Pre-Flood Waters?

Hi all,I am new to this forum.I am a Christian of 13 years and have always been interested in
apologetics but have often shyed away from getting into the
creation/evolution debate.However, recently, on account of a number of discussions with
people in my work place, I have been forced to jump into the fray. I
am glad that I have though as I am finding the subject very
interesting indeed and have realized that creation science evangelism
and apologetics can be a very powerful witnessing tool for the
Christian. I am in the process of reading a number of books on the
subject, but I am still very new to this whole area.I have some questions that have been asked of me by my skeptical
friends that I would appreciate some feedback on. Here is one for
now:We were talking about the flood. My friend stated that there was no
evidence for this and that it was just myth. I countered from a
recent Creation magazine which said seashell type
fossils have been found on some of the highest mountains in our world
(suggesting that they were once underwater). He countered back with
saying that he does not doubt that the mountains were once under the
water but this was from a time well 'before' the flood. Looking at
the Bible the first few verses of Genesis would also seem to back
this up. Any suggestions in going about discussing this
appreciated. Thanks.------------------
"When men cease to believe in God they do not believe in nothing, but in anything." (G.K. Chesterton)

Being an atheist, I'm not very likely to help you with your arguments, since I don't find any of them convincing. However, I do have one unrelated question.You mention that you are 13 years old yet you also speak about 'discussions with people in [your] work place'. What kind of work is this and how is it that a 13 year old is legally permitted to work?------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Comp: Check again. S/he didn't say s/he was 13 years old - s/he said s/he'd been a Christian for 13 years...

Pascal: Welcome to EvCForum - the best discussion site on the web.Before jumping into the seashells discussion, you might find this thread covers the argument fairly well. (Click on the link.)

Welcome, Pascal.

quote:

---

I am glad that I have though as I am finding the subject very
interesting indeed and have realized that creation science evangelism
and apologetics can be a very powerful witnessing tool for the
Christian.

---

Perhaps over time you will come to notice that Creation 'science' is a better witnessing tool the less the witnessee understands science.In other words, if one has any educational grounding in science, one is very unlikely to accept Creationist claims because these claims often ignore or distort the available evidence.

quote:

---

I am in the process of reading a number of books on the
subject, but I am still very new to this whole area.

---

Reading and education are key, but I hope you are not restricting your book list to only Creationist sources. Here are some suggestions for excellent introductory websites and books which are science-based:The best layperson site on the web for accurate and current science regarding the evidence for the Theory of Evolution:TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution ControversyI reccommend reading the FAQ page and the "five major misconceptions" page first. Then the "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" would be good.An excellent short essay which explains what science is, isn't, and how it is conducted:science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comAnother excellent essay doing the same with Creation 'science':creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comEnjoy!

Geologic uplift from plate tectonics is the generally accepted scientific explanation for this. Colliding plates on the Earth's crust wrinkle up and form mountains. We're reasonably sure this happenes because the plates move to this day; we can measure it with GPS now. We can even see the mountains rise over time.Some data contrary to the flood story is that the fossil seashells found on mountains tend to be of sea life that we no longer find - and there never seems to be fossils of more modern sea life (whales, etc). If the flood happened, why is the fossil record so selective? Why isn't it more jumbled up?My mom sends me Creation magazine (when she's done with it), and I have to say, it's not a terribly scientific magazine. They seem to be much more concerned with ideology and orthodoxy than with actual science. Also their writers have a terrible tendancy to cite themselves as sources; that seems a little unkosher to my eye.It's certainly an entertaining read, however - just this last issue had an article about language where they said:

quote:

---

Take an alphabet of 26 letters (in the case of English) and you can get, say, War and Peace.

---

My girlfriend, the Russian studies major, laughed aloud when I read that. War and Peace was of course written in Russian (with French dialogue) which uses the 33-character Cyrillic alphabet. Nit-picking, perhaps - but for a magazine that claims to be an accurate source of scientific information those kinds of mistakes are fatal.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-19-2003]

Dear Pascal
there is also perfectly answered questions at Creation Evidence Museum of Texas
i just wanted to tell you that there IS evidence for creation ,before the evo's try and convert you,they are not neccesarily correct ,take the evo blinkers off for a while ,which we have all been forced to wear and check out this website!!!

A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17oh awesome awesome God!

Mike, don't plagiarise. The footnote numbers make it so very obvious, and it's against forum rules.

Mike, No one claims nor expects whole genes to have puffed into existence in an instant. It is a strawman, a logical fallacy, to claim this. Especially since some of the complexity you claim is Gods work has been observed to evolve in a lab.Oh awesome awesome evolution!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

'Oh awesome awesome evolution!'thats a sad picture people worshipping the creature and not the creator!can you produce genesis in a lab?

quote:

---

can you produce genesis in a lab?

---

Maybe, mike, you could produce creation in a lab or anywhere else?

Mmmm. The wording is dodgy but I suppose it could mean that.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Ofcourse, God being omnipotent and all that, the chances of him just existing are about 1 in infinity. Make abiogenisis look like a walk in the park.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Hi Pascal
Was there a time when every single mountain peak was covered in water? Geologists are quite convinced that there was not, because different mountains are made of different rocks with different apparent ages and different fossils.I think if you follow this one through, it turns into a discussion about chronology and dating.