Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Zakath
    Oui? Tu comprends actuelment les drglwnbawd?
    Oui! Les drglwnbawd sont la espece les plus interessant dans le monde! Je les etudiais pendant beaucoup ans!
    Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Freak
      Eireann--

      Can the letter 'C' be anything but 'C'?????

      It has value as a absolute real form. Are you telling me you do not acknowledge the absolute form of constructions of words/letters/numbers?

      Can "computer" be "land?" Of course not. The very word "computer" (again I'm not referring to the meaning of the word) is "computer."--just as 23 is 23. When I write 23 on a paper it is 23--it is absolute.

      The sequence demands such.
      I don't argue with the absolute form of concrete constructions. I just argue with the leap in logic that abstract absolutes must follow if one concedes the existence of concrete absolutes.
      Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

      Comment


      • Well, if you have a rock with as much lead-208 as uranium-238, you're going to get a date of 4.5 billion years. That doesn't mean the rock is that old, but that's the date you're going to get.
        show me the study that can account for apparently (not actually) younger rocks consistently on top of apparently (not actually) older rocks. What you are suggesting is that rocks with differing parent material had sorted itself out according to parent-daughter isotopes and not age OR there was a time after the earth was formed and land created that radioactivity was >>>> faster to acounter for the same ratios.

        What do you mean? The tides are going to mix this stuff up to a certain degree.
        NO! How much effect do to tides have on deep sea or this would also mix up fossils (and dismiss claims of sorting according to escape ability) it would also destroy delicate fossils - I have a pair of Carboniferous amphibian tracks that were 70 feet under other sediments. Tides affect near shore but there wasn't even a shore during the flood.

        Estimates aren't evidence.
        you are entitled to your opinion but most people would suggest that estimates are evidence if they are reliable. These estimates of coalescence, in humans, are based on known mutation rates in mitochondria.

        Why not? Mt. Saint Helens laid down hundreds of feet of sediment in a few days back in 1980. We know that didn't take millions of years to form.
        I didn't think hundred of acres of mud hundreds of feet thick could form into rock so quickly. And it must have at rates that were amazing - maybe a year or two since a river cutting through mud, would just collapse on itself.

        Why would you expect to find humans with clams and jellyfish? That doesn't make any sense.
        Tides when you need them tides when you don't. So were tides mixing things up or not? Are most population centers near the ocean? Why wouldn't all those dead babies, women, and men, cats, rats, dinosaurs, hats, all wash out to the nearby ocean?

        Again -- why would you expect to find these with clams and jellyfish?
        why would I expect whales, seals, pelicans, gulls, etc with clams and jellyfish? I could have sworn all these things lived in the ocean.

        I'm afraid you're going to have to be a bit more clear on what you're wanting here.
        I would expect that there would be a center of specis richness where most organisms that can't get around well near a hypothetical landing site for the Ark. Away from that site I would expect to find fewer and fewer organisms that can't get around well.

        Why not? As animals adapt to their habitat, they become more specialized. Micro-evolution. Few of these animals are so unique that there's nothing like them anywhere else in the world.
        so the Galapagos tortoises moved from Ararat to the Galapagos and then speciated into the various species in 6000 years? Is there any evidence of this amazing hypothesis?

        You didn't answer my question. How is the evolutionist different from the creationist?
        huh see the quote just below...


        quote:
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        one goes evidence -> conclusion and the other goes Truth -> evidence.
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Oh really? I haven't seen the theory of evolution change in it's basic assumptions,
        may I suggest then, that you don't know the history of evolution well.

        and I've seen evolutionists dismiss a lot of the evidence.
        sounds like a great thread for Origins... be my guest.

        I don't think so. Evolution isn't testable or verifiable. Not without a time machine.
        Not so... just a few ways

        1. A more reliable estimator of absolute age constrains the Earth to be much younger

        2. Some law is discovered that precludes the changes in phenotype and genotype that we've seen over time

        3. The presence of modern form in all ages get discovered


        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        theories,
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        So do we.
        theories in the sense of the scientist is a generalization that accounts for evidence (e.g., natural selection). to the creationist, a theory is a generalization of ad hocs and handwaving (e.g., hydroplate theory, vapor canopy theory) necessary to keep a literal interpretation of Genesis tenable.

        quote:
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        hypothesis, predictions, tests
        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        So do we.
        No you don't because you must be able to accept falsification to actually test a hypothesis and you must entertain the possibility of alternative hypotheses. Creationist, by defination, do not allow alternatives and they cannot allow falsification.

        For example,

        Hypothesis1: There was a single global flood just 6000 years ago
        Hypothesis2 (the alternative) there was no flood

        Prediction: Population genetics should point to a severe population bottleneck 6000 years ago

        the test....

        Now what? Do creationist admit that H2 is possible? and that H1 has been falsified?

        So do we.
        You mean creationist continuously think of the best ways to falsify a 6000 year old Earth?
        By the way, which method of evolution are you partial too? Gradualism or punctuated equilibrium?
        neither are methods but patterns we see in the fossil records and they are not mutually exclusive and there is evidence of both.

        Where is it going?
        The land of improved accuracy and precision; and creationism?
        Last edited by Stratnerd; June 24th, 2003, 04:16 PM.
        Battling TOL creationist jerks-for-Jesus since 1998

        I'd rather be (e^-lamba*lambda^x)/x! -ing!

        Everything might be wrong! -Richard Feynman

        My God I love Star Trek TNG

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stratnerd

          Tides when you need them tides when you don't. So were tides mixing things up or not? Are most population centers near the ocean? Why wouldn't all those dead babies, women, and men, cats, rats, dinosaurs, hats, all wash out to the nearby ocean?
          Interesting you should mention hats. I've always thought they were the surest evidence of evolution. The resemblance between a tam and a beret is just too uncanny for them not to have a common ancestry.
          Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

          Comment


          • I've seen a phylogeny of chia-pets! It ends up that the Einstein is the most derived - surprise surprise
            Battling TOL creationist jerks-for-Jesus since 1998

            I'd rather be (e^-lamba*lambda^x)/x! -ing!

            Everything might be wrong! -Richard Feynman

            My God I love Star Trek TNG

            Comment


            • Our Fun Day Together At Battle Talk:

              "Look, bumpkin, I worked at a zoo, and no way they had enough people to shovel all the poop on the Ark."

              "A chair is a chair."

              "That's a non-sequitur, zoo-boy. The Bible says nothing about shovels on the Ark."

              "Letter c, letter h, letter a, letter i, letter r. Why are you so OBTUSE?"

              "Are you saying they left it on there?!?"

              "Or CHAIR. Cushions are not case-sensitive."

              "Yes, they needed it to plant a garden. All the topsoil was washed away."

              "A chair by any other name would smell like naugahyde. But it wouldn't be 'chair'".

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ilyatur
                Our Fun Day Together At Battle Talk:

                "Look, bumpkin, I worked at a zoo, and no way they had enough people to shovel all the poop on the Ark."

                "A chair is a chair."

                "That's a non-sequitur, zoo-boy. The Bible says nothing about shovels on the Ark."

                "Letter c, letter h, letter a, letter i, letter r. Why are you so OBTUSE?"

                "Are you saying they left it on there?!?"

                "Or CHAIR. Cushions are not case-sensitive."

                "Yes, they needed it to plant a garden. All the topsoil was washed away."

                "A chair by any other name would smell like naugahyde. But it wouldn't be 'chair'".
                ROTFL... thats great stuff!

                If one isn't following the thread these comments must seem awfully strange!
                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shima
                  Novice
                  >>
                  IF there are only three solutions to the origin of energy and matter

                  A. All the energy and matter that exists has existed forever
                  B. All the energy and matter that exists created itself from nothing
                  C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists
                  (you do agree there is no 4th option right?)

