Summations Only

Got meI certainly don't understand your "arguments". You should have been a creationist! Why would the fountains of the deep be only around the land mass? Wouldn't they be everywhere? The holy books don't state anything on where they were (from your verses). Just fountains from the deep.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Hi Coyote, Who says it was a recent worldwide flood?The Bible gives no dates of the flood of Noah.If you don't know when the flood took place how can you find out what evidence you would find?I just visited the Cayman Islands for a couple of days and was suprised by what I found.In September of 2004 hurricane Ivan paid a visit and dumped from 6 to 20 feet of water on most of Grand Cayman. It was a mess houses, buildings vegetation trees destroyed. I returned in January of 2005 and saw the devastation first hand and then stayed a year and replaced cabinets I had installed over the previous 13 years. When I left in March of 2006 you could still see the devastation all over the Island.But when I returned this past Wednesday the only evidence I could see that was a result of Ivan was a couple of houses that had not been touched since the hurricane struck. Those were houses that were just abandoned as they are owned by citizens of other countries and they have no intention of repairing them, so they will disappear in the near future.When that happens there will be no trace that Ivan was ever there.That is the reason I keep asking you what would you expect to find?God Bless,

I posted this above, and you ignored it. Evidence supporting a recent flood:2252 BC -- layevangelism.com
2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).
2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.
2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com
2500 BC -- nwcreation.net
2978-3128 BC -- asa3.org
3300 BC -- biblediscoveries.com
3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999) That much water moving around will leave evidence.One example of this is the evidence left by the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington. Here is a good link: Good LinkThis is the problem you face: We can see evidence of floods at the end of the last ice age, maybe 12-14,000 years ago. We can tell a lot about those floods, as that link shows.Why can't we see similar evidence for a much larger worldwide flood that was a third as old?

Coyote already did that in the opening post. He stated:"But biblical scholars place the flood at about 4,350 years ago."That is the date we are working with in this thread. I would be happy to put a 100 year fudge factor on it if you wish. That is something you need to take up with other creationist groups such as AiG and ICR. We are using the date that they established. If you claim that there was not a recent global flood then you apparently agree with the rest of us.

I think I've expressed my doubts about the Channeled Scablands before, but this is a new thread, so I'll do it again.The snag is that they were caused by the breaking of a natural dam so that a lot of pent-up water swept laterally across the landscape. Rather than by a lot of rain. Sure, it's a catastrophic flood, but is it a good model for the Flood?

Why not?The massive amounts of rain would quickly seek lower levels, and we know from recent disasters how devastating that can be.But it is up to creationists to present their evidence.Haven't seen any here yet.

Devastating, yes. Producing channeled scablands, no.

Im hoping to contribute soon. I think Coyote is genuinly interested in what evidence is out there from a Creationist presepective and didn't just start a thread to shout down everyone that tries to participate here, like ICANT seems to be encountering.I assume it was started for other Creationists to participate in and not so we can just be laughed at and called stupid like ICANT seems to be encountering.I assume 50 people don't have to dogpile one member who (has the guts to participate) like ICANT seems to be encountering.One can only hope. Maybe Moose would like to moderate the thread and keep it a clean discussion since it was his idea to start it.Im gathering evidence to present here and not just coming here to present beliefs. I hope that can be respected instead of just wondering about my audacity to present such evidence here from a Creationist perspective.

Your claim that ICANT is being shouted down is not true. Your claim that ICANT is being laughed at is not true.
Your claim that ICANT is being called stupid is not true. Your claim that 50 people are dog-piling ICANT is not true.
Your claim that ICANT is being dog-piled is not true. Your implication that the conversation is not clean is not true. Your claim that you are gathering evidence and not just coming here to present beliefs is...Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Well, it seems like you have a lot of experience in this area. Do you care to elaborate? Or should I go fetch quotes of you insulting people to demonstrate you hypocrisy?By the way, if people don't want to get laughed at they should reconsider their positions. Posting arguments which are laughable is just asking for it.

quote:

---

I assume 50 people don't have to dogpile one member who (has the guts to participate) like ICANT seems to be encountering.

---

Hilarious. From the summary posted in the forum, it looks like ICANT's five posts have drawn 8 responses so far, and that ICANT has made four responses.That's quite some dogpile.

If a flood occurred, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things, which we call fossils, laid down by water all over the world. And what do we find? Billions of dead things, which we call fossils, laid down by water all over the world.

Although true: that is far too a general statement to be useful.The following sentence is also true:
If 1000's of small floods occurred over millions of years, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things, which we call fossils, laid down by water all over the world. And what do we find? Billions of dead things, which we call fossils, laid down by water all over the world.There needs to be something to separate your claim from the more mundane floods that we see regularly, all over the world.
So, although correct, your statement needs to be more specific to rule out the everyday events.Edited by Panda, : typo

Why? Is mass fossilization the usual sequel in the locale of a localized non-magical flood? Please provide evidence that this is the case.If not, then I would have no such expectation.

Portillo - I fixed that one part. You are aware, aren't you, that trilobite and lobster fossils are never found in the same rock? And that there are several hundred equivalent examples of critters with the same habitat never showing up together as fossils?