Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Or omnipotent God cleaned it up.
So there's no point in trying to look for evidence of a global flood then. Because there is no evidence for one.
(Note: there are a couple of "left behinds," but that's a different story. For the sake of arguing, let's just say He cleaned up the mess for safety and sanitary reasons).
But you're claim that God cleaned it up for 'safety and sanitary reasons' is bunk because a global flood would still leave signs that would say "Here's a global flood!" while all we're left is a claim that only exists on paper...
AV has altered his story somewhat probably because God missed a few spots in the cleanup.But you're claim that God cleaned it up for 'safety and sanitary reasons' is bunk because a global flood would still leave signs that would say "Here's a global flood!" while all we're left is a claim that only exists on paper...
If God is omniscient, wouldn't he have known from the get-go that mankind would be wicked? To me, it's totally illogical that an all-knowing God would be grieved and sorry at how his creation turned out. Is there a sensible explanation for this?
Has a global ever been investigated?
I think this thread points out that scientists wouldn't even know what to look for.
Not to mention there's no way they can investigate the full story.
(For example, how would they investigate God's interactions with Noah?)
No, a flood is an easy thing to look for, especially a global flood with enough water to reach the highest points on the Earth. This has been explained to you time and time again.
Only from the viewpoint that Mother Nature orchestrated the cleanup -- (as well as the onset; in fact, the whole shebang).
The FloodHi, Woseley!
Thank you, my friend, for the kind words and the suggestion, but I already know the Flood happened as documented in the Bible.
I started this thread because I believe science leaves out a lot of what the Bible says about the Flood, then claims the Flood was properly researched and found wanting.
That, to me, is bologna.
Science wants to claim the Flood didn't happen as documented, because Mother Nature couldn't possibly have reduced the population down to bottleneck size and have it recover in so short a time -- (let alone recover at all).
But science only looks at the volume of rain generated, and ignores the rest: such as God telling Noah to build an Ark, God bringing the animals to the Ark, God sending the rain, God cleaning up the mess afterwards, etc.
So when science says they don't see any evidence for a worldwide flood as documented in the Bible, what they're really saying is they aren't taking the whole story into consideration.
If they did, they would have to admit that the Flood was a series of miracles -- (not Mother Nature) -- orchestrated by God.
Ah, actually, it's far more interesting and good than that, and more logical you'll see -- please see post #152.But to do otherwise would put God out to be a deceiver.
Ah, actually, it's far more interesting and good than that, and more logical you'll see -- please see post #152.
Do you have the foggiest clue as to what this conversation is actually about?Where are the step by step arguments which leads to your theory; where is your evidence the data collected is based on a belief system?
Do you know what a presupposition is? (I'll let Hans Blaster explain that to you.)Your “theory” is nothing more than an illogical opinion piece which starts off with your conclusion and ignores the counterarguments given in this thread as it doesn’t fit your own belief system of deliberate ignorance.
You can then loop back to the conclusion which is the starting point of your argument not the end point where the conclusion belongs.
This is the circular argument fallacy.
And about presuppositions and belief systems; Hans Blaster has said this: which he is correct - belief systems and presuppositions can not be proven.Regularity and based on the natural laws are technically presuppositions, but (and it is a very important BUT), repeated measurements and observations show that everything observed is consistent with those presuppositions and are so to the extent that it is perfectly consistent with everything measured to assume that violations of regularity do not happen.
So @sjastro I will now ask you this question:Science is based on the examination of natural phenomena under the assumption of regularity. If you want to call that a "belief system" you can, but I wouldn't. In either case, neither belief systems nor presuppositions can be "proven".
Well I'm glad that you are at least able to admit this.Of course there are things I do nit know and there is always the chance that anything I know to be right could be wrong. I hold no illusions about that.
Do you agree with what Hans Blaster has said here:But I know for a certainty that your claims that scientific theories are just assumptions and guesses are baseless nonsense.
And here:Regularity and based on the natural laws are technically presuppositions, but (and it is a very important BUT), repeated measurements and observations show that everything observed is consistent with those presuppositions and are so to the extent that it is perfectly consistent with everything measured to assume that violations of regularity do not happen.
Science is based on the examination of natural phenomena under the assumption of regularity. If you want to call that a "belief system" you can, but I wouldn't. In either case, neither belief systems nor presuppositions can be "proven".
One group of people say the evidence says "X" and another group says the evidence says "Y". It's the same evidence. If Earth itself is showing us the truth; than who's theory is correct?It's the lack of evidence of a Genesis flood that is the evidence that said flood never happened. The Earth itself that is showing us that truth.
You raise valid questions here; although this is a subject for a totally different thread.If God is omniscient, wouldn't he have known from the get-go that mankind would be wicked? To me, it's totally illogical that an all-knowing God would be grieved and sorry at how his creation turned out. Is there a sensible explanation for this?
But to do otherwise would put God out to be a deceiver.
When it comes to the Genesis Flood, there is NO evidence of said flood. That's not a theory. It's what the Earth is actually showing us. Some say the Earth is flat. The evidence says otherwise. It's the same with the Genesis Flood.One group of people say the evidence says "X" and another group says the evidence says "Y". It's the same evidence. If Earth itself is showing us the truth; than who's theory is correct?
The only person who doesn't have foggiest clue here is yourself.Do you have the foggiest clue as to what this conversation is actually about?
Do you know what a presupposition is? (I'll let Hans Blaster explain that to you.)
And about presuppositions and belief systems; Hans Blaster has said this: which he is correct - belief systems and presuppositions can not be proven.
So @sjastro I will now ask you this question:
Can you admit there are things you don't know?
Do you know how fossils are formed?When it comes to the Genesis Flood, there is NO evidence of said flood. That's not a theory. It's what the Earth is actually showing us. Some say the Earth is flat. The evidence says otherwise. It's the same with the Genesis Flood.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?