God was there. The Ark passengers were, too.
The point of the "we didnt observe it" argument is to show that something is not a scientific matter, but a historical one.
I think you mean, "Do you assume that the original account really happened?"?
I have gotten evidence of it. All of any history contained in God's Word is accurate because God is Omniscient and never lies.
I read about a water containing gem that was evidence of Flood.
And arches. If earth is so old, if there was no global flood, erosion would kill the arches before they would form naturally.
And the usability of fossil fuels, instead of time disintegrating them. Dont matter how much preservation one puts.
Thanks for asking. One thing about the truth, is it can always handle questions, instead of dodging or crumbling. And you learn more!
Um, it's true because it's true isn't a very good reason.
As for oil, I don't know where you got the idea
it should disintegrate.
A seemingly odd place for a girl from Hong Kong but I spent 6 weeks one summer of Uni ( NYU )
in Kansas state with a petroleum geologist.
Spent time at well sites, watched the drilling,
helped get samples of cuttings, study them in
the "lab" in a trailer.
Very cool. The little rock chips of shale, limestone
marl coming from the Mowata,the Bandera etc
formations hundreds of meters below the wheat field.
I had my microscopic museum of bits of fossil
crinoids and other ancient sea creatures.
Bits of iron pyrite to pretend was gold from
an unmineable depth.
Bits of very solid limestone, no porosity.
Bits of " vugular" ( porous) limestone.
that's where oil could b. But usually isn't.
Then here's bits from a known oil producing g formation coming up! You can see the blackened stone. But...no smell. No " flash" of it dissolving
in CCl04. " Dead" oil, just a stain left. It's migrated
elsewhere.
Later...you can smell it! You can see it!
BUT the stratum is only about 2 ft thick. Not
enough to bother with.
Not super relevant to topic but I do know some geology.
The historical global flood, not "my" flood.
Around 4,000 years ago, give or take 450.
Which data do you refer to? Scientific or historical?
"
Since the Flood offers a viable explanation for the Ice Age, one could expect that the Ice Age would be mentioned in the Bible. It is possible that the book of Job, written about 500 years or so after the Flood, may include a reference to the Ice Age in Job 38:29–30, which says, “From whose womb comes the ice? And the frost of heaven, who gives it birth? The waters harden like stone, and the surface of the deep is frozen.” However, Job could have observed frost and lake ice during winter in Palestine, especially if temperatures were colder because of the Ice Age. The reason the Ice Age is not directly discussed in the Bible is probably because the Scandinavian ice sheet and mountain ice caps were farther north than the region where the Bible was written. Only an increase in the snow coverage of Mt. Hermon and possibly more frequent snowfalls on the high areas of the Middle East would have been evident to those living in Palestine."
excerpt from
The ice age is a popular topic that is often discussed. Sadly, most people hear the secular/uniformitarian view and don’t look at this subject from a biblical perspective.
answersingenesis.org
There is polar ice far far older than
4000, 10,000, or any other biblical
flood date. Or so shows a very large body
of research.
Ice floats.
So either the ice was not there or there was no flood.
Denial of Ice cap age involves any awful lot of fact- denying