Parts of Egypt were under water.

[Split Rock]

Nope -- I've heard enough bologna to keep my eyes rolling until the Rapture.

When is that going to be again?

 

[ug333]

Nope -- I've heard enough bologna to keep my eyes rolling until the Rapture.

Go ahead and take a crack at that bologna, if you don't mind. How did marine species survive a complete change in their habitat, and then change (some might say evolve) to the point where they couldn't do that again in a few thousand years.

 

[AV1611VET]

AVET, do you think that 20,000 years in the future, after the Great Lakes have dried out, there will be a Creationist like yourself using the Great lakes as evidence of a past global flood?

He won't need evidence, if he's got his 1611 King James Bible.

 

[Freodin]

He won't evidence, if he's got his 1611 King James Bible.

Hm... have you lost your 1611 King James Bible or why are you grasping at evidence?

 

[Split Rock]

He won't evidence, if he's got his 1611 King James Bible.

Hm... have you lost your 1611 King James Bible or why are you grasping at evidence?

Yeah, my thoughts exactly... Why are you using this ancient lake as evidence then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Go ahead and take a crack at that bologna, if you don't mind. How did marine species survive a complete change in their habitat, and then change (some might say evolve) to the point where they couldn't do that again in a few thousand years.

This has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[ug333]

This has nothing to do with the OP.

I wouldn't say NOTHING, but fair enough.

There was a lake in Egypt. Agreed.

 

[Targ]

From the article:

Since the lake first appeared around 250,000 years ago, it would have ballooned and shrunk until finally petering out around 80,000 years ago.

Ah, yeah, because that really fits in with a global flood ~4,500 years ago.

Other studies have found evidence of mega-lakes in Chad, Libya and Sudan at various points over the past 250,000 years.

Yes, this has been known for many years. But a few lakes surrounded by land is not the same as a universal deluge, no matter how you try and twist it to be so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, this has been known for many years. But a few lakes surrounded by land is not the same as a universal deluge, no matter how you try and twist it to be so.

6

 

[Targ]

6

Trying to fill in the gaps by looking at all of the different points in history (remember, the lake in Egypt existed around 250-80,000 years ago) is pointless since a global flood was meant to have happened 4,500 years ago, not 250,000 or 80,000 or even 10,000 years ago. If you can find evidence of simultaneous floods everywhere on Earth 4,500 years ago, then you may have people's attention. Of course, you wont find evidence for this because other world civilisations carried on living their lives right through the alleged date of the flood, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they were meant to be underwater dying.

 

[AV1611VET]

Trying to fill in the gaps by looking at all of the different points in history (remember, the lake in Egypt existed around 250-80,000 years ago) is pointless since a global flood was meant to have happened 4,500 years ago, not 250,000 or 80,000 or even 10,000 years ago. If you can find evidence of simultaneous floods everywhere on Earth 4,500 years ago, then you may have people's attention. Of course, you wont find evidence for this because other world civilisations carried on living their lives right through the alleged date of the flood, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they were meant to be underwater dying.

Step One: correlate your lakes.

Step Two: put your decimal places where they belong.

Step Three: repeat as necessary.

 

[Split Rock]

Step One: correlate your lakes.

Step Two: put your decimal places where they belong.

Step Three: repeat as necessary.

I prefer your method:

Step One: Twist scripture so it says what you want it to. Make sure to stitch together parts from different books out of context.

Step Two: Call your Twisted interpretation of scripture, "God's Word," "Basic doctrine," and "The Documentation."

Step Three: Look for "evidence" to support "God's Word."

Step Four: Ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Step Five: Start a thread with said evidence, ignoring the context.

Step Six: Claim that evidence isn't even necessary to support "God's Word," in the first place.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Step One: correlate your lakes.

Step Two: put your decimal places where they belong.

Step Three: repeat as necessary.

I don't get it. You must be some epic Poe or troll.

There is no logic to anything you say. Why do you start insane threads like this? Do you do it on purpose just to get people worked up?

Your behaviour seems so pointless... and deceptive.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no logic to anything you say.

Why is it Split Rock understands what I'm saying?

Is it because he is a scientist and you are not?

Or is it because you're a newbie and he is not?

Or both?

 

[Exial]

Split rock merely learned how to speak idiot.

 

[knowledgeIsPower]

Why is it Split Rock understands what I'm saying?

Is it because he is a scientist and you are not?

Or is it because you're a newbie and he is not?

Or both?

I understand it. It's just all insane nonsense. I'm asking if you do it on purpose. Of course it is rhetorical though. I've learnt never to expect an honest straightforward answer from you.

 

[Targ]

Step One: correlate your lakes.

Step Two: put your decimal places where they belong.

Step Three: repeat as necessary.

In other words: fudge the data so it meets your requirements? No thanks.

 

[Nathan Poe]

He won't need evidence, if he's got his 1611 King James Bible.

He certainly won't have any.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why is it Split Rock understands what I'm saying?

Is it because he is a scientist and you are not?

Or is it because you're a newbie and he is not?

Or both?

Or because he's been laughing at your self-serving bologna as long as the rest of us have?

Really, AV -- this thread's pathetic, even by your "standards."

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand it.

Surprise me.

It's just all insane nonsense.

Sounds like you've made your rounds around the asylum once or twice, doctor.

I'm asking if you do it on purpose.

Ask those who have 'put up with me' if I do, newbie.

Of course it is rhetorical though.

Of course.

I've learnt never to expect an honest straightforward answer from you.

Would you recognize a straight answer if you saw one?