"You've been presented with ample evidence that contradicts your views (eg, plants that cannot survive a flood for a year, etc, etc), but all of this evidence you choose to ignore. It is absolutely clear that you have no interest in real science."
I don't remember arguing about plants surviving the flood. But I will now. Many plants seeds could survive a one-year period in salt water. After the flood, they would be fine, and would start re-colonizing. Other plants could have been in a floating 'vegetation mat', and then germinated when the flood was done. Here is a link about this:
"You were recently talking about the dinosaurs carried onto the Ark with Noah. This is pure fantasy. You've watched too many cartoons. From the links that I've even bothered to read, I haven't seen any substance."
As I have shown repeatadly, this is an invalid arguement.
You: "Look at just about every post that you've made on this site, and you will see staring at your attempt to usurp real science and look at just about every reply to others and you will see yourself usurping genuine scientific discussions. Here let me cite recent examples:"
Me: "If Dinosaurs lived 66 million years ago, and a meteor wiped them out, why were there not many mass extinctions?"
You: "That's because there are."
This is probably what Chris was yelling at me about. Let me re-clarify the question.
If Dinosaurs lived 66 million years ago, and a meteor wiped them out, why were there not many mass extinctions of other species? (Escpecially light-sensative species, since the dust most likely blocked out the sun)
There. My question was why were there not thousands of other species that died out as well as the dinosaurs because of this meteor. Got it?
Me: "On a related note, I am not so sure dinosaurs are extinct. There are many places on this earth that have not been explored, and many 'sightings' of locals. This is just a thought."
You: "You've seen too many Jurassic Park sequels."
Actually, I've only seen the first one. But this is not outside of the realm of possibility. Remember coelocanth? Like I said, it was just a thought.
Me: "***2. Noah lived to be 950 years old. His grandfather lived to be 969 years old. Why do people not live so long anymore? I believe the climate was such (Almost zero radiation, less dramatic seaonal changes, etc.) that it allowed such long life (This is not the only factor, but an important one).***"
You: "Sure, radiation is stopped by changes in the climate. Uh huh, sure. Yep, human diseases are all caused by cosmic rays. Medical technology can't do half of what a little climate change can do."
I never said all human diseases are caused by radiation. But it is a huge contributer. You can not deny that.
"Oh yeah, T-Rex babies? No problem. Here's all the species that Noah had to take care of (btw, dinosaurs come in all sizes and varieties and they probably grew fast in a year):"
There are supposedly 668 dinosaur genera. Only 106 of these were over ten tons, fully grown. None would grow to full size in one year. The absolute fastest (according to evolutionist) a dino could grow to it's full size would be 12-13 years. So, this is obviously not a problem for the flood.
Oh look, you have run out of arguments in your post. Better go searching for more!
"Folks, why do I even bother with this kid? It's just not happenin. In any case, the kid's a troll by the definition I provided. It's too bad, this used to be a more interesting site, but all these ridiculous childhood fantasies is making me recall my pre-teen years."
Why do you bother? So far, you have not given me ONE argument I did not show you why you were wrong. I'm not a troll, and I seriosly doubt everyone in this forum thinks so.
I'm sorry I am ruining this forum for you. But I don't see why you dislike me so much. You wanted good scientific debates, and I'm giving them to you. You may not like the subjects, but that's your problem.