<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]1. The author writes, "The verse that eliminates a global flood follows: 'You set a boundary they [the waters] cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth.' (Psalms 104:9) Obviously, if the waters never again covered the earth, then the flood must have been local."<br><br>The text says God will NEVER AGAIN cover the earth. To me, this supports a global flood.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>On that point, he said it is referring to the waters that covered the whole earth during creation before land appeared. However, it doesn't look to me like Ps. 104 is referring back to Gen.---it seems very much to be speaking of the flood.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]3. He writes, "If one were to interpret these verses from a global perspective, one would have to conclude that the entire earth became a desert after the flood. Obviously this interpretation is false, so the translations must be bad. In these verses, the dryness of the earth is obviously referring to the local land area and not the entire planet earth."<br><br>WHY? "Completely dry" does not have to mean desert. And what's this about believing all translations are bad?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yes, that was an odd point with no textual support.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]God created creation in 6 days, didn't he... [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Haha, not according to this guy, I guess!<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]5. He says, "Certainly archaeopteryx was not a strong flyer."<br><br>Hey, isn't that the bird the evolutionists are touting?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Yeah, supposedly it's transitional between dinosaurs and birds, or some such.

Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.