Re: Flood Evidence Found Using Google Earth

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 05:37:49 +0100, "Smiler" <Smiler@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

: 
: "Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
: news:lrgg44pcr1t7ti13n2ph4lcf51l9nkg0ok@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > On Tue, 27 May 2008 04:15:05 +0100, "Smiler"
: > <Smiler@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
: >
: > :
: > : "Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
: > : news:j8ik3415fo5am0mck9u8j1j351fq6bvvn3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > : > On Sun, 25 May 2008 21:00:04 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason
: > : > <kbjarnason@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : [snips]
: > : > :
: > : > : On Fri, 23 May 2008 21:34:20 -0400, Gabriel wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : > : So you say.  Do you think you could, oh, present some?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Just did.
: > : > :
: > : > : No, you put forth a pack of unfounded, baseless and unsup****ted
: > : > : assertions.  You were asked for *evidence*.
: > : > :
: > : > : You *do* understand there is a difference between simply
asserting 
: > "X is
: > : > : real" and actually providing evidence for it, right?
: > : >
: > : > You don't seem to understand that ignoring evidence doesn't make
: > : > it any less real. Since it's clear you'll just delete evidence
: > : > when shown to you in abundant detail, it's also clear truth is
: > : > not what you're after. Meanwhile the abundant evidence remains
: > : > for all to see.
: > :
: > : Your "evidence" is the equivalent of:
: > :
: > : Icebergs are evidence for coconut trees.
: > : Underwear is evidence for Mountains.
: > : Penguins are evidence for Nuns.
: > : Umbrellas are evidence for black holes.
: >
: > Not at all. But what you just wrote is unfortunately evidence of
: > how dishonest you try to be. :-(
: >
: 
: No. I'm just mimicking your dishonesty.

Actually you're not mimicking, you're just being dishonest.
You're instead dishonestly turning it into something else to
avoid looking at the evidence now that you can no longer complain
that it wasn't given to you.

: You show no causal link 

Actually I did. You look at a painting that's thousands of years
old, and you know there was a painter even though it's impossible
to observe the painter, or the painting being done. You look at
anything we built that's hundreds of years old, and you know
there was a builder, even though it's impossible to observe the
builder. We look at the nearly infinite complex things around us,
at God's creation, and you know there was a creator. It's not
enough that we have a heart and lungs and intestines and a brain
- they must all work together perfectly or the completely fail.
That's intelligent design. Such a thing is true about all of
creation, not just human life. That's the link. You reject the
link. You hate the link. You fight against the link. But the link
is there nonetheless in spite of your raging against it.

: between what you assert is evidence for god(s) and 
: the existence of god(s), just as I've shown no causal link between
underwear 
: and mountains. Until you show some evidence of a link, 

Since you've already rejected the truth of God, and have set out
to believe a different reason (a reason that is unobservable,
unverifiable, untestable) on how the diversity of life came to be
(let alone that life came to be at all), you are buying into
beliefs that were intent on being an explanation where God is not
required, and nature just decided to naturally accomplish
everything by natural chance (not to be confused with random
chance).

God knew 2,000 years later ago godless people would do exactly
that:

Romans 1:17-23 KJVR  For therein is the righteousness of God
revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall
live by faith.  18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness;  19  Because that which may be known of
God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.  20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse:  21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him
not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.  22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,  23  And
changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made
like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and
creeping things.

You plant a seed in the earth and water it, but you cannot make
it grow, you can only hope that creation and its laws will
continue to work as they always have and that the plant will
grow. You can analyze the procedures that take place and try to
describe them, but you still do not know what made all these
things even be possible, or makes them work at all. Seeing all
this, you reject God and just imagine that such miraculous
things, even though we can describe how it looks like they
worked, just happened to come into being all by themselves and
just magically work all by themselves. 

It's evidence like this that lets us know we're witnessing
intelligent design at work. We are still free to scientifically
investigate how God's creation works. We are still free to
scientifically analyze how they work and write up descriptions on
how they go about doing what they do. But as soon as you try to
act like all these miraculous things came to be not because of
God bringing them into being, but rather they just decided to
suddenly start working that way on their own, you're now started
imposing your own beliefs on top of the beliefs of God.

: my assertions are 
: exactly as valid, and exactly as stupid, as yours. My assertions are, 
: however, meant to be stupid.
: 
: Smiler,
: The godless one
: a.a.# 2279 
: