The Flood

[Woodruff]

Woodruff,
Does A = B regardless of whether or not I said an image did not say something?

No, not necessarily. A = A and B = B but I definitely cannot say that A = B. That you would say that A = B tells me a lot about the way you think, however.

[Lionz]

A and B as in A and B referred to here perhaps...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 6#p2668006

You and not I have tried to suggest that they equal eachother maybe.

[Woodruff]

A and B as in A and B referred to here perhaps...
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 6#p2668006
You and not I have tried to suggest that they equal eachother maybe.

I really don't understand your point here then, because those two statements support each other only as circular logic. If one is true then the other is true. That does not make them true, nor necessarily equivalent.

Circular logic is a failure in logic, Lionz...you should try to avoid it.

[Lionz]

I referred to an image that says B on it and then you proceeded to say one or more thing as if I had a personal statement of A perhaps. I myself have not made a personal statement of A or B and have not even provided an image that says A on it maybe.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

What suggests to you that I just don't understand something considered to be evolutionary theory?

Your repeated "questions" that ask irrelevancies or assume erroneous information. Plus most of your posts that plain show you do not.

Recombination during meiosis selects from existing alleles and gives different combinations of them in offspring? And there are sometimes RNA transcription errors that lead to mutations that are beneficial in terms of surviving and passing on genes? And natural selection leads to there being beneficial mutations passed on over time? What does that say about how many seperate family trees there are even if that occurs?

It says nothing at all. Any views on the number of branches currently arise from paleontology. Fossils and other similar evidence. DNA can demonstrate those changes are possible, that is all.

There might be both similarities that are the result of shared ancestry and similarities that are the result of design by a common Designer.

Like I said, you show you don't understand evolution. Whether God designed or did not design everything is not proveable.
It is therefore not a question science addresses and is utterly irrelevant to evolution. Many people, such as I, who believe God created all we see also believe in evolution.

Where have you brought up a fossil for discussion that I ignored and did not address? There's one or more cc forum search function and an example should not be too hard to find if there is one maybe.

maybe, if you were willing to do so. Try the young earth creationist thread.

There is evidence that earth was covered by a flood perhaps, but perhaps evidence for one individual is not necessarily evidence for another.

Irrelevant comment. Science is based on evidence that is valid for anyone. If it is proven, it is proven. That many floods occured is proven. Everything you have brought forward that purports to show a worldwide flood (note, I did not say you claimed it showed that, because you won't claim anything.. I said the pictures and articles you brought forward make those claims) is garbage. They make claims that are just not true.

I have said many times that I believe there was a flood. However, there is no currently available evidence of the flood.

You've confused words of someone else with words of me again maybe. You quote words of Haggis as if they're words of mine perhaps. And you've also thrown in more casual quotes with things I've never said as if I've said them maybe.

No, I don't think so. But then again, you did not say I was, you only said "maybe".

I might be able to prove little to nothing, but if the planets don't match that of a chance random process of cosmic evolution as predicted by the nebular hypothesis and instead appear to be following a formulated pattern... is that not at least evidence against the nubular hypothesis and evidence in support of the heavens being intelligently laid out?

Well, even Dawkins doesn't really say this. I have never heard of any such hypothesis really and even if there were, it would not have anything to do with evolution or the flood.

Now what actually suggests earth is the product of a random distribution of dust particles coming together over billions of years?

Purely random in the mathematical sense, none. "Random in the sense of which it is used in most science, particularly including paleontology, cosmology, etc, which absolutely might include God, etc. -- plenty!" that is, it is simply a word scientists use to mean "processes we don't understand yet, cannot predict, etc, etc. etc.".

Young earth creationists place a lot of weight on people misunderstanding that word "random", along with many other things (such as evolution). There is no real confusion, though. It is just their attempt to claim "confusion" so they can argue something is wrong with scientific thinking.

Perhaps we very much should weigh evidence and take stands on things and I came across wrong, but maybe we should be careful about what we adamantly claim as true.

Yes, which is why scientists still call evolution a theory, or more correctly a series of theories, rather than saying it is fact, despite the numerous evidence in support of it.

The chance young earth ideas are correct, however, is about zero, except where they take real proof and thinking and try to claim it is "their own". (such as saying that microevolution occurs, etc.)

