Global Flood Evidence: A Place For Faith to Present Some

As a nonscientist, I have questions about your OP. So when and if you answer, please explain as you would to a new student.From what I have read of the original off topic post and the OP, Faith has already given you her evidence for a world wide flood. In your responses all you've essentially said is that you disagree with her.

quote:

---

In no way can the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of the flood. In fact the localisation of fossil species argues against the flood.

---

Why can't the global existence of fossils be considered evidence of a world wide flood?How does the localization of fossil species argue against a world wide flood?

quote:

---

Mountains are observed to rise, so no great shakes there.

---

Why is that evidence against the world wide flood.

quote:

---

Again, the flood is utterly inconsistent with the pattern of stratification.

---

What are the geological columns and how is the flood inconsistent with that stratification. Also could you explain stratification in simple terms?

quote:

---

Most of them don't exist on the surface. This also is irrelevant to flood evidence.

---

Why is surface disturbance irrelevant to the flood?

quote:

---

Again, this is evidence of extinct forms, & in no way evidence of a global flood.

---

Why is the presence of extinct forms not evidence of the global flood?

quote:

---

As you have learned, the fossil record & stratigraphy is all utterly inconsistent with the fossil record.

---

I assume you mean inconsistent with the flood story, but again you've said it is inconsistent, but you provided nothing I could use to explain why they are inconsistent.Ultimately a nonscientist like myself would have to digest information coming from someone like Faith and someone like yourself to decide whether I believe the flood to be world wide or not.So far in this discussion, from the information I think I understand, I haven't seen anything that obviously tilts the scales in either direction.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

This is a thread where evidence is supposed to be presented that supports a flood

---

I think many are missing a very important point.Yes it is a thread where evidence is to be presented that supports a global flood. Faith provided evidence that she feels supports the idea of a global flood.As a nonscience person, I cannot provided a level of evidence that will convince a geologist that there was a global flood if he feels his knowledge says otherwise. I can only provide the evidence that convinces me of the global flood, which IMO, is what Faith has provided.Your question in the OP: So where is this "staggering" evidence of a global flood?The wording of the OP, doesn't really support that this thread was intended to prove that the evidence presented is right, wrong, or ambiguous. Just because you disagree with what is presented doesn't mean the presenter needs to provide more.I can see discussing what is presented, but not demanding more evidence.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

So if I said my evidence of the moon being just out of arms reach was because I just-couldn't-reach-it, & that was convincing to me, that's enough? I don't need to provide more?

---

IMO, not if the thread was stated as a place to present your evidence and not a place to prove your evidence. Of course, Faith's statements weren't on the level of your example.I get the impression you think they were, but from a nonscience standpoint they weren't. Your comments weren't any more enlightening. In Message 77 Mallon at least gave some constructive feedback, that could lead to an enligtening discussion.

quote:

---

No, evidence, & in this case evidence that seperates the flood from mainstream geology, needs to actually be facts that support a logically constructed argument & not be contradicted by other facts.

---

Then you should have specified your criteria for evidence, considering that you are asking for evidence concerning an event depicted in an ancient religious writing.More than likely, people who are not scientists are not going to have the facts that you require in the form that you require. I can't provide you with anything on the level you seem to need.Obviously I don't know Faith's level of knowledge, but sometimes all we have are simplistic views of what science we do understand and apply them as we understand them.We shouldn't be made to feel like students who have to come up with the right answer for the professor.In the link you directed me to you told Faith: Evidence is something that makes another thing evident or something that tends to prove.Even what is evident to one scientist is not necessarily evident to another.I just don't feel the scientist here should expect more than we can provide. Keep it within reason.Which this is my last comment concerning this, since it really is off topic now.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

PD, this is a science forum, therefore scientific evidence is expected here, not someone's opinions or arguments from incredulity.

---

Fossils, stratification, geological columns, fossil record. Sounds scientific to me.No opinions or arguments from unbelief. Interesting.Now you know why I don't usually participate on this side of the river.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I'm game if you are truly interested.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz