Noah's Flood-MANY creationist predictions confirmed 1 of 8

• Report rights infringement
• published: 11 Jun 2011
• views: 1115

The sequence of fossils doesn't match the evolutionary claim of simple organisms to complex organisms very well. The evidence fits far better with the creationist concept of a flood with plants being buried based on variables that would affect their floating&buoyancy;&animal; fossils being laid down basically from marine sessile to free swimming to land dwelling since animals with more mobility could run away from the flood waters&other; disastrous events (with some exceptions, such as collapses of large amounts of earth). Dr. Wise explains the plant aspects in this video. See a text summary of Floating Forest theory here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/floating-forest Dr. Veith (Ph.D. in zoology&former; hardcore atheist&evolutionist; who chaired the dept. of zoology&was; one of the top scientists in South Africa) explains more of the zoological aspects in this video: A Universal Flood http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/10/The_Genesis_Conflict/ Here are some simple summaries: http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_Flood_catastrophism_uniformitarianism http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_Paleozoic_Mesozoic_Cenozoic_Flood http://amazingdiscoveries.org/C-deception-fossils_petrified_trees_catastrophism ---------------------------------------------------- Dr. Wise, Dr. Kuhn & Normal Science ---------------------------------------------------- Some people cherry pick&misrepresent; Dr. Kurt Wise in a quote he made. They usually quote him WAY out of context chopping off everything before the word "**IF**" Dr. Wise states, "Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, **IF** all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." I don't agree at all with presupposing views at all. But, unfortunately, some Christians have copied nearly all atheists&evolutionists; who do this: 'Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.' Kansas State University immunologist Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999. Presupposing methodological naturalism or God is an a priori fallacy of the highest order. But, the Bible never argued from presuppositions. Biblical faith was ALWAYS based on solid evidence (see: http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html). Christianity has always been accepted based on mountains of evidence..and because of it's track record in beating establishment views time after time after time (Bible science beat steady state, spontaneous generation, bleeding patients&many; more) nothing is more rational than to reason that it will beat it's current competitors with time. Trusting theories with proven track records is VERY common in science&history.; Dr. Thomas Kuhn, professor at Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley&Yale in the philosophy of science, wrote a seminal work in the field, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". He talked about how when science enters a stage called normal science, everyone works to support&expand; the view of the scientific establishment because it seems to have many confirmations from many perspectives. During "normal science", scientists&scholars; will support parts of the view or worldview that don't yet have strong evidence based on track record in other areas. This can be seen in the Big Bang which is accepted even though there is no solid evidence of dark matter, inflation⁢ has a horizon problem&others.; Darwinians constantly assume a priori that universal common descent is correct overall, no matter how many mistakes or refutations have been found&work; to try to find evidence to fit into that worldview. Because Christianity&creation; science have produced 1000s of lines of evidence with literally billions of confirmations in the vast majority of the fields of science, plus history, logic, philosophy, prophecy, miracles&others;, Dr. Kurt Wise expects to find more evidence that creation science is correct. This is why he made the hypotheses he did&as; he expected, he found very strong evidence for the Christian worldview in this area of creation science. If Dr. Kurt Wise is wrong in doing this, then evolution falls with the same sword as do many other concepts in science since they have followed the same principles countless times. Christians use far fewer assumptions overall than others. But, if some view produces MORE evidence than Christianity overall&answers; more questions&has; more benefits, then he, I&other; intellectuals would be open to the possibility of changing our positions. Nothing has come anywhere close to doing that so far yet though. But, we should be open to the possibility of changing.