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

[rational experiences]

A human is a human.

Our teaching we were created as an equal as a human.

Science by human defined presence a thinker says every state exists first. Is one state one single answer. For its owned formed presence.

Each answer I gave is one word says man and owns one meaning one body owned naturally that I see.

If it did not exist to look at I could not discuss it.

Common shares human sense.

I am just a human with no argument by legality. Legal what I impose for my owned self existing. Terms not allowed to be argued against.

Self presence of any one body.

Common equality common sense.

No matter what label you give self human as a title. Title is fake.

No books just a thinker human first.

Says I want to invent science for machine conditions only.

Never owned the answers to everything as what recording he reviewed as science the status was a reaction inside earths heavens that reacted removed form and then went away.

Disappeared. Science status to force form to disappear.

It did not evolve nor move forward.

So it was not a creator it was destruction. Statements of science.

The first human thoughts applied as science.

No legal argument against the status self presence.....versus a thinker storyteller as a theist human.

Then humans decided to theory how they owned self presence. Yet equals as a science answer can only ever be self presence. = The holy state.

Legal status. An answer equals means equals only owning one answer. One never owned any other pre numbered factoring. To imply one as equals only was meant legally.

If you already own an equals answer self presence science is imposing an illegal science status claiming self human presence in a not equals already owned answer of one just presence.

Actuality historic taught when we imposed legal to keep life safe on earth by laws. As humans being one self as a one.

O earth in human law is O God one body our planet the stone.

Stone never existed anywhere displaced in form in cosmos stone is equals stone. Stone is not considered as stone by theists who we said explained legally are occultists wanting evil burning only.

Legal human reasons.

An example of an illegal human thinker.

Everyone is a baby. Our two parents living with us now once also two babies also.

Notice no adult in the one science status equals.

Science talks about the first two human parents who were never human babies first.

As sperm a small cell and ovary a small cell is where life came from. Our life babies only.

First two parents bodies as original human deceased and decomposed. Legal answer.

Science however said their memory a recorded atmospheric condition owns their imaged memories. As once living human beings as a science statement an image.

Living science thinks direct to sperm and living an ovary. As holy human life what we all are babies.

The spirit heavenly image a record is not living human tissue blood bio owners.

What a occult theist imposes in pretend of I know from two small human cells. Living bodies without first two parents alive.

Is not bacterias or microbes.

In life of science believes those forms are our creators. No scientist would legally be able to meddle with small microbial cells in that belief to change those forms. Otherwise science is claiming you will all be destroyed in full knowledge. Claiming they are the creator forms.

Yet they change and attack small cells all the time.

Science by human conditions then must realise humans had to impose a human aware legal system to stop false self destructive science practices. Who theory and then choose by manipulation our known human destruction.

As all conditions human belief are only stated by humans as humans.

Book preaching was proven to be our coercer by worded status. A known human legal advice. Lying a legal status illegal.

Who claimed the true legality was natural life and natural earth defined status never to be argued. As no human thinker theist invented the presence of any body natural.

Egotism its human liar was proven by humans to be life's destroyer by how it manipulated humans by worded coercion and group fear tactics. Pretending is to theory. As natural exists without a human thinking about it.

Why pretend theorising is also a pretence to destroy.

Why the legal system was stated.

Without a machine the human thinker is a life equal telling pretend stories. The human legal status.

Machines therefore became humans lie status. Claiming natural was reacting the change when they used the machine with one intention to force change upon natural.

The status ark. A human confession as a legal statement against natural God earth.

No human built stone as God.

A human said God told me how to build the ark.

God was the gas history of the spirits named by a human thinker scientist.

Water and it's oxygenation was owned by the nature. Humans and not God.

Changes to the water oxygen generation was what men in human science changed in a God stone act against us.

Was his man science confession. Legal answer.

God never owned water oxygenation.

Today the science self by human law is lying. Human law only implied by present humans living to infer law reasoning.

Babies as humans historic living life before us and with us. From a human baby to a human adult the legal one only answer today. What legal means to only use the truth in self presence.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Scientist know that dating a layer is not an exact science. There are many assumptions, especulations and biases behind dating a sample.