A) He doesn't exist and everything's the product of random natural processes starting back billions of years ago and entropy has somehow increased in the Universe overall despite particles evolving into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolving into living materials and living materials evolving into more and more complex plants and animals and into humans who can now intelligently control future evolution and the planets just happen to appear to be following a formulated pattern and entropy somehow increased on earth without something on earth capable on converting sunlight into usable energy and life naturally came from non-life once and only once on earth and all creatures stem from that and there are plants that carry on with the help of insect pollination that somehow existed before pollinating insects and light sensitive photon recepting forerunning pigments happened to appear in a general area where noses and mouths and ears would later branch from and there were unisex individuals with male organs and female organs who somehow later mysteriously evolved offspring with only one or the other and dozens of writers throughout history wrote blatant lies to back up religion that's against lying and there's prophecies in Hebrew scripture that coincidentally got fulfilled and there were followers of Him who became martyrs after mass hallucinations of seeing Him perform miracles and of seeing Him resurrected?

B) He does exist and He created the heavens and the earth and life without requiring billions of years to do it and entropy truly is increasing and the planets appear to follow a formulated pattern because He laid them out in a certain way and there are some creatures not physically related to one another who share similar features because they have a common Designer and He created plants that carry on with pollination and pollinating insects within a few days or so of eachother and He designed creatures to have eyes and mouths and noses and ears pretty close to on another and He designed penises and vaginas for eachother and there have been dozens of writers throughout history who wrote actual true things backing up religion that's against lying and there's prophecies in Hebrew scripture that actually got fulfilled and there are followers of Him who became martyrs after actually having seen Him perform miracles and resurrected?

How about C,D, E, F,G, H... etc. I am sure you will find a few people on earth who actually believe A or B, but you don't seem to be debating them here.

[Lionz]

Player,

- You might beat yourself without someone else even having to say something. Are you actually trying to argue that I said that forget the keys paragraph or whatever?

- Do you mean to claim that me saying this shows that I don't understand evolution... There might be both similarities that are the result of shared ancestry and similarities that are the result of design by a common Designer.

- Where have you brought up a fossil for discussion that I ignored and did not address? How about refer to a fossil name if there's one you want me to search for with a cc forum search?

- Evidence doesn't mean the same thing as proof unless you have some twisted definition maybe. Can you define it? Genesis 7 itself is evidence for the flood perhaps. You want physical evidence? How about the Great Pyramid? There might be one or more number given here I don't stand by, but...

Still further evidence that the dynastic Egyptians did not construct the Great Pyramid may be found in sediments surrounding the base of the monument, in legends regarding watermarks on the stones halfway up its sides, and in salt incrustations found within. Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid contain many seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated to be nearly twelve thousand years old.

These sediments could have been deposited in such great quantities only by major sea flooding, an event the dynastic Egyptians could never have recorded because they were not living in the area until eight thousand years after the flood. This evidence alone suggests that the three main Giza pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old.


In support of this ancient flood scenario, mysterious legends and records tell of watermarks that were clearly visible on the limestone casing stones of the Great Pyramid before those stones were removed by the Arabs. These watermarks were halfway up the sides of the pyramid, or about 400 feet above the present level of the Nile River.

Further, when the Great Pyramid was first opened, incrustations of salt an inch thick were found inside. While much of this salt is known to be natural exudation from the stones of the pyramid, chemical analysis has shown that some of the salt has a mineral content consistent with salt from the sea. These salt incrustations, found at a height corresponding to the water level marks left on the exterior, are further evidence that at some time in the distant past the pyramid was submerged halfway up its height.

Maybe formatting is messed up and it's a misquote for all I know. You might want to check here... http://s8int.com/page13.html

- You claim that everything I have brought forward that purports to show a worldwide flood is garbage? I've brought up Genesis 7 and I'm not sure if there is a version that doesn't mean to suggest there was one perhaps. Is Genesis 7 garbage?

[Woodruff]

I referred to an image that says B on it and then you proceeded to say one or more thing as if I had a personal statement of A perhaps. I myself have not made a personal statement of A or B and have not even provided an image that says A on it maybe.

You don't honestly have the foggiest idea of what you've posted in this forum, do you?

[PLAYER57832]

I referred to an image that says B on it and then you proceeded to say one or more thing as if I had a personal statement of A perhaps. I myself have not made a personal statement of A or B and have not even provided an image that says A on it maybe.

You don't honestly have the foggiest idea of what you've posted in this forum, do you?

He won't admit he does, anyway.

[InkL0sed]

Lionz,

If God exists, why are you a troll?

Sincerely,

InkL0sed, esq.

[Nola_Lifer]

Lionz,

If God exists, why are you a troll?

Sincerely,

InkL0sed, esq.

Seems like a flame to me. With all these post it can be hard to follow and why can't someone post questions. The only thing Lionz has done is to question, question, and question. You don't have to take what he says for fact or heed that his opinions are bound in any form of authority; however, you feel compelled to answers his questions or at least to flame him so he must be doing something right. Why can't you have a simple debate about a topic without targeting a person or taking it personally.

Back to the subject at hand. Why should we take the Bible's account of the flood as historical fact. Yes, other civilizations have had flood stories. Gilgamesh comes to mind, yet why does it have to be one big one. Why can't these floods happen in succession or to different places that were so significant that caused writing. What about the opposite. Why do you not see great droughts written in text or maybe there are but we don't pay attention to them. Also, when the Bible says the world was flooded, what is the world? How much did they know about other lands and society or was this a more localized phenomenon?

[Woodruff]

however, you feel compelled to answers his questions or at least to flame him so he must be doing something right.

Uh...what? That's a basis for determining that someone is doing things right?

[Haggis_McMutton]

You're dragging me into a debate about the validity of certain supposed historical events and texts. Not my strong point, but I'll play ball.

I'm theorizing that those 40+ writers, like people today, really liked the idea that it really doesn't matter all that much if you are rich or poor, healthy or sick over here, you just have to do this and say that and voila eternal bliss. About the martyrs: Suicide Cults. Hell, what about Scientology? If we made it illegal to be a scientologist and said people will be killed for it do you really think there wouldn't be a couple of willing "martyrs". When people want to believe a certain thing, reason doesn't really enter into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldilocks_planet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

Okay, i just very quickly skimmed the wikipedia article on nebular hypothesis and i didn't notice anything predicting what distance the planets should be from the sun. Is there a distribution that we should be observing and it isn't true? If so please show me. If not i'm assuming the whole argument is: We've found a pattern in these 10 meaningless numbers so they aren't meaningless. I really don't get what the big deal is here we have 10 increasing numbers and we found a pattern that describes them, um so what? Check out the "Spot the sequence" game in the fun and games forum, there are patterns between all sorts of meaningless numbers. I mean like i said, there's a 5% error and it uses a "planetoid" or whatever to make it work. What do you find so amazing in all of this?
What suggests the earth is made out of random pieces of matter is that according to our current scientific model, that's how solar systems form. There's matter, there's gravity, when there's a lot of it you get a star, when it's not so much you get a planet.

Yes, I'm all for weighing evidence, but i think i'll simplify your A and B a little, but first:
If you hold a sort of deistic, God nudged the universe along sort of view there might be a debate here. But if you think God straight up made the universe, as is, a couple thousand years ago, then it's clear that god is more complex than the universe, correct? For him only to be able to conceive the universe he must be more complex than it is.
So we've got:
A: The universe somehow came into being on its own
B: The universe was made by god, who is more complex than the universe. God somehow came into being on he's own.

Which is more likely?

Departed souls begging for judgment? So the people were suicidal or what? They would get the judgment just as soon as they naturally died. I mean seriously, i don't know how you guys can just gloss over this point. According to you, god made humans 6000 years ago, and then what, 3000 years later killed them (almost all)? That's only around 100 generations, it's ridiculously few. And a lot of people believe we are approaching "The end times". Again, just 100 generations after the last mass murder. There are some really huge design flaws going on here.
Also, how can free will and an omniscient creator coexist again?

About the maybe's, i was mostly annoyed about the guys claiming that "it is a good idea" and "if only the rest of us where so honest". That's bullshit, as i have said. In your last few posts they've been barely noticeable but in the other thread where i was talking to you they had gotten really annoying, i'm just saying. You basically had one in every 1.5-2 sentences, so i thought i'd just try to make you aware that, as i see it, you aren't actually being more honest by adding all of those, just unnecessarily verbose and slightly annoying.
Just to give you an example :

There are objective reasons to believe in Him and I wasn't asking you if you should choose to consider 2 true between 1 and 2 maybe.

