Summations Only

That observation is not sufficient to call fossils evidence for the Flood. And as has been explained to you dozens of times, the problem is that the competing theories also are consistent with the same abundance of fossils.Do you have any counter, whatsoever, for that argument? Because to date you have not presented one.Further, the scientific view is consistent with the details of those fossils and is not consistent with the Flood.

PaulK handled this just fine. My comment is redundant.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I respectfully disagree. That kind of inflated self-appraisal is not normal. I don't believe my own arguments are brilliant, and I welcome any critique of them.

Nonsense.Nobody bothers to do this. The folks who were involved with geology 150 years and more were all expecting science to confirm the Flood, and many were disappointed when it did not. The same is true for more recent geologists who held Creationist views.Modern geology is about many different endeavors including finding and obtaining natural resources, predicting earthquakes and investigating the history of the earth. Essentially no scientists are making an effort to confirm or disprove the Flood. None of that stops people like you from insisting that you are under attack by scientists who could not care less what you think. What do you mean we? Most people consider the divergence of the scientific and Biblical views to be irrelevant. They either dismiss the science or the BS interpretation of the Bible you insist on. Even most creationists would fit one of those two groups of people without your "aim".Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I would say that the detail about what "abundant" means is almost beside the point. A fact being "consistent" with the Flood is very far from saying that the fact is evidence for the Flood. It is consistent with the Flood that there are living human beings walking around right now. It is consistent with the Flood that there is a grand canyon. Dr. Hovind used to claim that an "ice ball" crashed on the earth and froze "Wooly Mammoths" standing up. Well, guess what? The presence of those icy objects in the Kuiper belt is consistent with that story.None of that consistency is reasonably classified as evidence, and Jon was clear about that exact point in his post.As for the absolute numbers of fossils, well being quantitative about that is not really useful, in my opinion. We know well that the number of fossils is a tiny percentage of the number of deceased animals and that special circumstances are required to make a fossil. If some area on earth is missing its fossils, I don't believe it would be possible to hold that against or for the Flood theory.In short, in trying to be quantitative, we are nitpicking to attack an idea that is complete horse ca-ca from its conception. The idea should be dismissed with as little effort as needed to do the job.

You are welcome to draw on that material if you want to believe it helps. But the point in dispute here is not what Creationists have done over the past few decades, but what science has produced that indicates that Creationism is wrong. That science is not just a few decades old.Scientists, by and large, are not interested in Henry Morris work. There is no effort to prove him wrong. Instead, we have the findings of science which any interested person can access.

No. As a matter of fact, you did not do that.

End this farce. Point to where you showed that chimps and humans have distinct "body plans" in ways that the various trilobites do not. I believe that you've set the bar impossibly high, but show us where you met that standard.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The point would be to show that you have actually presented what you claim to have presented. You did not, and that is why trying to dig it up would be pointless. Nothing you've given explains here explains why the distinction between different trilobites is qualitatively or quantitatively more than differences between a chimpanzee and a human. I'll note that besides myself that there are a couple of other posters asking you the same question and you have not offered anything substantial to them either.You, ma'am, are a fraud.

We can understand this to be you engaging in the denial that is your trademark. And now that positive attempts to provide your own evidence have failed, reverting back to that denial is all you have left. In some ways, such tactics are an improvement over flat out lying. But they are no more persuasive.Obviously, we cannot rewind history to see it again. However, that is not the only way to verify a hypothesis about the past. If a hypothesis or interpretation is correct, it leaves evidence. More importantly, if the hypothesis is not correct, that may imply that other evidence should be there. We can find which is the case and generate more confidence in our hypothesis. That process can be repeated to generate more confirmation. If the evidence is present, then there is some confirmation. We can also watch current processes create the same effects. That is additional confirmation.Multiple lines of inquiry leading to the same result provide additional confirmation. Not certainty, but yes confidence that the hypothesis was correct. You want to fit your entire argument into that space between certainly and quite likely true? Be my guest.One problem for you is that geology is only one line of inquiry that tells us that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not an accurate description of the pre-history and early of the earth. Paleontology, archaeology, astronomy, biology, genetics, nuclear physics among other things, all point to the same conclusion. The universe and the earth are billions of years old, and you have nothing to offer as an alternative that stands up to the slightest scrutiny.We can contrast that method with you employ of just making up stuff when you don't have any method whatsoever of confirming anything and then lying that you've settled the issue. We can watch a person with zero experience pontificate about what is feasible all while saying obviously wrong things about geology or even how to establish a breed of dogs when we can look up how those things actually work or were done.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In the face of the response I gave previously, your answer is idiotic. The living things left behind traces which we can observe. Those traces have been discussed here numerous times. I don't expect that you would agree with the conclusions that have been reached. But I would expect that you were at least familiar with the evidence by now.In addition, we there are numerous threads where absolute and relative dating techniques are discussed as well as the agreement of the dates obtained by the various techniques.I have to conclude that you are not debating honestly. The only alternative is that you are way over your head here. In either case, you are not worth the trouble. It is as if you are not even trying anymore.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes. But this argument is horse-ca-ca.You are just talking in general about changes, but we know for a fact that there are at least some changes that are due to there being more alleles for a specific gene location than there were available alleles among Noah and his family. So whatever your general explanation is, your explanation fails to explain the genetic diversity that exists for those specific cases, meaning that it cannot be the complete explanation. If you want to be reminded of the specific examples that we have previously discussed before, just ask.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Percy, you are doing an admirable job of keeping up. I intend to make it a bit easier for you. Since I don't have any observations that other folks don't have, and because of my opinion that Faith 'jumped the shark' weeks ago, I won't be provoking any more responses. This topic is well covered by the other, somewhat more patient posters.

I think it is generally accepted that dogs are one of the most varied species on earth. Not much point in nitpicking this one.

True.However, you are having a dispute with someone who literally refuses to acknowledge that sedimentary rocks are formed from sediment. Do such expenditures of energy really have a point?[1][1] Totally rhetorical.