Honest Question

[razzelflabben]

Part 2

" How about New Orleans for a start, the science of that flood alone, would be enough to evidence the claims I have made. "

no it would not, if you do not understand that, you really haven't seen the extent or you really don't understand the causes and mechanics of the New Orleans flood.

levee's, hurricane, large survival rate, relatively shallow water plain, low lying land flooded, human population much more expanded, barely any preparation, a certain demographic group could not afford to get out of the area, foreward knowledge of the possible scale (ya scientists saw the damage coming).

there is so much more to the New Orleans flood then you want there to be.[/quote] your claim throughout (when applied to the argument I actually made, not the argument you wanted me to make) was that massive floods don't occur on the earth after the appearance of man. The New Orleans flood shows you to be wrong. It was a massive flood and did occur not only after man appeared on the earth, but in our lifetime...therefore you show yourself to be an evolutionist that lies. Funny how your claim was that they don't exist....so the claim I made is that massive floods do happen since man's appearance and your claim was that they don't...evidence to my claim is easy, New Orleans is enough, I can look up others for you if you like, but one falsifies your claim, not what you think your claim is, but what you actually are claiming has to be measured according to the counter claim which is where you are finding yourself in a real pickle...your controdictions are blaring because of your prejudice which is one of many reasons I will not discuss my personal beliefs with you until you take the time to end the venom and deal with the claims being made, one of many reasons is so that you can save face. (btw, I don't care if you believe that to be one of the reasons or not, it is one of the reasons, you see, right now, there is no challenge to your words, all you do is controdict yourself which is quite boring in discussion.)

"right, start with New Orleans"

right now lets look at the deathtol of the region, the geography of the region and the scale and mechanics of the flood.

not till you figure out what New Orleans tells us about the claim actually made. The claim is that massive floods have and do occur after man appears on the earth. When you can admit to that claim, then we can move on. As long as you don't grasp that claim, and continue to tell me how wrong I am, then we can't move forward.

WOW, high survival rate, coastal low land regions flooded and people that didn't have the means or desire to flee the area.

how different from what you need it to be.

all I need it to be is evidence that massive floods occur since the appearance of man, because that was the claim you disagreed with.

"who said anything about a spread out pop.?"

ecology, archeology and the human genome project.

not yet entered into our discussion, got to start with size before we can discuss the rest of this, especially since evolutionists usually start (as you did) with critisim of size of the flood. Size isn't important to the text, therefore can only be important to a certain group of beliefs, of which you don't know where I stand therefore can't disagree with me as of yet...see, it's more of the colored glasses by which you come to this discussion.

"Apparently your prejudice is still in the way of what I said."

apparently you don't know what our claim all implies.

"New Orleans..."

you find that massive?
http://geology.com/news/images/hurricane-katrina-flood-map.jpg

that's tiny compared to the rest of the inhabited land

so you concede that your disagreement with my actual claim was false on your part? Great, if you do we can move on...my claim was that massive floods do occur since the appearance of man, you disagreed but not concede you were wrong, so now finally after all this time, we actually agree that massive floods do ocurr since man's appearance...yes or no?

"yet genetics takes all mankind back to one woman..."

yet you don't understand that that doesn't mean 8 people anymore then 20 or 2, or that that even means 1 female at that time. nor do you seem to understand the relevence of husbandry in the text you think is the strongest indicator of this flood.

don't matter, we aren't yet discussing the results, only if we have evidence to test the results. Look at it as a pre trial, or a preparation for scientific exploration.

"thus, hard to disprove using science, "

actually no, not that hard at all. if you knew some basic flood mechanics, you'd know how.

at this point, to evidence my claim, all I have to do is evidence that massive floods occur since man's appearance on earth...your disagreement with my claim means you have to show they don't. Problem is, the evidence shows me to be right on the money and you to be blowing smoke because you try to read into the claim what is not there, which is the result of your prejudice but you don't want us talking about that anymore...

" I have not laid out any personal beliefs yet..."

again you seem to fail to understand what the "results" of your claim imply.

the "results" of my claim are that from the text that all the different flood beliefs come from, we cannot falsify what is says by looking at the size of the flood. That is what is implied by the "results" of my claim...pretty straight forward and easy for most people.

"When did I try to make you look ignorante?"

because you think i don't understand what the "reults" of your claim imply.

actually, I said you didn't understand my claim because of your prejudice, I said nothinga bout the "results" of my claim and what they imply.

"I told you that I was a skeptic,"

w8, are you tellign me you do not believe that there was "a massive flood that whiped out a large part of the human population" ?

again, the flood is not part of the story or theory of creation, therefore, when you asked me my beliefs on creation and I told you that I was a skeptic, that had nothing to do with my beliefs on the flood. You really do need to loose the venom and listen for a change.

"because it is not dealing with the story of creation,"

i don't care about: disproving the flood -> disproving creationism.
those are seperate claims.

although is is clear i got sidestepped from the entire "we were created" part, which i might add, you were no less vague on with supplying supporting evidence, other then "the evidence seems to support both sides".

"So even in your insistance that we discuss the flood you show your prejudice getting in the way of your listening to what anyone has to say or offer."

YOU AREN"T OFFERING ME SQUAT, despite me askign you in EVERY REPLY.

exactly, at this point all I am offering is tests to your ability to listen so that the discussion is about what you and I believe not about what everyone else in the world believes and how much you hate them for their beliefs.

all you do is whine about "venom" instead of actually defending and stating your position. you're trying to keep this farce going and jumping in when you think i make a slip up.

I am evidencing my claims every time I make one, but you still aren't listening to what I am claiming...you keep attributing claims to me that I didn't make then trying to blame me for not defending what is not mine. When that ends, we can talk about what you and I believe and how those beliefs differ, are similar, and what part of those beliefs are logical conclusions.

"the venom has been coming from your posts since you first posted here and is continuing even without claims of where I stand specifically."

BECAUSE YOU WON'T GIVE ME ANYTHING! how hard is it to understand, you hold a certain position, and you make claims and back them up.

all you did is said you supported a position, then made a few vague claims, and NEVER went on in further detail. because you keep mistakign my "cutting the grass down under the feet" for venom. (essentially i'm already tellign you what claims not to use to defend your position and why. so that we can have a more productive discussion instead of going down into those endless mind numbing discussion i've had on sites like freehovind)

so far, the only claims I have made, you have read into what is not there and tried to turn me into someone I am not.

"so now you need evidence that we, you and I exist????? Wow!!!"

no, i need evidence of a massive flood that whiped out a large part of the human population.

but my only claim on this topic was that massive floods have and do occur on the earth since the appearance of man. You disagree with that claim. So we start at square one, massive floods do occur. You have to accept this before we can move on.

i need evidence that life had to have been designed and could not have gotten hear via means already outline in ToE.

right, you are asking me to defend others claims (claims by people you hate) rather than claims I made.

" and ignored the explaination of theory of evolution"

lawls....how about : the explination how evolution happens.
because that's what a theory is.

Right, what I told you many posts back.

"without the peer review to compare, your not evidencing your claim, "

fortunately we DO review the articles published by creationists.
hence we know they would never get published in our journals.

so now your on the peer review board.

i'd like to bring forth irreducable complexity as my example.

"The vicious circle you are in is that I refuse to address venom and that is all you offer."

 

[random325nicaea]

"we get to bring into the discussion where the one celled populations came from....?"

as in abiogenesis? ya, ToE doesn't deal with the formation of the first cell.
although you don't need that complex of a cell to have natural selection work in it.

"bet when it comes up, you belittle someone by claiming it isn't part of the ToE and bringing it up shows a lack of understanding of the ToE."

i damm well will, if you don't understand ToE only works with livign organisms, and not with non self replicators.
btw, i will say, the moment you start to get into self replicating polymers, ToE will start to work witht he most basic mechanism, natural selection.

"most likely some nonsense about educating yourself before trying to discuss it will come up as well"

ya, if you think ToE deals with abiogenesis.

"anyone want to bet with me on that one?"

WHY, if you KNEW this was gonna happen, DIDN'T you prepare yourself and learnt the distinction?!!!

"footage, would be eye witness testimony, so by your criteria is not admissable."

actually, no.
there is only so much you gan get from simple audio and visual footage. and then again, that IS footage, not a recount of what people saw, which is what an eyewitness is.

a camera films things people will miss.

"if you really doubt that we had a massive flood in New Orleans"

1) for the "results: your claim implies, new orleans was by far to small. is it that hard to grasp?

"check out some of the following"

and while you're at it, might aswell check the tsumani picks aswell.
also, youmigth want to "zoom out" those picks if you want to get the actual scale.

heres where the subjective nature of massive get abused by closeups.

"could still refuse to accept that massive floods are not part of our world since the appearance of man on the earth."

will you stop twsitign my words.
i said "THERE IS NO FLOOD THAT WHIPED OUT THE ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION TO A SINGLE FAMILY"

now don't do it again.

"so you still unleash your venom on me rather than listen to what I am saying"

demanding supratextual evidecne for an extraordinary claim is VENOM!?

"I never claimed one way or the other as to my personal beliefs on whether or not the flood recorded in scripture really happened"

you sure as hell implied that, but maybe if you would actualy outline your speficific beliefs on these things, WE WOULD BE HAVING THIS PROBLEM.

"what I said is that we can test the effects according to the text"

ya! and if we do that. we don't find em. like i said, no massive flood layer, and no genome patterns for most flora and fauna starting from a speficic time period in a specific region.

"so saying, read the text, is cheap, do you not have access to a bible."

no, read again.
you claim to have evidence, so YOU bring it forth, instead of telling us to find it ourselves. btwm the mere bible wont be enough.

"Are you really that removed that you didn't hear about thier flooding"
i heard enough about it to understand that it doesn;t support your argument, because the results form katrina where way different from the results (and the required mechanics) of the flood you implied to believe in.

"therefore allowing your prejudice to dictate rather than logic and reasoning of the claims being made??? "

i will reject any flood claim from the bible, or any other text when the "results" you ascribed to them, are added. on BASIS of evidence of their non existance, like the lack of evidence FOR their existance.

again, any random large flood =/= supporting the noachian flood happened.

" I gave you the benefit of the doubt by making it about your anger, "

please do not ascribe emotions to me when you cannot see my face, let alone understand my emotions expressed in text layout.

"maybe that was wrong, maybe you were somewhere without access to the outside world when New Orleans flooded??"
please do not call me ignorant on these matters.

"the only evidence at this point that is needed is the biblical text"
WOW, so that must mean it happened with those results? no. i can augment anythign that is that old with ease, if i have the same time limit.

"Never hear anyone claim she was a clone from a man....interesting"

then apparently you do not understand the biological reprocussions of making another organism out of the host rib.

"and the bible predicts it, so where is the falsification? "
no the bible predicts 1 man and 1 woman, at the same time, fartherign all of the human race.

which is NOT what we find, and NOT what the mEve and yAdam tell us at all.
for starters there is a time difference AND there is the "only one genger will acuire the material" thing.

you "might" want to look up the particularities of yAdam and mEve.

"what an awesome argument against some of the current DNA research being done and being attributed to evidence for ToE!!!!"

no. how did you figure that?
mitochondiral DNA only goes from mother to child, the farther'(s) mitochondrial DNA could have been somehtign entirely different.

"to bad you can't just bring yourself to deal with what I am saying and leave your assumptions out of it"

-_- you do understand the irony, when you fail to see that your evidence doesn't support your conclusion at all, you still "craim victolly".

"you wouldn't be controdicting yourself before we even start discussion."

no. and if i will, so be it, i'll just have to say im wrong and chance my position.

"so this is the problem with your venom, it clouds your eyes to what is actually being said and claimed and in it's place, putting arguements that make you look foolish."

oh ya, it's the venom. your reluctance to actually state your own beliefs on this matter from the get go probably wouldn't have anythign to do with it, would they?

"therefore, in order to discover whether or not the text holds truth, we need to test not for size of flood, but for results of flood."

