A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

LittlePig · Post by **LittlePig** » Thu May 21, 2009 11:28 am

otseng wrote:
goat wrote:
otseng wrote:
LittlePig wrote: And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.
Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.
Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.
Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

Scotracer · Post by **Scotracer** » Thu May 28, 2009 4:46 pm

Grumpy wrote:otseng

Though I would prefer not to see this thread being hijacked, this is an open debate.
How can it be any kind of debate at all when aa poster is allowed to simply make false and unsubstantiated statements??? In this section of the forum the Bible is not considered a valid reference and preaching, insulting others and general lack of respect is ALL this poster seems capable of. It would also behoove those believers that are not completely brainless to not allow his idiocy to be the only voice representing your views, it makes all of you look as ignorant and brainless as he appears to be.

Grumpy

There is an appropriate button to deal with such.

I think the quote in your signature is particularly apt in this thread.

Carico · Post by **Carico** » Thu May 28, 2009 4:54 pm

In this section of the forum the Bible is not considered a valid reference and preaching, insulting others and general lack of respect is ALL this poster seems capable of. I

One can't refute the bible unless he understands it any more than one can refute einstein's theories if he doesn't understand Einstein's theories.

So sorry, scientists are supposed to look at all sides of an issue. the fact, that they deliberately avoid looking at the bible not only shows that they're biased, but that they're afraid that the bible is true. After all, what do they have to lose by researching the bible? Nothing. Not a thing. They're simply afraid that they'll find out that it's true.

But, I'm not even talking about the bible. I'm talking about evidence of a global flood. If the flood weren't recounted in the bible, then it would be as obvious as day and night that a global Flood once covered the earth. That proves that scientists are from Satan because they want to deny God which is why they have to avoid looking at the evidence of the global Flood.

Grumpy · Post by **Grumpy** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:06 pm

That proves that scientists are from Satan

Actually, you, yourself do faar more to drive people away from your religion than any scientist has ever done. If you are an example of the "thought" that is required to be aa Christian, I and anyone else with more sense than a sack of hammers want nothing to do with you OR your religion. The same kind of "thinking" gave us 911.

Grumpy

Carico · Post by **Carico** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:07 pm

Actually, you, yourself do faar more to drive people away from your religion than any scientist has ever done. If you are an example of the "thought" that is required to be aa Christian, I and anyone else with more sense than a sack of hammers want nothing to do with you OR your religion. The same kind of "thinking" gave us 911.

Another false statement. Since you claim that scientists don't think that the bible is a valid source for the truth, then before you met me, what did scientists say or do to convince you that the bible is correct?

Your lies aren't even subtle.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:27 pm

If Carico is allowed to keep referring to scientists as "Satan" I see no need to continue this debate.

Slandering others used to be against forum rules.

Why is Carico immune from offering verifiable evidence for his claims? Is it because he's a theist, and we must allow theists a certain amount of leeway in a science forum?

If this is what results from religious thought, I'd just as soon converse with the proposed and as yet unproven "Satan".

Carico · Post by **Carico** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:30 pm

If Carico is allowed to keep referring to scientists as "Satan" I see no need to continue this debate.

Slandering others used to be against forum rules.

It's only slander if you can prove that Satan doesn't exist and that you're not being deceived by him, which you cannot. So the only slander that's going on here is making claims about me that you can't prove are true. But the incessant changing stories and contradictions of people here prove that Satan exists. No one in his right mind would believe that animals can turn into humans whether over a gazillion years or 9 months unless Satan exists since that's never been observed in reality.

JoeyKnothead · Post by **JoeyKnothead** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:45 pm

Carico wrote:
If Carico is allowed to keep referring to scientists as "Satan" I see no need to continue this debate.

Slandering others used to be against forum rules.
It's only slander if you can prove that Satan doesn't exist and that you're not being deceived by him, which you cannot. So the only slander that's going on here is making claims about me that you can't prove are true. But the incessant changing stories and contradictions of people here prove that Satan exists. No one in his right mind would believe that animals can turn into humans whether over a gazillion years or 9 months unless Satan exists since that's never been observed in reality.

You're the one claiming Satan exists, it is beholden on you to prove it.

Humans are animals.

Is this no longer a science forum?

Carico · Post by **Carico** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:50 pm

You're the one claiming Satan exists, it is beholden on you to prove it.

I have. But again, since the criteria that you and scientists use for 'evidence" is making up stories that no one in history can verify of events that don't happen in reality, then you will reject my proof since I deal with what's been observed in reality and you don't. So I'm afraid you'll simply have to take your chances on the day you die that you are right and Jesus is wrong.

kayky · Post by **kayky** » Thu May 28, 2009 5:59 pm

Scientists are making up stories--to counteract this, Carrico believes in stories made up thousands of years ago...

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Thu May 28, 2009 6:12 pm

Carico wrote:
You're the one claiming Satan exists, it is beholden on you to prove it.
I have. But again, since the criteria that you and scientists use for 'evidence" is making up stories that no one in history can verify of events that don't happen in reality, then you will reject my proof since I deal with what's been observed in reality and you don't. So I'm afraid you'll simply have to take your chances on the day you die that you are right and Jesus is wrong.

Jesus may or may not have been wrong, all we got is what some later followers believed. But we can rest assured you are wrong.
You have not provided any evidence, you are just making up stories about stories.
I would love to know what you do for a living as it is hard to believe you have work in a legitimate area where you would be required to have some education and/or experience and so far you have not shown evidence for either.