Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record
From: raven1 (quoththeraven_at_nevermore.com)
Date: 06/13/04
- Next message: Douglas Berry: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Previous message: don findlay: "Re: Don's blog"
- In reply to: duke: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Next in thread: Bigdakine: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:30:19 GMT
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 08:21:13 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:55:24 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>> If we grant that a great flood could have happened, why have
>>>scientists found no trace of it?
>>Because it didn't.
>
>Where is your record?
It's called the geological record, and it was recognized by geologists
as ruling out a Noachian flood before Darwin.
>A record proves something - a non-record proves nothing.
Cataclysmic events leave evidence. The complete absence of any
evidence for such an event is pretty convincing evidence that it never
happened.
>
>Until you come up with something to the contrary, it's a safe bet to proclaim that the
>flood literally did happen.
As noted above, geologists ruled it out based on the evidence quite
some time ago.
>
>Will you enjoy your funeral day? That is the question.
Being dead, I'll have no opinion on it either way.
- Next message: Douglas Berry: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Previous message: don findlay: "Re: Don's blog"
- In reply to: duke: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Next in thread: Bigdakine: "Re: Traces of the Flood In the fossil record"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|