Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why was a flood needed?
Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 61 of 90 (45683)
07-10-2003 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 3:51 PM


quote:
however you forget i am not dismayed ,thanks to people like Ken Ham and Howard Conder and Creation Evidence Museum of Texas. you can say your right and i'm wrong all day but i am not surprised nor confounded because i too have a mind to interprate with.
A metallic hydrogen canopy! It is to laugh. If you don't want people to ridicule your ideas you should at least stay away from total charlatans like Carl Baugh and his long refuted dinosaur and man tracks and his totally goofy solid hydrogen canopy. Even Answers in Genesis says Baugh's stuff is nonsense and when AiG, prime purveyors of creationist nonsense themselves call something nonsense you know it is really big time nonsense.
However, the dinosaur trackways do refute the flood myth. Deposits with dinosaur tracks and fossils are found relatively late in the fossil record. How were these animals still around to make tracks while the entire world was under water? It is amazing that creationist continually try to put forth evidence that refutes YEC as evidence for YEC.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 3:51 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 4:17 PM Randy has replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 62 of 90 (45684)
07-10-2003 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Adminnemooseus
07-10-2003 4:09 PM


Re: Severe topic drift alert!!!
quote:
SEE THE TOPIC TITLE!
SEE THE FIRST PAGE OF THE TOPIC!
This one's close to getting closed.
Adminnemooseus
BUMP!
------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Adminnemooseus, posted 07-10-2003 4:09 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 63 of 90 (45685)
07-10-2003 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 3:51 PM


Hi Mike,
You state:
no, i am referring to the total lack of evidence that suggests proof of evolution.and guess what you can bring a whole team of scientists down here if you want i am NOT phased.
But you DID bring up your view that Darwin had a problem with the fossil record:
but even Darwin thought the fossils were a problem before his evo theory which is FALSE
So you yourself are bringing in a scientist and misrepresenting his views, yet you suggest that evolutionists cannot phase(sic) you with scientific views. If you want to state that the views of mainstream science have no effect on you, why do YOU then bring them into the discussion? Please tell me it wasn't to deliberately misrepresent them to help you prove your point.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 3:51 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 4:22 PM Asgara has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 64 of 90 (45686)
07-10-2003 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Randy
07-10-2003 4:10 PM


Carl Baugh,if you have seen his programme , is the most humble chap i've ever heard speak he is always bringing in scientists because he himself does not make the claims .since you are now arguing the person rather than the topic i must leave it here,admin is correct its off topic and i have recieved no evidence and am once again disapointed in the evolutionists.but i am not surprised!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Randy, posted 07-10-2003 4:10 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Randy, posted 07-10-2003 4:27 PM mike the wiz has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 65 of 90 (45687)
07-10-2003 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Asgara
07-10-2003 4:15 PM


'yet you suggest that evolutionists cannot phase(sic) you with scientific views.'
well just look at the chances i have give them to rid the flood,boy this stuff is weak , if anything its strengthened my view!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Asgara, posted 07-10-2003 4:15 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Asgara, posted 07-10-2003 4:37 PM mike the wiz has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 66 of 90 (45688)
07-10-2003 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 3:54 PM


mike the wiz writes:
i accept the word of God in the universe as in the word. As in the word it says he stretched forth the heavens. I find no fault in the Bible but I do find fault with men's interpretation of scientific data.
You're answering a different and improperly formed question than was asked. You can't drop consideration of the interpretation stage from one and not the other. Both the Bible and the universe are being interpreted by men, and so this common element can be dropped from the discussion. This leaves us comparing the words of men in the Bible with the word of God in the universe. Why are you giving the words of men greater credibility than the word of God?
To put this in flood terms, why does the testimony of men in Bible that there was a world-wide flood find more prominence in your perspective than the testimony of God himself in the layers of the earth and the stars of the sky that no such flood ever happened?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 3:54 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 4:33 PM Percy has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 67 of 90 (45689)
07-10-2003 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 4:17 PM


quote:
Carl Baugh,if you have seen his programme , is the most humble chap i've ever heard speak he is always bringing in scientists because he himself does not make the claims .since you are now arguing the person rather than the topic i must leave it here,
That doesn't stop his claims from being totally absurd
quote:
admin is correct its off topic and i have recieved no evidence and am once again disapointed in the evolutionists.but i am not surprised!
No you have ignored the evidence that has been presented and shown that you will consistently ignore any evidence that is presented.
As to the main topic of this thread there is no real need to ask why a worldwide flood because there never was a worldwide flood. The Ancient Hebrews borrowed the myth of the flood of Gilgamesh and recorded their slightly altered version of it as a moral tale. End of story.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 4:17 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 4:35 PM Randy has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 68 of 90 (45690)
07-10-2003 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
07-10-2003 4:25 PM


'To put this in flood terms, why does the testimony of men in Bible that there was a world-wide flood find more prominence in your perspective than the testimony of God himself in the layers of the earth and the stars of the sky that no such flood ever happened?'
Because i believe the bible to be the word of God and i also believe in his universe aswell ,your not going to get me to change my view on that , if i say it is the words of men then it can be broken ,but like Jesus who's words will far outlive Darwin's i believe the scripture cannot be broken .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 07-10-2003 4:25 PM Percy has not replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 69 of 90 (45691)
07-10-2003 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Randy
07-10-2003 4:27 PM


'That doesn't stop his claims from being totally absurd'
name them , because everything he said seemed mostly logical.i think evolutionists are absurd , again its the 'i'm right your wrong'thing,or trying to ridicule the person,i guess your really digging now!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Randy, posted 07-10-2003 4:27 PM Randy has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 70 of 90 (45692)
07-10-2003 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 4:22 PM


Hi Mike,
Thanks for responding again.
well just look at the chances i have give them to rid the flood,boy this stuff is weak , if anything its strengthened my view!
All I have seen you do, in trying to refute what has been told to you, is to state that it is a matter of interpretation of the evidence. You imply that to call your interpretation wrong is hypocritical.
Some interpretations CAN be definately wrong; wrong, illogical, and unreasoned. I state here that all grass is red...any statement that says that grass is generally green is simply a wrong interpretation, caused by faulty eyesight.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 4:22 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 4:48 PM Asgara has replied

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 71 of 90 (45693)
07-10-2003 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Asgara
07-10-2003 4:37 PM


Asgara
to be honest though , all i have heard is small problems , very small problems,the case still stands what would you look for to verify a flood ?
i would look for life quickly preserved in a quick way.
and that is what i find, that alone is evidence for me, plus fossils were not eaten away, they are in excellent condition, a flood would bury animals quickly in mud and water and that is what is found,plus there are the same creatures today found unchanged and no different from today.
therefore in all honesty you will have to get rid of the fossils or come up with something fairly major to change my mind and faith as i am satisfied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Asgara, posted 07-10-2003 4:37 PM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Asgara, posted 07-10-2003 5:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 74 by roxrkool, posted 07-10-2003 5:38 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2003 6:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 72 of 90 (45694)
07-10-2003 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 2:03 PM


Mike, your interpretations are "man's dabblings".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 2:03 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 73 of 90 (45695)
07-10-2003 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 4:48 PM


Hi Mike,
Please, then, give me YOUR explanation for the geologic column and the various strata found, for the question of where all the water for this flood came from and where it went, for the consistency in the various radiometric dating methods, for the sorting of the fossil sequence. Why are the gymnosperms found before the angiosperms? The invertabrates before the vertabrates, reptiles before mammals?
And many, many fossils have been "eaten away", leaving us with impressions in rock, not the actual artifacts, leaving us with petrified remains (organic material replaced over time with minerals), and also leaving us with disarticulated and obviously gnawed on skeletons.
I am not a scientist nor even a particularly scholarly person, so please forgive any unclear wordings. I am sure that the more knowledgable members of this board will correct any gross errors I have made.
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 4:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 74 of 90 (45696)
07-10-2003 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 4:48 PM


Mike, all I can say is that you obviously have never taken a look at the fossil record and how it fits into the geologic record. Neither do you understand fossil formation beyond the absolute basics. How can you feel justified in discarding something you do not even remotely understand?
Apparently that little fact does not bother you in the least.
And really now, do you honestly believe that every single fossil found in the record is still living today?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 4:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 75 of 90 (45698)
07-10-2003 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by mike the wiz
07-10-2003 4:48 PM


Mike, you're taking an over-simplified view.
Rapid burial can happen in other circumstances than a flood - and even if all fossils were formed by floods you would need a far more detailed look at the geological record to conclude that it was ONE big flood.
So, some fossils are buried by sandstorms - rapid burial, but no flood. Some are buried by underwater mudslides - that can easily happen with no flood. The Burgess Shale fossils were swept off an underwater cliff and were slowly buried by fine sediment. And while similar fossils are found in other places - including Chengjiang in China you won't find any living examples of these animals today. Why not ?
And this brings us to another point. The vast majority of fossils are marine - sea life. What does that have to do with a flood ? Surely with the Biblical flood it is the land animals that are supposed to have died - no sea life is taken on board the ark.
If I was really looking to explain a large part of the geological record by a flood in the recent past, I would be looking for a large volume of rock that had clearly been laid down rapidly. It should show signs of hydrodynamic sorting with very coarse-grained sediments at the bottom grading upwards to finer sediments. The fossils too should be hydrodynamically sorted with modern mammals appearing with dinosaurs and amphibians of similar size. This unit should be quite distinct from the lower strata and distinct from the post-flood sediments being laid on top.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2003 4:48 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024