Weather during the Global Flood

[night2day]

Who has said that? ... who were you accusing?

Reread the post.

If you have such evidence, post it here and we can see if it stacks up.

After it was stated one could take the Old and New Testaments and essentially pick and choose what one wants to say actually occured as a part of human history and what not...apart from what the Scriptures themselves state what is to be read as what...

...And after you and others have already shown prejudice against the statement there's any evidence regarding the Genesis world-wide flood account...

It's more than apparent the issue's been prejudged by more than simply yourself. Thus, why ask?

 

[shernren]

I hate having to do this. It's a dirty job, but it has to be done. Sigh. Let me put all the stuff up in this post first to be safe, in case anything happens to my computer here.

-start-

But it's not us who keep trying to come up with scientifically plausible descriptions of how the flood could have happened - it's the literalists. To be honest I'd have much more respect for them if they gave up and simple said that God created the water at the beginning of the flood "as if by magic" and removed it again by the same means. However, for some reason they don't.

(#95)

In fact, all the evidence falsifies this claim.

(#101)

On the other hand, if people choose to put up ideas as scientifically plausible when they are not, then their are (either intentionally or unintentionally misleading). The former amounts to lying. Either way, they should expect to be corrected.

(#103)

Sounds like a bit of technobable to keep happy people that don't actually want to think it through to me.

(#106)

And that's one of the problems I have with this kind of half-baked, ad-hoc "theory"; it screws up the theology in order to try and make the implausible look plausible.

You can play around with that stuff all you like - it isn't going to turn the water that exists on the earth into enough water to cover everything.

So why are you bothering - it makes you look less convincing to anyone with a smattering of science and the ability to think logically, not more.

It was discounted, because it is easy to discount. I gave it all the thought it required.

(#113)

There is a massive amount of evidence that does not fit with a global flood, and no evidence in favour. I suppose you can sit there looking at a blue car and claim that it is evidence that all cars a black if you want, but it does require discarding all pretence of coherent thought.

(#118)

It is a collection. It is one whole in the sense we put it all together as a special set of books, but it is not all of one type - to pretend it is, is absurd.

(#119)

You are overlooking the fact that there is no mechanism to increase or decrease the supply of water on earth--only mechanisms to route it through the hydrological cycle.

And that is where the global flood is falsified by the evidence.

Just stating that something happened somehow does not answer the scientific questions. Unless, again, you are alleging more miracles.

Because you haven't begun to look at the evidence. You don't really know much about geology or archeology or genetics, do you? You don't know how to identify sediments caused by a flood, because you don't know what to look for. You probably never heard of a genetic bottleneck before and maybe you are still unclear as to what it is. You are not an Egyptologist and can't read ancient Egyptian records. - Frankly, I can't do any of that either.

Oh, it had to come. The last refuge of the creationist who has run out of means to counter the facts. It's all a conspiracy.

(#122)

If you want to believe that despite the scientific evidence, that's fine.

What I object to in your posts is:
1. Claiming that a world-wide flood is scientifically plausible or that there is anything other than overwhelming scientific evidence that it did not happen. To claim that is factually incorrect and is either ignorance, willfull ignorance, or lying.

2. Claiming that those who do not accept a world-wide flood ever happened take the bible any less seriously than you do. Again, this is (as a generality) false.

(#123)

No one has tried to silence you. Pointing out factual inaccuracies is not silencing. Pointing out where your posts are illogical is not silencing. Drop the persecution complex and listen to what is being said.

(#134)

It is very sad you believe this. I can only assume that you have been lied to repeatedly to think this is the way science conducts itself.

(#133)

No you haven't. You may have read countless lying accounts by Creationist organisations supposedly reporting such but nothing genuine.

(#136)

I couldn't care less whether you share my world view, as long as you quit saying things that are demonstrably untrue.

I find it ironic that you think you can assess the value of someone's point of view, when you clearly haven't got the faintest inkling of what it is.

(#143)

If an organisation deliberately promotes as fact information which they know to be untrue or misleading, as at least some creationist organisations do, then they are liars. Even if they do it in the name of God.

(#144)

This is a lie. You have been told repeatedly in this thread that we do belive God works through human history and that we do believe the bible (and his Word) to be very important. Please stop lying.

You either are not listening, or you are failing to understand what is being said, or you are lying, since the position you claim we take is not the position we actually take.

(#147)

Anything other than what? For a person who speaks often of literary context, you don’t appear to know how to establish literary context.

I don’t think I have been asking many questions. And of the few I have asked, I don’t think you have attempted to answer them yet.

(#150)

It is another way of saying "stop claiming that there is scientific evidence to support a world wide flood", unless you can provide such evidence and deal with the evidence that against. You are welcome to say "Despite the evidence against, a world wide flood did happen", but then don't be surprised if we raise some of the implications that has. You don't have to answer those questions, you can ignore them and walk away. What you can't do is post whatever you want and then get upset when we question some of it.

Stop misstating my position - it amounts to lying.

You accused people of name calling and of making false accusations against you a few posts ago, I am still waiting for you to point out where.

(#154)

Where? You keep making these vague statements and accusations, but when asked for specifics you fail to provide them.

Earlier in the thread you accused others of making accusations and name calling, and yet you have done exactly that all through this post.

Please stop lying. Disagreeing with someone is not silencing them. Explaining why they are wrong is not silencing.

(#157)

If you knowingly misrepresent someone's views, then what would you call it?

I repeat, no-one has said that. And you have been told, repeatedly that that is not my position. Please stop lying.

(#161)

If you knew that there is no such evidence then you were lying. If you have such evidence, post it here and we can see if it stacks up.

(#179)

 

[shernren]

Why did I post that all up? Well, you invited me to look over past posts where you were accused of lying. I have short memory so I couldn't remember them offhand. But when I did look, voila! And still your accusations are false.

(Does that mean I'm calling you a liar, too? More about that later.)

I didn't put the posters next to the posts because anybody who wants to confirm this can simply check with the post numbers. Italicized anything that could be construed as offensive or insulting, and bolded specific accusations of lying. Let's look at the trends.

1. There was one accusation of lying way back in #101. But it wasn't followed up.

2. The only person who has ever accused you of lying is ebia. Any other allegations were made against unnamed creationist organizations.

3. It picked up again in #123, and persisted all the way through #179.

Having done that, let's look at the claims you are making.

The surest way to cease a civil discussion is not to discuss the issues being posted, but attack the poster(s) themselves as well as read whatever is taken as part of the discussion as personal attacks. Those here who are much more interested in parroting the mantra "saying the Genesis 6 day creation and the global flood as historical events are lying" is a very good example of that.

I invite you to look over past posts when it was stated I was lying when I said the Genesis global flood took place and there was evidence for it. At that point I did not state what kind of evidence, only that it existed and those who belived the flood either didn't happen, or did happen but was local, saw the evidence in a completly differant way

Sir, that is not disscussion. That is hostility. That is outright attacking a poster and labling them as a liar simply because they do not hold to the same world-views, nor see the evidence in the same light.

In other words, you say you are being called a liar for promoting the Genesis 6 day creation and the global flood, right? But the truth is very different. #101:

On the other hand, if people choose to put up ideas as scientifically plausible when they are not, then their are (either intentionally or unintentionally misleading). The former amounts to lying.

Ebia was saying that to say something is scientific, when it is not, is misleading. And to deliberately mislead is lying. Note that at this point he never accused you of deliberately misleading. There is of course a difference between saying something is scientific and saying something is historical. No Christian would say that Jesus' resurrection was scientific, but all Christians would say that Jesus' resurrection was historical. And he was not blasting you for saying something was historical, but for saying it was scientific.

Same in #122.

In #147, ebia was responding to what you had said in #146:

All I'm reading is one group trying to force their world-views on another so they don't have to deal with the Biblical accounts as they were written. They'll tolerate a person confessing not only is ithe Bible illogical, but that it's untrue and did not take place---but that the person can stil personally believe it as long as it doesn't offend others. However, they won't tolerate someone who believes the Bible means what it says, that God does indeed work through human history to bring about his purposes, or that His word is all that important. After all, whether one is a thiest evolutionist or any other other type of evolutionist, to allow for a god means that god would have had to have been far removed since in the beginning.

(emphasis in original)

Ebia called this a lie. And frankly, it is. Remember, your allegations are that you are being called a liar for promoting Genesis' 6 day creation and the global flood. But what you were actually being called a liar for was saying something about TEs that isn't true. You have said here that TEs believe that:

-the Bible doesn't mean what it says
-that God doesn't work through human history
-that the Bible is not important
-and that God has been far removed since in the beginning.

and that is simply untrue. Why and how this is untrue, if you are interested to know, you can open new threads asking us just what we believe on Origins instead of presuming to know. Hearing myself described like this I'd wonder if I'm really Christian! (I am really Christian. Making a point.)

