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

[Dan From Smithville]

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

What is the point of worrying about it? There is no evidence to support your what if question? You are just trying to sneak your uninformed and incorrect opinion of how science works into this.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

I have shown you my disagreement numerous times. Find another trick.

 

[McBell]

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

Their mommas told them not to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

You never demonstrate anything except your ignorance. No one has a reason to refute that.

 

[leroy]

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.

Scientist don’t have to “force” anything

The theory of evolution happens to be very flexible and consistent with a wide range of data, both random mutations and natural selection are chaotic and hard to predict.

Other theories (say relativity) are less flexible, if time dilates 1% more than what the theory predicts the whole theory would collapse, evolution simply happens to be flexible…………………this doesn’t mean that evolution is wrong, nor it’s supposed to be a weakness of the theory it´s just the way things are.

Again this is not supposed to be controversial stuff,
@F1fan already agreed, so why cant you?

 

[leroy]

You never demonstrate anything except your ignorance. No one has a reason to refute that.

But you are unable to quote a comment were I demonstrated ignorance …

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you are unable to quote a comment were I demonstrated ignorance …

Because you have made such activity pointless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Scientist don’t have to “force” anything

The theory of evolution happens to be very flexible and consistent with a wide range of data, both random mutations and natural selection are chaotic and hard to predict.

Other theories (say relativity) are less flexible, if time dilates 1% more than what the theory predicts the whole theory would collapse, evolution simply happens to be flexible…………………this doesn’t mean that evolution is wrong, nor it’s supposed to be a weakness of the theory it´s just the way things are.

Again this is not supposed to be controversial stuff,
@F1fan already agreed, so why cant you?

You have not shown that theory would explain away rabbits in the Cambrian. Conditions were inappropriate for mammal evolution to have occurred at the time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But you are unable to quote a comment were I demonstrated ignorance …

Everyone does that. It isn't even fun anymore. Just tiresome.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because you have made such activity pointless.

I have debated with myself on whether it is of any value to respond to him anymore. Either way, he will declare victory, so I think I have had my fill.

 

[leroy]

You have not shown that theory would explain away rabbits in the Cambrian. Conditions were inappropriate for mammal evolution to have occurred at the time.

Ok so in that case “the conditions” predict no rabbits in the Cambrian, not the theory of evolution. ……….the claim “no rabbits in the cambrian” is a prediction that naturally flows from the conditions (no oxygen, no food, no raw genetic material) etc. but its not a prediction that flows from the theory of evolution.

 

[leroy]

I have debated with myself on whether it is of any value to respond to him anymore. Either way, he will declare victory, so I think I have had my fill.

This is not even a debate, I am just trying to establish a simple and uncontroversial fact…. Namely “if the conditions would have been different something else would have evolved “

For example if feathers would have evolved before birds and mammals split, then we could have had mammals with feathers.

The phylogenetic tree would be different, but evolution would still be true.

You know that what I am saying is true , but you wont admit it,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All the nonsense claims about evolution have been defeated. Does anybody have anything that goes to the point of the OP?

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not even a debate, I am just trying to establish a simple and uncontroversial fact…. Namely “if the conditions would have been different something else would have evolved “

For example if feathers would have evolved before birds and mammals split, then we could have had mammals with feathers.

The phylogenetic tree would be different, but evolution would still be true.

You know that what I am saying is true , but you wont admit it,

Well you are somewhat right. There is no more debate when it comes to your claims. There are only corrections. If you refuse to understand corrections whose fault is that?

 

[leroy]

Well you are somewhat right. There is no more debate when it comes to your claims. There are only corrections. If you refuse to understand corrections whose fault is that?

But you can’t quote a single claim that has been corrected………………..why can’t you quote my claim and the correction?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you can’t quote a single claim that has been corrected………………..why can’t you quote my claim and the correction?

I don't care to. That does not mean that I can't. As I said this is no longer a debate. It is a discussion. Your errors may be corrected but there is no need to justify pas corrections. That is just your way of avoiding reality.

 

[leroy]

All the nonsense claims about evolution have been defeated. Does anybody have anything that goes to the point of the OP?

According to the OP the fossil record falsifies/refutes the flood

Assuming that you agree with that statement, why don’t you provide your evidence for why the claim is true?

 

[leroy]

I don't care to. That does not mean that I can't. As I said this is no longer a debate. It is a discussion. Your errors may be corrected but there is no need to justify pas corrections. That is just your way of avoiding reality.

Sounds like an excuse of a 5yo to me

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If someone is claiming the fossil record supports the global flood, then they should provide that evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to the OP the fossil record falsifies/refutes the flood

Assuming that you agree with that statement, why don’t you provide your evidence for why the claim is true?

Or, you could try to learn on your own for once.