Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ichneumon
. . . that doesn't magically support . . .

Of course not. It simply stands as a fact there is much more water upon the earth than there is dry land. Would you say this favors a global flood or militates against it? Now, if the earth were 3/4ths land you would hear nothing from me about credible evidence. And besides, science has yet to discover how much water resides beneath the land, having seeped downward over thousands of years. When they drilled the deepest hole ever they were suprised to find as much water as they did.

I'm sorry, that doesn't support the creationist position either . . .

No need to apologize for a false statement. A global fossil record may be interpreted more way than one. For the global flood position it presents credible evidence, and for those who want to fabricate concoctions of global history it also presents credible evidence.

Ooh, a book says so . . .

Yes, just like the books you spam us with "say so." Only this book is more well-attested for its accuracy and authority than any book you and your cheeleaders could fabricate in a million years.

Didn't bother to read my big post, did you?

Of course not. Life is too short, and too precious, to entertain your ego.

37 posted on 10/18/2006 4:06:24 PM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: Fester Chugabrew
[. . . that doesn't magically support . . .]

Of course not. It simply stands as a fact there is much more water upon the earth than there is dry land. Would you say this favors a global flood or militates against it?

Neither, thus my eye-rolling when you tried to provide is as any kind of "evidence".

Now, if the earth were 3/4ths land you would hear nothing from me about credible evidence.

Sure I would, because you would then go on to say exactly what you say next:

And besides, science has yet to discover how much water resides beneath the land, having seeped downward over thousands of years.

Sorry, but anyone who says, "even if the evidence ends up contrary to my expectations, I'm holding out for the possibility that "hidden evidence" could prove me right, blah blah" isn't interested in following the evidence, they're interested in cherry-picking what they want to consider "supporting" evidence and what they want to dismiss as "still inconclusive". They'll never take anything as "falsifies my hypothesis", and thus asking them to examine or discuss reality is fruitless.

Come back when you learn how to actually test a hypothesis in a rigorous way. Just saying "hey, there's a lot of water, and maybe more I can't see, I could always be right" doesn't cut it.

I've seen your "I'm just here because I like to debate" style before, so you've had your shot on this thread as far as I'm concerned. Take it up with someone who cares to endlessly dance with you. Buh-bye.

38 posted on 10/18/2006 4:14:17 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson