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

[Dan From Smithville]

I'd forgotten how bad Leroy is at that. Just in the last couple of weeks or so, he's completely bailed on me three separate times.

That's just the nature of creationism.

And now he is back to do it all again.

 

[leroy]

Since you never defend your claims, there is no need for anyone to do anything but reject them.

If you want more than you are going to have to do more than just repeat them and try to push your burden of proof onto others.

The opening post claims that the fossil record refutes the flood, shouldn’t the author of the OP (an those who agree with him) carry the burden proof?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The opening post claims that the fossil record refutes the flood, shouldn’t the author of the OP (an those who agree with him) carry the burden proof?

Shouldn't you worry about your failure to carry your burden of proof and stop trying to find any way you can to wiggle out of it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The opening post claims that the fossil record refutes the flood, shouldn’t the author of the OP (an those who agree with him) carry the burden proof?

By this point, the support of that claim is ubiquitous and remains standing. Now it is your turn.

 

[leroy]

What is preventing you from providing that information in support of your claims without all the ridiculous restrictions and demands?

Because keeping your view vague and ambiguous is part of your tactic.

You make vague claims like “dating methods show that the Cambrian is 500myo” but you will never compromise to a specific and clear claim such as.

The rocks in “X” site where dated by “Y” proving beyond reasonable doubt that the rocks are 500yo (therefore they are from the Cambrian)


Besides I am not making a controversial claim, al I am saying is that dating methods are not exact sciences.

 

[leroy]

By this point, the support of that claim is ubiquitous and remains standing. Now it is your turn.

That claim has not been supported in this thread, please quote any comment that shows otherwise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That claim has not been supported in this thread, please quote any comment that shows otherwise.

LOL!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because keeping your view vague and ambiguous is part of your tactic.

You make vague claims like “dating methods show that the Cambrian is 500myo” but you will never compromise to a specific and clear claim such as.

The rocks in “X” site where dated by “Y” proving beyond reasonable doubt that the rocks are 500yo (therefore they are from the Cambrian)


Besides I am not making a controversial claim, al I am saying is that dating methods are not exact sciences.

And you do nothing, I MEAN NOTHING, to support what you are saying. It is always someone else's fault with you that prevents you from carrying out your responsibilities.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And you do nothing, I MEAN NOTHING, to support what you are saying. It is always someone else's fault with you that prevents you from carrying out your responsibilities.

And if all else fails, just move the goalpost.

Like when cornered so much that the "feathered rabbit" claim becomes to obviously ridiculous, let's just suddenly pretend that it's always been about "well, what if ALL mammals had feathers"?

And hope nobody will notice.

Unfortunately though, his conversation partners are sceptics and rational thinkers. Which are not the kind of people who don't think things through and who forget about a conversation 10 sec after hitting the submit button.

 

[ecco]

I am not a creationists, I don’t believe in a global flood, the only claim that I am making is that the fossil record doesn’t refute the flood (nor it proves evolution)

I think it's very easy to see that you are a Creationist. You try to make the argument that the fossil record doesn't prove Evolution.

The only people who use the words "prove" and "proof" when it comes to science in general and Evolution, in particular, are Creationists. The rest of us know that science is not in the business of proving, it is in the business of providing evidence. Creationists, including you, have been told that repeatedly. Yet you still continue to clamor for proof or mock the lack thereof.

 

[leroy]

I think it's very easy to see that you are a Creationist. You try to make the argument that the fossil record doesn't prove Evolution.

The only people who use the words "prove" and "proof" when it comes to science in general and Evolution, in particular, are Creationists. The rest of us know that science is not in the business of proving, it is in the business of providing evidence. Creationists, including you, have been told that repeatedly. Yet you still continue to clamor for proof or mock the lack thereof.

You do know that words usually have many defintions right? And “prove” is not an exception

the only ones who make a big deal out of words and definitions and that whant to force their own personal favorite definition are fanatic atheist from youtube and forums.


In this context with “prove” I suimply mean “show that something is true beyond reasonable doubt” which is what most people mean with the word “prove”

 

[tas8831]

Sure select your favorite dating method and I´ll tell you which assumptions, speculations and biases are made.

You mean that I write one, and you search for creationist website essays claiming that there are problems with them?

 

[tas8831]

Aja, then why cant you find a quote of me saying that?

You absolutely imply that transposons become fixed in one generation here:

"Yes but transposons can produce new functional and selectable proteins (genes) in 1 generation…….the RM+NS model would require a gene duplication + thousands of point mutations in order to get something that we would call a “new gene”

I won't even mention the laughable ignorance of the last statement above.


"Ok so make an accurate representation on how mutations get fixed.......... . And prove that 5M years is enough time to explain the differences between chimps and humans, using random mutations and natural selection (and genetic drift) as the main mechanisms"

or

"Does he believes that falgellums where build mainly by neutral mutations selected by genetic drift or by positive mutations selected by natural selection ?.


I can keep looking, but the point is made.

 

[leroy]

You mean that I write one, and you search for creationist website essays claiming that there are problems with them?

Well what alternative do you suggest? I won’t right a 100 page long post explaining the flaws of all dating methods.

 

[leroy]

You absolutely imply that transposons become fixed in one generation here:

"Yes but transposons can produce new functional and selectable proteins (genes) in 1 generation…….the RM+NS model would require a gene duplication + thousands of point mutations in order to get something that we would call a “new gene”

No I didn’t imply that transposons get fixed in a population in 1 generation. If I said anythong that suggest otherwise I apologize.

What I meant in that statement is that transposons can change many regions of the genome at once in a positive way. With the power of natural selection (and time) you can get many fixed mutations relatively fast.

"Ok so make an accurate representation on how mutations get fixed.......... . And prove that 5M years is enough time to explain the differences between chimps and humans, using random mutations and natural selection (and genetic drift) as the main mechanisms"

Yes that’s the challenge, will you ever anwer it?

or

"Does he believes that falgellums where build mainly by neutral mutations selected by genetic drift or by positive mutations selected by natural selection ?.

e.

I don’t remember who is “he” but I am just asking a question, still waiting for an answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well what alternative do you suggest? I won’t right a 100 page long post explaining the flaws of all dating methods.

I think you will find comfort that no one here expects that you could write it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well what alternative do you suggest? I won’t right a 100 page long post explaining the flaws of all dating methods.

What prevents you from reviewing one or two of the many that you know and understand using those to present your case? Apparently you feel you know enough that you could write 100 pages reviewing the flaws of all dating methods if you only had the time. What is stopping you from just a few examples that you would have time to reveal to us?

 

[leroy]

What prevents you from reviewing one or two of the many that you know and understand using those to present your case? Apparently you feel you know enough that you could write 100 pages reviewing the flaws of all dating methods if you only had the time. What is stopping you from just a few examples that you would have time to reveal to us?

Because if I select 1 or 2 methods you and your anti creationists friends will say “ohhh no straw man, I never said that those methods in particular are reliable” or “ohhh you willingly and dishonestly used the worst and less reliable dating method”

Besides I what you (or whoever answers the challenge) to carry his part of the burden proof, if you assert that such method is reliable and that it provides good dates beyond reasonable doubt you will be asked to support that assertion.

 

[tas8831]

Sure select your favorite dating method and I´ll tell you which assumptions, speculations and biases are made.

I don't have a "favorite" method. But, OK -
zircon fission track dating.

Once you provide all of the supposed assumptions, speculations and biases inherent in the methodology, explain what relevance those have in terms of employing the method.

And then tell me your favorite bit of evidence for ID creationism or whatever it is you are going to claim to believe, and I will point out the assumptions, speculations and biases in that evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because if I select 1 or 2 methods you and your anti creationists friends will say “ohhh no straw man, I never said that those methods in particular are reliable” or “ohhh you willingly and dishonestly used the worst and less reliable dating method”

Besides I what you (or whoever answers the challenge) to carry his part of the burden proof, if you assert that such method is reliable and that it provides good dates beyond reasonable doubt you will be asked to support that assertion.

I have to admit that I don't take you seriously at all and it is for reasons like this.

If you knew anything about dating methods and thought that they were flawed, you would make your case. But what do you do? This.