the flood

[Mechanical Bliss]

So...you haven't been serious and just have been trolling for your own amusement then? Bad form.

 

[Alessandro]

Not really, but it seems you require answers from a different standing.

 

[Arikay]

Yes, this is the science forum, which means you probably need to back up your claims with evidence.

If you want the standing to be "what god says in the bible" I would recomend sticking to GA or Philosophy and not science.

 

[Alessandro]

My standing is God is the creator, so all what I will be providing will have to be linked with God.

 

[Arikay]

Thats fine, of course, Many theistic Evolutionists standing is that god is the creator.

So, if you want to claim that evolution is scientifically wrong, and creationism is scientifically right, "god did it" or "god said" wont cut it, you need scientific evidence.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

If you would be using evidence from the earth itself and if the earth was actually created by your god, wouldn't that evidence be "linked with God"?


Or does this mean you are going to continue to neglect evidence and not use any to support your arguments and proclaim automatic infallibility "because the Bible says so"?

 

[Alessandro]

Which seems a problem to you here.

 

[Arikay]

Yes, because this is the science forum.

AND because your claim specifically said that you have scientific evidence.

 

[Alessandro]

When you say scientific evidence, you mean physical things that can be seen right, by whose sandard?

 

[Alessandro]

Let me take this as an example, we will go back to the water volume on earth, I see it as result of the global flood, for example as the remanants of the flood. Let us take it from here shall we.

 

[David Gould]

When you say scientific evidence, you mean physical things that can be seen right, by whose sandard?

Scientific evidence has a specific definition.

But I am not even after scientific evidence. All I want is for you to answer my question because you claimed that the same evidence could be looked at in two different ways. But you have yet to manage it with this piece of evidence.

Cats were not in Australia. Why? Provide me with a biblical answer to this question if you cannot find a scientific one. Those two things are the only things we can go on here, aren't they, so an answer must be in one of them.

 

[Arikay]

Your claims stated that the same evidence that disproves the flood seen from a difference viewpoint will prove the flood.

So, I mean the scientific evidence that disproves the flood, you can find a lot of it in that thread that was posted here awhile ago.

 

[Alessandro]

One reason could be that they would not have been able to survive on their own. Cats are pets, that might be a reason, as they are generally with people.

 

[Alessandro]

You are referring to the one you posted earlier Arikay, correct? When they seemed to state that there was no such water that could provide for a global flood, correct? How did they know that say 4000 years ago that that was not so?

 

[Arikay]

Ok,

What evidence do you have that there was less water before the flood?
Where did this new water come from?
How could the current water volumn have flooded the earth in the first place?


(assuming the last answer has to do with plate tectonics and shifting mountains),
What evidence is there that everything was shorter then?
How could these things grow in a short amount of time, without creating chaos?

How did the flood sort the geological column and fossils into their current organization?
What strata in the geological column is pre flood, during flood and post flood?
etc.

also, remember, that you claimed that if you looked at the evidence in a different way, it would show a flood.

Let me take this as an example, we will go back to the water volume on earth, I see it as result of the global flood, for example as the remanants of the flood. Let us take it from here shall we.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Let me take this as an example, we will go back to the water volume on earth, I see it as result of the global flood, for example as the remanants of the flood. Let us take it from here shall we.

Again, then why isn't there enough water for the event to occur in the first place as Arikay previously demonstrated here?:

http://www.christianforums.com/t37629

If you have nothing substansive to add to the discussion, then don't bother hitting the reply button. You've already wasted numerous pages of this thread on claiming automatic infallibility without actually presenting or addressing evidence.

 

[David Gould]

One reason could be that they would not have been able to survive on their own. Cats are pets, that might be a reason, as they are generally with people.

Umm, feral cats - in other words, cats that are not pets - invest the whole of Australia, from rain forest to desert to temperate to snow to coastal to ... they are bloody everywhere.

Cats survive on their own in Australia very, very well.

Sorry, you will have to try again. But it is good to see that you are presenting scientific hypotheses - ones that can be falsified.

 

[Arikay]

Because,

With current mountains it would require 3 Times the amount of water on the entire earth, not to mention that the majority of the water on the earth is unusable for a flood.

So, where did all that water go? and where was it stored before the flood?

You are referring to the one you posted earlier Arikay, correct? When they seemed to state that there was no such water that could provide for a global flood, correct? How did they know that say 4000 years ago that that was not so?

 

[Alessandro]

MB, how did they possibly know for a fact that there was not enough water to begin with?

 

[Arikay]

Oh, to add one more thing, how come we dont see any interuption is civilizations 4000 years ago, since after all, they all should have been killed, then new ones should have poped up.

It should leave a pretty hard line sperating pre flood and post flood civilizations.