You maybe weren't asking me that? Don't you know what you where asking me?

[Lionz]

Woodruff,

Have I provided an image with A on it? If so, where? Have I made a statement of B? If so, where? Simply posting links to posts without flaming me would be fine maybe.

Nola,

Thanks. I'm not sure what has to be what perhaps. You might not stand by Genesis either way, but check out a version of Genesis 7:19-24 and Genesis 9:11-17 then ask yourself if you see something that clearly suggests that the flood was more than a simple Middle East flood maybe.

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen7.htm
http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen9.htm

There are flood traditions from across the earth that point to there having been a specific flood that involved people getting into a ship with animals and Noah has even been called one or more name very similar to Noah in China and Hawaii and other places maybe.











A version of Genesis 8:7-12 here you should compare that with maybe...

8:7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8:8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

8:9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

8:10 And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

8:12 And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

There were eight humans on the ark including Noah and three sons of him and four wives and there's even a Chinese symbol for ship (large boat) that's a combination of symbols for boat and eight and mouth (or person to feed) and a Chinese word for flood that refers to eight people maybe.





Also, there's quite a bit of geologic evidence for the flood and you can learn more about some at these perhaps...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 9#p2643629
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... &start=240
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 1#p2560611
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 2#p2566552

Haggis,

There are or there are not dozens of individuals who helped write Biblical works filled with blatant lies and that's true even if there have been poor or unhealthy people who desired eternal bliss maybe.

And I'm not sure what's happened in Guyana or anywhere else maybe, but would there not be a major difference between people drinking poisoned Flavor-Aid simply because they liked views of someone and people being martyred while standing up for Someone who they actually saw perform miracles in front of them and who they actually saw resurrected from the dead?

Is the nebular hypothesis not simply a random natural process type explanation that calls on matter coalescing into smaller and denser clumps within gravitationally unstable clouds of molecular hydrogen before collapsing and forming stars? What about that would explain planetary bodies around a star following a formulated pattern? Maybe we shouldn't expect for there to be planets laid out in a formulated pattern if it is true and you shouldn't have noticed anything predicting what distance the planets should be from the sun on an article concerning it.

It's not simply a matter of ten increasing numbers and a pattern that describes them maybe. How about imagine coming across a boulder in field surrounded by ten and only ten rocks? Imagine measuring distances and finding that a closest rock was a meter away from the boulder and a second closest rock was a meter and a half away and a third closest was two meters away and a fourth closest was two and a half meters away and so on maybe. You'd figure that someone with intelligence laid stuff out the field perhaps.

Maybe He Himself is part of the Universe and whether or not He's more complex than it comes down to definition. You provide an A and B where A is more simple perhaps, but there are several factors we should consider that are not included maybe.

I was not meaning to refer to souls begging for judgement on themselves and said one or more thing that is confusing maybe. If earth was filled with extreme violence and there were departed souls begging for judgement to be done on earth just prior to the flood, who can righteously blame Him if He caused earth to be flooded? There was widepsread calamity on earth that was partially the result of angelic rebellion maybe. It might even be that the flood started when there were only a dozen or so non-nephil humans on earth. See an English version of Genesis 6:9 that claims Noah was perfect in his generations? What does Genesis 6:9 mean to suggest if not that Noah was a human with no angelic ancestry?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen6.htm

I'm not sure I've ever seen a verse of scripture that claimed He was omniscient maybe. And even if He is, does that necessarily mean that He's always been? Is there a version of Matthew 13:47-50 that suggests to you that He created beings while knowing that they would rebel against Him?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/matt13.htm

Maybe I very rarely make an adamant statement and questions to you not including the word maybe have helped lead to it seeming like I was lightening up on using it.

You included the words by a supernatural being who we have no objective reason to believe exists and I wasn't asking you if anyone should choose between your #1 and your #2 or whatever perhaps, but I might not sure what I have asked you in general... maybe there is even more than one individual who uses Haggis_McMutton to play cc games and post for all I know.





Note: There are images in here with words that are not my own depending on definition at least and I'm misquoting and saying stuff wrong in here for all I know maybe.

[Woodruff]

Woodruff,

Have I provided an image with A on it? If so, where? Have I made a statement of B? If so, where? Simply posting links to posts without flaming me would be fine maybe.

I ALREADY FUCKING DID THAT, YOU MORON! SERIOUSLY...HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?

[AAFitz]

Woodruff,

Have I provided an image with A on it? If so, where? Have I made a statement of B? If so, where? Simply posting links to posts without flaming me would be fine maybe.

I ALREADY FUCKING DID THAT, YOU MORON! SERIOUSLY...HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?

When one closes his eyes it is perhaps maybe not be a sign of intelligence, but maybe perhaps an indication of fear.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Haggis,

There are or there are not dozens of individuals who helped write Biblical works filled with blatant lies and that's true even if there have been poor or unhealthy people who desired eternal bliss maybe.

And I'm not sure what's happened in Guyana or anywhere else maybe, but would there not be a major difference between people drinking poisoned Flavor-Aid simply because they liked views of someone and people being martyred while standing up for Someone who they actually saw perform miracles in front of them and who they actually saw resurrected from the dead?

How do we know they witnessed those things? The proof usually provided by believers is that "they were willing to die for what they saw, so it must be true". I showed you that people are willing to die for many beliefs, and it's doubtful whether Heaven's Gate members are now on a spaceship following comet Hale-Bopp.

Is the nebular hypothesis not simply a random natural process type explanation that calls on matter coalescing into smaller and denser clumps within gravitationally unstable clouds of molecular hydrogen before collapsing and forming stars? What about that would explain planetary bodies around a star following a formulated pattern? Maybe we shouldn't expect for there to be planets laid out in a formulated pattern if it is true and you shouldn't have noticed anything predicting what distance the planets should be from the sun on an article concerning it.

It's not simply a matter of ten increasing numbers and a pattern that describes them maybe. How about imagine coming across a boulder in field surrounded by ten and only ten rocks? Imagine measuring distances and finding that a closest rock was a meter away from the boulder and a second closest rock was a meter and a half away and a third closest was two meters away and a fourth closest was two and a half meters away and so on maybe. You'd figure that someone with intelligence laid stuff out the field perhaps.

Random does not mean without a pattern. There are very many patterns that can be found to describe some numbers and there are very many such numbers in the universe that you can analyze to find patterns. I remember seeing somewhere(Penn and Tellers Bullshit i think) about a lady who had measured some distances between rocks in Stonehenge, then using some made up convention translated those into letters and arrived at Lord Jesus Christ ... . Just because your toast kind of looks like a face it doesn't mean Jesus is saying hello.

Maybe He Himself is part of the Universe and whether or not He's more complex than it comes down to definition. You provide an A and B where A is more simple perhaps, but there are several factors we should consider that are not included maybe.

If he is part of the universe and he created the universe than he created himself, which is again a step up in complexity from saying the universe created itself. What factors?

I was not meaning to refer to souls begging for judgement on themselves and said one or more thing that is confusing maybe. If earth was filled with extreme violence and there were departed souls begging for judgement to be done on earth just prior to the flood, who can righteously blame Him if He caused earth to be flooded? There was widepsread calamity on earth that was partially the result of angelic rebellion maybe. It might even be that the flood started when there were only a dozen or so non-nephil humans on earth. See an English version of Genesis 6:9 that claims Noah was perfect in his generations? What does Genesis 6:9 mean to suggest if not that Noah was a human with no angelic ancestry?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/gen6.htm

Ok, this is going nowhere. Question: If he were to flood the earth now or whatever would it be morally justified. Or more generally: Is whatever god does good, by definition?

I'm not sure I've ever seen a verse of scripture that claimed He was omniscient maybe. And even if He is, does that necessarily mean that He's always been? Is there a version of Matthew 13:47-50 that suggests to you that He created beings while knowing that they would rebel against Him?

http://yahushua.net/scriptures/matt13.htm

So do you or do you not believe he is omniscient? I'm merely going on the apparently widespread belief that he is.

Maybe I very rarely make an adamant statement and questions to you not including the word maybe have helped lead to it seeming like I was lightening up on using it.

You included the words by a supernatural being who we have no objective reason to believe exists and I wasn't asking you if anyone should choose between your #1 and your #2 or whatever perhaps, but I might not sure what I have asked you in general... maybe there is even more than one individual who uses Haggis_McMutton to play cc games and post for all I know.

