|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence of the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I'm repeating either that there is evidence for the Flood or the evidence itself in this series of posts I'm not interested in this thread, and all I am doing is responding to other posts Pro tip: it is much easier to keep your story straight when you stick to the truth. Making stuff up with no attempt at consistency leads faceplants such as the above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
No. When He said, "Blessed are those who did not see and yet believed," He was saying, "Blessed are those who did not see and yet believed." The preference is something you're adding to it.
When He said "Blessed are those who did not see and yet believed" He was indeed saying that would have been preferable. Faith writes:
No again. Belief is a poor substitute for direct evidence. We are all in that position now, we are not going to get Thomas' special audience, so it is far better to believe the witnesses than stubbornly refuse to believe unless we are given direct proof. And we come around again to what it means to believe. Is belief the mouthing of "Lord! Lord!" or is it the doing of His wishes? And if we do what He wishes, what difference does it make what we profess?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: I'm not interested in this thread, and all I am doing is responding to other posts. Well now you're just adding dissembling to your many improprieties. If you're not interested in the thread, if you're just wasting people's time, if you're just posting messages that you're just as likely to ignore as not, then get off the thread. If you're not here to discuss the evidence for the flood that you just finished telling us you have so much of, then get off the thread. If what you really want to discuss is some other topic like "God Did It!" then get off the thread. The fact of the matter is that despite your denial you have demonstrated a very strong interest in this thread and have already spent a great deal of effort describing your supposed "evidence". In Message 187 you said:
Faith in Message 187 writes: Strata and fossils. Works a lot better as evidence for the Flood than for your OE and evolution, LOTS better. Ridiculous really, the idea of time periods sandwiched between slabs of rock, physically impossible for it to happen that way-- many of those slabs extend thousands of square miles, flat flat sediments that must have wiped out whatever living things had been there in that "time period" -- which all managed somehow to get smushed down into the sediments, a bit of flora and scattered fauna and no other evidence that such a scenario ever actually existed on that spot -- not to mention the simple absurdity of expecting a time period to have any kind of neat physical demarcations at all, let alone a whole series of them over hundreds of millions of years. In Message 198 you said:
Faith in Message 198 writes: Nothing else could reasonably account for the strata at such a depth and enormous horizontal extent, nor for such an amazing abundance of fossilized dead things which require special conditions to form, all met by the Flood. The standard accepted explanation is hardly even plausible; it's really amazing how it ever got accepted. Sure, a seeming order, but everything else says it's bogus. Even the fact that we know microevolution occurs in very short periods of time is an argument against it, and even the fossil record shows that, with its trilobites and coelacanths that show tiny changes from sedimentaqry layer to sedimentary layer, those layers that absurdly mark "time periods" of millions of years on the standard theory. Millions of years is ridiculous. And see my other recent posts for more reasons it's ridiculous that I'm not spelling out with every post. In Message 200 you said:
Faith in Message 200 writes: the depth is easily explained by all the dirt that was stirred up by the forty days and nights of heavy worldwide rain, on land and in the oceans. That's a lot of dirt to get sorted into sediments and redeposited. That's another thing: the "time period" explanation really can't explain the different separated sediments in the Geo Column, a gigantic sandstone, a gigantic limestone etc etc.;....... Well some of the layers span an entire continent and even reach across the ocean to another continent. And it's hard to reconcile, say, a limestone slab with a desert. In any case, it's easy to explain a Flood that covered the entire world making layer after layer of different sediments and, really, nothing else can. In Message 210 you said:
Faith in Message 210 writes: Yes I know early geologists expected geology to confirm the Bible but their imagination was too limited to see that it really does; that's why they went with the so-called evidence of an ancient earth, which hardly deserves the term "evidence" at all, since until radiometric dating methods came along it was just a lot of stuff like Hutton's assessment of Siccar Point "Oh that must have taken a LONG time." He was wrong, it wasn't formed in stages, it was formed all at once in the Flood, and the unconformity occurred after all the strata were laid down, just as similar formations occurred elsewhere after the Flood. In Message 216 you said:
Faith in Message 216 writes: Da Vinci missed it, what can I say? The evidence doesn't show repeated local floods at all, the strata are way too consistent for that, as are the fossils. Everything about the strata says Flood, not time periods, as I've argued here many times. So quite obviously you've already demonstrated a great deal of interest in discussing your evidence of the flood, and we can call your claim of non-interest in this thread what it really is, a lie.
