lpetrich

Ed, read what you had posted earlier -- that mainstream geologists reject the historicity of Noah's Flood because they wish to thumb their nose at the Xian God.

So do you believe that the two gentlemen that ps418 had mentioned had wanted to thumb their nose at the Xian God?

Ed, let me explain with an analogy how evasive your response is.

Let's say that I propose that Jesus Christ had been homosexual.
And let's say that you demand that I produce the evidence to that effect.
And let's say that I claim that I am not an expert on the Gospels.

Ed, if I did that, would you think that I'm being straightforward?

Doubting Didymus

Just when you think it's gone for good.




The kraken wakes.

ps418

Your status as a human does not make you a mind reader of dead geologists, ya putz! Besides, as I pointed out (you have a habit of missing these things) all of the big names in geology were themselves Christians, and therefore they certainly did not "reject the Christian God." Like I said, get a clue. Or do more book-reading and less mind-reading.

This much is quite obvious. However, you have a nasty and persistent habit of misrepresenting the geologic evidence, as if you did know something about it. I'm just giving you an oppurtunity to defend the assertions you've already made.

Patrick

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

Ed

Well, in my own experience I have met more people who have become Christians by reading the Bible than who have become atheists and I am including you even though I only know you from the net.

Ed

That while there is a case for evolution, it is not as strong as those who adhere to it often claim.


True.


Actually there is evidence that it is objective. Almost all societies and peoples around the world admire sunsets and certain facial features of women.


They can be demonstrated to be inadequate by using the Law of Sufficient Cause. See some of my earlier threads, regarding the cause of the universe.

Ed

Another possibility is that Noah used some species of wood that is extinct today and was much stronger than species living today. Since we don't know what "gopher" wood is.

ksagnostic

Or maybe God just blessed the wood. Or maybe the water was less wet back then. Or maybe...

I'll let you get back to your endless cycling discussion now.

lpetrich

And that does not even cover biogeography. A good part of Darwin's case for evolution was based on biogeography. Something which a wildlife biologist ought to be familiar with.

On many oceanic islands, there are flightless birds, and on some oceanic islands, there are big birds and big turtles. But there are never any big rats. Why?

There are lots of things that the Noah's Ark story does not explain very well.

Why did all the rattlesnakes slither off to the Americas when there is plenty of good poisonous-snake habitat in much of the rest of the world?

And likewise for cobras and Africa and southern Asia.

Why did all the kangaroos hop to Australia and all the rabbits hop to elsewhere, without them intermixing anywhere?

Why did all the wombats go to Australia and all the marmots and woodchucks go to the northern continents? They might have preferred burrowing into the soil of Mt. Ararat.

Why did all the ostriches go to Africa, all the emus to Australia, all the kiwis and moas to New Zealand, and all the rheas to South America?

Why did all the sloths go to South America? Those slow beasts may have been too lazy to move from Mt. Ararat trees.

However, in-place evolution explains all these geographical distributions very well, though a common pre-Darwinian belief was in-place special creation.

Which leads one to wonder why a creator that likes populating oceanic islands with big birds and big turtles should be so unwilling to populate those islands with big rats.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Ed

See my post to Doov above.

Doubting Didymus

If you listen real close, you can hear the thread speaking in a small voice. Quiet, everyone; it has something to say:

...