Why was a flood needed?

'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!

'But you're not being asked to believe men over God. You are instead being asked why you accept the words of men recorded in the Bible over the actual direct word of God as recorded in the earth and universe.'we are speaking to each other with words , God is word in the beginning the word was with God , if he is able to speak to us with words through his word why would he have us dig , its obvious his words are true as proved with the completion of the old testament concerning messiah!

besides i do not reject what is said in the earth just your interpretation of it , which is mans word!

'So was neanderthal man fully human or not?'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!

well you wont find me twisting scripture as a result of mans dabblings , as for all these scientific names they dont scare me, as God told me 'do not be dismayed or they will confound you'.

'This is one of the big lies of young earth creationism. T'here are reasonable interpretations and totally absurd twistings.'but nothing will beat the figure i seen of neanderthal man compared to the actual fleshing done by proper scientists.

'The worldwide flood was falsified before Darwin and many of the falsifications do not depend on evolutionary theory in any way.'but even Darwin thought the fossils were a problem before his evo theory which is FALSE .'So which of the grandsons of Noah gave rise to neanderthals'remember Easu (hope i spelled it right) neanderthal man is no more difficult to explain as aboriginees because they are human.as for rickets i will concede to you on that as you have suffered from it.but he was never an ape.

however i have still heard nothing which is plausible for disproving
a young earth and you have indeed failed to show the evidence that can be absolutely conclusive 'they've known that for years now' will not do as i am not phased by it.

'his is the only thing I seem to agree with you on....you DO seem confounded. '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.'When you discuss Darwin's problem with the fossil record, are you referring to this quote,'no, i am referring to the total lack of evidence that suggests proof of evolution.and guess what you can bring a whole team of scientists down here if you want i am NOT phased.

'Why do you accept the words of men in the Bible over the word of God in the universe?'i accept the word of God in the universe as in the word .As in the word it says he stretched forth the heavens. i find no fault in the bible but i do find fault with mens interpretation of scientific data.im still punchin!

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,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!

'yet you suggest that evolutionists cannot phase(sic) you with scientific views.'well just look at the chances i have give them to rid the flood,boy this stuff is weak , if anything its strengthened my view!

'To put this in flood terms, why does the testimony of men in Bible that there was a world-wide flood find more prominence in your perspective than the testimony of God himself in the layers of the earth and the stars of the sky that no such flood ever happened?'Because i believe the bible to be the word of God and i also believe in his universe aswell ,your not going to get me to change my view on that , if i say it is the words of men then it can be broken ,but like Jesus who's words will far outlive Darwin's i believe the scripture cannot be broken .

'That doesn't stop his claims from being totally absurd'name them , because everything he said seemed mostly logical.i think evolutionists are absurd , again its the 'i'm right your wrong'thing,or trying to ridicule the person,i guess your really digging now!

Asgara
to be honest though , all i have heard is small problems , very small problems,the case still stands what would you look for to verify a flood ?
i would look for life quickly preserved in a quick way.
and that is what i find, that alone is evidence for me, plus fossils were not eaten away, they are in excellent condition, a flood would bury animals quickly in mud and water and that is what is found,plus there are the same creatures today found unchanged and no different from today.
therefore in all honesty you will have to get rid of the fossils or come up with something fairly major to change my mind and faith as i am satisfied.