As for evidence I've given lots of it on other threads,... As far as your evidence, you have never provided what you thought was evidence when it wasn't immediately rebutted, and instead of sticking around to discuss things to a conclusion you have instead invented reasons to abandon discussion. Either it was all just too much, or the page was too white, or people were too impolite or too stupid or too infuriating or too something, and the next thing we knew you would be gone, only to reappear later making the same arguments as if they hadn't already been rebutted. Just like you're doing now.
...and if you are denying that, you are playing a really nasty game here. The one playing a really nasty game, over and over again, is the one again running away from evidence and rebuttals. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It never fails to amaze me how a simple innocent statement by a creationist can be blown up into a major "impropriety" by an evo. This thread is NOT about general evidence for the Flood, it's about the specific evidence of Harvey the Hawk. I don't see any point in turning it into another thread about my favorite argument, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to STATE my argument when the context seems to require it. I have argued it at great length elsewhere. However, since you say to get off the thread if this is the extent of my involvement, I'm gone. Unless someone says something I feel I have to answer.
I do, by the way, consider "strata and fossils" to be evidence for the Flood without any further elaboration. Oh, and rebuttals are often just wild stabs in the dark at EvC, and as for their quickness, they generally get just as rapid response from me in turn. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Percy writes: Well what do you know, contrary and argumentative with no support for your position. Again. I don't have a position, again.
A hawk seeking shelter is not evidence of a Biblical myth. Yes it is.
"Hey, hawk's in the car, it's raining, must be evidence that the Flood of the Bible was a real event." Good show! It doesn't prove or explain anything. It is just evidence.
But you're interpreting objective evidence (hawk seeks shelter in car, something that was observed to have really happened) as evidence of the Flood, a Biblical myth supporting your belief in God. Right, that's why the hawk does not prove God exists.
Yep, sounds like you've got an open and shut case there - the evidence sought you out, then voices in your head told you God designed animals to seek out cars (which by the way don't resemble an ark) for shelter. As soon as you start presenting facts(if you could stop character assaulting), I won't have to listen to voices in my head. The other people that responded objectively get it, why don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
ringo writes: A disciple of Christ would be somebody who follows the teachings of Christ. You'd learn more by broadening your scope. Right now, your belief in Christ seems to be holding your learning back - e.g. you can't seem to learn that the Flood never happened. My belief in Christ came way after my agnostic stage. It isn't holding me back. Like I said, it doesn't matter if the flood happened or not. That is not really what this is about. What this is about is being able to be open minded enough so you won't be held back from finding Christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
ringo writes: Read the topic title. You said that it was evidence OF the flood. That is a hypothesis of sorts. No it isn't.
But does your evidence support the flood story? Do animals seek shelter in non-flood situations? Yes. So your hypothesis fails. No it doesn't. Because animals seek shelter in other situations does negate that they seek shelter in a flood, or biblical flood. It is only in addition too.
Nobody is ignoring your evidence. They're ignoring your interpretation of the evidence - because it's nonsensical. It really does not get any simpler. If you choose to ignore it, then its on you.
That statement isn't true. Jesus Himself encouraged Thomas to use objective evidence. Yep, before He died and gave us the Holt Spirit. God gave us tons of physical evidence. You see where that got us? After Jesus died it takes faith. John 3:16.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Such fun watching the creationists dance on and off and on and off their positions, because flood, no: hawk, no: flood .... look: strata!!! but I'm not talking about the flood ... but if I was ...
Most fun all month. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Faith writes: It never fails to amaze me how a simple innocent statement... You mean your lies and misrepresentations?
This thread is NOT about general evidence for the Flood, it's about the specific evidence of Harvey the Hawk. That's an interestingly narrow interpretation of the topic after all the effort you made describing your evidence for the flood, which you did in Message 187, Message 198, Message 200, Message 210 and Message 216. This is just more dissembling from you. You never interpreted the topic of this thread that narrowly. In fact, you never pay much attention to the topic of any thread. You're already trying to change the topic of this thread from Evidence of the flood to "God Did It!"
