Why Evolution is Impossible part II

[Calypsis4]

It doesn't teach using computers either, you better stop using them.

What it does teach is the origin of the world as described in some detail by Moses, repeated in the ten commandments, and verified by God's Son Jesus Christ. THAT is what you do not believe.


Don't give me this nonsense that because modern technology is not mentioned in the Bible that a literalist is therefore forced by 'logic' to refrain from its usage. Technology involves the inanimate and it does not sin. Evolution, by its nature, is sinful because it denies what Christ and his disciples taught about the origins of the world.

A computer is no more sinful than a counter (abacus). A farmers combine is no more sinful than a scythe.

 

[pgp_protector]

What it does teach is the origin of the world as described in some detail by Moses, repeated in the ten commandments, and verified by God's Son Jesus Christ. THAT is what you do not believe.


Don't give me this nonsense that because modern technology is not mentioned in the Bible that a literalist is therefore forced by 'logic' to refrain from its usage. Technology involves the inanimate and it does not sin. Evolution, by its nature, is sinful because it denies what Christ and his disciples taught about the origins of the world.

A computer is no more sinful than a counter (abacus). A farmers combine is no more sinful than a scythe.

and Evolution is no more sinful than math.

 

[Calypsis4]

It doesn't take a hard-headed person to realize that your arguments are silly. Honestly, we see mass death assemblages being formed all over the world today. You don't need to appeal to a global flood to account for them. Ditto your fish fossil examples -- they choke on their lunch all the time.

You mean like you are choking on the evidence that you can't answer?

So those organisms just waited to swallow and/or give birth for great lengths of time until they were fossilized, right? What genius.

But then you did say that answering me wasn't 'even worth the effort', didn't you?

When are you ever going to mean what you say, kid?

 

[Calypsis4]

and Evolution is no more sinful than math.

Evolution, like atheism, is a philosophy that denies God's word. You are deliberately ignoring that fact.

Plus, evolution is ONLY a philosophy at best. It does not exist in the real world and never did.

 

[Sphinx777]

Evolution, like atheism, is a philosophy that denies God's word. You are deliberately ignoring that fact.

Plus, evolution is ONLY a philosophy at best. It does not exist in the real world and never did.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

There are at least two senses in which the term philosophy is used. In the more formal sense, philosophy is an intellectual endeavor focusing on the fields of metaphysics, logic, ethics, epistemology, and aesthetics. In the more informal sense, philosophy is a way of life whose focus is resolving the existential questions about the human condition. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument. Philosophy comes from the Greek φιλοσοφία [philosophia], which literally translates to "love of wisdom".

 

[pgp_protector]

Evolution, like atheism, is a philosophy that denies God's word. You are deliberately ignoring that fact.

Plus, evolution is ONLY a philosophy at best. It does not exist in the real world and never did.

BZzzz Wrong.
Evolution isn't a philosophy, you fail as science. Strike 1
Also you're wrong about me ignoring that fact. Strike 2
Evolution does exist in the real world Strike 3

You're out in one post.

 

[Mallon]

So those organisms just waited to swallow and/or give birth for great lengths of time until they were fossilized, right? What genius.

Oy ve.
This is why I don't think you're convincing anyone. Animals die going about life every day -- eating, giving birth, etc. They fall to the bottom of the ocean floor, are covered in sediment (rapidly or otherwise), and eventually become fossilized (if they aren't ravaged by predators first). Why you think this is somehow contradicted by the fossil record is beyond me. And why you think dead fish are evidence of a global flood is even more beyond me. Fish can swim! Don't let logic stop you, though.

 

[laconicstudent]

You would do well to quit this discussion because you are losing this debate miserably.

No I'm not, I'm simply responding to your posts as they appear. Its rather difficult to lose debates when your side is backed by millions of experts worldwide and 150 years of empirical scientific research.

 

[Papias]

Calypsis wrote:
Best wishes.

Well, OK - if you don't want to discuss things, that's OK. I hope you have a nice day as well.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

There is much more evidence coming.

And old creationist tactic, made famous by Duane Gish, sometimes known as the Gish Gallop. Just deluge a discussion with claim after claim and there won't be enough time to deal with all of the claims properly. It doesn't matter how good the claims are, if you make enough of them, you can make it look as though you have a case.

"Learn how"? I prefer doing it the fastest way. The way I post is not a subject here. But I don't intend to keep answering you because you are rejecting the truth every time it is laid before you. You are doing it deliberately even though it has been clear cut and very strong evidence.

Of course you prefer doing it the fastest way, it gives you more time to dig up ream after ream of dodgy creationist claims to spray across your posts. But by all means ignore common internet courtesy and keep making your arrogant accusations. The more you do the more people will see the spirit and nature of Creationism.

No you didn't. You gave an opinion.

Nothing wrong with opinions, your posts are full of them. But I backed up my opinion and you weren't able to answer.

You aren't telling the truth. Except for the evidence of local floods, volcanoes, etc. since the flood, most of the evidence is the result of the flood of Noah...every single bit. It is just that some of it is more clear than others, i.e. the examples I gave above.

None of the examples you gave are evidence of a global flood. Just because parts of the western USA were formed in a shallow sea, does not mean it was part of a global flood. There is nothing global about the evidence and more than the local floods and volcanoes.

The fact that you reject what I posted doesn't change the truthfulness of it. Jesus Christ said the world was flooded during the days of Noah (Matt. 24:37-39). He told the truth. The evidence for that truthfulness is phenomenal. But you and those like you have been mentally conditioned to reject the truth.

Matt 24:37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark,
39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

No, sorry, not a single mention of the world being flooded. Jesus spoke of the flood all right. He just didn't say anything about it being global. If you are going to claim I reject the truth, you shouldn't try to back it up with claims that Jesus said things he never did.

Again, not true. My goodness, how poorly trained (and/or dishonest) the adherents to accidentalism are!

Is that what you call opinion?

Keep watching.

Again, you are not telling the truth and I think it is deliberate. We are not talking about a 'limited' area. I could have included Mexico and southern Canada as well. You don't know your geology nor your geography either one and you didn't pay attention to the photos I posted that were from Texas to the Dakotas to Utah and Arizona.

I point out that this formation does not extend to Europe Africa or Asia and you reply it extends to southern Canada and Mexico? Lol. And you accuse me of dishonesty? Interesting how you hive off my statement about Europe Africa and Asia from the paragraph and answer that separately, with a content free response too.

Come on, a global flood should carry sediment around the globe, we should be able to trace the layers of sediment that were laid down by a global flood carry sediment around the globe. They can certainly trace the iridium layer laid down on the K/T boundary. But that was spread around the world by an impact dust cloud that was global. They can even tell when a geological formation was split apart by continental drift and identify the same strata in two different continents. But the geological formations were still laid down originally in a single area, just like the western USA sedimentary formations, not spread around the world the way a global flood would have brought them.

But you need massive forces to move gigantic rock. Observe:

Do you see the rocks that are split off the plateau several hundred yards behind? Those rocks were at one time a part of the formation but some incredible pressure forced them to peel away from the escarpment in the background for several miles within view of the Arizona highway where I spotted them. Here is another one:

This is the same formation further down the highway. Notice that these pointed rocks are pushed up at about a 45 degree angle from the level stratum of the plateau. The landscape revealed this 'peeled' phenomenon for over two miles. I observed another one later the same day. It is clear that some great force split the formation and created the effect which has lasted until now.

You asked what forces could remove the material from between the cliffs, not what folded geological strata. That is simple. Plate tectonics. The same force that is pushing India into Asia at 10 cm a year.

I suggest that that force is directly related to what Genesis 7:11 tells us about the 'fountains of the great deep broke up'. One thing for certain, no trivial force nor the slow and gradual erosion caused this.

Didn't the fountains of the deep burst forth at the beginning of the flood? I thought these strata were supposed to have been formed and eroded during the flood? If course there is no suggesting in the bible for the fountains of the deep folding or moving geological strata. Plate tectonics can. Incidentally fountains and deeps are used in the bible to describe artesian wells which do burst during torrential rain.

Josh 15:9 from the top of the mountain to the spring of the waters of Nephtoah...
Psalm 74:15 You split open springs and brooks; you dried up ever-flowing streams.
Deut 8:7 a land with streams of water, springs, and deep water sources,
Psalm 78:15 He split rocks in the wilderness and gave them drink abundantly as from the deep.

If we look at the biblical use of fountains and deeps that are associated with water coming form the ground, it has nothing to do with any forces that would fold geological strata.

How do you know what was laid down since the flood?

The rate of erosion compared to what we now observe tells us it didn't take millions of years.

No you are still not saying how you know what was laid down since the flood.

