Is this rock, evidence?

[Split Rock]

I have a rock in my hand. It is rather non-descript, heavy and rather hard. It is probably sedimentary or sedimentary metamorphic, but I can' tell you any details about its composition. Based on what I have told you, Is this rock:
A. Evidence for the Flood.
B. Evidence for Deep Time.
C. Not evidence for anything.

 

[CabVet]

With just the details you give, I would say the rock is not evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a rock in my hand. It is rather non-descript, heavy and rather hard. It is probably sedimentary or sedimentary metamorphic, but I can' tell you any details about its composition. Based on what I have told you, Is this rock:
A. Evidence for the Flood.
B. Evidence for Deep Time.
C. Not evidence for anything.

I would classify evidence as observations that are used to test a hypothesis, so it is not evidence yet. We would need to see your criteria for determining if the rock were created in a recent global flood, or through deep time, and then make observations of the rock to see if it fit those criteria.

 

[AV1611VET]

C. Not evidence for anything.

 

[Split Rock]

So far, 3 have voted it is isn't evidence and 2 have voted for Deep Time. Even AVET voted "not evidence" (well done). So far, no one has voted for "The Flood." I would like to know if it is true that some here consider that any evidence is evidence for the Flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

So far, 3 have voted it is isn't evidence and 2 have voted for Deep Time. Even AVET voted "not evidence" (well done). So far, no one has voted for "The Flood." I would like to know if it is true that some here consider that any evidence is evidence for the Flood.

The White Cliffs of Dover, but I can't prov... show it.

In other words, only the angels would know it.

(And God.)

 

[CarlosTomy]

I have a rock in my hand. It is rather non-descript, heavy and rather hard.

Well, that narrows it down!

, but I can' tell you any details about its composition.

What are you hiding?

Based on what I have told you, Is this rock:
A. Evidence for the Flood.
B. Evidence for Deep Time.
C. Not evidence for anything.

Evidence that people with rocks want to hide things from me. So I'm going to go with "Evidence for the Sinfulness of Geologists".

 

[Split Rock]

Well, that narrows it down!

Not much, really.

What are you hiding?

Nothing really... I am not a trained geologist.

Evidence that people with rocks want to hide things from me. So I'm going to go with "Evidence for the Sinfulness of Geologists".

They will learn "the truth" when they die.... they better bring an air conditioner with them!

 

[CarlosTomy]

Nothing really... I am not a trained geologist.

So you dare TEMPT us with a rock and you aren't even going to be able to tell us what it is???? What kind of evil trick is this???

They will learn "the truth" when they die.... they better bring an air conditioner with them!

Indeed! Normally geologists don't go anywhere without beer as I understand it, so they should put some in the fridge now just in case....

 

[Strathos]

It's evidence for the fact that you claim you have a rock in your hand.

 

[EternalDragon]

You are forgetting he is trying to communicate with creationists so the more childish he can write the better.
Not that it matters how he writes it because they are just not interested in how evolution works,
if it's in the Bible it's good if it's not in the Bible it's bad, that's creationism 101.

You are making a false generalizing statement using false logic. Grammar 101.

 

[CarlosTomy]

You are making a false generalizing statement using false logic. Grammar 101.

I don't know as I would throw a grammar accusation against anyone making a COUNTERPOINT to one of Juvenissun's posts...just sayin'....

 

[juvenissun]

You are forgetting he is trying to communicate with creationists so the more childish he can write the better.
Not that it matters how he writes it because they are just not interested in how evolution works,
if it's in the Bible it's good if it's not in the Bible it's bad, that's creationism 101.

Bible or not, the OP does not make any scientific sense. It is a disaster even trying to read it.

 

[Split Rock]

Bible or not, the OP does not make any scientific sense. It is a disaster even trying to read it.

I am trying to find out how little the amount of information is required to conclude "the flood did it." Is that hard for you to understand? Why don't you at least vote?

 

[florida2]

Bible or not, the OP does not make any scientific sense. It is a disaster even trying to read it.

You read things very literally don't you? Split Rock is trying to make a point but you are reading it like a genuine question.

 

[EternalDragon]

Now how did everyone here know you would say that?
because even when something is undeniable a creationist will still feel obliged to deny it, why?
because it's part of what makes a creationist a creationist, if it goes against the Bible it's false.

I expect you even find it strange why people laugh at creationist.

No, I don't actually. People laughed at Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I don't actually. People laughed at Jesus.

What is this, a martyr complex now?

Why compare yourself to Jesus on two threads? That sounds quite blasphemous to me.

 

[EternalDragon]

What is this, a martyr complex now?

Why compare yourself to Jesus on two threads? That sounds quite blasphemous to me.

Is there something wrong with you?

 

[lasthero]

No, I don't actually. People laughed at Jesus.

They laughed at Bozo, too. What's your point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is there something wrong with you?

No, I was wondering why you were comparing yourself to Jesus.

Again, that seems to be rather blasphemous to me.