We just correct the lies, duplicity, and misrepresentations that permeate creationist organizations. Believing the Bible, whatever the interpretation, is not the same as cooking up pseudoscience. Just believe your dogma if you wish. But if you are going to shove out movies and articles which are consciously contrived to mislead people, then integrity demands that those falsehoods be held to account. That is a matter of faithfulness to the commandment to not bear false witness.
Dear Ron,
you again prove the point right here, that you are hostile to those of us that believe the Bible as it is plainly written to mean what it so plainly states.
Once again you do NOT say what the alleged “lies, duplicity, and misrepresentations” are, you like some others I have witnessed on this website, are very quick to make these blanket negative and shameful statements about Honest, Faithful, Christian Organisations and very well respected published eminent scientists who love the Truth, love Justice, love Righteousness and most of all love Jesus, BUT you do NOT list them. What are they?
It is not I who is being sanctimonious here!
I have merely stated the unambiguous accurate fact that, “I do not understand why so many on this site, brothers and sisters in Christ, are so vehemently hostile to those of us that believe the Bible as it is plainly written to mean what it so plainly states.”
It is indeed unfortunate that you have such a hostile negative attitude, towards other Christians who do not hold to the same beliefs as you do, regarding origins and creation of life on Earth and origin of death, which as a disastrous consequence of your differing beliefs about those important matters, the Gospel of the Lord Jesus’ redemptive work on the cross at Calvary for us all is undermined by evolutionary religious dogma that puts “the last enemy” death before sin; in a word such a belief is ‘un-Biblical’.
Our God, who is our Creator, our Lord and our Saviour is our Redeemer from sin and its consequence of separation from Him for eternity.
Our Lord and Creator is NOT incompetent in anything that He does and that absolutely includes the amazingly brilliant act of Creation!
Jesus is the Creator, therefore please just STOP and read the Gospels of the New Testament.
When doing so, please consider how Jesus performed the many miracles described in the Gospels.
He spoke and it was immediately so!
Remember Jesus is the Creator.
He spoke and it was so, immediately!
There is no difference between the way we are reliably told how Jesus performed the miracles and how He created. In all cases it was immediate. Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention or even reference to billions of years, that whole construct is a man-made fallacy that dominates the ‘world’ of western culture in this age of increasing darkness!
The belief that He spoke and then we wait billions of years is utter madness, that puts death before sin, that contradicts everything the Lord God tells us in the Bible about the creation, sin and death, and as a consequence damages the Gospel of Redemption by our Kinsman Redeemer Jesus in both the Old and New Testaments.
This is a matter of Life and Death for many souls, it is NOT some petty argument.
What is occurring on this website does indeed have eternal consequences.
I plead with you to please stop and take a deep breath and a long hard look at the numerous explanations that you and others of the same belief must employ, to construct a coherent edifice that accommodates unwavering faith of incorporating evolution into the Bible.
From where I stand as a born again Christian of sound mind who believes in faith that the Holy Bible is ever so clearly and plainly written, to be trustworthy and true, it is not I, or the Honest, Trustworthy, God fearing Creation Organisation of Creation Ministries International (CMI) that is bearing false witness here.
Our Lord and Saviour, Our Redeemer, Jesus of Nazareth, the Son, who is God, with the Father and Holy Spirit, the One and Only Living God. He who died on the cross for us all, sees all that is written and done on this website. He knows our hearts, yet He still Loves us ALL; it is He that knows who is bearing false witness.
God bless you Ron,
Your brother in Jesus Christ our Lord,
jon
Hi Tim,
thanks for you response.
It would help considerably if you stated precisely what the alleged, “deceptive claims and bad logic” are.
again, it would help considerably if you stated precisely what the alleged, “logical fallacies, bad arguments, and slander” are.
You say you will provide some examples, but again, you do NOT state precisely what the alleged, false dichotomies are other than a broad description, “like atheistic usage of a caricature of evolution as a philosophy being the only alternative to YEC” , so what exactly is it?
or
“generalisations”, other than, “like using atheists with bad philosophy to argue against evolution” so what is it precisely?
or
“circular reasoning”, other than, ““we’re right because our position is the correct one” so what is actually stated in the film that makes you think this?
or
“propaganda techniques, like preferentially citing people whose philosophy is bad as examples of those who affirm evolution)”, so what people, what bad philosophy, what do you believe is a correct one?
or
the, " at least half a dozen other types that I’m not remembering." What are they?
You state, “the claims that mutations don’t produce new information,” so what mutations do you believe are examples of mutations that produce new complex information of the type that is absolutely required for evolution in the microbes to mankind sense? That is, new information of upward complexity that codes for new features in the ascension from an alleged single celled life form to the biodiversity we see and ultimately mankind that is necessary if evolution were a real process.
I don’t think anyone has ever stated that ALL mutations are harmful, it is known that on extremely rare occasions a damaging mutation may confer a positive or beneficial advantage to an individual in certain circumstances, however when those certain circumstances are removed, it is clear that the vast majority if not all, of those mutation situations are less fit than their unmutated peers.
If you disagree, what examples of mutations that produce new information of the type that is required for evolution in the microbes to mankind sense do you offer in support of your accusation?
“that random processes do not make information,” so what is actually stated in the film that has you make this accusation? Be specific!
“that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are fudge factors,” well as far as I am concerned, to have the belief that Cosmologists tell us we live in a universe filled with invisible, unobserved stuff—74% dark energy and 22% dark matter. … 96% of the stuff in the universe that we have never seen, conveniently because its invisible, and never observed in any way whatsoever, sounds very much like a fudge factor to me, designed to prop up belief in the Big Bang myth to account for the severe lack of stuff in the universe that belief in the Big Bang equations requires.
If you want to read more on this subject, I can recommend an article by Physicist Dr John Hartnett:
"that redshift differences among angularly associated objects are a problem" but there most definitely is a problem with the belief that High Redshift objects are distant and Low Redshift objects are nearby, when we (such as US Astronomer Halton Arp), have discovered High Redshift Quasars physically associated with nearby Low Redshift Galaxies such as the example provided in the Honest, Truthful Christian documentary “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” that has a Quasar with Redshift (z) of 2.11 sitting there for all to see right front of Galaxy NGC 7319 with Redshift (z) of 0.0225; which obviously means that the use of Redshift to calculate distances is gravely in error.
If you think that is wrong, then please explain why you think it is wrong.
You state: “and the denial of cracks in bent rock formations that have them are all lies.”
What is actually stated in the film about bent rock formations is:
"…and marine fossils on top of the highest mountains like Mount Everest, well how did they get there, well evolutionists would say that slow gradual uplift over millions of years led to the formation of the mountain ranges and pushed the fossils up along with them.
But there are some things about modern mountain belts that we see that don’t seem to fit with this conventional view. Rock is brittle, it doesn’t bend very easily, if you try and bend it, it breaks, now granted, if you bent it on a big scale you might be able to get some pretty big bends out of a large rock, but these bends are tight and close and you can walk from one end of them to the other. This type of bend and folding without breaking brittle rock means that maybe it wasn’t brittle rock at the time of its formation. These might have been much softer materials after all they were laid down during Noah’s flood, had been compacted down, and started off horizontal but tectonic movements occurred that shifted them and folded them while they were probably still soft. So when we look at it this way, what we realise is that the really tall mountain chains, the Alps, the Rockies, the Himalaya’s, they didn’t exist before the flood, the whole reason that they exist is because of the flood.
This True and Faithful documentary film then goes on to state, by Australian Geologist Dr Tas Walker,: “When we look at the geology of the Earth, we find that present processes do not explain what we see, rather what we see points to catastrophic processes in the past and when we think about what those could be, it fits exactly with the account in Genesis of Noah’s flood which destroyed the whole Earth.”
The Flood wipes away millions of years from the geological record, [i.e., they never existed], those millions of years are necessary for evolution to occur. No millions of years, No evolution!
"I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”.Genesis 9:11
My hearts aches for you honest, trusting and wonderful brother and sister Christians for whom Christ died, who believe that evolution is real and that the Flood of Noah was only a “local” flood.
But Tim, WHY do you make such blatantly, untruthful false accusations against fellow Christians?
I must ask you to again, be specific, where in this brilliant and honest Christian Documentary Film has anyone, “implicitly accuse[d] all honest biologists, geologists, paleontologists, and cosmologists of being incompetent;”
Although to be perfectly honest here, I know for a fact that no such slander or accusation is made in the subject of this matter, the Documentary film, Evolution’s Achilles Heel’s.