I would suggest you do some serious reading on the subject:

The Geologic Column

As a young creationist I cut my teeth on Henry Morris's The Genesis Flood. It is amazing how creationists have to deny the geological column. Here we have a sequence of geological strata that spans the globe, even if not every geological era is featured everywhere in the world, you still get the same sequence unless there is evidence of folding or overthrust by plate tectonics. A global system in geology, and creationists have to deny it. Why? Because it doesn't support a global flood.

You claim the flood was global, claim all the missing sediment was carried away by the flood without the slightest evidence,

Not only are you not telling the truth, you are very far from the truth of this matter. But then, I have only just begun.

So your response consists of assertions and accusations of lying.

and claim the material at the base of the plateaus was laid down since. Why should geology be limited to extrapolating back the amount you claim was laid down by the flood? Especially when you are asking geology to explain the missing sediment ni between the cliffs, not just the bit left at the bottom. Geology follows the evidence not some hybrid mixture of geological evidence and your claims about post flood erosion.

Well the bible says nothing about the flood being global and the geological evidence observed doesn't fit a global flood either.

You don't know scripture:

And instead of being able to answering my point on your claims about the geology you switch to scripture.

"And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Genesis 7:18-19

"And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." Genesis 7:23

Jesus confirmed that this happened: "But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matthew 24:37-39.

You scripture references include Genesis which you claimed as evidence of a global flood and which I answered in my last post, though for some reason or other, you didn't manage to answer me. Then we have the quote from Matthew we have just looked at where Jesus mentions nothing about a global flood. Neither references mention the sedimentary formations in in the western USA we have been talking about and neither say anything about material at the base of the plateaus, neither quote supports you claim the material at the base of the cliff is what eroded post flood, and neither passage supports you claim geology should explain all the material missing between the plateaus but limiting their discussion to the material at the base of the cliffs.

Basically you tried to disprove geology with your erosion photos from western USA, failed to support the claim, so you are switching to a different argument instead.

You need to read it. It tells you the truth, not skeptical scientists who deliberately fabricate 'facts' to prove their worthless theory. True science will agree with scripture for scripture is God's Word about the origin and purpose of the world. God did not lie nor was He obscure about what He said about the 6 day creation.

Science has done a good job in the past of dispelling mistaken interpretation of scripture. Astronomy contradicted the literal interpretation that said the sun went round the earth. And it doesn't matter if scientists aren't believers. It was pagan Greek science that contradicted the geocentrists in the early church. But if we were only to label science 'true science' if it agreed with our interpretation of scripture, how would the church have ever got away from flat earthers and geocentrism?

No, you don't believe scripture, period. At least not what Moses and Jesus taught about creation and the flood of Noah. You don't believe what Paul nor Peter said about it either. They both taught that creation and the flood were just as Moses penned it.

Try backing up your claims with scripture and exegesis, not just assertion.

There is no 'glaring hole'. There is no 'hole' at all. The documented evidence I have supplied so far is solid and there isn't anything you can do about it. Not only so but the scriptures are plain enough.

Of course you could try to to answer the glaring hole I pointed out. Instead you simply deny there is a glaring hole and claim that your evidence is solid. Lol.

Nope. It's perfectly logical. If you knew the erosion rates then you wouldn't be saying that. Go look up the website I posted above, please.

If you think the article has something relevant to say, why don't you post it, you certainly spend enough time posting other claims. Better to keep making new arguments than defending the ones you have already made.

Do not mistake your opinions for God's word. The Bible teaches creation, not creationism.

Stop it. 'Creationism' IS the teaching of creation:

'Stop it', the man tells me to 'Stop it'. Stop what? Pointing out you are confusing you own opinion with the word of God? Why ever should I stop that?

"For in six days the Lord God made the heavens and the earth." Exodus 20:11.

So who told you to interpret it literally? Who told you a global flood laid down the sedimentary layers in western USA? Who told you the flood carved them out and took away the missing material between the cliffs? Who told you the material at the base of the cliffs is what was eroded after the flood? That is creationist opinion, not the bible. You really need to learn the difference.

Now...quote scripture supporting evolution. I challenge you.

Why should I need to? We learn that from science, like atomic theory and heliocentrism. Can you support atomic theory or heliocentrism from the bible? Of course not, there is no mention of them either.

You are not being honest.

Nah, you just don't like being told your opinion is not the word of God.

You have shut down your mind. You aren't even trying to understand why 98% of the sediment is missing nor how such massive amounts of rock and dirt was transported to distant places. You aren't even attempting to be honest about the mighty force that it would have taken to move all that rock and sediment by the multiplied billions of cubic feet.