Again he is referring to this in posts #154, #157, and #161. This time it's slightly different and he's referring to what you said here which is representative:

Which is another way of saying "stop declaring the Gesesis world-wide flood which destroyed all life on earth save one family and a repersentation of every species is because it doesn't agree with I interpret of the evidence left behind.

You do not support your position well by bullying others into a force acceptance of the your view of the world or how God works or does not work within it.

Have we really bullied you? We have not told you, for example, that:

-if you are not a TE you are less Christian than a true TE.
-if you do not stop believing in a global flood, your faith will be shaken.
-once you read Genesis 1-11 literally you have to read the whole Bible literally. [Undeniably this has been implied elsewhere on the forum, but as I recall not on this thread and not to you.]

Whereas you and other YECs have periodically implied that:

-if you are not a YEC you are less Christian than a true YEC.
-if you do not start believing in a global flood, your faith will be shaken.
-once you read Genesis 1-11 mythically you have to read the whole Bible mythically.

Who's bullying?

And finally, in #179, he was referring back again to the old issue of whether the Flood was scientific or not.

Am I upset? Yes. Was it wrong to call you a liar? Maybe. But if it was wrong to call you a liar then it was equally wrong for you to call us bullies, oppressors, liars and varieties of other names which you have demonstrably called us.

I'm not going to ask for an apology. I'm too sick and tired of these disputes to bother. All I ask is that all parties will quietly and simply drop these past few pages of mudslinging and never mention them again. That would already be a miracle.

 

[night2day]

I hate having to do this. It's a dirty job, but it has to be done....

If you wish to attempt to convince someone of this, by all means do so.
I stand by all previous posts. Especially #180.

 

[ebia]

Reread the post.

I have. Please answer the question and stop evading.

After it was stated one could take the Old and New Testaments and essentially pick and choose what one wants to say actually occured as a part of human history and what not...

More misrepresentation.

...And after you and others have already shown prejudice against the statement there's any evidence regarding the Genesis world-wide flood account...

So prove us wrong - "put up, or shut up", as they say.

 

[ebia]

"Old Earth creationists as well (who do not accept evolution) interpret the scripture in light of what we know about the creation" is the chief problem. Basically placing themselves and fallible human reason to decide which should be taken as literal fact...and which is not.

We all do that. It is not possible to read the bible without deciding some of it is metaphorical, some literal, some mythical, some parable, some poetical, etc.

God gave us a mind and skills to work with. However, since all of creation is under sin's curse, our reason, along with everything else, is tainted and corrupt.

If true (which I don't accept) it's still all we have to work with. Even your choice to attempt not to use it is itself a reasoned choice (one arrived at through flawed reasoning, IMO, but either way through reason of some sort).

Furthermore, we are not God.

No-one has claimed to be.

No, not everything in the Old and New Testaments will make complete sense. Do they still stand regardless? Yes! Should we try to explain or interpret them to appease disbelief?

We should try to interpet them to attempt to learn whatever it is God want's us to learn from them. The point of the bible is for us to learn about Christ, not for us to rubber stamp as true without worrying about learning anything from it. Some non-Arabic Muslims learn enough Arabic to be able to read the Koran out loud in Arabic, but without actually understanding a word of it. This sounds like you are suggesting something only one step better than that.

No. Therein lies the danger of placing human reason above God's word when He has given it his authority.

No-one is putting human above the Word of God - which is Christ. We are trying to use our God given gift of reason to understand what the Word of God is trying to tell us about himself through the bible.

God sees the full picture of the world in which we live. We do not. To use an anonymous comment: "We exist within the 4th dimension, God exists within the 8th." Going by this, how does one from the 4th even hope to explain or come close to grasping anything of the 8th dimension unless it is revealed to them? And how can one from the 4th demand to know something from the 8th the 8th does not wish for it to know?

And this is relevent how?

While some use the old adage "that's just your interpretation" regarding the Old and New Testaments, they often forget that while there were many human writers of the 66 books of the Bible, there is still only one Author.

Irrelevent.

God is not the author of confusion. People, however, are.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.

Reading the Old and New Testaments not only requires reading via the literal context, allowing the passages to speak for themselves but also using the Old and New Testaments as a whole to explain the Bible: or in other words: Scripture interprets Scripture.

