Evidence for God from Science

You're Right -- the upheaval happening, Because of the flood, Caused the various High mountains, valleys. The Grand Canyon is one example.

To know What to believe -- Easy -- just follow Scripture.

Jac3510 wrote:Audie! You don't DISbelieve. You just LACK belief. You know this.

Do you disbelieve the Book of Mormon? How 'bout gappery? Hydroplate theory?
Such a menu of strange creationust ideas to choose amomg. Against.

Well, since I'm a theist, I disbelieve those things. If I were one of those ridiculous "new atheists," I'd say I lack belief in them, obviously.

Jac3510 wrote:Well, since I'm a theist, I disbelieve those things. If I were one of those ridiculous "new atheists," I'd say I lack belief in them, obviously.

Whatevs. I hear so many incompatible versions of creationism / religion
but its not really hard to know what to disbelieve.

All of it.

How do you work it out, disbelieving all but one?

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Well, since I'm a theist, I disbelieve those things. If I were one of those ridiculous "new atheists," I'd say I lack belief in them, obviously.

Whatevs. I hear so many incompatible versions of creationism / religion
but its not really hard to know what to disbelieve.

All of it.

How do you work it out, disbelieving all but one?

I go by evidence and Occam's Razor to know which is the true one.You could do it too,ya know.We can't all be right.However I think by looking at everything exclusively from an evolution perspective you must consider that even you're wrong in the way you view things.Question everything,not just creationism or different interpretations.But I still don't know how you can remain content in your views by not knowing how or why the universe and the things in it exist and be content with not ever knowing.This should at least lead you to be a theist IMO.

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Well, since I'm a theist, I disbelieve those things. If I were one of those ridiculous "new atheists," I'd say I lack belief in them, obviously.

Whatevs. I hear so many incompatible versions of creationism / religion
but its not really hard to know what to disbelieve.

All of it.

How do you work it out, disbelieving all but one?

In fairness, I'm approaching things a little differently, so we're asking different questions. You are in the rather unenvious position of having all kinds of people coming at you with all kinds of interpretations of the Bible and insisting that those interpretations are consistent with modern science. So, for you, it's like playing wackamole. You explain why one view is wrong and someone else comes along with "the true interpretation" and tells you THAT is the one consistent with science, and you go back and forth and back and forth. And, of course, you never manage to convince people that their view is not consistent with science, and so everyone tells you that you are the one misunderstanding science, and conveniently, that from the perspective that they just happen to hold of their creation story (and so your sedi reference).

That's just not the way I'm approaching any of this. I bracket the science question out completely. I can already hear you rolling your eyes, but bear with me (I'd never ask you to bare with me ). My interest is in one question and only one question: what does the text say? Whoever wrote it (and in my view, that would be Moses)--what did he in mind? I figure we have to answer that question first, because what little I know about science I do know this: Moses didn't consult with Einstein, Guth, or Darwin when he wrote down the creation account. It strikes me as nothing less than disingenuous for us to start with science, go back to the Bible, invent an interpretation that is consistent with what scientists are saying, and then say triumphantly, "SEE THE BIBLE TEACHES SCIENTIFIC TRUTH!!!11!1!"

So when people here present their various models of various questions . . . local flood(s), global flood(s), day-age creationism, young earth creationism, 6-and-1 creationism, theistic evolution, gappery, and everything else under the sun, I don't ask any of those views, "Are you consistent with science?" So I don't play wackamole. I read the text of Genesis and say what the text says (of course, to the best of my understanding). So when someone says something that doesn't line up with how I've read the story, I say why.

In short, I disbelieve all those that don't say what the story says.

Now you want to know if my view is consistent with science. And I shrug my shoulders. I really want you to know that I am completely honest when I say that I don't know. I know the vast majority of scientists, both Christian and not, say it isn't. Some do. I really and truly and honestly do not consider myself qualified to even begin entertaining the question. I equally really and truly believe that if I were to go get a PhD in physics or geology or whatever that I could begin to answer it. But that isn't where my education is. And so I defer to my betters on that. I don't know your education on science, but I suspect it is better than mine. And so if you insist that the way I read Scripture is not consistent with science, then that's okay. I will still present my understanding as what the Bible says is true, and then we can ask other questions. If you have decided that the Bible is wrong on this point, then that's okay with me, too. But I would then go on and press you on the same questions I'm going to press my congregation when I preach tomorrow (it just so happens I'm teaching out of Genesis 6-9 . . . purely coincidence . . . I've been planning the message for about two months now). And I promise you, none of those questions have to do with whether or not the story is scientifically or historically accurate.

Now, there are stories in the Bible that are absolutely dependent upon such accuracy. The most obvious example is the resurrection of Jesus. And so if you told me that you disbelieved it in the same way you disbelieved in the global flood, I would offer a much more serious defense. But all of this? I won't say it isn't important, because it is. And it is very important, but it is very important in a different way than things like the historicity of the resurrection of Christ are (and no, my fellow G&S members, not simply because the Resurrection is a salvific issue). Genesis 1-11 makes a definitive contribution to theology--one of the most important contributions of all of Scripture--but that contribution is of a different sort (in my interpretation) than the resurrection, or the spread of the church in Acts, or of the rise of King David, etc.

Too many words, Audie, I know. The short version is just this: I'm only interested in what the text says and so what the author wants us to learn from it. I reject any and all views I do because they are not what the text positively says. So I don't reject gappery or any form of OEC because of science, and that whatever scientific implausibilities you or others demonstrate int hem. I reject them because they don't represent the biblical position.

That's how I do it, anyway.

edit:

And now, back to sanding my deck. This thing is huge--about 750sq ft, and I've got a 3x21 belt sander. I'll be doing this for several weekends. Pray for me!

crochet1949 wrote:You're Right -- the upheaval happening, Because of the flood, Caused the various High mountains, valleys. The Grand Canyon is one example.

To know What to believe -- Easy -- just follow Scripture.

I'm having a hard time finding in scripture, where it says the flood caused the mountains to form, and the Grand Canyon to form.

Perhaps you can post the bible verses that are so easy to follow.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Well, since I'm a theist, I disbelieve those things. If I were one of those ridiculous "new atheists," I'd say I lack belief in them, obviously.

Whatevs. I hear so many incompatible versions of creationism / religion
but its not really hard to know what to disbelieve.

All of it.

How do you work it out, disbelieving all but one?

In fairness, I'm approaching things a little differently, so we're asking different questions. You are in the rather unenvious position of having all kinds of people coming at you with all kinds of interpretations of the Bible and insisting that those interpretations are consistent with modern science. So, for you, it's like playing wackamole. You explain why one view is wrong and someone else comes along with "the true interpretation" and tells you THAT is the one consistent with science, and you go back and forth and back and forth. And, of course, you never manage to convince people that their view is not consistent with science, and so everyone tells you that you are the one misunderstanding science, and conveniently, that from the perspective that they just happen to hold of their creation story (and so your sedi reference).

That's just not the way I'm approaching any of this. I bracket the science question out completely. I can already hear you rolling your eyes, but bear with me (I'd never ask you to bare with me ). My interest is in one question and only one question: what does the text say? Whoever wrote it (and in my view, that would be Moses)--what did he in mind? I figure we have to answer that question first, because what little I know about science I do know this: Moses didn't consult with Einstein, Guth, or Darwin when he wrote down the creation account. It strikes me as nothing less than disingenuous for us to start with science, go back to the Bible, invent an interpretation that is consistent with what scientists are saying, and then say triumphantly, "SEE THE BIBLE TEACHES SCIENTIFIC TRUTH!!!11!1!"

So when people here present their various models of various questions . . . local flood(s), global flood(s), day-age creationism, young earth creationism, 6-and-1 creationism, theistic evolution, gappery, and everything else under the sun, I don't ask any of those views, "Are you consistent with science?" So I don't play wackamole. I read the text of Genesis and say what the text says (of course, to the best of my understanding). So when someone says something that doesn't line up with how I've read the story, I say why.

In short, I disbelieve all those that don't say what the story says.

Now you want to know if my view is consistent with science. And I shrug my shoulders. I really want you to know that I am completely honest when I say that I don't know. I know the vast majority of scientists, both Christian and not, say it isn't. Some do. I really and truly and honestly do not consider myself qualified to even begin entertaining the question. I equally really and truly believe that if I were to go get a PhD in physics or geology or whatever that I could begin to answer it. But that isn't where my education is. And so I defer to my betters on that. I don't know your education on science, but I suspect it is better than mine. And so if you insist that the way I read Scripture is not consistent with science, then that's okay. I will still present my understanding as what the Bible says is true, and then we can ask other questions. If you have decided that the Bible is wrong on this point, then that's okay with me, too. But I would then go on and press you on the same questions I'm going to press my congregation when I preach tomorrow (it just so happens I'm teaching out of Genesis 6-9 . . . purely coincidence . . . I've been planning the message for about two months now). And I promise you, none of those questions have to do with whether or not the story is scientifically or historically accurate.

Now, there are stories in the Bible that are absolutely dependent upon such accuracy. The most obvious example is the resurrection of Jesus. And so if you told me that you disbelieved it in the same way you disbelieved in the global flood, I would offer a much more serious defense. But all of this? I won't say it isn't important, because it is. And it is very important, but it is very important in a different way than things like the historicity of the resurrection of Christ are (and no, my fellow G&S members, not simply because the Resurrection is a salvific issue). Genesis 1-11 makes a definitive contribution to theology--one of the most important contributions of all of Scripture--but that contribution is of a different sort (in my interpretation) than the resurrection, or the spread of the church in Acts, or of the rise of King David, etc.

Too many words, Audie, I know. The short version is just this: I'm only interested in what the text says and so what the author wants us to learn from it. I reject any and all views I do because they are not what the text positively says. So I don't reject gappery or any form of OEC because of science, and that whatever scientific implausibilities you or others demonstrate int hem. I reject them because they don't represent the biblical position.

That's how I do it, anyway.

edit:

And now, back to sanding my deck. This thing is huge--about 750sq ft, and I've got a 3x21 belt sander. I'll be doing this for several weekends. Pray for me!

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Audie wrote:

Jac, as you know I took my own (sweet, of course) time in learning to start appreciating you.

I read this over twice, second time just to savour it.

I do truly and deeply appreciate the thought effort you put into this, not
least because it lets (used as in "without let or hindrance" ) me cross examine
myself. As a rule comments as from say, abe or phil are so wide the mark, they speak of/to
a person existing only in their imagination.

You missed on one tho- no eye roll. I learned more respect for you than to do that.
Tnx again.
its me, Min

PS sizable desk. What kind of wood?

RickD wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:You're Right -- the upheaval happening, Because of the flood, Caused the various High mountains, valleys. The Grand Canyon is one example.

To know What to believe -- Easy -- just follow Scripture.

I'm having a hard time finding in scripture, where it says the flood caused the mountains to form, and the Grand Canyon to form.

Perhaps you can post the bible verses that are so easy to follow.

I followed but got mixed up. Is Jesus a lamb or a door?

That which I'm suggesting regarding the terrain of the earth -- mountains for instance. Before the flood -- the mountains were only 15 cubits high. We all know that flood waters result in / can cause a great deal of damage as the waters rise and then recede. Genesis says that waters came up out of the deep and from the rain. So the earth was basically churned up -- everything was mixed around and resettled as the waters receded. So - we end up With features such as the Grand Canyon. Just saying that the world we have Now is very different than what it Had been.
Reading Genesis -- we may Not Understand the how's / why's -- but the facts are there to accept as God's Word. God, through the Holy Spirit, told the various writers of the books exactly what to write -- Moses is the accepted writer -- so he wrote down / passed on to others exactly what he was told to.

Audie -- in the New Testament Jesus is a real person And the Son of God. He is referred to as the Perfect Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the people of the world.
Don't know that He is referred to as a Door. There Is a passage that says that He stands at the door and knocks -- We need to open the 'door' of our hearts and let Him in. It's figurative / not literal.
Snicker all you want to -- cause I can almost hear you doing that.

Jac3510 wrote:

Audie wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:Well, since I'm a theist, I disbelieve those things. If I were one of those ridiculous "new atheists," I'd say I lack belief in them, obviously.

Whatevs. I hear so many incompatible versions of creationism / religion
but its not really hard to know what to disbelieve.

All of it.

How do you work it out, disbelieving all but one?

In fairness, I'm approaching things a little differently, so we're asking different questions. You are in the rather unenvious position of having all kinds of people coming at you with all kinds of interpretations of the Bible and insisting that those interpretations are consistent with modern science. So, for you, it's like playing wackamole. You explain why one view is wrong and someone else comes along with "the true interpretation" and tells you THAT is the one consistent with science, and you go back and forth and back and forth. And, of course, you never manage to convince people that their view is not consistent with science, and so everyone tells you that you are the one misunderstanding science, and conveniently, that from the perspective that they just happen to hold of their creation story (and so your sedi reference).

That's just not the way I'm approaching any of this. I bracket the science question out completely. I can already hear you rolling your eyes, but bear with me (I'd never ask you to bare with me ). My interest is in one question and only one question: what does the text say? Whoever wrote it (and in my view, that would be Moses)--what did he in mind? I figure we have to answer that question first, because what little I know about science I do know this: Moses didn't consult with Einstein, Guth, or Darwin when he wrote down the creation account. It strikes me as nothing less than disingenuous for us to start with science, go back to the Bible, invent an interpretation that is consistent with what scientists are saying, and then say triumphantly, "SEE THE BIBLE TEACHES SCIENTIFIC TRUTH!!!11!1!"

So when people here present their various models of various questions . . . local flood(s), global flood(s), day-age creationism, young earth creationism, 6-and-1 creationism, theistic evolution, gappery, and everything else under the sun, I don't ask any of those views, "Are you consistent with science?" So I don't play wackamole. I read the text of Genesis and say what the text says (of course, to the best of my understanding). So when someone says something that doesn't line up with how I've read the story, I say why.

In short, I disbelieve all those that don't say what the story says.

Now you want to know if my view is consistent with science. And I shrug my shoulders. I really want you to know that I am completely honest when I say that I don't know. I know the vast majority of scientists, both Christian and not, say it isn't. Some do. I really and truly and honestly do not consider myself qualified to even begin entertaining the question. I equally really and truly believe that if I were to go get a PhD in physics or geology or whatever that I could begin to answer it. But that isn't where my education is. And so I defer to my betters on that. I don't know your education on science, but I suspect it is better than mine. And so if you insist that the way I read Scripture is not consistent with science, then that's okay. I will still present my understanding as what the Bible says is true, and then we can ask other questions. If you have decided that the Bible is wrong on this point, then that's okay with me, too. But I would then go on and press you on the same questions I'm going to press my congregation when I preach tomorrow (it just so happens I'm teaching out of Genesis 6-9 . . . purely coincidence . . . I've been planning the message for about two months now). And I promise you, none of those questions have to do with whether or not the story is scientifically or historically accurate.

Now, there are stories in the Bible that are absolutely dependent upon such accuracy. The most obvious example is the resurrection of Jesus. And so if you told me that you disbelieved it in the same way you disbelieved in the global flood, I would offer a much more serious defense. But all of this? I won't say it isn't important, because it is. And it is very important, but it is very important in a different way than things like the historicity of the resurrection of Christ are (and no, my fellow G&S members, not simply because the Resurrection is a salvific issue). Genesis 1-11 makes a definitive contribution to theology--one of the most important contributions of all of Scripture--but that contribution is of a different sort (in my interpretation) than the resurrection, or the spread of the church in Acts, or of the rise of King David, etc.

Too many words, Audie, I know. The short version is just this: I'm only interested in what the text says and so what the author wants us to learn from it. I reject any and all views I do because they are not what the text positively says. So I don't reject gappery or any form of OEC because of science, and that whatever scientific implausibilities you or others demonstrate int hem. I reject them because they don't represent the biblical position.

That's how I do it, anyway.

edit:

And now, back to sanding my deck. This thing is huge--about 750sq ft, and I've got a 3x21 belt sander. I'll be doing this for several weekends. Pray for me!

Jac,this is fair to honestly just try to go by what the text says,not knowing much about science and I think most Christians do this.I come at this from a different approach and I too try to go by what God's word says first but then I want to try to find evidence that confirmed what the bible says.I believe that there are many examples of things that have been discovered over time that have confirmed things the bible said.I believe God's word is true and because it is true there are things discovered that confirm its truthfulness.This happens over time and more is revealed over time.Our faith is not blind faith.You may not use science but you can use philosophy to make your case,while we are using science to try to show how the word of God is true.

As far as the different creation interpretations I can't speak for all but I have taken the time to look into them.I used to be a young earth creationist so I already have a good understanding of how they interpret the bible in order to claim the earth is young.I understand and know how they interpret it to come to that conclusion and it has a big advantage over the other interpretations because it has became so popular.However in order for it to be the right interpretation Genesis 1:1 would need to say "In the beginning God said let there be a heaven and earth" but it does not say this,so YEC's have to make Genesis 1:1-3 all apart of the first day in order to interpret it like they do.

I too thought the Gap Theory was crazy when I first heard about it but as I looked into it I started realizing that what YEC's say about it are out right lies and wrong.It is one thing to disagree with it but it is wrong to say things against the Gap Theory that are not true.But it hurt YEC's credibility when I looked into Gap Creationism and discovered it was true and what YEC's were saying about it was wrong. I know that whether YEC's accept the Gap Theory or not it is a out right lie to claim it was made up to accommodate science and evolution because it has been around pretty much always in the church and even Judaism too. But then I started realizing how science ties into it and it confirmed its truthfulness that much more for me.

Me and you have had a few discussions about it and even though you can't stand it you failed to show why it is wrong biblically.If you had genuinely showed me how and why it is wrong I would have dropped it,but you give your opinion too much about it and you base your dislike of it over if it is really true biblically or not.Unlike I feel you do, I could careless what my opinions or feelings about it are and even yours and I only care about what the bible says and I let it do the talking.You won't convince it is wrong by just saying it is ridiculous,or no Hebrew scholar today accepts it,etc.Instead it will be based on how you can show biblically why your interpretation is true and why the Gap Theory is wrong biblically and if you honestly cannot do it,then it is probably you that needs to change your mind and not me.We cannot just go on our gut feelings about it.If it is true like I believe it is then it is you that needs to reconsider the way you interpret the bible.

[quote="crochet1949"]That which I'm suggesting regarding the terrain of the earth -- mountains for instance. Before the flood -- the mountains were only 15 cubits high. We all know that flood waters result in / can cause a great deal of damage as the waters rise and then recede. Genesis says that waters came up out of the deep and from the rain. So the earth was basically churned up -- everything was mixed around and resettled as the waters receded. So - we end up With features such as the Grand Canyon. Just saying that the world we have

Crochet,I too believe in a global flood in Noah's flood also however the scientific understanding you have as you try to explain what Noah's flood caused is not the proper way to give evidence for it.The truth is it is not easy to confirm a global flood happened using geology.I don't believe it can be proven 100% it happened,it is one of them biblical things we must just believe by faith mostly.

This does not mean there is no evidence,there is but it is different from the way you are trying to make a case for a global flood. Now there are those who believe in a local flood and they explain their case well.I think that Gap creationists make a much better case for a global flood than young earth creationists have.I'm not saying it proves it but it is a much better explanation for a global flood from a much more true scientific perspective,even if it does not prove it.If you would like to look into it I can give you some links that might help however it is a Gap creationist making a case for a global flood..I mean it might not change those minds who have accepted a local flood but atleast you might can learn how to make a better case for a global flood. I'm not trying to be offensive to you because I like you.I kinda see you as the Christian fire cracker on here,meant in a good way.

crochet1949 wrote:That which I'm suggesting regarding the terrain of the earth -- mountains for instance. Before the flood -- the mountains were only 15 cubits high. We all know that flood waters result in / can cause a great deal of damage as the waters rise and then recede. Genesis says that waters came up out of the deep and from the rain. So the earth was basically churned up -- everything was mixed around and resettled as the waters receded. So - we end up With features such as the Grand Canyon. Just saying that the world we have Now is very different than what it Had been.
Reading Genesis -- we may Not Understand the how's / why's -- but the facts are there to accept as God's Word. God, through the Holy Spirit, told the various writers of the books exactly what to write -- Moses is the accepted writer -- so he wrote down / passed on to others exactly what he was told to.

Audie -- in the New Testament Jesus is a real person And the Son of God. He is referred to as the Perfect Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the people of the world.
Don't know that He is referred to as a Door. There Is a passage that says that He stands at the door and knocks -- We need to open the 'door' of our hearts and let Him in. It's figurative / not literal.
Snicker all you want to -- cause I can almost hear you doing that.

What you hear, and I say this as a friend, is the echo of your own preconceptions,
your very understandable effort to package this asian atheist into a framework you
can understand.

Jac did the same, thinking I'd roll my eyes at his comments.
Abe gets it so wrong he is in the wrong galaxy. Its ok; I do not
expect or assume you'd know what my layers are.

Jesus refers to himself as a door, as a gate.
I, like Satan, know the bible better than most Christians.

But that isnt the point. I said that about lamb or door to address the
literal-or-lie mentality that so harms all who hold to it. I see you too
see the absurdity of it, but of course, see yawning ahead the slippery slope.

Where to pour sand on the slide, and halt the plunge into seeing allegory, myth and
metaphor in all of it?

Few, I suspect, are really up to the intellectual rigours and
the surrender of comforting illusions that is in store.
Far easier to just say, "I believe God's Word" and shut down the
small silent voice. Of course, there is a price to pay for doinv
that, going that route.

I wonder if you or others have thought about the baggage of
that position, or the price you pay?

On grand canyon and flood, that is of course an easy thing to say.
Then back it up as "God's Word", calling his name in vain.

For lo, how it may look at a glance ( like the stick, seen at a glance, on closer look
proves to be a serpent) and what it is are not at all the same.

One could delve into the various undeniable proofs that it is
not the product a one time event, but let me offer an analogy in place of
research papers. Or photos of structures, as you do not know
what an unconformity is, or what crossbedding is.

So analogy:
College students rent a house, and party all year.

They never clean up. Food wrappers, bottles, cans, cigarette butts,
discarded clothing, all the horrible detritus of such behaviour
accumulates in deep rotting residue all the year.

The landlord, appalled, sues them for the damage.

Their defense? It was clean when they moved out!

Someone must have broken in and had a big one night party!

You are the landlord. How do you propose to go about
showing that this did not happen in a day?

Audie
Why on earth would you compare yourself to satan. You put yourself as knowing the Bible better than Most Christians. I hardly think so. The demons Tremble at the Scriptures -- because They know what Their end will be. They have No Choice in the matter of Their eternal destination. Everyone Else Does. Including You.
You Are very intelligent and have read the KJV a couple of times. So have LOTS of people.

I looked up 'door' in the concordance of my Bible -- Should have done that earlier. John 10:9 is one reference " I am the door, If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture." vs 10 " The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy, I have come that they may have Life, and that they may have it more abundantly."
This section of John is the Great "I Am "'s of Christ. A wonderful passage.

Jesus as the " Gate " -- Matthew 7:13 "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go by it; because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."
This verse is saying that there are two 'gates' to eternity -- one is Jesus Christ -- His 'way' / 'gate' / is Not to be considered an easy way of life. But accepting Jesus Christ's way WILL result in inner peace -- forgiveness of our sins -- a place in Heaven for all eternity. And there's a Lot to be said for 'inner peace' in our lives.
The rest of the verse is saying that the 'gate' that Lots of people Do find Much easier is the one that leads to a much worse outcome for Ever -- a place in hell. God's Word tells us that hell isn't anything to laugh about. It Will exist and will be an Agony for those who end up there.
The 'literal or lie or die' mentality? Not sure which you are meaning. 'Lie or Die'? I Think you mean 'literal or die' mentality. As a person reads various parts of Scripture -- it's fairly obvious what is to be understood in a literal way and what is symbolic / figurative in nature.
Lots of people would Rather discredit the contents of God's Word than take it seriously and be held responsible for their actions by God and live with the consequences for all eternity.
But, No, I'm Not seeing any absurdity of Anything. All I was saying is that Because Jesus Christ Is the Son of God -- that He Is the 'good shepherd ' , 'the bread of life', 'the living water'.
A person CAN decide to lump the entire Bible / God's Word into mythology, or allegory , or metaphor And be Very Wrong.
As I read the rest of your comments -- I haven't a clue as to how to respond back. The Holy Spirit is the One who works in each person.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

crochet1949 wrote:That which I'm suggesting regarding the terrain of the earth -- mountains for instance. Before the flood -- the mountains were only 15 cubits high. We all know that flood waters result in / can cause a great deal of damage as the waters rise and then recede. Genesis says that waters came up out of the deep and from the rain. So the earth was basically churned up -- everything was mixed around and resettled as the waters receded. So - we end up With features such as the Grand Canyon. Just saying that the world we have

Crochet,I too believe in a global flood in Noah's flood also however the scientific understanding you have as you try to explain what Noah's flood caused is not the proper way to give evidence for it.The truth is it is not easy to confirm a global flood happened using geology.I don't believe it can be proven 100% it happened,it is one of them biblical things we must just believe by faith mostly.

This does not mean there is no evidence,there is but it is different from the way you are trying to make a case for a global flood. Now there are those who believe in a local flood and they explain their case well.I think that Gap creationists make a much better case for a global flood than young earth creationists have.I'm not saying it proves it but it is a much better explanation for a global flood from a much more true scientific perspective,even if it does not prove it.If you would like to look into it I can give you some links that might help however it is a Gap creationist making a case for a global flood..I mean it might not change those minds who have accepted a local flood but atleast you might can learn how to make a better case for a global flood. I'm not trying to be offensive to you because I like you.I kinda see you as the Christian fire cracker on here,meant in a good way.

ACB -- your comments are appreciated. Share those links, please.