Why was a flood needed?

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who believes in God in this day and age. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who has to believe that God doesn't always do things in the way that would appear to make the most sense, and then ask yourself your question.I think you can more or less anticipate the response of biblical literalists on this. As for the rest of us, why wonder about a fictional story? What use is it to wonder why Jerry Renault doesn't just sell the chocolates? What use is it to wonder why Guinevere and Lancelot can't keep it in their pants for the sake of the kingdom? What use is it to wonder why they always go through the door in slasher movies, despite how often we tell them not to?It's fiction, it doesn't have to make sense.

I'm sure you're intending a gentle rib, here, but I'll let Randy speak for me on this, from an old thread:

quote:

---

So Fred again says that evolution is a fairy tale. Hmm. What are some things we might find in fairy tales?

​

Fairytales often have talking animals like perhaps a talking snake? Does evolution say that a snake could talk? Or is that a claim from Biblical literalists like Fred?

​

How about Sons of God mating with daughters of men to produce giants in the earth? Is that a claim of science or is it found in the Bible? Sounds like a fairytale to me.

​

How about a person changing into something like stone or maybe a pillar of salt? I don’t remember reading about this happening in a science textbook but you find similar themes in many fairytales.

​

How about people living to great ages? Does evolution say that people used to live 6 or even 9 hundred years or is that fairy tale found somewhere else?

​

How about someone surviving in the belly of a whale or was it a great fish? I remember seeing something like that in some Disney movie on a fairytale and reading about Jonah in the Bible but I don’t think you’ll find it in a biology text.

​

How about someone stopping the sun? I don't think any science text says that such a thing could happen but it could happen in a fairytale.

​

How about representatives of all the animals on earth going to one place two by two to get on a boat for a yearlong ride with a 600 year old man and his family and then repopulating the entire earth? That sure sounds like a fairy tale to me.

​

So just try to keep straight who is really pushing the fairytales around here.

---

Couldn't have said it better myself.

What does that statement have to do with evolution?

That's because the water is still on Mars, in the form of ice, at the poles. We can totally see it. We can make very good guesses about how much is there, and what it would do if it all melted. yes, but not nearly enough to have covered all the mountains and stuff, nor enough to have suspended all the sediment represented by the geologic column, all at once.Look, when you're talking about a worldwide flood that deposited all the geologic sediment we observe, you're talking about a minimum volume of water. That volume just doesn't exist on this planet. So, if it was here, where did it go?

When the first part of his website contains miscomprehensions like this:

quote:

---

Evolution is a theory, and is not part of science, or what we can observe.

---

And proceeds to opine thusly:

quote:

---

Evolution is actually a dangerous belief. It is a religion that offers no hope. If you believe in evolution, then there is no life after death. There is no purpose to living.

---

Then any credibility he might have had, in terms of presenting objective evidence in a scientific way, is totally lost.He even cites Hovind as one of his sources. That's the equivalent of me citing people like Fleichman and Pons (the cold fusion guys) in support of my position and then expecting to be taken seriously.If he was serious about science he'd stay away from Hovind. Most creationists won't even touch him. (Look at Answers in Genesis .) Honestly, Mike, as I look around that page I don't find anything I haven't seen refuted here a hundred times. He doesn't even cite primary sources for most of his data; he just quotes out of other creationist books.As far as I can tell, he's not dishing facts - he's dishing misinformation right out of creationist literature.