My own wild speculation, based only on ancient legends including those of Atlantis, is that genetic experiments had been conducted which essentially polluted the genomes of the entire human race, except for a few who like Noah were said to be 'perfect in their generations'. Thus, the necessity of a wholescale cleansing, including otherwise innocent children, and perhaps many animals as well. Perhaps someday we will find out the rest of the story.
My own attitude is that the Big Bang is illogical as a scientific theory right out of the box. Assuming that all the material/energy in the universe was once in a space smaller than the head of a pin is totally dumb.
I have always been skeptical of 'supernova' because they are called that because they are assumed to be unbelievably distant and hence must be unbelievably bright to be seen as bright as they are to us. But what if they are not unbelievably distant? After all, the only reason we believe this is because of their Red Shift!!!
In addition, the Big Bang assumes that the coordinates of the universe are expanding. This is ad hoc, because there is no direct evidence that this is the case.
Of course, evolution is compatible with 'Christianity' of a wimpy liberal sort, e.g. the type held by 'Christian' women who unequally yoke with unbelievers.
Those that hate God are blinded by their rebellion and devise clever stories of creation in which God has no part.
Not necessarily, because freshwater is less dense and is KNOWN to be able to float on saltwater for a long time.
I used to be impressed by all the 'scientific' dating methods until I finally looked into the subject in detail. It amazed me how people could delude themselves so badly. Thus, I finally concluded that there is no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Genesis narrative regarding a short age for the Earth and probably the universe as well.
Actually, Christians have every reason to be honest within their own world view, since Jesus is 'the truth' and He commanded us not to bear false witness. But atheists believe we are just rearranged pond scum with no transcendent source of morality. Therefore lying is perfectly consistent with their world view. That explains many of the posts by atheists on T[heology]W[eb].
[Replying to 'what did the animals eat after the global flood?]Forgetting exhumed carrion, which carnivores would rather eat than expend energy hunting, or fish trapped in pools left behind by retreating floodwaters.
Since there is no credible conventional explanation for the geological layers, it amazes me when people say there is no evidence for a global flood when they are probably standing on it right now. Wasn't there a classic novel about hiding things in plain sight?
If one follows these things for as long as I have it becomes obvious that evolutionary belief is a moving target because as soon as one argument for it is proven wrong another arises to take its place. This happens so regularly it could almost be considered a Law of Nature.
This because evolutionists are acting CONSISTENTLY with a world view that says we are just rearranged pond scum, so there is no transcendent source of objective morality. Therefore it is perfectly CONSISTENT with their world view to bear false witness. After all, morality is merely some chemical process in the brain that conferred some survival advantage on their alleged ape-life ancestors. Conversely, creationists have strong motivation to be truthful, because Jesus is 'the truth' (John 14:6). So on this grounds alone, it makes more sense to trust creationist websites like Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research over the gutter sites run by the infudgels etc.
Except that evolutionism has NOTHING to do with science and math and EVERYTHING to do with bigoted materialism. We already know that Jimmy has the typical humanist hatred of Christianity and Patriotism.
Those of us who believe God are able to recognize the clues left in the record of nature that put the lie to the cleverly devised stories of those who hate God.
Abiogenesis is frequently defined as not part of evolution but this is disingenupous because the vast majority (95%) of leading biologists have to believe it is true because they do not believe in God.
This is an unfair match because we recognize that esince evolutionists are highly trained in storytelling and they have been doing this for years with ample government funding. This funding permits them to avoid earning an honest living like creationists have to do and to devote their every waking minute to making up new stories and publishing them in their private magazines.
[Referring to evolution]It will be fascinating how historians of the future will explain how so many educated persons could have been so wrong about the past.
And not that the Beserk One cares, since he doesn't believe in any God anyway. But like a lot of misotheists, he's happy to use the likes of Bubba, QED and JJRamsey [Christians who accept evolution] as 'useful idiots' (Lenin's phrase) to help undermine Christianity by white-anting the very first book of the Bible.
But for positive evidence [of a young earth], we have the best of all—a reliable Eye-witness to the event who has provided a written record, which overrules any circumstantial [scientific] evidence!
For me, the best evidence that Genesis is correct and evolution is false lies in the areas of genetics, biology, chemistry, geology and paleontology.
...most evolutionists are too intellectually lazy and dishonest to represent their opponents correctly...
You didn't expect me to be 'sexist' and reply in a different manner to your silly attack because you're female (and likely blonde) did you? And under your evolutionary system, why not be sexist? Darwin and most of his evolutionary contemporaries were very sexist. Conversely, the Biblical Christianity is the only philosophy that has provided true liberation for women, but you come here to attack it.
Jesus was an excellent teacher, yet you would have us believe that He was misunderstood for 1800 years until Christ-haters like Lyell, Darwin and Huxley uncovered the true history of the Earth and life upon it.
I feel that if creation is true then all of the evidence available to date should be consistent with that event. But if evolution is true then all of the evidence should be consistent with that hypothesis. Since all of the evidence is not consistent with the evolutionary hypothesis I decided to investigate the creation hypothesis, and so far I have not found any evidence that is not consistent with it.
IMHO unicorns were dinosaurs. Since they were unknown when the KJV bible was translated, the Hebrew word was mistranslated into English.