Why was a flood needed?

quote:

---

'Science is ALLOWED and SUPPOSED to change when new data and evidence are presented or discovered. Why can't you understand that? '
Let me make this clear , what you have just said proves to me evo's will misenterperate evidence according to their theory , why dont you be honest and just admitt it!

---

This is one of the big lies of young earth creationism. There are reasonable interpretations and totally absurd twistings. YECs are forced to go through totally absurd twisting to try to explain the world's geology, paleontology and biogeography in terms of a worldwide flood they they still fail. The whole claim is easily falsified by the FACT that the people who first discovered that there never was a worldwide flood were NOT evos. They were creationists. They first tried to misinterpret their evidence to fit their preconceptions but were finally intellectually honest enough to realize that it could not be done and they changed their interpretation of scripture rather than pervert science by continually trying to twist the data to fit to an event that clearly never happened.Randy

well you wont find me twisting scripture as a result of mans dabblings , as for all these scientific names they dont scare me, as God told me 'do not be dismayed or they will confound you'.

'This is one of the big lies of young earth creationism. T'here are reasonable interpretations and totally absurd twistings.'but nothing will beat the figure i seen of neanderthal man compared to the actual fleshing done by proper scientists.

quote:

---

do you know if you shaved bathed and clothed neanderthal man you would not look at him any differently in the street from another person.neanderthal man is a man . he suffered arthriris and ricets because of the cold , he had a slightly prominent forehead like an aboriginee does, he is in no way proof of evolution.
as for lucy she was an ape and i'm pretty certain the rest of he finds are aswell!

---

So which of the grandsons of Noah gave rise to neanderthals? I think this stuff about arthritis and rickets is nonsense. I was born with rickets but I doubt anyone would mistake me for a neanderthal. I think there are some DNA studies that show that neanderthals were pretty different as well. Maybe someone has some more up-to-date references but I think it should be discussed on another thread.You might ask yourself why some hominid fossils are identified as ape by one creationist and human by another. I seem to recall that one creationist even identified different specimens of the same fossil as one being ape and the other human but I could be wrong. I'll look around for documentation when I get time.However, whether humans and apes descended from a common ancestor or not is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The worldwide flood was falsified before Darwin and many of the falsifications do not depend on evolutionary theory in any way.Randy

Thread moved here from the Geology and the Great Flood forum.SEE MESSAGE SUBJECT!!!My non-admin mode previously started a simular topic, "Assuming the flood was real"I thought of, and should have moved this topic when it was first started. Perhaps we need to take the "and the Great Flood" out of the "Geology and the Great Flood" forum title.Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-10-2003]

'The worldwide flood was falsified before Darwin and many of the falsifications do not depend on evolutionary theory in any way.'but even Darwin thought the fossils were a problem before his evo theory which is FALSE .'So which of the grandsons of Noah gave rise to neanderthals'remember Easu (hope i spelled it right) neanderthal man is no more difficult to explain as aboriginees because they are human.as for rickets i will concede to you on that as you have suffered from it.but he was never an ape.

quote:

---

but even Darwin thought the fossils were a problem before his evo theory which is FALSE .

---

You are guilty of the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. The validity or not of evolutionary theory has nothing to with the fact that the worldwide flood of Noah was falsified over and over long ago. Whatever problem the fossils may or may not present for evolutionary theory the fossil record clearly falsifies young earth creationism. Creationist geologists realized this nearly 200 years ago and every bit of data that has been collected since confirms their conclusions.Randy

however i have still heard nothing which is plausible for disproving
a young earth and you have indeed failed to show the evidence that can be absolutely conclusive 'they've known that for years now' will not do as i am not phased by it.

mike the wiz:

quote:

---

well lets see then (i've noticed the avoidance of neanderthal man)laterites are caused by weathering and i am sure that the 40 days and nights of rain are sufficient.rain drops ? isn't that one a bit obvious? fossilised lizard tracks , what about it? sorry this does not prove or disprove anything! now answer me , are not evo's liars when it comes to neanderthal man.

---

Yes, laterites are the result of weathering, however, you cannot form a laterite in 40 days no matter how heavy the rain or how sure you are. At least not laterites that are 100 meters thick and buried under thousands feet of a myriad of sediment types.Mike, you are not understanding my point, so I will clarify. I'm talking about laterites, fossilized mud cracks and raindrops, and sand dunes located within the geologic record - NOT AT THE EARTH'S SURFACE OR AT THE BOTTOM OF THE GEOLOGIC RECORD. You are saying the flood deposited most of the geologic record. I am saying there are evaporites, laterites, sand dunes with fossilized land animal tracks, all things that require extensive exposure to air, all THROUGHOUT the entire geologic record. WITHIN sediment that is supposed to have all been deposited by water. Now how do you explain that?Oh, and yes, I am avoiding the Neanderthal issue for the most part simply because it is not my particular field of expertise, though I do almost have a minor in physical anthropology. Just a little quirk of mine.

Hi Mike,When you discuss Darwin's problem with the fossil record, are you referring to this quote, commonly found on creation websites? Does your sourse also supply the next part of that quote? Darwin wrote his tome 150 years ago and made many predictions concerning fossils that would need to be found to validate his theory.

1. Predicted that in pre-Silurian rocks one should find precursors to trilobites they were found
2. suggested that the (at that time) lack of precambrian fossils would be a valid arguement to his theory and predicted that these fossils would be found. they were discovered starting almost 100 years after Darwin wrote on this
3. I won't go on in this list as it is very nicely set out here
   

You stated on post 47 of this thread: this is the only thing I seem to agree with you on....you DO seem confounded.------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

You seem to be missing the point. The Bible was written by men, and it is being interpreted by men.The earth and universe, on the other hand, were writ by God, and are being interpreted by men.Both are interpreted by men, so we can drop that common element. Why do you accept the words of men in the Bible over the word of God in the universe?--Percy

Well put Percy!

---

There is an interesting and (I think) humorous story on the web that very succinctly shows the type of circular reasoning, and reliance on man's word as the word of God, that is employed by biblical literalists.I won't post the story or link here, as I'm sure some will find it offensive, but it can be found easily by those who wish. Google for "kissing hank's a*s".Those who are offended by the implications of the title in regards to a literal reading of man's fallible word in the Bible need not search for the story, as I assure you, if the title offends you the story will also.------------------
Asgara"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

'his is the only thing I seem to agree with you on....you DO seem confounded. 'however you forget i am not dismayed ,thanks to people like Ken Ham and Howard Conder and Creation Evidence Museum of Texas. you can say your right and i'm wrong all day but i am not surprised nor confounded because i too have a mind to interprate with.'When you discuss Darwin's problem with the fossil record, are you referring to this quote,'no, i am referring to the total lack of evidence that suggests proof of evolution.and guess what you can bring a whole team of scientists down here if you want i am NOT phased.

'Why do you accept the words of men in the Bible over the word of God in the universe?'i accept the word of God in the universe as in the word .As in the word it says he stretched forth the heavens. i find no fault in the bible but i do find fault with mens interpretation of scientific data.im still punchin!

SEE THE TOPIC TITLE!SEE THE FIRST PAGE OF THE TOPIC!This one's close to getting closed.Adminnemooseus------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads