there isnt a lack of evidence about the flood, its just that scientists choose not to acknowledge it, as it would prove much of our thinking today wrong. and scientists hate to be wrong
13 comments
there isnt a lack of evidence about the flood, its just that scientists choose not to acknowledge it...
No, scientists in the 18th century (or was it the 17th?), who initially thought the global flood myth was true, eventually had to junk the idea because all of the evidence they were finding disproved it; and every bit of evidence discovered since then has only confirmed this. The only "evidence" ever offered since then contradicting it has been shown to be fake.
Kind of ironic really. Scientists love to be right, especially when everyone else is so wrong. It means you get lots of publicity, grants, and a chance to show up all your collegues.
Scientists hate to be wrong, but they love to make some other scientists wrong even more, because that's how you get famous enough to get in the history books. If a theory can be proven wrong, it will eventually have hundreds of scientists clawing at it.
Not acknowledging evidence is wrong, no scientest knowingly will do it.
Creationists on the other hand knowingly lie even after their claims have been repeatedly debunked. Hovind, Ham and Comfort all repeat 40 year old debunked arguments to this day.
"there isnt a lack of evidence about the flood"
Quite right, there's not a lack but a surfeit of evidence about the flood.
All of it negative.
Many of the early Geologists, Archeologists and
This is true fundie by the way, not just denying the science but implying an agenda of dishonesty.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
