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

[Jose Fly]

No it's pretty much a knock down argument. And there's no reasonable doubt. The only doubt is by people who have contempt for science, and value a poor interpretation of an ancient book of stories.

Which is why this was settled, scientifically, over 200 years ago.

 

[Jose Fly]

How many times must the same thing be explained to you?

Well, how many times has everyone tried to explain to a creationist what "theory" means in science? That science doesn't deal in "proof"? That scientists updating things in response to new data is how science works?

And how many times have you seen any of the creationists actually understand any of those and adjust their position accordingly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, how many times has everyone tried to explain to a creationist what "theory" means in science? That science doesn't deal in "proof"? That scientists updating things in response to new data is how science works?

A gajillion!

And how many times have you seen any of the creationists actually understand any of those and adjust their position accordingly?

Never

 

[Jose Fly]

A gajillion!

You may be underestimating.

Never

Now, how many times have you seen them be cornered in a debate, only to just leave the thread and go start up with someone else? Again, I think a gajillion may be an underestimate.

 

[metis]

No geologists are not ignorant, only fanatic evolutionists from the internet are ignorant.

Geologists know that dating is not an exact science, they know that many assumptions have to be made before dating the sample,

We should always assume that nothing is ever going to be "perfect", whatever that may be, however it is also wise not to negate the good by insisting that only perfection counts. In science, we don't assume much of anything.

BTW, is a "fanatical evolutionist" any more "ignorant" than a "fanatical theist"? IMO, I tend to feel that the latter is probably more so than the former since a theist has so little to work with.

 

[ecco]

At the top, in A, we have an ancestor with scales.

Then there is a split. One branch goes on to evolve feathers in D (not C - not all thos on that branch were /are feathered). The other branch goes on to evolve hair instead of feathers. I told you previously that hair and feathers are homologous. Meaning: you have one or the other (or none, in case of branch C). What is hair in the mammal, are feathers in birds.

Just kiddin'

 

[Moonjuice]

[QUOTE="The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
Seas, or sea of water? You know this? How?[/QUOTE]

Here is an excellent example of what it means to be "closed minded". Taking exactly ZERO seconds to attempt understand a contradictory point you are unfamiliar with before you disagree. What do you mean, you know this how? The dude literally gave you a reference showing where he drew his conclusion from. Instead of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, why not take an honest approach? Look at the reference material for 5 minutes and explain why you think the reference doesn't lead to the conclusion that he is agreeing with.

 

[gnostic]

The Ark was too large to be seaworthy. (SEE Wyoming (schooner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The rough seas would have twisted the Ark apart.
Seas, or sea of water? You know this? How?

Here is an excellent example of what it means to be "closed minded". Taking exactly ZERO seconds to attempt understand a contradictory point you are unfamiliar with before you disagree. What do you mean, you know this how? The dude literally gave you a reference showing where he drew his conclusion from. Instead of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, why not take an honest approach? Look at the reference material for 5 minutes and explain why you think the reference doesn't lead to the conclusion that he is agreeing with.

Have you ever been at sea, in a storm with rough sea, as in with large waves?

If it did rain for 40 days and nights, and with no lands in sight, any vessel would have been battered by the waves. Even large cargo ships or aircraft carrier cannot prevent rain and waves from swamping them.

Not only would the waves broken any wooden vessel, even if it did survive the battering, the ark would have been swamped, and if the ark had openings for ventilation, in 40 days, water would get in as in tonne of water, and every decks would have been wet. Do you really think they can bail all the water out with just 8 people for 40 days?

And if the ark was completely sealed up with no ventilation for 40 days, then animals and people would suffocate.

The ark story is simply unrealistic, especially knowing how severe storm at sea can be today, there are too many factors where things can disastrously wrong.

And another thing, is how all the animals can survive for a whole year onboard, without single death?

Then there are problems with all the animals leaving the ark.

How do you expect a pair of animals, travelling through all the land to repopulate the Earth without death, without starving (what do they eat after they leave the ark) or being kill by predators?

Koalas are not known as travelling animals, and they lack strength, stamina and speed, they don’t run and they can’t swim, and they spent much of their times hanging on the eucalyptus trees, feeding off leaves and sleeping most of the days. And they don’t just feed off from any tree that exist in Asia and islands between Indian Ocean and Pacific. So how do you expect koalas to travel from Ararat to Australia, without dying or without being killed?

It would definitely be unrealistic for koalas to travel thousands of miles, and migrate from Ararat to Australia. And it is just the koalas. There are echidnas and wombats also not known to be trekkers or swimmers.

It is just more unrealistic fantasy.

I think most creationists are closed minded to reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nice.
Noah took produce on the ark. We can't assume he didn't take corn.

Probably kept it all in a fridge on the flight deck next to the attack helicopters.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok so (and this is an honest question, not meant to be tricky)

1 modern Birds don’t have teeth

2 then birds with teeth were found in the fossil record

3 this didn’t cause any problem for evolution (the ancestors of birds had teeth no big deal)

What would be different if we ever find a mammal with feathers in the fossil record ?.... why couldnt we simply say “the ancestors of mammals had feathers, no big deal)

Good grief. A dead horse is a dead horse.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And what would stop you to say the same thing about feathers? ..if there where mammals with feathers in the fossil record you could interpret the evidence like this modern mammals don’t have feathers but their ancestors did)





But that is a rare exception, we usually don’t find the genetic remains of stuff that we used to have, it could be the case that feathers in mammals where lost say 80Mya and no remains where left.

So in a parallel universe where everything is exactly the same, only with the difference that there are some feathered mammals in the fossils record , (and Darwin is aware of that) evolution would still be true.

Good grief! Are you for real? Seriously? You are still arguing that there were mammals with feathers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don’t need to explain more, what you have to do is support your claims.




.

--

They have been supported, explained, explained again, explained yet again and explained even more and then explained some more and still here you are posting the same nonsense assertions and points. This is one of the finest examples of creationist gibberish I have seen in some time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good grief! Are you for real? Seriously? You are still arguing that there were mammals with feathers.

Check mate atheis . . . oops. Never mind

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

3 in most of the cases A clam would have been buried before a bird in flood scenario

Yes; a "typical" flood; but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a worldwide flood that was, according to the Creationist, able to carve out the Grand Canyon in minutes; yet magically, with all that torrent going on, wouldn't mix up what was on the ground.

These tsuamis are gentle compared to what a flood of the magnitude you assert is factual would create. After all, it carved the Grand Canyon and other formations in minutes; but was gentle enough to neatly lay down its debris.

 

[rational experiences]

If science says metals as machinery parts manipulated above ground by human conditions are found deep inside earth as depth and fused rock fusion then an above ground stone mass change was reacted.

One.....stone is naturally sealed.
Two. Minerals are mined to build machine parts.
Three....instant snap freeze to reseal converting mass above ground would be instant.

A conversion to grounds mass as substance would be instant. Involving instant water removal first.

As water gets removed from stones mass what substance would the stone become in that process?

Image.
Image seen cut or etched into the body of stones fusion as statue like.

Were bones found inside stone fusion actually life's bones of once living forms should be a science question.

Or was it a human science radiation recorded feedback attack on stones fusion as phenomena?

Science human expressed states the substance of stones can convert into changed substances.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don’t need to explain more, what you have to do is support your claims.

Here's an article you can ignore about how hair, feathers and scales are inherited modified structures from a common ancestor.

Feathers, hair, and scales: Do they share a common ancestry? - CSMonitor.com

From your drawing if A would have had feathers, then mammals with feathers would have been possible and even expected. (agree?)

Not just mammals. Everything that branched out of A.
And yes. But that's not what we see. What we see, is that only those on branch D have feathers.
Those on branch B have hair instead.

So finding a feline with feathers tomorrow, would violate the nested hierarchy.
The feathers would place it on branch D. The mammary glands would place it on branch A. When a creature has to be placed on 2 branches, it breaks the nested hierarchy.

How many times must it be repeated?

And why would that be problem for evolutionary theory? yes if A woudl have had feathers then b,c, and d woudl also have feathers why woudl that be a problem for evolution?

It wouldn't. But it's not what we see. What we see, is that only D has feathers.
So finding a feline with feathers tomorrow, would not fit evolution as it would break the nested hierarchy.

How many times more?

--------------------
So in summery

1 we both seem to agree that feathers could have evolved at some other point

2 we both agree that if feathers would have had evolved in “A” (from your drawing) mammals with feathers would be possible.

