| appolose said: By absurd, I mean that hundreds of other things are needed to explain the idea in order to keep it internally consistent. Most of the Bible's stories are not in need of that, you just have to decide whether or not God actually exists. As for the flood, I do think that there is global-wide evidence for it (but let's not get into that). |
So believing in God gives you the fortune of not having to worry about the minor details, you can just say God made it so and be done with it, but my believing in evolution is absurd because I have to explain every minute detail in science. You aren't taking the logical way out, you are taking the easy way out.
As Wessle said, there is no evidence for the global flood where there should be massive amounts of evidence if such an event occured. Even local floods cause a lot of destruction, so much so that geologists can easily determine flood deposits in sediment layers. Other than sedimentation, if the world was covered with water glaciers would have lifted up due to buoyancy, so there shouldn't be ice deposits that are hundreds of thousands of years old (as they are in Antartica).
Concerning flood water, the water would either be fresh, salty, or somewhere inbetween. Fresh water fish would die if the water was too salty and salt water fish would die if the water wasnt salty enough, but there is no inbetween where fresh and salt water fish can live in the same water. So some fish had to die in the flood, and they obviously didnt since we have fresh and salt water fish today.
Khuutru,
Thanks for the info, I didnt know that part of the story.