                  Science has proven that A is wrong. Science has in no way proven that B is wrong.
                  How has science proven that A is wrong?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Soulman Me “deciding” that a chair is not REALLY a chair has zero affect on the physical reality that the chair IS. I cannot “deny” the chair out of existence. I can “ignore” the chair, or call the chair a foot-stool, but I cannot deny the physical reality of the chair’s existence. My “definition” or “perception” of the chair doesn’t alter the fact that the chair IS. If a chair is inadvertently used as a foot-stool, the physical reality of what we “call” a chair remains the same. The “chair” doesn’t CHANGE into a “foot-stool.” So, whatever we want to "call" this physical object, the object really and absolutely IS.
                    Just because something is real doesn't make it absolute. You seem to be implying that if we can't effect something's existence, it must be an absolute. But in fact all forms of existence pass away. Energy constantly changes and takes on new forms. Your chair, or whatever we decide to call it, exists in whatever form it exists in for a finite time, therefor, it's "reality" is RELATIVE to time and space and circumstance. In fact, every form or structure that we are able to perceive is relative to time, space, and circumstances as far as we know. No thing in the universe is absolute except perhaps the energy that temporarily takes on all these forms and becomes our universe. But we don't know where that comes from so we don't know what will happen to it. We can't say if it will pass away or not.
                    Originally posted by Soulman Well, if we can’t agree on what a physical “object” is, we’re in big trouble. I would agree that “physical reality” is not limited by or dependent upon our “perception” of physical reality, because, as you said, all “objects” are not perceived the same way. But whose relative “visual” perception of an object would you defer to? A man with 20/20 vision, or a blind man? Both perceptions are equally (relatively) “true,” but just because the blind man doesn’t “see” the object, it doesn’t mean it isn't REAL.
                    Sure, but it's reality is still relative to time, space, and circumstances, and so is not absolute.
                    Originally posted by Soulman Again, if there’s no absolute standard of reality, knowing anything is impossible. Relativizing reality doesn’t “solve” anything. We need a fixed yardstick against which to compare everything else, otherwise all we have is mindless babble. On some basic level everyone understands this. Without an “absolute” yardstick establishing the STANDARD of reality, all we can do is “guess.”
                    But we don't have that "fixed yardstick", and all we are doing is guessing. We humans live in a world of probabilities, not a world of certainty. That's just the way it is. Welcome to the human condition: the condition of being perpetually uncertain. Our only yardstick becomes ourselves and each other. This is so frightening for so many of us that we simply MAKE UP that yardstick, so that we can pretend that we are not lost in perpetual uncertainty. This is what religion is all about. This is what "believers" do. Religions give us the imaginary yardsticks so we can be relieved of the fear of our own ignorance.
                    Originally posted by Soulman My position would be that we HAVE an absolute standard of reality. Can I “prove” it? Fortunately, I don’t have to. I banged my head three times this morning on the same pipe in my basement. THAT is reality! “Reality” is what we find when we get there. Reality does not require substantiation. Subjective encounters or descriptions or perceptions or levels of understanding changes nothing. Reality IS, although I agree our “perceptions” may, for physical reasons or philosophical reasons, vary. What I call a chair, someone else may call a foot-stool. But banging your head on galvanized pipe hurts, even if you call it a “pillow.”
                    I like reality. Sometimes it sucks, but most of the time it's great, and I have lived many years of my life escaping from realy, so I do have a comparison. *smile* But reality is not an absolute; at least not for us. We humans are living in a relative and finite dimension.

                    Comment


                    • I just read Zakath's third post and all he has is "people disagree" so there can't be truth. That is his evidence for the non exisistance of truth. What an evidenceless diatribe.

                      He is getting beaten like Rodney King...
                      BORN HOMOPHOBIC

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stratnerd
                        show me the study that can account for apparently (not actually) younger rocks consistently on top of apparently (not actually) older rocks.
                        Stratnerd, I've already told you how the strata are dated by the index fossils they contain. Working from those presuppositions, there is no way I can show you what you're asking for.