3 we both agree that this would be a problem for evolution all you have to do is change the tree a little bit

Aaaaand we're back to the useless tautology that says "if everything would be different, then things would be different".

Also, this is a dishonest moving of the goalposts.
Remember the original point which started this mess of a pigeon chess game?

That point was: evolution would be in trouble if tomorrow we find a mammal with feathers.

A mammal. As in 1 (species). The point was NOT "let's imagine a hypothetical world where ALL animals have feathers".

4 we both agree (hopefully) that we don’t always keep the genetic remains of stuff that our ancestors had (meaning that not finding mammals with residual genes for feathers would not be surprising)

No, entire sections of DNA don't just disappear without a trace.
It's been 100 million years since birds lost their teeth, yet they still have the genetic remnants thereof.
We humans also still have the GULO gene, as do all great apes. And it's broken in the same way in all great apes. And it's been that way for millions of years also.

It is entirely unreasonable to suggest that ALL branches under A (in the drawing) except D lost the feather genetics without any kind of trace remaining.

That, and off course the fact that hair and feathers are homologous. So the very idea of "we had feathers and lost them", makes zero sense. This is another point you consistently ignore.

So can you please tell me which are the points where we disagree?

You have been moving goalposts so much, it's hard to keep track.
I guess the biggest problem here, is your inability (or rather: unwillingness) to comprehend nested hierarchies and basic evolutionary mechanisms.

Strawman

What I said is that we don’t always keep the remains of genes from stuff that evolved millions of years ago. Agree?
--

No. What you said is that it is rare.
Clearly it is not rare as thousands upon thousands of bird species retained the genetics for teeth building.
If it was "rare" for species to retain ancient inactive genetics, we would expect only a handful of birds to still have those genes. Or even none at all, since it's been 100 million years.

Instead, we find that ALL BIRDS have these genes. ALL.

So, not rare at all. Exactly the opposite, in fact.
Losing such genetics is what is rare. So rare in fact, that not a single bird species lost it.

So no, not a strawman at all. Instead, a direct refutation of your bare assertion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which is why this was settled, scientifically, over 200 years ago.

By none other then the fathers of geology, who were christians who started studying the earth for the purpose of finding evidence of the biblical flood story.

What they found, was the opposite. And they kickstarted geology as a scientific field in the process.

I find this so ironic..... It's been indeed 200 years since that time and these creationists still haven't catched up. It were their own people who tried to scientifically prove this story and eventually had to conclude the exact opposite as a direct result of their studies.

 

[ecco]

Do you really think they can bail all the water out with just 8 people for 40 days?

GodDidIt!

And another thing, is how all the animals can survive for a whole year onboard, without single death?

GodDidIt!

How do you expect a pair of animals, travelling through all the land to repopulate the Earth without death, without starving (what do they eat after they leave the ark) or being kill by predators?

GodDidIt!

So how do you expect koalas to travel from Ararat to Australia, without dying or without being killed?

GodDidIt!

Who told Noah to build the ark?
GodDidIt!
Who got all the animals to come to the ark?
GodDidIt!
Who made it rain for forty days and nights?
GodDidIt!

Any questions?

 

[Jose Fly]

By none other then the fathers of geology, who were christians who started studying the earth for the purpose of finding evidence of the biblical flood story.

What they found, was the opposite. And they kickstarted geology as a scientific field in the process.

I find this so ironic..... It's been indeed 200 years since that time and these creationists still haven't catched up. It were their own people who tried to scientifically prove this story and eventually had to conclude the exact opposite as a direct result of their studies.

Exactly! Can't chalk up their rejection of the flood as an anti-Bible plot, or being due to an anti-God bias. They were on the same team!

I've shown the writings of those geologists to a few creationists over the years, and pretty much every one of them did the same thing....say something like "That's interesting; I'll look at it and get back to you". Of course not one of them ever did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don’t need to explain more, what you have to do is support your claims.




.



--

It has been pointed out to you for years th

Exactly! Can't chalk up their rejection of the flood as an anti-Bible plot, or being due to an anti-God bias. They were on the same team!

I've shown the writings of those geologists to a few creationists over the years, and pretty much every one of them did the same thing....say something like "That's interesting; I'll look at it and get back to you". Of course not one of them ever did.

There is a lot of that "and they were never heard from again" going on in these debates. @tas8831 cracks me up when he throws that out there so appropriately.