I don't see any point in turning it into another thread about my favorite argument, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to STATE my argument when the context seems to require it. Another excuse for just doing whatever you please. This thread was fine for your crazy ideas about the Flood, but only until things didn't go your way, and then suddenly the thread has a narrow definition of Harvey the Hawk and "God Did It!"
However, since you say to get off the thread if this is the extent of my involvement, I'm gone. That's good and just as it should be and so bloody obvious that no one should have to tell you this time after time. If you're just going to state your positions and supposed "evidence" but have no intention of discussing and defending them, then you shouldn't be here.
I do, by the way, consider "strata and fossils" to be evidence for the Flood without any further elaboration. Oh, what a surprise, stating your evidence once again after stating "this thread is NOT about general evidence for the flood, it's about Harvey the Hawk." You can't even keep your arguments straight across consecutive paragraphs.
Oh, and rebuttals are often just wild stabs in the dark at EvC, and as for their quickness, they generally get just as rapid response from me in turn. This is just a flat out lie. After all the abuse and insults you've doled out to people, after all the evidence you've avoided, after all the rebuttals you've ignored, and while you're doing it yet again, you have the dishonesty and deceit to say this. Incredible. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: I do, by the way, consider "strata and fossils" to be evidence for the Flood without any further elaboration. We believe you. And that is a perfect example of why Creationists should never be allowed in a position where evidence or honesty based decisions would be needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You guys don't know the difference between evidence and proof, as Riverrat keeps trying to get you to recognize. Strata and fossils are evidence for the Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: You guys don't know the difference between evidence and proof, as Riverrat keeps trying to get you to recognize. Strata and fossils are evidence for the Flood. And that is why you could never be trusted in any position that requires evidence based decision making or honesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
riVeRraT writes: Percy writes:
I don't have a position, again. Well what do you know, contrary and argumentative with no support for your position. Again. Okay, you don't have a position.
A hawk seeking shelter is not evidence of a Biblical myth. Yes it is. So since you just finished telling me you don't have a position, it is therefore not your position that Harvey the Hawk is evidence of a Biblical myth. A bit contradictory, don't you think?
It doesn't prove or explain anything. It is just evidence. Everything is evidence - the challenge is identifying the relevance of the evidence. Your position, even though you've taken the nonsensical position that you don't have one, is that Harvey the Hawk is evidence relevant to the Biblical myth.
Right, that's why the hawk does not prove God exists. But I'll bet you're taking the position that the hawk is evidence of God.
As soon as you start presenting facts (if you could stop character assaulting), I won't have to listen to voices in my head. If you stop being evasive, vague, deceptive, baffling and argumentative then I'll stop calling it to your attention.
The other people that responded objectively get it, why don't you? I don't see anyone "getting" what you're saying. They probably feel the same way about you as NoNukes in Message 1189. Your history seems to be to spout some nonsense, then having the sense not to defend it you decide to be confounding and enigmatic in an effort to pretend that what you said really did make sense. If you want to have a reasonable, sensible, rational, straightforward discussion, there are plenty of people here who can do that with you. But if you'd rather just be a bozo then that isn't something that will escape notice. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Tell you what faith
You guys don't know the difference between evidence and proof ... Just for fun, why don't you define them and provide examples?
Waiting with baited breath I am ... (not) Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: You guys don't know the difference between evidence and proof, as Riverrat keeps trying to get you to recognize. First, I very much doubt RiVeRraT is making any such point as you claim. He's only even used the word "proof" once, and not while contrasting it with "evidence". Second, and you have heard this many times before, science isn't involved in proofs. Science is about building evidence into frameworks of understanding called theories that are explanatory and predictive. Nothing you're doing has those kinds of properties.
Strata and fossils are evidence for the Flood. Even though you claim it's not the topic and that you won't be defending your position, you repeat the claim anyway. One of the interesting contradictions of human nature is that people like you can sleep with themselves at night while those who have done nothing to anyone lay awake all night worrying anyway. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Post removed. Edited by Percy, : Fix response.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024