tas8831
Well-Known Member
And he never has...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Bunch of Reasons Why I Question Noah's Flood Story:
- Thread starter NewGuyOnTheBlock
- Start date
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I always liked to ask why trilobites aren't mixed in with crabs, lobsters, or other modern benthic marine organisms.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Over the years, I have found that creationists will describe the flood however they see fit so as to be counter physical evidence/rational arguments.
It is either a calm, steady raising of water over 40 days (that is why the ark came to rest pretty much where it starting floating off from), or it was a violent series of catastrophic floods (formation of the GC, duh).
Funny thing is, depending on why they offer these contradictory depictions, they actually undercut their "theories" and "models" - if the flood was violent, then there should be little or no 'sorting', if it was placid, then we should see all sorts of mixing up of fossils as critters tried to stay above the rising waters. Either way, their 'models' are laid bare. Yet they still try to argue one way or another.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
As @leroy carries on with the common creationist tactic of ignoring much or all of what people write, I note that he addressed one of the 2 of his claims that I asked for explanations of (at least of late). But this one, he has thus far not addressed:
"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?
"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?
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok in a flood scenario:
-Fasts animals would tend to die after slow animals
Intelligent animals would die after non intelligent animals
-Animals that instinctively move to higher lands would die after animals that lack this instinct
-Land animals would die after sea animals
-Animals that can fly would die after animals that can’t fly
-Light animals would die after dense animals
Etc.
(note the green and the red letters)
Animals with many greens would tend to be found under animals with many reds, usually greens would be under the reds, (the key word is usually) .. which is exactly what we find in the fossil record.
Note that I said “usually” implying that some exceptions are expected.
Do you see why you are making a strawman? You are looking for exceptions when the claim itself allows for exceptions, you are focusing on a single variable when in reality there are many variables…..
*with die I mean die in as a consecuence of being crushed by a pile of mud, or any other cause that woudl produce a fossil.,
Appealing to exceptions is dishonest because the model itself allows for exceptions.
Besides Gorillas and humans are contemporary and we never ever find them together in the fossil record, so if you pretend to refute this model by cherry picking exceptions, I can do the same with your model.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Being skeptic just for the sake of being skating is another dishonest tactic that internet atheist use.
A tsunami can easily destroy some palm trees in a tropical forest, and the tides could drag this palm trees to another continent. This is trivially true the fact that you are pretending to be skeptical about this claim simply show how desperate you are in finding flaws.
This is the order of events
1 a pile of mud killed and buried a few plants and animals in a desert.
2 tides went up and down for a few months
3 then a big wave destroys a few palm trees
4 the tides dragged the palm trees towers the former desert in point 1
5 a second pile of mud buries these palm trees above the desert.
What is so improbable about this? Which point (1-5) is it unlikely under your view?
If you don’t provide a clear and direct answer where you explicitly refute any of this 5 points, your post will be ignored
leroy
Well-Known Member
Ok my direct answer would be:_
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.
Do they have little labels that say "Made by Jehovah"? No?
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.
It almost sounds like you are paraphrasing a creationist essay - which one is it? Bad move regardless, as creationists tend to spin like crazy.
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.
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.
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....
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....
There is no way to tell for sure (nor a high degree of certainty) which tracks are caused by uranium decay, and which are caused by other mechanisms.
This objection is falsifiable. You could atleast in theory provide evidence against this objection.
So I expect the same courtesy in the FT argument. If you don’t do that I will ignore your post related to this topic.
ecco
Veteran Member
Utter Silliness
You seem to be under the belief that rabbits can outrun mudslides better than turtles. Obviously, you have never seen a mudslide.
Think!
Think!
Think!
You seem to be under the belief that rabbits can outrun mudslides better than turtles. Obviously, you have never seen a mudslide.
Think!
You seem to be under the belief that humans can outrun mudslides better than cows. Obviously, you have never seen a mudslide.
Think!
Have you ever tried to climb a slippery hill in a downpour. How long do you think you could do that for miles and miles for hours?
Think!
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Yup, and that's why on a fundamental level I don't see much effective difference between young-earth creationism and flat-earthism. Both are ridiculous beliefs that were disproved centuries ago.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Unlike turtles, rabbits can instinctively find other route and skape to higher lands, they don’t have to climb the mudslide.
ecco
Veteran Member
Duh!
What parts of the Bible are historical? the talking donkey of Balaam?
You just have to be a bit of a higher power to send electrical impulses into an animal to make it talk.
If Aliens can do it, God can do it technologically.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It would take a bit more than that.
Then how about the Aliens or the higher power stimulates your brain to make you hear it?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That would be far easier. But then the donkey would not be speaking. Now it appears that you are claiming that God is a liar again.
These kinds of arguments do not bother me SZ.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really? They should. It points out a key contradiction in the Bible.
I really don't want to have this conversation, but rest assured I live by honesty and my conscious and they are clear.
You don't think an Alien race that created us is capable of creating sound bursts out of an animal or simply lying when the person thought they did?
And wouldn't a God be at least as great as an Alien race?
I do not think the donkey thought about what it was doing and spoke; I think it simply was impregnated with sound bursts.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No contest. Balaam felt quite sure the donkey was talking to him. Then he saw an angel there also. Thanks for bringing the account out.