Ladies and Gentlemen - has it ever occurred to anyone that there is simply NOT ENOUGH WATER?
what is best evidence against noah's flood?......
reniaa: no problem at all!
About the big bang... i really dont want to distract the discussion further. the evidence that lead most scientist to believe in the big bang is the microwave background and the red shift. ofcourse, i did not see it, like you never saw jesus, but thats not a very good argument for or against anything. you can write me for more information.
Regarding your post - what struck me was this statement: "With both bible readers and those that prefer evolution they are both having to do the same thing. which is fit the evidence to their framework of belief". please consider the following: is that a good way to seek the truth?. I ask you in all honesty. we must agree for a way to seek the truth so we are not distracted by falsehood. How do you, personally, believe one should seek the truth as to not get distracted by false religion, dogmatic scientific ideas, etc? (i mean, which general principles! not a specific belief).
Thats what i really want to ask about, but i feel i should reply the rest of the post as well. Did you read the articles i posted link to earlier? one of them dealt with the ethnological proof for noahs ark. Did you read it? do you plan to?
My original post was about a silly physical argument where i calculated the temperature a water canopy would get if it de-orbited. IF the argument is correct - would you consider it as proof against the water canopy? (not if it would lead you to drop the idea completely, but just if you consider it as a hole in the water canopy theory that the water would be boiling when it reached earth).
As allways, your input is very valuable!
oh boy, i got a de-ja-vu to previous flood/evolution discussions right now. reniaa, regarding your quote, "With both bible readers and those that prefer evolution they are both having to do the same thing. which is fit the evidence to their framework of belief", is that really the way you want us to assume hereon that you believe we and yourself treat evidence?