WagnerPaiva said:
Not really. why no scientist tests the Great Flood event as a valid hypothesis? It explains so much if you aply it to the world. Science research all possibilities that EXCLUDE God and whatever is in the bible from the equation. to me this is a very combative and evil way to act and think. To be fair, science should at least test the possibilites that the Earth is young and not old. That fossiles were created in the Flood. That most of the dinossaurs and the megafauna are the "abomination of all flesh" mentioned in Genesis and Jasher, when men created animal hybrids with the help of fallen angels. Just test it at least. Maybe petrol, fossiles and even diamonds don´t need millions of years to form, just enough pressure for a little time, like a Great Flood event. Give God a fair chance at least. |
Those theories have been tested hundreds of times. They have failed every test tho. As for you supposed anti christian bias in the USA as of this year 24.4% identify as Atheists/Agnostics/No Religion, 24.9% Mainline Protestants, 19.1% Catholics and 17.1 Evangelical Protestants. And historically those numbers would have been even more lobsided. If anything there is a pro christian bias in the western scientific community. Many of the scientists that created the current scientific theories on the subject had to suffer through years of persecution by their predominantly christian peers. despite many of them being christian themselves.
Also if there was a global flood we should see a universal sediment layer that covers the entire earth at the same geological date. No such layer has been observed.
A global flood would require the ice caps to have melted, but core samples from the polls show 40k years worth of layers. This disproves the timescale proposed by the bible.
If all species of animal currently on earth came from a single landing point just we should see ecological diversity have an epicentre and gradually decrese further away from this point. We should also expect that migatory animals to all have a central migatory point. Also we would expect to see far less diversity within species. For eaxample there were only two eliphants on the ark, yet there are 4 species of elephant with 6 sub species. It would take far longer, genetic analysis has lead scientists to belive that Elephas and an elephant from Sri Lanka diverged from the mainland elephant population 300,000 years ago. Also why are their so many species specific to single countries or even smaller geographic locations all over the world if they all came from a single place? For example why are Koalas only found in Australia and there is no fossil record of them ever existing anywhere else?
How did so many species survive inbreeding depression? When most animals inbreed with close relations it causes Reduced fertility, Increased genetic disorders, Higher infant mortality, Depression on growth rate and Loss of immune system function.
If there was a mass flood we would expect that the fossil record would have a uniform gloabal layer with a mix of all species on the planet at the time. The fossil record however is actually found in a wide veriaty of geological layers with different evolutionary stages of species found sorted to the same order around the world. Ecological information is consistent within but not between layers. Fossil pollen is one of the more important indicators of different levels of strata. Each plant has different and distinct pollen, and, by telling which plants produced the fossil pollen, it is easy to see what the climate was like in different strata.
The oldest single living tree in the world is over 5,000 years old as indicated by it's tree rings. If it was submerged it would have died. In addition there is a clonal colony (all the trees are genetically identical and joined in a single root system) of trees called Pando which is 80,000 years old (some argue that it is actually over a million years old).And on the point of fauna how were all the different plant species preserved? There is no meantion of their being 2 of each seed on the ark. Most plant species and seeds would not survive being submerged with water for extended periods.
Why does for example Egypt have no record of the flood? The great Pyrimid predates the supposed flood by 300+ years and not only does it show no evidence of being submerged there are also no depictions of a flood in any of the records.
@TheVoxelman on twitter
Essay Pro