The Flood.......Again

[MaryHelp777]

satellite pictures have p(name removed by moderator)ointed the vessel’s final resting place. The object in the photo is located on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey, the area where the Bible says Noah survived a monstrous flood that covered the earth.

Porcher Taylor has spent 13 years on a quest to find out exactly what that satellite picture mystery object might be. Taylor is an Assistant. Professor at the University of Richmond, in Virginia. He teaches National Security Law. He told CBN News, “I see, for a 1015 feet in length, a ship-like object that has almost unbroken symmetry.”

That’s bigger than the generally-accepted Biblical description. But Taylor says the object has the same length-to-width ratio as the Ark described in Genesis.

Over the years, many have searched this area for evidence of Noah’s voyage. Bruce Feiler is the author of Walking The Bible. Feiler said, “Czar Nicholas sent an expedition in the early 20th century. U2 spy planes were [camera] shooting this mountain in the 1950s, eve

 

[edwest2]

satellite pictures have p(name removed by moderator)ointed the vessel’s final resting place. The object in the photo is located on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey, the area where the Bible says Noah survived a monstrous flood that covered the earth.

Porcher Taylor has spent 13 years on a quest to find out exactly what that satellite picture mystery object might be. Taylor is an Assistant. Professor at the University of Richmond, in Virginia. He teaches National Security Law. He told CBN News, “I see, for a 1015 feet in length, a ship-like object that has almost unbroken symmetry.”

That’s bigger than the generally-accepted Biblical description. But Taylor says the object has the same length-to-width ratio as the Ark described in Genesis.

Over the years, many have searched this area for evidence of Noah’s voyage. Bruce Feiler is the author of Walking The Bible. Feiler said, “Czar Nicholas sent an expedition in the early 20th century. U2 spy planes were [camera] shooting this mountain in the 1950s, eve

Yes, U-2 photos were taken of what the CIA calls “the Ararat anomaly.”

Ed

 

[BChartowski]

I have, at times, found myself wondering why it is that some so easily dismiss both the creation story and the flood as being mere stories, yet they so readily believe that God created the entire universe - every galaxy with it’s billions and billions of stars, every planet, every comet - out of nothing more than His Own Will. To quote Romans 4:17: “He can send His call to that which has no being as if it already was.” Trying to use science to say what God has and has not done serves only to undermine faith. If Genesis is not meant to be read literally, then are we required to literally believe that He did indeed create everything out of nothing? He either literally did create everything out of nothing, or He did not. Did Abraham literally prepare to offer up his son, Isaac, in sacrifice at God’s command?

God Himself willed into being the entirety of existence itself. We are called to believe that He then impregnated Mary through His Holy Spirit in order that His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, could come and save us from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve (the creation story itself turning out to be merely a fable). He then goes on to feed 5000 people with a small boy’s hand-basket of bread and fish, heal terminally ill people by merely willing it, raise the dead, literally take upon Himself the entirety of mankind’s sin so that when He was inevitably crucified He would then free us from said sin. He would then be resurrected, send His Holy Spirit down upon the Apostles that they may be heard and understood by everyone - despite their native language, after which He would ascend - under His own power, into Heaven. Any Christian will tell you that all of these things literally happened. Yet somehow people will dismiss the creation story and the story of the flood as if there’s no way that it could have happened.

If God saw fit to do something, it would simply be, just by the mere fact that He willed it so. If He saw fit to put a family on a boat, flood the world enough to kill everything, and reseed with the people that remained, then so be it. I find it very strange that I’m told that the flood and creation were not written about literally, yet the existence of God - who Himself is actually three persons in the same nature - who creates through mere acts of the will is to be taken literally. It’s counterintuitive.

 

[Tim_D]

Of course those protestants cannot have found any truths we Catholics might have ignored! It must be in our church teaching somewhere that we are the only ones that have any of the truth. Well, it certainly must be a relief for you, Tim, to be pure from THAT influence!

I take it, then, that you subscribe to the concept of Sola Scriptura? I mean, if it is in the Bible, then it MUST be true, mustn’t it???

Just wondering - does the Catholic Church teach that Genesis is only “stories”, and that there is NO historical truth or accuracy to them? That they are just made-up fictional events used to tell some other point?

