How would one debate this coming from an evolutionary standpoint?
Here’s the situation. An evolutionist and a creationist get into a debate about how the Flood waters (relating to Noah) receeded. Both parties suppose that there was actually a Flood. What would a creationist say happened to the Flood waters and how would an evolutionist combat that?
Why would a scientist who’s specialty is biology (evolutionist if you will) have an opinion on what happens to the water in a worldwide flood? That is not in his branch of science.
Someone who knows about geology and earth sciences may argue that there isn’t enough water in the global ecosystem to have a worldwide flood. If, for some reason, they have conceded the possibility of a worldwide flood, then I don’t know what they would propose as a method of draining the water.
An " evolutionist ", as you call it, would know that there is no evidence in support of a world wide flood. Scientists do not " suppose ", but consider the evidence.
References :
A creationist might say that is was divine intervention
An evolutionist might say that there is a possible drought and that’s how the ecosystem in that particular area works,
For example, the Ganges river floods and recedes every year, it kills lives and brings life to the community
References :
Why would a scientist who’s specialty is biology (evolutionist if you will) have an opinion on what happens to the water in a worldwide flood? That is not in his branch of science.
Someone who knows about geology and earth sciences may argue that there isn’t enough water in the global ecosystem to have a worldwide flood. If, for some reason, they have conceded the possibility of a worldwide flood, then I don’t know what they would propose as a method of draining the water.
References :