What is wrong with wind and rain? You clearly think they were pretty powerful to carve all the material we see at the foot of the cliff in just a couple of thousand years.

When you stand before Almighty God and give an account for why you rejected the truth you will be reminded of what was said here.

I am sure we will all have a lot to answer when we meet him face to face and will only ever be able to stand by his grace. I think our bigger problem will be how much grace we show to one another, rather than our interpretation of a six day creation and the flood.

 

[Assyrian]

More evidence that both Moses and Jesus taught the truth about a world-wide catastrophic flood that destroyed the entire world.

A fossil fish that was fossilized in the act of eating its lunch! Did this creature die and get slowly covered over by sediment (in water?) or was it fossilized possibly by volcanic activity during a great cataclysm? The point: there are many like this from all over the world:

So which is it? Volcanic activity or cataclysmic global flood? Presenting evidence of a fish being fossilised during volcanic activity is not evidence the volcano happened during a global flood. This is classic Creationist slight of hand.

And here is another...

Multiplied millions of animals of all kinds were crushed together in the Green River Formation alone:

Green River! Fossilised lake beds with fossilised bird prints on the lake shore are supposed to be evidence of a global flood?

And so are we to believe that all those organisms just suddenly decided to migrate to the same location and all of them died at the same time only to get slowly 'fossilized' in succeeding years? Right!

Any reason why bodies cant get washed into the same place by a local flood? Not sure why a global flood swirling across the planet would leave them all in the same place though.

Here is a fish that was fossilized in the act of birth. This kind of evidence tell us that the organism was crushed suddenly and instantly fossilzed.

Certanily evidence the creature died suddenly and was fossilised, not that it was crushed suddenly or fossilised suddenly. It is certainly not evidence that it took place in a global flood.

There is so much of this available in the fossil record that evolution simply cannot account for. The London Natural History Museum alone has catalogued 40 million fossils in its archives. But there are so many billions more yet unearthed from ALL parts of the earth. That fact alone speaks loudly of a great destruction; a cataclysm of world wide significance.

Why? Many billions of fossils tell us life has been going on for many millions of years. Either that or the world was very very crowed before the global flood.

I was challenged earlier to provide evidence of massive land movements like is suggested in the pictures I posted of the American west. No problem.

First, North Africa:

Secondly, Asia in the Gobi desert area:

And then the Australian outback:

These kind of features revealing massive sections of land that was transported by a very powerful force are found on every continent except Antarctica. No 'local-erosion on a slow and gradual scale' will suffice to explain how billions of tons of cubic ft of rock and dirt were transported over great distances.

Why not? You believe there was really rapid erosion after the flood, there is even more material at the bottom of the cliffs in some of these pictures. All happened in the few thousand years after the flood in your opinion. Yet apparently your hyper fast erosion is limited to the material at the bottom of the cliffs even if it went on for 50 million years instead of a few thousand.

All this in answer to ASSYRIAN's statement: "Yet this formation is only found in the western USA."

Obviously, he didn't tell the truth.

The evidence for the flood of Genesis is not just out there it is phenomenal.

Are these the same formation? Or are they different formations, sediments deposited in different seas, at different times then uplifted and eroded the same way as the formation in the western USA? Before you accuse me of not telling the truth, how about giving some evidence you can trace the strata in Australia and the Gobi across to the same strata in Arizona. That is what I would expect in a global flood, the same sediment carried across the globe.

Some sources for these photos would be nice too, with information about what geological formations we are looking at.

 

[Assyrian]

"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth: and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." Genesis 7:19.

But apparently you don't believe what Moses said, do you? That's called 'unbelief'.

I don't believe your interpretation. That is called not being entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Does that verse mean all the high hills on the whole planet were covered, or could erets simply mean the land Noah lived in, not planet earth? In fact erets is usually translated land not earth. Claiming this has to refer to the whole planet ignores how the word is actually used in the OT. And under the whole heaven was used to mean from horizon to horizon, or as far as you can see in Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.' This was Moses whom you accuse me of not believing who said this. It was the Canaanites, Edomites and Moabites who trembled in fear at the approaching Israelites, not the Navajo living in caves in rock formation we have been looking at. Under the whole heaven didn't refer to the Navajo being terrified of the Israelites in Deut 2:25 nor is there any reason to think it meant their land being covered by a global flood in Gen 7:19.

An answer to Assyrian in post # 84

I quoted: "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth: and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." Genesis 7:19.

