flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas

If there's no such thing as the FSM, then where did all this spaghetti and meatballs come from?

If you can't have evidence of something not existing, how would that prove there was no milk in your fridge? What you're saying is, if you examine every space within your fridge large enough to contain some milk, and you don't find any milk in any of them, you can conclude that you don't have any milk in your fridge - even though you didn't look in the freezer, or inside each orange, or in the seal strip, or under the lid of the jar of pickles.In other words, it's sufficient to look in all the places where you would reasonably expect milk to be to prove that there is no milk in your fridge at all. Right?

Is that really how you people live your lives? Working under the assumption that you can't know if something doesn't exist or didn't happen?Hope you remembered to pack your goblin repellant, since you can't know that goblins don't exist, and that they won't molest you at the bus stop.

Since he's defined as "omnipresent" I would expect him to be everywhere at once. The fact that he's not anywhere you choose to look is a pretty convincing disproof of his existence.

Irrelevant, since none of those things are defined, in part as "being everywhere at once, simultaneously."

I don't understand the question, I guess. Do you mean volume?

But the devil is in the details, so you have it precisely backwards - it's the Flood-inconsistent ordering that trumps the layers and the large numbers of fossils being evidence for the flood. The specific disproves the general, not the other way around.

That's not the ordering, though. The ordering is often very specific - hominids are never found below dinosaurs, etc. Some of the ordering isn't even probable. For instance we don't find grasses anywhere but the highest levels. We don't even find it's pollen, which nowadays is literally everywhere (which if you have hay fever, you're all too aware of by now), fossilized anywhere but the highest levels. That's a false statement, as you well know.

Oh, right. How dare I question the word of Faith?You're unbeliveable.

You really think that's true? That the most recent fossils in every region are strictly terrestrial fauna?Or did I just not understand you?Regardless, to say that "marine at the bottom and terrestrial at the top" constitutes the pattern and ordering of fossils in the fossil record is so great an overstatement that it simply can't be considered a true statement. The fossil ordering we see is that older fossils are at the bottom and younger ones at the top; and that, generally, simpler fossils are older and more complex derivatives are younger. And, indeed, the simplest fossils were marine organisms because it's simpler to live in the ocean than on land.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-11-2006 11:01 PM

Uh, I think my post made it pretty clear that it does.

Isn't that a negative?And so, wouldn't you have to be able to prove a negative in order to actually prove that you can't prove a negative?