|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence of the flood | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Then I guess you should stop doing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Science doesn't work quite the way you think. There are degrees of certainty. The conclusion that there was never a world-wide flood while humans have existed is very high on that scale. It's not absolute but it isn't far off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Even if you extend this behaviour to all wild animals it isn't evidence of the Flood.
First, it provides no reason at all to believe that a world-wide Flood actually happened. Second, even if you insert it into the Flood story all you would get is local animals trying to get into the Ark when things are already bad, which hardly fits the story. It's silly to call it evidence of the Flood. That's why I thought that the OP was just a joke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: You realise that you are agreeing with me ? That calling this "evidence of the Flood" is best taken as a joke ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
To call it evidence of the Flood is still a joke. Nothing in your post even addresses that point.
And, while it may please you to think that animals are dependent on us, it isn't generally true of wild animals (and where it is true it's usually because we've made things difficult for them)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I did. Apparently Cooper's Hawks are used in falconry, but aren't popular because they are hard to train. But that means they are more likely to fly off and not come back - always a risk with birds of prey. And some people do keep birds of prey as pets, even though it isn't really a good idea. There's no way to tell for sure, but even if it is a wild bird there must be a lot more Cooper's Hawks around that didn't jump into taxis - not to mention all the rest of the urban wildlife. To jump to the conclusion that animals are "programmed" to seek shelter with humans based on a single example when so many have not is daft. To go on and try to use it to explain how animals got on to the mythical Ark, when it doesn't even fit the story is even dafter. And to then claim it as evidence for the Flood ? It's practically begging to be laughed at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Then you agree that jar was basically right. Nit-picking about the difference between a virtual certainty and an absolute certainty seems a bit of a waste of time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I think you need to work more on the delivery. As a joke that fell completely flat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I think that "idiocy" would be more accurate than "hyperbole"
quote: Of course nobody is objecting to you being reminded of the Flood story. It's the attempt to argue for it as evidence of the Flood that is being objected to. Apparently we can't point out that a ridiculous falsehood is ridiculously false without you objecting. As for the question of whether riverrat is a creationist why would that matter ? I argued even more against Crashfrogs silly arguments that Jesus never existed. Should I have given those a pass because Crashfrog isn't a Creationist ?
quote: Or they are just desperate to get out of the rain. Possibly scared, too.
quote: You find it odd that people disagree with obvious falsehoods ? I think the bizarre behaviour is yours. Emphasising the the Flood is a falsehood - which you keep on doing - isn't going to convince any sane person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Well I am sorry if I was being too charitable,
quote: If "the flood" means Noah's Flood as it almost always does in this context then your claim is just silly. If you mean "the flood in Houston" then "a flood" would still be correct (making your distinction deceptive at best) and your post looks even more like an intentional joke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: In other words, jar was simply speaking s little loosely - as anyone who calls the Earth a sphere would be doing (and calling the Earth a sphere is known to be not exactly correct). Hardly a matter worth mentioning. As for the other part all I will say is that it is funny how "Christians" feel free to crtiticse others - without much concern for honesty or truth - yet whine is horribly when far better founded criticisms are made of them. It's not exactly Christian behaviour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I hope that you can see that you are a whining liar who is upset because he gets the criticisms he earned. Everyone is allowed to speak as loosely as jar did, at least in ordinary speech. You will rarely find anyone criticised for doing so, no matter what hey believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Untrue, I also did. Message 42 quote: As I pointed out it is NOT part of the story. It does not even seem to be true in general - the vast majority of urban wildlife did not seek shelter. And even if it was part of the story it would be as true if there were only a severe local flood. Not to mention that fictions can and do include known facts, so even if it was a fact (it isn't) and even if it was in the story (it isn't) it still wouldn't be the evidence you claim. So, essentially you have no evidence here of a global Flood.
quote: Since I have given four good reasons why it is not evidence of a global flood this hardly applies. We do not even have to assume that this is an evolved instinct since the evidence is against it. Why the relatively few animals who did seek shelter with humans did so is a question that needs to be addressed individually because the numbers are small. Some may have been partly tame - escaped from domestic life, or habituated to humans (usually from being fed). Some may simply seek shelter and find tolerating humans better than the alternative. It's not hard to explain at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Unfortunately for you I have shown that you don!t have actual evidence.
quote: You know, you might try reading the Flood story some time. Noah was given very soecific instructions on what to take. You think he relied on exactly the right animals turning up at the last minute ? For your argument to work you need every relevant species to turn up, in the right numbers - even those that didn't live locally, and before things got too bad. And then there are the other three points - all of them fatal to your claim - which you haven't even addressed.
quote: Well I am not saying that it is evidence against the Flood. However your assertion that it is evidence for the Flood makes no real sense either.
quote: That concedes your original point. So now all you need is a part of the story where Noah takes on animals that just randomly happen to show up because of the rain. Please quote the verses which say that. Edited by PaulK, : Corrected typo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Then perhaps we can avoid such ridiculous misrepresentations in the future.
quote: So, not exactly a crowd of those local species prepared to tolerate human company arriving only when the rain got really bad. Even if we ignore the parallel account (which has distinct differences) you have to have pairs (and only pairs) of all species and the whole thing has to happen in a day. Obviously if there were simply an instinct to find shelter with humans you would just get the species living in the immediate area, and pretty much every single one of them - not just a pair, So, no, that doesn't fit the story (and to the extent it does, it makes a lot more sense for a local Flood - only species living close to the Ark are even possibly going to get in) Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024