Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big-flood vs. little-flood Flood Geology
lpetrich
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 1 (31801)
02-09-2003 4:49 PM


Over at the Internet Infidels forums, a creationist named Ed has made a strange defense of the historicity of Noah's Flood.
He has simultaneously argued both the big-flood and the little-flood versions of Flood Geology, as if he can make a case by contradicting himself. He also weasels out of critical questions by claiming that he is not a geologist.
The big-flood version is the usual version of Flood Geology -- much, if not most or all, of the rocks since the base of the Cambrian have been produced by Noah's Flood.
The little-flood version states that Noah's Flood has left very little evidence of itself in the geological column; Ed claims that that was because that flood has lasted only a year.
Ed also claims that that flood could have happened a million years ago, with the Biblical genealogies that indicate a more recent flood having been incomplete -- according to Ed, they list only the most important people in various lineages.
And Ed also claims that Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are one species, which is rather extreme lumping.
[This message has been edited by lpetrich, 02-09-2003]

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024