Did the Flood really happen?

quote:

---

We do not assume nature was the same in the past. We know it was.

---

You can post the proof anytime. (if you claim you did give the link..haha)

quote:

---

But the use of the word outside science has no bearing on the use of the word in science.

---

Your wish to apply the word as if it applied in and out and in the middle and both sides of science is overruled.Evidence is needed for science claims.

Again. We do not assume nature was the same in the past. We know it was. We can see the past and we can see the operations of the laws of physics are consistent. This is fact. It is settled science and need not be justified to some religious nut case with a hair up his butt.The deed is done. Science wins again.

Overruled? By you? Religious nutjob loses touch with reality. Film at 11.

You can see squat. You believe time in the far universe is the same for religious reason of belief only, and upchuck dream deates based on this

We can only go by what you post. Prove that nature on eart was the same in Noah's day, or the claim is shown to have no evidence. Your spam hate post have become tiresome, so you need to get on point and topic. Pronto.Edited by dad, : No reason given.

Of course we can. One of the great strengths of science is its ability to analyse the evidence of past and very far away events then model/reconstruct those events.You are too ignorant and religiously blind to understand the methods used.You can believe all the bullshit you want about the reasoning. You haven't the standing to challenge any of it and your objections are ignored.

Noah? What's a Noah? Another of your religious fairy tales? Well spark up there Bunkie, cuz I got a whole bunch more of them.

In terms you might understand, maybe some 70 millions years ago, so called science time.

Statements of faith and empty claims. If you had science it would have been posted. Whatsa matta, yellow?

It has nothing to do with my wishes or your ruling. When scientists use the word "evidence", it has a specific meaning. When lawyers use the word, it also has a specific meaning - but significantly different. Indeed it is - but you haven't demonstrated yet that you understand what evidence is.Let's try again: There's a dead body on the floor; we'll stipulate that it is dead, no vital signs, room temperature, etc. There's a hole in the body and a man standing over it with a smoking gun. And there's a bust of Napoleon on the mantel.List what is evidence and what is not.

quote:

---

When scientists use the word "evidence", it has a specific meaning. When lawyers use the word, it also has a specific meaning - but significantly different.

---

Then explain how a belief in a same nature in the past is evidence? Claims are not evidence. Evidence is stuff you use to show beliefs are valid.

quote:

---

There's a dead body on the floor; we'll stipulate that it is dead, no vital signs, room temperature, etc. There's a hole in the body and a man standing over it with a smoking gun. And there's a bust of Napoleon on the mantel.

​

List what is evidence and what is not.

---

When you can walk into the ark and stand over Noah, we can talk. Unless your evidence has nothing to do with the far past, and only deals in your room.

It isn't a belief. It's a conclusion based on evidence, evidence like tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, fossils, etc. Tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, fossils, etc. ARE evidence. Your idea of a voodoo "different nature" is an empty claim. Not quite. Evidence is stuff we use to decide IF claims are valid. We do not make claims and then look for evidence to support them. We look at the evidence and then draw conclusions from it. We can talk right now. Why are you so afraid to tell us what you think evidence is? We need to understand the evidence in the room before we can go on to more complex problems. You don't seem to have any basic understanding of evidence yet, or any desire to learn about it.Deal with the evidence in the room first: There's a dead body on the floor; we'll stipulate that it is dead, room temperature, no vital signs, etc. There's a hole in the body and a man standing over it with a smoking gun. And there's a bust of Napoleon on the mantel. List what is evidence and what is not.

quote:

---

It's a conclusion based on evidence, evidence like tree rings, lake varves, ice cores, fossils, etc.

---

If trees grew faster than rings are not evidence. What you need evidence for is that they grew in this same nature we have today at rates that exist today. Same deal with ice layers and varves. As for fossils, unless nature was the same, we could not assume many kinds of animals could fossilize at all. So the fossil record could only be a record of a teensy tiny little fraction of the animals on earth that could fossilize and leave remains at all. It all sits on your one belief. One belief to rule them all, One belief to find them; One belief to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

Denial without reason. Intellectual abnegation. Your "other different nature" is an adolescent farce.