Evidence of the flood

None of course, which is one of the themes of this thread. God is known by other means than physical science because He Himself is not physical. But the question still stands, what if He exists and He made the whole physical universe and science is ignoring Him? You're going to get a lot of things wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not interested in this thread, and all I am doing is responding to other posts.As for evidence I've given lots of it on other threads, and if you are denying that, you are playing a really nasty game here.

It never fails to amaze me how a simple innocent statement by a creationist can be blown up into a major "impropriety" by an evo. This thread is NOT about general evidence for the Flood, it's about the specific evidence of Harvey the Hawk. I don't see any point in turning it into another thread about my favorite argument, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to STATE my argument when the context seems to require it. I have argued it at great length elsewhere. However, since you say to get off the thread if this is the extent of my involvement, I'm gone. Unless someone says something I feel I have to answer.I do, by the way, consider "strata and fossils" to be evidence for the Flood without any further elaboration.Oh, and rebuttals are often just wild stabs in the dark at EvC, and as for their quickness, they generally get just as rapid response from me in turn. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You guys don't know the difference between evidence and proof, as Riverrat keeps trying to get you to recognize. Strata and fossils are evidence for the Flood.

There is more than one kind of confusion going on here. The 6000 years is not merely "Creation Science," it's what probably a majority of Bible-literalist Christians believe who don't get into the scientific questions at all. They believe in a literal six days of creation based on the 24-hour day, they believe that death did not exist before the Fall, they believe in a worldwide Flood occurring some time after the Creation though many may not have worked out the timing, and so on. Because that's all clearly implied in the Bible, which they regard as the inspired word of God.So while I agree that these things are secondary issues if your goal is persuasion to Christ, they are all basic biblical truths for Bible-inerrancy Christians. I certainly thought 6000 years was ridiculous too before I was a believer, but when I realized that is really what the Bible says and believed it, it made me laugh at the immense abyss between Christianity and science. Although it's all intimately wrapped up in salvation, it's probably not a useful place to start persuading someone to salvation. On the other hand, if that's where we have to start so be it, God's the saver of souls and our job is just to represent His word, however uncomfortable. And as the author also says, the gospel itself is "foolishness" to the world so there isn't much that isn't uncomfortable.What the Church has taught about the timing in Genesis is NOT false, it's just very hard to defend it in the teeth of the undeserved credibility of today's Old Earth sciences. It's God who saves; all any Christian can do is pass on the message, as we are told to do. And fudging the uncomfortable disconnect between science's timing and the Bible's timing is lying, and there's no way a lie can be the basis for drawing anyone to the truth of Christ's salvation. THAT is the big mistake your author Allen Harvey makes. We have to defend what seems like an absurdity to the world if we are put in that position, there is no way around it, and leave it to God to change hearts and minds.The only foundation you can give Christian children is the truth and the truth contradicts Old Earth Science. The only way to protect them as they go to university is tell them about the contradiction and warn them that they will encounter opposition and pray for them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You seem to have missed my point completely. I said it's not about creationism or Creation Science, it's what Bible believers believe who are not at all involved in creation science or creationist debates, who don't follow Kent Hovind or Ken Ham or any of them. Yet you keep referring to creationists. It doesn't matter what Old Earth science has to say about it, that's what Bible-believers believe. Of course there are Christians who capitulate to the science claims but they are wrong to do so. It's a form of weak-mindedness. The evidence is really not all that compelling, it's more illusion than reality. It takes guts to stick with what the Bible says when it is contradicted by those claims, but that kind of guts is what we have to have. There is no point in arguing what OE science claims after I've said that. Was I really not clear about this? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm telling the truth, I'm fairly representing what Bible believers believe the Bible says. Instead of acting like you know it all wouldn't it be more reasonable for you just to acknowledge that we disagree about these things? Surely you know I'm right about what these particular Christians believe.

As you said, I'm talking about Christians who accept science that contradicts the Bible. None of those things contradict the Bible, in fact we consider them God's blessings; But the sciences of the unrecorded past, Evolution and an Old Earth, do. No, it's guts, guts to defend the faith. You can have faith and keep it to yourself, but when you stick with the Bible in the teeth of the kind of arguments, ridicule and insults one gets here for instance, that's guts. So dwise can argue for Christians capitulating to Old Earth science and I can't answer him that to do so is not merely to reject Creation Science but the Bible itself as Bible-believing Christians see it? Why is that? Seems to me that all the defense of "fundie" Christianity I post on this thread is in response to this sort of assertion. I'm not allowed to disagree? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There's plenty of evidence of the global Flood, Phat, as I keep saying: the strata and the abundance of fossils cannot reasonably be explained by anything else.

I understand that it is persuasive but I think in the end it will be shown to be superficial and wrong, an illusion. Even so, I believe we are to hold onto what God has said no matter how much we are pulled toward such reasonings. "Let all men be liars but God be true" is scripture though I'd have to go look it up.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think most of it is just the effect of the influence of consensus: so many think this way I should think this way too. Or paradigm blindness: once you've learned to think in a certain pattern it is extremely hard to break it, and there is no motivation to break it: since such questions don't have much if any effect on the scientific work they do it isn't important to them to try to rethink it. And the reasoning does seem to be persuasive after all, even though I think if you spend time thinking it through it starts to break down logically.I suppose I'd also have to agree that there is the fundamental conspiracy of the devil against the human race that is always operating against the truth and keeping people blind, but except in the case of really hostile and diehard atheists I doubt it's a conscious motivation.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You fail to recognize that what you call the "real" geology of the strata and the fossils is what I've over and over pointed out is a screaming absurdity: the fossil contents made to represent things that once lived where that layer of sediment they are buried in now is, how impossible that is physically, how it's like reading tea leaves more than any kind of objective science. The evidence for sequential shallow seas is likewise open to better interpretations, a theory concocted out of a few circumstantial facts. And none of this can be tested to be confirmed or disconfirmed.

Not ignorance, dear Percy, rejection because they are nothing like the geological column. Lakebeds and seafloor are obviously not how the geological column formed, not to mention that to BE part of the geological column strata would have to deposit on the existing column and look exactly like the other strata, which are all the same in their physical characteristics except for the different sediments and different amounts. The strata are flat as a pancake, none of them has anything like the shape of lake bottom or seafloor. The flat and extremely extensive form of the strata all say "Flood."The Flood would have deposited any layering you like of whatever sediments were suspended in the water, there's no problem there.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The evidence A flood leaves, a local flood, would so obviously be different from what a worldwide Flood would leave it's a ridiculous comparison. THE Flood would have torn up the entire planet and rearranged all of it.

Open your eyes, that's all it takes to get what I'