Falsifications of the Worldwide flood

Frumious Bandersnatch · #21 26th April 2004, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by ikester7579

O my, he's become full of himself... It's mine, look and see what I did. Are you not impressed? Here's a link to the only truth there ever was and ever will be .

A typical reaction from someone who has no chance of refuting the many falsifications of the global flood myth. If you think the posters on those links are not telling the truth about the falsifications of the global flood the links are given and you have the opportunity to show why they are wrong. Post away. Of course that might require at least a tiny bit of knowledge of science which you totally lack and you couldn't do it anyway since they are not wrong. The global flood has been falsified by geology, paleontology, biogeography, biodiversity and archeology as the discussions in the links I gave show. YECs keep claiming that it is a matter of interpretation but there is no interpretation that can rescuse the long refuted myth of a global flood.

If you think you can come up with a flood based explanation of biogeography have at it. You will be the first YEC to do so in my 6 years of posting on internet debate boards and you have no chance because biogeography does indeed falsify the worldwide flood.

The frumious Bandersnatch

Mistermystery · #22 26th April 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by ikester7579

O my, he's become full of himself... It's mine, look and see what I did. Are you not impressed? Here's a link to the only truth there ever was and ever will be .

Instead of doing these (albeit amusing) Ad Hominem-attacks, would you like to refute a certain article? I mean, he linked to quite a lot of them, so it shouldn't be to hard to find something and debunk his claims, am I right?

notto · #23 26th April 2004, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by ikester7579

I agree. We must think like them, we must think like them, we must think like them. Huh? I must be dreaming. This an't no matrix.
I'm begining to wonder if there is communism mixed in with this. Because they will force their views down your throat. And then brow beat you until you accept it.

I for one will not try to force views down your throat. You are more than welcome to refute any of the evidence that falsifies the the worldwide flood with convincing, researched, evidence of your own.

DJ_Ghost · #24 26th April 2004, 08:56 AM

Originally Posted by ikester7579

I agree. We must think like them, we must think like them, we must think like them. Huh? I must be dreaming. This an't no matrix.
I'm begining to wonder if there is communism mixed in with this. Because they will force their views down your throat. And then brow beat you until you accept it.

Thats not what he is doing at all, its what most YECs are doing tho'! What he is doing is asking you to explain why the evidence supports his theory and not yours, why the evidence appears to falsify your theory and not his. Now if you can do it then do it, if you can't then don't resort to insults becasue thats not only very bad science its also not very christian.

You have very strong beliefs, thats fine, defend them by providing evidence that stands up to investigation and fits with the observations. But don't ram them down peoples throat then tell your oposition thats what they are doing, you do your cause no favours that way.

Thats all he is asking of you as far as I can see, please don't insult him for that.

Ghost

lucaspa · #25 26th April 2004, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by DURANG0

Sigh.

Here we go again. Another evo post claiming that ALL OF HIS POST ARE RIGHT and every YEC post then has to be wrong.

Such arrogance.

Another creationist trying to deny the data. What Frumious has posted are data that simply can't be there if a world-wide flood happened and caused all geological features. Since Flood Geology states there was a world-wide Flood and that it caused all geological features (particularly the fossil record), it means Flood Geology is false. True statements can't have false consequences. These are the false consequnces of Flood Geology.

lucaspa · #26 26th April 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Routerider

Hey, I think it's pretty cool to find a Christian scientist who interprets the evidence with honesty and refuses to give into YEC peer pressure.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/fld.htm

There are a lot of them:
http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/

lucaspa · #27 26th April 2004, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Aduro Amnis

The Torah clearly states that the nation(presumedly Mesopetamia) was flooded, not the entire Earth.

Perhaps, we should do some more Noah's Flood research in Iraq and surrounding nations ?

Been done.
Werner Keller, The Bible as History. "At just about the same level as in the two other shafts [showing the mud layer] the shards of wheel-turned vessels ended suddenly. Immediately beneath them came handmade clay pots. It was exactly as Woolley had supposed and expected. Naturally, the intermediate layer of mud was missing [Woolley chose a site well above the valley floor, above the flood level]. "About six feet below a brick pavement", noted Woolley, "which we could with reasonable certainty date about 2700 BC, we were among the ruins of that Ur which had existed before the Flood." page 31, 1956.
J.A. Thompson, The Bible and Archeology, 1962. "That there were great floods in the Mesopotamia in early times is hown by considerable deposits of silt in serveral excavated sites like Ur, Erech, Shruppak. The deposits vary in thickness and in age and no one can be identified with the Bible flood. But both the ancient literature and these flood deposits point to the fact of a great flood, although the date and the extent are uncertain." pg. 15.

lucaspa · #28 26th April 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by ikester7579

I agree. We must think like them, we must think like them, we must think like them. Huh? I must be dreaming. This an't no matrix.
I'm begining to wonder if there is communism mixed in with this. Because they will force their views down your throat. And then brow beat you until you accept it.

LOL! Can't address the data, so go for ad hominem.

Ikester, the only "think like them" at work here is deductive logic, which everyone, including Biblical literalists, accepts as valid. After all, saying true statements can't have false consequences is no different than saying that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. The tree of Flood Geology has bad fruit.

Jet Black · #29 27th April 2004, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by notto

I for one will not try to force views down your throat. You are more than welcome to refute any of the evidence that falsifies the the worldwide flood with convincing, researched, evidence of your own.

hey, I have a metallic hydrogen canopy you might be interested in......

ikester7579 · #30 27th April 2004, 02:08 AM

LOL, your all so funny. What I've come to learn here, in the many months I've been here, is that there is no evidence that you will accept from me or any other creationist. So why waste my time? But the thought of starting this thread to draw me and others in here is thoughtful. I'm touched that your thinking of me so much.