Hello.....I have a little problem

[popeyespappy]

Let me see if I have got this straight. It took a couple billion years of evolution to get to the 'pre-flood' era, but then evolution stepped it up a notch and in less that 10,000 years, these species diversified?

Of course not.

Got any fossil records for evidence?

Yup, the same ones you’ve “got”.

So Stat, why don’t you explain to us how these fossils fit into your version of Biblical creationism. Please include in your explanation how their distribution over both time and space support your position.

"Of course not" what? I assume that you do not believe in evolution which begs the question of, if your god just went POOF! and there were magically a diverse population of species, then what was the purpose to save the animals in the first place?

Not following this question at all, what you mean “to save the animals”? When? From what?

And if all god had to do was go POOF!, then what need for the flood was there?

The flood was a means of passing judgment; the means chosen (cleansing by water) has symbolic purpose. The next time God passes judgment it will be with fire.

“knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4 They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." 5For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.”

-2 Peter 3:4-7 (ESV)

That’s great Stat. Except 2 Peter is the one part of the New Testament that the most scholars agree was not authored by the person it is traditionally credited to. Even the few scholars that defend the authenticity of 2 Peter can’t come up with a decent defense of their position. About the best they can do is to assert that early Christians must have thought it was authentic since it was accepted to canon. Given that most of the experts agree that 2 Peter is a forgery, it pretty much makes it worthless as evidence in support of your position.