From Dei Verbu, the dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation:

“To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.]”

Because I have not found this in my Catechism.

There is far more to the beliefs and teachings of the Catholic faith than what is contained in the catechism. The catechism is actually intended for bishops, priests and those who are instructing the faithful; it is not mean for the common layman, probably for the very reason of which you are part. Just because the catechism doesn’t specifically state something or address a topic doesn’t mean that the conversation is over in regards to it. You are not going to find magisterial teaching on Bible exegesis in the catechism.

 

[Tim_D]

Jesus was Omniscient, so He knew every story of every single life that lived on earth and ever will live on earth, so it He would have had thousands (millions?) of true and interesting stories to pick from that woudl be perfect for any parable. But perhaps he was bored with all the billions of stories he already knew and had perfect access to, and thought it would be more fun to make one up.

Or maybe He didn’t. He didn’t tell us though…

The mere fact that you must twist your logic like a pretzel in order to hold that the Bible is “true” is proof enough of the inadequacy of your argument.

I don’t think that you will find the above position in any theological discourse by Church doctors. They tend to take a more mature position about such things.

 

[clem456]

I have, at times, found myself wondering why it is that some so easily dismiss both the creation story and the flood as being mere stories, yet they so readily believe that God created the entire universe - every galaxy with it’s billions and billions of stars, every planet, every comet - out of nothing more than His Own Will. To quote Romans 4:17: “He can send His call to that which has no being as if it already was.” Trying to use science to say what God has and has not done serves only to undermine faith. If Genesis is not meant to be read literally, then are we required to literally believe that He did indeed create everything out of nothing? He either literally did create everything out of nothing, or He did not. Did Abraham literally prepare to offer up his son, Isaac, in sacrifice at God’s command?

God Himself willed into being the entirety of existence itself. We are called to believe that He then impregnated Mary through His Holy Spirit in order that His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, could come and save us from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve (the creation story itself turning out to be merely a fable). He then goes on to feed 5000 people with a small boy’s hand-basket of bread and fish, heal terminally ill people by merely willing it, raise the dead, literally take upon Himself the entirety of mankind’s sin so that when He was inevitably crucified He would then free us from said sin. He would then be resurrected, send His Holy Spirit down upon the Apostles that they may be heard and understood by everyone - despite their native language, after which He would ascend - under His own power, into Heaven. Any Christian will tell you that all of these things literally happened. Yet somehow people will dismiss the creation story and the story of the flood as if there’s no way that it could have happened.

If God saw fit to do something, it would simply be, just by the mere fact that He willed it so. If He saw fit to put a family on a boat, flood the world enough to kill everything, and reseed with the people that remained, then so be it. I find it very strange that I’m told that the flood and creation were not written about literally, yet the existence of God - who Himself is actually three persons in the same nature - who creates through mere acts of the will is to be taken literally. It’s counterintuitive.

God wills man to use his reason to discover his creation. Because he loves us, he allows us freedom of discovery, or “science”.

God’s existence and his nature is not something we simply take in literalist fashion from words on a page, rather he is a being we have faith in.

Also, I have a BS in geology.
There is no evidence of an ark.

(sorry)

If someone had discovered it, believe me, you would know about it without any doubt.

 

[friardchips]

I have, at times, found myself wondering why it is that some so easily dismiss both the creation story and the flood as being mere stories, yet they so readily believe that God created the entire universe - every galaxy with it’s billions and billions of stars, every planet, every comet - out of nothing more than His Own Will. To quote Romans 4:17: “He can send His call to that which has no being as if it already was.” Trying to use science to say what God has and has not done serves only to undermine faith. If Genesis is not meant to be read literally, then are we required to literally believe that He did indeed create everything out of nothing? He either literally did create everything out of nothing, or He did not. Did Abraham literally prepare to offer up his son, Isaac, in sacrifice at God’s command?

God Himself willed into being the entirety of existence itself. We are called to believe that He then impregnated Mary through His Holy Spirit in order that His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, could come and save us from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve (the creation story itself turning out to be merely a fable). He then goes on to feed 5000 people with a small boy’s hand-basket of bread and fish, heal terminally ill people by merely willing it, raise the dead, literally take upon Himself the entirety of mankind’s sin so that when He was inevitably crucified He would then free us from said sin. He would then be resurrected, send His Holy Spirit down upon the Apostles that they may be heard and understood by everyone - despite their native language, after which He would ascend - under His own power, into Heaven. Any Christian will tell you that all of these things literally happened. Yet somehow people will dismiss the creation story and the story of the flood as if there’s no way that it could have happened.

If God saw fit to do something, it would simply be, just by the mere fact that He willed it so. If He saw fit to put a family on a boat, flood the world enough to kill everything, and reseed with the people that remained, then so be it. I find it very strange that I’m told that the flood and creation were not written about literally, yet the existence of God - who Himself is actually three persons in the same nature - who creates through mere acts of the will is to be taken literally. It’s counterintuitive.

Exactly. But you will find maybe that no one can answer this because it is true.

---

Dei Verbum has been misused by you, Tim, in an attempt to reduce the possibility of historicity in the OT. Although you obviously mean it…

there also exists for purposes of exegesis: ‘The Historical Critical Method’.

• I’d imagine this process of exegesis exists because historicity is not ruled out.

Christianity itself takes faith. And so does believing some Genesis stories that are considered (by some) as not being true. Genre and form and poetic license does not reduce the possibility that events were true or based on truth.

Christians believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to write the truth contained in the Scriptures - spiritual truth first and foremost, but nevertheless, as St. Thomas Aquinas said: “Grace builds upon nature”. Our Creator’s grace works amongst the physical reality of life. The writers of the accounts could only have been able to express what they expressed if they lived and experienced a relationship with their Creator, or heard about experiences, and were then given the meanings to these experiences, by the Holy Spirit. Such wisdom is learnt by lives lived not by sitting still doing nothing. Sure, some accounts may be a hymn, or a story - like Job - or an account that has been written in such a way to gain the full meaning behind certain scenarios, but it does not mean that every single account did not physically happen. Not everything needs to be taken literally, and yet, as the poster said above, it does not defy belief that He performed such miracles.

Furthermore, the prophets and the apostles referred to Scripture, and when they did, they didn’t refer to everything being a fable.

 

[friardchips]

God wills man to use his reason to discover his creation. Because he loves us, he allows us freedom of discovery, or “science”.

God’s existence and his nature is not something we simply take in literalist fashion from words on a page, rather he is a being we have faith in.

Also, I have a BS in geology.
There is no evidence of an ark.

(sorry)

If someone had discovered it, believe me, you would know about it without any doubt.

As someone with a BS in Geology, I am surprised that you aren’t aware that timber rots - the stuff of which the ark would have been made! And so it is not likely that an Ark would be found.

And you’re also wrong in thinking that the flood around the time of the Ark did not occur. Romania somewhere (I think) but I can find the article and get back to you.

 

[clem456]

As someone with a BS in Geology, I am surprised that you aren’t aware that timber rots - the stuff of which the ark would have been made! And so it is not likely that an Ark would be found.

And you’re also wrong in thinking that the flood around the time of the Ark did not occur. Romania somewhere (I think) but I can find the article and get back to you.

OK

 

[BChartowski]

God wills man to use his reason to discover his creation. Because he loves us, he allows us freedom of discovery, or “science”.

God’s existence and his nature is not something we simply take in literalist fashion from words on a page, rather he is a being we have faith in.

Also, I have a BS in geology.
There is no evidence of an ark.

(sorry)

If someone had discovered it, believe me, you would know about it without any doubt.

I don’t know why you’re apologizing. This shows my point precisely. To you, you haven’t found evidence, therefore it hasn’t happened. Yet, as a Christian, you will tell me that God created everything - literally - out of nothing simply because He willed it which is a far, far greater stretch than Him flooding the Earth, which is an insignificantly small speck even within just our galaxy, let alone all of creation. Indeed, science can reveal many things. As a fallen, imperfect people we must also understand that our science carries with it that imperfect fallen nature as well. This is not to dismiss science, but to think that you perfectly understand something because “science says so” is wholly contradictory to faith.

 

[MaryHelp777]

Chinese and Turkish explorers say wooden remains they have discovered on Mount Ararat in eastern Turkey are the remains of Noah’s Ark.

Carbon dating proves the relics are 4,800 years old, meaning they date to around the same time the ark was said to be built.

the structure contained several compartments, some with wooden beams, that they believe were used to house
animals.

At an elevation of more than 4,000 meters, a structure built with plank-like timber. Each plank is about 8 inches wide.
tenons, proof of ancient construction predating the use of metal nails."

the wooden structure is permanently covered by ice and volcanic rocks.

All the locals tell of stories of visits to an ancient ship visible at certain times on the mountain.

The Ark is on the Armenian flag, and the Armenian nation also say it is resting frozen in the snow on the peak of Mount Ararat.

In Ireland there was a stone age burial mound in County meath. All the locals told the story that the sun used to go into that burial mound one day during the year. This mound was 2,500 years older than the pyramids. Archaeologists dug it up and discovered a passage way to a tomb, with a window box that on the 21st December the morning light on the winter solstice shines into a window above the door and lights up the three burial chambers.
So the local stories, passed down over 5,000 years were true, and that site is called Newgrange in Ireland.

 

[clem456]

I don’t know why you’re apologizing. This shows my point precisely. To you, you haven’t found evidence, therefore it hasn’t happened. Yet, as a Christian, you will tell me that God created everything - literally - out of nothing simply because He willed it which is a far, far greater stretch than Him flooding the Earth, which is an insignificantly small speck even within just our galaxy, let alone all of creation. Indeed, science can reveal many things. As a fallen, imperfect people we must also understand that our science carries with it that imperfect fallen nature as well. This is not to dismiss science, but to think that you perfectly understand something because “science says so” is wholly contradictory to faith.

I am not saying the flood didn’t happen. Did I say that???
No. I did not say the flood didn’t happen.
(Whew, glad that’s out of the way. )

God created everything ex-nihilo, out of his loving will. ok I think any Catholic is good with that.

Just because God created everything doesn’t mean Catholics read the bible like fundamentalists. We are not required to believe the literalist scientific and historic details of the bible, to the letter, in English. It’s fairly clear, for instance, that creation ex-nihilo was not done by God in 6 literalist days.
Science is a gift from God. It helps us figure these things out. The Church is good with that. No problem. The Church is not threatened in it’s scripture interpretation when science doesn’t back up the literalist details of the bible.
Literal sense is not the same thing as literalist.

And I didn’t say that science is perfect,. Did I say that???
No, I didn’t say that science is perfect, and I didn’t say that I perfectly understand something because science says so, did I?
Nope didn’t say that.

Can you comment on something I actually said?

 

[BChartowski]

I’m going to try to address this as simply as I’m able.

God created everything ex-nihilo, out of his loving will. ok I think any Catholic is good with that.

Just because God created everything doesn’t mean Catholics read the bible like fundamentalists. We are not required to believe the literalist scientific and historic details of the bible, to the letter, in English. It’s fairly clear, for instance, that creation ex-nihilo was not done by God in 6 literalist days.
Science is a gift from God. It helps us figure these things out. The Church is good with that. No problem. The Church is not threatened in it’s scripture interpretation when science doesn’t back up the literalist details of the bible.
Literal sense is not the same thing as literalist.

It really has nothing to do with requirement, fundamentalism, or threats to the Church from science. It may help to reread my original post, #63, in order to get clarity.

I am not saying the flood didn’t happen. Did I say that???
No. I did not say the flood didn’t happen.
(Whew, glad that’s out of the way. )

The bold text would lead a reader to infer that you don’t believe the flood happened due to lack of evidence for the Ark:

**Also, I have a BS in geology.
There is no evidence of an ark.

(sorry)**

If someone had discovered it, believe me, you would know about it without any doubt.

And I didn’t say that science is perfect,. Did I say that???
No, I didn’t say that science is perfect, and I didn’t say that I perfectly understand something because science says so, did I?
Nope didn’t say that.

Can you comment on something I actually said?

The answer to your last question, as to whether you indicated your understanding due to science alone, I think is answered in my second comment on this post.

 

[clem456]

I’m going to try to address this as simply as I’m able.

It really has nothing to do with requirement, fundamentalism, or threats to the Church from science. It may help to reread my original post, #63, in order to get clarity.

OK ! pleasure is mine…

BChartowski
I have, at times, found myself wondering why it is that some so easily dismiss both the creation story and the flood as being mere stories, yet they so readily believe that God created the entire universe - every galaxy with it’s billions and billions of stars, every planet, every comet - out of nothing more than His Own Will. To quote Romans 4:17: “He can send His call to that which has no being as if it already was.” Trying to use science to say what God has and has not done serves only to undermine faith. If Genesis is not meant to be read literally, then are we required to literally believe that He did indeed create everything out of nothing? He either literally did create everything out of nothing, or He did not. Did Abraham literally prepare to offer up his son, Isaac, in sacrifice at God’s command?

God Himself willed into being the entirety of existence itself. We are called to believe that He then impregnated Mary through His Holy Spirit in order that His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, could come and save us from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve (the creation story itself turning out to be merely a fable). He then goes on to feed 5000 people with a small boy’s hand-basket of bread and fish, heal terminally ill people by merely willing it, raise the dead, literally take upon Himself the entirety of mankind’s sin so that when He was inevitably crucified He would then free us from said sin. He would then be resurrected, send His Holy Spirit down upon the Apostles that they may be heard and understood by everyone - despite their native language, after which He would ascend - under His own power, into Heaven. Any Christian will tell you that all of these things literally happened. Yet somehow people will dismiss the creation story and the story of the flood as if there’s no way that it could have happened.

If God saw fit to do something, it would simply be, just by the mere fact that He willed it so. If He saw fit to put a family on a boat, flood the world enough to kill everything, and reseed with the people that remained, then so be it. I find it very strange that I’m told that the flood and creation were not written about literally, yet the existence of God - who Himself is actually three persons in the same nature - who creates through mere acts of the will is to be taken literally. It’s counterintuitive.

You present an either/or proposition as follows.
Either I believe the flood literally in all it’s details, or I cannot not fully believe the other details you mentioned, or I do not believe that God created everything ex-nihilo, all because I might not believe the flood in a literalist way.
That is a fundamentalist proposition. That’s just simply a textbook example of it.

The bold text would lead a reader to understand that you don’t believe the flood happened due to lack of evidence for the Ark:

The answer to your last question, as to whether you indicated your understanding due to science alone, I think is answered in my second comment on this post.

I never claimed the flood didn’t happen, you claimed I said the flood didn’t happen when I didn’t say that.
I said there is -no evidence for- such and such. That’s not the same thing as saying something didn’t happen. Can you see the difference? You assumed I was claiming it didn’t happen, you assumed I am a person who disputes the inerrancy of the bible.
BUT…
I didn’t say it didn’t happen. How could I claim it didn’t happen, I wasn’t even alive then.

Can’t we just have a discussion without putting words in people’s mouth?
GEEEZ.

 

[friardchips]

OK

As MaryHelp777 said, Turkey, not Romania. Sorry!

 

[clem456]

As MaryHelp777 said, Turkey, not Romania. Sorry!

Don’t invest too much time on this.
My faith as a Catholic does not require this answer. I believe the bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God.
Turkey vs Romania? It’s all details. Nice to have factual historic details, but it’s not the substance of Inspiration and doesn’t affect inerrancy either way.

 

[BChartowski]

OK ! pleasure is mine…

You present an either/or proposition as follows.
Either I believe the flood literally in all it’s details, or I cannot not fully believe the other details you mentioned, or I do not believe that God created everything ex-nihilo, all because I might not believe the flood in a literalist way.
That is a fundamentalist proposition. That’s just simply a textbook example of it.

I never claimed the flood didn’t happen, you claimed I said the flood didn’t happen when I didn’t say that.
I said there is -no evidence for- such and such. That’s not the same thing as saying something didn’t happen. Can you see the difference? You assumed I was claiming it didn’t happen, you assumed I am a person who disputes the inerrancy of the bible.
BUT…
I didn’t say it didn’t happen. How could I claim it didn’t happen, I wasn’t even alive then.

Can’t we just have a discussion without putting words in people’s mouth?
GEEEZ.

