Evidence of the flood

JonF writes: You have evidence that one animal sought shelter and no evidence that it chose that shelter because of humans. That's all. Your wild extrapolation to all animals is unjustified.

No, we have multiple evidence that animals do this often. Why?

Paulk writes: I hope that you can see that you are a whining liar who is upset because he gets the criticisms he earned.

Well that didn't take long, name calling. (liberal debate tactic #2, which means you lose) Go fuck yourself. Should I get you a puppy and a safe space now?

Everyone is allowed to speak as loosely as jar did, at least in ordinary speech. You will rarely find anyone criticised for doing so, no matter what hey believe.

You need to look no further than this thread, and your very own comments to prove that one wrong. NEXT please. If you can't debate the topic, step away from your keyboard snowflake.

Paulk writes: Untrue, I also did. Message 42

I missed that one. So Paulk too.

As I pointed out it is NOT part of the story. It does not even seem to be true in general - the vast majority of urban wildlife did not seek shelter. And even if it was part of the story it would be as true if there were only a severe local flood. Not to mention that fictions can and do include known facts, so even if it was a fact (it isn't) and even if it was in the story (it isn't) it still wouldn't be the evidence you claim. So, essentially you have no evidence here of a global Flood.

Nope sorry, you can't explain away actual evidence. As in the flood not all the animals went to the ark. Wouldn't it just be weird if the hawk left that guy as soon as all the water receded?

My point stands, there is evidence to that part of the story, be it true or false. You can't say the flood never happened because animals seek shelter with humans in disasters, that makes zero sense.

Since I have given four good reasons why it is not evidence of a global flood this hardly applies.

It is evidence of that part of the story, not a global flood.

Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

RAZD writes: Except we don't have mating pairs of animals ... Enjoy

Good point. Flood wasn't big enough?

Still no one has provided any kind of explanation as to why, or how animals have evolved in to this behavior.

Cool. His face says, ok flood is over, let me out.

jar writes: Yup. Had a mating pair of 'roos shown up in Houston with a pair of koalas in their pouches with a whole line of Lions and Tigers and Bears and Ohmys there might have been a news story worth of Faux News.

But it wasn't a global flood.

The Biblical Flood is simply a silly sophomoric joke at the very best attempted by an inept, evil, dishonest and untrustworthy God who was trying to get a gig in stand up comedy.

Are you an asshole atheist now?

Percy, if you can't debate the topic, please fuck off.

The only one who has made a hash of things is you not being able to debate the topic. (the topic is Harvey the hawk and his behavior, and whether or not to consider this evidence of part of the story of the global flood). You are too interested in assaulting character. Typical, and is why I left this shit hole. It is also why my faith was increased being here. Your way of communicating with people is not how I want to be. If being an atheist and a scientist means being mean, then I am out. You do nothing to win me over. You pretend to care about people knowing the truth, but you don't.

It's just the same old sad tired story in this forum. Liberal debate tactics. Keep arguing and talking until something doesn't jive and then say "there, see I told you". But by then you are so far off topic, it is invalid and has nothing to do with it.

I suggested there was evidence of a flood. I did not suggest the flood actually happened. Am I not allowed to speak loosely like everyone else? Jar's statement is just factually incorrect, not in that there was or there was not a flood, but in his assertion. Jar's statement was technically incorrect if you are a scientist. You can say there is no evidence of a flood, but you cannot say there was no flood. You close the door, and are no longer open minded at that point.

Since I just provided *weak evidence of part of the story of the flood, I think we shouldn't even be saying there is NO evidence of a flood. There IS evidence. We just choose to ignore it.

riVeRraT writes: Coyote writes: You might also have claimed that the existence of water in Houston was evidence for a global flood during historic times, as your bird evidence is just about as weak. Weak is more than zero.

Nonsense. The claimed global flood during historic times simply did not happen. The evidence against it is absolutely overwhelming, while the mere presence of water and a lost bird is pretty damn flimsy evidence of that such a global flood occurred during historic times.

If we went with your line of reasoning we'd be able to claim evidence for every kooky idea ever. That certainly would not be following the scientific method, nor the guidance of the Enlightenment which says we no longer have to kowtow to religious belief.

riVeRraT writes: The water accumulation IS evidence of a global flood, but I am not going to go into that right now. It goes back to one of my posts years ago. Just 52" of rain in 5 days made the water 20' deep. Imagine what 40 days and nights would have done, globally. Coyote writes: OK, there was water in Houston, and one bird looked for high ground. Big deal. Neither is evidence for a global flood no matter how you spin it. Because you say so.

Because the evidence says there was no such flood. If it were not for religious believers there would certainly be no claims for such a flood, as the evidence shows that no such flood occurred during historic times. Believers keep trying to make the real world conform to their fantasies, but things just don't work that way.

quote:

---

Nope sorry, you can't explain away actual evidence

---

Unfortunately for you I have shown that you don!t have actual evidence.

quote:

---

As in the flood not all the animals went to the ark.

---

You know, you might try reading the Flood story some time. Noah was given very soecific instructions on what to take. You think he relied on exactly the right animals turning up at the last minute ? For your argument to work you need every relevant species to turn up, in the right numbers - even those that didn't live locally, and before things got too bad.

And then there are the other three points - all of them fatal to your claim - which you haven't even addressed.

quote:

---

My point stands, there is evidence to that part of the story, be it true or false. You can't say the flood never happened because animals seek shelter with humans in disasters, that makes zero sense.

---

Well I am not saying that it is evidence against the Flood. However your assertion that it is evidence for the Flood makes no real sense either.

quote:

---

It is evidence of that part of the story, not a global flood.

---

That concedes your original point.

So now all you need is a part of the story where Noah takes on animals that just randomly happen to show up because of the rain. Please quote the verses which say that.

Edited by PaulK, : Corrected typo

rr writes: jar writes: Yup. Had a mating pair of 'roos shown up in Houston with a pair of koalas in their pouches with a whole line of Lions and Tigers and Bears and Ohmys there might have been a news story worth of Faux News. But it wasn't a global flood.

There has never been a Global Flood and even this flood did not flood all of the area where the rain fell. The flood in Houston was expected, is recurring and man made.

rr writes: jar writes: The Biblical Flood is simply a silly sophomoric joke at the very best attempted by an inept, evil, dishonest and untrustworthy God who was trying to get a gig in stand up comedy. Are you an asshole atheist now?

Not at all. But I also am not part of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

The Biblical Flood stories in the Bible are simply neither factual or historical beyond the fact that they are historical fiction.

People are often just looking to take you out of context on here.
But check this. That bird was injured and unable to fly.

https://youtu.be/1P7qp_Zi_NA

jar and riverrat are two old members here. jar and I often argue about the same things numerous times. Rat has been gone from the forum for a couple of years and only recently came back, so he knows the drill around here... jar will never agree with you but only clarify and reframe the basic argument presented. Gotta love him!

RR writes: It's just the same old sad tired story in this forum. Liberal debate tactics. Keep arguing and talking until something doesn't jive and then say "there, see I told you". But by then you are so far off topic, it is invalid and has nothing to do with it.

How has your life been away from here, anyway? Do you still fly the model airplanes?

What made you come back to this frustrating place anyway? (Yeah we missed you)

Phat writes: jar will never agree with you but only clarify and reframe the basic argument presented.

I agree when reasonable supported arguments are presented.

Imagine what 40 days and nights would have done, globally.

Easy. There would be no life on Earth. There's no place the water could have been that wouldn't make the Earth uninhabitable just by being there or by falling.