Radiometric dating is an exact science It does not provide precise results, but instead provides ranges and probable dates; which is why multiple methods of dating any sample are used.

There aren't "assumptions" in radiometric dating We know how many isotopes are supposed to be present in a fresh sample and how many isotopes are lost over what period of time. We know this from observation and experimentation, which is not the same thing as "we think" because "assumptions".

There are no biases in radiometric dating. Because of our pool of knowledge regarding its process, there is no room for it, any more than there is room for bias in 2+2=4

especulations? Speculations? There are no speculations in radiometric dating as the methods have been tried and attempts have been made to falsify and it has met every challenge we have put to it.

No scientists are not stupid

If one believes that scientists draw hard conclusions and assert findings with boldness while using methods that are inexact with assumptions, speculations and biases involved, then you are, in fact, calling scientists "stupid" because it would be "stupid" to make such bold assertions on such flimsy evidence. Moreover, if a group of scientists can come together and agree on given conclusions based on processes that some high school dropout can disassemble and prove wrong with a few minutes of Google and asking AIG, then these scientists are definitely stupid.

It appears very strongly to me that you think scientists are stupid.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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


@Dan From Smithville @Subduction Zone @TagliatelliMonster and many other fanatic evolutionist from this forum are making the claim

Fanatic evolutionist? There's those personal attacks that you hate, yet love to hand out. I am not a fanatic. I am simply someone that knows much more than you do about the subject matter and my beliefs are stronger.

It does no good to explain anything to you, since you turn it into pigeon chess. But conditions would not have been adequate for mammal evolution in the Cambrian.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No scientists are not stupid . Only internet atheist are.

Scientist know that dating a layer is not an exact science. There are many assumptions, especulations and biases behind dating a sample.

You consider anyone that recognizes your willful ignorance as stupid. You do realize that many of the people you treat as stupid on here are actual scientists.

Good grief. Like you even know anything about dating.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1 If the environment would have been adecuate for mamlas to survive (oxygen, food, good climate etc.)

2 if there was selective preassure during the Cambrian to produce mammals

3 if they were lucky enough to get the correct random mutations in the same place

This is what I mean by adequate conditions

LOL!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This does not even compute. I can't even take it in. Eons separate the fossil layers. Not minutes or hours or days. We have dating methods. We have DNA decoding. Out of one side of their mouths, the Creationist tells us that we can't "trust" the fossil record because <insert claim>. But now we want to use the fossil record that can't be trusted to prove something that can't be proven. This does not even compute.

That is pretty typical of the source. I find little that computes.

 

[gnostic]

Ok you can't prove your assertion that layers are dated properly

No scientists are not stupid . Only internet atheist are.

Scientist know that dating a layer is not an exact science. There are many assumptions, especulations and biases behind dating a sample.

This is exactly why no one here is taking you seriously.

You make up things that’s not true.

And you are claiming that anyone who disagree with you, don’t know what they are talking about, BUT it’s actually the other way around, Leroy. You are projecting your own faults and ignorance upon others.

Everyone here can see that you understand even basic science, and yet you insisted on talking about things that you clearly don’t understand. That only make your vaunted knowledgeable claims, pretensions.

And one of the things you are utterly clueless about is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, especially when it comes to dating objects.

The evidence are only “empirical”, when you have -

(A) multiple evidence to compare against each other, so the more evidence you have, the better it is, to decide if the predictive model about the phenomena is true, SO multiple evidence are used for VERIFICATION;

(B) the evidence should provide useful DATA, such as the physical properties of the evidence, measurements (eg measuring masses, dimensions, densities, electric current or voltages, radiometric dating, etc; these data also provide way for VERIFICATION;

and (C) this is very important to you since you are the one don’t understand science and scientific evidence, is that there should alway be more than one methodology to test the evidence for VERIFICATION.​

These are the problems that you don’t understand, when it come to dating layers of rocks or layers of settlements (eg villages, towns, cities).

You say dating layers are “not an exact science”, but how would you know when you don’t understand the science behind it.

To give you an example.

Let say, the ancient Sumerian city of Uruk (called Erech in some translations Of Genesis 10) for example. There are 18 settlements discovered in Uruk, where the city was built one on top of the other.

The oldest settlement Uruk XVIII, was found below the other 17 successive settlements, and this settlement found underneath Kullaba, better known today by archaeologists and historians as the Anu District, have been dated to about 5000 BCE, which they called the Eridu period.

And it is the same with other places in the Middle East, like Ur, Damascus and Jericho, where younger settlements are successively built over older settlements.

Jericho, or the ancient Jericho which is located in under the current village of Tell es-Sultan, has OVER 20 settlements, with the oldest settlement dated to about 9600 BCE.

My point here, is that you will never find a younger settlement or layer of city underneath the older settlement or layer.

This is also true about fossils and remains. You won't find modern human remains or remains of horse, cow, wolf, lion, dog, cat, elephant, etc, mixed with or underneath fossils of dinosaurs.

Furthermore you won't layer of younger sedimentary rocks underneath older sedimentary rocks.

Your claim that the Flood cause all everything to be jumble up so that in your mind, it cannot be dated accurately, is just utter BS, and you are being dishonest about it too.

The evidence are there, but you are just making up BS, making excuse without evidence to support your dishonest and ignorant claim.

You are only fooling yourself with these absurd claims you have been making.

In the Bronze Age, and even in the Neolithic period, you date any biological remains (if it survived to be discovered), using carbon-14 dating, but with something like rocks and minerals, you would use argon isotope (Ar-K method) or lead isotope or even uranium isotope to do radiometric dating. So if you are going to date some human remains under the sedimentary rocks, you can use 2 different type of radiometric methods to date them, to verify one against another.

And radiometric dating method is the only popular method used. You can use luminescence dating methods, to find out how long some objects have been buried, based on when were the last time that objects were exposed to sunlight.

There are two popular luminescence dating methods:

1. Thermoluminescence dating
2. Optically stimulated luminescence

Either one of these can also verified if the radiometric test results are correct or not.

And I am not even finished.

Another popular method of dating is pottery. Since the Neolithic period, people began making pottery to store food and water (or other drink) in vessels made from clay.

Archaeology can compare different pottery made from different periods, not just by the paints and styles of painting used to decorate these vessels, but also by type of design, comparing the cross-sections of the vessels, and can accurately identify what method to fire or glaze the pottery.

Science is ALL about evidence and VERIFICATION.

No scientists would use only one method to date anything.

The only here being biased, is you, leroy.

It is funny how you accuse people of being biased, but excluding yourself.

And even funnier, that you people who disagree with you as being biased, when @Dan From Smithville who disagree with you constantly is actually a theist.

The only differences between Dan and you, is that he understand science and history, and you don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All that foundation would have to move through time with the trait in question.

Exactly.

It's like finding a french poem dated to a time before latin existed.

It makes no sense. And @leroy pretends as if you could explain that away simply by claiming "ow, so french evolved a lot sooner then we thought" as if that won't make the whole thing crumbling down.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

That common ancestor had scales.

In the bird lineage, those scales went on to evolve into feathers.
In the mammalian lineage, those scales went on to evolve into hair.

So the common ancestor of birds and mammals, had neither hair nor feathers.
Those came about after the split, as seen in DNA.

See, this is why you should not ignore the other lines of evidence.

Mammals have genes for hair. They do not have genes for feathers.

So finding a mammal with feathers, would put it at odds with ALL OTHER MAMMALS. And birds.
It would not be explainable in evolutionary context.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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


@Dan From Smithville @Subduction Zone @TagliatelliMonster and many other fanatic evolutionist from this forum are making the claim

None of us made that claim.
You're just not paying attention to what is actually said.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

an then I´ll tell you what the flaws are.

Hahaha, love it!

Expert internet arm chair religious geologists thinks he can overturn entire fields from behind his keyboard without any formal training whatsoever.

Fantastic.

Can't make this stuff up.........

 

[leroy]

Exactly.

It's like finding a french poem dated to a time before latin existed.

It makes no sense. And @leroy pretends as if you could explain that away simply by claiming "ow, so french evolved a lot sooner then we thought" as if that won't make the whole thing crumbling down.

Yes excellent example, if we find such poem scientist would say "hey something whent wrong with the dating" because they understand that dating is not an exact science ,

Someone like you would say..... No no no dating methods are perfect, so let's change everything we know about history to accommodate to that date.

