|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You saying I'm making up stuff? Yes. You appear willing to say most anything, via cherry picking the data, to support your beliefs. Further, you ignore evidence that is presented showing you are wrong--by making up more nonsense. Your claim that humans were kicking around 250 million years ago is one example. As is the claim that a sea level rise equates to a global flood. And to support your dates, you have to claim that almost all of science is wrong. There simply is no evidence to support those claims. But perhaps the worse problem is that you are impervious to scientific evidence. If it does not fit with your religious belief, you just won't accept it no matter how well supported. Edited by Coyote, : Fix formattingReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Actually as one Christian to another Christian, "Yes". I am saying that you continue to lie, mostly to yourself. In fact you have become so used to lying to yourself that you can no longer even recognize it.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
This despite the fact that you've been asked for evidence multiple times? Why instead do you single out the poster(s) that are rude and avoid actually citing the evidence. What is needed here is proof of a flood that covered every "high mountain" by at least 15 cubits. I' m sure everyone would accept evidence that extended part way up the tallest "high mountain". But instead all we've seen are preliminaries (e.g. claims "moutains weren't very high back in the day with no evidence", arguments that something got wet so everything was wet). I agree that calling people liars simply because they claim to believe something the evidence suggests is ridiculous is wrong. I wish it would stop. Past experience is that pointing such things out to the moderators brings the whip down. In an effort to show some good will on my part, I'll make such a complaint right now. Thanks for that, but it will not help because of the stance of the site. The moderators have a very tolerant approach. So you can be repeatedly insulted from a number of people before anyone gets banned. In the meantime they are not quick to pick up the problems, and so you have to lodge complaints. The end result, due to slow and weak moderating this site does not foster "understanding through discussion". The problem lies directly with the level of intervention of the moderators. As for flooding at the P-T boundary, huge flooding did exist then, and if it cannot be disproven to cover the peaks, then the claims of many here have no scientific backing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Actually as one Christian to another Christian, "Yes". I am saying that you continue to lie, mostly to yourself. In fact you have become so used to lying to yourself that you can no longer even recognize it. I hope you realize that you are being quite nasty to me. Maybe this will increase your esteem on this site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Please keep your focus on the topic and not on other participants. Any judgments rendered should concern the consilience between opinion and data, and they should not touch on other participants or their conduct whatsoever. It is the belief of this moderator that those stating what they sincerely believe, no matter how much they may be in error and in contradiction to all evidence, are not lying, and in any event, accusations of lying run against the Forum Guidelines and of any rules of decorum.
Enforcement will depend upon who ignores this request. Some here have been told this many times, and for them there will be no warnings before being suspended. I have another request: Positions being argued for in the science threads (like this one) should be based upon evidence. You should put forward the evidence that brought you to your position. Positions not based upon evidence should receive no mention. Positions that you believe have evidence but you don't know what that evidence is should also receive no mention. In other words, those with no evidence for what they believe is true should remain on the sidelines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So you are admitting to widespread flooding? My goal has been achieved. Can you disprove it covered the Permian highlands? Up until now I have been regularly told that the flood has been disproven. Can you disprove it now that I've pinpointed a time when there was widepsread flooding? Well, yes. The evidence for transgressions involves finding the high water mark (as in the construction of the Hallam curve) and so finding out how far the transgressions transgressed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm very sorry you see it as nasty and will continue to pray for your enlightenment.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
When Richard Nixon was re-elected in 1972, defeating George McGovern, one observer quipped that America prefered a smart crook over an honest fool. So if somebody claims to be an honest fool instead of a smart crook, I tend to take him at his word - but it really is hard to tell whether you're a liar or a fool. You calling me a liar? This accusation has been thrown around a few times in this thread. You keep equivocating "widespread flooding" with "worldwide flood". Do you really not understand the difference? When you see leaves on your lawn and on everybody else's lawn, do you conclude that trees are widespread or that they all came from a worldwide tree? Edited by ringo, : Spolling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
As for flooding at the P-T boundary, huge flooding did exist then, and if it cannot be disproven to cover the peaks, then the claims of many here have no scientific backing. Wrong dude. The burden of proof for showing that the flood even approached covering the peak is yours. And as has been pointed out dozens of time so far, you also have to provide evidence that the flooding in question occurred at a relevant time. That is at a time when humans existed. Evidence, has been presented that any flood at the P-T boundary could not possibly qualify. You don't accept that evidence but you haven't provided any counter evidence of your own. In short, you act as if it is our burden to convince you rather than to simply provide support for our own arguments.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
mindspawn writes: Aah so you want me to interpret the bible your way, without actually showing me that your way is correct? It is not my way. I have provided direct quotes from the King James Bible and a mechanical translation from the Hebrew along with it's interpretation. It's a commonplace that God caused the flood. You have come up with no sane objection to this overwhelmingly accepted veiw. You are arguing disingenuously and I have no more comments to make on it. Grow up.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
mindspawn writes:
No, there isn't. There is a definite seasonal pattern to radiometric decay:Page not found | Observations on Quantum Computing & Physics From the source you, yourself, provided. Under the heading Update and Forums Round-Up:
Wavewathcing writes: The references to these studies are provided there.
When the original claims were made they triggered follow-up research. Some of it was inconclusive, some of it contradicted the findings and a measurement performed on the Cassini probe's 238Pu thermonuclear fuel clearly ruled out any sun-distance related influence on that alpha emitter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
No, there isn't. From the source you, yourself, provided. Under the heading Update and Forums Round-Up: There is a seasonal pattern. The graphs indicate such.
The references to these studies are provided there. The seasonal pattern is not related to sun-distance, they are correct. So they still have to determine what actually caused the seasonal variations in radioactive decay, now that they have eliminated sun-distance. Makes sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
It is not my way. I have provided direct quotes from the King James Bible and a mechanical translation from the Hebrew along with it's interpretation. I also participate on Christian bible debate forums, and am experienced in discussing Hebrew. We go into more depth than just choosing two translations and assuming the 2 translations that we cherry picked support our view. You neglected other translations that disagree with your view, and you need to tell me which Hebrew word says God "caused" the rain. I can tell you categorically there is no such word. So your argument falls flat. Anyway you have wasted many posts trying to make a side-point, this thread is about evolutionists trying to prove a flood impossible. Yet to see any good argument. (is it impossible for plants to grow on land that has been drained of salt water after 5 months of recovery? - Still waiting for the evidence).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Evidence, has been presented that any flood at the P-T boundary could not possibly qualify. You don't accept that evidence but you haven't provided any counter evidence of your own. The only evidence presented is the 250 million year timeframe which is for the dating forum. No on topic geological evidence has been presented showing that the P-T boundary flood is impossible.
In short, you act as if it is our burden to convince you rather than to simply provide support for our own arguments. This thread started with evolutionists having weak arguments that the flood is impossible. Evolutionists should not just make statements, this thread is about backing up your statements with facts. Evolutionists seem to believe the following:1) Vegetation cannot grow on saline soils after a five month recovery period 2) The flood has been repeatedly disproved 3) There were too many predators on the boat to explain survival of modern animals. If people want to say things like that they should then back up their loose statements with actual facts. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2659 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
You keep equivocating "widespread flooding" with "worldwide flood". Do you really not understand the difference? When you see leaves on your lawn and on everybody else's lawn, do you conclude that trees are widespread or that they all came from a worldwide tree? I have always made myself clear that I cant prove the biblical flood (covering every mountaintop) but I can prove a worldwide flood. Rather than waste my time discussing the meaning of the word "worldwide", let me use the word "widespread". Across various parts of the coast and interior of Pangea.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024