Evidence of the flood

What's this? A reply from Faith? What an unexpected surprise after you ignored my last fourteen messages to you:

• Message 854 and Message 847 noting the paucity of content and the lack of evidence in your posts.
• Message 845 about how your evidence is either missing or has conveniently disappeared.
• Message 837 about the impossibility of buried strata tilting without affecting strata above and below.
• Message 831 responding to your insult directed at the entire thread.
• Message 830 correcting all your misstatements in Message 812.
• Message 829 noting that changing from one unevidenced story to another doesn't help you.
• Message 828 responding to your complaint about a personal attack, despite that all I did was accurately describe your behavior.
• Message 827 responding to your complaint about Dr A (apparently you're allowed to protest other people's behavior, but when other people protest yours then they're getting personal).
• Message 781 asking you rhetorical questions about your incredibly poor conduct.
• Message 779 about the sediments in the Temple Butte stream bed.
• Message 778 describing how the geological evidence lends no support whatsoever for the Flood.
• Message 773 about the same stream bed not having been filled with "limestone dissolution".
• Message 768 noting yet another content-free one-liner post from you.

There wasn't a single response to a host of my other messages to you, nor to messages from many others in this thread. You seem to be trying to debate by pretending the rebuttals don't exist. You're like the person who when told they're being rude says, "How rude of you to tell me I'm rude."I'm not arguing the person. I'm noting your many violations of the Forum Guidelines, specifically these:

2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
   ​
4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
   ​
8. Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
   ​
10. The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

You've been especially bad about #4. You mean I pointed out how I was merely accurately describing your bad behavior. If you don't like your bad behavior being called to your attention then stop behaving badly. Well now you're just misrepresenting and lying again. Aussie was pointing out that the same claim you make for God and Bible can be made for Allah and the Koran. And then he backed it up in Message 855 when he said this: Which you dismissed with a content-free one-liner, which I then brought to your attention that you were debating in bad faith yet again.You can yet redeem yourself by actually participating in the discussion, or you can continue turning this thread into a travesty of a discussion with your one-liner messages and all-caps and constant repetitions of arguments rebutted many times and avoidance of messages containing rebuttals and personal attacks on people who have done nothing more than disagree with you.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix dBCode error.Edited by Percy, : Correct message count.

You don't recall any certainty? Either you've got a very bad memory or you're lying. Just look at Message 93 - it's full of certainty. Then there's your statement in Message 101 where you make your errors explicit: You never did admit error. You're engaged in dissembling again. You never present your ideas as works in progress. For you they are facts until in rare instances the lightbulb goes on and you realize you're wrong. You only "adjust your theories" when forced to. For the most part you ignore almost all feedback. You don't respond to most messages, most of your messages are repetitions of prior declarations of what you believe, and many of your messages are one-liners, dismissive or completely free of content. Who can forget the series of, "Sorry, I disagree," messages? Yes, that's what you do, behave badly and when called on it deem them "offensive personal comments" which in your mind somehow justifies ignoring the messages and the information they contain. It's how you maintain your ignorance. This is a lie, too. If you go back to your earliest threads in 2005 when you began participation in earnest you'll see that you were ignoring most messages then, too. In Objections to Evo-Timeframe Deposition of Strata you replied to about 50% of messages. In Is Evolutionist Disparagement of Creationism Justified? you again responded to about 50% of messages. In Who to believe , Ham or Ross? it was again about 50%. Need I go on? Most of the posts that you ignore contain a great deal of information. The more information and explanation a post contains, the more likely it is you'll ignore it. The more detailed or complicated a post is, the more likely it is you'll ignore it. The more "white" a post contains, the more likely it is you'll ignore it. I'm including your one-liner replies as ignoring messages.There was little point in you posting this self-serving self-justifying message with its concoctions out of whole cloth. The facts are there for anyone to check. You haven't participated in good faith from your very beginning here, and it's only gotten worse as time goes on.Why don't you go back through this thread and begin replying to all the messages you've ignored? And don't forget the messages where you replied with one-liners that basically said nothing - you should post new replies to those messages.--Percy

I think Rrhain would probably draw a distinction between the meaning of undetectable he intended and that was discernible from context (not detectable by any means ever), and the meaning of undetectable you’re using (not detectable by us at the current time).Percy