To an extent it is true, to an extent it is incomplete, to some extent it is a circular argument. What you actually mean is that parts of scripture help us to interpret other parts of scripture. And to work out how we use, wait for it, wait for it, drum roll, .... , reason.

Jesus Himself is the center of the Scriptures. The Old Testament looks forward to Christ's coming and tells of God working through human history to "set the stage", the New Testament tells of when the Savior came and looks forward to His return.

I wouldn't put it that way around - it makes it look like scripture is bigger than Christ rather than the other way around - but I'm not argueing with what I think you mean.

Law and Gospel also encompasses both Testaments. God's wrath against sin and rebellion is there just as His loving grace and merch. It was there during the Genesis flood and it was there at the Cross.

Fine.

What's wrong with "interpreting the scripturein light of what we know about the creation"? One places science above God and allows science to wrongly dictate what stands as valid and what does not. In short, it places itself as God.

Wrong. It says "what is God trying to tell us through this scripture - let's use creation to help us understand it". No here is suggesting any part of scripture is not valid, we are trying to understand what God wants us to learn from it.

True science doesn't defy God's word.

I wish you would stop refering to the bible as "God's word", because I have to try and work out whether you are talking about the bible or the true Word of God. You can't defy the bible because it is a book (or rather a library). A library does not have a will to defy.

It places itself under God and His word.

I am not putting myself under a book. Under God, yes. Under the Word of God, yes. But I refuse to worship a book.

Science studies whatever the evidence shows. Whatever the evidence shows, the evidence shows. If the evidence contradicts your intepretation, tough.

It studies the world God Himself made and all that is contained therein. It acknowledges the natural world is not all that exists and certainly not all things can or should be explained.

Science does not claim that the natural world is all that exists. However, science is only capable of studying and explaining the natural world. You can study the supernatural, but it isn't science.

Regardless how wonderous how world is, it remains racked with sin. And one day this world will be destroyed as promised and there will be a new heavens and a new earth for those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior by grace, through faith.

And?

 

[ebia]

If you wish to attempt to convince someone of this, by all means do so.
I stand by all previous posts. Especially #180.

So do you accept that your accusations are false, or are you going to demonstrate that they are not? Or are you going to try and pretend nothing has happened and them make some more untrue accusations?

 

[gluadys]

I invite you to look over past posts when it was stated I was lying when I said the Genesis global flood took place and there was evidence for it.

Unless you were knowingly saying there is evidence for a global flood when you know there isn't, I would say you are mistaken rather than lying. It is a fact, however, that there is no such evidence. Now that you know this, you would be lying if you re-iterated that such evidence exists.

At that point I did not state what kind of evidence, only that it existed and those who belived the flood either didn't happen, or did happen but was local, saw the evidence in a completly differant way

Unless otherwise specified, when people speak of evidence, I assume they mean objective evidence available to all observers. i.e. scientific evidence. If you mean a different kind of evidence, a sort that requires faith before you can observe it or understand it, that is not scientific evidence.

That is outright attacking a poster and labling them as a liar simply because they do not hold to the same world-views, nor see the evidence in the same light. Simply because you or others claim "there is no scientific evidence" for the Genesis global flood doesn't make it so.

And no one says that claiming it makes it so. It is actual observations in the field that make it so. The sort of observations that convinced devout Christians like Rev. Adam Sedgwick and Mr. Hugh Millar, who had previously supported a global flood, that the evidence did not support that claim. Differing world-views do not change objective observations or the valid deductions which can be made on the basis of objective observations. You cannot make claims that invalidate objective observations unless you can demonstrate that there is a consistent alternate explanation of the evidence. Creationism has signally failed to do this in over 200 years.

It only means you may not see remnants of it.

Anything that is not seen is not scientific evidence. Only faith can deal with evidence not seen. Science builds its case solely on evidence that is seen.

Just as you may claim believers of the 6-day creation do not see the remnants of evolution.

It is impossible for an objective observer not to see evidence of evolution, because that evidence is objective.

However, if this is one area that cannot be agreed on...then there's nothing really to discuss is there?

If you choose to base your world-view on a faith that is incompatible with objective observations, no one will hinder you. As long as you do not try to assert that what you believe wholly on faith is also supported scientifically.

For myself, I prefer not to embrace a schizophrenic faith in which sense and faith contradict each other. I do believe things for which there is no scientific evidence one way or the other, e.g. the resurrection of Christ. I do not believe what is contradicted by existing evidence. And a global flood is contradicted by existing evidence.

 

[vossler]

He certainly doesn't tell us not to, and would argue that there are plenty of strong hints in the bible that he intends us to do just that. Both the bible and creation are gifts from the Word of God, and both help us learn about the Word of God (Christ). In any case, you cannot help but bring your existing knowledge to the study of the bible, so you might as well acknowledge it.

That's a circular argument at best. The bible does not say that we should not bring to bear every resource that we bring to any other book in trying to understand it. The guidence of the Holy Spirit is an additional help, not a replacement for doing our own hard work.

So if the Bible doesn't tell me to do something its the same as if I'm told to do so. Hmmm....

I like to focus on the things the Bible does tell me to do.

 

[ebia]

So if the Bible doesn't tell me to do something its the same as if I'm told to do so. Hmmm....

I never said that.

I like to focus on the things the Bible does tell me to do.

And I bet that, in the process, you do an awful lot of things it doesn't tell you to. Some of which help you to do the things it does.

IIRC, anyway, Christ had some stuff to say to people who were obsessed with seeing scripture in terms of what they should and should not do.

 

[vossler]

I never said that.

No, but you implied it.

And I bet that, in the process, you do an awful lot of things it doesn't tell you to. Some of which help you to do the things it does.

I'm interested what you think people do, that God doesn't tell them to do, that helps them?

IIRC, anyway, Christ had some stuff to say to people who were obsessed with seeing scripture in terms of what they should and should not do.

Please share what He had to say about people who were obsessed with seeing Scripture in terms of what they should and should not do.

 

[Dexx]

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say... rain.

Flood rain = hydrolic mining.

 

[shernren]

If you wish to attempt to convince someone of this, by all means do so.
I stand by all previous posts. Especially #180.

I just want to make sure that everybody, especially you, is clear about this, or else to go in-depth to discuss #180 is going to make feelings and matters a lot worse.

1. Yes, it might have been a little harsh to call you a liar.
2. But while the word "liar" may have been unjustified, the feelings behind that word probably were.

I'm going out on a limb as to where you got your YEC-ist education from, but I'm guessing that it's more from AiG or ICR than from Scripture, especially the way you started #180 with a statement about OECists that sounds like typical AiG talk. I could be horribly wrong, of course, but I don't think I am. Definitely with information taken from creationist organizations, rather than from TalkOrigins or even from Wiki + Google. Because I can see a victimization pattern happen here.

You post about the global flood and how it really happened.
Somebody responds about if you can prove that it is scientific.
Challenge back and forth.
You say that you're being called a liar for believing that the global flood happened.

Again:
You post about how rotten TEs are.
Somebody responds that it is a horrible misrepresentation.
Challenge back and forth.
You say that you're being called a liar for believing that the global flood happened.

In both cases, while the criticisms (sharp ones, granted) were made towards specific areas of your arguments, you took it as a general criticism of you yourself. And I think that this is a big problem for all of us in Origins, myself included. There is a need to separate the argument from the arguer.

I think this is especially compounded by the fact that many creationist organizations (hence my speculation up there) keep portraying us TEs as compromising Darwinistic predators. The kind of people who take the "survival of the fittest and hell with everybody who doesn't cut it!" philosophy to heart. Naturally when such "predators" start making attacks on your ideas the implication is that they're getting ready to pounce at you. So the defence mechanism comes up: "You're not criticising me because I'm wrong! You're criticising me because you disagree!" without actually considering if maybe, maybe in a wild blue moon, you actually are wrong.

Of course the words were harsh. But we're discussing something on which nobody wants to budge, and yet is almost completely peripheral to how we live our lives. It's easy to trade blows over trivial dogmas (both sides). Far harder to understand how the other side thinks. But essential.

(I know, I know, there's so much "You" language here. But not all conflicts make sense in conflict-resolution language. )

Anyway, my point is:

Just because we think your idea is no good, doesn't mean we think you are no good. Capiche?

