Define "Kind"

quote:

---

There is so much evidence for a global flood it's staggering. It has to be a very strange blindness that keeps people from acknowledging it. Not even agreeing with it, just acknowledging that the amount of evidence is enormous. Just another case of flat out denial.

---

What evidence is this? Excuse me, but I am new here and maybe I haven't seen any previous posts where you have presented or linked to this "evidence". Perhaps a nudge in that direction?

quote:

---

The existence of fossils all over the earth in the great abundance they are found, everywhere, is fantastic evidence for a worldwide flood. Anyone in their right mind ought to concede this point. The conditions caused by such a flood well explain the fossilization of bazillions of dead things.

---

The existence of fossils all over the Earth in the great abundance they are found everywhere is fantastic evidence of millions upon millions of years of life upon this Earth and the evolution of life when put up against other areas of science for independent testing and verification. If said flood occured and all the fossils we find were indeed killed in this flood, all forms of dating would put every single fossil within the same time frame. This does not happen and no matter how hard you would like to ignore the validity of the various methods of dating, the dates we get are evidence for millions of years of evolution, not some mythical global flood.

quote:

---

Sure you can figure out how to explain this some other way if you have a mind to. But so what? The flood explanation is obviously adequate.

---

The flood myth is obviously adequate to you and that is no harm done to me or anyone else unless, of course, you want to propagate this myth as fact.

quote:

---

The existence of marine fossils in mountains and deserts is also great evidence for a worldwide flood.

---

The existence of marine fossils in mountains actually supports an old earth scenario since the mountains we see today were not always mountains and were indeed once under water (at least that is my understanding of geological history). The organisms were marine animals living in a marine environment and the sediments/rocks/what have you where their fossils were laid down became, over many many eons, mountains as the earth was pushed up. As for marine fossils found in deserts, the same, or similar, can be said. Do you really think deserts are static environments? Have you noticed the recent, rapid desertification of much of Africa? Land that was once lush jungle or grassland is now an arid desert. The whole area that is now the desert you find marine fossils in could have been a lake at one time (or a river or inland sea or an ocean). Ever heard of riverbeds and lakes drying up? It happens all the time. Your flood explanation may be good enough for you, but it has no basis in science and should not be touted as such.

quote:

---

And again, sure you can find other explanations, but the Flood is a far more "elegant" and obvious explanation.

---

The purpose of science is not to be "elegant." I'm sorry if that is one of your conditions for something being true, but the majority of thinking people just won't buy that. As for obvious, it seems "obvious" at first glance that the night sky is a black canopy draped over the sky by god with little holes to let in specks of light that is pushed away by the sun in the morning, but that is not true. There are a myriad of seemingly obvious and simple explanations to everything we observe on this Earth, but once delved into to find out the truth, those explanations fall apart.

quote:

---

The existence of the stratifications called the geological column, also found all over the world, is terrific evidence for a worldwide flood. The alternation of different kinds of sediments with different fossil contents is just not at all compatible with the notion of deposition over millions of years, but water certainly can explain it, as some of the scenarios evos concoct even end up conceding. It's laughable. Maybe someday you'll all wake up and see it.

---

I'm not sure what you mean here by "alternation" and why finding certain fossils in certain strata is incompatible with "deposition over millions of years, so I can't really comment on that bit, but could you give an example of evos conceding that a global flood (I'm assuming that is what you mean by "water" but feel free to tell me that that is an incorrect assumption) explains it and could you please tell me why local floods or volcanic eruptions or any other localized catastrophe could not explain any perceived anomalies in geological strata?

quote:

---

The amount of disturbance of the surface of the planet that occurs in a few years is a strong clue that given millions of years not one of those strata could have survived intact.

---

Why not?

quote:

---

The presence of extinct forms of life in the fossil record is a clue to the enormous variety of life that inhabited the pre-Flood world.

---

Why should any animals have become extinct if Noah was instructed to take "...two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 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." Gen 6:19-20 NIV. See this is where you would have to define kinds, but as a lay reader I would have to define kind in this context to mean the same as when I say "I like every kind of pasta," meaning I like every single type of pasta there is. Now why would fossils of long extinct creatures explain a flood and the fact that we don't see these creatures today if two of every single creature were aboard the ark? And even if the definition of kind is found to be broader, do you have a reason why certain creatures were left behind, especially when we read that both "clean and unclean" animals were aboard?

quote:

---

It's all consistent with the Flood story.

---

No, you want it to be consistent so you are ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.

quote:

---

But people seem to prefer the evo fantasy, which has no evidence whatever to support it. It's all a made-up fiction.

---

Do you even know the definition of evidence or the process for identifying something as evidence?Admins - sorry for straying off-topic, but I did address the OP issue of defining "kinds" somewhere back there

Oops, I guess this topic was abandoned awhile ago...didn't read far enough to notice and upon digging I found the thread where this issue was relocated, but it is closed Can anyone point me to a relevant thread where Faith would be able to or willing to answer?

quote:

---

lol no we can't. but feel free to try anyways

---

thanks I just got done reading the thread that the post I replied to was spun off of and I see what you mean.

quote:

---

I really don't want to go back over all this contentious stuff. Most of what you are bringing up I've answered many times over and I don't care to be subjected to the typical rudeness you obviously bring to the questions. As I said the fact that you can come up with an alternative explanation for certain phenomena does not in itself make your explanation correct. I don't like the tone of your question about the kinds and it's pretty muddled anyway so I will ignore it. I believe the fossils are not ancient and were all laid down in the Flood.

---

Oh, I'm sorry I didn't know that I was expected to have read all of your posts on the whole of EvC after only posting three of my own (of course you cannot infer how long I have been lurking by that, but lemme give you a hint - it's about 3 days) in order to be able to reply to a post of yours. However, from what I had read up until the time that I posted my reply didn't indicate to me that had indeed answered any questions or presented any evidence and upon skipping over to the spin-off thread I am still left with nothing, so you can feel free to say you do not want to go through the gauntlet again (and since you have I will shut up about this matter and take it up with someone else), but don't pretend that you have answered anyone's questions.As for my rudeness, it is pretty damn rude to call me rude just because I imply some incredulity and incorporate some sarcasm into my questions (and I think most here will agree that the levels of that in my post were mighty low at that). I did not call you any names or sling other insults at you, but instead I asked legitimate questions with some sarcasm thrown in for flavor. Maybe that was wrong of me, but I would hardly call it rude.

quote:

---

I see no reason to say anything else, and if you ask another rude question you can be sure I will ignore you.

---

Well, seeing as how you have already made your mind up about me after only one post, I can hardly say I care. I would rather debate with someone who can actually answer questions presented to them...otherwise it is not debate, just one person asking a whole lot of questions and getting nothing in return.Added in Edit: After reviewing forum guidelines and reminding myself of my highschool debate years I concede that I was out of line, but I did pose legitimate questions and your arbitrary dismissal, accusation of rudeness and the way you replied to my post was equally out of line. Thanks for your warm Christian welcome. Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.