I've already posted the youtube of what science backed up and we discussed fountains of the deep. How would the ancient Bible know hydrothermal vents?
Oh yes I know I'm on your ignore list. It would really help the discussion if you talked more specifically about the science, and not just continually repeat science backs the Bible.
You have never identified how science “backs up the Bibles”. That’s simply a slogan you cut and paste into most into threads.
You are what you are. It is what it is. One has to believe something. This is the science section. Even though one member thinks science is not about believing, it is. The atheist scientists have taken over and made people think creation science is religion when it is the real science. There's nothing real about evolution. I proved it because it isn't observable nor testable. One member here has gone looney/stupid over it. He steals what I said and then claims it's atheist science. Another says I'm a troll and keeps following me instead of ignoring. Otherwise, we would be discussing the same thing and thinking about and working out the details.
I will contribute to this forum whether I'm on your ignore list or not. I am willing to discuss creation science as long as it is a clean debate without ad hominem.
I have read the Bible but that is not relevant to my point. You said there was nothing left alive after the flood yet there was a fresh olive leaf.
If you actually read what I wrote you'd see I said 'bird'. Both doves and ravens would qualify.
I asked about bacteria since there was no mention of it in the Bible and there are no males or females. Not surprising since the Bible doesn't mention any life not found in the Middle East. You'd think kangaroos would be worth a mention at least.
There is NO evidence for a single, global flood, only local floods. Sorry. Since the Flood was a supernatural event, as you said, it would not be appropriate to include it in a science course. Science is the study of nature, not the supernatural. That is the province of religion.
Would a flood kill bacteria? I have no idea, bacteria live everywhere. Would a flood kill a fish? I have no idea.
Seems unlikely it would have time to grow since it would have had to happen in less than 7 days. Another miracle?
The olive tree grew rapidly after the waters subsided. Look up olive trees and ancient olives trees in Israel.
Atheists want to believe what they want to believe and are usually wrong. What I said was a course for creation science vs evolution, not religious beliefs. God created the universe, Earth, and everything in it (including natural selection) and science backs up the Bible.
You should try it, I did and I learned:
Weren't you the one who claimed the mountains were raised by the Flood? Anyway, finding a seashell on a mountain top doesn't mean a global flood. The whole Flood episode only lasted a few months at most, hardly enough time for an animal to grow, die, get buried, and then fossilize.
Some do some don't.
You are simply hoping to convince the gullible that so-called "creation science" is anything more than Christian fundamentalism under a burqa of lies and deceit. The fundamentalist christian ministries have spent decades renaming their dogma in an effort to add scientific credibility to religious tales and fables. It was a failure then and it's a failure now. It's terrible that people like you use fear and intimidation in your madrassah to emotionally and intellectually damage children. You cannot, however, do that to children in public schools.
He did claim that mountains were raised by the flood, but he made that up. The Genesis refers to the flood waters being a number of cubits above the mountain tops. The tallest mountain is over 4 miles high. That can only mean the sea creatures were pushed up by tectonic activity before any of the many historical floods.
>>Seems like a miracle that the first seed sprouted in less than 7 days.<<
Intervention from God is not science.
No miracle, just supernatural intervention. Got it.
So you think 7 days is enough to grow and sprout leaves? What is that based on, science or working backwards from the story?
james bond is fun to talk to since I don't encounter many Bible literalists in real life. I love how he tries to justify the flood story without knowing any geology or physics. What I don't understand about such people is why does it matter to them if the Bible is 100% true or 50% true and 50% allegory or whatever? Is their faith so flimsy that it is all or nothing to them?
Yes he's fun, but with all creation-scientists it's like playing whack-a-mole. It's impossible to change his mind, so it's fun to catch him in self-contradictions. I kept doing that so now he has me on ignore.
