Evidence of the flood

tiVeRraT writes: What am I if I believe we were created to evolve through natural processes?

The keyword is "created". If you believe a creator was necessary to the process, you're a creationist. To be fair though, we most often use the word for the worst kind of science-deniers. You're only the second or third worst kind.

Faith writes: The antediluvian world was obviously teeming with life beyond our ability to imagine, and the supposed fossil record is some kind of illusion, not really even as consistent as you believe, but the evidence favors the Flood in any case so obviously it's wrong.

"It's really amazing how anything anybody says can, and will, be obliterated by the endless destroying machine of EvC. Truth isn't the concern really, just demolishing the opposition, that's all, . . ."--Faith

Like I said before, you perfectly describe your own posts.

Faith writes: Actually I've many times answered your ridiculous claim with a description of my model.

Your models never survive scrutiny. What typically happens is that you invent excuses to abandon discussion amidst a storm of threats and insults, most recently in the MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?:

Faith in the Macro vs. Micro thread writes: As I read further in your insulting unintelligent post... ... This is an insulting post so I'm ignoring it. ... I'm not threatening to leave, I'm just not going to read insulting posts any more. ... Amazing. Nothing but snark as usual. Amazing. ... EvC is obviously some kind of alternative universe. Nothing here makes sense, nobody makes sense, what people say about me would be funny if it weren't so bizarre. In any case I'm no longer discussing anything with people who insult me in such bizarre ways with such a strange lack of understanding of the argument. ... I've made the case and I'm not talking to people who insult me. ... No, I won't read it because of that insulting sentence and some other similar stuff I encountered on a quick skim. ... And Percy, if you come back to this post: I'm not reading anything else you post. [False, of course] ... All this is too tiresome. Either my opponents are low IQ or experiencing early dementia or just don't want to understand anything I'm saying. ... I hope you don't mind if I just say that your entire post is a bunch of wacko accusatory nonsense, as most of them have been in the last few days. It's so much more economical than slogging through it all to point it out statement by statement. Don't you think it's time to close down this charade? ... You're very good at stating the establishment paradigm. It's all an elaborate fantasy but you're good at it. ... Not reading a stupid article that claims anything is 2.3 million years old, especially birds that would evolve all kinds of forms within hundreds of years. And the article is glaring white. ... I don't trust the evidence offered by your side, sorry. ... After reading your first two ridiculous paragraphs I have to take back what I said about trusting you to be honest. ... ...asking me for evidence is out of order.

This thread will end the same way - you'll eventually invent some excuses and abandon it, as you've done so many times before.

--Percy

quote:

---

Actually I've many times answered your ridiculous claim with a description of my model.

---

Except that your "model" doesn't explain the sorting. That is why you keep inventing excuses to ignore it. So jar was telling the truth and you are dishonestly trying to cover up that fact.

quote:

---

And the Bible certainly is evidence of God, that's one of its major purposes, to document the miracles that prove His existence and who He is.

---

It's not exactly good evidence, in fact it is pretty much worthless as evidence for God. Your evaluation is based on a doctrine which assumes that the Bible is absolutely true ignoring even the internal evidence to the contrary. When you start with a question-begging and false assumption you can't hope to get a reasonable answer.

I can say it again.

The evidence is so obvious for the Flood it pre-empts the supposed order of the fossils, which is an ililusion anyway.

And the Bible is evidence of God, that's a big part of what it's intended for whether it persuades you or not.

The reasons I gave for my actions are true and sufficient, your lame mind-reading is false, insulting and stupid.

quote:

---

The evidence is so obvious for the Flood it pre-empts the supposed order of the fossils, which is an ililusion anyway.

---

Even if that were true it only proves me right. You do not have an explanation for the ordering. jar told the truth and you called it an "utter lie" - even though you know it to be true.

quote:

---

And the Bible is evidence of God, that's a big part of what it's intended for whether it persuades you or not.

---

If you want to call your God incompetent that's your problem. The fact remains that the Bible is pretty much worthless as evidence of God - and anyone who intended it to be otherwise failed dismally.

the Bible is the only source of witnessed evidence of miracles that only God could do, in both the Old and the New Testaments.

quote:

---

the Bible is the only source of witnessed evidence of miracles that only God could do, in both the Old and the New Testaments.

---

And that is a big part of the problem. Miracle stories are a lot more common than actual miracles, and when the stories come from biased and superstitious people, often far removed from the actual events - let alone when the story is essentially fiction anyway - you haven't got anything like good enough evidence to accept a miracle.

I don't want to go off-topic by pushing it too much - but if you really think you have a good case feel free to start a topic on any example you like.

Just remember that your idea of a good case often isn't. For instance your guess about a map you can't even read properly is hardly solid evidence, no matter how strongly you believe it.

Faith writes: The reasons I gave for my actions are true and sufficient,...

If you do say so yourself.

...your lame mind-reading is false, insulting and stupid.

So in this thread you're not going to be insulting and offensive? Starting when, pray tell?

You'll abandon this thread just like you've abandoned all the rest. In the meantime, why don't you say something on topic and provide evidence for the Flood.

--Percy

Sure. Strata and fossils.

Faith writes: Sure. Strata and fossils.

That's kinda like saying the smoking gun in your hand is proof of your innocence.

Well what can we expect of someone who calls a statement they know to be true an "utter lie" ?

Apologies if this point was made already. I skimmed most of the thread because it's quite tedious.

Animals do sometime seek shelter in human-made structures (like, in this case, cars). That's because humans build structures to protect from the elements. Animals also seek shelter in structures not made by humans. To use an example that should be familiar in the US (at least in some parts), all sorts of animals hang around in gopher burrows.

Gophers build burrows to protect themselves from the heat and from predators in the desert. Other animals take advantage. Humans build structures to protect themselves from all sorts of climatic challenges. Other animals take advantage,

12 pages?

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

Faith writes: Strata and fossils.

How does a flood sort items into millions of recurring layers of fine particles and then coarser particles?

How does the same flood also deposit layers of salt hundreds of feet thick then layers of rock then more layers of salt yet more hundreds of feet thick then more rock?

How does the same flood sort radioactive samples by age?

How does the same flood sort biological samples as found in reality?

How does the same flood deposit animal tracks?

How does the same flood deposit a layer and then erode a layer and then deposit another layer over the area eroded?

Model, mechanics, method, process, procedure...

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin