Which creation do creationists want us to believe took place?

[Nathan Poe]

What you described is still happening today. A Global Flood only happened ONCE in the history of the earth. And it will not happen again. This is what the Bible says. It is also what modern geology says.

You're half right -- modern geology says it will not happen again, but it also says it never happened before -- not once.

Don't be discouraged, juvi -- batting .500 is far better than the average creationist.

 

[juvenissun]

You're half right -- modern geology says it will not happen again, but it also says it never happened before -- not once.

Don't be discouraged, juvi -- batting .500 is far better than the average creationist.

As much as geology you know, you need to bet. But not me.
I know exactly where the cutting edge geology is now.

 

[MoonLancer]

As much as geology you know, you need to bet. But not me.
I know exactly where the cutting edge geology is now.

funny that the first geologists where creationists looking for evidence of a flood. The truth? they diden't find any evidence of a flood.

 

[MoonLancer]

Yes, it is true. It is a geological knowledge and you will not understand it in a short period of time.

I can smell your fear. Its intoxicating.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As much as geology you know, you need to bet. But not me.
I know exactly where the cutting edge geology is now.

Then feel free to explain it -- consider your bluff called.

 

[juvenissun]

funny that the first geologists where creationists looking for evidence of a flood. The truth? they diden't find any evidence of a flood.

Logic of ignorance.

No evidence left does not mean the evidence did not exist. No evidence of the first rock ever existed on earth does not mean it did not exist.

 

[MoonLancer]

Logic of ignorance.

No evidence left does not mean the evidence did not exist. No evidence of the first rock ever existed on earth does not mean it did not exist.

LOL. Your right, just because theirs no evidence that their was a dead prostitute in your tub doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute you and convict you for it.

I will see your "logic of ignorance" and raise you a "burden of proof/evidence"

 

[Chalnoth]

Logic of ignorance.

No evidence left does not mean the evidence did not exist. No evidence of the first rock ever existed on earth does not mean it did not exist.

Except it isn't. It's not so much that they didn't find evidence of a flood, but instead that they found evidence of lots of other stuff happening, stuff that spans a wide range of history of our planet. And yet no global flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except it isn't. It's not so much that they didn't find evidence of a flood, but instead that they found evidence of lots of other stuff happening, stuff that spans a wide range of history of our planet. And yet no global flood.

Keep looking.

 

[juvenissun]

LOL. Your right, just because theirs no evidence that their was a dead prostitute in your tub doesn't mean we shouldn't prosecute you and convict you for it.

I will see your "logic of ignorance" and raise you a "burden of proof/evidence"

There are at least two ways to prove things:

1. Find evidence. It is not a good one. Since there will never be enough evidences to prove anything.

2. Discover the process. This way you can "prove" things without evidence.

 

[juvenissun]

Except it isn't. It's not so much that they didn't find evidence of a flood, but instead that they found evidence of lots of other stuff happening, stuff that spans a wide range of history of our planet. And yet no global flood.

I start to feel that you have logic problem in your thinking.
Or is this illogical thinking only happened when you talk about Biblical messages? (it is, in fact, a quite common feature).

Like I said before, we would have hard time to identify a local flood happened even just a few millions years ago. What kind of evidence you are talking about? Even we can identify evidence for a local flood, that does not mean 1) it was not a part of a global flood; Or 2) a global flood did not happen.

 

[paug]

There are at least two ways to prove things:

1. Find evidence. It is not a good one. Since there will never be enough evidences to prove anything.

2. Discover the process. This way you can "prove" things without evidence.

Could you give me an example (real-life, perhaps) of said method?

 

[Split Rock]

Keep looking.

Can't find evidence in the Bible that man evolved? Keep Looking.

 

[Split Rock]

Like I said before, we would have hard time to identify a local flood happened even just a few millions years ago. What kind of evidence you are talking about? Even we can identify evidence for a local flood, that does not mean 1) it was not a part of a global flood; Or 2) a global flood did not happen.

What is required is a global geological marker of the Flood, such as sediementary layers that are consistant all around the earth at the same time period. There is no such marker. This does not necessarily discount a "non-violent" flood, which slowly covered the earth, and did not create a flood sediment layer. However, there would still be world-wide erosion from the Flood, which we might be expected to discern in the column. In addition, there remain other issues, such as the amount of water required, where it came from and where it went, etc (as already discussed).

 

[Nathan Poe]

Keep looking.

It's your hypothesis -- why don't you keep looking? Must scientists do everything for you?

 

[Chalnoth]

I start to feel that you have logic problem in your thinking.
Or is this illogical thinking only happened when you talk about Biblical messages? (it is, in fact, a quite common feature).

Like I said before, we would have hard time to identify a local flood happened even just a few millions years ago. What kind of evidence you are talking about? Even we can identify evidence for a local flood, that does not mean 1) it was not a part of a global flood; Or 2) a global flood did not happen.

Clearly you missed out on the "falsification" part. You see, a global flood is a hypothesis that would leave a definitive mark in the geologic record. We can look at local floods to determine what sort of mark this would be. Then we just look for a similar sort of marker for the entire Earth. When we look, lo and behold, there is nothing there, even though we would strongly expect there to be given the claimed nature of this flood. A global flood is thus falsified.

Of course, it can easily be falsified on many other grounds as well. How, for example, can you honestly claim there was ever a global flood when there simply isn't enough water on Earth for this to occur? Or why did fish survive such an event (fish are pretty sensitive to salinity)? Or how did pairs of all animal species alive fit on the ark? Or how did animals exclusive to Australia or the Americas get there?

A global flood is falsified on so many grounds it isn't even funny. It contradicts vast swaths of science, so much so that it requires a particular sort of ignorance, stupidity, or insanity to continue to believe it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's your hypothesis -- why don't you keep looking? Must scientists do everything for you?

There are some things I just don't hypothesize over --- the Flood is one of them --- the Creation is another.

And yes, I expect scientists to do everything [scientific] for us --- as does God --- that's why He gifted them to us.

So get saved [if you're not already] and get busy.

 

[AV1611VET]

A global flood is falsified on so many grounds it isn't even funny. It contradicts vast swaths of science, so much so that it requires a particular sort of ignorance, stupidity, or insanity to continue to believe it.

Can't we just be "peculiar"?

But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

I'll admit, even others in my own family think I'm strange, but "peculiar" is what we're called to be.

 

[Nathan Poe]

There are some things I just don't hypothesize over --- the Flood is one of them --- the Creation is another.

So, you choose not to think, only to believe. Good for you.

And yes, I expect scientists to do everything [scientific] for us --- as does God --- that's why He gifted them to us.

Well then, you don't expect them to look very long for something they don't think is there, do you?

So get saved [if you're not already] and get busy.

You could become a scientist, AV -- so get an education and get busy.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, you choose not to think, only to believe. Good for you.

Thank you --- what's the depth of the Mariana Trench from sea level? (Think hard now, it's only right up front on Wikipekia.)

Well then, you don't expect them to look very long for something they don't think is there, do you?

Try looking far, and forget the clock. Dig just one more layer down, and see if you can't find a correlated global flood layer. If you had just half the enthusiasm as your colleagues at S.E.T.I. have, you'd of found it by now - (unless I'm right, God removed it).

You could become a scientist, AV -- so get an education and get busy.

I think this is part of the problem, people who are not called to be scientists are becoming scientists. You make a good point. When God calls me to become one --- I will.