Noahs ark is a physical impossibility

Au contraire.I wasn't speaking to you.

quote:

---

I have tried for a year to get him to define those terms he uses as his amazing "evidence", but have had zero success.
He likes to make up his own terminology a lot.

---

So why don't you define "evidence" for us counselor. I didn't realize there was only one kind, although most evolutionists believe this to be true.And once you give us an acceptable definition (you won't because it is way over your head), provide some guidelines as to how we should qualify the evidence. Or don't bother as this is probably way too difficult for you.But if you do, I suggest you begin with defining "circumstantial" evidence. This might be a good place to start given the fact that you've built your entire belief in evolution solely on circumstantial evidence.

quote:

---

I'm just waiting for a creationist to point out that the dinosaurs 'obviously' became extinct because Noah fed 'em to the dogs.

---

LOL.... I like that!------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Aren't you afraid that posts like this will reveal your true identity?--Percy

FYIZephan is actually Ten-sai, aka Back in Black.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Percy,

quote:

---

Back In Black/Zephan/Apple Toast: My point was to help you see the issue clearer since you failed to provide peer reviewed literature to back up your unsupported beliefs.

---

It was this snippet that made me realise I'd heard this line before. Apparently we must provide scientific peer reviewed papers to show that something isn't linked to something else (ie prove a negative) when no one suggests that they are anyway. Methinks the burden of proof is the other way around, or if it isn't, I want scientific peer reviewed articles that show that apples aren't oranges.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

More faces than the church clock.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David unfamous:
I always laugh at the non-believer quoting scripture to bolster their argument. Satan tried the same thing in the wilderness, and it didn't work there either.
Interesting. You're referencing scripture to bolster your argument that scripture is refrenced to bolster an argument.

​

As for the flood, I still haven't heard any reason why an all-powerful God who allegedly created the Universe needed to use rainfall to wipe out his disobedient children instead of just snapping his fingers and making them all disappear, save Noah. Couldn't this all have been done in an instant?

---

Why the Answer is simple! For fun! Ever played lemmings?

Working hypothesis: A cosmos that repeatedly manifests cursed-events and redemptive-events.) You judge!

"...Then as if that were not enough, you make references to several other 'supernatural' ark-like statements used by creationists as if in an attempt to prove your ark-presuppositions by boring the reader to death with yet more irrefutable and purely circumstantial random statements. Indeed, all you have achieved is to inform the reader that there is no reason why he or she should believe anything that you have to say on the ark question whatsoever. "--Your harsh absolute rebuttal betrays your error, a common problem with all debators (myself foremost) who oppose themselves. Honest scientists, especially evolutionary biologists, are more apt to see flaws of YEC logic in a less perturbed manner. Their criticisms are to the point, without unnecessary metaphysical bashings, rhetorical jumbo, etc.--There are numerous rifts in the current ToE including global catastrophistic event(s). Most Evo-scientists call them "unexpainable" at present. Try agreeing with certain points and disagreeing with others, to various degrees. Absolute determinations, dogmatic assertions, 100% rebukes, etc., are no more than blind biases, wouldn't you agree? No? Sometimes? Maybe?

Supernatural event regarding the flood.AS you alluded: creation science events are sought by the thread-author...While no expert in this area I meagerly cite: 100-years of building the ark by antidilluvians and a more gentle behavioral disposition of higher life-forms at the time may be hypothesized.Please pardon my ineptness here.

Zephan, everyone is speaking to everyone here.

quote:

---

So why don't you define "evidence" for us counselor.

---

Funny, you use the legal term, "counselor", while in a scientific discussion. Why do you do that, Ten-Sai?

quote:

---

I didn't realize there was only one kind, although most evolutionists believe this to be true.

---

No, most evolutionists understand that there is MORE than one definition of evidence. Scientific evidence is that which we can detect with our five senses, and the observations of this evidence must be repeatable.

quote:

---

And once you give us an acceptable definition (you won't because it is way over your head), provide some guidelines as to how we should qualify the evidence. Or don't bother as this is probably way too difficult for you.

---

Ad Hominem.

quote:

---

But if you do, I suggest you begin with defining "circumstantial" evidence.

---

Um, this is not a term that is used when speaking of scientific evidence, so it is irrelevant.

quote:

---

This might be a good place to start given the fact that you've built your entire belief in evolution solely on circumstantial evidence.

---

No, I haven't. The scientific evidence for evolution has been, and is, directly observed and also inferred.

quote:

---

Because there is much more at stake than confirming the historical event of Noah's Ark.

---

Like what?

quote:

---

Go ask Metatron, SLPx, John, et al. who would all prefer an in home visit from Jesus Christ Himself before they would believe.

---

In reality, I prefer to speak for myself.I would like to see some actual evidence for a 10,000 year old creation and subsequent destruction by the Hebrew triabl deity.Repeated assertions do not count. Special pleading does not count.Bible verses do not count.Lying for Jesus does not count.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have tried for a year to get him to define those terms he uses as his amazing "evidence", but have had zero success.
He likes to make up his own terminology a lot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

So why don't you define "evidence" for us counselor. I didn't realize there was only one kind, although most evolutionists believe this to be true.

​

And once you give us an acceptable definition (you won't because it is way over your head), provide some guidelines as to how we should qualify the evidence. Or don't bother as this is probably way too difficult for you.

​

But if you do, I suggest you begin with defining "circumstantial" evidence. This might be a good place to start given the fact that you've built your entire belief in evolution solely on circumstantial evidence.

---

Why don;t you address the issues brought up to you before instead of pretending that they were not?