Proof of Noah's flood.

[ARGOSY]

I will put it like this. There is ZERO evidence that there was a flood 4000 years ago. There is ZERO evidence that the world is 6000 years old. There are tree's older then Creationists think the world is.

 

The pope, almost every last cardinal, most other sects of christianity like babptists and othodoxists etc. All accept the fact that science is true no matter how much you do not understand it.

 

A good idea, if you want to that is. Is go learn more about geology and how science is able to date things. There are several methods to dating rocks, minirals and how we can tell how old stuff is. 

 

Remember, the most important two fallacies to avoid.

 

1. Personal incredulity

 

2. God fo the gaps.

 

I believe Bill Nye gave a good speach about all this in his Debate Vs Ken Ham. go watch it, its good stuff.

 

Emphatic statements don't make a scientific point. I have put forward a position that geological evidence for a flood can actually be found at the PT boundary. There is an apparent mud layer at many locations around earth as well as volcanic ash found in that layer, and also a fungal layer (dead vegetation) . In addition there are signs of vast sedimentation movements and melting ice caps and melting glaciation and sea level rises. In addition there are signs of marine flooding at most locations on earth during the boundary. 

 

As for dating the rocks, the Purdue Studies, supported by the Israel Geological Survey have put doubt on the accuracy of radiometric dating, so the age of rocks is in doubt. 

 

You are welcome to have a scientific discussion about these issues. Just remember to look at the scientific facts without bias.

 

ps regarding these so-called old trees, are you referring to the highest White Mountain bristlecone pines, the so-called oldest trees on earth which for some reason prefer harsh conditions to extend their life-spans (that logic already sounds dodgy)

[Bonky]

No-one knows the extent of the pre-flood knowledge. We cannot fathom a world where people live to 900 years old.  The possibilities for the accumulation of knowledge are endless. He could have hired a few people to gather knowledge about the more distant types, and spent 20 or 30 years studying the local types. This is all pure speculation, but I'm a planner, and if that was my task I would research it. I am not sure of the preparation time he had.

 

Its not necessarily correct that animals with extensive similarities in DNA share common ancestry, but this is a fact with Australian Marsupials and a particular South American possum. They analysed retroposons (specific mutational sequences)  which are identical between Australian marsupials and yet only match one type of South American marsupial.

http://www.livescience.com/6770-marsupials.html

So if we find specific genetic sequences that show up in two different animals we can confirm that they shared a common ancestor. I would agree myself, I think that's a completely logical conclusion. We have discovered 7 such sequences [ERV's] that humans share with chimpanzees. Now I don't know if you share this same conclusion with humans and chimps, but if you don't, I'd be curious why you support the conclusion in one case but not another.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Bonky

[Bonky]

As for dating the rocks, the Purdue Studies, supported by the Israel Geological Survey have put doubt on the accuracy of radiometric dating, so the age of rocks is in doubt.

I'm not an expert in the matter, although radiometric dating does interest me some. It seems that this matter has been looked into:

http://www.nist.gov/mml/csd/14c_091410.cfm

http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf

As an aside, [according to what I've read by experts in the field] if we were to "compact" the 4 billion years of measured radio decay into only a 6000 year window, there is a huge heat and radiation problem to deal with. The Earth would be liquefied by the intense heat generated by that rate of decay.

[ARGOSY]

 

No-one knows the extent of the pre-flood knowledge. We cannot fathom a world where people live to 900 years old.  The possibilities for the accumulation of knowledge are endless. He could have hired a few people to gather knowledge about the more distant types, and spent 20 or 30 years studying the local types. This is all pure speculation, but I'm a planner, and if that was my task I would research it. I am not sure of the preparation time he had.

 

Its not necessarily correct that animals with extensive similarities in DNA share common ancestry, but this is a fact with Australian Marsupials and a particular South American possum. They analysed retroposons (specific mutational sequences)  which are identical between Australian marsupials and yet only match one type of South American marsupial.

http://www.livescience.com/6770-marsupials.html

So if we find specific genetic sequences that show up in two different animals we can confirm that they shared a common ancestor. I would agree myself, I think that's a completely logical conclusion. We have discovered 7 such sequences [ERV's] that humans share with chimpanzees. Now I don't know if you share this same conclusion with humans and chimps, but if you don't, I'd be curious why you support the conclusion in one case but not another.

 

 

erv's are not necessarily mutations. That may be an evolutionary assumption.  The sequences would have to be of the nature of undeniable subsequent mutations to be of any value to the evolution/creation debate. Retroposons are observable mutations.

[ARGOSY]

 

As for dating the rocks, the Purdue Studies, supported by the Israel Geological Survey have put doubt on the accuracy of radiometric dating, so the age of rocks is in doubt.

I'm not an expert in the matter, although radiometric dating does interest me some. It seems that this matter has been looked into:

http://www.nist.gov/mml/csd/14c_091410.cfm

http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf

As an aside, [according to what I've read by experts in the field] if we were to "compact" the 4 billion years of measured radio decay into only a 6000 year window, there is a huge heat and radiation problem to deal with. The Earth would be liquefied by the intense heat generated by that rate of decay.

 

 

These are the kinds of assumptions that evolutionists make until actual calculations are done.   Most stable elements today are of the nature of rapid decay to a stable state. That widespread ability of most elements and isotopes to reduce down to their stable state is not a source of current radiation, but creates a radiation free environment. The same would occur if currently unstable isotopes would stabilise more rapidly, the world would be less radiated, not more. It would maintain its stable status. The lack of a strong magnetic field is maintaining a high level of instability and radiation, strengthen the magnetic field, and most unstable elements have a chance to return to their stable state.

[Bonky]

erv's are not necessarily mutations. That may be an evolutionary assumption.  The sequences would have to be of the nature of undeniable subsequent mutations to be of any value to the evolution/creation debate. Retroposons are observable mutations.

I'm not sure why it needs to be mutation to qualify as evidence, finding a specific sequence in the same exact location in two animals seems to be in favor of common descent. As far as mutations, almost every mammal on the planet has an enzyme called GULO. This enzyme is used in the production of ascorbic acid [vitamin C]. What's interesting is that guinea pigs are not able to synthesize vitamin C and neither are simians. The difference is, there is a different mutation that caused this for the guinea pigs vs. what is present in simians.

One could suggest that we just happened to develop the same mutation, but I think common descent offers a better explanation [provides a real mechanism we know exists].

[Enoch2021]

 

As for dating the rocks, the Purdue Studies, supported by the Israel Geological Survey have put doubt on the accuracy of radiometric dating, so the age of rocks is in doubt.

I'm not an expert in the matter, although radiometric dating does interest me some. It seems that this matter has been looked into:

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

Radiometric Dating isn't science, it's more like 13th Century Alchemy:

 

ALL Radiometric dating has 3 "Assumptions" built into it:

 

1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms! It is IMPOSSIBLE to know that. Extrapolation from a Guess...plain and simple.

 

This is like walking into a track meet in progress (with no signs stating how long the race is) observing the race, pulling out your watch and 50 seconds later the runner crosses the finish line:

 

Question....How long was the race? In other words.....how long is a piece of string?

 

2. Also, after hardening the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters.

3. Decay rates must remain constant.

 

Also, it has been falsified 100's of times by "False Positives"....Rocks of know ages (ie. 42 years old) dated @ 3.5 Million Years.

 

Mutations are a Dead End:

 

Meta Information (Instructions):

 

This is Information about the Information.  About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information".  It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information).

 

DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information".  In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.

 

evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts.  hmmm

Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect)

 

Question:  If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S GREEN EARTH are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a GOOD DAY!)?

 

Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect?

 

It's probably the reason why Drosophila,  after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail!!!  AND IT'S STILL A FLY!

 

Ernst Mayr PhD, Professor of Zoology at Harvard University...

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila,  is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles." 

Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

 

'‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study.  This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.'

John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

 

....."The authors admit that all multicellular organisms are undergoing inexorable genome decay from mutations because natural selection cannot remove the damage."

Baer, C.F., Miyamoto, M.M. and Denver, D.R., Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619–631, 2007

 

Pierre Grasse  Editor of the 28-volume "Traite de Zoologie" Chair of Evolution at Sorbonne University.......

 

"This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."

 

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur."

 

"Left to itself, DNA undergoes, during its replications in the germinal cells, the mutations so often referred to in the body of this book. But error modifies what already exists, it does not create it."

 

 

Moreover; Irreducible Complexity, Specific Complexity, and Epigenetics "reduces" the notion of "Mutations" as the driving force of evolution to nothing more that a Laughing Stalk @ best.

[Bonky]

Enoch, from reading your various posts on this forum, I've seen where you not only suggest wild conspiracy theories but you also seem to think that Einstein and Hawking et al are fools. In half of your post you didn't remotely address what I was responding to. I was talking about one specific topic, you address it briefly and then go on about mutations. I don't engage in discussion with just anyone. There are some people that border on or pass over what I call "zealot" category. I feel that you are too close to this to have any sensible discussion.

[Enoch2021]

Enoch, from reading your various posts on this forum, I've seen where you not only suggest wild conspiracy theories but you also seem to think that Einstein and Hawking et al are fools. In half of your post you didn't remotely address what I was responding to. I was talking about one specific topic, you address it briefly and then go on about mutations. I don't engage in discussion with just anyone. There are some people that border on or pass over what I call "zealot" category. I feel that you are too close to this to have any sensible discussion.

 

=====================================================================

 

 

from reading your various posts on this forum, I've seen where you not only suggest wild conspiracy theories

 

For Instance?

 

 

you also seem to think that Einstein and Hawking et al are fools

 

Strawman (Fallacy) I never said they were fools.  I can and "have shown" (*Supported*) where they are Factually Incorrect, however.

 

 

 

I don't engage in discussion with just anyone.

 

That's your choice.  But if you post wild unsupported conjectures...I will retort.

 

 

and then go on about mutations

 

Both you and Argosy speculated on Mutations, sir.  I figured I'd just nip that in the bud.

 

 

I feel that you are too close to this to have any sensible discussion.

 

Translation: This guy is asking me to support my assertions....I can't have that.

 

"I feel"--- based on what?

 

Also, who appointed you Judge over what is or not "Sensible Discussions"?

 

 

what I call "zealot" category. I feel that you are too close

 

Unsupported Baseless Assertion (Fallacy).  For instance?

 

You also stated this that I missed....

 

So if we find specific genetic sequences that show up in two different animals we can confirm that they shared a common ancestor. I would agree myself, I think that's a completely logical conclusion.

 

Please show "Scientific Evidence" of:  Similarity = Common Decent:

 

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: consists of observations and EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.'

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

??

 

Just because the lug nuts of a Chevy can fit on a Jeep doesn't Ipso Facto mean that they both evolved from a Tin Can 3 Billion years ago.

 

 

Also, your entire post is an Ad Hominem (Fallacy)---- attacking the person rather than the substance of their arguments.

[Jzyehoshua]

1. Scientific theory is NOT based on religion. When are you people going to stop this tired old argument.

 

2. Again, science does not care what I think or what you think. You are basing your aguments from strawmen arguments and arguments from ignorance. You have completely missed the point. You are confusing your own beliefs with what the evidence of what science has shown us. Again, science does not care what your own personal beliefs are. Even Darwin admitted to this at the "second half" of his eye evolution statement that you theists take out of context. It does not matter if it does not make sense to me, if that is what the evidence shows. That is how it is regardless.

 

3. Tu quoque now eh? Please do not be so transparent. Try walking over to Europe and spread your beliefs with Christians over there and you will find out how disporportionate your Creationism beliefs are over seas. Like I said, it is the bandwagon here in America, due to our horrid Education system. If you take the time to actually learn the science and learn how it finds its answers. You would not be able to argue with it, vs your faith which is not based on any evidence what so ever.

 

4. The planets current positions, and where they are going at what accelerated rate vs where they might had been a billion years ago has already been carefully cacluated and a lot of research has been put into it. Speed of light is a constant. I don't know what Christian website you found with some evidence on this to be different, but its been the same.

 

There is no such thing as speed of light that is infinite to reach our planet 6000 years ago and then suddenly drop off to its current constant speed.

1. Of course scientific theory is based on religious beliefs. A scientist who doesn't like the possibility of God because they want to live as they please without being told what they can do, or because they are resentful at God not doing X for them, will seek to create theories that oppose the existence of God. Likewise a scientist such as Newton or Pasteur who believes the Bible is true will create scientific theories that seek to prove God exists, such as Pasteur's experiments disproving abiogenesis. In fact the top paper on the modern theory of evolution, Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism admits that evolutionists do not examine the facts objectively (what's known as Newtonian Inductivism) but rather view through the lens of theories based on their beliefs. To quote Gould and Eldredge, whose theory that evolution speeds up without transitional forms in the fossil record replaced Darwin's original theory of Phyletic Gradualism that evolution is slow and gradual with transitional forms:

 

"Today, most philosophers and psychologists would brand the inductivist credo as naive and untenable on two counts:

(1) We do not encounter facts as 'data' (literally 'given') discovered objectively. All observation is colored by theory and expectation. (See Vernon, 1966, on the relation between expectation and perception. For a radical view, read Feyerabend's (1970) claim that theories act as 'party lines' to force observation in preset channels, unrecognized by adherents who think they observe an objective truth.

(2) Theory does not develop as a simple and logical extension of observation; it does not arise merely from the patient accumulation of facts. Rather, we observe in order to test hypotheses and examine their consequences. Thus, Hanson (1970, pp.20-23) writes: 'Much recent philosophy of science has been dedicated to disclosing that a 'given' or a 'pure' observation language is a myth-eaten fabric of philosophical fiction... In any observation statement the cloven hoofprint of theory can be readily detected.'" (pg. 85)

 

"The inductivist view forces us into a vicious circle. A theory often compels us to see the world in its light and support. Yet, we think we see objectively and therefore interpret each new datum as an independent confirmation of our theory. Although our theory may be wrong, we cannot confute it. To extract ourselves from this dilemma, we must bring in a more adequate theory: it will not arise from facts collected in the old way...

This issue is central to the study of speciation in paleontology. We believe that an inadequate picture has been guiding our thoughts on speciation for 100 years. We hold that its influence has been all the more tenacious because paleontologists, in claiming that they see objectively, have not recognized its guiding sway. We contend that a notion developed elsewhere, the theory of allopatric speciation, supplies a more satisfactory picture for the ordering of paleontological data." (pg. 86)

 

2. Science is composed of fallible people who reach consensus based on their personal interpretation of data, which in turn is based on their personal beliefs. If scientists have personal beliefs and create theories in line with their worldviews, then science as a whole will exhibit such biases as well.

Furthermore, consensus is not democracy. I have seen many cases where a liberal will loudly yell there is consensus even though many others disagree with them. Often there is no actual count performed to see exactly how many scientists agree and how many disagree, one side will say there's consensus supporting them and the other side will say there's consensus for their side.

 

There's often intense disagreement between scientists on what the dates should be, and what defines a species. This kind of conflict is not always as apparent to the public, but to treat the subject as though every scientist always acts perfectly objectively and never lets their personal beliefs intrude into their science is ridiculous. 

3. Actually I brought up bandwagon fallacy first and then you did. I specifically said back on Post 68 "First of all you bring up the argument from popularity claim for the record, not me, but it's false." Then after I'd pointed out you'd used Bandwagon Fallacy, aka Argument from Popularity, aka Argumentum Ad Populum, aka Appeal to Popularity, you tried to accuse me of using it in Post 69.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

You don't seem to understand what Bandwagon Fallacy is. It means arguing that something is true because many people believe it. And again, you were the one who used the fallacy originally back in Post 67 when you said "The pope, almost every last cardinal, most other sects of christianity like babptists and othodoxists etc. All accept the fact that science is true no matter how much you do not understand it."

I then pointed out you were using Bandwagon Fallacy in Post 68 but also debunked your claim, pointing out that most Christians are Young Earth Creationists. Then in Post 69 you accused me of using Bandwagon Fallacy even though you used it first. Now in Post 71 you are accusing me of using Tu Quoque. You seem to think Tu Quoque means just using the other person's fallacy which is a misunderstanding of what Tu Quoque actually is, first of all, because simply applying another's argument to them as well is a matter of consistency and not a fallacy at all. Tu Quoque means arguing that the other person isn't acting consistently in accordance with what they argue, not just using the other person's argument.

 

4. The rate of planets and expansion of the universe has been carefully calculated. And in 1999 the Hubble Telescope proved all those careful calculations had been wrong.

 

"In the early 1990's, one thing was fairly certain about the expansion of the Universe. It might have enough energy density to stop its expansion and recollapse, it might have so little energy density that it would never stop expanding, but gravity was certain to slow the expansion as time went on. Granted, the slowing had not been observed, but, theoretically, the Universe had to slow. The Universe is full of matter and the attractive force of gravity pulls all matter together. Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today. So the expansion of the Universe has not been slowing due to gravity, as everyone thought, it has been accelerating. No one expected this, no one knew how to explain it. But something was causing it."

 

-NASA

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

 

"'We have two known, totally unsatisfactory explanations,' said Michael Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago. One possibility is there is no dark energy, and gravity works differently than scientists think. But 'physicists are conservative. We don't want to throw away our theory of gravity when we might be able to patch it up,' Nobel co-winner Riess, an STScI cosmologist, told National Geographic News. 'Basically it all comes down to the fact that there's one relatively simple equation we work with to describe the universe,' Riess said.'Because we see this extra effect, we can either blame it on the left-hand side of the equation and say we don't understand gravity, or we can blame it on the right-hand side and say there's this extra stuff.'"

 

-National Geographic

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111004-nobel-prize-physics-universe-expansion-what-is-dark-energy-science

 

And as I said, the lack of antimatter contradicts Big Bang theory also, and the most basic assumptions of how the universe is assumed to exist.

 

"The big bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found."

 

-European Council for Nuclear Research

http://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/matterantimatter-asymmetry

 

And objects as I pointed out can be observed going faster than the speed of light, but it is assumed by scientists that this is because they are moving away from us very rapidly.

 

http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/are-we-alone/videos/hubble-spots-thousands-of-unidentified-objects-traveling-faster-than-the-speed-of-light.htm