Matthew Le God

1) Some, but not all. So the huge amount of aquatic life that cannot live in both would become extinct... but it didn't. 2) The Bible states that the flood covered mountains. A local flood cannot cover mountains. 3) Where did this fresh water come from... and where did it go? Many animals cannot live in freshwater and would die... but they didn't. 4) In general they do and that is one of many factors. Animals cannot in the space of a few days change from sal****er to freshwater and back to freshwater. Evolutionary changes take large amounts of time, not days.

Why not?

No I'm not, I am happy to chance my mind on any subject if someone can provide good evidence as to why I should.

Evolution by natural selection is a proven fact. How do you think we went from wolves to every breed of dog? This is nonsense. We recognise design by comparing it to examples of things we know are designed. This is nonsense. We know how the eye evolved from animals having light sensitive cells to that of the human eye. To get from one to the other, you need time, lots of time and time is what we've got with a planet that is 4 billion years old.

Covid-19 is more contagious and has a higher fatality rate.

Maybe that is true... but it is irreverent to this

Where in the Bible does it say... 'do not take literally'? Millions of people take the Noah story as literal truth.

Can you give an example of one of these 'viable counter arguments'?

When have I moved the goalposts? Maybe we add that phrase to the long list of those you don't understand.

I was using it for a definition, nothing more. Do you disagree with the definition? There is no irony in that. We can add irony to the list of things you don't understand! Like Alanis Morrisette's song doesn't use irony correctly either.

No-one has put up a viable counter argument.

Yet again... ignoring the question.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you suggesting it wasn't a global flood?

Are you disputing what a 'scientific theory' is and that it differs from the colloquial usage of 'theory'? It is irrelevant that I took it from somewhere else. That does not make it any less true as a defintition.

That is nonsense. The Chinese & Egyptians lived before, during and after the supposed global flood. They were not wiped out.

For those that believe in a global flood genocide & incest story a couple more questions... 1) where did the water come from and go afterwards? 2) how did the ark hold together as wooden ships are unable to be structurally capable of being the dimensions listed in the Bible? It would fall apart due to the stresses put on the structure

Is it not better to go with a theory based on the best available information that is demonstrable and testable... compared to an old book which has no testable or demonstrable ability?

That is a nonsensical as before you can ask that you'd need to prove there was a flood.

Are you disputing what a 'scientific theory' is and that it differs from the colloquial usage of 'theory'?

That is a nonsensical question as before you can ask that you'd need to prove there was a flood. There is no evidence that a global flood happened. The Chinese and Egyptian civilisations lived before, during and after the flood.

I've attempted to explain this before to you! Can you really not understand how there is a huge difference in the 375 million years between humans and their common fish ancestor for changes to occur and fish instantly switching between freshwater and sal****er when the flood starts/ends?

You are simply wrong in your description of evolution. There is no 'end result' of evolution. It is bizarre you think that is what it is. You are mixing up aspects of it and are confused, yet don't realise it.

1) Yes there is. Evidence of Big Bang = red shift of galaxies, measurement of cosmic radiation, amount of light elements produced by BBN plus others Evidence of creator god = an old book by unknown authors and no external testable/demonstrable evidence 2) What do you think a scientific theory is? It isn't a mere guess like the colloquial usage of 'theory'. There is a difference between the two! A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. 3) Where have you got the 400,000 years figure from?

It is you that has not grasped it, not me. Adaptation come through evolution by natural selection. You stated that evolution is 'an end result' which is quite simply nonsense. Evolution is not an end result... there is no 'end result' to evolution, it is a continual process. I'm merely doing what you've done for years. Until now I haven't bothered, but your constant claims of nonsense deserve it. You really haven't a clue regarding biology and have got it completely wrong.