Did the Flood really happen?

Would you say that the flood stories were parables and teachable moments? What was the motive of the stories being recorded?

Good point,. I'll never win this argument because though most apologists believe the Bible to be divinely inspired, I need to somehow defend the absolute idea of God found in its pages from the numerous other definitions of God, god, and GOD proposed by innumerable religions, philosophies and assertions. I think I will just stick to my basic arguments that I make in my own words as my understanding grows.

Even though I am a firm believer in a living God through Jesus Christ, I am not as sold on this whole mindset that defends Biblical Creationism. Critics will no doubt accuse me of nitpicking, but your Link from AnswersInGenesis is suspect because this ministry has been shown to be dishonest and exploitative of secular funds in furthering their ridiculous Biblical Ark theme park. Now to be fair, Mike...I wont claim so much arrogance as to write you (and Faith) off as delusional in regards to YEC. We all have essentially the same critics and the secular critics lambaste me as much as they do you guys. (in regards to my insistence that God is alive through Jesus and that we are in a Spiritual War)

MTW writes: nitpicking one or two examples then complaining, won't change the overall theme here which is that evolution is fiction.

Explain why the only "scientists" who see this obvious "evidence" which you mention see the picture differently than do the mainstream scientists? Are the mainstream scientists blinded by denial of the living God? Are the "creationist" scientists somehow enlightened by and through the Holy Spirit? We need answers in reality, not simply cut & pastes from Answers In Genesis.

Addressing the rest of you, and mindful of the fact that this is a science thread, I can only post yet again the basic reason that creationists never argue the position rationally:

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

Physical evidence should exist. We need to open a belief based thread to further discuss this stuff, since none of us (believers) can provide satisfactory evidence for our claims. Personally I label myself as a Cosmological Creationist in that I believe that God existed eternally before matter and energy. I have no physics-based proof of my claim and can only speculate inferentially and philosophically as to my World View.

I trust the Pastors who have this non-evidence based supernatural view, however. Ed Taylor is Aurora, Colorado is one of them.
Word Of Knowledge,Prt 1

You are correct, however Percy. This "word of knowledge" has no facts to back it up.

Science is very good at defining reality that can be tested. Science will never prove nor disprove God nor the Risen Christ because neither of them can be tested.At least not objectively, which is what you always insists should apply.

vimesey writes: Assertion. No evidence. Fail.

To be precise, the failure in this case is the failure to present a supportable science based challenge. Note that this is a science Forum.

Dad, please listen to moderation. If you stay here at EvC, you will get challenged and perhaps someday will challenge others as your arguments become more refined and you are able to make valid points. If you challenge authority (which is ungodly, by the way) you will simply get suspended and we will be at a loss for not having you around to challenge and refine *our* arguments.

ringo writes: Again, you do not get to define science. Nobody cares what you think science is.

Well actually some of us *do* care. After all, if you respond to us in a Science Forum, we expect you to respond scientifically rather than emotionally. Which is why I usually stay out of this side of the Forum.

ringo writes: Actually, they can. It isn't a definitive test but lack of evidence is a test. You accept that lack of evidence indicates non-existence of fairies, Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns, etc. don't you?

Yes but not on the grounds of lack of evidence. I reject them based on my belief.

And a hiding God is pretty lame theology too.

You dont get to define what does and does not *make* God lame. Keep these sorts of comments inj Faith & Belief. You also dont get to define evidence over the entire Forum. You best stick to the science side should you choose to throw that word around.

Lets move this discussion over here. Message 47

Computers are evidence that science gets results.

Computers do nothing but quantify numbers into a replicable value. If a value created by a machine counts as evidence, why not a philosophical value involving spoken words?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.