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

[Dan From Smithville]

I read some things today which helps me to see where you are coming from, but I think it's a matter of knowledge.
Almost everyone thinks they have the true knowledge.
However, we know there is accurate knowledge, and falsely called knowledge.

For me, I think once we are sure of which knowledge is accurate, there is no need to doubt it.
Which I guess is what puzzles me with those who claim to believe in God - a supernatural being, and claim to accept the Bible.

I can't seem to see how the argument of "no evidence" or "evidence against" works for such persons.

I can understand a person saying these people are lying, or made up stuff, or are just plain cuckoo, but if the supernatural is accepted by someone, why would they need to see the Red Sea part, and people who believe in God, and claim protection from that being, cross over on dry land.

Can the supernatural not accomplish that?
Then why claim you need evidence?
I think that argument is incompatible with belief in God, because if someone says there is no evidence for the flood, it is quite the same as someone saying, there is no evidence for God.

I see the evidence for both, even though it requires an element of faith, because I cannot show anyone the evidence directly, but I can see it, based on a collection of facts.
Circumstantial evidence is often used in many areas of our life, but it's evidence, nonetheless.

Why do you think that God would teach mankind the lesson with the flood and then turn around and erase all evidence of that lesson for future generations to learn from?

How is forcing a literal view of the Bible not deification of the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What puzzles me are those people that claim to believe in God and that the Bible is the literal dictation of God about events that actually happened as described, yet must be unable to see that they consider God's nature to be a lie.

I will sometimes give people like @nPeace an "honesty test". I go over the definition of scientific evidence with them, which they rarely seem to have a problem with. Then go over the theory of evolution and how it is falsifiable and then give them a clear piece of evidence for evolution. They can almost never admit that they have been given clear evidence. They have to "Lie for Jesus" instead. nPeace failed such a test and he put me on ignore as a result. Oh well.

 

[rational experiences]

Science never existed. Natural form did is the basic answer.

All laws cosmic natural.

Science is a liar virtually says as a man I am all things all things I am.

So only a man would exist.

A man in pretend his eternal with no other forms

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am sort of intrigued by this hydro plate hypothesis. Can you imagine how screwed you would be if you were in a wooden boat on the stormiest seas ever and then someone throws in the continental plates racing across the earth at 45 mph? The displacement of air and water in front of thousands of miles of rapidly moving coast line wouldn't be survivable in any boat made today. How would any rational person expect that a wooden boat would make it?

I have solved the ancient mystery of gopher wood though. It was a mistranslation of a domestic scene during the construction of the ark. Noah told his boys he was going to have a drink and they should go fer wood.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I will sometimes give people like @nPeace an "honesty test". I go over the definition of scientific evidence with them, which they rarely seem to have a problem with. Then go over the theory of evolution and how it is falsifiable and then give them a clear piece of evidence for evolution. They can almost never admit that they have been given clear evidence. They have to "Lie for Jesus" instead. nPeace failed such a test and he put me on ignore as a result. Oh well.

I have a similar test, but mine consists of just reading the posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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)

If mammals had feathers, it would no longer be a tree.
The point. You keep missing it.

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

if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas

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

But it didn't happen.

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

You seem to think that mammals were predestined to exist. You're making a teleological fallacy here.

Feathers evolved when they evolved.
Could they have evolved 100 million years earlier? Not really. Why? Because they would be missing the 100 million years of evolution which lead to the evolution of feathers.
Such a feature doesn't evolve overnight, you know............

Regardless of all this, the original point remains and you're simply ignoring it.
The hierachical structure of the tree of life is derived from a multitude of independent lines of evidence.
Finding a mammal with feathers, doesn't change anything about all those other lines of evidence.
This find would be in conflict with all other data pertaining to those lineages.

Evolution would be in trouble.

I'm sorry that you are apparently having difficulty understanding this.
Likely it is so because you refuse to learn the basics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

None of them are relevant. They just serve as a distraction from the elephant in the room that you are ignoring. That elephant being all other evidence which would be in conflict with a mammal with feathers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

The post you are replying to, already explains why this is wrong.
Such a hypothesis is contradicted by all other data.