Meh, i've made my point about how it's ridiculous to try to put every inherent uncertainty in words, you haven't refuted it so I'm assuming you are too comfortable with your verbal tick to even admit to yourself that you should try to diminish it. Oh well.

[Woodruff]

Meh, i've made my point about how it's ridiculous to try to put every inherent uncertainty in words, you haven't refuted it so I'm assuming you are too comfortable with your verbal tick to even admit to yourself that you should try to diminish it. Oh well.

You misunderstand him...Lionz actually PREFERS to pretend to be unable to phrase things more definitively - it gives him his excuse.

[PLAYER57832]

Lionz,

If God exists, why are you a troll?

Sincerely,

InkL0sed, esq.

Seems like a flame to me. With all these post it can be hard to follow and why can't someone post questions. The only thing Lionz has done is to question, question, and question. You don't have to take what he says for fact or heed that his opinions are bound in any form of authority; however, you feel compelled to answers his questions or at least to flame him so he must be doing something right. Why can't you have a simple debate about a topic without targeting a person or taking it personally.

I basically have. In fact, I have said several times, particularly in the young earth thread that the primary reason I even engaged him and sometimes will still answer is that he is bringing forward a lot of young earth arguments that I have to confront in the "real world". Basically, practice.

Even so, when he asks the exact same question, not just once or twice, and ignores my repeated answers, from different directions (because initially I thought, "OK, he really just does not understand.. .let me try to approach this from another direction"), it becomes obvious he is not interested in answers.

To the point that you (I, Woodruff, etc.) realize this, it is fine to engage him. However, if you expect anything other than endless questions that pretty much ignore anything previously said, except to find more questions, then you will be dissapointed.

Back to the subject at hand. Why should we take the Bible's account of the flood as historical fact. Yes, other civilizations have had flood stories. Gilgamesh comes to mind, yet why does it have to be one big one. Why can't these floods happen in succession or to different places that were so significant that caused writing. What about the opposite. Why do you not see great droughts written in text or maybe there are but we don't pay attention to them. Also, when the Bible says the world was flooded, what is the world? How much did they know about other lands and society or was this a more localized phenomenon?

To Christians the Bible is fact, because it comes from God. However, your last 2 sentences do provide one possible explanation. Anyway, I know you addressed that to Lionz, but because so often this "debate" is framed as "Christian versus atheists", etc. I like to be sure the majority position (that the Bible and science are consistant) is considered.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

- You might beat yourself without someone else even having to say something. Are you actually trying to argue that I said that forget the keys paragraph or whatever?

More likely you just never bothered to read it, and where you quote, have ignored the overall text and simply pulled out specific sections you wish to insist say something that might even be utterly disputed by the overall text. (rather like eliminating the word "not" in a sentence, though less dramatic). This is exactly what you do when you pull out that statement about missing fossils being evolutions secret and so forth.

- Do you mean to claim that me saying this shows that I don't understand evolution...

Your posts make this clear, to anyone who even halfway understands real, modern, evolutionary theory, anyway.

There might be both similarities that are the result of shared ancestry and similarities that are the result of design by a common Designer.

This is an irrelevant point. Science doesn't address a cause. Science is mute on whether there was a designer or not. Science simply looks at what exists and tries to piece together what happened based on evidence.

Further, once again, in trying to argue this non-point, you utterly ignore my repeated statements that I do believe there is a designer. Yet again, you show you are not arguing with me, or likely anyone else here, you are just listening to your own debates and pretending as if you can somehow convince everyone of what you believe simply by posting it a million times.

Sorry, if you want to convince anyone, (though as I have said, I truly don't think you are even trying), you have to actually pay attention to what THEY say, not just what someone else claims they say, be it a young earth website, your friends, or people in another forum.

- Where have you brought up a fossil for discussion that I ignored and did not address? How about refer to a fossil name if there's one you want me to search for with a cc forum search?

Young Earth creationist site. You bring up known frauds, and articles/pictures that claimed these known frauds were still being used as proof by evolutionists. I brought up articles explaining this, and brought up nnot just articles, but pictures showing real fossils that evolutionists really do use. You ignored that and repeated posting claims that evolution only looks to frauds.

You posted articles and pictures with claims that certain fossils identifications were based on partial skeletons, scattered and so forth. I brought up both detailed explanations of why what the things you posted were not accurate and ALSO posted articles, links to pictures of far more complete fossils of the same species and you ignored them -- you ignored them in several threads, regarding initial land animals, transition to birds, human lineage, etc, etc.

But, of course, none of that is your words, so you can claim you never said any of that.

- Evidence doesn't mean the same thing as proof unless you have some twisted definition maybe.

You seem pretty adept at twisting definitions yourself, here. But, no, I don't.
Evidence is proof of something, it may not be enough to prove a full theory or such, though.
For example, if I go out and find deer scat, I know deer were there... affirmative proof. It IS evidence that deer were there. Irrefutable evidence (given that I know what deer scat look like, etc.) However, just because I fail to see deer scat does that mean deer were not there? No. Maybe I find other evidence, say a rub. Again, that is affirmative proof. However, again, if there is no rub does that mean there are no deer? No.

Now, to carry this a bit further, in the case of animals in a well traveled forest, the more the forest is studied, the more detailed analysis are done, then we might begin to say "it seems less and less likely that deer are in this patch of forest, because if they were here we should have seen deer". In the case of deer, a species who's habits we know well, etc, that gets to be a fairly reasonable thought. It still is not absolute. Deer can hide, we might just have missed the solitary individual for some reason.

Carry that forward, or backward to a species we know little about and the chances of missing it become greater. People still insist that Big Foot (Sasquatch, etc) is real. Can we absolutely prove he is not? No. Is it likely he is real? Well... no one can say 100% for sure, but chances are pretty slim at this point.

Can you define it? Genesis 7 itself is evidence for the flood perhaps.

Yes, well, not sure why I bother again since you have ignored me when I said this at least 20 times before, but I DO NOT DISPUTE THE BIBLE OR THE FLOOD. I only dispute that those pictures and articles you post are proof of a world wide flood, and I dispute claims that one occured recently. Many of the things you mentioned brought up a date of 5000 year. THAT did not happen. (yep, I can say that definatively!)

You want physical evidence? How about the Great Pyramid? There might be one or more number given here I don't stand by, but...

You are now trying to claim the great pyramid is proof of the flood?
Oh please! Even you cannot possibly believe that garbage.

No, there is no physical evidence of a worldwide flood within known human history. We DO know that the Earth, or at least most of it, was flooded back in the ancient past. We know this from fossil evidence.

Still further evidence that the dynastic Egyptians did not construct the Great Pyramid may be found in sediments surrounding the base of the monument, in legends regarding watermarks on the stones halfway up its sides, and in salt incrustations found within. Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid contain many seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated to be nearly twelve thousand years old.

These sediments could have been deposited in such great quantities only by major sea flooding, an event the dynastic Egyptians could never have recorded because they were not living in the area until eight thousand years after the flood. This evidence alone suggests that the three main Giza pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old.

In support of this ancient flood scenario, mysterious legends and records tell of watermarks that were clearly visible on the limestone casing stones of the Great Pyramid before those stones were removed by the Arabs. These watermarks were halfway up the sides of the pyramid, or about 400 feet above the present level of the Nile River.

Further, when the Great Pyramid was first opened, incrustations of salt an inch thick were found inside. While much of this salt is known to be natural exudation from the stones of the pyramid, chemical analysis has shown that some of the salt has a mineral content consistent with salt from the sea. These salt incrustations, found at a height corresponding to the water level marks left on the exterior, are further evidence that at some time in the distant past the pyramid was submerged halfway up its height.

[/quote]
I am not even going to question what you say... I will leave that to someone else, though much like other supposed "evidence" you have presented, I would suspect there are other explanations for that phenomena.

Let's just play the game of assuming all your evidence above was correctly interpreted and did show such floods. Guess what? The Nile flooded many, many, many times. To show that is a worldwide flood, you would have to find definite evidence of a flood everywhere, or at least in a good number of other places. In fact, we do NOT see this, not in any of the time periods those things you quote put forward.

Like I said before, I am not going to bother going into your "evidence" this time. (I did it before and you simply ignored what I said, just posted more of the same as if repeating it would somehow provide different information). However, I can virtually gaurantee.. no, CAN gaurantee (when you post claims about who you think built the pyramids, for example) that most of your so-called "evidence" is not evidence of what is claimed at all.

- You claim that everything I have brought forward that purports to show a worldwide flood is garbage? I've brought up Genesis 7 and I'm not sure if there is a version that doesn't mean to suggest there was one perhaps. Is Genesis 7 garbage?

