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

[Subduction Zone]

Based on molecular clocks evolutionist predicted that gorillas appeared 8M years ago , but then we found a 10Myo gorilla in the fossil record . .....but nobody makes a. Big deal, scientist simply say hey "maybe gorillas evolved earlier"

Source.
We used to believe, based on genetic information, DNA studies and molecular studies, that the splits between chimpanzees and the human line on one side and the gorilla line on the other side … happened around eight million years ago," said paleontologist Berhane Asfaw, who helped unearth the fossil. "But based on this new information, the split had to happen before 10 million years ago. It means that information has to be adjusted in every textbook."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.672443





.
If there where feathered mammals in the fossil record, you would simply say that feathers evolved before birds and mammals diverged.

A good and valuable scientific prediction ha to be specific and has to flow naturally and inescapable from the theory. For example eistein predicted exactly how clocks should be affected if you move at such speed. .....you don't have anything remotely analogous with evolution (talking about the fossil record)



.

1 as I told you before some exceptions are expected ...the point is that we do se a trend ....

-marine animals are usually found at the bottom, flying animals at the top.

-intelligent animals at the top, unintelligent at the bottom.

-animals that instinctively run away from disasters at the top, animals that don't have this instinct at the bottom.

We do see this trend and you know it.




2 is not about speed it's about ability to scape from a flood (speed is just one of many important variables) , sloths can climb trees and they instinctively run away from naturally disasters , (t-rex probably didn't had this abilities )

3 modern sloths are slow, but perhaps they had ancestors that where faster



My point is that if one finds a fossil graveyard with rabbits, then by default it would not be precambic layers .....scientist would not date the rock to see if it's Precambrian, and any radiometric dating that concludes that the fossils are billions of years old would be dropped (scientist would assume contamination or something else)

Do you grant this point ?

This was already explained to you . Clean up your posts if you want me to even try again.

 

[Yerda]

Do you agree that if they are just stories, then they are all made up?
If they are all made up, then those who spoke of them as being real, are liars. Is that correct?
We know that those who spoke of these events were real. True? For example, Jesus, Paul, Peter...
Also, Ezekiel and the Historian Luke, traces the Jewish genealogy to Noah - a forefather.

So if you are reading a book, whose writers and character claimed what you say is fiction, as fact, they are liars. Agreed?
Why would you want to have anything to do with a book written by, and about liars, is the question. That's what's puzzling.
The other thing is, they claimed to be God's servants, so that would make it worst, and especially since people teach their children and other people these things, and use those person as good examples.

I don't think that's a useful way to think about it. They aren't all made-up, making up stories isn't necessarily the same as lying, and truth can be contained within stories that don't depict actual events.

May I ask, do you also think miracles are impossible, and angels are mythical?
Do you think Isaiah lied about the angel that defeated the Assyrian army?
This is a historical event, according to secular sources... minus what Isaiah records about the angel.
How do you decide what is to be considered a literal event?

Just whatever the evidence is.

Oh. Edit @Jaiket, no need to apologize for expressing what you think, even though it may seem harsh... Unless you wonder why you said it. I appreciate your honesty. I like honesty.
If you tell me what you think i want to hear, that's another story... I prefer not to hear.

Ok, the truth is that I can't understand how someone could come to believe that the events depicted in the Bible are all literally true (without being raised that way). That doesn't make them bad, stupid or crazy people. Just bewildering to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there where insects with teeth in the Fossil record, this would simply imply that teeth evolved before the insects diverged from vertebrates .


Evolution would have accommodated to this data . This prediction is not that impressive.

Urrkkk!

 

[leroy]

That this is your dismissive response is not that impressive. What is revealed here about your knowledge of these things is even less impressive. Insects did not diverge from vertebrates and could not have given that they are invertebrates.

THE FACT THAT YOU Are refuting semantics rather than my point, strongly suggests that you are defeated

 

[leroy]

Not only that, Dan.

Leroy doesn’t know that invertebrates didn’t diverge from vertebrates; it is the other way around.

That one sentence of his, showed how little he know about Evolution and biology in general.

ok ok I meant before they diverged from their common ancestor.

 

[leroy]

This was already explained to you . Clean up your posts if you want me to even try again.

Once again avoiding answers?

 

[night912]

1 as I told you before some exceptions are expected ...the point is that we do se a trend ....

-marine animals are usually found at the bottom, flying animals at the top.

Yes, and that's actually evidence against a global flood. Some critical thinking is required here. In a global storm, which animals are more likely to die first, marine animals whose habitat is expanding or the flying kind that needs to sleep and/or are in direct danger from a catastrophic storm?

-intelligent animals at the top, unintelligent at the bottom.

-animals that instinctively run away from disasters at the top, animals that don't have this instinct at the bottom.

Yes, and those who ran away should've been in different area, hence the, "run away" part. An intelligent being would think that an intelligent animal would not instinctively run to a known disaster.

And if the global flood did occur, all the unintelligent humans that were too dumb to get in their fishing boat, would have been under the flying pterosaurs.

We do see this trend and you know it.

Yes, the trend showing that a global flood didn't happened. If you're also able to see it, then why continue to believe that there was a global flood some time in the past?

My point is that if one finds a fossil graveyard with rabbits, then by default it would not be precambic layers .....scientist would not date the rock to see if it's Precambrian, and any radiometric dating that concludes that the fossils are billions of years old would be dropped (scientist would assume contamination or something else)

Do you grant this point ?

No. The key word here is, "scientist." Apparently you're confusing it with YEC apologist, which usually do what you suggested, automatically conclude that the rabbits fit into their beliefs without doing scientific tests for verification.

I think the first thing that the scientist would do is examine the rabbits to see if they're fossils or bones. And since I'm not a scientist and was able to come up with that thought, it's safe to say that one doesn't need to be a scientist, only a rational thinker, to know and understand what is considered as evidence.

 

[F1fan]

Based on molecular clocks evolutionist predicted that gorillas appeared 8M years ago , but then we found a 10Myo gorilla in the fossil record . .....but nobody makes a. Big deal, scientist simply say hey "maybe gorillas evolved earlier"

.
This is how science works. It reports the data it has, and as data accumulates the models and understanding becomes more accurate over time. I see Creationists expecting science to be perfect and are highly critical that science doesn't have a perfect record. It's an absurd criticism given the massively dismal record of Creationism.

1 as I told you before some exceptions are expected ...the point is that we do se a trend ....

-marine animals are usually found at the bottom, flying animals at the top.

-intelligent animals at the top, unintelligent at the bottom.

-animals that instinctively run away from disasters at the top, animals that don't have this instinct at the bottom.

We do see this trend and you know it.




2 is not about speed it's about ability to scape from a flood (speed is just one of many important variables) , sloths can climb trees and they instinctively run away from naturally disasters , (t-rex probably didn't had this abilities )

3 modern sloths are slow, but perhaps they had ancestors that where faster

There will be any number of variables in a natural disaster. There have been types of animals that can climb trees escaping forest fires only for that act the be a fatal impulse. There was a massive death rate of koala bears in Australian fires some years ago. The additionally sad thing was those bears that had serious injuries and needed treatment.

Dumb or smart animals, including humans, often make fear based decisions to escape danger, and it's not always the right move.

My point is that if one finds a fossil graveyard with rabbits, then by default it would not be precambic layers .....scientist would not date the rock to see if it's Precambrian, and any radiometric dating that concludes that the fossils are billions of years old would be dropped (scientist would assume contamination or something else)

Do you grant this point ?

There are other clues about the age of any given strata where fossils are discovered. There's usually other species of organisms that are known to exist within a period. What you are doing here is not being a serious critic of science methods, but a typical Creationist tactic of trying to impugn the integrity of scientists, suggesting their work is sloppy and not reputable, therefore lets we Creationists reject their work. But you're not actually citing any actual sloppiness, you're just showing disrespect for science and the experts who do it.

Let's note this doesn't help lend credibility to Creationism. Creationism still fails to do work, or show any results from serious research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again avoiding answers?

Back to lying I see.

Your questions were answered. You screwed up as usual. You refused to understand so you must ask your questions properly.

Try again.

 

[leroy]

Yes, and that's actually evidence against a global flood. Some critical thinking is required here. In a global storm, which animals are more likely to die first, marine animals whose habitat is expanding or the flying kind that needs to sleep and/or are in direct danger from a catastrophic storm?

Its not a matter of who survived “better” it’s a matter of who is more likely to be crushed by a pile of mud early.

In a flood clams in general would have been buried before birds…….this is why we usually find birds “above” clams.

The key word is “usually” obviously some exceptions are expected.

Evolution also deals with exceptions sometimes we find “simple” animals above complex animals, but nobody makes a big deal because everybody understands that exceptions are expected.

And if the global flood did occur, all the unintelligent humans that were too dumb to get in their fishing boat, would have been under the flying pterosaurs.

again, exceptions are expected

Yes, the trend showing that a global flood didn't happened. If you're also able to see it, then why continue to believe that there was a global flood some time in the past?

I don’t belive that there was a global flood.

All I am saying is that the fossil record doesn’t support evolution nor refutes the global flood. Feel free to correct me and prove me wrong.

You might have tons of evidence for evolution, and/or against the flood………………but such evidence is not in the fossil record.

I think the first thing that the scientist would do is examine the rabbits to see if they're fossils or bones. And since I'm not a scientist and was able to come up with that thought, it's safe to say that one doesn't need to be a scientist, only a rational thinker, to know and understand what is considered as evidence.

Lets make it easy, can you quote a single example where a fossil site with rabbits was dated, such that if the fossils/layers where billions of years old the dating method would have shown such age?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

THE FACT THAT YOU Are refuting semantics rather than my point, strongly suggests that you are defeated

It suggests no such thing.

It is not a question of semantics.

The fact that you make such wildly inaccurate statements reveals how completely unqualified you are in relation to the claims you make.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yeah, interesting. That is the word I always reach for in such times.

That and.....we all do the best we can with what we have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its not a matter of who survived “better” it’s a matter of who is more likely to be crushed by a pile of mud early.

In a flood clams in general would have been buried before birds…….this is why we usually find birds “above” clams.

The key word is “usually” obviously some exceptions are expected.

Evolution also deals with exceptions sometimes we find “simple” animals above complex animals, but nobody makes a big deal because everybody understands that exceptions are expected.



again, exceptions are expected


I don’t belive that there was a global flood.

All I am saying is that the fossil record doesn’t support evolution nor refutes the global flood. Feel free to correct me and prove me wrong.

You might have tons of evidence for evolution, and/or against the flood………………but such evidence is not in the fossil record.



Lets make it easy, can you quote a single example where a fossil site with rabbits was dated, such that if the fossils/layers where billions of years old the dating method would have shown such age?

Okay, I see that we are dealing with an elementary school level of scientific literacy. Therefore I am going to use a very simple argument that refutes the Flood myth:

Ice floats.

 

[Jose Fly]

If there where insects with teeth in the Fossil record, this would simply imply that teeth evolved before the insects diverged from vertebrates .


Evolution would have accommodated to this data . This prediction is not that impressive.

Since how much one is "impressed" is subjective, that "creationist Leroy at Religious Forums" doesn't find that impressive isn't really meaningful (except to you).

 

[leroy]

.
This is how science works. It reports the data it has, and as data accumulates the models and understanding becomes more accurate over time. I see Creationists expecting science to be perfect and are highly critical that science doesn't have a perfect record. It's an absurd criticism given the massively dismal record of Creationism.

Its not a criticism, all I am saying is that given that evolution is such a flexible theory that can accommodate to vast rage of potential data and discoveries, you can’t (or shouldn’t) show of the correct predictions

 

[nPeace]

You're interpreting an ancient book literally, and in a way that even Jews don't interpret it, and it's their book.

I have interpreted nothing.
Jews are free to do whatever Jews want to do. That has nothing to do with the Bible.

And these stories were written in an era that embellishment was common.

That's your opinion, and has nothing to do with what's written in the Bible.

So how do you justify your approach?

Approach? what approach are you referring to?

Sure, since Jack is an actual person that all involved can hear and understand it can be resolved.

Are you saying that because you did not exist up until the last meager 70 years most, that no one was real before you? Or do you get to decide who is real, and who listened to whom?

Well then it looks like you'd better product this God so it can tell us who's correct. Thus far this God behaves as if it doesn't exist outside of human imagination.

Again. That is your opinion.

 

[leroy]

Okay, I see that we are dealing with an elementary school level of scientific literacy. Therefore I am going to use a very simple argument that refutes the Flood myth:

Ice floats.

Interesting but irrelevant,

We are talking about the fossil record, the fact that you are changing the topic to “ice floats” strongly suggests that you can’t support your claims nor refute mine.

Once you admit that the fossil record doesn’t refute the flood we can move to a different topic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay, I see that we are dealing with an elementary school level of scientific literacy. Therefore I am going to use a very simple argument that refutes the Flood myth:

Ice floats.

You generosity is boundless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting but irrelevant,

We are talking about the fossil record, the fact that you are changing the topic to “ice floats” strongly suggests that you can’t support your claims nor refute mine.

Once you admit that the fossil record doesn’t refute the flood we can move to a different topic.

Desperation much?

 

[nPeace]

I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly but many experiments in science fail to meet the minimum standard. This usually means there were variables that they could not account for, and have to rework the way the test is conducted. Or if it fails miserably then it was a bad hypothesis. What does this tell us? That scientists are honorable. We don't see Creationists do honorable work.

You know. Such stupid statements - Sorry to be so frank - tire me.
Many Creationists are scientists, and do more honorable work than you can even begin to understand.
Bias discrimination is bad, Very bad.

What you might be asking about is how findings can affect the overall scenario of data. For example the history of hominids and human ancestors gets adjusted sometimes when a new fossil specimen is discovered. This is how the process allows our understanding to become more accurate. Debate on what findings means is part of this process of understanding.

More accurate in assumptions, yes.

You don't understand science. You don't even know what a hypothesis is. You could have taken 30 seconds to look it up before you embarrassed yourself.


You are rejecting the experts in science when they present work that shows no global flood was possible. That's why you fail at this debate.


Whatever that might be is has nothing to do with anything relevant to this debate.

This is obviously all about you. Have a good one. Good night.