Noah's Flood - Local or Global?

I was just wondering, if God's so all powerful, why send a flood (and then scrape all the evidance of said flood just for the sake of it) and have all the trouble saving the animals? Why not exterminate them evil creatures with an almighty ZAP?

 

"I was just wondering, if God's so all powerful, why send a flood (and then scrape all the evidance of said flood just for the sake of it) and have all the trouble saving the animals? Why not exterminate them evil creatures with an almighty ZAP?"


First of all, there's evidence out there for a global flood.


Second, I don't really know the answer to your question. I know that before the flood, the world was vastly different. People lived well into a few centuries, and I THINK it had something to do with the way water was above the earth and below its surface. After the flood, the canopy of water was gone, and people began to die at a much earlier age. Maybe God just felt it was time for a bigger change than simply starting over.


As the Bible says, no one can know the mind of God except the Spirit of God. So it's hard to say in this instance.

 

Jedi Master201,

First of all, there's evidence out there for a global flood.

There's also evidence that there was no global flood.

 

Actually, Jedi Master201 is correct when he says there is LOTS of evidence for a global flood.

It's all vague, sketchy, and poor evidence. It also contradicts almost everything we currently know about geology, meteorology, physics, paleontology, archaeology, sedimentation, and the ocean sciences, for which there are literally millions upon millions of pages worth of studies performed and peer-reveiwed by experts (who hold Masters and Doctorate degrees)in their respective fields. The contributors of this hard evidence come from all parts of the planet and contribute independant and different pieces of evidence that agree with each other and come to the same conclusion - THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE NOTION OF A GLOBAL FLOOD. There is lots of evidence fo a global flood as well, but none of it is good evidence. And lots of bad evidence does not equal good evidence.

The best evidence for a global flood comes from the Bible, in which it is difficult to tell whether the story is fictional or historical. Usually, the people who accept the global flood as an historical account seem to equate the belief in Noah's flood with belief in God. However, they are altogether entirely different issues.

 

"There is lots of evidence fo a global flood as well, but none of it is good evidence. And lots of bad evidence does not equal good evidence."


In your own words, how exactly does this evidence contradict what we "know" of the other scientific fields? If by that you mean the popular theories (e.g., macro-evolution, for which we have zero evidence, excluding the fact of micro-evolution), then this doesn't make the evidence bad. As long as it doesn't contradict what has been PROVED beyond all doubt, it should be viewed on the same level as the things it supposedly contradicts, no?

 

Why do you keep bringing evolution to this thread?

 

with an almighty ZAP?

He could, but I was unavailable at the time.

/Z

 

"Why do you keep bringing evolution to this thread?"


Because evolution is a virus infecting real science. When it becomes accepted as fact when it clearly is NOT fact, it blinds people to other possibilities of our origins, the origins of the earth, a global flood, for which we have plenty of evidence for, and so on.

 

But do you agree it belongs to other thread?

 

It's more scientific than days without a sun. Now shut it, churchy.


edit: emoticon added so some mod doesn't take me too seriously. even though the smiley makes the comment much lass funny.

 

Not in this instance. I'm asking if it's that or something similar that BLACKJEBUS was referring to when he said the evidence we have for a global flood is contradictory to what we "know" of science. If the answer is yes, it's only theories on our origins, macro-evolution, and so on, then the evidence isn't bad, it just means we may have to change what we believe about our origins and how we got to where we are today. The evidence should be viewed in the same light as all other evidence. If the answer is no, that it contradicts what has been proved beyond all doubt about science, then the evidence for a global flood that we currently have should be taken with a grain of salt.


EDIT: Who says there were days without a sun, Saint? The Bible only says the sun and moon and stars were visible in the sky, i.e., from our perspective. Perhaps there was something blocking the view until that point.

 

Sorry, I couldn't understand most of your last post. I dunno if I am in my "dumb" day or what.

But could you post in short words why do think that bringing discussion on evolution will improve on the discussion of the flood, instead of derailing it?

 

Because evolution is a virus infecting real science. When it becomes accepted as fact when it clearly is NOT fact,

It is a fact, my friend.

Thinking anything else is self-delusion.

/Z

 

I want to know why he thinks the evidence we have for a global flood is "bad" evidence.

If it's bad only because it contradicts popular theories that are not yet proven, then the evidence for a global flood isn't bad. It should be seen as any other evidence for, say, macro-evolution. However, if it contradicts things we know for fact about science, like the water cycle, for instance, then it is indeed bad evidence, and it shouldn't have much bearing on whether we believe there was a global flood.


That said, the Bible says the world was a much different place, where there was no water cycle, before the flood. Which means even if the evidence contradicted the water cycle it's entirely possible that it is still good evidence.


EDIT: Zap, that site tells me absolutely nothing except that the experts on evolution believe it to be fact. BELIEVE it to be fact. You see a problem with that? I do.


It tells me humans evolved from ape-like creatures, that it is undeniable. Wrong. There's no proof. None. The proof is based on the assumption that we did indeed evolve from them. You see, it's circular.

 

[image=http://www.swmcmmj.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/emoticons/banghead.gif]

 

See? You are trying to turn this thread into a debate on evolution...

Perhaps you'd like to ask the mods to reopen the old or create a new one?

 

I'm not, though. Zap is.


I'm only trying to see where BLACKJEBUS is going with his claim that the evidence for a global flood is bad.

 

Because the only evidence for it is the Bible, a book of religious purposes and not an essay on the observation of the natural world?

 

That isn't the only evidence for it, as he himself is willing to admit, which I commend him for.

 

You both are turning it into a debate about evolution!

How about from a common sense point of view. It is not common to have world wide floods. It is not common to have 2 of every kind of creature come peacefully to sit on a big boat for a few months. You have to admit that believing in a global flood does contradict a lot of common sense.

 

You have to admit that believing in a global flood does contradict a lot of common sense
Of course, That is why it is called faith. There is evidence for a global flood, though.

 

It is not common to have world wide floods."


Nor is it common for many of the things evolutionists claim happened to happen. (I realize it seems again like I'm trying to turn this into an evlution debate, and I apologize for that. )


"It is not common to have 2 of every kind of creature come peacefully to sit on a big boat for a few months."


You realize that they only had to get male and female. So they could have got babies. Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the animals coming peacefully on board, I just thought I'd mention it for the heck of it.


You have to admit that believing in a global flood does contradict a lot of common sense."


Only when th belief in the God of the Bible is left out of the picture. If you accept His existence, then the flood story and all that goes along with it isn't really that unreasonable.

 

Only when th belief in the God of the Bible is left out of the picture. If you accept His existence, then the flood story and all that goes along with it isn't really that unreasonable.

See, you don't need faith in God to acknowledge true scientific theories...

 

See, you don't need faith in God to acknowledge true scientific theories

But what is the writing without it's author? In other words, what good is science without God as a beginner of science?