Like I said, try reading what I write instead of looking to young earth sites for what you think I might write.
The Bible is true.
Genesis 7, though, is not physical scientific evidence.

[Barramundi Dan]

There is not enough water on the planet to cover all the land mass. If my memory serves me well according to scientific calculations, if the icecaps completely melted and all the glaciers and all the snow on the planet melted and all the water stored in atmosphere fell to the ground the sea level would increase by 37 metres. A significant portion of the worlds land mass is above 37 meters. So life would still exist therefore extinction would not occur.
I’m going from memory so I’m not sure if the figures I’ve quoted are exact. It would be an easy one to research using Google.

[Timminz]

There is not enough water on the planet to cover all the land mass. If my memory serves me well according to scientific calculations, if the icecaps completely melted and all the glaciers and all the snow on the planet melted and all the water stored in atmosphere fell to the ground the sea level would increase by 37 metres. A significant portion of the worlds land mass is above 37 meters. So life would still exist therefore extinction would not occur.
I’m going from memory so I’m not sure if the figures I’ve quoted are exact. It would be an easy one to research using Google.

Sure, now that the earth is round, and not smooth. The flood happened back when the earth was still flat.

[PLAYER57832]

There is not enough water on the planet to cover all the land mass. If my memory serves me well according to scientific calculations, if the icecaps completely melted and all the glaciers and all the snow on the planet melted and all the water stored in atmosphere fell to the ground the sea level would increase by 37 metres. A significant portion of the worlds land mass is above 37 meters. So life would still exist therefore extinction would not occur.
I’m going from memory so I’m not sure if the figures I’ve quoted are exact. It would be an easy one to research using Google.

This is true, today. However, there is where you "insert God". Also, while, no the Earth was not flat back then, most of the mountains we now see were once level and some of the features under the sea were higher or more level as well. At any rate, a flood could have wiped out all life without covering every last mountain peak.

Bottom line.. there is no currently available scientific evidence of a world-wide flood within the time of humanity. However, it might still have happened. Evidence might be found, or it might not be found, but still have happened.

[tzor]

There is not enough water on the planet to cover all the land mass.

At times during Earth's long history, the configuration of the continents and seafloor have changed due to plate tectonics. This affects global sea level by determining the depths of the ocean basins and how glacial-interglacial cycles distribute ice across the Earth.

The depth of the ocean basins is a function of the age of oceanic lithosphere: as lithosphere becomes older, it becomes denser and sinks. Therefore, a configuration with many small oceanic plates that rapidly recycle lithosphere will produce shallower ocean basins and (all other things being equal) higher sea levels. A configuration with fewer plates and more cold, dense oceanic lithosphere, on the other hand, will result in deeper ocean basins and lower sea levels.

When there were large amounts of continental crust near the poles, the rock record shows unusually low sea levels during ice ages, because there was lots of polar land mass upon which snow and ice could accumulate. During times when the land masses clustered around the equator, ice ages had much less effect on sea level.

Over most of geologic time, long-term sea level has been higher than today (see graph above). Only at the Permian-Triassic boundary ~250 million years ago was long-term sea level lower than today. Long term changes in sea level are the result of changes in the oceanic crust, with a downward trend expected to continue in the very long term.

During the glacial/interglacial cycles over the past few million years, sea level has varied by somewhat more than a hundred metres. This is primarily due to the growth and decay of ice sheets (mostly in the northern hemisphere) with water evaporated from the sea.

[Woodruff]

There is not enough water on the planet to cover all the land mass. If my memory serves me well according to scientific calculations, if the icecaps completely melted and all the glaciers and all the snow on the planet melted and all the water stored in atmosphere fell to the ground the sea level would increase by 37 metres. A significant portion of the worlds land mass is above 37 meters. So life would still exist therefore extinction would not occur.
I’m going from memory so I’m not sure if the figures I’ve quoted are exact. It would be an easy one to research using Google.

Sure, now that the earth is round, and not smooth. The flood happened back when the earth was still flat.

<laughing> That is an outstanding answer. I like it.

My answer would be...hell, it's God. He could easily change the amount of water on the planet, couldn't he?

[Barramundi Dan]

Ha Ha

If Kevin Costner had done some research before he made Water World maybe he would have never made that stupid crappy movie.