Scientific Evidence of a Global Flood

a reply to: peter vlar

So please don't be too offended if I have to call Bull # on pretty much anything that comes from the mind, mouth or pen of Phillip Day. He has caused far more harm than good by conning people in the last throes of desperation to live by getting them to abandon traditional medicine in favor of quackery that will certainly kill them faster and reduce the quality of whatever time they have left with their loved ones.

I'm not offended, just informed. You know more about the man than myself.
I have no problem with that.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Barcs

4000-6000 years is the typical time frame given for the flood by its supporters.

I don't care. And till next time guys.

If you don't care, then why did you respond to my post nitpicking that one line while ignoring all the rest? No offense, but that is a very deceptive way to argue, ignoring everything that goes against your position and then nitpicking the insignificant details. If you really don't care, then why are you trying to sell us on your faith? Why do you attack evolution using faulty arguments ? You care, alright, just not about reality.

I'm not offended, just informed. You know more about the man than myself.
I have no problem with that.

You are informed now? That's why you ignore the bulk of people's arguments, change the subject any chance you get, yet still promote your invalid premise? If being informed means ignoring all scientific evidence and arguments against you in favor of a complete guess with no substance behind it at all, then yeah, you are very informed. Just admit it's blind faith and call it a day. Promote your faith in a place that isn't full of scientific minded people and you might have a better chance at reeling in some followers.

a reply to: Barcs

But you were the one who wanted to get the thread
back on topic?

That's why you ignore the bulk of people's arguments,

What are you say'n, I don't read them? Because if you are, you're wrong.
And I tried to let you know back on pg 19 I had nothing further. But it seems
you chose to ignore that Barcs. So don't get all worked up and accuse
me of be'n deceitful, or ignoring anything? When you're just to full of
yourself to pay attention. And why are you taking what I
said ( I don't care ) way out of context? Now do I have to ask your
permission Barcs before I can leave the thread? You want me to say
mother may I?


You're gonna talk to me about deceitful?

You are informed now? That's why you ignore the bulk of people's arguments, change the subject any chance you get, yet still promote your invalid premise? If being informed means ignoring all scientific evidence and arguments against you in favor of a complete guess with no substance behind it at all, then yeah, you are very informed.

You constantly practice taking things others say, even to other people,
way out of context just to make yourself look better. But it doesn't
work.

a reply to: randyvs

How can you say that my post was out of context, when you didn't offer any context in the first place? You simply said "I don't care" and called it a day. You claimed you were done on page 19, yet you felt the need to say something about the time frame that I got from somebody else who was making these claims... And you also tried to claim that "anthropological evidence" (ancient myths) counts as scientific evidence. Are you really done or are you going to come back when you think of the next key one liner against evolution? I'm not just referring to posts in this thread when I refer to invalid premises. You've been making quite a habit of that lately and won't offer any explanations so "context" kind of goes out the window at that point. The thread clearly says "scientific evidence". If you aren't presenting that, you aren't on topic, no matter how you try to spin it.

a reply to: Barcs

I keep having to come back because of you hombre.
Here I am again.

a reply to: randyvs

Why keep coming back, when you aren't adding anything to the thread? You said you don't care, but seemingly NEED to have the last word. Is it really me that's too full of myself to pay attention? Am I really the one who is getting worked up over this?

I'm just trying to keep people honest, and when I see false claims, fallacies and subject changes, I'm going to say something about it. That doesn't mean I'm angry or an ego maniac. Fallacies are fallacies and go against basic logic. They should never be used to argue against something. Read the last few pages, and you'll see how the conversation goes. The fact that you have no rebuttal whatsoever, shows that you have already waved the white flag (just like the thread with the carvings).. but yet you keep responding.

Maybe I'm just going crazy. That's a possibility that I certainly can't discount as I've read so many silly attacks on evolution, that it all goes together in big blur for me. I generally think you are a good guy, but you seem very quick to drop those one liners before fully evaluating what they mean, IMO. Then when people scrutinize it, you dodge away.

a reply to: Barcs

Maybe I'm just going crazy.

You just accussed me of being a last word freak and turned around
and pointed out that you just had the last word in one my own
threads. So I'm beginning to lean that way with hopes of being
incorrect.

And please, have the last word.