>>11197120It's true, I am not wise. I thirst for the truth.
The real redpill was when I researched archeology and seeing the dates flat out contradict one another. I became convinced that I needed to study geology to get the correct archeological dates. One thing led to another... Did you know that crude oil can form in only a few decades?
>>11197011Good evidence for the Flood is how rapid some of these animals must have been buried in sediment. Some of them are laying eggs, some animals are even in the middle of eating other animals.
>>11197029Why do you think the new Flood Geological models (yes, they have improved since the 1960's) include pre-Flood disasters and/or post-Flood disasters?
Even adding the Ice Age, even though it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Bible (but perhaps implied by the fact that the Middle East used to be wetter, cooler and lusher)? Because they can explain some of the evidence.
>>11197178Here's a quote from some idiot which proves your point
>In short, the “flood geology” model was rejected by trained, experienced geologists (who also happened to be creationists) over 170 years ago, and has not been taken seriously since then. Real geology has proven enormously powerful, for without it we would not have the fossils in our museums or our understanding of geologic history.Look closer at why he says "Real geology" is important and ask yourself if this isn't circular reasoning
