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

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Translation: when people call me out on my bs, I will just accuse them of making personal attacks and fly away claiming victory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Your ignorance is showing again.

Seems like you think that the phylogenetic tree is just some drawing that can be changed on a whim...

The point exactly: it can't.
This tree is a reflection of the data.
Extremely displaced fossil would not fit the data.
Evolution predicts a specific pattern in the data. Rabbits in the pre-cambrian wouldn't fit this pattern. Mammals with feathers wouldn't fit this pattern. Do you even know which pattern it is?

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

Playing pigeon chess is no way to win arguments either.

You tacitly agreed with my statements.

If believing such makes you feel good about yourself...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

But the data that we have doesn't reflect that.

So, in context of the data we do have, if a mammal with feathers shows up -and all other data remains the same - evolution wouldn't be able to explain that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 ?"

What is rejected without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Really? There's a prophesy that says Israel will be a nation in 1948? Let's see that text.

And even if that text exists with that date, please show us how the nations of the world after WW2 weren't just trying to help the Jewish people after massive anti-Semitism in Europe and the USA.

Your pre-answer is telling.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You have? Really? But not here. Not after requests. What is the problem? Pretty please post this evidence you claim, I want to review it with my open mind.

I thought your expertise is biology and not the Flood/geology/plate tectonics, etc.

How many of the white papers presented by ICR and etc. have you read, checking their citations and etc.?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not at all. You made a highly questionable assertion...

​

I am asking you to show that your assertion is something more than just blowing wind.

You'll need to demonstrate your open-minded assertion is more than wind. I have many posts from you that show you are closed minded.

 

[McBell]

- The geological record simply does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- The fossil record does not support the idea of a "world wide flood".
- There should be a layer of massive death of modern animals and that evidence should be found worldwide; which of course, we don't see.
- The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
- The altitude to Mt. Everest places temperatures at a range of -15 to -30 Degrees Fahrenheit. Noah and his animal companions would have frozen to death.
- The altitude of Mt. Everest places an oxygen level insufficient for sustaining life. Noah and his animal companions would have asphyxiated, provided the cold didn't get them first.
- It would have taken years, possibly decades, for these animals to reach the Ark, passing through environments for which they would be ill suited. Their survivability at taking such a journey ranges from impossible to highly unlikely.
- Land plants would have been under water for a full year, causing their death and extinction. Thus, exiting the Ark, the herbivores would have been bereft of all food, causing their extinction as well.
- Coming off the Ark, the hungry predators would have done what predators do; hunt for food; in which case most prey would have immediately gone extinct.
- 2 of each kind exiting the ark causes insufficient genetic diversity. The inbreeding would have caused severe genetic defects.
- Repopulating the earth with their species could have only been accomplished with highly accelerated and unnatural reproduction rates.
- Conservative estimates for species on board the ark would have been: 17,400 birds; 12,000 reptiles; 9,000 mammals; 5,000 amphibians; 2,000,000 insects: 8 zookeepers are expected to care for such a large number of animals is beyond the realm of believability.
- Placing such large numbers in this confined area would have left no room for food and supplies. A pair of elephants, alone, would require 365,000# of food; and we haven't even gotten to the water yet!
- Even with the sheer bulk of the foodstuffs put aside, what are further problems of highly specialized diets of some species and the problem of food rotting without the benefit of modern methods of preservation.
- We would expect to find remains of animals where those animals do not belong in their movements across the world. We do not find Penguin remains or Kangaroo remains in Europe.
- In making the crossing, many of the animals would have needed a land bridge to cross large bodies of water. No such land bridges exist, nor is there any evidence of such land bridges ever existing.
- Changes in water temperature, pressure, sunlight filtration, salinity and ph balance. The flood would have devastated most aquatic life.
- The RMS Titanic has the dimensions of: 175' H, 882' L, 92' W and steel construction; yet it's capacity was 3,547 people and enough provisions for 2-3 weeks. The Ark's dimensions are supposedly 45' X 450' X 75' of wood construction; yet was expected to house over 50,000 animals, millions of insects, 7 people, a 600 year old man and enough provisions for a year ....
- The Rainbow itself is another mystery; the Rainbow is an optical illusion caused by the refraction of light; in other words, Physics. Thus, we are expected to believe that the physics of light behaved differently before the flood than they do now.
- Many parasitic organisms cause disease (Mosquitos, Tapeworms), which would have further severe implications on the survivability of such a voyage..
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that incredible mass of water came from.
- Then, we have the problem of deciding where that massive mass of water went.
- Science has discovered many genetic bottlenecks among many species, including the Cheetah, the Human Being (Homo Saipien), Elephant Seals, American Bison, European Bison and many others. If such an event were to have occurred, we would have seen genetic bottlenecks of all species (which we don't see) happening at approximately the same time (which we don't see) being about 10,000 years ago (which we don't see).

And that is far from all of the problems in accepting a literal interpretation of Noah's Ark ....

So if you can believe ... or even question ... whether or not there was really a world wide flood from 6 to 10 thousand years ago, then you have not questioned the tale or are unwilling to do so.

It is my opinion that you give Noah's Flood Story far more credence than it deserves.

 

[leroy]

Is that really how you want this to play out?

I want you to quote my exact words, and explain exactly where is the mistake or the fallacy……..I won’t play your semantic games, I won’t allow you to change the topic I won’t respond to irrelevant comments I wont address strawman arguments.

If you dont like this then debate with someone else.

 

[leroy]

Y Mammals with feathers wouldn't fit this pattern. Do you even know which pattern it is?


...

Ok then for the first time in your history in this forum justify your assertions, why would a mammal with feathers falsify evolution (yes it would falsify the current tree, but if mammals had feathers you would have a different tree)

Please tell me exactly and unambiguously which point do you affirm is wrong

1 Birds and mammals have a common ancestor

2 this common ancestor descended from other creatures

3 if the conditions would have been appropriate this other creatures could have evolved feathers

4 evolutionary theory would still be true and consistent even if #3 would have happened

5 if #3 would have happened mammals with feathers would have been expected (and evolutioinary theory would be ok with that)

So which of these 5 points do you afiorm is wrong……………..oh wait my supernatural powers again, you will not answer to this question clearly and unambiguously

 

[leroy]

What is rejected without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Ok so you don’t affirm that any of these 6 points is wrong ……..right?

 

[F1fan]

Your pre-answer is telling.

I don't know what you mean, continue what you're trying to say, and present a coherent point.

 

[F1fan]

I thought your expertise is biology and not the Flood/geology/plate tectonics, etc.

How many of the white papers presented by ICR and etc. have you read, checking their citations and etc.?

ICR isn't an institute nor does research, they are a propaganda organization that rents office space in a building. It isn't a science lab. They have no connection to any university or science community. What they publish is not reputable, nor peer reviewed by legitimate scientists. That you present them as your source illustrates that you're trying to spread disinformation and not able to use actual science to back up your interpretation of an ancient book.

 

[F1fan]

You'll need to demonstrate your open-minded assertion is more than wind. I have many posts from you that show you are closed minded.

Creationists often accuse the well educated as being closed minded to the disinformation they try to push as credible. Part of being educated is knowing what is a reputable source versus bogus. You cited ICR and we know that is not a credible source. There is nothing to be open to where it comes to disinformation about science. It's fraud. Having intellectual standards is not a fault.

 

[F1fan]

Ok then for the first time in your history in this forum justify your assertions, why would a mammal with feathers falsify evolution (yes it would falsify the current tree, but if mammals had feathers you would have a different tree)

Please tell me exactly and unambiguously which point do you affirm is wrong

1 Birds and mammals have a common ancestor

2 this common ancestor descended from other creatures

3 if the conditions would have been appropriate this other creatures could have evolved feathers

4 evolutionary theory would still be true and consistent even if #3 would have happened

5 if #3 would have happened mammals with feathers would have been expected (and evolutioinary theory would be ok with that)

So which of these 5 points do you afiorm is wrong……………..oh wait my supernatural powers again, you will not answer to this question clearly and unambiguously

You're asking speculative questions that aim to do what? If there are fossils that show mammals have feathers then that will part of the facts of evolution, and the model relevant to those organisms will be examined and explained.

If leroy got his science right would he still make irrelevant and misleading posts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok then for the first time in your history in this forum justify your assertions, why would a mammal with feathers falsify evolution (yes it would falsify the current tree, but if mammals had feathers you would have a different tree)

Please tell me exactly and unambiguously which point do you affirm is wrong

1 Birds and mammals have a common ancestor

2 this common ancestor descended from other creatures

3 if the conditions would have been appropriate this other creatures could have evolved feathers

4 evolutionary theory would still be true and consistent even if #3 would have happened

5 if #3 would have happened mammals with feathers would have been expected (and evolutioinary theory would be ok with that)

So which of these 5 points do you afiorm is wrong……………..oh wait my supernatural powers again, you will not answer to this question clearly and unambiguously

This post of yours is an example of why people are laughing at you. Do you really know so little that obvious facts are "assertions"?

Give me an open and embarrassed yes I will explain his test for you.

 

[leroy]

You're asking speculative questions that aim to do what? If there are fossils that show mammals have feathers then that will part of the facts of evolution, and the model relevant to those organisms will be examined and explained.

Is?

Yes that is and has always been my point.

 

[leroy]

This post of yours is an example of why people are laughing at you. Do you really know so little that obvious facts are "assertions"?

Give me an open and embarrassed yes I will explain his test for you.

You don’t have to explain any “test” all you have to do is tell me which of those 5 points would you affirm is wrong, so that I can justify it…….

OHH wait my supernatural powers again, I can see the future and predict that you will not answer such question-.

 

[leroy]

Your ignorance is showing again.

Seems like you think that the phylogenetic tree is just some drawing that can be changed on a whim...

The point exactly: it can't.
This tree is a reflection of the data.
Extremely displaced fossil would not fit the data.
Evolution predicts a specific pattern in the data. Rabbits in the pre-cambrian wouldn't fit this pattern. .

If there where mammals in the Precambrian scientists would simply say-.

. Wow look at this let’s call it the “Precambrian explosion” a period of time where mammals evolved relatively fast

. then came the Cambrian explosion where other phyla evolved. (arthropods, for example)

Evolution would be ok with that, if the conditions would have been adequate, complex organisms could have evolved in the Precambrian, (1B years ago) and if the conditions would have been adequate the “mammal/vertebrate” branch could have evolved before say arthropods branch.

If you disagree then explain what magical force forced mammals to evolve 200M years ago such that things could have not been different.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I thought your expertise is biology and not the Flood/geology/plate tectonics, etc.

How many of the white papers presented by ICR and etc. have you read, checking their citations and etc.?

I thought you had evidence. I don't see any white papers here.