any evidence except that which agrees with the accepted definition of a consensus of men who THINK they know more than God. Keep looking for evidence but you cannot know God without faith. No Jesus, no life. Know Jesus, know life.

You don't present evidence, so there is no evidence to reject.

The only argument falling apart is yours.

 

[Ophiolite]

There is another online who uses the same tactic that you do. When his argument falls apart, he resorts to asking for evidence.

In a sub-forum titled Physical and Life Sciences one does not resort to asking for evidence, one begins by asking for evidence and continues asking for evidence until such times as it is reasonable to form a provisional conclusion from that evidence. Perhaps you would appreciate some guidance on what should constitute evidence in a sub-forum titled Physical and Life Sciences.

Evidence is not a belief.
Evidence is not a desire.
Evidence is not an opinion.
Evidence is not dogma.
Evidence is not a suspicion.
Evidence is not writings of undemonstrated provenance.
Evidence is not a passionately declared statement.
Evidence is not an idea.
Evidence is not what someone told you in a pub.
Evidence is not a You-Tube video.
Evidence is not a majority opinion.
Evidence is not a minority opinion.
Evidence is measurable, repeatable observation consistent with, or contrary to, a hypothesis.

 

[The Cadet]

As the solid firmament

Aaaaaand you lost me.

 

[Aman777]

So it seems like you agree that Christians should hold to a global flood.
I am not near WiFi at all today, do you have a source that is not a YouTube video for your position about this lake and the firmament and the ark etc?

Sure. I have God's Word for it. Adam's small world was only miles in diameter, was only 22.5 feet at the top of it's tallest mountains. Gen 7:20 It had only 4 Rivers which ALL came from the Garden of Eden as one River. Adam's Earth was "clean dissolved" in the waters of a Flood. Isa 24:19

ll Peter 3:3-7 shows that the Scoffers of the last days will NOT believe that Adam's world was totally destroyed (perished) in the Flood. Do you?

 

[Aman777]

You don't present evidence, so there is no evidence to reject.

The only argument falling apart is yours.

We shall see, ole unbeliever, at the Judgment. It's later today. R U ready?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure. I have God's Word for it.

You are claiming that there is scientific evidence for it. What is that scientific evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

We shall see, ole unbeliever, at the Judgment. It's later today. R U ready?

The transparent tactic of using threats when your argument is laid bare.

 

[Aman777]

In a sub-forum titled Physical and Life Sciences one does not resort to asking for evidence, one begins by asking for evidence and continues asking for evidence until such times as it is reasonable to form a provisional conclusion from that evidence. Perhaps you would appreciate some guidance on what should constitute evidence in a sub-forum titled Physical and Life Sciences.

Evidence is not a belief.
Evidence is not a desire.
Evidence is not an opinion.
Evidence is not dogma.
Evidence is not a suspicion.
Evidence is not writings of undemonstrated provenance.
Evidence is not a passionately declared statement.
Evidence is not an idea.
Evidence is not what someone told you in a pub.
Evidence is not a You-Tube video.
Evidence is not a majority opinion.
Evidence is not a minority opinion.
Evidence is measurable, repeatable observation consistent with, or contrary to, a hypothesis.

God's evidence is found when we find AGREEMENT of Scripture Science and History. This changes faith into Fact when this AGREEMENT is shown. Here's a good example.

Gen 1:8 shows the first firmament/Heaven was made the 2nd Day.
Gen 2:4 shows that other firmaments/Heavens (plural) were made the 3rd Day.

Why haven't people who claim to have the "evidence" discovered this? Tell the physicists that String Theory is supported by Genesis. Here is the first glimpse of another firmament/Heaven beyond our Cosmos:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ight-spots-Big-Bang-universe-bumping-own.html

 

[Loudmouth]

God's evidence is found when we find AGREEMENT of Scripture Science and History.

Then show us the scientific evidence.