Summations Only

Sure, start with it if you want. But if your interpretation of the words is completely contradicted by reality, like by the fact that we know without a doubt that the entire planet has not been covered in water since humans have been here, then you should change your interpretation if you're not willing to accept that the words say something that is wrong. Like, perhaps it was just a local flood rather than a global one. Or perhaps it is a tale that never really happened in the first place.But just tricking yourself into believing what you think you must is a serious disservice to yourself.

*sigh* We've been over this, ICANT. You were wrong last time, and you're still wrong this time.In the following picture, all of the water is gather to one place and there are two bodies of land: No, you don't. But you just keep going on repeating it as if it hasn't already been refuted?This has been going on for years ABE: I uploaded that picture six years ago and this is not the first or second time I've linked to it.Edited by New Cat's Eye, : ABE

No, Faith. It is not a question of need, it is a question of accuracy. The shoe doesn't fit - if you're right about the Flood occurring, then the world is a lie.Same goes for you, ICANT. If your scenario is correct, God is lying to us with the planet.

WTF? I'm saying that you are wrong to say that the water being in one place necessitates the land being in one place - which is refuted by seeing the water in one place but the land in two places.Cut the gish gallop and deal with the argument.Now, you've done this same thing in the past when we've discussed this. Here are the other images I uploaded years ago: Notice how in those drawings of Pangea that the water is in multiple places - the water is not in one place. The water being in one place would require Pangea having no inland water and that is stupid.Edited by New Cat's Eye, : typo