                        What you are suggesting is that rocks with differing parent material had sorted itself out according to parent-daughter isotopes and not age OR there was a time after the earth was formed and land created that radioactivity was >>>> faster to acounter for the same ratios.
                        What? How are igneous rocks going to sort out their constituent elements? I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

                        NO!
                        Yes.

                        How much effect do to tides have on deep sea
                        It has some effect. I remember seeing a time-lapse video of the sea floor one time, and there was all kinds of stuff going on down there.

                        or this would also mix up fossils (and dismiss claims of sorting according to escape ability)
                        They are mixed up to some degree.

                        it would also destroy delicate fossils - I have a pair of Carboniferous amphibian tracks that were 70 feet under other sediments.
                        What method was used to date these tracks?

                        Tides affect near shore but there wasn't even a shore during the flood.
                        No there wasn't, was there? But then again, the Earth wasn't covered with a uniform level of water. It was deeper in some places than it was in others.

                        you are entitled to your opinion but most people would suggest that estimates are evidence if they are reliable.
                        Estimates are based on assumptions.

                        These estimates of coalescence, in humans, are based on known mutation rates in mitochondria.
                        Coalescence means coming together to form a whole. What does this have to do with the mutation rates of mitochondria? I'm sure you've got a point here somewhere, but I don't see it.

                        I didn't think hundred of acres of mud hundreds of feet thick could form into rock so quickly.
                        Well it did -- go to Mt. Saint Helens and take a look. It's as rocky as you could possibly want it to be now.

                        And it must have at rates that were amazing - maybe a year or two since a river cutting through mud, would just collapse on itself.
                        Maybe, maybe not. Those canyons carved through the sediment deposited around Mt. Saint Helens didn't collapse in on themselves, and they were carved in way less than a year.

                        Tides when you need them tides when you don't. So were tides mixing things up or not?
                        To some degree -- yes.

                        Are most population centers near the ocean?
                        We have no idea where most of the population centers were before the flood, what with them all being destroyed.

                        Why wouldn't all those dead babies, women, and men, cats, rats, dinosaurs, hats, all wash out to the nearby ocean?
                        During the flood, wasn't the ocean pretty much everywhere?

                        why would I expect whales, seals, pelicans, gulls, etc with clams and jellyfish? I could have sworn all these things lived in the ocean.
                        Nice dodge, but you were talking about mostly land animals.

                        I would expect that there would be a center of specis richness where most organisms that can't get around well near a hypothetical landing site for the Ark. Away from that site I would expect to find fewer and fewer organisms that can't get around well.
                        You seem to be forgetting the fact that sometimes people take animals with them. How'd all those camels get to Australia? They were introduced by humans.

                        so the Galapagos tortoises moved from Ararat to the Galapagos and then speciated into the various species in 6000 years?
                        Uh... no. That's ridiculous. If you're going to make a strawman, at least come up with a good one.

                        Is there any evidence of this amazing hypothesis?
                        There are tortoises everywhere. I used to find them in my backyard all the time. The Galapagos tortoise is but one species among many. I don't remember anyone identifying them as the great-grandfather of all tortoises.

                        huh see the quote just below...
                        Ok... we'll examine that when we get to it.

                        may I suggest then, that you don't know the history of evolution well.
                        You may, but you'd be wrong. The basic assumption (that all life on Earth has a common ancestor) is still the same.


                        sounds like a great thread for Origins... be my guest.
                        What's the point? I already know what you'll do.

                        Not so... just a few ways

                        1. A more reliable estimator of absolute age constrains the Earth to be much younger
                        How would this be a way to test evolution?

                        2. Some law is discovered that precludes the changes in phenotype and genotype that we've seen over time
                        You mean like the one that says living things only reproduce after their own kind?

                        3. The presence of modern form in all ages get discovered
                        This won't happen as long as you continue dating things using the geologic column.

                        theories in the sense of the scientist is a generalization that accounts for evidence (e.g., natural selection).
                        Our theories account for the evidence.

