Fountains of the deep, new evidence

Well don't keep us all in suspense.--Percy

You're anonymous on the Internet, hardly daring. Showing your family how you're behaving like an idiot on the Internet, now that would be daring. Again, you're anonymous on the Internet, there are no consequences for arrogance or idiocy. Jumping off a building because of your independent thinking on the subject of gravity, now that would be daring.So can we assume that as far as the topic goes that you're done?--Percy

When you're ready to show us how your opinions can change facts (which is what Ringo was actually talking about) you let us know.--Percy

Well, now you're saying something completely unrelated to what you started with. In Message 40 you said, "I took it for granted that you would know why the waters in the flood circulated around the globe from west to east?", and when I asked you to tell us why you answered in Message 45 that it was actually just your opinion, and you expanded on that just a little in Message 47. Ringo pointed out that opinions don't trump facts, and the facts say that there is absolutely no evidence for the Biblical flood, let alone that the non-existent flood waters circulated around the globe from west to east.So now over the past couple days you've been letting the cat out of bag and revealing that the real source of your objections is that you're anti-science, but this thread is about new evidence for the fountains of the deep. Your belief that science is a false religion taking us down the road to the Antichrist and atheism isn't relevant.--Percy

Well, that's a pretty weird thing to say. You haven't even mentioned the topics of "atmospheric air flow" and "ocean currents" in this thread. Why would you expect anyone to just randomly pipe up and say things about them? It really doesn't matter whether you're prepared to argue this or not, because it's not the topic of this thread. Do you have new evidence for the fountains of the deep or not? If not then I think you're done.--Percy

I think that if instead of making excuses you directed your efforts at research and explication that you'd obtain a better outcome.In this thread you've had a lot more to say about science and almost nothing about the fountains of the deep. Perhaps you should propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.--Percy

You only need facts and reasoning. Faith is required only to believe we live in a rational universe that makes sense and can be figured out, a faith which seems to be supported by the facts. Again, not the topic, and not something anyone believes anyway.--Percy

Seeking scientific support for what you're going to say before you say it will prevent you from making misstatements of fact, but it won't help you build a case for creationist views. Many creationists have spent lifetimes trying to do just that (Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Steven Austin, John Baumgardner, Andrew Snelling, et many al.). If you want a coherent foundation for flood science then I suggest you start with the foundational book on the subject, The Genesis Flood, written over a half century ago by Henry Morris, but it contains little of any scientific validity. Claims of alternative interpretations is a frequent resort of creationists once they see that the facts are not in their favor, but consensuses form within science only after all interpretations but one are eliminated. Still, claiming alternative interpretations is the path most creationists choose, and so many discussions between science-minded folk and creationists become an exercise in trying to convince creationists that the interpretation they're backing is already excluded by the available evidence. My own opinion is that the creationist has no hope of success, but it is nonetheless an extremely valuable educational exercise. Usually people on both sides of the debate learn a great deal.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Typo.