How many of you think there was a World Wide Flood? please vote.

[AV1611VET]

No, they interpret it the only way that makes any logical sense.

Then I take it, if it has so much logical sense behind it, it is unanimous within the scientific community?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Was this falsification unanimous within the scientific community?

Yes and it still is unanimous within the Scientific Community. It is only in specific religious communities that anyone takes the global flood the least bit seriously. You can read the history of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth by evangelical Christian geologists Davis Young for details.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please, the moon dust nonsense was refuted long ago...

No kidding --- that's my point.

If scientists' calculations were correct, Neil Armstrong should have been plodding through several feet of moondust.

 

[AV1611VET]

BTW if the moon were only 10,000 years old the amount of "moon dust" would be so thin that it would be hard to measure at all.

I didn't say the moon was only 10,000 years old, did I?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Then I take it, if it has so much logical sense behind it, it is unanimous within the scientific community?

The only "flood believers" who are trained as scientists believe in the flood for religious reasons and not because of science. There was a challenge on this board at one time to find a single geologist who accepted the global flood because of scientific evidence and not because of their religious indoctrination and it proved impossible.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe Jesus literally was a sheep, so following your line of logic how can I know anything is true if I believe Jesus isn't literally a sheep?

Where does it say in the Bible --- literally or figuratively --- that Jesus was a sheep?

He is the Shepherd - we are the sheep.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No kidding --- that's my point.

If scientists' calculations were correct, Neil Armstrong should have been plodding through several feet of moondust.

The first calculations were made based on inaccurate earth based observations, more accurate space based measurements showed they were in error. So what? Science marches on, creationism marches backwards.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only "flood believers" who are trained as scientists believe in the flood for religious reasons and not because of science. There was a challenge on this board at one time to find a single geologist who accepted the global flood because of scientific evidence and not because of their religious indoctrination and it proved impossible.

Are you going to answer my question or not, FB?

If you want to play games, I don't have time for it.

Once agian, is it unanimous within the scientific community --- yes or no, please.

I don't need a paragraph and a dance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes and it still is unanimous within the Scientific Community.

I don't believe you.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Are you going to answer my question or not, FB?

If you want to play games, I don't have time for it.

Once agian, is it unanimous within the scientific community --- yes or no, please.

I don't need a paragraph and a dance.

I see that you can't handle the fact that the only people trained in science who accept the global flood do so because of religious indoctrination but it is a fact.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I don't believe you.

So find a geologist who accepts the global flood because of scientific evidence and not religious belief. Even Kurt Wise has stated that no such geologist exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see that you can't handle the fact that the only people trained in science who accept the global flood do so because of religious indoctrination but it is a fact.

Well, if it makes "so much sense", as you say it does, why do they need training at all?

 

[AV1611VET]

So find a geologist who accepts the global flood because of scientific evidence and not religious belief. Even Kurt Wise has stated that no such geologist exists.

I have no idea who Kurt Wise is --- nor do I care.

I have stated in the past that, in my opinion, there is no evidence for the Flood --- none.

(And I wasn't even "trained" to say that, either.)

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, if it makes "so much sense", as you say it does, why do they need training at all?

You don't need to be a geologist to see that the global flood makes no sense. However, the more science you study the more you realize that the global flood not only makes no sense, it is totally, absolutely and irredeemably absurd.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't need to be a geologist to see that the global flood makes no sense. However, the more science you study the more you realize that the global flood not only makes no sense, it is totally, absolutely and irredeemably absurd.

I'll agree there --- you have to study science (id est, be brainwashed) --- to believe the Flood makes no sense.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'll agree there --- you have to study science (id est, be brainwashed) --- to believe the Flood makes no sense.

Nonsense. You just have to have a brain that hasn't had all capability for logical thought washed out by religious indoctrination.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nonsense. You just have to have a brain that hasn't had all capability for logical thought washed out by religious indoctrination.

Oh, so now it's "training" if it pertains to science, and "religious indoctrination" if it pertains to religion.

Your bias is showing loudly and clearly.

 

[Elduran]

Nonsense. You just have to have a brain that hasn't had all capability for logical thought washed out by religious indoctrination.

Indeed! You have to do some pretty complicated explaining if you want to carry on believing in a global flood despite the overwhelming evidence against it!

 

[theIdi0t]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed! You have to do some pretty complicated explaining if you want to carry on believing in a global flood despite the overwhelming evidence against it!

Ya --- here's my "complicated explaining":

• The Bible says it - that settles it.

In fact, that "complicated explanation" is our motto.