Science doesn't work quite the way you think. There are degrees of certainty. The conclusion that there was never a world-wide flood while humans have existed is very high on that scale. It's not absolute but it isn't far off.
quote: O fer pete's sake. A hawk is scared of the coming hurricane and hides in a taxi and won't leave. Does it remind us of the Flood perhaps? Well sure it does, refuge from the storm for some animals as well as humans. You can stretch an analogy too far you know.
You realise that you are agreeing with me ? That calling this "evidence of the Flood" is best taken as a joke ?
quote: But has anyone considered that this bird may not be completely wild? Folks train these particular birds as pets, and I am sure that some of them escape and don't feel the desire to come back home.
I did. Apparently Cooper's Hawks are used in falconry, but aren't popular because they are hard to train. But that means they are more likely to fly off and not come back - always a risk with birds of prey. And some people do keep birds of prey as pets, even though it isn't really a good idea.
There's no way to tell for sure, but even if it is a wild bird there must be a lot more Cooper's Hawks around that didn't jump into taxis - not to mention all the rest of the urban wildlife. To jump to the conclusion that animals are "programmed" to seek shelter with humans based on a single example when so many have not is daft. To go on and try to use it to explain how animals got on to the mythical Ark, when it doesn't even fit the story is even dafter. And to then claim it as evidence for the Flood ? It's practically begging to be laughed at.
quote: To call the incident of the bird in the taxi evidence for the Flood is a bit of hyperbole I just overlooked.
I think that "idiocy" would be more accurate than "hyperbole"
quote: But the incident itself certainly does remind one of the Flood -- a bird scared by the huge amount of water on its way finds a dry place to hang out with a human being -- and all the mental gyrations in the effort to deny it are typical EvC nuttiness cuz Creationists can't ever say ANYTHING at all without being contradicted, no matter how casual the comment.
Of course nobody is objecting to you being reminded of the Flood story. It's the attempt to argue for it as evidence of the Flood that is being objected to.
Apparently we can't point out that a ridiculous falsehood is ridiculously false without you objecting.
As for the question of whether riverrat is a creationist why would that matter ? I argued even more against Crashfrogs silly arguments that Jesus never existed. Should I have given those a pass because Crashfrog isn't a Creationist ?
quote: All the incidents of wild animals seeking human help that I mentioned that you can find at You Tube certainly suggests that something kicks in under such circumstances that leads them to trust us. They are expecting help rather than hurt.
Or they are just desperate to get out of the rain. Possibly scared, too.
quote: But as usual since it is claimed over and over and over that there is no evidence for the biblical worldwide Flood I just have to point out all the in-your-face evidence y'all ignore with as much wacko exertion as it takes to make a mountain out of the molehill of the cute scared birdy in the taxi.
Hooray for EvC. Must deserve some kind of award for this odd behavior;.
You find it odd that people disagree with obvious falsehoods ? I think the bizarre behaviour is yours. Emphasising the the Flood is a falsehood - which you keep on doing - isn't going to convince any sane person.
quote: No, jar said it as an absolute. Funny how the Christians get "nit picked" but jar and atheists don't.
In other words, jar was simply speaking s little loosely - as anyone who calls the Earth a sphere would be doing (and calling the Earth a sphere is known to be not exactly correct). Hardly a matter worth mentioning.
As for the other part all I will say is that it is funny how "Christians" feel free to crtiticse others - without much concern for honesty or truth - yet whine is horribly when far better founded criticisms are made of them. It's not exactly Christian behaviour.
quote: What I did by posting this was to show that there is evidence that part of the story on THE GLOBAL FLOOD, is true. If a flood had started, animals have been observed to seek shelter with humans. This is evidence that part of the story could be true. So essentially we have evidence.
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.
quote: The rest of you went on and on how we have no evidence and went off you your usual bigoted attacks on people of faith. Just admit it, this is evidence in support of the story. Doesn't mean it happened. So unless you can show how animals evolved into this behavior, (asked once already) you can no longer say there is zero evidence.
Since I have given four good reasons why it is not evidence of a global flood this hardly applies.
We do not even have to assume that this is an evolved instinct since the evidence is against it. Why the relatively few animals who did seek shelter with humans did so is a question that needs to be addressed individually because the numbers are small. Some may have been partly tame - escaped from domestic life, or habituated to humans (usually from being fed). Some may simply seek shelter and find tolerating humans better than the alternative. It's not hard to explain at all.
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.
Then perhaps we can avoid such ridiculous misrepresentations in the future.
quote: Genisis7:20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.
So, not exactly a crowd of those local species prepared to tolerate human company arriving only when the rain got really bad. Even if we ignore the parallel account (which has distinct differences) you have to have pairs (and only pairs) of all species and the whole thing has to happen in a day. Obviously if there were simply an instinct to find shelter with humans you would just get the species living in the immediate area, and pretty much every single one of them - not just a pair,
So, no, that doesn't fit the story (and to the extent it does, it makes a lot more sense for a local Flood - only species living close to the Ark are even possibly going to get in)