UppsalaDragby
New Member
- Feb 6, 2012
- 543
- 40
- 0
What's your point?River Jordan said:So we've established fairly conclusively that you believe the topology of the earth changed during/soon after the flood. So let's get specific. Were the Himalayas in existence prior to the flood? If so, to what degree?
And what was the point you seemed to be trying to make in your previous post?
You remember..the dodgy one I asked you about but about which you are now are completely silent...
Not to mention the question I asked you in another post: Where have I ever describe scientific knowledge as being equivalent to "beliefs"?
I expect ANSERS to my questions.
Nonsense. Not only have you failed to provide "proof" of your claim, you are guilty of the same fallacy that you accuse me of. You totally failed to support your claim that "oil companies used an old-earth geology in their work", and then challenged me to prove the opposite. In other words, "shifting the burdon of proof".Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. I claimed that oil companies use an old-earth geology in their work, and I provided evidence supporting that claim (if you'd like more I can provide it). If your counter is "they could have done the same work using young-earth creationism", then the burden is on you to support that claim.
Where is the question I posed:
"Where is your evidence that they are adhering to an old earth model rather than a young earth one, and that it has led them to find oil and gas that they would not have found using a young earth model?"
So why are you dodging the question (the fourth time) pretending that a conversation between one geologist and another has anything to do with "oil companies" using different models to locate oil and gas? And how does such a discussion discount the possiblity of a global flood? This is getting tiresome...
In other words you cannot defend your claim, whereas I can. I pointed out exactly why your argument is ridiculous. You cannot do the same thing about mine. If you could you would obviously have done so. Instead you choose a pathetic cop-out.This (and some of your later stuff I'll get to) is what I meant when I talked about how ridiculous it is to talk to creationists. If you honestly think the above is a valid, objective rebuttal, I'll just let that speak for itself.
So let me repeat yet another set of questions that you have totally failed to answer:
"Why is the ONLY thing "copied" a global event. Why not copy other things? Why would Moses, or any of God's chosen people, who considered the scripures to be extremely sacred and were called out by God to be separate from the surrounding nations, just decide to throw in a chunk from some summerian text?"
No answers??? OK, so at least explain why you think that these questions are "ridiculous".
#102?????????? You gave me a list of how you know what the science is or isn't, such that you are able to declare "the science is against [me]"? What post was that?
This post was a response to your completely foolish claim that "The world around us also serves as God's revelation, and it simply does not show anything supportive of this young-earth flood geology".
I never said you "advocated" anything. YOU are making the claim, using YOUR arguments, that pre-flood and post-flood strata are missing, WITHOUT explaining what you mean by that. And you have the cheek and audacity to say that creationist arguments are ridiculous!!!I'm not advocating your flood idea. If you're advocating it and claiming it is supported by the science, then you need to answer those questions.
Well again, YOU are the one making the claim. YOU need to be more specific in proving your point - not accusing me of "hand-waving". YOU need ti provide consistent evidence that the fossil record demonstrates what you CLAIM it does.Again, you're being ridiculous. All you're doing is hand-waving and trying to distract from the issue I raised. The fact remains, biostratigraphy does not support the global flood belief. If you think it does, then demonstrate it to be so.
In other words, YOU cannot simply claim that the fossils are sorted in such a way that it can be used as evidence against a flood without proving that such an order is correct.
Have you ever heard of the fallacy of shifting the blame? Perhaps you need to study some more...
Well, allow me to laugh at your pitiful laughter.. why would I need to provide a "mechanism"? Are you advocating evolution of the gaps? You can't even prove that evolution is the "mechanism" that gets the job done, and yet you are, once again, shifting the burdon of proof. As I said, "you cannot simply assume evolution to be true in order to discount a flood".Absolutely, positively, ridiculous. I am literally laughing out loud at this. So if you believe we went from 2-7 individuals representing each "kind" 4,000 years ago, to all the species alive today, by what mechanism were all these new species generated?
Get it????
Weeell... It's funny how the "cherry" on my sundae totally defeats yours. The fact is that the only "organism" that has been completely sequenced is the human genome. Before that, proponents of evolution adamently claimed that there is no way the flood could be real because of the diversity of the human race. Recent research refutes that claim:And this is the cherry on the sundae of your ridiculousness. We've sequenced genomes from all sorts of organisms from diverse taxa, and we never, ever, ever see anything indicating an extreme, simultaneous bottleneck. And your response? "Meh...it's not an exact science".
I'll let that speak for itself and serve to illustrate my point about how ridiculous it is to discuss things with creationists. No matter how clearly the data is against you, you just make up excuses to wave it away.
http://www.icr.org/article/genetics-research-confirms-biblical/
So again, rather than shifting the burden over to me, why not tell us why, after the so called millions of years of hardly any genetic variation among modern humans, did the diversity explode only within the last five thousand years? Because surely, before claiming that genetics is an exact science that proves your point, you need to prove that it does!