River Jordan said:
If you take water from its lowest point and move it, it tends to return back to its lowest point. As I explained, if you try and use the water described in the OP to flood the surface of the earth, the space that the water took up either has to be replaced by something else, or the water will just run right back to its original location.
Which proves what, exactly???
What you guys are trying to do here is cover a cobblestone on a plate with only the water on the plate, even though every time you try and move the water over the rock, it just runs right back down to the plate.
You are the only one using that kind of analogy, possibly because it is totally warped. The earth is not a cobblestone that someone poured water on top of. The earth can expel water as well as absorb it WITHOUT the water returning to exactly the same location. Your argument is nothing more than desparate.
It is extremely good evidence against flood geology. Entire professional fields who have no allegiance one way or the other to any particular model, never, ever, ever use Biblical flood geology to discover and explore new sources of energy. Never. Instead they specifically use standard, mainstream, old earth, non-Biblical flood geology. If creationists truly think their model is better, why aren't they presenting them to these companies?
Really, you seem to be an expert in that particular field. So tell me, where is your evidence that they are adhering to an old earth model rather than a young earth one, and that it has led them to find oil and gas that they would not have found using a young earth model.
You also have completely failed to demonstrate how scientists interpretation of the natural world is equivalent to "God's revelation".
Are you avioding the question?
Because you can't significantly change the topology without necessary consequences, the main one being the generation of enough heat to boil off the oceans and atmosphere. Even some YEC's admit that.
We can't even agree on the physics involved in determining weather conditions prevailing today, and yet you seem to think that you have a "waterproof" argument against a flood that occurred thousands of years ago. Let me ask you, are these YEC's agreeing that a global flood was impossible? Who are they?
The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh pre-dates the Hebrew flood story. And if you want to argue that the Babylonian story is the historical one, I suggest you read it first.
It's funny how many atheistic and anti-biblical arguments you use and then just whine whenever anyone questions your faith.
To start with, there is absolutely NO conclusive evidence that the epic of Gilgamesh predates the Hebrew flood story, so right there you are trying to act like you are an authority on a subject that you obviously are not. What we DO know is that the PHYSICAL evidence of the Gilgamesh account, engraved on STONE, predates the PHYSICAL evidence of the Genesis acount, written on PARCHMENT! So right there you argument fails.
But even if we suppose that it did predate the Genesis accout, it still doesn't address my point. A tale that includes mythical accounts does not prevent it from containing a historical event. Contradictory assertions are welcome.
So yes or no...do you believe the Biblical flood is explainable in purely natural terms?
No, which is why I gave you the two points that I did. So what's your point? Does God's intervention mean that either of my points fail? I don't think it does.
How do you know what the scientific evidence is or isn't? Have you studied the science behind it? If so, what did you study? Because when I look through the scientific literature, go to conferences, talk to scientists, and do field work, I don't see any indication at all that your claim is correct. In fact, I see the exact opposite.
So maybe you can help me out here. If the scientific evidence is against me, as you say, can you please cite a scientific source for this claim?
Haha.. nice, but very pale try River. Here is my challenge to you, and it will be very interesting to see if you can meet it. Show me the "scientific" evidence that you have come across in your famous studies that refutes any of the following:
1. We have a planet covered in sediments.
2. fossils scattered all over the planet including on all the highest mountains ranges around the globe.
3. HUGE oil deposits exist.
4. HUGE deposits of coal exist.
5. fossils of dinosaurs and other creatures that indicate drowning exist.
6. accounts given by ancient cultures describe a flood.
These were the "claims" that I presented. Your respoinse was: "
I don't see any indication at all that your claim is correct
So where are your counter-arguments... based on science?
How many of the 6 claims listed above do you deny????
I have also asked you on several occasions to explain
why you think the beliefs of the scientific community are a better judge of what happened BEYOND what is testable, repeatable and observable than the biblical account. Unfortunately you have never provided a response to that question, other than ASSUME that it is so.. Not good my friend, not good...
All you have on your plate is the tiresome "well, most scientists believe it so why don't you?" kind of garbage...
Now let's take a look at what your claims are:
"The Biblical global flood as presented by creationists is not only not supported by the evidence, it is directly contradicted by it on a number of levels (geology, paleontology, biology, genetics)."
So rather than just dancing around pretending to be the voice of science, let's see how many of these claims YOU can defend. Where is the scientific evicence from:
1. Geology
2. Palentology
3. Biology, and
4. Genetics
.. that disprove a global flood?