Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[viole]

Yes, except the Cambrian layer is not associated with time as evos believe, but associated with location. The name comes from Cambria, the Roman name for Wales.

Lol, it was the "evos" that defined what cambrian means. But you seem to believe it was a location, for some reason. Then it must be a location where Wales is today. Is that true? Creation of macroscopic species took place in Wales? And all penguins hopped their way to Antarctica, and all Cangaroos hopped their way to Australia (twice)?

And people wonder why creationists are laughed at.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james bond]

Of course the Cambrian layer relates to a given time, the time when it was deposited, and yes the name comes from Cambria, the Roman name for Wales. Both are true and are are not in opposition.

I'm enjoying my break, but had to respond to this since my creation brothers/sisters may not be familiar. I am familiar with this because of a creationist friend. Sapiens, are you saying they are wrong in the reading of the rules? Thus, I looked it up and it seems the creos are right and you're wrong.

To answer viole, I had to assumed it was evo geologists who named the layers since it was done in the late 1800s, but it could have been both involved. Thus, my bad and apologies. It means various individual geologists named the layers, but it was based on location. The rules are here, p. 1564"
Article 13. —
Age
. For most formal material geologic units,
other than chronostratigraphic and polarity-chronostratigraphic,
inferences regarding geologic age play no proper role in their
definition. Nevertheless, the age, as well as the basis for its
assignment, are important features of the unit and, where pos-
sible, should be stated. For many lithodemic units, the age of
the protolith should be distinguished from that of the meta-
morphism or deformation. If the basis for assigning an age is
tenuous, a doubt should be expressed.
Remarks. (a)
Dating
. — The geochronologic ordering..."

http://www.nacstrat.org/sites/default/files/page-attachments/NORTH AMERICAN STRATIGRAPHIC CODE.pdf

Example of use
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Extension/formations_factsheet.pdf

Furthermore, the period or age that the rules discuss is subject to interpretation. It's not a scientific fact or proof according to creos.

 

[McBell]

Furthermore, the period or age that the rules discuss is subject to interpretation.

Ah yes.
Your favourite go to safety net...

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm enjoying my break, but had to respond to this since my creation brothers/sisters may not be familiar. I am familiar with this because of a creationist friend. Sapiens, are you saying they are wrong in the reading of the rules? Thus, I looked it up and it seems the creos are right and you're wrong.

To answer viole, I had to assumed it was evo geologists who named the layers since it was done in the late 1800s, but it could have been both involved. Thus, my bad and apologies. It means various individual geologists named the layers, but it was based on location. The rules are here, p. 1564"
Article 13. —
Age
. For most formal material geologic units,
other than chronostratigraphic and polarity-chronostratigraphic,
inferences regarding geologic age play no proper role in their
definition. Nevertheless, the age, as well as the basis for its
assignment, are important features of the unit and, where pos-
sible, should be stated. For many lithodemic units, the age of
the protolith should be distinguished from that of the meta-
morphism or deformation. If the basis for assigning an age is
tenuous, a doubt should be expressed.
Remarks. (a)
Dating
. — The geochronologic ordering..."

http://www.nacstrat.org/sites/default/files/page-attachments/NORTH AMERICAN STRATIGRAPHIC CODE.pdf

Example of use
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Extension/formations_factsheet.pdf

Furthermore, the period or age that the rules discuss is subject to interpretation. It's not a scientific fact or proof according to creos.

What's the point of this?

 

[Zosimus]

Oh, please excuse us little peons for not measuring up to your genius. lol

The scientific method works. Deal with it.

A simple statement of faith. I like it.

 

[Zosimus]

Point taken. So let me rephrase it.

It is obvious that it doesn't, if you believe that gravitational influence propagates at a speed higher than light's.

I thought that was an established fact.

It would not prove anything. It would just show us what you think. And if it consistent.

Not if but whether.

So, if you had cancer, where would you go?

If I had cancer, I would consume no carbohydrates of any kind in hopes of starving the glucose-eating buggers to death.

Impressive. i make the assumption that neither physics, nor probability theory, nor English spelling skills are part of the program.

Well, it's not as impressive as you might think. After all, what I have proved is that I am good at taking past GMAT tests. Does that necessarily mean that I will be good at taking future GMAT tests? Not necessarily. Of course, we can assume that the people who write the GMAT test are probably the same people as those who wrote the GMAT test in the past years. Arguably, therefore, we can say that past GMAT tests will resemble future GMAT tests because we know that said tests have been intelligently designed. However, simply because something has been intelligently designed is no guarantee that it will be similar to other intelligently designed things, even if made by the same creator.

Oh, and GMAT tests do contain probability questions. Here's a sample question:

Kurt, a painter, has 9 jars of paint, 4 of which are yellow, 2 are red, and the remaining jars are brown. Kurt will combine 3 jars of paint into a new container to make a new color, which he will name according to the following conditions:

Brun Y if the paint contains 2 jars of brown paint and no yellow
Brun X if the paint contains 3 jars of brown paint
Jaune X if the paint contains at least 2 jars of yellow
Jaune Y if the paint contains exactly 1 jar of yellow

What is the probability that the new color will be jaune?

A) 5/42
B) 37/42
C) 1/21
D) 4/9
E) 5/9

 

[Zosimus]

You are confused. You talked of a sign on a grave of a Jew, not of conclusive evidence that those bones belong to Jesus. I could invoke a hoax. Everybody could put such a sign on a grave.

Unless you believe that reading a sign on a grave is equivalent to definitive proof that that the sign says the truth. When was the last time you peRformed that GMAT, again?

Or is that again a problem with my reading comprehension?

Ciao

- viole

Finding Jesus of Nazareth in a grave would blow Christianity out of the water.

Of course, one might doubt whether the Jew in question really were Jesus of Nazareth. This is, of course, a problem not unique to theology. The problem plagues all of epistemology. A scientist who is convinced that all swans are white might, upon finding a black swan, figure that it isn't a swan because it isn't white. This is the problem of holistic underdetermination. I have already mentioned this problem as one of the reasons science is unreliable. Of course, you feel free to turn a blind eye to the problem in science while throwing it in the face of non-scientific endeavors. Amusing.

Additionally, none of this is the point at hand. The point is that Christianity is, at least theoretically, falsifiable. That does not mean that Christianity is science. A true scientific theory should make specific, novel, testable predictions. Natural selection does not do so. Thus, natural selection is not a scientific theory.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Pages - 148

Evidence for the affirmative presented - 0

Entertainment value from watching creationists writhe, squirm, and contort - priceless.

 

[Zosimus]

Just because I didn't mention "science" or "scientific" with any of the book of the bible, especially Genesis in regarding the flood in that one sentence, everything else is comparing the bible with science and history in post 2797.

You are nitpicking or cherry-picking because of omission in one sentence.

No, I'm not cherry picking. I am fighting the fallacy of irrelevant information.

I don't see why Genesis is irrelevant.

It's quite simple, really. Imagine that I claim that my friend Laura got into a car accident yesterday. You assure me that this is not possible. I ask why and you say that you have a friend, coincidentally named Laura, who claimed to have been in a car accident, but the entire thing was so extreme and difficult to believe, that you believe that no Laura anywhere could ever get into a car accident.

That is equivalent to what you are saying. Even if we assume that the Genesis creation story is so impossible that it could never have occurred, this doesn't prove that global floods are impossible.

 

[jonathan180iq]

The point is that Christianity is, at least theoretically, falsifiable. That does not mean that Christianity is science. A true scientific theory should make specific, novel, testable predictions. Natural selection does not do so. Thus, natural selection is not a scientific theory.

In psychology, we'd call what you're doing here "projection". You've applied the shortcomings of your own position onto others in an attempt to justify your beliefs.

• Based on homologies with African apes, Darwin predicted that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
• ToS NS predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments would have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
• Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
• Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
• Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
• Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
• Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html

 

[jonathan180iq]

No, I'm not cherry picking. I am fighting the fallacy of irrelevant information.


It's quite simple, really. Imagine that I claim that my friend Laura got into a car accident yesterday. You assure me that this is not possible. I ask why and you say that you have a friend, coincidentally named Laura, who claimed to have been in a car accident, but the entire thing was so extreme and difficult to believe, that you believe that no Laura anywhere could ever get into a car accident.

That is equivalent to what you are saying. Even if we assume that the Genesis creation story is so impossible that it could never have occurred, this doesn't prove that global floods are impossible.

There are dozens of reasons why global floods within the timeline of Human history are impossible. This is true without ever mentioning the Genesis myth - adding convoluted "logical" arguments doesn't solve that problem for your position.

 

[Zosimus]

In psychology, we'd call what you're doing here "projection". You've applied the shortcomings of your own position onto others in an attempt to justify your beliefs.

• Based on homologies with African apes, Darwin predicted that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

This has nothing to do with natural selection.

• ToS NS predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments would have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).

Mutation rates have nothing to do with natural selection. This is tacking by disjunction.

• Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).

Perhaps. For example, we can see that starlings are usually a drab gray color, a finding explained as a help in avoiding predators through camoflage.

Guacamayos, on the other hand, don't seem to blend in well with the foliage.

Does this falsify natural selection? Of course not. Natural selection is not falsifiable as it makes no testable predictions.

• Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).

No one can determine whether speciation occurs as no meaningful, universally-accepted definition of the word "species" exists. Even if one did, this has nothing to do with natural selection.

• Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).

Even if true, this is pointless. What if I made predictions about what ancient men would look like based on a careful reading of the Bible, and then found that it matched with some archaeological study? Would that suddenly prove the Bible true? Of course not—no more than confirmations show Darwinism true.

• Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).

Again, confirmations mean nothing. Additionally, this has nothing to do with natural selection. This is tacking by disjunction.

• Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005

Speculation, and anyway, confirmations mean nothing.

 

[jonathan180iq]

This has nothing to do with natural selection.

Oh no?
Explain to me, please, why humans don't all have the same skin color.
Please explain why our body types aren't uniform.
Please explain the mechanism through which differing body features have become prominent.

Do so without mentioning, even indirectly, natural selection.

Mutation rates have nothing to do with natural selection. This is tacking by disjunction.

Hahahaha!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution6.htm
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2457606?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_19
http://www.sinauer.com/media/wysiwyg/tocs/PrimerPopluationBiology.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

Also, why in the world are you referencing computer science terminology to discuss biology?

Perhaps. For example, we can see that starlings are usually a drab gray color, a finding explained as a help in avoiding predators through camoflage.

So, another confirmation, right?

Guacamayos, on the other hand, don't seem to blend in well with the foliage.

Does this falsify natural selection? Of course not. Natural selection is not falsifiable as it makes no testable predictions.

Tell me, Zosimus, which natural predator feeds on the Ara birds?

No one can determine whether speciation occurs as no meaningful, universally-accepted definition of the word "species" exists. Even if one did, this has nothing to do with natural selection.

You can be as rigid or as loose in your definition of species as you like, but speciation still factually occurs, regradless of parameters. Natural selection is the driver, evolution the car, and it contains any number of parts, one of them being mutation...

Try again.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_41

Even if true, this is pointless. What if I made predictions about what ancient men would look like based on a careful reading of the Bible, and then found that it matched with some archaeological study? Would that suddenly prove the Bible true? Of course not—no more than confirmations show Darwinism true.

One prediction that the Bible makes is about giant races of humans who walked the Earth. There were also the sons of the gods, and Nephilim who mated with the pretty humans. When archaeologists dig up any of those then the Bible will have something going for it... Well, it would but...

Again, confirmations mean nothing. Additionally, this has nothing to do with natural selection. This is tacking by disjunction.

Confirmation means nothing...

Which is it?
You first said that Natural Selection makes no predictions, therefor it's not a science. But then you readily admitted that some of these predictions were confirmed, but that it somehow doesn't really mean anything, because confirmations mean nothing.

That's a pretty serious case of having the goal posts moved, isn't it? You might want to get that checked out.

Speculation, and anyway, confirmations mean nothing.

Woah! Back to back admissions of confirmation... too bad they don't mean anything.

1+1+1+1 = 4
2 + 2 = 4
4/2= 2

I'm going to predict that 2x2=4.
Too bad my previous mathematical confirmations don't mean anything. I guess math is wrong and not really a science.

 

[viole]

Finding Jesus of Nazareth in a grave would blow Christianity out of the water.

Of course, one might doubt whether the Jew in question really were Jesus of Nazareth. This is, of course, a problem not unique to theology. The problem plagues all of epistemology. A scientist who is convinced that all swans are white might, upon finding a black swan, figure that it isn't a swan because it isn't white. This is the problem of holistic underdetermination. I have already mentioned this problem as one of the reasons science is unreliable. Of course, you feel free to turn a blind eye to the problem in science while throwing it in the face of non-scientific endeavors. Amusing.

Additionally, none of this is the point at hand. The point is that Christianity is, at least theoretically, falsifiable. That does not mean that Christianity is science. A true scientific theory should make specific, novel, testable predictions. Natural selection does not do so. Thus, natural selection is not a scientific theory.

Finding a fossil man in the fossil belly of a fossil dinosaur, or in a 500 millions old stratum, would blow evolution out of the water, too.

This should suffice to blow your claim , that evolution is not falsifiable, out of the water, as well.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

That is equivalent to what you are saying. Even if we assume that the Genesis creation story is so impossible that it could never have occurred, this doesn't prove that global floods are impossible.

The global flood has never happened as described by Genesis, not in human history, because there are no geological evidences and archaeological evidences.

The global flood, according to Genesis, is set around some point in the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BCE, my calculations of all the years and generations, backward from the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, put it at around 2340 BCE.

This date put it around the same time of Teti (2345 - 2333 BCE), first king of the 6th dynasty, Old Kingdom Egypt.

If Noah's Flood had killed everyone as Genesis claimed, then this dynasty should have ended abruptly.

It didn't happen, because Teti's sons succeeded him, Userkare and Pepin I. Had there been a flood that wiped out Egypt, Teti and Pepin would not have been able to continue the royal customs of having their pyramids built in Sakkara, because there would have been not enough manpower.

Second, Genesis 10 clearly stated that Egypt didn't exist before the flood. Supposedly Egypt was the son of Ham and grandson of Noah. Clearly, that's rubbish, demonstrating the author(s) of Genesis to be terribly inaccurate, because 3rd dynasty began the pyramid-building programmes, early 27th century BCE, and the most famous pyramids in Giza were built by the 4th dynasty, centuries before Teti.

Egypt have always had floods, annually, some more devastating then others, but none of them indicated a global one.

And it is the similar case in Mesopotamia. They have floods annually, which help bring fertile soil from the north, but sometimes they have devastating river floods, but none showed sign of global one.

Had there been a global flood during the 3rd millennium BCE, it would have ended civilisation in Sumer. But there are no geological and archaeological evidences to support it.

Regional floods are devastating enough, but none of them occurred at the global scale, and it certainly didn't occur during the Bronze Age.

And there were no global flood in the Neolithic period. Again, there are lacking of evidences.

All you are doing is projecting and all tell me full of conjectures, that it could happen. I am quite confident that no such flood occurred in the Neolithic period and Bronze Age.

Lastly, there have been no evidences supporting the building of the Ark. There have always been a supposed sightings, but each time, these stupid creationists have been debunked. Dishonesty is the common practice of creationists.

If you can present me with evidences, then I would believe you. Evidences that show the flood occurred everywhere at exactly at the same time. Until then, all you have done is make one baseless conjecture after another.

 

[viole]

I thought that was an established fact.

Sure. 100 years ago.

Expected reply: you see? You keep changing your mind all the time. (Unlike people who are so clever to keep their mind forever independently of counter evidence).

If I had cancer, I would consume no carbohydrates of any kind in hopes of starving the glucose-eating buggers to death.

And how would you know that those buggers feed on glucose, if they do? Revelation?

Well, it's not as impressive as you might think. After all, what I have proved is that I am good at taking past GMAT tests. Does that necessarily mean that I will be good at taking future GMAT tests? Not necessarily. Of course, we can assume that the people who write the GMAT test are probably the same people as those who wrote the GMAT test in the past years. Arguably, therefore, we can say that past GMAT tests will resemble future GMAT tests because we know that said tests have been intelligently designed. However, simply because something has been intelligently designed is no guarantee that it will be similar to other intelligently designed things, even if made by the same creator.

Oh, and GMAT tests do contain probability questions. Here's a sample question:

Kurt, a painter, has 9 jars of paint, 4 of which are yellow, 2 are red, and the remaining jars are brown. Kurt will combine 3 jars of paint into a new container to make a new color, which he will name according to the following conditions:

Brun Y if the paint contains 2 jars of brown paint and no yellow
Brun X if the paint contains 3 jars of brown paint
Jaune X if the paint contains at least 2 jars of yellow
Jaune Y if the paint contains exactly 1 jar of yellow

What is the probability that the new color will be jaune?

A) 5/42
B) 37/42
C) 1/21
D) 4/9
E) 5/9

Oh, do you have multiple choices? Lol. What is the probability of passing the test with honors and without any clue?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

Oh no?
Explain to me, please, why humans don't all have the same skin color.
Please explain why our body types aren't uniform.
Please explain the mechanism through which differing body features have become prominent.

Oh great. Another argument from ignorance logical fallacist. What school did you graudate from, and why didn't it cover logical fallacies?

Hahahaha!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution6.htm
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2457606?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_19
http://www.sinauer.com/media/wysiwyg/tocs/PrimerPopluationBiology.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_32

What does any of this have to do with tacking by disjunction?

Also, why in the world are you referencing computer science terminology to discuss biology?

Tacking by disjunction is not computer science terminology. It is the problem that to the extent that finding F supports theory T, it also supports theory T&F for any statement F. For example, any confirmation of the theory "The universe is orderly" also supports the theory "The Universe is Orderly and the Christian God has made it so." Your problem is showing how evidence that supports Darwinism, defined as all parts of the theory that are not natural selection & natural selection cannot be shown to support the other parts of Darwinism not including the theory of natural selection. A few Bayesian equations will be sufficient.

Tell me, Zosimus, which natural predator feeds on the Ara birds?

Orange-breasted falcons (Falco deiroleucus), hawk eagles (Nisaetus cirrhatus) and harp eagles (Harpia harpyja). Humans also prey upon the birds.

You can be as rigid or as loose in your definition of species as you like, but speciation still factually occurs, regradless of parameters. Natural selection is the driver, evolution the car, and it contains any number of parts, one of them being mutation...

This claim confuses the difference between the ontological status of species and epistemological status of the species concept.

Try again.

Provide more detail about what I should try again.

One prediction that the Bible makes is about giant races of humans who walked the Earth. There were also the sons of the gods, and Nephilim who mated with the pretty humans. When archaeologists dig up any of those then the Bible will have something going for it... Well, it would but...

Completely irrelevant. The point is that confirmations of giant races of humans, even if found, would not necessarily demonstrate that the Bible were true. Cherry picking Bible verses proves nothing, especially since we are speaking hypothetically.

Confirmation means nothing...

Exactly.

Which is it? You first said that Natural Selection makes no predictions, therefor it's not a science. But then you readily admitted that some of these predictions were confirmed, but that it somehow doesn't really mean anything, because confirmations mean nothing.

No, the argument is that supposed confirmations of natural selection, even if it could be proved true, are irrelevant because:

A) The confirmations are invariably tacking by disjunction;
B) The confirmations are not ones that a person unacquainted with the theory would expect; and
C) Confirmations, in general, are problematic as they are examples of affirming the consequent.

I'm going to predict that 2x2=4.
Too bad my previous mathematical confirmations don't mean anything. I guess math is wrong and not really a science.

Well, you're right about one thing. Math is not science. There is, for example, a 360-page proof that 1+1=2. Science, on the other hand, isn't in the business of proving things.

 

[Zosimus]

Finding a fossil man in the fossil belly of a fossil dinosaur, or in a 500 millions old stratum, would blow evolution out of the water, too.

This should suffice to blow your claim , that evolution is not falsifiable, out of the water, as well.

Ciao

- viole

Tacking by disjunction. We are not talking about evolution, rightly defined as the theory that the frequency of alleles varies from generation to generation. We are talking about natural selection.

One cannot logically reason from the claim that the fittest genes survive to the claim that it would be impossible to find a fossil of a man in the belly of a dinosaur, though I'd like to see you try.

 

[Zosimus]

The global flood has never happened as described by Genesis, not in human history, because there are no geological evidences and archaeological evidences.

The global flood, according to Genesis, is set around some point in the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BCE, my calculations of all the years and generations, backward from the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE, put it at around 2340 BCE.

This date put it around the same time of Teti (2345 - 2333 BCE), first king of the 6th dynasty, Old Kingdom Egypt.

If Noah's Flood had killed everyone as Genesis claimed, then this dynasty should have ended abruptly.

It didn't happen, because Teti's sons succeeded him, Userkare and Pepin I. Had there been a flood that wiped out Egypt, Teti and Pepin would not have been able to continue the royal customs of having their pyramids built in Sakkara, because there would have been not enough manpower.

Second, Genesis 10 clearly stated that Egypt didn't exist before the flood. Supposedly Egypt was the son of Ham and grandson of Noah. Clearly, that's rubbish, demonstrating the author(s) of Genesis to be terribly inaccurate, because 3rd dynasty began the pyramid-building programmes, early 27th century BCE, and the most famous pyramids in Giza were built by the 4th dynasty, centuries before Teti.

Egypt have always had floods, annually, some more devastating then others, but none of them indicated a global one.

And it is the similar case in Mesopotamia. They have floods annually, which help bring fertile soil from the north, but sometimes they have devastating river floods, but none showed sign of global one.

Had there been a global flood during the 3rd millennium BCE, it would have ended civilisation in Sumer. But there are no geological and archaeological evidences to support it.

Regional floods are devastating enough, but none of them occurred at the global scale, and it certainly didn't occur during the Bronze Age.

And there were no global flood in the Neolithic period. Again, there are lacking of evidences.

All you are doing is projecting and all tell me full of conjectures, that it could happen. I am quite confident that no such flood occurred in the Neolithic period and Bronze Age.

Lastly, there have been no evidences supporting the building of the Ark. There have always been a supposed sightings, but each time, these stupid creationists have been debunked. Dishonesty is the common practice of creationists.

If you can present me with evidences, then I would believe you. Evidences that show the flood occurred everywhere at exactly at the same time. Until then, all you have done is make one baseless conjecture after another.

We are not talking about Noah's flood. We are talking about your claim that it is scientifically impossible for a flood to occur. As I have already pointed out, there is enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of 2.5 km. Thus, you cannot claim that it is impossible for a flood to occur. You can only claim that you think that one has not occurred.

 

[Zosimus]

Sure. 100 years ago.

Expected reply: you see? You keep changing your mind all the time. (Unlike people who are so clever to keep their mind forever independently of counter evidence).

I have already linked you to the proof that the gravitational propogation rate cannot be the speed of light as claimed. You have made no rebuttal of any kind.

And how would you know that those buggers feed on glucose, if they do? Revelation?

You are venturing out of the realm of science and into the realm of decision theory. Suffice it to say that it is not necessary to know that the buggers feed on glucose for the decision to starve them of glucose to become a rational gamble. I subscribe to Leonard Savage's theory of subjective expected utility.

You are hoping to hear me say that I would go running to a doctor for aid from western science. I am sorry to disappoint you.

Oh, do you have multiple choices? Lol. What is the probability of passing the test with honors and without any clue?

Yes, the multiple choices are an imporant part of the test because one of the biggest factors in success is using all information available, and the choices are part of the information available! People who mechanically sit down and grind out the answers are not good candidates for business school. These people would be better off as accountants or statisticians than leading companies. Good candidates for business school should immediately get the following question right:

x^2 = 784 -- What is x?

A) 28
B) 32
C) 38
D) 42
E) 58

How do you solve this problem? There are three strategies:

1. Prime factorization. Divide by 784 ÷ 4 = 196. Divide by 4 again = 49. So 7x4 is the answer: 28

2. Plug in the answers. 38 x 38 = 1444 so the answer must be less than 38. 32 x 32 = 1024 so the answer must be A.

3. Plug in numbers. 30x30 = 900 so the answer must be less than 30. There's only one choice less than 30 and that's A.

One hopes that you can see that the third choice is the best method and the method that business schools want to see in their candidates.