 

[leroy]

That common ancestor had scales.

In the bird lineage, those scales went on to evolve into feathers.
In the mammalian lineage, those scales went on to evolve into hair.

So the common ancestor of birds and mammals, had neither hair nor feathers.
Those came about after the split, as seen in DNA.

See, this is why you should not ignore the other lines of evidence.

Mammals have genes for hair. They do not have genes for feathers.

So finding a mammal with feathers, would put it at odds with ALL OTHER MAMMALS. And birds.
It would not be explainable in evolutionary context.

And why couldn't feathers evolved from scales before birds and mammals splitt?

 

[leroy]

None of us made that claim.
You're just not paying attention to what is actually said.

So do you agree that mammals could have evolved at some other time (given the correct conditions)?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes excellent example, if we find such poem scientist would say "hey something whent wrong with the dating" because they understand that dating is not an exact science ,

Someone like you would say..... No no no dating methods are perfect, so let's change everything we know about history to accommodate to that date.

That is not even remotely similar to the point I was actually making.
It seems the actual point went flying over your head.

And no, that is not at all what I would be saying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And why couldn't feathers evolved from scales before birds and mammals splitt?

Because then mammals would have feathers as well instead of hair.
Or they would at least have inactive feather building genes like chickens have inactive teeth building genes.

But they don't.
Because the feather equivalent in mammals, is hair.

You don't seem to be comprehending.
Feathers are the result of the exact lineage of those species that have feathers.
You can't just cut 100 million years or whatever out of that lineage and ask "so why didn't it evolve it right away?". That's just stupid.

That's like asking a marathon runner why at the start he didn't just teleport to the finish without actually running there.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So do you agree that mammals could have evolved at some other time (given the correct conditions)?

The question makes no sense.

Is there a reason mammals evolved at the particular time they evolved? No. It's just the result of the circumstances over a period of 4 billion years that lead upto that.
Were they predestined to exist? No. If you could reset evolution, they almost certainly wouldn't exist again.

So in this "run through" of time, the lineage is what it is. Could it have been different? Sure. But then current extant species might never have existed - others would exist. Or none at all if something went wrong and all life goes extinct.

Your "what if" question is thus an exercise in futility. What if feathers evolved before the split? Well, they didn't. What went on to evolve into feathers in one lineage, went on to evolve into hair in another lineage. That's what all the evidence tells us.

So if you find a mammal with feathers, and all other evidence remains the same - meaning no other mammals have feathers or genes for feathers and genes for hair instead, then evolution would not be able to explain that.

Even if you would say that it's merely the only mammal in which these genes are expressed and for all others, it's like inactive tooth building dna in chickens (a relic from their dino ancestors), then still one would expect to find the dormant / inactive / relics of those feather building genetic structures in mammalian genomes.

But we do not find these. They do not have them.
They have hair building genes instead. Hair and feathers are homologous. They share genetic origins in common ancestors - who had neither hair nor feathers, but scales.

 

[leroy]

And no, that is not at all what I would be saying.

Ok so we agree on the issue of dating

1 dating is not an exact science

2 if a dating method trows an age that is inconsistent with current and we'll stablish knowledge (latin predates french for example) scientist would tend drop the date. They won't change history for the sake of the date


Unless you clearly and unanimously clarify otherwise I will assume that you agree with both points

 

[leroy]

Or they would at least have inactive feather building genes like chickens have inactive teeth building genes.

And why would that be a problem for evolution ? In what way would that break the tree pattern ?

Evolution would still be true even if mammals had inactive genes for feathers , all you have to do is conclude that feathers evolved before mammals and birds split (which was a possibility)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so we agree on the issue of dating

I didn't agree to anything. I just said that what you claimed I would be saying, is not what I would be saying.
You don't know what I would be saying, because you didn't ask me.

1 dating is not an exact science

2 if a dating method trows an age that is inconsistent with current and we'll stablish knowledge (latin predates french for example) scientist would tend drop the date. They won't change history for the sake of the date

Unless you clearly and unanimously clarify otherwise I will assume that you agree with both points

You should assume a bit less and try to stay on topic.