Evidence of the flood

the depth is easily explained by all the dirt that was stirred up by the forty days and nights of heavy worldwide rain, on land and in the oceans. That's a lot of dirt to get sorted into sediments and redeposited. That's another thing: the "time period" explanation really can't explain the different separated sediments in the Geo Column, a gigantic sandstone, a gigantic limestone etc etc.;.... Well some of the layers span an entire continent and even reach across the ocean to another continent. And it's hard to reconcile, say, a limestone slab with a desert. In any case, it's easy to explain a Flood that covered the entire world making layer after layer of different sediments and, really, nothing else can. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The standard theory can't be known either. And it's so utterly absurd I would hope some people would soon wake up and see it.Yes I know early geologists expected geology to confirm the Bible but their imagination was too limited to see that it really does; that's why they went with the so-called evidence of an ancient earth, which hardly deserves the term "evidence" at all, since until radiometric dating methods came along it was just a lot of stuff like Hutton's assessment of Siccar Point "Oh that must have taken a LONG time." He was wrong, it wasn't formed in stages, it was formed all at once in the Flood, and the unconformity occurred after all the strata were laid down, just as similar formations occurred elsewhere after the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Even the Bible gives us evidence RR, not evidence of the geology of the Flood, but evidence of God Himself and His character. What do you think all the miracles were for? Just to persuade those who were there? Isn't the Bible written for us too?

I agree that the whole argument gets boring repeated over and over as it is, yours too.Da Vinci missed it, what can I say?The evidence doesn't show repeated local floods at all, the strata are way too consistent for that, as are the fossils. Everything about the strata says Flood, not time periods, as I've argued here many times. It does become tiresome, it's hard to keep repeating the same obvious arguments. They're good arguments, you really should acknowledge that.The standard theory "explains" it all by stretching reality beyond the breaking point, if you'd just bother to consider what it implies, which I've laid out many times. The Flood is the most obvious natural explanation of what is actually seen.

I've argued this before so don't know why I left this out: that Da Vinci got it right that the mountains weren't there when the seashells were deposited, they were underwater: the Flood, and got raised up after the Flood into mountains.

No, that's a very common error. The basic constituents of the Creation are no doubt the same, the physics and chemistry, but what we see today shows the effects of the Fall much more than the Creation. The Flood would have massively rearranged the surface of the Earth, and there should now be uninhabitable places where before the Flood there were none, and far less vegetation and animal life too. I don't remember that, but I do reject it, for the reason given above. Well, God wrote the Flood too if you want to go that route. But now you are saying something different than I thought you were saying. What I say to this argument is that we haven't the ability to read the environment we live in. Think how long it took before we had any kind of viable Science at all, a pretty recent development. And you'd never find the worldwide Flood by just looking in the world would you, as is only so sadly evident at EvC.And scripture says what we SHOULD see in the world is the handiwork of God, but instead we have a pretty atheistic science these days. So obviously we can't count on ourselves to understand what God "wrote" in His created world. We'd never get the doctrine of salvation out of it, that's for sure.That's why He gave us the Bible. The written word can speak to us and explain things, the physical world cannot. This whole idea that the Creation is God's message is just some kind of sophistry aimed at undercutting the Bible, Truth itself. Oh I agree, it IS a message but since we misread it it might as well be a foreign language.There is that lovely psalm that tells us Is this what the Creation teaches you?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence is no doubt some completely circumstantial facts that are imaginatively but falsely interpreted into seas.

I repeat the truth, sorry you don't see it.

What if there is a God who made it all and your atheistic science just completely misses it?

Jesus isn't exactly advocating believing "without evidence," but believing the witnesses who should have been recognized as trustworthy. Thomas was told by the other disciples that Jesus was risen and refused to believe them. Jesus graciously allowed him the direct evidence of seeing it himself but He is saying it would have been better had He believed the disciples. Witness evidence is also evidence. We are not ever left with NO evidence, we are told to believe and that means believe what is written in the Bible.

Why are you addressing me about this? I was answering Coyote who said all science is atheistic and he was responding to an ongoing discussion about that question. I simply answered Coyote's point and what I said has nothing to do with anything else.

I was answering Coyote. Read in context.

I'm repeating either that there is evidence for the Flood or the evidence itself in this series of posts, and since I'm getting back assertions that there is no evidence blah blah blah I think my responses are quite in order.

When He said "Blessed are those who did not see and yet believed" He was indeed saying that would have been preferable. We are all in that position now, we are not going to get Thomas' special audience, so it is far better to believe the witnesses than stubbornly refuse to believe unless we are given direct proof. You are wrong, Jesus WAS saying it would have been better.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But any of those terms imply that God is left out of the scientific reckoning so my question still is What if there is a God who made it all and science is ignoring Him?