Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Ptsh. if you think God would spare them from the flood and kill them from diseases, then you need your head examined. And again NO they would not have parasites. Parasites the ones who can't survive in water probably survived in some other animal or plant. I can't beleive all of this ridiculous speculation. (I can't beleive I am saying this... it sounds too much like an evolutionist) if you expect me to take you seriously then don't be ridiculous.
So those parasites and viruses are proof of evolution right? I mean, they had to addapt from human >> animal >> human... so that's pretty funny actually.
So those parasites and viruses are proof of evolution right? I mean, they had to addapt from human >> animal >> human... so that's pretty funny actually.
Exactly. Parasites are specifically adapted for the animal they live on.
He is accepting evolution, but just only the parts he likes.
Gave me an opportunity to debunk them by bumping up the threads? why didn’t you tell me to *bump them* before I got into this discussion? Why don’t you just challenge a YEC to bump the threads, instead of hurling links after links like trying to catapult an elephant, so no matter how much any YEC does you can always say "you haven’t dealt with all the problems yet." or something of that nature ????
I did. Apparently you don't read replies very well. In my post 40 which was a directly reply I wrote
Why don't you go to the threads mentioned and bump them if you think you can refute them? Just spouting a little nonsense like polystrate fossils and fish float won't get it done. From what you have posted I don't think you really even looked at the threads in question.
In my post 77 I wrote: If you have a refutation of a specific thread why not bump it and discuss it on the thread rather than trying to address everything here? Do you hope that if you keep the discussion scattered enough your total lack of logic and substance will not be noticed?
I don’t understand why one person who had seen and escaped the flood, or a whole village for that matter who escaped a flood, would let some priest exaggerate their history into something that it was not.
Maybe because they were long dead when the exaggeration occured.
... If you read the book of Daniel, you would find that it is the Babylonians who did the adopting during Israel's captivity,
Sorry but the Babylonian captivity started in about 586 BCE. The legend of Gilgamesh with its flood story was recorded about 2000 years earlier on Sumerian Cuneiform tablets so I don't think the Babylonians picked it up from the Hebrews.
and as far as I know, it was the Missionaries that were the ones who discovered that the flood stories were so widespread, not influenced other histories.
Missionaries may have discovered that there were widespread flood legends but they did not discover legends that bore much resemblance to Noah's flood. However, elements of Christian religion often became incorported into pagan religions after contact with missionaries so the addition of references that match in some ways with the Noah story can't be considered evidence that it bears any resemblance to reality.
Right just like Evolutionist groups have abandoned Uniformitarianism because that is not physically workable either.
This is just another creationist strawman. Geologists abandoned strict uniformitarianism a long time ago a use actualism instead. Actualism states that the physical laws were the same in the past as in the present.
To say that the Flood is Falsified by Geology, Paleontology, etc. you have to be more specific
You have been given links to discussions on this board with a lot of specific information showing this to be true. You have been totally unable to refute any of it.
As for the J and P scenario, it does not weave together 2 different versions of the story.
Sure it does. I suggest you read it again with that in mind. It is pretty easy to see that there are two stories being woven together.
And sharks could not only hear the cause of them from a long way away, but they would also easily notice a change in water pressure.... more later if you like.
Oh good. It looks like you plan to tell us how sharks swam away from the flood at the same pace as their shed teeth.
The following line comes from your signature. Evolutionists can come up with all the wacko ideas they want, but they can't make a monkey out of me!
No evolutionist needs to make a monkey out of you because you continue to do a great job of that all by yourself.
the frumious Bandersnatch
Last edited by Frumious Bandersnatch; 19th May 2004 at 09:43 PM.
but didn't do so
and said the that answer ice cores problem
"is in the oceans".
which no explanation of what that means.
You asked a question I gave an answer, if you had asked for details I would have given them.
On post 37 you tried to refute the Devil's Tower argument by posting a link to an AiG page that actually does nothing to explain how the tower could have formed in a young earth time frame and only makes ad hoc claims about how it might have cooled.
I have never understood this Ad Hoc thing, in science one reconstructs history based on data, so this "ad hoc" thing is just a pathetic excuse to dismiss the arguments presented, or dismiss the fact that creationists are constructing their theory based on the evidence.
In post 55 You pointed to a page by AiG that has a bunch of incorrect statements about the Yellowstone fossil forests but the questions raised here have also been about other fossil forests.
as I remember The yellowstone forests were specifically brought up, and it seems I don't know what you mean by incorrect statements, a fact is a fact. If you want to be intellectually dishonest or close minded I guess that is your problem, but if you are actually openminded, that should make you look a little closer at the alleged "falsifications" of the worldwide flood.
Your answer to fossil sorting was to just throw out "ecological zoning" which is easily refuted as a source of fossil sorting by a wide variety of observations.
In post 58 you made a really wierd bogus statement about shark's teeth.
oh yeah, like ecological zoning is the only mechanism at work. Its not like there was a flood or anything. The problem is you don't seem to let people interpret how the flood happened based on the evidence. You evolutionists seem to think you have a monopoly on science. Ecological zoning is the explanation for some things, it is not good as a mechanism it is a factor in a variety of events which lead to the fossil record we have today.
In several posts you tried to claim that coprolites could be dried out because they would be covered with sediment, totally ignoring that they were supposedly deposited on wet sediment.
You haven't addressed Irish Rockhound's evidence yet.
Yes they did not dry by being wet, they dried after they were wet, otherwise they would not have "dried" now would they. I was planning to get to Irish Rockhound's evidence, but this post, and others prevented me from doing such.
*to Irish Rock Hound*
If you are still around when I get back I will address your little scenario, I apologize that things have not been favorable as to allow me to do so at this time.
In post 71 you tried to explain the sorting of Brachiopods through
"Sudden moving water filled with lime muds"
which of course doesn't explain anything.
Great job at ignoring the context of the question!
In post 145 you brought up the tower of Babel myth and pointed to a web page with a lot of flood nonsense including the totally bogus "vapor canopy"
I brought it up, but it was not specifically addressing anything.
So did Noah have his own special filtered air supply for the ark? The SO2 and CO2 would have also killed off all marine life. Did Noah have a really big aquarium on the ark?
Look at the fossil record, obviously it killed a lot of fish. but it would not kill of all the marine life, just a lot of it. Underwater volcanoes erupt almost all the time, and not to many fish die from just that.
Maybe when you get back you could also tell us which geological layers were deposited by the flood. It seems pretty strange that YECs can't do this since it is supposed to be the defining event in earth history.
Perhaps you could explain how animals were going about their daily buisness while a global flood was depositing thousands of feets of sediments both below and above them. http://www.christianforums.com/t63670
You haven't really explained the fossil record. It is clear the "ecological zoning won't get it done. http://christianforums.com/t42599
And then of course there are those things which you already claim to have answered but haven't.
Have a good trip.
Yes yes I will get to all that eventually.
You are correct. I am sorry I took you ever serious, and from now on will treath you like a clown.
Koeing aside, lame responce.
Wow if you can't spell, maybe I should never have taken you serious.
am still waiting for a evolution pratt list, falsifications for any of my claims I've made in threads I've started and now you suddenly want to debate? I say go for it tiger, but I don't see the need to start a new thread for it.
I do, because I am gonna be in Cali, and it may even be longer before I can resume posting.
because you haven't been able to falsify that. And because you haven't been able to falsify anything else for that matter or bring up evidence for the flood. But please, feel free to do so.
perhaps you need to look a little more in depth at the details, and start realizing how Flood Geology works.
Okay have it your way: argument: the global flood that should have happend 4000 years ago is a big lie. The reason for this is (amoungst many pieces of other evidence) in the Earth itself. I have proven this in detail in my volcano thread, my meteor thread and specifically my ice-core thread. those threads aside, I have never heard you bring up any evidence for this flood besides the bible.
Yes you have, I brought up a little even on this thread, and you attempted to address it.
This nonesense has been dealt with in the rice thread. I suggest you re-read it.
Rice?
__________________ Ps. 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolutionists can come up with all the wacko ideas they want, but they can't make a monkey out of me! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Darwin is dead, and Christ is alive. Gotta love natural selection. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Why don't you go to the threads mentioned and bump them if you think you can refute them? Just spouting a little nonsense like polystrate fossils and fish float won't get it done. From what you have posted I don't think you really even looked at the threads in question.
Had to tie up loose ends here first, and you all continued to push it.
So those parasites and viruses are proof of evolution right? I mean, they had to addapt from human >> animal >> human... so that's pretty funny actually.
???? no they didn't, the parasites that could not survive in water probably came in some animal, or other type of thing... that's not evolution, that is just a parasite having a different host, adaption isn't even needed.
If you have a refutation of a specific thread why not bump it and discuss it on the thread rather than trying to address everything here? Do you hope that if you keep the discussion scattered enough your total lack of logic and substance will not be noticed?
Lack of logic? It is certainly not I who has the lack of logic.
You have been given links to discussions on this board with a lot of specific information showing this to be true. You have been totally unable to refute any of it.
that is not true.
Sure it does. I suggest you read it again with that in mind. It is pretty easy to see that there are two stories being woven together.