Here again,you make vague generalisations but do not provide even one example when we should all have seen many thousands, if evolution were real and the necessarily trillions upon trillions of intermediate forms actually existed. Can you list even 100, or even only 50, or even just 10 genuine clear examples of an evolutionary transitional form where a less complex creature has evolved into a more complex creature with greater information on its DNA?
Please Tim, get a grip on reality here, there is nothing wrong with my credibility here.
I am not talking about mere limited changes within a specie or a genus or Biblical kind to be more accurate. I am talking about about the BIG changes in transitional fossils that clearly demonstrate the absolutely necessary upward increase in complexity of an organism from one type to another, in the evolutionary sense as would be required for microbes to become microbiologists. Where are the intermediates at the Family, Order, Class and Phylum levels?
Creationists recognise limited change within individuals in a species or Biblical kind but it is dishonest to attempt to use three Sea Snails of the same Genus as an example of an evolutionary transitional form in the Big picture evolution sense required for microbes to become microbiologists. But that is what honestly needs to be demonstrated, i.e., the big changes!
As yet I have NOT seen even one, yet according to evolution they existed, so where are they?
Out of the untold trillions that must have existed, why don’t we have huge numbers of them to study?
You may be interested to know that the documentary film ‘Evolution’s Achilles Heel’s’ received the Dove Foundation’s ‘Faith Friendly’ seal and highest ranking; the reviewer noted, “If we could award Evolution’s Achilles’ Heels more than five Doves, our best rating, we would! This is an intelligent and remarkable look at the holes in the theory of evolution”.
Okay, what are they?
Do they demonstrate the BIG changes as demanded by evolution that allegedly claims a single cell evolved to the biodiversity we now see in the world?
Yes, that would be a very helpful start, rather than just making broad generalisations and throwing false accusations at me and ethical, honest Christians who have contributed their time and funds to making the documentary film, ‘Evolution’s Achilles Heel’s’.
Thank you for the collection of roughly 10 organism clades you present from other threads, I don’t accept the premise that clades exist in reality as defined by evolutionary theory.
But I need to ask, what makes you believe the examples you have listed are anything more than examples of individual diversity within a genus or species as the case may be?
I get it that you use their general morphology and the stratigraphic position they are located within, but there are likely many other explanations besides your conclusion that they are intermediates.
Do you recognise that very real possibility?
Yes, of course, if it is as you say, and I don’t doubt your integrity whatsoever, you are searching and of course, all the while hoping to find an intermediate you can publish as yet another paper of ‘proof’ of evolution, then when you come across some individuals with discrete variations in their morphology, you say, ‘Eureka!’ I’ve discovered another intermediate, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Once again, what needs to be demonstrated beyond doubt are the BIG changes required by evolution in the uphill, increase of information and corresponding morphological changes sense.
But again, what are these alleged, " demonstrable lies in the “documentary”?
Well yes, Amen to that, absolutely and wholeheartedly!
Tim, you state that you "quickly become suspicious of the honesty of someone who repeatedly promotes demonstrable falsehoods’.
But here once again, you are NOT specific, this is yet another generalisation that sadly smears the integrity of wonderful, honest, kind and generous Christian men and women without even the slightest evidence given.
Please provide specific examples from the very good Christian documentary, ‘Evolution’s Achilles Heel’s’ where information is ‘dishonest’ and where ‘demonstrable falsehoods’ are promoted?
When somebody tells you that you aren’t getting your facts straight, to respond by accusing them of being “hostile to those of us that believe the Bible as it is plainly written to mean what it so plainly states” is spiritual blackmail.
Every. Single. Mutation. That. Has. Ever. Happened. created “new complex information of the type that is absolutely required.” Mutations are “new complex information” by definition. Whether that information is useful information is a completely separate issue from whether it is information. A large cloud contains more information than every human genome on the planet.
That may be, but to imply that all mutations are harmful is still deceptive.
That’s exactly the lie in question! They are observed by their effects. Dark matter is "there is extra mass causing directly measured effects on gravity, but we can’t tell what the mass is. Dark energy is “whatever is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate”. To claim that direct measurements are “fudge factors” is a lie.
I still do not comprehend how arguing against the Big Bang is a useful argument in favor of anything except the arguer looking silly. It is a theory of the physical process through which the universe formed. How that is a problem with Genesis is beyond comprehension for me–the Bible says that God spoke creation into existence. It says absolutely nothing about the minutia of physical steps through which the physical universe went before life existed.
And that’s the lie in question. Redshift was calibrated using Type 1a supernovae as standard candles. If those changed significantly in brightness, it would require changes to physical constants that would render the current existence of life impossible. Astronomers have checked whether those are translational speed through space, and they aren’t.
That’s still an untruth.
In the same list of ones that I linked.
No, it is not. I am stating that this is an example of a small transition. Therefore, transitions between species exist. Those are examples of transitional forms. As you seem to want transitions between larger groups than species, here are the ones I listed above that are between larger groups than genera:
I count 10 sets of them just from the ones that I have mentioned before on this forum that I can easily find.
That again is a lie. No one has given a coherent, detailed explanation of how typical Cenozoic shallow marine deposits could form in less than a few hundred thousand years.
By making statements that require all of them to be wrong in ways so spectacular as to make it utterly obvious to a lay audience. That implies that they are not competent in their fields of expertise. That is a slander.
No, because that is an impossible demand for something that cannot be verified. This is the Nirvana Fallacy, demanding a higher standard of evidence than is possible. I have given multiple examples of transitions that show a creature evolving into a different one. Whether or not they have greater information in their DNA is an impossible standard of evidence, and is not actually predicted by evolution. Most of the means for significantly increasing the total information in a genome are rare events that don’t immediately show obvious changes, like whole genome duplication or novel allopolyploidy (both of which have been observed).
I have listed a number of them. You have changed the definition of “transitional” to something very different from the normal one (and committed a Motte-and Bailey Fallacy in the process).
Yes, but not to the impossible standard of evidence that you are using.
Now you’re contradicting yourself and saying that observed realities don’t exist: either the species-level intermediates I listed above are parts of a single clade or “kind” (as you have claimed previously), and clades exist; or clades do not exist, which is about as blatantly untrue as any claim that I have ever heard promoting anything–Bread Wheat is a clade, my family is a clade, Homo sapiens is a clade, etc., etc. Any set of individuals which share a common ancestor is a clade.
The fact that they are morphologically intermediate between taxa that no one considers to be below family level.
Yes, and I’ve checked it for the ones that I have studied. None of the other possibilities that have been put forward are a better explanation.
That has nothing to do with my motivation. My goal is to accurately identify what I work on, not to prove evolution. If anything, evolution makes my job more difficult, and if I could ignore it, it would make my work easier. Ed Petuch has made dozens of claims about evolutionary intermediates, but I don’t get excited about them because of all of the problems in his papers (see this thread for examples: Similarities Between Poor Quality Scientific Papers and Pseudoscientific Essays)
Note that some young-earth sources, while containing the usual slanders of honest science, do admit that the evidence for dark matter is real and isn’t only part of big bang models (e.g., Dark Matter—What’s the Matter? | Answers in Genesis ). In other words, this article from Answers in Genesis shows that the claim in “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” that dark matter is just a fudge factor is untrue. And claiming that astronomers are resorting to fudge factors to prop up the big bang when they are actually developing models based on the data is slandering them.
The basic premise of Evolution’s Achilles Heels is hypocritical. “Here’s over a dozen people with science PhDs who make young earth claims!” Besides the fact that not all of them have PhDs that are relevant to the topics that they are making claims about, if we should pay attention to a dozen science PhDs, should we not pay attention to a hundred thousand science PhDs?
If you honestly want to promote a young-earth position, you should welcome corrections as a way to improve your position. Do not forget Peter’s warning in I Pet. 2:20: “But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.” Creation science receives beatings for doing wrong and claim that it is for Christ, thereby bringing dishonor on His name.
No, it’s an objective conclusion from having spent years paying attention to claims that turn out to rest of logical fallacies, bad arguments, deceptive arguments, and slander.
From the perspective of the text I continually wonder why YECists is so vehemently hostile to those who believe the Bible to be what it was written as and thus what it must mean.
Because natural selection acts on the existing information that resulted from mutations – and it has been clearly observed that mutations both increase the amount of information and introduce/generate new information.
Which is what Genesis would lead us to believe, since there is no reason to think that either the commands to “Bring forth!” or to “Be fruitful, and multiply!” are no longer in effect.
But that’s exactly what YEC makes Him, which is why YEC is the biggest reason that college and university students reject the Gospel.
Please demonstrate where limited adaptability is written into the genetic codes.
That use of “kind” is not biblical. You don’t get to take modern scientific concepts and stuff them into ancient Hebrew.
That cannot be supported from the text. It is an importation based on a subjective view of life.
YEC claims to use the historical-grammatical method but throws both into the trash whenever it is convenient.
An aspect of schismatic behavior since about 90 A.D.
Wasn’t it an apostle who said he was determined to know nothing but Christ crucified?
YEC is an endeavor to reach people by applying the wisdom of the age to certain parts of the scriptures, and is thus a violation of the biblical theme of presenting the Gospel.
It’s also a matter of faithfulness to the apostolic admonition to examine/judge all things. That’s the point where I often get very weary because the entire YEC enterprise rests on a refusal to examine the actual text of the scriptures , substituting a pious-sounding claim that the Holy Spirit actually inspired the text so it would be comprehensible to modern folks without any effort of actual study needed!
Anyone who thinks that what the Bible appears to be in a translation is what it must be is not reading it as plainly written and cannot ascertain what it plainly states.
If you believe it as plainly written, then please do this: expound on why Moses chose to take the Egyptian creation story and edit it in order to convey truth to the Israelites, including why in that cultural situation the choice was a good one and what theological truth was communicated thereby.
And “God wouldn’t do that” is not an answer because it is a fact that the opening Creation account in Genesis follows the Egyptian creation story very closely, making only one of two possibilities at all likely: that God provided the story to the Egyptians but did so badly, or that Moses borrowed/stole it for the Holy Spirits purposes.
Except he doesn’t – he has a hostile, negative attitude towards bad logic, misrepresentation, and deception. The only one here denigrating other Christians is you (well, and other YECers). You repeatedly and egregiously sanctimoniously slander the vast majority of Christians now and throughout history with the implication that only YECers rally listen to the Holy Spirit.
It isn’t even touched. This was good enough for Jesus:
“Come to Me, all you who are weary from heavy labor, and I will give you rest.”
No Creation, no Flood, no Babel, just asking people to acknowledge that they are life-weary and an invitation to come to Him.
Nowhere in the Bible is there any mention of an age of the universe, which is why honest, God-fearing scholars have seen millions, billions, and even a trillion years in Genesis, or just thrown up their hands and said that until the creation of humans it was all just divine time – or have asserted that God created everything in an instant but Moses related it in story form.
The whole ~6k years idea is a human construct that cannot be sustained from the scriptures.
Nope – see above. You’re in disagreement with Jesus.
I don’t incorporate evolution into the Bible, I just insist on the text. But that makes me ask (again), why do you incorporate modern science into the Bible? Where does the Bible say that that is even a good idea?
CMI bears false witness when it claims that the opening of Genesis was written as history. It bears false witness when it leads people to think that what the scriptures appear to be in English translation is what they are.
Dark matter has nothing to do with the Big Bang; even if the universe were actually steady-state the dark matter problem would exist because it has to do with presently observed behavior.
Anyone telling you it doesn’t have to do with presently observed behavior is lying to you.
There’s a lie in there, though by omission and is followed by misdirection. Rather than point it out I’m going to see if you have enough scientific knowledge and common sense to find it.
Wow, the lies are thick in this bit!
The only way that soft sediments could be deformed without disturbing the strata is if it took millions of years to do so.
With continents galloping at 30mph, it isn’t possible at all.
That’s a flat-out lie.
And that’s another flat-out lie.
It’s ironic – you wanted examples of lies, and you’re providing them!
But in context in the Hebrew, that’s exactly what it was – though again, you’re being deceptive with the term “local” since a Mesopotamian-wide flood is not something very many people at all would call “local”. In the Hebrew, in context, applying the historical-grammatical method, the flood covered the world known to Noah.
Why shouldn’t he make such accusations when you do the very things you complain about?
“Thou art the man!”
You just shot your credibility – there are thousands of such intermediates, enough that some paleontologists have observed that these days all we find are intermediate fossils.
And slander.
Especially when you can’t tell “what it so plainly states” when you’re ignoring what kind of ancient literature it is.
And in the commentary on Psalm 136, he states
this:
The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach
astronomy; and, in proposing instruction
meant to be common to the simplest and most
uneducated persons, he made use by Moses
and other Prophets of popular language, that
none might shelter himself under the pretext
of obscurity, as we will see men sometimes very
readily pretend an incapacity to understand,
when anything deep or recondite is submitted
to their notice. Accordingly, as Saturn though
bigger than the moon is not so to the eye owing
to his greater distance, the Holy Spirit would
rather speak childishly than unintelligibly to the
humble and unlearned. 10
To Calvin, clarity of Scripture was far more
important than scientific exactness. He did not force
the insights that studies of the creation provide in
order to follow a literalistic reading of scripture
thank you for your posts, I can see that you honestly believe what you are stating.
The problem here is that we have differing ideas about what the Bible tells us and about how we interpret the reality of the creation in the here and now. I am weary of the time consuming tit for tat posts. I have certainly seen here that evolution will not stand for even the slightest skerrick of criticism, and I only expect that will get far worse as we progress further into these evil times we are all in at present.
Ultimately this debate is irreconcilable!
I have come to the conclusion that no matter what is presented, it will be denied, accusations will fly such as lies, slander, etc… that from my perspective are absolutely unjustified yet from your perspective obviously appear real to you.
I do not have much more time to expend here, and so I will ask a straightforward question that I have asked of Roy and Ron on the “Two questions about how central…” forum.
Thus far without reply but I realise that global time zones play a role on this site.
That question is repeated below:
If you really believe that the catastrophic flood that the Bible reliably informs us covered ALL the Earth, or if you prefer ALL the Land, (it amounts to the same thing), was merely a LOCAL FLOOD, then you are insulting God, as is it not a fact written in the Holy Scriptures that God promised Noah:
8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. 17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. 18 And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19 These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
We still see LOCAL FLOODS occurring today all over the Earth!
I’m very sorry to say this, but it must be said so that you all realise the error.
You are questioning God Himself by claiming the GLOBAL FLOOD was merely a LOCAL FLOOD.
The Bible is clear that the FLOOD COVERED ALL THE LAND.
We know the Earth is a near perfect spherical planet, thus when the floodwaters covered ALL THE LAND, we can deduce from that clear fact that the WHOLE GLOBE was covered by water.
The Bible even tells us that ALL the High Mountains were covered to at least 15 cubits (i.e., probably about 22 feet or 7 metres).
Although some on this site rail against faithful, fellow Christians that believe in faith the Bible is trustworthy and true, by accusing them of dishonesty, telling lies, and being deceptive, it is indeed their own beliefs that they themselves need to look at, regarding the utterly clear fact that the flood of Noah was absolute, it covered ALL the Earth, it extinguished life in ALL FLESH in whose nostrils was the breathe of life that were outside the ark.
Please do not think that I am trying to win an argument here, I am not, indeed I am certainly not better than anyone else, indeed it may well be that all on this site are far better people than I am, I know I have many faults, and I am unworthy of our Gracious Loving Lord God’s Love for me.
Your defence of your position is nobel, and I don’t really see you being offensive. I also think your insights might be helpful on other topics. So don’t get frustrated, stick around and read through other threads. You may encourage another christian regarding another issue or influence a non believer to think of something in a new way. No one in the world believes my creation view. That’s ok. I understand your frustration. I like to encourage others toward Christ and have lively conversations.
1 Corinthians 9:19-2
19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
I think the main difficulty is trying to prove the genesis account by means of scientific observation and measurement. Once you start that you have a heavy burden of proof that gets impossible to verify and the data is not easily corroborating. How can one prove scientifically: Adam was made of dirt ? or that eating a certain fruit can cause knowledge to be gained? or that a snake had the vocal capacity to speak? or that Abel’s blood cried out from the ground? or that the water was 22’ above the highest mountain?. These proofs are impossible in this life.
If you believe in the global flood, great then just say it was totally a miracle full stop. No geology can falsify a miracle. No one can challenge that. It will free you from trying to reach out and steady the ark of the covenant.
6 And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. 7 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God.
The ark of God cannot and will not fall even if the ox stumble, so don’t worry about that. The medieval church became fascinated with relics. People were seeking all sorts of crazy unverifiable objects to try and bolster faith and prove the biblical story. These became a real problem in the church. These “evidences” so called can neither save anybody nor disprove Christ if falsified.
True faith is based on the inspiration of God himself opening hearts to believe the son of God who was crucified for our sins and raised in power.