 

[Saucy]

I'm sorry, but God said there was a flood. Man says there isn't. Who's right? Would God tell Noah to build this huge ark when all he had to do is move a few miles north? What is science trying to disprove? They're out to prove that God doesn't exist! All you've got to do is look and see that there are marine fossils...not the ones you see in a river, but in the ocean, in the highest strata of rock on the Grand Canyon. There's other evidence that it was carved by a flood. I even have a documentary by real (yes, real) scientists who can prove that the Grand Canyon was carved by a flood. Don't even begin to ask me if I would rather put my trust in man or God, because God will win. If God said it, that settles it.

 

[KerrMetric]

They're out to prove that God doesn't exist!

This is the attitude that makes America a laughing stock. Many of the scientists are Christians.

All you've got to do is look and see that there are marine fossils...not the ones you see in a river, but in the ocean, in the highest strata of rock on the Grand Canyon.

So that is all you have to do huh? Instead of going to school for 10 years to get your PhD in geology and back that up with 20 years of research, all you have to do is look. I'm laughing so hard it hurts right now.

There's other evidence that it was carved by a flood. I even have a documentary by real (yes, real) scientists who can prove that the Grand Canyon was carved by a flood. Don't even begin to ask me if I would rather put my trust in man or God, because God will win. If God said it, that settles it.

2 points. They weren't real scientists despite what the Creationist nonsense promo to the video said. And God didn't say it, it says nothing in the Bible about a "global" flood. And the Bible can be allegory as well.

 

[ebia]

No, but you implied it.

No I didn't. You managed to infer it from what I said, but that's not my fault.

I'm interested what you think people do, that God doesn't tell them to do, that helps them?

Oh, off the top of my head, lets say,... maybe,... discussing things on the internet.

Please share what He had to say about people who were obsessed with seeing Scripture in terms of what they should and should not do.

Have a flick through the conversations with Pharisees.

 

[ebia]

I'm sorry, but God said there was a flood. Man says there isn't. Who's right? Would God tell Noah to build this huge ark when all he had to do is move a few miles north? What is science trying to disprove? They're out to prove that God doesn't exist!

I know a fair number of scientists. Some of them are Christians, some are not. I have never met one who does science in order to prove that God doesn't exist and the vast majority would agree that God is not something that science can make any statement about.

Why do you make these absurd accusations?

All you've got to do is look and see that there are marine fossils...not the ones you see in a river, but in the ocean, in the highest strata of rock on the Grand Canyon. There's other evidence that it was carved by a flood. I even have a documentary by real (yes, real) scientists who can prove that the Grand Canyon was carved by a flood.

Why don't you tell us who?

Don't even begin to ask me if I would rather put my trust in man or God, because God will win. If God said it, that settles it.

It would if he had, but he hasn't. He gave us a story about a flood to teach us stuff.

 

[vossler]

No I didn't. You managed to infer it from what I said, but that's not my fault.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

Oh, off the top of my head, lets say,... maybe,... discussing things on the internet.

First of all God does tell us to talk to one another. Now if you're being specific with regard to the internet then I suppose there are a million things that you could come up with that all come down to something that God does in fact tell us to do.

Have a flick through the conversations with Pharisees.

I ask you to give me a example and you give me a vague answer.

This whole conversation is extremely non-profitable and a total waste of time. You argue just to argue, never to make a definitive point. Then when I make an inference based on another obviously vague answer you then become specific in telling me how wrong I was.

Is the objective here for you to win? To wear the other person down? To wait the other person out until they say something that you can pounce on?

I don't know, and at this point I don't really care. You've pounced on me, worn me out and I declare you the winner. Congratulations

 

[ebia]

I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

No worries.

First of all God does tell us to talk to one another. Now if you're being specific with regard to the internet then I suppose there are a million things that you could come up with that all come down to something that God does in fact tell us to do.

Got it in one.

I ask you to give me a example and you give me a vague answer.

You don't always best see the big picture by closely examining one or two details.

This whole conversation is extremely non-profitable and a total waste of time. You argue just to argue, never to make a definitive point. Then when I make an inference based on another obviously vague answer you then become specific in telling me how wrong I was.

If you aren't finding it profitable, then that is unfortunate, but the only suggestion I can make is that you don't participate further.

Is the objective here for you to win? To wear the other person down? To wait the other person out until they say something that you can pounce on?

No. It's to have a discussion. If you find it wearing, perhaps it is because I don't share many of your (voiced and unvoiced) assumptions.

 

[gluadys]

I'm sorry, but God said there was a flood. Man says there isn't.

In the first place, no one is disputing that a flood happened. What is at issue is whether it was local or a global flood.

