Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
There is evidence for a global flood. The “beyond is Genesis history” videos make the case, and they show evidence. Bryan may not see a global flood as I do. I see that biblically, the flood was global, and there is evidence for that. In fact, the fossil record makes sense with a global flood. I can’t explain it to you. The movie, is genesis history, and later videos do that very well. There’s formations seen at the Grand Canyon. When you go some tens of miles away, a layer, layer down like a pancake, supposedly millions of years in the making, seen there, but not at the Grand Canyon, and the next layer on top in both places, but where the one layer is missing the evidence of millions of years from the missing layer doesn’t exist. And the angles of sediment in areas are at angles we find in submerged strata/sandbars, not the angles found in dunes above water.
This evidence is only discounted because it doesn’t fit the old age paradigm and doesn’t consider a global flood. Such thinking is poisonous to the accepted paradigm and only a paradigm shift, not actual evidence from a small minority of scientists, Will change things. The strength of the paradigm holds the truth of evidence in check. Decades and decades of evolution being taught, displayed in museums, written in textbooks, etc, etc, etc. scientists now know that the Grand Canyon was not formed from millions of years of the Colorado River carving it out, yet that explanation is still to be found. Scientists are coming to the realization that Neo-Darwinism is no longer a good model for the evolution of microbial life to Man, yet it’s still being taught as such. The Big Bang theory is the the most commonly accepted one for the origin of the universe, yet it requires that at one time the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, which violates Einstein’s theory ( a made up make believe force is the explanation of this). The Big Bang theory wins out over steady state theory because of radiation that is detected from the outer reaches of the universe which is assumed that came from the Big Bang at the beginning of the universe.

I just can’t get over the soft tissue conundrum where science says soft tissue is is not old. If there are no presuppositions of age, and science says soft tissue can’t be a million years old, why do scientists have any problem saying dinosaur bones have been shown to be less than tens of millions of years old, and less than one million years old except that they destroy the prevailing paradigm?
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.