Is there a Problem w/Evolution

yes because there is no evidence for it and mountains against it.
but be careful there is a distinction between universal and global flood.

That seems to be the usual TE dance - its only a "universal local" flood - it is a contradiction of terms to say the very least! Scripture makes no distinction, only TEs are making that absurd distinction.The redundancy of having someone build such a humongous boat when all God could have done was told Noah to move! Makes me wonder if God's next judgment on mankind will only be a local one or if He has the right to judge His entire creation at all?

Crusadar said:

yes because there is no evidence for it and mountains against it.
but be careful there is a distinction between universal and global flood.

That seems to be the usual TE dance - its only a "universal local" flood - it is a contradiction of terms to say the very least! Scripture makes no distinction, only TEs are making that absurd distinction.The redundancy of having someone build such a humongous boat when all God could have done was told Noah to move! Makes me wonder if God's next judgment on mankind will only be a local one or if He has the right to judge His entire creation at all?

Click to expand...

i think you miss the problem.
the purpose of the flood was to kill off all unrighteousness.
if it is universal, ie kills all human beings that God is dealing with except Noah, it does not also have to be global in extent.

universal local is not an contradiction since they refer to completely different domains. universal to people, local to physical extent.



....

universal local is not an contradiction since they refer to completely different domains. universal to people, local to physical extent.

Nice lesson in semantics. Again there is no distinction made in scripture, only TEs make that distinction - as with everything else that contradict their precious ToE. No amount of TE babble will change that fact.

And yet the physical evidence points to rmwilliamsll as correct. There is absolutely no evidence for a literal world-wide Deluge.

Thus his interpretation is accurate.

Birds of a feather.

Crusadar said:

universal local is not an contradiction since they refer to completely different domains. universal to people, local to physical extent.

Nice lesson in semantics. Again there is no distinction made in scripture, only TEs make that distinction - as with everything else that contradict their precious ToE. No amount of TE babble will change that fact.

Click to expand...

google "not global" universal local flood

www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp AIG YEC and miss the point that universal means all human life, dismissing it with people must have migrated out of the valley. but aware of the argument.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html OEC

www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf takes universal=global, no distinction between all people and all the earth

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml
Hugh Ross OEC

Does all this evidence for a regional flood mean that the Genesis flood was not universal? Not at all. Let me reiterate: the Genesis flood certainly was universal in that it destroyed all mankind and the animals associated with his livelihood except those on board Noah's ark. Only in the twentieth century has "universal" been synonymous with "global." Global citizens, global corporations, and global wars are unique to this century.

Click to expand...

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-local.htm
an individual's page, quotes H.Ross, OEC

Now I think it is reasonably clear from our English translation of the bible that the destruction by the flood of the whole earth is implied. It certainly seems that all mankind is wiped out, but that does not necessarily imply a world wide flood because man might not have spread throughout the world by then. After the flood men stayed in the same area (see Gen 11:4), until their languages were confused and they were scattered over the earth (11:9). While the main purpose of the flood was to wipe out mankind and start again, the animals were affected otherwise why have the ark, see Gen 6:13, 17 in which all animal life is wiped out. In Gen 7:2- the word 'mountain' (har) can be translated 'hill' as in the KJV. Gen 8:4 says that "the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat" again the word mountains, pleural, (har) can be translated hills so the ark could have landed on the foothills of the Ararat range which cover 100,000 sq miles. We should note that the dove (Gen 8:11) brought back an olive leaf and olive trees do not grow above 5,000 ft.

Click to expand...

this is indicative of the first 10 hits which are 80% OEC and 20% YEC with no TE's evident. i'd bet that it is a not specific to TE's at all, being as i have been aware of the argument for more than 20 years most of that time i was OEC and heard it from OEC.

btw
i'd suspect that the center of TE's see it as not universal and not global.
OEC's generally being more conservative would cluster around universal for sure, but the distinction is certainly not TE only or even particularly.

in conclusion, it appears that you are pretty much wrong .... it is not a TE semantic invention

and it is a Biblical distinction:
kol erets versus all unrighteousness of man
He is covering the land with water in order to destroy the unrighteousness of man, an obvious distinction, for God is not punishing the land but mankind
.....

The problem with all such literature is that the solution becomes more difficult to understand than the problem! Ofcourse you should know that Ross defends his whole premise on the basis of an old earth paradigm and has little to do with what TEs presuppose about evolution. Nevertheless nonliteralists do have a way of explaining away anything rather than taking God's word on face value. If you wish to dwell on this topic further you will need to provide the reason scripturally why such an understanding is line with the sovereignty of God over His creation.