Was there a Global Flood?

©1986 Center for Scientific Creation

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• global
• flood
• genesis
• creationscience
• alternative
• creation
• view

[starsheild7]

@carlsm95 Everything in the bible is 100% tied with physics & metaphysics; real christians must take every word seriously because this about Jesus Christ (not a mere hobby). So if Jesus said God made the flood by controlling nature with complex meticulous ways on the earth & if He explains the moral reasons for them (& they do accurately explain geology without fail) then when a christian encounters documented details in genesis, then there is no real reason to randomly renounce Jesus.

[starsheild7]

@carlsm95 Creationists don't see the the flood as an impossibility at all, as scientist christians, they just simply want to describe every detail (every word) of the book of Genesis, it has nothing to do with "butting heads" with secular scientists in a petty debate, creationists are scientists who love researching EVERY word of genesis in a logical way for the same reasons that ufo believers research ancient advanced technology. Everyone has passions, stop picking on us creationists.

[carlsm95]

Why do creationists feel the need to explain Noah's Flood with naturalistic causes when they can easily attribute it to God's power? Why does a completely baseless "hydroplate theory" even need to be devised when God could have easily made the water appear from nothing? Its because creationists are yearning for some scientific credibility and understand that a global flood is almost impossible. Why can't they just concede with God's "magic" and call it a day?

[LeonardSecond]

@asleeperj "The world was once flat, remember."

again... refer to the previous comment re: fucking idiot part

the world was never flat no matter what the christian bible implies on over 40 occassions. Also, hypocrite much? The scientists that spoke out about heliocentrism were persecuted. you cannot have it both ways unless that's what you mean by the "detractors tend to win" and if by "winning" you mean thrown in jail for heresy

[LeonardSecond]

"Peer reviewed means nothing"

you sir, are a fucking idiot

"...gets the majority of it's funding from government"

i challenge you to provide evidence to back this claim. Also, the QUICKEST way to fame and fortune for a scientist would be to overturn any well -established theory

"When an equally qualified scientist detracts, then they is shunned and kick out of the "circle."

Evidence to back this bullshit? go ahead and point me to this shitfarce of a movie expelled. dare you

[asleeperj]

@LeonardSecond I think you need to look into the politics of current science. Peer reviewed means nothing. When scientific study gets the majority of it's funding from government, i find it a little bias. When an equally qualified scientist detracts, then they is shunned and kick out of the "circle." . It's been this way for centuries, the detractors tend to win. The world was once flat, remember.

[LeonardSecond]

@HullSerb " It just grew back after flood"

HOW!? all the seeds would have drowned! DUH! There wouldn't be ANY seeds to germinate save for possibly coconuts or mangroves

"That's just logic"

no, it makes no fucking sense whatsoever

"so they would not have eaten each other"

and after they got off the boat? what then!? and HOW did the marsupials get back to NZ and australia?

"what's your next objection?"

how did 8 people care for that many animals in the dark? and clean the waste?

[LeonardSecond]

this crap has been debunked decades ago, why is it that people are still uploading it?!

[LeonardSecond]

@asleeperj " I see them as one and the same."

then you need to open your eyes and educate yourself, because you're ignorant and a conspiracy theorist. it's embarrassing

[asleeperj]

@legion1a You mean government high school science book. The same could be said bout Darwinism. "Scientists" stick to that idea much like Christians stick to their beliefs'. I see them as one and the same.