A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:

[night912]

You didn't supported any of your assertions nor refuted any of my claims .


All you have is starman arguments and repeating the same mistakes that have been corrected.

I'm actually surprised that you have very little to say in your response.

 

[rational experiences]

The flood a science topic.

Science a thesis itself. Science status....I use human detailed inferences to think as a subject to enforce by group behaviour human chosen conditions. Subjects.

Believe me or else says science. I will belittle you by my intelligence as one of the human chosen over lord conditions.

Introduced to natural human life by humans who chose the subject...science.

The first subject science is a non reality human group coercion as tactics for the group.

Science is natural observations first.

Natural science is medical.

Medical science says all humans we are created equally. Which means no over lord.

Ignored as science. Status I am correct. Is not correct.

Medical.

Reason. A humans genetics cannot be discussed unless a living human owning the human genetics is living as the human.

Correct medical science.

Science said I can define by human reasons why man built the defined earth heavens flooding causes due to sciences practice.

Burning unnaturally the earths gases whose natural burning light constant is held voided in a vacuum via water in the space state. No flood just rain.

Gods tears for rain only.

Great deep empty space.
Gods spirits it's heavens flow on the face of the great deep. Gases.

So does water.

Evaporation natural. Rain natural. Flooding caused by human scientists.

The teaching.

The flood occurs above our heads observed forming in the heavens. Over mountain tips. Observed.

Was real.

Advice God creation as gods forms caused the flood.

Gods forms are gases. Water is self present. Humans own water whereas God owned the gases.

Science changed gods gases its spirits so it flooded water which is our spirit of life. What keeps life safe is water presence.

Observed. Pyramid nuclear occult science was book of dead. Dead ststus review gods gases entombed as stone. Science converting stone products. Gods stone gases.

Stones covenants fused
Science applied fission.

By stone products science caused water mass to split off ground evaporate as mass leaving ground bared then came back. Flooding.

Exactly what was said ground water shifted it's mass. Was already laying on ground. Ground was bared. Water flooded back. Returned back.

Science says no trace. No evidence. Reason water was already on the ground first.

Don't even read it how the observed science over lord attack occurred. How it was told.

Ark stopped disintegrating melting mountain mass when it landed hitting Ararat. Mt Sinai face was burnt blackened as it stated face of stone scorched.

A covering over face burnt was a cooling after event. Stated as Sinais tip was never covered or veiled before.

Burnt mountain face then remained covered cooling.

Ararat owns proof ark radiation hit. Radiation converts wood by burning and stone by conversion fission. Temple science was built on mountain transmitting to ground machines.

Squaring signal used was by unnatural temple transmitters formed stone blocks at it transformed stone by a square radiation cut. Ballast to stone cause effect.

Human recorded life memories observed knew tell me the advice as lived life is voice image heavenly recorded. Everyone's life gets recorded as they live.

Taught as a science effect voice image human heard and seen in heavens.

Reason machine to machine proves human image and voice gets transmitted. It's designer.

Ark attack occurred.
Human science changed earths natural evaporation. Now floods as the saving of gods spirit.

Ice melts to assist evaporation effect heavens cooling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You didn't supported any of your assertions nor refuted any of my claims .


All you have is starman arguments and repeating the same mistakes that have been corrected.

So it only takes a bit of Bowie to shut you down?

 

[rational experiences]

A human arguing for life continuance about stars. Asteroid God stone wandering star puts its cold released gases back into the space that a human scientist had caused to burn out. In nuclear science fall out.

God earth stone had put those gases into space. God in science was the stone.

God the star says a human.

The occult scientist says alien star sun metal. Can I use it as a weapon to destroy human life. Mr destroyer human psyche in person. Owns no human argument when humans natural discuss the human destroyer mentality.

Men.
Men tal.
Mental theme problems as maths.

Theist says life began in space.
Theist medical self says that is because earths heavens sit in space.

Theist destroyer themes burning blasting bodies in space tried to claim where life began as a theist.

 

[F1fan]

Yes and all you have to do is change the phalogenetic tree and change the narrative.



Ok personal attacks and ridiculous excuses for not answering my points.


You tacitly agreed with my statements.

To the degree that Chamberlin agreed with Hitler.

 

[F1fan]

Yes

Mammals are said to have evolved 200M years ago ...but.you haven't explain what prevents evolution (random mutations and natural selection) to produce mammals at some other date.

If the conditions would have been appropriate 400M years ago (or any other date) mammals could have evolved in that date.

You keep making the mistake of assuming evolution operates with some sort of agenda, like a god would.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

,Ok
1 550M years ago a worm like creature revived a random mutation.

What does this mean?

2 this random mutation was beneficial and selected by natural selection (this mutation represented a step closer to produce teeth)

What is the proposed origin of vertebrate dentition? Did you do your literature review before you decided that you knew everything there was to know? How do you know, given you are making this up? Maybe it was a mutation for an eyespot. I say it was an eyespot. Therefore, this does not work.

3 repeat point 1 and 2 a few dozen times.....l

How do you know that it required a few dozen mutations?

4 the accumulation of these random mutations produced teeth.

So you say. What does existing knowledge tell us. You know. The people that are actual scientists studying these things and not Leroy with his Dunning Kruger PhD.

5 some of the descendents of these "worms" are the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates.

A worm is an invertebrate.

6 these leads to some vertebrates and some invertebrates with teeth.

Why don't birds have teeth? What about turtles?

Which of these 6 points would you say it's impossible according to evolutionary theory ?

Ohh wait I have supernatural powers and I can see the future, I can see that you will not answer this question , you Will change the topic , play semantics and make personal attacks.

It is a fanciful scenario without benefit of any understanding of the developmental processes involved.

You will claim it is correct, because you do not know anything about the origin of dentition in vertebrates. What possible reason would creatures with an external skeleton need to waste energy growing vertebrate teeth?

You can't even see what we know now. I would never claim that you have that much foresight. Any foresight or hindsight based on this.

I do not change the topic. That is you. Did you forget again?

This is your conjecture based on a rudimentary understanding of a trivialized outline of evolution. It is not an established summary of dentition evolution based on any evidence. That you can come up with something trivial and without understanding does not make it a plausible conjecture.

You might check into when jaws evolved in vertebrates. What were the tissues involved during embryonic development? How does your 'hypothesis' compare to existing hypotheses by actual scientists?

And by the way, that was a personal attack at the end of your post. You include them all the time.

 

[leroy]

You keep making the mistake of assuming evolution operates with some sort of agenda, like a god would.

Ok given that you didn't address the point, I will assume that you agree.

 

[leroy]

What does this mean?

What is the proposed origin of vertebrate dentition? Did you do your literature review before you decided that you knew everything there was to know? How do you know, given you are making this up? Maybe it was a mutation for an eyespot. I say it was an eyespot. Therefore, this does not work.

How do you know that it required a few dozen mutations?

So you say. What does existing knowledge tell us. You know. The people that are actual scientists studying these things and not Leroy with his Dunning Kruger PhD.

A worm is an invertebrate.

Why don't birds have teeth? What about turtles?


It is a fanciful scenario without benefit of any understanding of the developmental processes involved.

You will claim it is correct, because you do not know anything about the origin of dentition in vertebrates. What possible reason would creatures with an external skeleton need to waste energy growing vertebrate teeth?

You can't even see what we know now. I would never claim that you have that much foresight. Any foresight or hindsight based on this.

I do not change the topic. That is you. Did you forget again?

This is your conjecture based on a rudimentary understanding of an outline of evolution. It is not what I would anybody would expect. That you can come up with something trivial and without understanding does not make it a plausible conjecture.

You might check into when jaws evolved in vertebrates. What were the tissues involved during embryonic development? How does your 'hypothesis' compare to existing hypotheses by actual scientists?

And by the way, that was a personal attack at the end of your post. You include them all the time.

Just for the record

I successfully predicted the future ,

Ohh wait I have supernatural powers and I can see the future, I can see that you will not answer this question , you Will change the topic , play semantics and make personal attacks.

This is the question that you are expected to answer.
"Which of these 6 points would you say it's impossible according to evolutionary theory ?"


Once again I predict that you will not answer the question

 

[F1fan]

Ok given that you didn't address the point, I will assume that you agree.

You make a lot of assumption that aren't warranted. Do you think that is how you succeed at debating points?

As I've noted before, your points are inaccurate and not consistent with facts and science. So since you can't get science right what is there for anyone to address EXCEPT that you make mistakes? You ignore how many people point out your errors.

 

[leroy]

You make a lot of assumption that aren't warranted. Do you think that is how you succeed at debating points?

As I've noted before, your points are inaccurate and not consistent with facts and science. So since you can't get science right what is there for anyone to address EXCEPT that you make mistakes? You ignore how many people point out your errors.

Ok then quote any of my comments and explain why you think is a mistake.



Prediction
You will avoid this challenge at all cost, because you won't find factual mistakes In my comments

 

[Dan From Smithville]

,Ok
1 550M years ago a worm like creature revived a random mutation.

2 this random mutation was beneficial and selected by natural selection (this mutation represented a step closer to produce teeth)

3 repeat point 1 and 2 a few dozen times.....l

4 the accumulation of these random mutations produced teeth.

5 some of the descendents of these "worms" are the common ancestor of vertebrates and invertebrates.

6 these leads to some vertebrates and some invertebrates with teeth .


Which of these 6 points would you say it's impossible according to evolutionary theory ?

Ohh wait I have supernatural powers and I can see the future, I can see that you will not answer this question , you Will change the topic , play semantics and make personal attacks.

The question not about possibility, but whether any of this is meaningful. There is nothing meaningful here and only conjecture that demonstrates nothing.

The fact of the matter is that the theory of evolution is not used to conclude vertebrate teeth evolving in invertebrates prior to the evolution of vertebrates. No where in science will you find scientists making a prediction like that. There is nothing in the evolution of these two large groups to even suggest that vertebrate teeth evolved in invertebrates first. Teeth are a vertebrate innovation.

 

[F1fan]

Ok then quote any of my comments and explain why you think is a mistake.

It's your problem that you ignore the times that numerous well educated people point out your failure to understand science.

Prediction
You will avoid this challenge at all cost, because you won't find factual mistakes In my comments

Scrounging for any victory you can wrangle from your failure to get science right.

To counter your prediction I predict you will continue to not understand science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok then quote any of my comments and explain why you think is a mistake.



Prediction
You will avoid this challenge at all cost, because you won't find factual mistakes In my comments

This is your other tactic after trying to avoid and pass off your burden of proof. Your "you will avoid the challenge" nonsense. Hypocrisy much? You have claims. Take them seriously and defend them or concede that you do not know what it is you are talking about and your objections are purely on religious grounds with no rational or evidential basis.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok then quote any of my comments and explain why you think is a mistake.



Prediction
You will avoid this challenge at all cost, because you won't find factual mistakes In my comments

Given all the errors you make and that those errors are pointed out to you, there is no need to dig deeper into your claims. The challenges you pose have been met and can be dismissed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just for the record

I successfully predicted the future ,


This is the question that you are expected to answer.
"Which of these 6 points would you say it's impossible according to evolutionary theory ?"


Once again I predict that you will not answer the question

When you spout nonsense pointing out that all you have done is to spout nonsense that is an answer. And no, it is not a personal attack.

Ooooh!! I looked ahead. @Dan From Smithville is on to your tactics too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok given that you didn't address the point, I will assume that you agree.

Is that really how you want this to play out?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When you spout nonsense pointing out that all you have done is to spout nonsense that is an answer. And no, it is not a personal attack.

Ooooh!! I looked ahead. @Dan From Smithville is on to your tactics too.

I have said this before and I think it is correct, the creationists that are bothered by science--even those in science--recognize the power of science and are desperate to find a means to use science to support their beliefs. The other side of that is what we all see, the fear that if science debunks even one of their long-held truths, like the flood of Genesis, that the rest of their beliefs fall apart.

They do not seem to understand that they can maintain Christian beliefs without the support of science or the establishment of allegory as fact.

 

[rational experiences]

If you ask just a human born by the presence two other humans we name as pArents what are you arguing about?

Egotism of men is his answer.

As first two human parents are deceased and your string of thoughts for any one self go back to a little sperm. And a little ovary.

As status who you are.

Maybe those thoughts could bring to your attention who you aren't.

A creator.
Or the God.

Men who invented science.

We are owned equally. Just humans. Who cares about dead life we are present living only where we are.

Ask a human what one condition is different between men to women.

The answer men as humans invented science.

To see where life imbalance emerged and reason historic for all female abuses lived and experienced as an equal life human.

Memory says to us all life by men in science combusted life back to a carbon presence. Every body destroyed. The satanic man warning of science.

Machine parts found inside once above ground God earth plate collapse inside of melt disintegration of earth plus spatial snap freeze placed all life back to carbon.

Everything died. Human artefacts the proof.

Memory for men historic is owned historic before any new living form of life emerged back on earth.

Reason why you think you are God in science the creator of all things just by you thinking theorising as a man human using man words.

As a science theist looking back owning very ancient atmospheric recorded life memories as just humans as just men in science.

In relative self conscious advice and earth memories of science is a liar as a men practice. Just human.

Reason why you argue today as if you personally via human science statements created life on earth.

Factually.

As a rational explanation why you express your reasoning.

And natural life is tired of your man egotism.

 

[gnostic]

You didn't supported any of your assertions nor refuted any of my claims .


All you have is starman arguments and repeating the same mistakes that have been corrected.

Hmm...“starman” argument?

Do you mean him?

No...wait...that’s “Star Lord”?

Wrong guy, sorry.