Coyote writes:
Buz -- the topic was a global flood some 4,350 years ago.
Can I take your complete non sequitur response to mean that you have no evidence to bring to the subject of this mythical flood? And that you concede that it was a myth?
The purpose of my message was to bring home to you that the reason you don't consider my evidence as valid is because you're trying to require my evidence to comply with your thesis premise of singularity event, big bang and relative uniformity. Neither of us was around to observe, so we hypothesize as to which thesis premise we think best fits the observed evidence. You say my evidence is invalid and I say your's is. I'm with ICR and other creationists when it comes to evidence such as the geology of the Grand Canyon, for example. I've observed the research video on it and other stuff Their evidence makes good sense to me. The debate goes on, but you can't say there's no evidence of a global flood. ICR and others have it. Yes it's debatable. So what's new?
Buz, you are incredible!
You will do anything, it seems, to avoid the subject of evidence disproving the belief in a global flood about 4,350 years ago.
This is very simple. We don't need to go back billions of years to singularity events and the big bang. Or millions of years to the Grand Canyon.
We only need to go into your back yard and find soils that are about 4,350 years old. That is where the evidence will be, one way or the other.
Archaeologists (and other -ologists) look at that time period every day of the week. I have tested probably 100+ sites spanning that time period.
None of us have found evidence that
should have been there! Rather, we have found continuity of human cultures, genomes, fauna and flora, and sedimentation. No evidence of flood deposits or erosional features which would be necessary for a flood of global proportions. We have found evidence of older and smaller floods (which would have been erased by a global flood).
Now quit dodging the issue. I know, as does everyone else here, that you are dodging. Either you have an answer to this lack of flood evidence or you don't. You just make yourself look silly and inadequate by bringing in irrelevant side issues as if they meant anything to what we are discussing.
Stick to the issue. Present your evidence. Or admit that the idea of a global flood about 4,350 years ago is a myth.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
