Minecraft Forums

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

Please re-explain your question? I don't understand what you mean by it.

He asked how Dinosaurs could logically get calcified into fossils in a 'Global Flood' scenario...
The article mentions 'fighting dinosaurs' and says a 'Global Flood' scenario would explain how they would get trapped... So how? The article never actually explains how, it just says they would.

Denying logic +1 for you.

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

Why is it not real evidence? I bet you will not tell me why...

I already told you why in the same post. It's not my fault if you ignored me.

Denying Logic +1 more.

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

Hah, this is your logic? Do you understand anything about geology and water corrosion? Also did you even read the article?
http://www.answersin...for-noahs-flood

Yes, in fact when I took a geology in College. I passed the class with 106% while most of my classmates were failing at around a 65% average. The teacher told the entire class this and directly pointed me out as having the highest test scores in all of his Geology classes....

So yes, I do know a thing or two about geology and water corrosion... Thank you for pointing that out.
Now I'll ask you the same thing... Do you understand either of these concepts? Because it appears you don't even have the vaguest clue what either of them are, as evident by your accusations.

This accusation is also an ad hominem fallacy. You attacked me and my knowledge of the subject rather than actually addressing any of my arguments. It is dishonest argumentative practice to do this without even explaining why you believe this, and without giving a counter argument.

Denying logic +1 more for you... That's 3 so far.

Now let's address the website... The website, again, claims that dinosaurs would have gotten stuck in sediment of a Global Flood. It states, through the 'fighting dinosaur' scenario, that a 'Global Flood' scenario explains that dinosaurs would be suddenly fossilized... Yet never once explains HOW... A very important key to their argument.

Therefore, they dodge the truth in two ways... By not explaining how a global flood would do this, as well as denying all facts that it wouldn't.
Isn't this enough evidence that your website is greatly biased, and spreading misinformation? It should be... yet you're ignoring that fact because you merely want to believe them.

Denying logic +1. It's 4 now.

Now let's address this link you just provided:
It states that during the 'global flood' there were "deep-fast moving waters" from the flood... But wait, what? The bible actually does not say this!
The bible states:

And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:12

It was RAIN that flooded the world... Rain for forty days... flooding nearly everything. So what's this about fast-moving waters, then? Oh that's right.... The site needed to make something up about the 'global flood' to support their arguments.

Not just that, but what about my earlier arguments that you ignored? You know, about my saying the grand-canyon wouldn't exist, and that the entire world would be flat, because of both sedimentary deposit and erosion?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#implications

Are you just going to continue ignoring my argumets just because you don't like them?

You have denied logic 5 times now.

Oh... And how do you compensate for the dramatic lack of water to flood the entire world?... I don't see you acknowledging this in any way... What's wrong, don't like arguments that completely destroy your own?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#flood

6 times.

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

Stop blabbering about this stuff and give me links or text showing me how or why the grand canyon doesn't work.

Why? I gave you logic. Logic is much more valuable than biased websites like the one you've given.

You need to "stop blabbering about this stuff" because you're obviously misinformed and ignorant. There are plenty of people here to tell you that. Why are you denying all reason and logic? You are not even addressing anyone's arguments, you're simply just ignoring them.
I've already explained to you the logic of a grand-canyon scenario. You ignored me and asked me to explain it, even though I already had. That is the definition of "ignorance".

7 times.

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

You mean to say that you thing the grand canyon was formed very slowly? *BZZZTT* Wrong!

I'm not one to resort to children's insults.... But to deal with a child sometimes you must think like a child: "No, You're wrong!".

All scientific evidence points to the grand canyon forming slowly over time.

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

Here is a real-world example of an observed area becoming a large

gulch

in less then 6 days.
http://www.answersin...m/v24/n4/canyon

Can you only stick to one website? Do you think this one group of people compose all correct intelligent and scientific thought in the world? Give me a break... You could at least admit that you have no other sources because the one source you used is ludicrously biased to the point they just make things up.

Now if you'll just read the article you posted yourself, you'll realize this:
They use an analogy where the 'miniature grand canyon' is a trench formed of loose rock and soil, which is apparent upon examination of the area.
Obviously the same can not be said of the REAL Grand Canyon... as it is composed of many, very apparent, generations of real rock layers.

Unsurprisingly, you'll find that the QUALITY of the little trench compared to the huge Canyon is unsurpassingly as large, or larger, as the size difference between the two.... This is simply just logic. You merely need to use your brain for this one.

8 times now you have denied logic.

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

Wrong again!
http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp (This article covers lots of things, so ill quote some of it.)

Yep, you are wrong again. I'm glad you've figured it out now!...
But I am slightly impressed you actually found a different website to use... It's nice to see you branch out.

However, your link (and quote) is irrelevant and doesn't really make a point... It is countering some of the arguments in my last link... Yet, you know what's funny? It never counters one very fundamental issue, which I linked you to earlier.... Where did all the water come from? There isn't enough of it on earth.

Too bad you can't make a valid point... I'm sort of wasting my time here then, aren't I?

9.

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

Use your browser's "Find" Function and type in this keyword: "Ignorance of Geology"

Yes, I'm sure if my browser could read implications it would find that in your posts quite a few times... What's your point? *yawn*

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

Before the Global Flood happened there was one continent, it is was most likely a flatter continent. There is more then enough water to cover a flatter earth.

There was definitely one continent a very, very long time ago, called 'Pangea'... But not in the way you describe it...
You now need to provide evidence for, there having been a 'Pangean' continent during the time of Noah (a few thousand years ago, rather than millions of years ago), as well as proving that Pangea was a "flatter continent"... Not only that, but you need to prove that even if it was flat, there was enough water to cover the entire continent, and form the Grand Canyon which exists to this day... and yet most all other geological structures have changed...
Wait... Wait... Why exactly did the Grand Canyon remain but most all other geological areas change after the global flood? Hmm... *shrug* OH WELL, you must not care about that, right?

10 times.

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

And also there is plenty of evidence that the mountains were formed during and after the flood.

It's time to provide your "evidence" then.

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

You all should know that mountains exist because of continental plates colliding. Mount Everest is still growing!

Indeed... And that doesn't support your arguments. What's your point?
Not only are plates colliding, but also separating... Shall we pointlessly mention that, too?

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

Haha, the only real way to get the picture of the whole situation is to look at both sides, from articles written by both sides. Honesty, can you guys start posting some more evidence? I haven't seen you do any of that.

That's actually correct... and as we've pointed out, your site is biased. How do we know? Because we've looked at the whole picture, from both sides of the argument. Your arguments fall apart.

There's plenty of evidence in the world for our arguments, if you care to look. If you address a specific issue, I'm sure we could provide you with something... We're not going to just toss around generic and flawed websites like you do, though... So you shouldn't expect that.

Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper

Thanks for your time guys! So for I am enjoying this discussion, although lets do our best do be a little more gentlemanly.

You first.
Not only did you use ad hominem attacks, laugh at my arguments without reason, and simply just ignore and dismiss me, and outright declared I was "Wrong" twice... but you also denied logic 10 times in this post alone, as all of this has pointed out to you in the above.

You can do us all a favor now and first learn what "gentleman" means.
Because so far you're a shining example of how NOT to be a 'gentleman'... so congrats on being a jerk so far.

Edit:
By the way, if you really care (and I know you don't), here you go:
http://www.darwiniana.tripod.com/gould_am_250_3_10-17.html
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/6flood.htm
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/droughts.htm
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/
http://www.atheists.org/The_Kiwi_Question
http://www.atheists.org/The_Science_of_Creationism
http://www.atheists.org/Rock_of_Ages_and_the_Age_of_Rocks

I could find more pretty easily, but I'm tired and I actually don't care that much because you're never going to read any of them.