A lie from the book of lies.

Most of the old religions do. So what? Back then "the world" referred to what you could see and travel to. Less than 1% of the Earths surface. Generally less than 0.0001% of the Earths surface. Hardly indicative of a global flood, just a local one.

There was no global flood period, let alone so recently. Half the Earth would still be a swamp & deserts wouldn't exist.

The Rockies are forming as we sit here. So yes.

Fixed.

"Now if you still believe in creationism then why is there so much diversity in the world. God did it is simply not a scientific answer."

Absolutely. There is so much diversity in the world because of bio-diversity. But it does not prove evolution. The "greatest" proof of evolution (some articles have proclaimed) is Darwin's finches. Big beaks, small beaks, long and short beaks- congrats on observing something that happens naturally everyday, even amongst humans (blue, brown, green, black eyes, tall/short humans etc. ..) But please, show me a finch that, over time, has turned into a dog. Or a rose that, over time, has turned into an oak tree. That has never been observed in living things today or in the fossil record. Darwin himself said that if evolution is true, we should find BILLIONS of transitional fossils... BILLIONS (which makes sense because there are billions, maybe even trillions of species the we have "evolved" into). Yet with all the years of digging, we haven't even found one complete transitional fossil and the bones that we claim to be apart of this transitional fossil are no bigger than your finger. So why do we say that bio-diversity = evolution, when it doesn't? Yes, they go hand-in-hand, but DO NOT equal each other.

To say that we just evolved from chaotic simplicity upwards to great, complex organization all by chance over time (theory of evolution) is not a scientific answer just like saying God created everything. Science is limited by what you can observe and experiment with in a 3D world. No one (obviously) has observed the origin of universe or mankind. The experiment can not be repeated. So we aren't talking scientifically, we are talking philosophically.

Here's a quote by Dr. George Wall, he won the Noble Peace and is the leading biology professor at Harvard. He says "When it comes to the origin of life, you have only 2 possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation, the other is a supernatural, creative act of God. There is no 3rd possibility." He says it's spontaneous generation. " That idea was SCIENTIFICALLY disproved 150 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leads us to only one possible conclusion- that life arose by a supernatural, creative act of God. But I will not accept that PHILOSOPHICALLY because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe even that which I know is scientifically impossible (spontaneous generation)."

Another quote, by Sir Fred Hoyle, professor of biology and mathematics, "Let's be intellectually honest, as scientist we all know that the probability of life arising by chance is the same probability as throwing a 6 on the dice 5 million consecutive times. Let's be scientifically honest, as scientist we know that the probability of life evolving into greater and greater complex organization by chance is the same probability as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and out at the other end, a jetliner is formed."  Random, impersonal chance DOES NOT produce complex organization, only greater chaos.

NOW, if after reading what I typed out you still believe in evolution, tell me why. Only because I want to know and I enjoy reading and hearing peoples views. I do want to challenge people reading though to get defensive about what they side with, according to the scientific data and not your faith because EVERYONE has faith. Faith in what and why is what I'm interested it (when it comes down to evolution v. creation). So yeah... lol

Ok, so it's all about your titanic false dilemma. It can't possibly be about the evolution of life from simple to complex so powerfully proven in the fossil record because your wee head can't imagine the passage of one million years let alone the potential changes wrought on organisms over one billion. No - instead it's all about this anthropomorphic deity you're using as a cognitive band aid despite proof levels of complete zero. You must be joking.

Furthermore, stop appealing to dubious authority and find some real proof to support your bullshit. And I mean real proof - don't go diving for the nearest gap like a rat up a drainpipe. Wind in a junkyard making a jetliner? Yeah, that's not the only wind blowing around here. Abiogenesis is fraught and we all want to know how - but evolution is a fact and if you deny it then you're not equipped to continue the discussion with us.

As for random impersonal chance, the nature of chemistry is not about random impersonal chance at the particle level and if it was the universe would have no structure at all. There is random chance but it works on the basis of the known relationships particles, chemicals and elements have with one another. Once abiogenesis has taken place, it's all about the accumulation of beneficial mutation, something you obviously need to do a lot more of.

I don't understand why someone would say "evolution is a fact and if you deny it then you're not equipped to continue the discussion with us." -- Equipped with what? Your way of thinking? Let's all only let people with our same view be "allowed" to talk or comment because THAT is very open-minded.  

Is that what you want people to think? That when an atheist's way of thinking is questioned, atheist get so closed off with the idea of being wrong that you tell people with different ways of thinking to not be included?

That's upsetingly apalling.

Atheists aren't afraid to be wrong...What's appalling is when in spite of mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, those who deny it simply keep on doing so....

Dude, NOTICE your OWN language.  You hypothesize with words like "may" regarding fish fossils ending up on mountains.  Then like  a typical HYPOCRITE intellectual punk coward atheist you draw DEFINITIVE FINAL conclusions based upon your "maybe" statements.

So in your assinine "logic" anyone can say "There MIGHT have been gold in China, so we KNOW that there WAS gold in Hong Kong".  The MIGHT proves the KNOW?   In your Bizaro world, yeah.  What a doofus... can you rep the atheists with at least some level of competence and common sense.  Or at least be 1/2 way consistent in your posts.

You went from "may" to "flood is proved to never happened"....You can't prove anything never happened dufus.  To use the same type of analogy again, you can't say, "I didn't find any gold in Hong Kong, so it's PROVEN that there is DEFINITELY no gold in China"...or even if I said no gold in Hong Kong it would still be equivalent to the level of stupid-jack-ass-ness of your deductive reasoning.

Checkmate, hypocrite.