Why was a flood needed?

quote:

---

since it claims to be true and no one has ever proved otherwise do not refer to it as myth!

​

'At least it keeps an ancient folk tale alive, it cant be all bad.'

​

nice try but i'm afraid i still take it as truth.

---

The worldwide is a myth. It has been falsified by geology, palenotology, biogeography, biodiversity and archeology to name a few. You are about 170 years out of date.Randy
Added in edit, I grew up on farm and have been driving cars, trucks, tractors since I was 10 years old and that was nearly 60 years ago so your joking fraudulant quote was no more valid than the other nonsense you have been posting.[This message has been edited by Randy, 07-09-2003][This message has been edited by Randy, 07-09-2003]

quote:

---

then tell me how it is untrue, because no one has ever provided absolute proof against it and you know it Brian , that is exactly why we are debating i'm pretty sure deep down you have a thought in you that says 'what if this is God's word?'

---

It is "Proved" untrue by geology, paleontology, biogeography and biodiversity, many of the threads are on this board. There are so many features of the world that obviously falsify the young earth worldwide flood that creationist geologists abandoned it more than 150 years ago in spite of their religious beliefs.The only possibility aside from myth is the Omphalos hypothesis that God made the earth to look old with geology and paleontology simulating an old earth with extinction of species over massive periods of time, magically transported animals to the ark, magically sustained animals on the ark, magically sustained predators post ark until prey species recovered sufficient numbers and magically transported all those marsupials from the Middle East to Australia, Flightless Birds to New Zealand and Sloths to South America, just for starters. I suppose God might have wanted to cover up the horrible crime of flooding the world but then why have his "Chosen People" record it.Randy

quote:

---

however everything you have just said DOES NOT disprove it at all , what would prove or disprove it is a time machine.
can you be 100% correct randy are you so closed minded you do not even consider that the experts could be wrong .as i said before show me the concluding and absolute 100 percent proof that it is wrong?

---

No I can't be 100% sure that God is not an evil trickster who created the world to look old and covered up all the evidence of the flood recorded in Genesis. However, I am very certain that the worldwide flood myth that the ancient Hebrews borrowed and recorded in Genesis is falsified past the nth degree by geology, paleontology, biogeography, biodiversity, archeology and other aspects of science. You can believe that your particular interpretion of the Bible is correct because you have been taught it is the word of God but if you think it has any scientific support you are simply delusional.You call me close minded but I was raised a Christian and have been studying the evidence of science for nearly 50 years. You have totally closed your mind to the mass of evidence that falsifies your interpretation of Genesis. Do you think the creationists who went out to find evidence of the worldwide flood in the late 18th and early 19th centuries were close minded? If they were they would have stuck to their myths. Instead they were open minded and discovered that there was no evidence for a worldwide flood and massive evidence against it.RandyRandy

quote:

---

'No I can't be 100% sure that God is not an evil trickster who created the world to look old and covered up all the evidence of the flood recorded in Genesis'

​

quote:

---

in other words , no i could be wrong but i am too self righteous to admitt it!

---

---

No, I admitted that God could be an evil trickster, I just don’t think that He is and the Omphalos hypothesis has some sever philosophical problems. The list of scientific falsifications of the worldwide flood is virtually endless and I have studied many of them. You prefer to ignore but that is you perogative. Deliberate ignorance is apparently vital to the YEC worldview.

quote:

---

'You can believe that your particular interpretion of the Bible is correct because you have been taught it is the word of God but if you think it has any scientific support you are simply delusional. '

​

well i'm afraid thats your opinion Randy but i think the foolishness of God is wiser than men , so personally scientists can misenterprate their findings untill the end of time they still wont be right in the end!

​

as for so called believers hunting for evidence of the flood,i am pretty sure God was so disapointed in their lack of faith that he rewarded them with baffling finds!

---

So you are delusional. Why am I not surprised? The findings were not baffling, they were very clear and clearly showed that the worldwide flood is a myth.

quote:

---

no,all i am saying is i think God is more intelligent than humans and so i will take his WORD over theirs,and according to them i am a relative of an ape,whereas God says i am made in his image so when scientists disregard God's word i take comfort in the fact that God knows a lot better.

---

Except that you are taking about your interpretation of His word from a book that you think is His word because it says it is His word and you think is literally true at least where you want it to be. Generally YECs now take those statements about a fixed earth and the sun going around the earth as poetry but maybe you are also a geocentrist. Others who also think the Bible is His word interpret it differently. Do you think you are literally made in the image of God or is that symbolic? Do you think God actually looks like a man? Do you think that God has teeth and hair and intestines or is image not meant to be exactly literal here? Have you ever considered that some of the things you consider literally true might be symbolic?Randy[This message has been edited by Randy, 07-10-2003]

quote:

---

well lets look at what we would find if there was a flood ,we would look for a large amount of quickly fossilised creatures suddenly and quickly buried , and guess what Randy,as clear as the nose on my face that is what we found!!!

---

It should be as clear as the nose on your face that a worldwide flood did not produce the ordered fossil record. The fossil record is such a clear falsification of the flood that I am surprised YECs ever bring it up. All the YEC explanations of the fossil record as flood based are easily shown to be total nonsense.The fossil record is only one of many falsifications of the worldwide flood but it is one that is clear to anyone will think logically about the evidence, which you clearly aren't.Maybe you think oak trees ran up the mountains that creationists say didn't exist before the flood faster than velociraptors ran up the mountains that creationists say didn't exist before the flood so that they got buried higher in the fossil record because they were higher on the mountains that YECs say didn't exist before the flood, but I don't find those sort of arguments very convincing.Randy

quote:

---

well lets see then (i've noticed the avoidance of neanderthal man)laterites are caused by weathering and i am sure that the 40 days and nights of rain are sufficient.rain drops ? isn't that one a bit obvious? fossilised lizard tracks , what about it? sorry this does not prove or disprove anything! now answer me , are not evo's liars when it comes to neanderthal man.

---

So was neanderthal man fully human or not? If not were they saved on the ark? Are those neanderthal skeletons post flood? If they are post flood and humans which of the grandsons of Noah are they descended from?Exactly what lies about neanderthal man are you claiming? Usually when creationist accuse "evos" of lying they are just repeating lies they have heard from YECs. If you want to discuss neanderthal man you should probably do so in another thread somewhere.As to fossilized lizard tracks, the tracks we have discussed here the most are the those in the permian Coconino Sandstoneshttp://EvC Forum: Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood -->EvC Forum: Crand Canyon Tracks Were Not Formed During a Worldwide Flood Fossilized tracks, nests and animals burrows are found throughout the fossil record and are just one of many falsifications of the myth of a worldwide flood.Randy

quote:

---

'Science is ALLOWED and SUPPOSED to change when new data and evidence are presented or discovered. Why can't you understand that? '
Let me make this clear , what you have just said proves to me evo's will misenterperate evidence according to their theory , why dont you be honest and just admitt it!

---

This is one of the big lies of young earth creationism. There are reasonable interpretations and totally absurd twistings. YECs are forced to go through totally absurd twisting to try to explain the world's geology, paleontology and biogeography in terms of a worldwide flood they they still fail. The whole claim is easily falsified by the FACT that the people who first discovered that there never was a worldwide flood were NOT evos. They were creationists. They first tried to misinterpret their evidence to fit their preconceptions but were finally intellectually honest enough to realize that it could not be done and they changed their interpretation of scripture rather than pervert science by continually trying to twist the data to fit to an event that clearly never happened.Randy

quote:

---

do you know if you shaved bathed and clothed neanderthal man you would not look at him any differently in the street from another person.neanderthal man is a man . he suffered arthriris and ricets because of the cold , he had a slightly prominent forehead like an aboriginee does, he is in no way proof of evolution.
as for lucy she was an ape and i'm pretty certain the rest of he finds are aswell!

