Why did god cause the flood?

http://forums.armageddononline.org/living-evidence-missing-t6177.html?s=273bd2a38c29fd2f14fec81194b0fcd6&

-this should end KellyJay’s debate but it won't because he denies evidence.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Kind" is the proper word I should have used, but neither you nor I
actually have that word defined...I used dogs and frogs simply to
make the point, now should I have used canine or some other word,
probably yea. Point was still made, we do see variety within kind which
is as I said something I agree with, I'll look at your proof for
looking for changes of the kind I was looking for.
Kelly

But it is a non-point. You claim that there exists categories of animals rather vaguely defined and that when animals evolve then never end up so different that we would place them into two different ones of these vague categories. But you have no evidence to support such a claim. Yes I would agree that in all breeding of domestic species without the use of genetic modification the resultant plant/animal has a very large amount of DNA similarity to its immediate wild ancestor. But that is to be expected. What is the point of pointing that out? It means nothing, proves nothing - doesn't even hint at anything very much. At most it supports evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But it is a non-point. You claim that there exists categories of animals rather vaguely defined and that when animals evolve then never end up so different that we would place them into two different ones of these vague categories. But you have no evidence to support such a claim. Yes I would agree that in all breeding of domestic species without the use ...[text shortened]... ves nothing - doesn't even hint at anything very much. At most it supports evolutionary theory.

Supports it, why is that? You can produce changes that go beyond
what I have given you? At best you can point to fossils, but there you
are left with the best guess, this one was related to that one. You
have the here and now, and it is here we already have variety within
kinds/types/whatever it can be seen now. What you do not have is
something that shows us the types of changes we were talking about
without the connect the dots game with fossils.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Supports it, why is that? You can produce changes that go beyond
what I have given you?

Of course not, because you have not given me anything. You have made vague reference to 'a dog is a dog' and the word 'kind' but at no point have you stated exactly what changes are impossible.

At best you can point to fossils, but there you
are left with the best guess, this one was related to that one.
Yes, if you wanted examples of major body structure changes in larger animals I would probably point to fossils. But that is hardly the only information we have. Genetic analysis of living animals is probably the best indicator of historical relationships.

You
have the here and now, and it is here we already have variety within
kinds/types/whatever it can be seen now. What you do not have is
something that shows us the types of changes we were talking about
without the connect the dots game with fossils.
Kelly
In other words you discard any evidence you don't like as 'connect the dots'. All science is connect the dots. That is what 'reasoning' means.
It does not require a mathematician to count to 10 billion before he can write down and work with that number. We do not need to physically create a new sun to know how it works. We do not need to observe in realtime every individual in every generation in every species in order to know that evolution takes place and to know which species evolved from which.
Your 'give me live proof I can see and touch' argument just doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Of course not, because you have not given me anything. You have made vague reference to 'a dog is a dog' and the word 'kind' but at no point have you stated exactly what changes are impossible.

[b]At best you can point to fossils, but there you
are left with the best guess, this one was related to that one.
Yes, if you wanted examples of major bo ...[text shortened]... which.
Your 'give me live proof I can see and touch' argument just doesn't cut it.[/b]

Well, like I said spell out the evidence, make a show of it, show me
why when you connect the dots either in the fossil record or through
genetic analysis that those things go beyond the best guess of those
making the connections! To produce what we can both call hard fast
evidence it should pretty much be beyond some reasonable doubt
should it not? After all the DDT example we are talking about there
could be lots of reasons beyond evolutionary changes that could have
caused what we seen actually occur. Lets start looking at why the
dots were connected the way they were, lets start looking at why our
genetic analysis shows us our best probable indicator of historical
relationships instead of vague claims about things no one here has yet
to show are actually real and to the point, in other words show me
the science! Can we discuss these things or must I take someone
else's word for your belief system?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well, like I said spell out the evidence, make a show of it, show me
why when you connect the dots either in the fossil record or through
genetic analysis that those things go beyond the best guess of those
making the connections! To produce what we can both call hard fast
evidence it should pretty much be beyond some reasonable doubt
should it not? Af ...[text shortened]... Can we discuss these things or must I take someone
else's word for your belief system?
Kelly

There are such vast quantities of evidence that it would be impossible to cover them all (nor would I have the time nor interest to do so). However, just to take two major ones:
1. Fossil evidence.
There is a very clear pattern when looking at fossils showing a progression from one form to another over time. There is also a very clear pattern of particular fossils always showing up in rocks of a given age.
I can think of no alternative explanation other than for fossils of certain types only occurring in rocks of certain ages except that the species represented by those fossils existed only during that period.
2. Genetic evidence.
Studies of evolution and fossil evidence make predictions about what we should expect when we look at genetics. Genetic analysis has given us the predicted results and that is a very good evidence that our theories about evolution are correct.
For example Based on fossil evidence we can estimate how long ago chimpanzees and Humans diverged. Genetic analysis gives a similar answer. If Chimpanzees and humans were not related we would not expect to find the same results - not even close.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can we discuss these things or must I take someone
else's word for your belief system?
Kelly

Either you do not understand what science is all about or you are deliberately trying to mis-characterize it as a religion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Either you do not understand what science is all about or you are deliberately trying to mis-characterize it as a religion.

He is trying to do both.
He thinks that science is a religion, just as his religion, but his is better becasue it offers a salvation (Go, he needs it!)
And he doesn't understand what science is all about. He thinks that an opinion without proof is as good as any observation done for the last centuries by millions of scientists.
So I would say that he is trying to do both.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Either you do not understand what science is all about or you are deliberately trying to mis-characterize it as a religion.

No, I'm trying to get passed the 'people of science believe this' so it
must be true! I'm trying to get at why you believe these things to be
true. It isn't enough to say that all the data points to this, if you
cannot talk to the data at least some of it than what are you really
standing on as far as why you believe the things you do.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
He is trying to do both.
He thinks that science is a religion, just as his religion, but his is better becasue it offers a salvation (Go, he needs it!)
And he doesn't understand what science is all about. He thinks that an opinion without proof is as good as any observation done for the last centuries by millions of scientists.
So I would say that he is trying to do both.

Classic again, refuse to bring anything to the table to debate, instead
attempt to make me the subject.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are such vast quantities of evidence that it would be impossible to cover them all (nor would I have the time nor interest to do so). However, just to take two major ones:
1. Fossil evidence.
There is a very clear pattern when looking at fossils showing a progression from one form to another over time. There is also a very clear pattern of particu ...[text shortened]... nzees and humans were not related we would not expect to find the same results - not even close.

1. Fossil evidence.
There is a very clear pattern when looking at fossils showing a progression from one form to another over time. There is also a very clear pattern of particular fossils always showing up in rocks of a given age."

Okay, point me to a pattern within the fossil records that show this
progression, please stick to related creatures. Let us examine your
claims and see if evolution is the only reasonable explanation to the
pattern you wish to talk about.

”I can think of no alternative explanation other than for fossils of certain types only occurring in rocks of certain ages except that the species represented by those fossils existed only during that period. “

First off before we write off all other alternative explanations let us
look at one of the many patterns that have brought you to this point
of making such a claim you can think of no other alternative
explanation.

”2. Genetic evidence.
Studies of evolution and fossil evidence make predictions about what we should expect when we look at genetics. Genetic analysis has given us the predicted results and that is a very good evidence that our theories about evolution are correct.
For example Based on fossil evidence we can estimate how long ago chimpanzees and Humans diverged. Genetic analysis gives a similar answer. If Chimpanzees and humans were not related we would not expect to find the same results - not even close.”

Okay, without even looking at any data I’m wondering why you
assume that humans and chimpanzees are related? The time table as
far as when they were connected is simply a hypothesis at best; it isn’t
like you have the ability to prove that they were related, let along when
they were one.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Classic again, refuse to bring anything to the table to debate, instead
attempt to make me the subject.
Kelly

Yes, you are the intressant part of the debate, you are the subject, like it or not. I study your retorics and your personality. I learn a lot about fundamentalists this way.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I'm trying to get passed the 'people of science believe this' so it
must be true! I'm trying to get at why you believe these things to be
true. It isn't enough to say that all the data points to this, if you
cannot talk to the data at least some of it than what are you really
standing on as far as why you believe the things you do.
Kelly

If one your childs teachers told you that he was not doing well at school, would you believe him? If you doubted it and asked another of his teachers to confirm it and asked the head master, and checked his test results etc, you would eventually believe that your child was not doing very well in school even if you had never visited the school.
Would you describe your views about your childs progress at school as a 'belief system'?
If you would then I now understand your previous comment and simply put our disagreement down to a misunderstanding of language.
If on the other hand you would not call it your belief system, then you should similarly not refer to my beliefs which are based on a combination of evidence that I do understand and the opinion of people I respect, a "belief system".

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, point me to a pattern within the fossil records that show this
progression, please stick to related creatures. Let us examine your
claims and see if evolution is the only reasonable explanation to the
pattern you wish to talk about.

Lets start with the most obvious: all rocks older than about 1 billion years old only contain fossils of single celled life forms.

Okay, without even looking at any data I’m wondering why you
assume that humans and chimpanzees are related? The time table as
far as when they were connected is simply a hypothesis at best; it isn’t
like you have the ability to prove that they were related, let along when
they were one.
Kelly
Now you are going off on a tangent. My argument is that I have two lines of evidence that point towards humans and chimpanzees being related and that one line of evidence provides a predictor that the other line of evidence bears out to a very high degree of accuracy which would not be expected if there was any other explanation for either line of evidence. It is a waste of time and irrelevant to argue over whether or not it is a 'hypothesis at best'. The argument does not really on an assumption that they are related.

(Now KellyJay goes off topic. Why? Because he doesn't want to be confronted to facts that shows him wrong. This is a part of his retorics. Advice: Bring the debate back to topic.)

Kelly, with all respect, do you really believe in the flood according to the black book with thin pages? Despite the fact that there are no evidence for a global flood with a water surface 8000 meters above the present one? Do you know some evidence that we others don't have? Are you hiding something from us? Or is it just an opinion of yours?