But apparently you don't believe what Moses said, do you? That's called 'unbelief'.
​

Assyrian replied, "I don't believe your interpretation."

Observe, dear readers, I did not INTERPRET the scriptures I merely quoted them.

This proves that it is the SCRIPTURES that Assyrain disagrees with and not just me.

You quoted scripture and said I disagreed with Moses. How am I disagreeing with scripture by saying I disagree with your interpretation? Just because you don't bother to expound the passage doesn't mean your claim I disagree with scripture isn't based on your interpretation. Just because you think you don't interpret scripture and mistake your interpretation for the word of God, doesn't mean I don't disagree with your interpretation.

Anyway, dear readers, observe how Calypsis prefers to play word games than deal with the analysis I gave of the language in Genesis 7:19.

 

[Calypsis4]

BZzzz Wrong.
Evolution isn't a philosophy, you fail as science. Strike 1
Also you're wrong about me ignoring that fact. Strike 2
Evolution does exist in the real world Strike 3

You're out in one post.

My, how impressive. What convincing arguments! What spectacular documentation!

But you are not the umpire and furthermore you aren't even in the ball game. Evidence is evidence and you have failed to deal honestly with the evidence I posted on this thread.

 

[Calypsis4]

You quoted scripture and said I disagreed with Moses. How am I disagreeing with scripture by saying I disagree with your interpretation? Just because you don't bother to expound the passage doesn't mean your claim I disagree with scripture isn't based on your interpretation. Just because you think you don't interpret scripture and mistake your interpretation for the word of God, doesn't mean I don't disagree with your interpretation.

There you are again, not being honest. That is a big problem with theistic evolutionists to begin with. They won't accept the plain spoken language of scripture even though the Lord Jesus and his followers made it very plain that Genesis was literal.

Here is where you fail in honesty. Read this carefully:

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man" Genesis 7:21.

Do you know what the word 'all' means?

All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

The real truth is that you just don't care what God's Word really says. Like your comrades in unbelief, you treat biblical/historical truth likes its a rubber band to be played with.

Anyway, dear readers, observe how Calypsis prefers to play word games than deal with the analysis I gave of the language in Genesis 7:19.

Read what I said above and understand you didn't take it far enough.

Peter sealed the argument, "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" II Peter 3:6.

But I'm sure you don't believe him either.

Not only so but the Lord Jesus compared the 'days of Noe(Noah)' with his second coming...a day that will involve (guess what?) the WHOLE world!

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." Luke 17:26

So am I and my comrades in faith supposed to believe that Jesus compared His literal, visible, physical return to the earth with some kind of storybook tale that NEVER happened? Am I supposed to believe that His literal, visible return to earth that will involve the ENTIRE world is compared by Him with a local event? I would call such a belief a monstrous joke if I didn't know better. Actually, it's worse than that: theistic evolution & the unbelief in Genesis 1-11 is the brainchild of Satan and he has ruined the faith and trust of millions like you into rejecting the historicity and literal occurrences mentioned in Genesis.

The fact is I quoted scripture without an interpretation and you came back at me in disagreement. THAT is what I call unbelief. And certainly it is.

Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

 

[laconicstudent]

Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

Um. Ok. I don't see how that is at all relevant to the subject at hand.

 

[Calypsis4]

Um. Ok. I don't see how that is at all relevant to the subject at hand.

No surprise. You don't even get why belief in the Genesis account of creation as verified by Jesus and his disciples is necessary to begin with.

 

[laconicstudent]

No surprise. You don't even get why belief in the Genesis account of creation as verified by Jesus and his disciples is necessary to begin with.

I do, actually. I simply think you are wrong in how you interpret said verification, since it requires an almost pathologically dishonest God.

 

[shernren]

Post #43 still stands.

 

[Assyrian]

Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.

Oh dear that is all that came out when I pressed quote again. Are you still too busy to bother about posting properly? Ah well, I will sort it out for you again. You should really learn to use the quote button.

There you are again, not being honest. That is a big problem with theistic evolutionists to begin with. They won't accept the plain spoken language of scripture even though the Lord Jesus and his followers made it very plain that Genesis was literal.

Looking at the quotations further down I think you may be confusing a figurative interpretation of the creation accounts with interpreting the flood as local or globally. Jesus and Peter may have interpreted the flood literally, but they never said it was global. On the other hand neither Jesus nor the apostles said anything about the creation accounts being literally. Really, they are not much use to Creationists.

Here is where you fail in honesty. Read this carefully:

"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man" Genesis 7:21.

Do you know what the word 'all' means?

It means everything, everything in a particular context anyway. You should have checked the other words used in the verse. I have mentioned the meaning of erets to you before, though you ignored it, I even quoted what I said it in the post you were replying to here. Gen 7:21 says all flesh that moved upon the erets died, it is talking about all the creatures in that land, not all the creatures across the entire globe.

All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

You know the context still hasn't changed, it is still talking about a flood the covered the erets, the land Noah came from, and killing all the creatures there. You even have it repeated in this verse too, and they were destroyed from the earth, that is erets again.

The real truth is that you just don't care what God's Word really says. Like your comrades in unbelief, you treat biblical/historical truth likes its a rubber band to be played with.

Of course, if you can't deal with my analysis of the text, simply claim I do not care what God's word says.

Read what I said above and understand you didn't take it far enough.

Your only attempt at analysis was to take the word 'all' out of its context. You want me to take it out of context too?

Peter sealed the argument, "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:" II Peter 3:6.

But I'm sure you don't believe him either.

It is still just you and you interpretations I don't believe. Of course you didn't actually try to give an interpretation, you just quoted the verse and assumed it supports your claims. Personally I like to look at a passage and try to understand what is being said.

2Pet 3:5 For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God,
6 and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished.
7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

You aren't making the mistake of thinking 'world' means the whole earth are you? Because Peter uses the word earth to describe the earth being created. He uses it again to describe the whole earth being judged with fire on the day of judgement. But when Peter talks about the flood he uses a different word kosmos translated world. This is not the earth God created, that will be destroyed with fire. To describe the extent of the flood Peter chose a different word kosmos, with a wide range of meanings from cosmetics to the cosmos. It was often used in the NT to describe worldly society love not the world 1John 2:15 or the Roman empire Rom 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world. It could simply refer to Noah's civilisation and culture being destroyed. But I don't think it means the whole earth because Peter decided not to use that word, switched away from it to talk about the flood and then switched back again.

Not only so but the Lord Jesus compared the 'days of Noe(Noah)' with his second coming...a day that will involve (guess what?) the WHOLE world!

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." Luke 17:26

So it is not that Jesus said the flood was global, but that he used the judgement of the flood to describe a judgement that will effect the whole world, so you assume that the flood must have covered the whole world too? Have a look a few verses down.

Luke 17:28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot--they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,
29 but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all--
30 so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

The destruction of Sodom wasn't global, but Jesus used it as a warning too. Jesus didn't use the flood and Sodom as illustrations of the coming judgement because they were global, but because they were judgements.

So am I and my comrades in faith supposed to believe that Jesus compared His literal, visible, physical return to the earth with some kind of storybook tale that NEVER happened?

Actually he did quite often, they are called parables.

Am I supposed to believe that His literal, visible return to earth that will involve the ENTIRE world is compared by Him with a local event? I would call such a belief a monstrous joke if I didn't know better.

Apparently you don't know better. Luke 17:28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot

Actually, it's worse than that: theistic evolution & the unbelief in Genesis 1-11 is the brainchild of Satan and he has ruined the faith and trust of millions like you into rejecting the historicity and literal occurrences mentioned in Genesis.

Sadly it is YEC that shipwrecks so many young people's faith.

The fact is I quoted scripture without an interpretation and you came back at me in disagreement. THAT is what I call unbelief. And certainly it is.

You are still mistaking your interpretation for the word of God. The fact you quote verses and simply leave us to guess what you think it means, is only evidence of how little effort you are putting into (1) understanding scripture yourself, and (2) writing your posts. I am the one looking at the text and showing what it means, all you can do in reply is claim I disagree with scripture.

 

[Papias]

Shernren wrote:

Post #43 still stands.

Yep, as does my post #78, another one of the many responded to without any cogent arguments, just a "best wishes".

Your observation in post #43 that there isn't room on an ark for all of the species alive today is the reason many creationists today posit hyper evolution from family representatives to form today's species (thus admitting that we evolved from a chimp like ancestor - same family). However, I'm not sure even that would do it, as even the number families is huge.

Of course, that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to impossibilities with the flood story - maybe a separate thread to get into those or even just a few would be fun.

An extension of the problem you mentioned is the fact that 99.9% of the species that have ever lived are extinct. The YEC narrative states that even those extinct species would have to have been fit, because every creature is supposed to have been on the ark. Thus, multiply the problem by 1000 or more, and it gets worse.

Take care-

Papias