|
|
|
evidence for big foot Noahs Flood - yet more:
|
|
|
Let's reduce your example and you tell me if I am correct: You assert that X + Y = A + B _base_d on C. Assume Z + D = E. Assume Z - Y = G. Ergo, E + G = H. This makes no sense. It says, in essence, that me with evidence but without an understanding of the evidence constitutes a logical fallicy. This is patently illogical. E + G can only = H if E + G = Y. But, as clearly shown in your own assumption, Z - Y = G. Sue, pointing out that jimamy is backing himself into a corner In your mind. By the way, I noticed you failed to address the issue again. jimamy, pointing out that Sue is in over her head. Never trust anything that thinks for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain. J K Rowlings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
evidence for big foot Noahs Flood - yet more:
|
|
|
it, the Incas didn't notice it, the Aztecs didn't notice it, and strangest of all, the Egyptians, which were Right Next Door didn't even take note of it, or mention it anywhere. And they left a very large volume of writings from much earlier than 2800 BCE. In fact, you have no idea whether the Mayans here in America noticed it. You have no idea whether the Incas noticed it. You have no idea whether the Aztecs noticed it. And you you have no idea whether the Egyptians noticed it. Yet, lacking the vital evidence, you make these conclusions. I wouldn't be so sure of this. If not, then pony up! As I said, the burden of proof in this discussion is on you since you are the one who made the claim that the info was a valid counter argument. It's like arguing with a creationist! Learn a little before you run off at the key board. All you have to do is offer a simple retraction and admit that you don't know that the Mayans here in America didn't notice it, the Incas didn't notice it, the Aztecs didn't notice it, and strangest of all, the Egyptians, which were Right Next Door didn't even take note of it, or mention it anywhere. All this because you are not sure. You may be right but you lack the evidence to make such a claim. You have given no evidence that they DID notice a flood. Which is your position. Support it. Sue Never trust anything that thinks for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain. J K Rowlings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
evidence for big foot Noahs Flood - yet more:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
evidence for big foot Noahs Flood - yet more:
|
|
|
snip Nope. I made the statement that there isn't any 2700 BCE flood Inca legend. Wrong Sue. You said: Of course, the Mayans here in America didn't notice it, the Incas didn't notice it, the Aztecs didn't notice it, and strangest of all, the Egyptians, which were Right Next Door didn't even take note of it, or mention it anywhere. And they left a very large volume of writings from much earlier than 2800 BCE. To say something did not occur is an affirmative proposition. The burden is on you to back it up. You failed to prove that the flood myths of the cultures demonstrate that they failed to notice the 2800 BCE flood. Absent evidence of when those flood myths occured, you can never say they did not notice the floods or when they occured. What bunk..A neutral position assumes that nothing specific happens unless we have a reason to think so Otherwise every piece of unevidenced claptrap that couldn`t be utterly disproved would have equal standing to evidenced beliefs In that case mad conjecture like, champion the wonderhorse created the universe would have equal standing to commonly accepted notions, such as, the world is sperical Plainly this isn`t the case..The burden is on you to show its even worth considering as a hypothesis Exactly. And he's becoming more and more ridiculous as he thrashes around, slaughtering logic every post he makes. Sue Never trust anything that thinks for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain. J K Rowlings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
evidence for big foot Noahs Flood - yet more:
|
|
|
(the absence of evidence/evidence of absence problem ) Sigh. Let's take this in yet another direction. I say Big Foot doesn't exist. You say, yes he does, here's evidence he does exist. The evidence you post is very vague and may or may not apply to the existance of Big Foot. You can claim all you wish that *MY* argument is invalid because I don't know whether there is a Big Foot or not. The burden is not on me. I say the evidence doesn't exist. You have to prove it DOES!!!! Five quatloos he doesn't address this. Either that, or he will try his best to argue that's not what I meant when I said Big Foot Doesn't Exist. Sue, with deep amusement at the maneuverings Never trust anything that thinks for itself, if you can't see where it keeps its brain. J K Rowlings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
evidence for big foot Noahs Flood - yet more:
|
|
|
than a day. Part of that *could* be explained by the reletive elevation of the respective cultures. It might take 22 years for water to recede along pre-existing coast-lines or for folks on flat, low-lying interiors. Those who lived in the center of high continents (Rocky Mountains) might walk back down with the water after a day. But meanwhile the low-lying cultures are under water for 22 years, after which they develop the myth? Perhaps they had diving bells? What people are we talking about? In the Genesis flood everyone died but Noah and his family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|