More Questions for Christians

[Chas]

Good lord...

Harry, you have a claim that there was a worldwide flood. We say that there is no evidence for a worldwide flood, so it is unreasonable to believe that there was one. When asked for evidence, you just provided the claim again.

The bible is not evidence for the bible. I trust even you can see how circular that is, quoting scripture to justify scripture.

Rather than clog up the message with my response, you might consider the following site as "evidence" for the global flood:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConten...ticle=1791

blessings,
Harry

That link denies a world-wide flood; it's about a flood of naturally occurring meltwater into Hudson Bay. So, there's that.

---

harry, quite using the bible to prove your point. It is like me referencing a comic book to prove Batman is real. Again, use science to prove your point.

Evolutionary science is an invalid source of proof since it is based upon theory. And since you reject the Bible as a valid, reliable source of evidence, the question of a global flood cannot be resolved between us; it is a secondary issue. The prime issue is the validity of the Bible. If you wish to discuss that matter, I would be happy to participate.

It's also worth noting that my theological position is that I can only present the evidence, not convince you of its truth. That's a matter between God and you.

A scientific theory is an explanation of evidence. We base theory on fact, not fact on theory.