No, His objective remains, he destroyed all life that could not be sustained outside the ark with the waters risen above the mountains for about a year. It was the restoration that may have been expedited by supernatural means.
As when Korah and his band rebelled against Moses, an earthquake devoured Korah, his family, and all those that took part in the rebellion. Was there the conventional traces of an earthquake afterwards?
If you majored in geology, then you should know that there is not typically a consensus in the world of academia. Or, at least, there is always controversy amongst peers of equal credentials. The position that you take may be popular and majority, but, as far as wisdom is concerned, God invariably acts in a manner that confounds the intelligent. He always leaves a certain amount of ambiguity in order to elicit doubt in some, so that those with the hardened hearts may be exposed. He has not revealed Himself in an undeniable manner, so that the skeptics will remain skeptical and be labeled as such.
Again, we believe in the miraculous due to the purpose behind it, and not for the fantastical nature of it.
By " restoration" you mean that all evidence was magically erased.
You've evidently not graced the ivy halls witj
your presence so I won't assume you should
know better than to so completely misrepresent the nature and extent of controversy
"Always controversy among peers of equal credentials" is grossly misleading, that is,
you've misled yourself.
There will be disagreement as to what sketchy
data may mean.
Controversy is welcome and necessary in science BUT, not every half wit opinion is
welcome at the table.
It is necessary to have actual data.
There is no ( zero) data to show there ever
was a world wide flood. All of the indications
of such an event are missing. (Tidied up?)
But it goes way beyond just lack of evidence.
To have had a flood and tidy up, it would also
be necessary to fake all of the proof that there was no flood.
The polar ice caps, just for one, would have to
be replaced, and not just with a lot of frozen water.
All the internal structure would have to be meticulously rebuilt.
What structure?
Every year's snowfall forms a distinct layer
with its own internal structure different from every other layer.
Each layer traps some air, pollens, dust,
sulfuric acid, volcanic ash, etc.
A little different every year.
Drill down, count the layers. There are many many tens of thousands of them.
They can be counted visually and by electric log, based on the different conductivity of each
year (see sulfuric acid)
Organic material can be carbon dated.
Every volcano has its own " fingerprint"
unique ash.
Count down to 1883, and there is ash from
Krakatoa. Count down to the year 79, there's Vesuvias ash and sulfuric acid spike.
Radiocarbon gives the same dates.
There is no " controversy" as to whether the
methods work.
The ice was there long long before any " flood".
Ice floats.
I just mentioned here one thing that disproves the "flood". Not that they concern themselves with "flood" any more than fisheries biologists
concern themselves with disproving mermaids.
If a person wishes, finds it necessary to
dismiss in ignorance what they dont understand and cannot accept for emotional
reasons, that is their situation, and so much the
worse for them.
Making silly claims about " controversy"
and evidence that simply does not exist
any more than it does for mermaids seems to
me quite a mistaken enterprise.
Mistaken in that to dismiss in ignorance is the height of foolishness.
You know that is so.
That puts you halfway to an interesting epiphany.
A good faith effort to learn some actual geology should take you the rest of the way.
A bonus (big one) would be learning to see
( understand) the lanscape around you for
what it really is, in all its depth wonder and
history- which, btw, and imo, would show a
far greater appreciation for such God as there may be than believing its all been faked up
to hide a mythical flood.
If you travel at all, grab a guide to roadside
geology for your state. Try it!
There is no water in the earth's core, again the sheer idiocy of the claim has me wondering if this is some sort of an elaborate hoax?