---

So which of the grandsons of Noah gave rise to neanderthals? I think this stuff about arthritis and rickets is nonsense. I was born with rickets but I doubt anyone would mistake me for a neanderthal. I think there are some DNA studies that show that neanderthals were pretty different as well. Maybe someone has some more up-to-date references but I think it should be discussed on another thread.You might ask yourself why some hominid fossils are identified as ape by one creationist and human by another. I seem to recall that one creationist even identified different specimens of the same fossil as one being ape and the other human but I could be wrong. I'll look around for documentation when I get time.However, whether humans and apes descended from a common ancestor or not is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The worldwide flood was falsified before Darwin and many of the falsifications do not depend on evolutionary theory in any way.Randy

quote:

---

but even Darwin thought the fossils were a problem before his evo theory which is FALSE .

---

You are guilty of the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. The validity or not of evolutionary theory has nothing to with the fact that the worldwide flood of Noah was falsified over and over long ago. Whatever problem the fossils may or may not present for evolutionary theory the fossil record clearly falsifies young earth creationism. Creationist geologists realized this nearly 200 years ago and every bit of data that has been collected since confirms their conclusions.Randy

quote:

---

however you forget i am not dismayed ,thanks to people like Ken Ham and Howard Conder and Creation Evidence Museum of Texas. you can say your right and i'm wrong all day but i am not surprised nor confounded because i too have a mind to interprate with.

---

A metallic hydrogen canopy! It is to laugh. If you don't want people to ridicule your ideas you should at least stay away from total charlatans like Carl Baugh and his long refuted dinosaur and man tracks and his totally goofy solid hydrogen canopy. Even Answers in Genesis says Baugh's stuff is nonsense and when AiG, prime purveyors of creationist nonsense themselves call something nonsense you know it is really big time nonsense.However, the dinosaur trackways do refute the flood myth. Deposits with dinosaur tracks and fossils are found relatively late in the fossil record. How were these animals still around to make tracks while the entire world was under water? It is amazing that creationist continually try to put forth evidence that refutes YEC as evidence for YEC.Randy

quote:

---

Carl Baugh,if you have seen his programme , is the most humble chap i've ever heard speak he is always bringing in scientists because he himself does not make the claims .since you are now arguing the person rather than the topic i must leave it here,

---

That doesn't stop his claims from being totally absurd

quote:

---

admin is correct its off topic and i have recieved no evidence and am once again disapointed in the evolutionists.but i am not surprised!

---

No you have ignored the evidence that has been presented and shown that you will consistently ignore any evidence that is presented.As to the main topic of this thread there is no real need to ask why a worldwide flood because there never was a worldwide flood. The Ancient Hebrews borrowed the myth of the flood of Gilgamesh and recorded their slightly altered version of it as a moral tale. End of story.Randy

quote:

---

4066-‘APP and no 'this is crap' this guy is clever , and the real deal!

---

The First one I checked out was the earth is slowing too much leap second argument.As Nasa Physicist Tim Thompson points out it is directly false
http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html

quote:

---

Response:
As explained on the Leapsecond page of the National Earth Orientation Service, the true spindown rate of the earth is 1.5 to 2 milliseconds per day per century. That means that after 100 years, the length of day has systematically increased (on average) 0.0015 to 0.002 seconds. This is also found, for instance, in Kurt Lambecks's book "The Earth's Variable Rotation" (Cambridge University Press, 1980; currently out of print), page 3. This is a long-term secular variation. As Lambeck and numerous others point out, there are variations on the length of day that range from daily to seasonal in scale, so that the true length of day can vary greatly from day to day, over multi-year time scales.

​

The author of this argument has failed to realize that one second as defind by the rotation of the earth is slightly longer than one second as defined by atomic clocks. So the earth-rotation time scale runs about 2 milliseconds per day behind the atomic clock scale (because the two use seconds that are not the same length). The leap second is a convenient device for keeping the two timescales always within 0.9 seconds of each other. It is not a result of the earth slowing down by one second per year.

---

His other arguments are from the PRATT list as well. PRATT stands for Points Refuted A Thousand Times in case you don't know. Your real deal guy is real full of it as expected. I am sure that we can show you how false they are given a little time but I doubt you pay any attention.Randy