Second, it is not humans who say the flood was not global. It is the earth itself that makes this clear. And last I heard, it was God who made the earth and the forces of nature that gave it shape.

This leads to only two possible conclusions:

1. The flood was global, but God chose to miraculously erase every trace that it happened.
2. The flood was not global.


You can take your pick, but if you pick one, don't come back and say there is scientific evidence for the global scale of the flood, because you have already committed to it being removed.

Would God tell Noah to build this huge ark when all he had to do is move a few miles north?

Is it really totally incomprehensible to you that God may choose to teach through stories?

What is science trying to disprove? They're out to prove that God doesn't exist!

Scientists don't waste their time trying to do the impossible. It cannot be proven via scientific means that God does not exist.

All you've got to do is look and see that there are marine fossils...not the ones you see in a river, but in the ocean, in the highest strata of rock on the Grand Canyon.

And not only there but in the highest strata of the Himalayas too. And also in many of the lower strata. This is true of most coastal mountain ranges. And note that the fossils are in the rock strata, not on them. In many cases, the fossils themselves are the rock (e.g.fossiliferous limestone). This means these marine fossils were not carried to their current location by a flood. They were carried along as part of the rock when the rock was moved. So how did they come to be part of the rock in the first place?

In the Grand Canyon, in between higher and lower strata containing marine fossils there are strata containing terrestrial fossils. Yet they are never mixed. How does a global flood explain this?

In science, a theory is used to explain what we observe. What is observed in the strata of the Grand Canyon cannot be explained by a global flood. Anything that cannot be explained by a global flood cannot be used as evidence for a global flood.

For more information on the incompatibility of the Grand Canyon and a global flood you might look through these threads (helpfully collected on the C&E thread archive)

Global Flood vs. Modern Geology
Absurd YEC claims about the Coconino Sandstones. (Frumious Bandersnatch)
Amount of water on earth (HRE)
Angular Unconformities (ardipithecus)
Article: Noah's flood, did it really happen? Refuted (Arikay)
Buried River Channels disprove global flood (grmorton)
Can the Global Flood sort the chemicals that make oil? -- YEC leaders fail once again (grmorton)
Chemical fossils of plants. What YEC leaders won't tell you (grmorton)
Corprolites - a Falsification of the YEC Hypothesis (WinAce)
Creationists: Explain the rocks of the North Sea (grmorton)
Devil's Tower: Falsification of Flood Geology (notto)
Dinosaur Footprints in Coal: Another falsification of the flood model
Does a global flood have a basis in the geological sciences? (Mechanical Bliss)
The dry flood (shenzhou)
Explain these things with YEC/flood geology (images) (Logic)
Extensive salt deposits falsify the worldwide flood (Frumious Bandersnatch)
Falsifications of the Worldwide flood (Archive) (Frumious Bandersnatch)
Fun with flood math (Arikay)
Grand Canyon, Part II (Features Incompatible with YEC/Flood) (Mechanical Bliss)
Hydrogen canopy (PhantomLlama)
Karsts and the flood. Things YEC leaders never show their followers (grmorton)
marine fossils (Replies) (william jay schroeder)
Metallic Hydrogen Canopy? (notto)
Meteor craters and the Flood year (grmorton)
Noah's Flood Revisited (Hax)
Precambrian Unconformity - what the YEC leaders don't talk about (grmorton)
Problems With Vapor Canopy Hypothesis (Lucretius)
Reasonable Doubt: Varves (Uphill Battle)
Refutation of claims in "Noah's Ark" thread in CO forum (Mechanical Bliss)
Stromata, Fossil Record, and what YEC leaders don't talk about (grmorton)
That Rushing Flood Water (Grand Canyon Goosenecks) (Jet Black)
Trace Fossils Falsify the Global Flood (Frumious Bandersnatch)
Using the Loo in the Global Flood (grmorton)
What did animals eat following the flood? (Pete Harcoff)
Why was the flood so dry? (grmorton)
water vapor canopy nonsense (Amorphous)
YEC Flood Geology Revisisted: Varves (Mechanical Bliss)

Don't even begin to ask me if I would rather put my trust in man or God, because God will win. If God said it, that settles it.

Indeed, God will. And you can bet your boots that what God says in the strata of the Grand Canyon--which were made by God through the orderly forces of nature he created--is the truth. It was not made by a global flood. That's God's word on the subject, so that settles it.