Reed
Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008
|
| Quote (Scienthuse @ Oct. 17 2009,10:14) | | There is no doubt of water covering the earth--even mountains (e.g. shells on Everest as mentioned earlier)--but you guys choose to interpret it as tectonic uplift or receding oceans. How you betray your arguments by not allowing the same latitude for the flood. |
You are bullshitting again. Doesn't your religion tell you something about lying ? We don't just arbitrarily choose a particular explanation. We follow the evidence.
You previously said
| Quote | | Third, in reference to other comments--no one here can do any math without variables--and no one has them--because it is in the past. |
Yet now, you are claiming the evidence supports your theory again. Why is it, that when you think evidence supports your theory, that's all good, but when some well supported evidence contradicts your theory, you retreat to "well anything could have happened, we just don't know!!!!111".
If you want to discard the utility of evidence, that's OK. There's nothing left to discuss, because you have abandoned reason as a valid path to understanding. Have fun in fantasy land, but please don't try to argue that your fantasy is supported by evidence!
If on the other hand you do accept the utility of evidence, you have a big problem. We have many, many lines of evidence that absolutely contradict a global flood in the last few hundred million years. For example, we have ice core records that have annual layers going back many thousands of years. There are lakes with sedimentary records going back tens of thousands of years. Heck, there are living trees that are older than your flood. Have a look at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html.
|
