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

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

So that is how you want it to play out. This is pretty much what I expected. You do this every time your arguments get shot down. This death roll of denial, self-pity and nonsense.

Do whatever you are going to do. I don't really care. You couldn't even address the fact that your claims about lobsters with human eyes is BS.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

These things would not be explained by the theory as it stands. It is that simple. You can stop making up ever new versions of rabbits in the Cambrian. Your points are all conjecture that overlook all the mechanisms and selection needed to arrive at your destination. Feathers would have had to arisen before birds diverged from reptiles. Can't you get that? Enough with the STRAW MAN arguments. Good grief!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes that is and has always been my point.

Your point is that science builds models in line with the evidence to explain that evidence? Really? You think you discovered something new here?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

You explain what meaning all this has. What do YOU think you are demonstrating here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I find that I can always catch a good game of pigeon chess when some people are providing seminars on what they know about science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

And I have seen many posts from you about all the evidence you have for a global flood, but no posts from you with that evidence. I feel wind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

You need to produce 600 mya lobster fossils with human eyes and peacock tails in order to falsify the theory. Just making a list, checking it twice and declaring it nice just doesn't do it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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-.

And there you have it. An inability to face reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

It is a mute point. I doubt he even remembers where he was going with it. Best guess, he seems to think the scientific method will be its own undoing if only he can get somebody to agree with his superficial knowledge, conjecture and nonsense.

 

[leroy]

You need to produce 600 mya lobster fossils with human eyes and peacock tails in order to falsify the theory. Just making a list, checking it twice and declaring it nice just doesn't do it.

You need to produce 600 mya lobster fossils with human eyes and peacock tails in order to falsify the theory. Just making a list, checking it twice and declaring it nice just doesn't do it.

Ok , so which of the 6 points do you think is wrong?

 

[leroy]

And there you have it. An inability to face reality.

Wow my supernatural powers are real, I predicted the future with 100%acurecy

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

Honestly why can’t you simply say “hey I think point 2 is wrong because X Y Z? so that I can defent my position?

 

[leroy]

It is a mute point. I doubt he even remembers where he was going with it. Best guess, he seems to think the scientific method will be its own undoing if only he can get somebody to agree with his superficial knowledge, conjecture and nonsense.

All I saying is that evolution allows for a wide range of data, sure in this reality mammals evolved 200M years ago and birds 150M years ago, but things could have been different mammals snd birds could have evolved at any other date (given the correct conditions)

This is meant to be a simple and uncontroversial point,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All I saying is that evolution allows for a wide range of data, sure in this reality mammals evolved 200M years ago and birds 150M years ago, but things could have been different mammals snd birds could have evolved at any other date (given the correct conditions)

This is meant to be a simple and uncontroversial point,

It does not change the fact that finding evidence that cannot be explained by the theory would refute the theory. Rabbits in the Cambrian. Did you really need to belabor this ad nauseum to say that evidence that fits the theory would be explained by it? Good grief!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok , so which of the 6 points do you think is wrong?

The entire exercise was a waste of time and only served to demonstrate the near zero understanding of the subject that you possess.

 

[Yerda]

I'm not talking about Jack and the Bean Stalk. Or Humpty Dumpty.
The Bible was not written that way. If it were, then we would probably all read it that way, unless we are still children.
Even when our parents lied to us... yes lies - not told a story - that Santa Clause came down the chimney, as Children we believed, but as we got older, and saw the truth, as was presented to us, we rejected that, so that many of us, do not teach this to our children.... although some keep up the lie.

As adults who pick up the Bible, and read for ourselve, we come to our own conclusions, and we accept it, as adults.
Some people pick and choose what they want to believe, because they may not believe in the supernatural. Or they may, but because their peers laugh and ridicule such thing, and claim that science answers every blessed thing, they may play a bit of hop scotch, and say, "Well yeah. Maybe there is a God... but the miracles are just a bit too much."
Whatever the case, they are what I call undecided - limping on two different opinions.

Well, I'm coming from the position that there may well be a god but it's really very unlikely likely that god is anything like that described by the texts and traditions of one sect among thousands.

I think you are basically saying what you think - this is your opinion.
It's the opinion of others that your opinion is incorrect. The question is, are you willing to consider why your opinion is incorrect? That is the question, and I don't think you answered my questions with that confirmation.

I am. Are you?

Whatever the evidence is? Well that's as vague as one can get.

So for example, the evidence seems to be that Jesus was a real historical person. The evidence suggests that there was no global flood. And so on.

The flood narrative seems more like a work of storytelling than historical document.

I'm offering to show you all the evidence. Are you willing to look at it? Is the question.
Do you know that Atheist have become Christian, and accept the accounts as literal? Hindus, Muslims, you name it, people from all walks of life, have read the Bible, and see the accounts as literal. Why? Because they are children?

Maybe the stories resonate particularly for them. There is incredible power in storytelling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow my supernatural powers are real, I predicted the future with 100%acurecy




Honestly why can’t you simply say “hey I think point 2 is wrong because X Y Z? so that I can defent my position?

No, you simply make the same errors all of the time. Of course you get the same responses. Your claims were all refuted earlier. There is no point in continually doing so. You will simply deny all over again.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you simply make the same errors all of the time. Of course you get the same responses. Your claims were all refuted earlier. There is no point in continually doing so. You will simply deny all over again.

The fact is he is really trying to say that scientists will force any evidence, whether it refutes the theory or not into the theory and just declare that the theory explains it all. As we are all aware, this is not how it works. He just tries his darnedest to squeeze that in the back door. Harping on irrelevant conjecture and his points is just a smoke screen to get people to seem to agree with him.

 

[leroy]

It does not change the fact that finding evidence that cannot be explained by the theory would refute the theory. Rabbits in the Cambrian. Did you really need to belabor this ad nauseum to say that evidence that fits the theory would be explained by it? Good grief!

Well if the conditions would have been adequate, why couldn’t mammals evolve 500 years ago (in the Cambrian?)

 

[leroy]

The entire exercise was a waste of time and only served to demonstrate the near zero understanding of the subject that you possess.

Ok but you don’t disagree with any of the points right?

 

[leroy]

No, you simply make the same errors all of the time. Of course you get the same responses. Your claims were all refuted earlier. There is no point in continually doing so. You will simply deny all over again.

But as usual you are unable to quote any of the supposed refutations……right?