TEs/OECs interpretation of The Flood

[oxmixmudd]

When I clicked the link it showed what was being searched for was "evidence of the Flood" and not "Evidence for worldwide Flood."

When I entered "Evidence for worldwide Flood" in the AiG search function I got 573 hits

I'm getting the same results as rogue06 and the beagle.

Will Jorge admit he made an error - a typo/old search string content?


Jim

[Roy]

Hmmm - really?

Maybe I was wrong ... let me go see for myself ('coz I sure ain't trusting Roy!!!) ...

So I go to the Answers in Genesis website. It was 8:08 AM on Wednesday, 13 July 2016.
I entered Evidence for worldwide Flood in their Search box and here's what popped up:

4,360 results found

https://answersingenesis.org/search/...e+of+the+Flood

So not only are you willing to repeat a lie you've already been caught in, you're also too stupid to notice that the search term you use is shown when the link is followed and even included in the URL you're citing.

Your claim:

I entered Evidence for worldwide Flood in their Search box

Your URL:

https://answersingenesis.org/search/...q=evidence+of+the+Flood

You're not only a liar, you're an incompetent one.

[Roy]

Here are screenshots.

Without "worldwide":
search_results_1.png

With "worldwide":
search_results_2.png

[Roy]

Will Jorge admit he made an error - a typo/old search string content?

Unlikely - it will probably be some-one else's fault that his claimed search string doesn't match the results he obtained, the URL he posted, or the contents of the page it links to.

[oxmixmudd]

So not only are you willing to repeat a lie you've already been caught in, you're also too stupid to notice that the search term you use is shown when the link is followed and even included in the URL you're citing.

Your claim:
Your URL:

You're not only a liar, you're an incompetent one.

Nah - he's just incompetent. Only an complete idiot would think they could get away with lying about what is in the text of the search terms that they copied from their own browser and displayed for all to see ...


Jim

[TheLurch]

I'm done quibbling about this and also trying to educate you and others here. Seems like you're quite content believing as you do so I'll leave you happy in your ignorance. To wit: do you really believe that the matter you bring up here (about the amount of water) hasn't been explored in depth and fully answered? See, this is an example where you et al. demonstrate being willingly and blissfully ignorant.

I am aware that there have been a series of completely physically implausible, ad hoc attempts at coming up with ways to get vast volumes of water to poof into and out of existence over the span of a couple of weeks. Again, they're only the subject of consideration if one is already convinced that a global flood must have occurred. People without that commitment have no reason to do so.

My ignorance isn't the problem; the physical plausibility of things is.

Again, we know what land subjected to a massive flood looks like; it looks like the scablands of Washington. Why should anyone - Buddhist, Christian, or otherwise - consider a global flood, given most of the globe doesn't look like that?

DITTO. Let me add that you seem to have no problems with the 'miracles' that Materialism brings into "science". IOW, it's not the 'miracles' that bother you and those like-minded, it's the source of the 'miracles' that bothers you. To wit: if a Naturalistic 'miracle' is invoked (such as life and consciousness popping-out of inert matter) then you're perfectly good with that - that's "science".

No, i'm not a fan of miracles of any sort within the realm of science. Currently, we do not have a well defined, well studied set of pathways that could plausibly have generated life. We do not understand what consciousness is well enough to even define the relevant questions about its origin. These are open problems; i don't expect either to be fully closed in my lifetime.

But if the 'miracle' is Bible-based then you cry, "NOT SCIENCE!"

That is intellectual dishonesty and that is what I mean by a playing field that is NOT level.

No, i'd react the same to any source. There are also plenty of miracles in the Bible where we can't evaluate their validity given currently available evidence. I'll voice no opinion on those, other than to say that science has no method of addressing them.

That's what intellectual consistency looks like. The fact that you attempt to label it dishonesty says more about you than it does about me.

[Jorge]

Nah - he's just incompetent. Only an complete idiot would think they could get away with lying about what is in the text of the search terms that they copied from their own browser and displayed for all to see ...

Jim

That's right, O-Mudd, continue demonstrating to the world the galactic extent of your dishonest tactics and moral decadence. In this case I am referring to the morally-corrupt tactic -- worthy of the Clintons -- of putting the spotlight on someone and/or something else so as to conceal or distract from your own crimes.

Or did you think that I would forget? Quote - "There is no scientific evidence of a worldwide Flood." - unquote. THAT was the point that you are frantically seeking to disassociate from, not whether the over 4,000 results on a single website are found by wording the search one way or another.

But your Montana-sized pride, ego and dishonesty will NEVER admit as much. Instead, just like the criminal Clintons, you simply double-down and raise your voice a few more decibels until you 'swamp out' your opponent. Such deceptive tactics work on clueless masses but they won't get you anywhere with me. You are busted, O-Mudd.

Truth be told, you make many Atheists at Infidels appear to be honest standing next to you.
And just so you don't take it personally, you are in the same league as Roy - an embarrassing distinction.

Jorge

[Jorge]

I am aware that there have been a series of completely physically implausible, ad hoc attempts at coming up with ways to get vast volumes of water to poof into and out of existence over the span of a couple of weeks. Again, they're only the subject of consideration if one is already convinced that a global flood must have occurred. People without that commitment have no reason to do so.

My ignorance isn't the problem; the physical plausibility of things is.

Again, we know what land subjected to a massive flood looks like; it looks like the scablands of Washington. Why should anyone - Buddhist, Christian, or otherwise - consider a global flood, given most of the globe doesn't look like that?


No, i'm not a fan of miracles of any sort within the realm of science. Currently, we do not have a well defined, well studied set of pathways that could plausibly have generated life. We do not understand what consciousness is well enough to even define the relevant questions about its origin. These are open problems; i don't expect either to be fully closed in my lifetime.


No, i'd react the same to any source. There are also plenty of miracles in the Bible where we can't evaluate their validity given currently available evidence. I'll voice no opinion on those, other than to say that science has no method of addressing them.

That's what intellectual consistency looks like. The fact that you attempt to label it dishonesty says more about you than it does about me.

Errrrr ... good, I'm glad to hear it. Now go and enjoy your day, Lurch.

Jorge

[Roy]

That's right, O-Mudd, continue demonstrating to the world the galactic extent of your dishonest tactics and moral decadence. In this case I am referring to the morally-corrupt tactic -- worthy of the Clintons -- of putting the spotlight on someone and/or something else so as to conceal or distract from your own crimes.

Or did you think that I would forget? Quote - "There is no scientific evidence of a worldwide Flood." - unquote. THAT was the point that you are frantically seeking to disassociate from,...

Why would he want to disassociate from it? For all your rabid ranting, you have yet to identify a single piece of scientific evidence of a worldwide flood. All you've done is link to a keyword search on a biased website, and you couldn't even get that right.

[oxmixmudd]

That's right, O-Mudd, continue demonstrating to the world the galactic extent of your dishonest tactics and moral decadence. In this case I am referring to the morally-corrupt tactic -- worthy of the Clintons -- of putting the spotlight on someone and/or something else so as to conceal or distract from your own crimes.

Or did you think that I would forget? Quote - "There is no scientific evidence of a worldwide Flood." - unquote. THAT was the point that you are frantically seeking to disassociate from, not whether the over 4,000 results on a single website are found by wording the search one way or another.

But your Montana-sized pride, ego and dishonesty will NEVER admit as much. Instead, just like the criminal Clintons, you simply double-down and raise your voice a few more decibels until you 'swamp out' your opponent. Such deceptive tactics work on clueless masses but they won't get you anywhere with me. You are busted, O-Mudd.

Truth be told, you make many Atheists at Infidels appear to be honest standing next to you.
And just so you don't take it personally, you are in the same league as Roy - an embarrassing distinction.

Jorge

So - I'm trying to somehow obscure what I said? Are you NUTS? Here, let's see how much I'm trying to 'obscure' my statement:

There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for a global flood. Period*. What you found in your search was a set of FALSE articles written by people who may or may not have PhDs and who have signed a pledge to produce work that will appear to support that concept regardless of what the evidence ACTUALLY shows. Few, IF ANY, of which rise above the level of a full fledged CON JOB. None of which can pass any objective evaluation as SCIENTIFIC evidence for a GLOBAL** flood.

Further - you BOTCHED the search in the report of the number of relevant hits (which is a relatively minor thing). The issue with THAT is your incapacity to admit a mistake. If you can't admit what is as obvious the color of the sky on a sunny day then how in the world can anyone expect that you can be expected to admit the truth about these issues? You have allowed your arrogance and your pride to completely destroy any credibility related to your witness for Christ on these matters.

These are the simple facts Jorge. And you are too much of a coward to actually discuss the articles themselves (or just consciously aware of the fact that to maintain the deception that these faux 'evidences' have some sort of merit, you can never allow yourself to participate in a discussion where their shortcomings are clearly demonstrated). However the discussions of them without your participation in this thread and Beagle's thread have already made their weaknesses abundantly clear.

IF there was a global flood, then it happened in such a way as to be undiscoverable scientifically. And AIG's/ICR's/Your own claims to the contrary are empty.


Jim

* Do not confuse this statement with a denial of Noah's flood: re a massive local flood as believed by almost all OEC's and many TE's.

** To state the obvious, to be evidence for a GLOBAL flood, there must be a GLOBAL set of evidence consistent with the hypothesis.

[Jorge]

So - I'm trying to somehow obscure what I said? Are you NUTS? Here, let's see how much I'm trying to 'obscure' my statement:

There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for a global flood. Period*. What you found in your search was a set of FALSE articles written by people who may or may not have PhDs and who have signed a pledge to produce work that will appear to support that concept regardless of what the evidence ACTUALLY shows. Few, IF ANY, of which rise above the level of a full fledged CON JOB. None of which can pass any objective evaluation as SCIENTIFIC evidence for a GLOBAL** flood.

Further - you BOTCHED the search in the report of the number of relevant hits (which is a relatively minor thing). The issue with THAT is your incapacity to admit a mistake. If you can't admit what is as obvious the color of the sky on a sunny day then how in the world can anyone expect that you can be expected to admit the truth about these issues? You have allowed your arrogance and your pride to completely destroy any credibility related to your witness for Christ on these matters.

These are the simple facts Jorge. And you are too much of a coward to actually discuss the articles themselves (or just consciously aware of the fact that to maintain the deception that these faux 'evidences' have some sort of merit, you can never allow yourself to participate in a discussion where their shortcomings are clearly demonstrated). However the discussions of them without your participation in this thread and Beagle's thread have already made their weaknesses abundantly clear.

IF there was a global flood, then it happened in such a way as to be undiscoverable scientifically. And AIG's/ICR's/Your own claims to the contrary are empty.


Jim

* Do not confuse this statement with a denial of Noah's flood: re a massive local flood as believed by almost all OEC's and many TE's.

** To state the obvious, to be evidence for a GLOBAL flood, there must be a GLOBAL set of evidence consistent with the hypothesis.

You have made my day -- I mean that -- by boisterously affirming your claim "There is no scientific evidence for a global flood".

Listen and try to learn something: ANYTHING can be proven by simply redefining or reinterpreting things.

What you people DISHONESTLY do is precisely that - you redefine and reinterpret things in such a way that you build your conclusion into the premise. Tell us, what color is Napoleon's white horse, O-Mudd?

But that's not all. If you bothered to actually look into this without your rabid prejudices and blinders you would realize that there is indeed TONS of scientific (observable, objective, verifiable) evidence. But again, what you people do is to redefine/reinterpret so as to make it all vanish - POOF! Besides being extremely dishonest, TEs/OECs are among the world's greatest magicians.

So go ahead and keep repeating what obviously ain't so -- next time use size 16 font instead of size 5. Each time you do it you merely highlight the depths of dishonesty that you people will sink to in order to promote your anti-Scriptural beliefs. Bears repeating: your "bible", your "christ", your "god" aren't the ones of genuine Christianity - they are Frankenstein creations born out of your own desires.

Jorge

[Roy]

You have made my day -- I mean that -- by boisterously affirming your claim "There is no scientific evidence for a global flood". ... If you bothered to actually look into this without your rabid prejudices and blinders you would realize that there is indeed TONS of scientific (observable, objective, verifiable) evidence.

Elephant hurling.*

If there is TONS of scientific evidence, why can you not produce a single piece?


*when one ignores his/her presuppositions and tries to ridicule those of others by making broad, unsubstantiated claims [ref]

[oxmixmudd]

You have made my day -- I mean that -- by boisterously affirming your claim "There is no scientific evidence for a global flood".

It's simply a fact. Go back to you miracles argument and just get over the fact if you think the only correct interpretation of Genesis leads to the conclusion there was a global flood, then just use of amazing faith and believe it without any evidence. But stop trying to pretend there is evidence for it, because there ISN'T!

Listen and try to learn something: ANYTHING can be proven by simply redefining or reinterpreting things.

But that is not what is happening.

What you people DISHONESTLY do is precisely that - you redefine and reinterpret things in such a way that you build your conclusion into the premise. Tell us, what color is Napoleon's white horse, O-Mudd?

You would not be willing to actually support that claim with some real evidence would you? You could start by showing what is being redefined or reinterpreted to reach my conclusion. (HINT: AIG is not a research or science organization, it is a not-for profit religious organization)

But that's not all. If you bothered to actually look into this without your rabid prejudices and blinders you would realize that there is indeed TONS of scientific (observable, objective, verifiable) evidence. But again, what you people do is to redefine/reinterpret so as to make it all vanish - POOF! Besides being extremely dishonest, TEs/OECs are among the world's greatest magicians.

I always do as you suggest Jorge. Remember - I started YEC. I came to my current set of conclusions at the end of a journey that STARTED trying to answer some questions I had that conflicted with YEC conclusions. If there were legitimate answers to those questions, I would still be YEC.

So go ahead and keep repeating what obviously ain't so -- next time use size 16 font instead of size 5. Each time you do it you merely highlight the depths of dishonesty that you people will sink to in order to promote your anti-Scriptural beliefs. Bears repeating: your "bible", your "christ", your "god" aren't the ones of genuine Christianity - they are Frankenstein creations born out of your own desires.

Jorge

I have given you multiple opportunities to present a case for YEC, and in this case, for a scientifically verifiable Global Flood. You have mostly absconded. The few times you have made any sort of effort at all, it has been a disaster. Or need I remind you of your attempt to explain away asteroid impacts found on the Earth?


You can't make a scientific case for these things Jorge. All you can do is make accusations of immoral behavior. Ad hominem is the resort of the fellow that has nothing real to argue with.


Jim

[Kbertsche]

As I heard Hugh Ross say once, "the scientific evidence for a young earth is only slightly weaker than the scientific evidence for a flat earth."

[Jorge]

You can't make a scientific case for these things Jorge. All you can do is make accusations of immoral behavior. Ad hominem is the resort of the fellow that has nothing real to argue with.

Jim

Most of your post was just more of your typical BS so I deleted over it. The above portion that I retained is to make a quick, very pertinent comment: It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a worthwhile discussion when intellectual integrity is absent from one side. This is the main reason why I regularly point out the lack of that integrity in you and in others here in the hope that it will cause a reformation.

I mean, if you're going to apply different standards (as you do), if you're going to redefine things (as you do), if you're going to reinterpret things (as you do), if you're going to obfuscate and distort (as you do), then whatever I say will not 'connect' -- which is exactly what happens every time I engage you in any discussion. Instead, 99.9% of the time you reject anything and everything sight unseen.

Then, when all of that that happens (as it does), it is Jorge that gets vilified as you often you (here again).
It's the kind of stuff that has to be seen to be believed and even then it's no easy task.
The only mystery remaining for me goes back to how you're able to sleep at night - Valium, maybe?
You are an extremely dishonest person, Jim. If you come to grips with that then perhaps there's hope.

Jorge