Funny I hardly ever mention the Bible in discussing the Flood but you don't mind lying about that anyway,
Why mention it when we already know that is what you are basing your fantasies on?
and as for accusing me of arguing from fantasy you can't think either.
I can think ten times better than you can.
If you could think, you'd realize that the planet has never been covered in water since humans have been alive.
But you can't do that, because you are unable to stop thinking that the Bible has to get everything exactly right. And your faith is so weak that if one thing was wrong then you'd have to throw the whole thing out. Well, you've got too much invested already to do that, so you're going to have to resort to creating fantasies that allow you to keep believing that the Flood actually happened.
I honestly feel sorry for you. To limit yourself to such nonsense has to be debilitating. Maybe that's why you get so angry all the time.
I'm speculating about the physical conditions that would pertain in the Flood just as everybody else does.
What you are doing is assuming that the Flood happened and then you're trying to find ways to fit the evidence into it.
That's totally backwards. I mean, you say stuff like this:
quote:A HUGE amount of the observed facts fit the Flood explanation.
You don't even understand how scientific explanations work.
Don't look for facts to fit within your theory, model your theory so that it fits around the facts.
I mean, a HUGE amount of the observed facts fits The Matrix explanation too. That's not evidence that it is correct!
Obviously can't get anybody off their entrenched biases to think about this stuff in a reasonable way.
Essentially, you're asking us to be reasonable and THINK about what amounts to you claiming the 42 angels can dance on a pinhead. Not 43 or 41, 42 exactly... you just have to be able to think about it, and be reasonable.
If we were just more creative and understanding then we could all realize that it has to be 42 angels that can dance on a pinhead.
I mean, why should we be anything but disillusioned by your posts?
We all know that the Flood never happened. Why should we entertain what you can imagine as details to your fantasy?
We'd be just as well off discussing in detail whether or not Batman could defeat Darth Vader. I mean, sure, Batman has incredible technology, but could it really stand up to the Force?
What do you think? Can you even THINK about it? Or or you not creative enough?
The only thing we're ever going to be willing to do is explain to you the scientific knowledge that shows that this stuff you make up about the Flood is impossible.
Same old nonsense thrown at me that I've answered many times before. Same old accusations, same old silliness. Not up to slogging through it all right now, maybe later.
The really sad and unfortunate part is that you are being forced to submit posts here.
Nothing I've ever said is remotely akin to arguing about angels on pins.
Well that was just a cliche, but here is you doing what I'm talking about:
quote:So since the KT boundary asteroid ribbon occurs high in the geologic column I'd suppose that the rain had long since stopped and the full depth of the flood had been reached some time ago as well, so I'd postulate that the KT boundary powder had plenty of opportunity to float for a very long time on relatively placid water before the water receded enough for it to be deposited on the surface of whatever the last sediment to be deposited was.
"Even if Batman hit Darth Vader with an EMP grenade, Vader could sustain himself with the Force long enough for his auxiliary battery to kick in."
You're just making up stuff to fantasize about the particulars of a situation given a set of preconceived assumptions.
That's why you can't get any respect from a scientifically aligned debate site. You'd get a lot better reception from your fellow YECs, or maybe even a fantasy or sci-fi debate board. Or you could try creative writing or something. For some reason, you prefer us... I think you're like me in not liking a circlejerk. You want disagreement. Which makes it hilarious when you bitch about bullying.
The weird part is that you're willing to defy the laws of physics left and right, but for some reason you think that you have to make your fantasy somewhat believable, so you still make it operate within some of the laws of physics. Like how you realize that the KT boundary couldn't have formed like that post-deposition, so you invent a way for it to happen during deposition that involves it floating on the surface when the waters were calm. Little do you realize that your invention actually violates the laws of physics and is impossible.
Why not just go full miracle on it and get really creative? Why limit it to some quasi-natural processes at all?
Good grief, of COURSE I'm "mak ing stuff up," that's ALL anyone can do with the one-time event of the long-past Flood.
Well no, some people are smart enough to study the evidence and come up with scientific explanations for phenomenon in the long-past.
They try to form a theory that fits the evidence, and then they test it and test it and test it.
You, on the other hand, try to find evidence that fits your theory, and then you fantasize and fantasize and fantasize.
You might as well be talking about super heroes.
It's all I do and it's all the Flood debunkers do too. "Oh this that or the other physical fact "proves" there couldn't have been such a Flood." Same way I work, only I'm looking for ways it COULD work and they aren't and just about all the scenarios the debunkers have in mind are totally inadequate to what the reality must have been, all superficial straw man stuff.
Scientifically minded people realize that the best merits of a theory are when its able to stand up against falsification tests. Only after lots of testing and we learn that we cannot figure out any way to actually falsify the theory, does it start to get any serious consideration from anybody.
That's why your Flood ideas will never get respect, like my theories on Batman and Darth Vader, if they're not just downright impossible, then they are not falsifiable.
Nobody is impressed by your ability to make stuff up.
But as far as method goes, for both sides it's a matter of imagining the physical situation as plausibly as possible.
Oh, I suppose that you just fail to realize that your ideas are in no way plausible.
Anyway, how's about you acknowledge the absurdity of explaining the history of the earth in terms of layer upon layer of separate kinds of sedimentary rocks stacked miles deep for hundreds of millions or even billions of years up to our time when suddenly all this disturbance occurs, canyons are cut, mountains are built and so on.