                        to the creationist, a theory is a generalization of ad hocs and handwaving (e.g., hydroplate theory, vapor canopy theory) necessary to keep a literal interpretation of Genesis tenable.
                        This simply isn't true. But as long as you believe this sort of slander, it'll keep you from examining creationism.

                        No you don't because you must be able to accept falsification to actually test a hypothesis and you must entertain the possibility of alternative hypotheses.
                        There are several hypotheses out there.

                        Creationist, by defination, do not allow alternatives and they cannot allow falsification.
                        Again, this simply isn't true. But like I said, as long as you refuse to look into it, you'll keep believing this sort of nonsense.

                        For example,

                        Hypothesis1: There was a single global flood just 6000 years ago
                        You mean 4,400 years ago.

                        Hypothesis2 (the alternative) there was no flood

                        Prediction: Population genetics should point to a severe population bottleneck 6000 years ago
                        Again, you mean 4,400 years ago. As far as population genetics goes, you might want to check out this link.

                        the test....

                        Now what? Do creationist admit that H2 is possible? and that H1 has been falsified?
                        Not really. That doesn't explain all the sediment containing billions of dead things, nor does it do anything to explain the fact that virtually every culture has a global flood legend.

                        You mean creationist continuously think of the best ways to falsify a 6000 year old Earth?
                        You mean the way evolutionists continuosly think of the best ways to falsify evolution? I should probably point out here that not all creationists are Young Earth Creationists.

                        neither are methods but patterns we see in the fossil records and they are not mutually exclusive and there is evidence of both.
                        So you're admitting to the lack of transitionals in the fossil record? This is what led them to come up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, you know. Of course it's still an argument from ignorance, but what can you expect? Use what you got, right?

                        The land of improved accuracy and precision; and creationism?
                        Same place. We'll see who gets there first.
                        Last edited by One Eyed Jack; June 24th, 2003, 06:16 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Hank
                          How has science proven that A is wrong?
                          The second law of thermodynamics precludes it. If the universe had always been here, it would have run down by now, and there would be no energy available for work.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by quip
                            Do you realize that all those "most likelys" reduce your "logic" to simple extrapolation using what science/philosophy has already demonstrated?

                            How is this, not itself, "elastic"?
                            No duh. It is an extrapolation alright - an extrapolation that is logically superior to the naturalistic "extrapolations" of uncaused universes popping into existence out of nothing. Get with the program.
                            SCRIMSHAW

                            "Passions act as winds to propel our vessel; our reason is the pilot that steers her, without the winds she would not move; and without the pilot she would be lost". - The French

                            Comment


                            • Novice:

                              And that is a "natural" occurrence?

                              Please explain your answer "D" is practical terms.

                              For instance....

                              If "time" were created how long did it take?

                              And where did this event take place if NOTHING existed yet?

                              What are these "different dimensions" you speak of?

                              And what type of "quantum events" lead up to this event?
                              Yes, I saw this the first time, thanks. It's hard to answer a post when you're not logged on and reading TOL, if you can imagine such a thing.

                              Well, *you* probably can't but some of us have jobs and enjoy earning a living.

                              First, your question was along the lines of "there can't possibly be a 4th alternative". I have shown that there is a 4th alternative. You may not like it, but it is one that modern cosmology favors and is investigating. While you're enjoying the taste of your own words, you might want to surf back through the thread and click on some of the links I and others have referenced, so you can move into the 20th century of scientific thinking.

                              As to your other questions, the answers may vary depending on what is being proposed. I wonder, though, why I am being held to this new standard of "practical terms". How well, do you think, would your "C" hold up to these terms?

                              C. A Supernatural creator created all the energy and matter that exists

                              How is that possible in "practical terms"?
                              What were the specific mechanics of fiat creation?
                              Where did this event take place if NOTHING existed yet?
                              If God is infinite in knowledge, where is this knowledge stored?

                              However, because I'm a good person who takes pity on the wilfully ignorant, you will find both simple and advanced explanations of current thinking on some of your questions regarding D here. Enjoy:

                              http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo5.html

                              I am sure that you will have more questions after reading this. I won't hesitate to recommend your local library, where I am sure you already spend quite a lot of time. As you embark on your learning voyage, you will discover that there's much more to libraries than just being a place to sleep in and steal newspapers from.

                              You will notice that some of these hypotheses make predictions that can be tested, and are also developed to unify and then explain the development of the four fundamental forces in the universe. They have the advantage of being good mathematical models that provide an explanation of why the universe is the way it is. Is a mathematical model that unifies physics superior to the OT description? I think it is, because it provides us with the potential to test and explore.

                              When will you be posting links to similar hypotheses of fiat creation? Can you provide an explanation of why you are unable to? Can you give your best guess as to when such hypotheses might be forthcoming? Why won't they be?

                              Comment


                              • Stratnerd, I've already told you how the strata are dated by the index fossils they contain. Working from those assumptions, there is no way I can show you what you're asking for.
                                index fossils were once used to give relative dates. Radiometric dating has allowed absolute dating (you or anyone for that matter has yet to show why these dates are unreliable). Once fossils are associated with certain dates via radiometric dating then they can be used as indexes of absolute dates.

                                But fossils has nothing to do with this. Radiometric dating shows younger rocks over older rocks... how does such a thing happen? See below...

                                What? How are igneous rocks going to sort themselves out? I'mnot sure what you're getting at here.
                                BINGO!!! Either radiometric dates are working or you have something really weird going on like igneous rocks sorting themselves out according to apparent (not actual) ages - that's the only way you had a point when you mentioned the parent:daughter problem. Also, some of these techniques use materials whose parent material is a gas and doesn't start the clock until the rock cools.

                                It has some effect. I remember seeing a time-lapse video of the sea floor one time, and there was all kinds of stuff going on down there.

                                and

                                They are mixed up to some degree.
                                So tidal mixing can get gravel on top of sand on top of silt but still not get mammalian, dinosaurian, avian fossils to mix... that's an interesting universe you live in. You can't have it both ways.

                                [quote] What method was used to date these tracksquote] NO DATING THIS ISN"T ABOUT DATES. I found amphibian tracks 70 feet under other layers - no dates just an observation. If tides were stirring up sediments to the points where layers of sand (to form sandstone) are landing up on top of layers of silt (and often alternate - like they do at this site) then it should destroy footprints on something as delicate as silt - what is it doing at the bottom of the great flood anyway (we'll ignore that).

                                Estimates are based on assumptions.
                                every conclusion you could ever come up with is based on assumptions. could you demonstrate why those used for radiometric decay are in error?

                                Coalescence means coming together to form a whole. What does this have to do with the mutation rates of mitochondria? I'm sure you've got a point here somewhere, but I don't see it.
                                the assumption is that there are differences in reproductive rates among females - sounds reasonable to me and that mutations in mitochondria are relatively constant but the method is used to estimate a time to which a population can be traced back to a group of related female descendents.

                                Well it did -- go to Mt. Saint Helens and take a look. It's as rocky as you could possibly want it to be now.
                                sediment in water formed rock in a few years - could you provide me with a reference?

                                We have no idea where most of the population centers were before the flood, what with them all being destroyed.
                                uh... where could they have been if not near rivers or coast? and the amazing thing is we don't ever find those remains on land either...so what's the deal?

                                During the flood, wasn't the ocean pretty much everywhere?
                                BINGO!!! So where are the human remains mixed in with other terrestrial critters like dinos?


                                Nice dodge, but you were talking about mostly land animals.
                                whatever you want... none of it works... OK then why aren't dinos and humans found together? ThEN you can answer why jellyfish, whales, and trilobites, braciopods aren't found together.
                                Battling TOL creationist jerks-for-Jesus since 1998

                                I'd rather be (e^-lamba*lambda^x)/x! -ing!

                                Everything might be wrong! -Richard Feynman

                                My God I love Star Trek TNG

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X