It would be good to take your own advice about putting words into someone’s mouth. If you’d reread what I wrote initially, instead of simply positing it back to me, I do believe you’d get what I’m driving at. I could try to shorten it or rewrite it here, but it stands as I intended, and I wouldn’t want a rewrite to be misconstrued. I’ve answered only what you’ve asked giving your own replies to show how I arrived at a conclusion based upon what your said, and I’ve replied in a straight forward fashion without returning what comes across as a patronizing tone as indicated by your style. An example would be the purple frowning face.

 

[friardchips]

Don’t invest too much time on this.
My faith as a Catholic does not require this answer. I believe the bible is the inerrant and inspired word of God.
Turkey vs Romania? It’s all details. Nice to have factual historic details, but it’s not the substance of Inspiration and doesn’t affect inerrancy either way.

I sometimes imagine stories to do with people’s faith being told as teachers would tell stories to children gathered around. They’d draw on their faith and utilize their imaginations, and because they were in relationship with the Creator, their stories were inspired. And this might hold truth because whether as stories to pass onto the younger folk, or as hymns and songs of praise (a tutor helped me realise this) or a scribe writing something he has been inspired to write from his wellspring of knowledge, the truth is there, and so to some extent I agree; that said, I tend to ascribe truth to stories in Genesis not just out of respect for Biblical people, in case they do and are in Heaven - Adam, Eve and Noah specifically, but also for the fact that our Creator did perform miracles and guide His people, and this was needed, in order for knowledge of Him to grow - all very well the prophets preaching but if no evidence of being led was found, then where would be the evidence at that time - there was a growing knowledge of a Creator who was leading them. Remember that the OT is the Old TESTAMENT i.e:- ‘witness’. True, the truth could have been revealed in ways such as the story of Job and still hold as much significance, except that for inspired writers to have written about events - however people here want to understand the stories - they must have drawn upon reality in order for the inspiration to manifest at all. They must have known what a flood was to have written about a flood. Otherwise, how would they have known that such a thing could happen?!

 

[clem456]

I sometimes imagine stories to do with people’s faith being told as teachers would tell stories to children gathered around. They’d draw on their faith and utilize their imaginations, and because they were in relationship with the Creator, their stories were inspired. And this might hold truth because whether as stories to pass onto the younger folk, or as hymns and songs of praise (a tutor helped me realise this) or a scribe writing something he has been inspired to write from his wellspring of knowledge, the truth is there, and so to some extent I agree; that said, I tend to ascribe truth to stories in Genesis not just out of respect for Biblical people, in case they do and are in Heaven - Adam, Eve and Noah specifically, but also for the fact that our Creator did perform miracles and guide His people, and this was needed, in order for knowledge of Him to grow - all very well the prophets preaching but if no evidence of being led was found, then where would be the evidence at that time - there was a growing knowledge of a Creator who was leading them. Remember that the OT is the Old TESTAMENT i.e:- ‘witness’. True, the truth could have been revealed in ways such as the story of Job and still hold as much significance, except that for inspired writers to have written about events - however people here want to understand the stories - they must have drawn upon reality in order for the inspiration to manifest at all. They must have known what a flood was to have written about a flood. Otherwise, how would they have known that such a thing could happen?!

They did draw on reality.
The chief reality is that God exists, and he works powerfully in the world, both physically and spiritually. He is True, and his truth is much larger than our ability to glean the facts.

He is capable of literally anything. We are not. God is not held in the tiny box of our understanding.

Keep in mind that God’s full and final revelation is NOT scripture. Scripture is part of God’s revelation, but the fullfilment and summation of it is a person, Jesus Christ.

Fundamentalism, which insists on rigid factuality is not of a mind with the Church. It robs the scriptures of their fullness.
Benedict Verbum Domini “The Fundamentalist Interpretation of Scriptures” paragraph 40 something.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t know why you’re apologizing. This shows my point precisely. To you, you haven’t found evidence, therefore it hasn’t happened. Yet, as a Christian, you will tell me that God created everything - literally - out of nothing simply because He willed it which is a far, far greater stretch than Him flooding the Earth, which is an insignificantly small speck even within just our galaxy, let alone all of creation. Indeed, science can reveal many things. As a fallen, imperfect people we must also understand that our science carries with it that imperfect fallen nature as well. This is not to dismiss science, but to think that you perfectly understand something because “science says so” is wholly contradictory to faith.

Well said. I don’t dismiss science entirely.

Ed