More Questions for Christians

[Esquilax]

Hey Drich? Whale bones don't float. They're heavy. These things weigh in tonnes, not pounds. You have no idea of the scale of what you're describing.

http://www.sbnature.org/exhibitions/234.html
7700 lbs for a baleen whale sport. That the whole thing combined.. Granted there are peices and part that weigh hundreds of lbs, but there are also bits and peices that you could put in your pocket..

You do understand that a ton is about two thousand pounds, right?

Again, if they were on the beach I have no doubt some of the larger portions would remain, but we are not talking about just the large bones. Whole Skeletons have been found this includes the small bits and peices.. Not to mention the thing you seem all to anxious to over look is the baleen whale is not the only marine mamal found. Much smaller animals (Sea sloth) was also found intact. So again no errosion from tidal forces are possiable, if these fossils are indeed intact..

Or plenty of other possibilities. Let's not pretend that you know anything about how this was set up, after all.

You sound like a desperate Christian trying to hang on to what they believe in faith despite the facts..

I'm just asking you what your level of education is, that you can make the declarative statement that there was only one way this could happen. Mockery doesn't answer the question, and given your evasion I'm going to have to assume that you have no relevant education at all, and are thus talking out of your ass.

Your uninformed opinion doesn't trump mine just because you said it first, Drich. At least mine aligns with the views of the people who actually are educated in this field. How can you possibly have more information with which to gainsay them, and if you aren't contradicting them based on additional evidence that you have and they don't, then why the hell should anyone pay attention to you?

Yes the bit that is not covered in salt/mineral deposits. Which can be found several hundred miles inland. The portion we are discussing resides 1400 to 6000 ft above sea level. Which means the salt deposits can be traced back to when that region was underwater... Before the triassic period.

Again, relevant educational level is? And if it's zero, why should I believe your conclusions over that of the sciences?

1400 to 6000 ft above sea level? 4 dozen different times over a '10,000 year' span??
Who says your not a man of GREAT Faith???

You do understand that was an intentionally ridiculous example to demonstrate how far you're reaching with your false dichotomy, right? It's not at all what I actually believe, and it's either hilarious that you didn't pick up on that given that I've been telling you my position this whole way through, or interesting that you're willing to dishonestly strawman me when it suits your argument.

what makes a world wide flood impossiable?

The geologic column which demonstrates that it did not happen.

That's not true at all. In the case of a world wide flood the evidence is here, we just don't want to acknoweledge it (Whales found on a desert mesa for instance)

You certainly haven't presented any. And, as I've said, the earth shows no evidence of it; seasonal accumulation continues just as normal, there are numerous sedimentary layers that wouldn't be possible in a flood scenario, etc etc. More importantly, "the evidence is there, you just don't want to see it!" is nothing more than a self reinforcing delusion.

And you're pointing back at the whales again, as though if you do it twice it suddenly stops being an argument from ignorance? Come on, man.

One thing's for sure science has no answers for us if what we 'know' to be true is indeed true.

This means literally nothing.

: Your the one ignoring the facts sport. like for instance how fossils are found/the undisturbed nature in which ALL of the skellotons were found, The fact that where they were found is at least 1/4 mile above sea level, they were found on an ancient sea bed 200 million years older than they themselves can be. The fact that there are dozens of examples ranging from something the size of a man to something larger than a bus... ALL Intact, means they were not deposited on a sea shore 1/4 mile above sea level.

Consider the other possibility: your uneducated ass misinterpreted some of the data.

What's more likely: the scientists missed something so obvious, or the layman scouring news articles about the thing, and not peer reviewed research, and is doing so desperate to find some flaw so he can argue from ignorance, missed something and leapt at the chance to use his favorite fallacy?

Your statement reeks of desperation in how youre down playing facts, Now I know how you guys 'feel' When you have some poor faith driven believer on his heels. The roles have reversed. I am the one speaking from fact and you and minnie are the one who are dealing in faith.

But the facts don't say anything about a worldwide flood, Drich. The absolute best you could say, if you're one hundred percent right, is that we don't know how the fossils got there. The fact that they are there is no more evidence for the flood as it is for superintelligent aliens moving them with a tractor beam. The fact that they're there is evidence that they're there; you're making an additional claim that you don't seem interested in supporting beyond an argument from ignorance.

"You can't tell me how the whales got there," does not translate to "therefore my idea about a worldwide flood must be true."

Again Common sense sport. a Life time living near the beach has proven one thing. If multi ton boulders from a Jetty/Sea wall can be moved miles down a beach during a cat 1 hurricane with just a 10ft storm surge, bones weighing ounces or lbs or even hundreds of lbs don't stand a chance, even in the course of normal tidal flow.

"Common sense"? It was once common sense that the earth stood still and the sun moved around it. Common sense once said that particles couldn't also be waves, but then along came the double slit experiment and proved that wrong. Common sense is not a good indicator of reality, especially where the evidence contradicts it, and the evidence says there was no global flood.

Oh, and not to mention at the very least the area we are speaking about is at minimum 1/4 MILE ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE SEA!!!

"Currently." Why do you never add the last part of that sentence? Are you trying to hide something?

Besides, even if you were right, a local flood could also lift sea levels, so you've got no reason to assert that it was necessarily a global flood, like you are.

I know you are speaking from faith here but do try and open your mind to the facts one in a while.

But the facts support neither a worldwide flood, nor the efficacy of an argument from ignorance, Mister Smug.