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

[tas8831]

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)
So if you disagree please provide your evidence for the contrary

So what about when you said:

""a global flood could easily drag many ecosystems within a few days and stack one on top of the other."

Where's your evidence for this? Just going to try to pretend you never wrote it now?

Or this:

"A global flood would have also ruined most dating methods making dates invalid."

You going to pretend you never wrote that, too?

If you are not a creationist, why do you keep arguing like one?

Why make assertions that you never intend to defend?

 

[tas8831]

Weird that you keep avoiding this:

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.

Are you ignoring this because you cannot deal with having your challenge met?

 

[ecco]

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”

Nonsense. You clearly know the meaning of the word "prove". I don't think you are in a position to say that other people agree with your definition.

As I stated, what you should be asking for is evidence. But, the reason you don't ask for evidence is that you know it exists and it's been presented to you many times over.

You only accept the evidence science provides when it doesn't conflict with your religious beliefs. You reject all evidence that does conflict with your religious beliefs.

For example, there are some Christian geocentrists who deny heliocentricity. You probably accept heliocentricity. You have no way of proving for yourself, or to yourself, that the earth is revolving around the sun. You accept what science has told about the sun/earth relationship. You don't see a major conflict between the Bible and science in this instance.

However, you reject the findings of the scientists who understand that Evolution is true and supported by many different branches of science.

Pick and choose.

 

[tas8831]

A global flood would have also ruined most dating methods making dates invalid.

Still waiting for your answer, which I know you must have.

After all, what kind of person would make so straightforward and confident a claim ]like that and NOT be able to back it up?

 

[tas8831]

OK lets start with this one, why not?

Answered this twice - any explanation as to why you keep ignoring it? Other than that is what you often do when you can't find a rebuttal on some creationist site?

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.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[tas8831]

Hello? @leroy? I provided what you asked for.

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.

 

[tas8831]

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

And yet you wrote:

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

Why, if there are legitimate scientific 'problems' with all dating methods, as you assert, would you have to rely on creationists' ranting on the subject (usually they only mention carbon 14 anyway)?

Is it that you are not the scientific juggernaut that you want others to think you are?

 

[tas8831]

What I meant in that statement is that transposons can change many regions of the genome at once in a positive way.

Great. So what does 'changing a protein product in 1 generation' have to do with the speed of evolution? It STILL has to spread through a population to matter. And how do you suppose ANY mutation spreads through a population?

With the power of natural selection (and time) you can get many fixed mutations relatively fast.

OK.... describe what YOU mean by "fixed" and "relatively fast".

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

Like the other challenges I've answered for you (on more than 1 occasion) only to have to ignore them, I have addressed this repeatedly (and I mean the actual situation, not your misrepresentation of the issue in which you claim ALL of them are fixed and beneficial) as have others. Can you not understand the replies you get, or are like those typical YECs who just ignore answers that refute your nonsensical, counterfactual assertions?

I think I will wait for you to address those 8 or so answers to your 'challenges' before I expend the energy to rebut your claims yet again.

I don’t remember who is “he”

Irrelevant - the quote was to point out that you referred to drift as a selective mechanism.

addendum: I looked back for the context of your quote, and the original discussion you were having was actually even worse (original discussion in red):

Initial mutations may be Neutral, but the mutations were ultimately beneficial.

@leroy: So where the mutations mainly neutral or beneficial? The key word here is “mainly” why cant you answer directly?​

He (shunyadragon) already addressed that in the line you are responding to. Since the fitness effects of any mutation is context dependent, they can be initially neutral and if/when the context changes, can become beneficial (or deleterious). He cannot answer directly because nobody (especially not ID creationists) have 're-run the original series of evolutionary changes that produced one particular type of flagellum (you do know that there are more than one?).

Out of the 100% of mutations responsible for building a flagellum, what percentage would you say could be attributed to neutral mutations?.these are muatiosn that where selected by genetic drift, and not by natural selection? 10% 50% 80%.........you are not expected to provide the exact value, just an approximate value​

Sorry, but people are running circles around you and you are too into the Dunning-Kruger effect to realize it.
Sad.

but I am just asking a question, still waiting for an answer.

Me too - for about 8 things.

 

[leroy]

Hello? @leroy? I provided what you asked for.

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.

Ok my first specific objection would be that the tracks have to be interpreted by the guy who works in the laboratory or whoever looks at the tracks in the microscope.

There are many mechanisms that can produce tracks, the guy who works in the laboratory has to select which tracks where caused by uranium decay and which were caused by other mechanisms. This selection is subjective , scientists know this which is why they almost never rely entirely on this method to determine an age.

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

Ok the best argument for ID would be the FT argument (as described by William lane Craig)

So please provide your main objection and be specific, I told you specifically what problem I w} had with the specific method that you provided, so I expect the same clarity form your side.

 

[ecco]

Ok the best argument for ID would be the FT argument (as described by William lane Craig)

This Fine-Tuning argument?

 

[leroy]

This Fine-Tuning argument?

It doesn’t matter what shape the puddle has, the water will always fit and fill it.

This is analogous to:

It doesn’t matter what the values of the constants are, life will always find its way.

Is this a correct representation of the objection?

 

[ecco]

It doesn’t matter what shape the puddle has, the water will always fit and fill it.

This is analogous to:

It doesn’t matter what the values of the constants are, life will always find its way.

Is this a correct representation of the objection?

Nope. You completely missed the point.

It isn't about the shape of the puddle, it's about the belief of the water.

The puddle of water here is analogous to people who believe that their god made the wonderful earth (the hole) just for them.

Of course, they need to ignore that the earth has been much more hospitable to roaches than to humans. That's another reason it's good to be a YEC.

 

[leroy]

Nope. You completely missed the point.

It isn't about the shape of the puddle, it's about the belief of the water.

The puddle of water here is analogous to people who believe that their god made the wonderful earth (the hole) just for them.

Of course, they need to ignore that the earth has been much more hospitable to roaches than to humans. That's another reason it's good to be a YEC.

Ok but It doesn’t matter if the puddle is round, square, triangular, etc. it doesn’t matter if the hole would have been 1% larger or 1% smaller, or 1% deeper or 1% larger, the water would always conclude that the pubble was made just for “him”

Is this a correct representation of your point?

The puddle of water here is analogous to people who believe that their god made the wonderful earth (the hole) just for them.

Straw man, the FT argument that I presented doesn’t say that the earth is perfect for us.

Of course, they need to ignore that the earth has been much more hospitable to roaches than to humans

That is a misunderstanding of the concept of FT, it’s not about who is better adapted, it´s about who requires more conditions to be here

 

[ecco]

Ok but It doesn’t matter if the puddle is round, square, triangular, etc. it doesn’t matter if the hole would have been 1% larger or 1% smaller, or 1% deeper or 1% larger, the water would always conclude that the pubble was made just for “him”

Is this a correct representation of your point?

Yes.

Straw man, the FT argument that I presented doesn’t say that the earth is perfect for us.

Well, you are quite right. Designed for life. Humans or roaches. By a designer. Would that be the one in the OT who implemented His design 6000 years ago? Or would that be the one about "Mawu creating everything as she was carried from place to place on the back or in the mouth of Aido Hwedo"?

Your FT does nothing to support your "designer/creator" over any other.

That is a misunderstanding of the concept of FT, it’s not about who is better adapted, it´s about who requires more conditions to be here

Where does it say that?

 

[tas8831]

Ok my first specific objection would be that the tracks have to be interpreted by the guy who works in the laboratory or whoever looks at the tracks in the microscope.

I have been wasting my time with you. You've literally got NOTHING, despite asserting that all dating methods are flawed.
This is a child's antic.

There are many mechanisms that can produce tracks,

DO TELL! Explain to us all how "many mechanisms" can produce FISSION tracks!

the guy who works in the laboratory has to select which tracks where caused by uranium decay and which were caused by other mechanisms. This selection is subjective , scientists know this which is why they almost never rely entirely on this method to determine an age.

AND???? What about addressing your actual claims?

"...assumptions, speculations and biases inherent in the methodology".

You are stringing assertions together, like a child trying to out-brag his buddy: "Oh YEAH? Well... my dad... beat up a great big guy!"

You've got nothing.

Ok the best argument for ID would be the FT argument (as described by William lane Craig)

So please provide your main objection and be specific, I told you specifically what problem I w} had with the specific method that you provided, so I expect the same clarity form your side.

OK, I will use YOUR RESPONSE technique in mine:

WLC is just some guy who runs around making claims. He has to interpret the evidence and he is just some guy thumbing through some books (since Craig does no actual research - he is a mere philosopher and apologist and cannot comprehend cosmology and better than an untrained layman). There are many possibilities to produce fine tuning, Craig merely asserts that it is his preferred ancient middle eastern tribal deity - one of many. He has no idea which deity produced the FT, which he merely believes is real.

How is that?

Weird though - as usual, you ignored lots of stuff - like where I met your 'challenge' re: flood and fossils HERE.

Or where I asked you to EXPLAIN this assertion:

"A global flood would have also ruined most dating methods making dates invalid."

Also, re: FT - since it is a mere assertion by a layman apologist, a recounting of a debate between an actual scientist and Craig will be more than sufficient:

Post-Debate Reflections – Sean Carroll

 

[tas8831]

...it´s about who requires more conditions to be here

One big condition that is merely wished/asserted away is the condition for one out of many tribal deities to 1. EXIST; then 2. be THE ONE that set up the conditions.

Me waiting for Craig to provide evidence for those:

 

[leroy]

I have been wasting my time with you. You've literally got NOTHING, despite asserting that all dating methods are flawed.
This is a child's antic.

DO TELL! Explain to us all how "many mechanisms" can produce FISSION tracks!
AND???? What about addressing your actual claims?

"...assumptions, speculations and biases inherent in the methodology".

You are stringing assertions together, like a child trying to out-brag his buddy: "Oh YEAH? Well... my dad... beat up a great big guy!"

You've got nothing.

OK, I will use YOUR RESPONSE technique in mine:

Yes please do you my technique.

I am providing a specific , clear and unambiguous objection to Fission Track dating. I might be wrong, but at least I am presenting a clear and testable objection.

You might find this surprising but tracks minerals don’t have labels in nature, they guy from the laboratory simply sees a bunch of tracks and it is his job to determine which tracks are caused by uranium decay, and which are caused by other mechanism (decay from other isotopes for example) and tracks that are simply caused by erosion.

The method for distinguishing from one type of track and another is subjective and dependent on the interpretation of the guy from the laboratory, scientists know this, they are even trying to find methods to minimize the margin of error for such interpretations.

But here is the thing, I may or may not be correct, but latest I am presenting a clear objection, so I expect the same courtesy from your part, please present a clear and unambiguous objection to the FT argument.




Weird though - as usual, you ignored lots of stuff - like where I met your 'challenge' re: flood and fossils HERE.

Or where I asked you to EXPLAIN this assertion:

"A global flood would have also ruined most dating methods making dates invalid."

Because many isotopes are soluble in water, because water reacts with some isotopes, because water deteriorates stuff faster than wind, because hard water alters C14, etc. Some of the uranium could have been leaked by water making the fission track method produce artificially old ages.

Also, re: FT - since it is a mere assertion by a layman apologist, a recounting of a debate between an actual scientist and Craig will be more than sufficient:

Post-Debate Reflections – Sean Carroll

No sir, provide a clear and direct objection to the FT argument, it is lazy to simply say "hey this source refutes the argument."

 

[leroy]

Weird though - as usual, you ignored lots of stuff - like where I met your 'challenge' re: flood and fossils HERE.

l

Because your whole argument is based on a dishonest strawman, that’s is why it has been ignored.

1 the order in which fossils are expected to be found doesn’t depend exclusively in “body mass” other factors are relevant, like the ability to scape a flood, the ability to instinctively move to higher lands etc.

2 the flood model predicts a pattern, not an absolute sorting without exceptions, some exceptions are expected, finding a flying creature under a see creature is expected every once in a while, the claim is that in most cases we don’t see that.

 

[tas8831]

I am providing a specific , clear and unambiguous objection to Fission Track dating. I might be wrong, but at least I am presenting a clear and testable objection.

OK, let's recap this "specific , clear and unambiguous objection" to fission track dating:

"...the tracks have to be interpreted by the guy who works in the laboratory or whoever looks at the tracks in the microscope."​

Interpreted b y the guy - SUPER specific!

"There are many mechanisms that can produce tracks"​

SUPER clear! Because as far as you know, determining which isotope produced the tracks is just totally up to 'some guy' guessing which one...

"the guy who works in the laboratory has to select which tracks where caused by uranium decay"​

I think you wrote "select" instead of "analyze and conclude based on the elemental content of the sample and information gleaned by decades of research and experience by people educated and experienced in the field"?

"This selection is subjective"​

That is a bold assertion - other than you uninformed opinion, what is the evidence that this is 'subjective'?

"scientists know this which is why they almost never rely entirely on this method to determine an age."​

Right - they try to use as many as are appropriate. Unlike IDcreationists who just Google and paste the results, 'knowing' that everything in Shapiro's 30 year old extrapolations are totally up to date and not at all refuted by subsequent research, to include some by the people he favorably cites.

You might find this surprising but tracks minerals don’t have labels in nature,

Do they have little labels that say "Made by Jehovah"? No?

they guy from the laboratory simply sees a bunch of tracks and it is his job to determine which tracks are caused by uranium decay, and which are caused by other mechanism (decay from other isotopes for example) and tracks that are simply caused by erosion.

And this "guy" - is he just some stooge that Googles stuff and pretends to know more than he does? Or is this guy maybe a trained and educated lab technician or a degreed professional?
You seem to think it is all guesswork, which means that you are clueless on yet another issue.

The method for distinguishing from one type of track and another is subjective and dependent on the interpretation of the guy from the laboratory, scientists know this, they are even trying to find methods to minimize the margin of error for such interpretations.

It almost sounds like you are paraphrasing a creationist essay - which one is it? Bad move regardless, as creationists tend to spin like crazy.

But here is the thing, I may or may not be correct,

You are not - but how would you even know? You are still citing "nonrandom mutations" and "a new protein in 1 generation" for some reason.

but latest I am presenting a clear objection, so I expect the same courtesy from your part, please present a clear and unambiguous objection to the FT argument.

Clear? You are presenting a "clear" objection?

OK - from now on, when you present something from your out-of-date archives that you read on a creationist site, I will provide similar clear objections - "The guy who did that just subjectively did X, and the guy then has bias and thus this is all wrong".

How is the world when looked at through Dunning-Kruger Effect glasses?

Weird though - as usual, you ignored lots of stuff - like where I met your 'challenge' re: flood and fossils HERE.​

Because many isotopes are soluble in water, because water reacts with some isotopes, because water deteriorates stuff faster than wind, because hard water alters C14, etc. Some of the uranium could have been leaked by water making the fission track method produce artificially old ages.

Yeah, wow, it is so fortunate you are here to point these things out because after all, no geologist, geophysicist, physicist, etc. has ever considered any of that stuff - oh, silly me, it is all jsut "some guy" in a lab arbitrarily making decisions....

No sir, provide a clear and direct objection to the FT argument, it is lazy to simply say "hey this source refutes the argument."

So you ignored the other stuff I wrote? How typical...

Here is my specific ,clear and unambiguous objection to FT:

WLC is just some guy who runs around making claims. He has to interpret the evidence and he is just some guy thumbing through some books (since Craig does no actual research - he is a mere philosopher, just a guy in an office, and an apologist and cannot comprehend cosmology and better than an untrained layman). There are many possibilities to produce fine tuning, Craig merely asserts that it is his preferred ancient middle eastern tribal deity - one of many. He has no idea which deity produced the FT, which he merely believes is real, and he just picks the middle eastern deity that he was subjectively told to believe in by biased guys in buildings.

Now how about those "nonrandom" transposon insertion sites....

 

[tas8831]

Because your whole argument is based on a dishonest strawman, that’s is why it has been ignored.

By which, due to your bias, I interpret as you admitting that your challenge was met but cannot handle the embarrassment yet again.

1 the order in which fossils are expected to be found doesn’t depend exclusively in “body mass” other factors are relevant, like the ability to scape a flood, the ability to instinctively move to higher lands etc.

Talk about strawman... You see, IDcreationists actually claim that the progression we actually see in the fossil record is due to this sorting - heck, an entire model (or 2) are based on that premise. The father of modern creationism, Henry Morris (also a raging racist), produced his "TAB" model, wherein things were basically buried where they stood, that is why molluscs are on the bottom, etc. It is a really stupid model that ignores reality, but hey - I am just using one of the aspects of creation flood/fossil record modelling. Even advocates of this hydrodynamic sorting stuff totally ignored what I mentioned to help prop up their Jesus stuff. Just like you are doing.

But since you bring up 'scaping' a flood - are you saying that not a single dinosaur was able to do that? That not a single human could NOT 'scape' it?

Do people like you NEVER actually think through their knee-jerk retorts to make sure they are not internally inconsistent and self-defeating?

2 the flood model predicts a pattern, not an absolute sorting without exceptions, some exceptions are expected, finding a flying creature under a see creature is expected every once in a while, the claim is that in most cases we don’t see that.

But no humans in contemporaneous strata with stegosaurs or mesosaurs? No birds next to an Archaeopteryx? No rhinos next to a ceratopsian?

For you to call what I wrote a strawman is the height of creationist lack of self-awareness.