Evidence of the flood

Having nothing of substance you instead deliver a one-line response that boils down to the empty, "No, they're wrong." If you have nothing to say then you should say nothing.--Percy

Yet another emtpy one-liner. If you have nothing to say in response to PaulK's post about ignoring evidence and repeating false claims over and over, and about fossils representing "a long history of life," then say nothing.--Percy

Well, in that case, since this thread is titled Evidence of the flood, I presume you'd present your evidence for God creating the flood. There's no such thing as atheistic science, just as there's no such thing as atheistic car repair or atheistic fry cooking. This site exists to discuss the claim that creation science *is* science, in the real sense of the word. Claims of "God Did It" lose the debate out of hand, unless one begins introducing scientific evidence of God.But not here, because this thread is about Evidence of the flood. If any participants begin introducing serious scientific flood evidence (not Harvey the Hawk) then I'll move the thread to Geology and the Great Flood.--Percy

Well, that's an evasive non-answer. Apparently you have no interest in actually discussing evidence of the flood, and you're trying to change the subject to "God Did It!"If you'd like to discuss evidence for the flood, the actual topic of this thread, then please do so.If you'd like to discuss evidence of God, find another thread or propose a new one.--Percy

You have not introduced evidence for the flood in this thread, nor in any thread. Empty assertions that you've made many times before and that you've then abandoned defense of just as many times is not evidence. All your assertions have serious problems that render them impossible. These serious problems have been described for you many, many times. Simply repeating your bald assertions yet again when you know you've always run away from the rebuttals is false discourse. What you're mostly doing is trying to change the subject to "God Did It!" If that's what you want to discuss, find another thread.--Percy

Well now you're just adding dissembling to your many improprieties. If you're not interested in the thread, if you're just wasting people's time, if you're just posting messages that you're just as likely to ignore as not, then get off the thread. If you're not here to discuss the evidence for the flood that you just finished telling us you have so much of, then get off the thread. If what you really want to discuss is some other topic like "God Did It!" then get off the thread.The fact of the matter is that despite your denial you have demonstrated a very strong interest in this thread and have already spent a great deal of effort describing your supposed "evidence". In Message 187 you said: In Message 198 you said: In Message 200 you said: In Message 210 you said: In Message 216 you said: So quite obviously you've already demonstrated a great deal of interest in discussing your evidence of the flood, and we can call your claim of non-interest in this thread what it really is, a lie. As far as your evidence, you have never provided what you thought was evidence when it wasn't immediately rebutted, and instead of sticking around to discuss things to a conclusion you have instead invented reasons to abandon discussion. Either it was all just too much, or the page was too white, or people were too impolite or too stupid or too infuriating or too something, and the next thing we knew you would be gone, only to reappear later making the same arguments as if they hadn't already been rebutted. Just like you're doing now. The one playing a really nasty game, over and over again, is the one again running away from evidence and rebuttals.--Percy

You mean your lies and misrepresentations? That's an interestingly narrow interpretation of the topic after all the effort you made describing your evidence for the flood, which you did in Message 187, Message 198, Message 200, Message 210 and Message 216. This is just more dissembling from you. You never interpreted the topic of this thread that narrowly. In fact, you never pay much attention to the topic of any thread. You're already trying to change the topic of this thread from Evidence of the flood to "God Did It!" Another excuse for just doing whatever you please. This thread was fine for your crazy ideas about the Flood, but only until things didn't go your way, and then suddenly the thread has a narrow definition of Harvey the Hawk and "God Did It!" That's good and just as it should be and so bloody obvious that no one should have to tell you this time after time. If you're just going to state your positions and supposed "evidence" but have no intention of discussing and defending them, then you shouldn't be here. Oh, what a surprise, stating your evidence once again after stating "this thread is NOT about general evidence for the flood, it's about Harvey the Hawk." You can't even keep your arguments straight across consecutive paragraphs. This is just a flat out lie. After all the abuse and insults you've doled out to people, after all the evidence you've avoided, after all the rebuttals you've ignored, and while you're doing it yet again, you have the dishonesty and deceit to say this. Incredible.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Okay, you don't have a position. So since you just finished telling me you don't have a position, it is therefore not your position that Harvey the Hawk is evidence of a Biblical myth. A bit contradictory, don't you think? Everything is evidence - the challenge is identifying the relevance of the evidence. Your position, even though you've taken the nonsensical position that you don't have one, is that Harvey the Hawk is evidence relevant to the Biblical myth. But I'll bet you're taking the position that the hawk is evidence of God. If you stop being evasive, vague, deceptive, baffling and argumentative then I'll stop calling it to your attention. I don't see anyone "getting" what you're saying. They probably feel the same way about you as NoNukes in Message 1189. Your history seems to be to spout some nonsense, then having the sense not to defend it you decide to be confounding and enigmatic in an effort to pretend that what you said really did make sense.If you want to have a reasonable, sensible, rational, straightforward discussion, there are plenty of people here who can do that with you. But if you'd rather just be a bozo then that isn't something that will escape notice.--Percy

First, I very much doubt RiVeRraT is making any such point as you claim. He's only even used the word "proof" once, and not while contrasting it with "evidence".Second, and you have heard this many times before, science isn't involved in proofs. Science is about building evidence into frameworks of understanding called theories that are explanatory and predictive. Nothing you're doing has those kinds of properties. Even though you claim it's not the topic and that you won't be defending your position, you repeat the claim anyway. One of the interesting contradictions of human nature is that people like you can sleep with themselves at night while those who have done nothing to anyone lay awake all night worrying anyway.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Post removed.Edited by Percy, : Fix response.

Genesis is a hodgpodge of things we know did and didn't happen. Creation? No. Adam and Eve? No. Global flood? No. Exodus? Not likely. Saul and David and Solomon? They were likely real people. The jumble of kings that follow were likely real. There's no such thing as "Old Earch sciences." There's just science which follows the evidence where it leads. The evidence leads to an ancient Earth and nearly as ancient life, both gradually and slowly changing over time. Sounds like a good idea to leave it to God to change hearts and minds. Lying for Christianity only takes you further from God. By "foundation" you can only mean a religious foundation where the truths have nothing to do with science. They're religious truths based upon faith, not scientific truths based upon evidence.--Percy

What you're really referring to are Christians who accept science when it contradicts the Bible. But you don't consider it capitulation to science when they use a computer or a refrigerator or a solar cell or a TV or an MRI or eyeglasses, so why is it capitulation to science to accept the evidence that the same forces shaping our world today were shaping it in the past? The word you're looking for isn't guts, it's faith. Agreed. If you're not here to discuss the evidence behind scientific views, then you shouldn't be here.--Percy

You're missing the contradiction. Things like computers and refrigerators and solar cells and TVs and MRIs and eyeglasses are the products of science, but you don't call accepting them capitulating to science. In fact, you don't question them at all. But you do call it capitulation to science when it contradicts the Bible, despite that they are just as much products of science. You mean science that examines evidence to reconstruct what happened in the past? Like the forensics program you enjoyed so much? The meek shall inherit the Earth, not Christian soldiers like yourself whose every act mocks the principles of Christianity. All it takes is faith, simple faith. You're not following the Bible. You're making up your own stuff. You are your own worst enemy. You've been provided all the correct information but instead insist on the illogical and ridiculous, thereby inviting ridicule. You behave with deceit. And the insults invariable start with you. Your goal appears to be to sow chaos in this thread so that no discussion of the topic takes place. You just declared you wouldn't discuss scientific views of the flood in a thread titled Evidence of the flood. It's as if your goal is to throw this thread as far off course as you possibly can.If you don't want to discuss evidence of the flood, you really should find some other thread.--Percy

As someone else put it so well, if the context demands that you restate your position, then the context also demands that you discuss and defend that position.The order and composition of the strata make the Flood an impossible explanation. Floods do not sort strata by composition, radiometric age, and fossil content. The tilting of buried strata without disturbing the strata above is physically impossible. Rocks do not form by drying but by pressure and time. A huge global flood would not have any of the special qualities you claim (and which you made up) - it would be a lot like the oceans, which cover around 3/4 of the Earth.--Percy

But you don't think that on the basis of any evidence. It's just something you wish were true. Pretty close. From KJV:

quote:

---

Romans 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

---

This is arguing that though God's message is true, men are imperfect interpreters, and so sinners should not be given over to certainty.--Percy

As has been pointed out in this thread twice already, you are glaringly wrong and have abandoned discussion on this topic on at least two separate occasions. You are repeating bald assertions that display a gross ignorance of how strata formed and are still forming today. Stile's last post on this topic was Message 1312 in the The TRVE history of the Flood... thread. Before you can repeat your declarations with any integrity you must complete discussion on the topic. Are you finally going to explain how a flood could deposit fine limestone strata interspersed with other types of strata? The same processes are taking place today before our very eyes. Every lakebed and seafloor is accumulating sediments. For example, there are many limestone-forming environments in the world today, most in shallow seas within a couple thousand miles of the equator.--Percy