Yes I have read it and it is not so.
Oh good. It looks like you plan to tell us how sharks swam away from the flood at the same pace as their shed teeth. </FONT></FONT>
That is the dumbest argument i have ever heard. It is because their shed teeth were with them before they were shed.
No evolutionist needs to make a monkey out of you because you continue to do a great job of that all by yourself.
Learned from the Best Bandersnatch.
When I come back from Cali, I am planning to start from the Begginning, and address everything one at a time, so I guess I am done with this thread. C yall later, God Bless.
__________________ Ps. 119:105 "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Evolutionists can come up with all the wacko ideas they want, but they can't make a monkey out of me! To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Darwin is dead, and Christ is alive. Gotta love natural selection. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That is the dumbest argument i have ever heard. It is because their shed teeth were with them before they were shed.
So they didn't shed any teeth that fell to the bottom in the 1600 or so years before the flood? I wonder why not? Then they shed a lot of teeth right during the flood and then got buried with the teeth they shed so none of the teeth they shed during the flood fell to lower layers before burial? I guess this passes for logic in the YEC world but to the rest of us it seems really goofy.
the frumious Bandersnatch
as I remember The yellowstone forests were specifically brought up, and it seems I don't know what you mean by incorrect statements, a fact is a fact. If you want to be intellectually dishonest or close minded I guess that is your problem, but if you are actually openminded, that should make you look a little closer at the alleged "falsifications" of the worldwide flood.
Yes, I see that Lucas had brought up the Yellowstone forests but the thread I was referring to discussed other fossil forests. One incorrect claim is the that each buried forest would have rotted away before the next could grow and before it could be fossilized. In Oregon there is a forest that is still standing nearly 300 years after being buried by an eruption of Mt. Hood. There is much else wrong with the web page, as there is with every flood supporting web page I have ever seen from AiG or any other YEC site. We can discuss it in more detail when you return if you like. I have looked at many of the falsifications of the global flood in considerable detail, and it would seem that you have not.
oh yeah, like ecological zoning is the only mechanism at work. Its not like there was a flood or anything. The problem is you don't seem to let people interpret how the flood happened based on the evidence.
I can't let people know how the flood happened based on evidence because there is NO evidence that the flood happened.
You evolutionists seem to think you have a monopoly on science. Ecological zoning is the explanation for some things, it is not good as a mechanism it is a factor in a variety of events which lead to the fossil record we have today.
There is much in the fossil record that is backwards of what would be expected of ecological zoning such as flowering plants that live in low lying areas being found higher in the fossil record than lichens which live in mountains. There is a huge list of things like this. The other proposed mechanisms to sort the fossil record, differential escapability and hydrodynamic sorting are also trivial to falsify. There is no way for YEC to explain the fossil record in detail. BTW the multiple falsifications of the global flood and young earth have nothing to do with "evolutionism".
I am leaving for the airport in a few minutes so that's all I have time for now.
Wow if you can't spell, maybe I should never have taken you serious.
Since I am human, and my first language is not English, I am bound to make spelling errors. Since it was allready late since I posted that I forgot to proofread it.
But still, if you wish to attack me rather then the argument, I still won't take you serious.
I do, because I am gonna be in Cali, and it may even be longer before I can resume posting.
dum die dum die dum, still waiting.
perhaps you need to look a little more in depth at the details, and start realizing how Flood Geology works.
Still waiting for actual arguments from you.
Yes you have, I brought up a little even on this thread, and you attempted to address it.
STILL WAITING FOR YOUR EVIDENCE.I'm sorry but here are my posts to you in this thread:
- a responce to your Ad Hominem-attack
- A post where I asked how you could deal with that circulair reasoning you're using. I haven't even dealt with the links you posted because to be quite honest, I always would want to know what I'm talking about when I make a post (unlike most creatonists), and bible-geneology isn't my forte.
- Then we got into a meaningless smiley debate. Because we all know that using the pope smiley will make your arguments look so much better.
The only thing I've seen you do so far in this thread is post links to creatonists websites, and some impressive handwaving. Personally I am most impressed by the handwaving of the comets-argument. With that post alone you've demonstarted that you have no idea what you're talking about.
In short:
- Haven't adressed your evidence, because the only evidence you're talking (to me) about is: geneology from the bible (a source that isn't really scientific or historical correct on most matters in a literal reading), and a website that talks about two creation stories in the bible.
- You haven't backed anything up with a scientifical non-refutable source.
Rice?
A cereal grass (Oryza sativa) that is cultivated extensively in warm climates for its edible grain.
Linear Mode
