Is There Scientific Evidence Supporting the Floor of Noah?

[Hollie]

Evolutionary scientist perceives that those that have promoted intelligent design and creation are not treated honestly and he gets attacked for his opinions... A respected scientist comes out against evolution – and loses his Wikipedia page

He lost his credibility. Who cares about a wiki page?

 

[LittleNipper]

Here is the testimonial of an evolutionist who found the problems with evolution as his eyes opened to the existence of GOD. He states that when he was an evolutionist his intention was to convert others to evolution (not necessary seeking the truth -- which he believed he already knew).From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

 

[Hollie]

I don't believe "so called" peer review amounts to real investigation but merely denial on the part of those predisposed to accept evolution as the only secular "viable" answer. "Secular" and "truth" do not go hand in hand because the exclusion of evidence which seems miraculous distorts the equation.

A YouTube video?

Present your evidence of miracles for peer review and let’s see they withstand scrutiny. How do we test for miracles? If someone sees Jesus in their morning oatmeal, do we just accept it as proof of the jeebus?

 

[Indeependent]

Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com

Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.

Who is relevant and who determines that ?

I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief

Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.

But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.

“Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.

 

[Hollie]

Here is the testimonial of an evolutionist who found the problems with evolution as his eyes opened to the existence of GOD. He states that when he was an evolutionist his intention was to convert others to evolution (not necessary seeking the truth -- which he believed he already knew).

How does anyone get converted to “evilutionism”

 

[Hollie]

Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com

Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.

Who is relevant and who determines that ?

I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief

Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.

But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.

“Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.

The major teaching and research universities would disagree.

 

[Indeependent]

Is there evidence of a worldwide FLOOD? Is there evidence that the flood was global? | Bibleinfo.com

Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.

Who is relevant and who determines that ?

I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief

Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.

But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.

“Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.

The major teaching and research universities would disagree.

How many people do you know who work for these universities and do peer review?

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolutionary scientist perceives that those that have promoted intelligent design and creation are not treated honestly and he gets attacked for his opinions... A respected scientist comes out against evolution – and loses his Wikipedia page

He lost his credibility. Who cares about a wiki page?

So, because he sees problems with evolution and notes virtue among those who research creation, a "respected" scientist loses his credibility? Is credibility only built upon accepting mainstream accepted theories and retained by remaining quiet when one notes irregularities with them? What is the value of accepting the esteem of tyrants?

 

[LittleNipper]

A widely respected Evolutionist scientist becomes a Creationist:

 

[LittleNipper]

Here is the testimony of Professor Walter Veith of his journey from Evolution to Creation:

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

“Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.

Complete nonsense....

 

[LittleNipper]

Here is the testimonial of an evolutionist who found the problems with evolution as his eyes opened to the existence of GOD. He states that when he was an evolutionist his intention was to convert others to evolution (not necessary seeking the truth -- which he believed he already knew).

How does anyone get converted to “evilutionism”

By not being exposed to the love of GOD and hearing only one side of an argument. That is what is wrong with public schools in the US. Most are totally devoid of any mention of GOD but highly motivated to present EVOLUTION and contrary historic values that are contrary to religious evidence of any kind. Sometimes there are very good educators who are indeed Christian --- but they must be very cautious in trying to be a Christian influence of any sort... Public education in the US is stacked entirely towards secular influence, all other spiritual ideals suffer any inclusion.

 

[Hollie]

A widely respected Evolutionist scientist becomes a Creationist:

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Dean kenyon

 

[Marion Morrison]

Noah had a floor in his boat, I suppose. Why did his son have to **** him in the ass? Wtf is up with that? "Oh yeah, I got a hot wife, lemme just go **** my drunk dad in the ass" WTF?!

Shit like that has never crossed my mind to do. He's related to you>

Damn! Probably me too, wtf?! Nasty bastard. I'd like to think I came from the other brother(s).

 

[Hollie]

Here is the testimony of Professor Walter Veith of his journey from Evolution to Creation:

The Dark Fantasy World of Walter Veith

 

[Hollie]

Nowhere in the relevant science community is there evidence of a global flood 6,000 years ago.

Who is relevant and who determines that ?

I think the objectivity of peer reviewed science answers your question. I do think that there will always be an unbridgeable divide between science and religion. This is because of the standards of proof in the realm of science are so different than the predefined bias of partisan religious belief

Science is amenable only to investigations of repeatable phenomena in the natural world. This is the essence of the scientific method. Religion is amenable only to expression of personal “feelings”. This is the hidden philosophical bias of religion. Trapped by its own subjectivity.

But insofar as the world around us is natural, science remains our best tool for investigating it. The methodology used by investigators employing science is presently the best that life on earth has yet devised. In contrast, any attempt to see the origin of our natural selves through the theistic accounts is doomed to fail due to its scripturally bounded nature.

“Peer Reviewed” anything is driven by donors.

The major teaching and research universities would disagree.

How many people do you know who work for these universities and do peer review?

Two.

 

[james bond]

There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".

All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.

The conclusion, there was a great flood. Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.

So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend? Was it global?

It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.

And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.

Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.

We just did. Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world. It also goes to show that the Earth is young. Even the rocks in your head are bent.

 

[Hollie]

I don't believe "so called" peer review amounts to real investigation but merely denial on the part of those predisposed to accept evolution as the only secular "viable" answer. "Secular" and "truth" do not go hand in hand because the exclusion of evidence which seems miraculous distorts the equation.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Grady McMurtry

 

[Hollie]

There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".

All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.

The conclusion, there was a great flood. Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.

So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend? Was it global?

It wasn’t global as we now know the actual size of our planet, but when it may have occurred it appeared to be global.

And you can prove this how? Fossils exist around the globe. Strata exists around the globe. The evidence is not confined to only one area of the earth.

Can’t prove any of it. Nor can you.

We just did. Rock does not bend, but we find it bent all around the world. It also goes to show that the Earth is young. Even the rocks in your head are bent.

Heat and pressure will cause rock to not only bend but liquify.

The most basic earth sciences are not a part of the curriculum at your ID’iot creation madrassah, right?

 

[idb]

There does seem to be overwhelming evidence that certain proofs are being systematically ignored or redefined or hidden, in order to eliminate possible "confusion".

All ancient cultures in the Mesopotamian region tell a Great Flood story.

The conclusion, there was a great flood. Just saying the term "flood" implies they are familiar with flooding.

So the question is not if there was a great flood, the question is how far did it extend? Was it global?

When the ice age ended 10,000 years ago (give or take a lot, it was a slow process), the melting ice raised the global sea level enough to flood vast expanses of land, land occupied by people that had to move/fight/adapt. It wouldn't surprise me that these stories got passed down from generation to generation as a global flood by an angry god.

That can't be right...the earth is only 6,000 years old after all.