You still don't understand.
A mammal in the pre-cambrian or a mammal with feathers would not fit the tree.
It would break the nested hierarchy. It would no longer be a tree. Evolution requires it to be a tree.

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

The same ones that made french develop after latin instead of before it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I saying is that evolution allows for a wide range of data,

But for only 1 pattern.

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,

If you could press the reset button, it would play out differently every time.
And it would be very unlikely for any species to evolve twice.

So really, your thought exercise is a rather pointless one.

 

[leroy]

No, I didn't. The topic is refuting all the nonsensical ideas you post.

You talked about water covering the earth.
I commented on the vast amount of water needed to cover Everest.
You said there were no high mountains before the flood.
I asked how they got there after the flood.
You presented a link to a creationist engineer pretending to have knowledge of geology.
I pointed out problems with his arguments and showed that people with far more knowledge also said he was ignorant.

Now you want us to discuss the fossil record. As I already stated, you and I have not discussed the fossil record and I have no intention of starting now.

Your flood theory needs a lot more support than just fossils. From the posts I have read, from both sides, your concepts have a lot of flaws. Add to that, you cannot account for mountains growing rapidly in just a few thousand years. Lose, lose.

Ok a quick summery

1 I said that in a flood clams would *die* before birds, this explains why do we usually find birds above clams in the fossil record.

2 you said no because …. (some objections related mt everens)

3 I clarify that flood models usually don’t claim that the waters covered mt Everest (invalidating your refutation)

4 I accidentally fell under your red herrings and answer your questions on how mt Everest was formed which is off topic

So why don’t we go back to point number 1?

· With die (in point 1) I mean die as a consequence of being crushed by a pile of mud, which is what would produce a fossil,

· I don’t disagree with most of your objections on the flood and mt Everest,. ..

 

[leroy]

a mammal with feathers would not fit the tree.
It would break the nested hierarchy. It would no longer be a tree. Evolution requires it to be a tree.

.

How would that break the tree?

If there where mammals with feathers that would simply mean that feathers evolved before the 2 clades split………how would that “break” the tree?

Birds and mammals had a common ancestor, this common ancestor could have had feathers and I don’t see how would that break the tree?

 

[ecco]

Ok a quick summery

1 I said that in a flood clams would *die* before birds, this explains why do we usually find birds above clams in the fossil record.

2 you said no because …. (some objections related mt everens)

Not "some objections". Specific objections. Based on the current height of Mt Everest, it would have had to rain so strongly, that every living thing would have been dead in a week. The geologic fossils record would have no order or sequence. Just all dead things jumbled up. Dinosaurs and humans would have all been in the same soup that settled.

Ok a quick summery

3 I clarify that flood models usually don’t claim that the waters covered mt Everest (invalidating your refutation)

4 I accidentally fell under your red herrings and answer your questions on how mt Everest was formed which is off topic

You didn't clarify anything. You asserted that all YECs believe Mt Everest grew rapidly after the flood.
The topic of the thread is the nonsense of the flood story. If YECs want to assert that big mountains grew after the flood, than they (you, in this case) have to come up with a plausible explanation for how that could have happened. That is not a herring of any color.

The best you could do was link to a nonsense "theory" of an engineer, a "former evolutionist", who claimed the continents moved at 45 miles per hour. Those moving apart caused the ocean basins. Those moving towards each other caused high mountains.

As I and others have pointed out there are immense problems with that concept:

• The rapid movement of the continents would have caused ocean waves of thousands of feet. Something that your ark could not have survived.
• The rapid crashing of the continents into each other would not have caused mountains, it would have caused immense piles of rubble. There ain't none.

Those points are not off topic. You just want to ignore them.

• Big mountains covered by extremely heavy rain = jumbled fossil strata and ark inhabitants drowned just trying to breathe.
• Little mountains growing after the flood = rubble piles instead of mountains and ark inhabitants drowned in a capsized ark.

Take your choice and support it. So far you haven't been able to support either.

So why don’t we go back to point number 1?

· With die (in point 1) I mean die as a consequence of being crushed by a pile of mud, which is what would produce a fossil,

· I don’t disagree with most of your objections on the flood and mt Everest,. ..

If you don't disagree, why are you arguing against science?

 

[ecco]

YECs must argue against an earth billions of years old. They must reject the fact that dinosaurs and cockroaches lived much, much longer than humans on this earth. They must reject these things because they need to feel special.

They want to believe that their god made this earth just for them. In addition to much other science, they ignore that this earth is on the fringes of a very ordinary galaxy containing 100 thousand million other stars. They ignore that this galaxy is just one of 2 trillion known galaxies. Their god made all this just to put them on just one little planet. How special.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If mammals had feathers, it would no longer be a tree.
The point. You keep missing it.



if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas



But it didn't happen.



You seem to think that mammals were predestined to exist. You're making a teleological fallacy here.

Feathers evolved when they evolved.
Could they have evolved 100 million years earlier? Not really. Why? Because they would be missing the 100 million years of evolution which lead to the evolution of feathers.
Such a feature doesn't evolve overnight, you know............

Regardless of all this, the original point remains and you're simply ignoring it.
The hierachical structure of the tree of life is derived from a multitude of independent lines of evidence.
Finding a mammal with feathers, doesn't change anything about all those other lines of evidence.
This find would be in conflict with all other data pertaining to those lineages.

Evolution would be in trouble.

I'm sorry that you are apparently having difficulty understanding this.
Likely it is so because you refuse to learn the basics.

On no. Now he is going to conjecture on the evolution of feathers on trees and how that would be consistent with the theory of evolution. It sure would be something you couldn't predict with the theory.

You put into words what has been running around in my head.

Setting back the evolution of a character that required the previous evolution going on in life would ultimately just tick the clock back for the whole phenomenon and life. All that foundation would have to move through time with the trait in question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How would that break the tree?

If there where mammals with feathers that would simply mean that feathers evolved before the 2 clades split………how would that “break” the tree?

Birds and mammals had a common ancestor, this common ancestor could have had feathers and I don’t see how would that break the tree?

And the mouse keeps running no where in his wheel.

 

[tas8831]

- 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 ....
50,000 animals? Who took the photo of that? I'd be happy to see what film looked like 4,000 years ago.

And yet you accept - without question - the tall tales of the ancient middle east as compile din the stories housed in the bible despite there being no pictures for any of it.

Well\, I will grant you that you are entirely consistent with your argumentation style (i.e., the unyielding employment of double standards as you see fit).

- 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).
Oh. Those hypotheses... but those are ideas NewGuyOnTheBlock . Sort of like the ones you have.

I know this will come as a shock to the biblical literalist pretenders that present themselves as having relevant knowledge, but there are actually genetic 'signatures' of bottlenecks, despite the fact that you folks are ignorant of them. One of hundreds of examples:
Inferring Bottlenecks from Genome-Wide Samples of Short Sequence Blocks.

Not that you will understand it - judging by your history, you will just try to dismiss it by Googling certain words and pretending the definitions of those words have some sort of damning impact. Like you did when you tried to deny the relevance of molecular phylogenetics by googling the word "diagram."

And I know you do not reply to me, but that is not why I replied to your post. I did it to remind others about the type of creationist you are.

 

[tas8831]

If one is allowed to use the atheist method those objections are very easy to answer:

Answers

I don’t know, but we are searching for an answer.


this answer is suppose to be good enough to trum any objections you might have to refute the flood model

Well, except when your claims are refuted repeatedly and you just keep making the same bogus claims/asking the same foolish "questions" over and over...

The strange case of John Sanford, creationist

 

[tas8831]

And the mouse keeps running no where in his wheel.

And they never will.

 

[tas8831]

what woudl we expect to find in the fossil record if there was a global flood?

Fossils of creatures living in the same areas with the same habits (diet, etc.) and of the same general body mass/surface area (like, say, modern hippos and ceratopsian dinosaurs) to be found in the same strata.

what would we expect to find if evolution by natrual selection + old earth is true?

That ceratopsian dinosaurs should be found in much deeper strata dated to much much earlier periods in earth history than hippos.

what do we acctually find?

That ceratopsian dinosaurs are found in much deeper strata dated to much much earlier periods in earth history than hippos.

 

[tas8831]

The “sorting” was known long before evolution was proposed.

That was in part what helped drive the hypotheses re: the earth being old and the change over time of living things.

Everybody knew that there were no rabbits in the Cambrian long before evolution.

How did they know this?