Comment on PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood? by Eddie.
Inge Anderson, this time I agree with you 100%. I recall Dr. Brand requiring us to read a certain number of pages of literature on the subject of origins and among the available papers was an unpublished manuscript that he had written with a fellow creationist analyzing the biogeographical distribution of mammals before and after the flood. Dr. Brand found it virtually impossible to reconcile the current distribution of mammals with post-flood dispersal from Mt. Ararat. When I questioned him about it he stated that mammals could have rafted to other continents or that divine intervention may have distributed the mammals. In any case, I see no reason to reject Professor Kent’s suggestion that Noah’s flood could have been “global” without necessarily covering every single piece of land because the Hebrew words “all” and “every” don’t always mean 100% of the time, or to reject the possibility that some animals may have survived the flood on rafts.
Eddie Also Commented
PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
People pick and choose what they want to believe–and then search for evidence to support their beliefs. Sean is no exception.
Clearly the evolutionists are duping themselves more often than not when trying to dupe the public.
The amazing thing is that a number of these deceptions are carried on for more than 4 or 5 decades at a time!!
But critical thinking demands that we look at what â€œnever happened in natureâ€ and find out how pure fiction was foisted onto the general public for decade after decade.
Those human footprints along the Paluxy River are another classic example.
PUC Professor: The Noachian Flood was just a local flood?
The Bible was never intended to be a scientific textbook in which texts are scrutinized and assessed for scientific accuracy. God’s purpose was to reveal the Rock of Ages, not the ages of rocks. The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
Recent Comments by Eddie
SDA Bio Prof: The Bible makes multiple falsifiable prophecies about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Egypt, yet history never records it happening. Does this mean the Bible is effectively falsified?
Sean Pitman: Egyptians had a strong tendency not to record their losses… only their victories.
Sean, does that mean YOU personally believe Babylon conquered Egypt, just as predicted by two prophets? In the absence of any empirical evidence? If the Egyptians didn’t record their losses, why wouldn’t the Babylonians have recorded such a stunning victory?
Holly Pham: One of the things that has always concerned me is that, according to what I’ve read, birds and reptiles have completely different forms of respiratory systems (flow-through vs. bellows) How is this explained by evolutionists?
Evidence from the vertebrae of non-avian theropod dinosaurs suggests that they, too, possessed unidirectional flow-through ventilation of the lungs. So, according to evolutionary theory, it evolved first in “primitive” non-avian theropods rather than in birds, and comprises one of many shared derived characters supposedly linking birds with more “advanced” theropods. However, I don’t think there is any evidence or even a hypothesis for a step-by-step process of HOW it evolved. Here is a reference:
Southern Adventist University opens Origins Exhibit
@Bob Helm: Bob, if you send me an e-mail at email@example.com I will send you a pdf file of a 1991 article published by Chatterjee in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 332:277-342, titled “Cranial anatomy and relationships of a new Triassic bird from Texas.”
Curiously his description is based only on cranial anatomy. I don’t think he ever published an analysis of its postcranial anatomy.
David Read: Eddie, ecological zonation will yield the same basic order that you’re pointing to: invertebrates appear before vertebrates; fish appear before amphibians; amphibians appear before reptiles; reptiles appear before mammals; reptiles appear before birds, etc.
It could, and it’s the best creationist explanation, but it doesn’t explain why flowering plants were absent from lowland forests. Or why so many land plants appeared before mangroves, which today occur strictly in the intertidal zone. Or why no pre-flood humans have been found. Or, if Sean is correct that the flood ended at the K-T boundary, why many modern groups of birds and mammals (including marine mammals) which first appear during the Tertiary were not buried by the flood.
David Read: The fact that something appears before something else in the fossil record is not proof than anything evolved into anything else.
David Read: You seem to be complaining that God has not made the fossil evidence compulsory, i.e., so clear that no reasonable person can possibly doubt it. And if God hasn’t made the evidence skeptic-proof, then the skeptic is God’s fault, God is responsible for the skeptic.
I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways by honest people. And I’m relieved to see that even you don’t think the evidence is crystal clear.
David Read: Only people of faith can be saved, that is, only people who are willing to trust God and put away doubts can be saved.
David Read: Those tracks are so obviously bird tracks that the fact that some scientists want to assign them to “birdlike theropods” is itself a very useful teaching tool as to how the model creates the data.
David Read: That the model actually creates the data is one of the hardest concepts to get across, not only to lay people but even to the scientists themselves.
How does the model affect the data? Data don’t change and they shouldn’t change. It’s the interpretation, not the data, that is affected by the model.