OOOOOH ok. then this discussion is over. there is way to much variation to have the human population been reduced to a single family within one generation.

let alone the geopraphic probibility of them being hit by a flood in the territories they inhabited.

"But your still trying to make me say what you want me to because in that you have a false sense of security that you can defeat what you don't really understand. "

if you don't tell me what you think, i won't know what you think. duh.
i don't even have the false security, i have the security that the "results claim" has already been tested and hasn't supported your position.

What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?

oh ya, TO debunked that long itme ago.

"then all I can say is that you have shown yourself to be one of those evolutionists who lies."

oh yes, im a lier because i spend tiem debunking al sort of claims you could have possibly be making. but ok, call me a lier if you feel like i shouldn't have gone through the entire set of "creationist arguements" while you where unwilling to name your own precise beliefs.

"you have to understand the claim"

oooh i understood your claim alright, and i undertood what claims would probably follow.

what ever event the results of the noachian flood predicted, could not have happened in light of current evidence.
in other words, the results predicted in the bible, aren't found irl.

"learly you don't because you allow your anger and hatred to violate your hearing. "

since when did hearing have to do with reading? oh and i'm not angry with you for not outlining your own beliefs after numerous requests, just a little frustrated.

"Now, all my claims have been evidenced...time for you to understand what I claimed, how about some show of understanding."

oh ok.
now what where you going to claima after that? you really think that the word "evolutionists" didn't give anythign away regarding this. btw, your second claim isn't even a really good claim, there are skeptics for nearly everything, and even that doesn't reall prove anythign as it doesn't some how make the flood scenario from the bible any less factually incorrect.

"see above, it's about as clear as it can be made what my actual claim here is..."

so i am still acribing beliefs to you that you do not hold.
so just give your beliefs AND WE CAN BE DONE WITH IT.

". That about covers the claims of the text, which really limits our ability to test, but we do have soemthing to test, "

ya, and we did, and we found that it did not support the text.

NEXT!

 

[random325nicaea]

"your claim throughout (when applied to the argument I actually made, not the argument you wanted me to make) was that massive floods don't occur on the earth after the appearance of man."

no.
read again.
no floods that WIPED OUT THE HUMAN POPULATION TO A SINGLE FAMILY.
"The New Orleans flood shows you to be wrong."

to the claim you ascribed to me...arguably no, New Orleans wasn't all that big compared to what is possible.

to my actual claim. no.

".therefore you show yourself to be an evolutionist that lies."

only on claims you ascribed to me.

"which is where you are finding yourself in a real pickle."

please don't even try this approach when i have outlined numerous times WHAT kind of flood i was rejecting it's existance of.

"which is one of many reasons I will not discuss my personal beliefs with you until you take the time to end the venom and deal with the claims being made,"

translation: "im still not gonna tell you because your frustrated at me for not telling you."

"one of many reasons is so that you can save face."

i wouldn't give a * about face. what i am trying to convey, is what im trying to convey, if people misunderstand that, i'll try and explain it to them better.
if i think they are wrong, i'll say why i think so.
my position stands on the strength of it's arguments. not the strenght of my prestige.

", there is no challenge to your words"

how about you put up some challenge then, instead of beating around the bush with all your "venom".

"all you do is controdict yourself"

if im the only one talking, i'd love to see where i contradict myself?

"not till you figure out what New Orleans tells us about the claim actually made."

that New Orlean's "results" didn't even come close to the results mentioned in the bible?

"The claim is that massive floods have and do occur after man appears on the earth."

i can recall that was in the contexts of the results of the noachian flood.

in which case, you wouldn't be callign New Orlean "massive".

"As long as you don't grasp that claim, and continue to tell me how wrong I am, then we can't move forward."

funny how you want to move forward, yet remain so adement on actuall pushing this discussion into full gear with your actual beliefs.

"all I need it to be is evidence that massive floods occur since the appearance of man, because that was the claim you disagreed with."

NO.
read again, not onyl that, you made your claim in a very specific context.

" got to start with size before we can discuss the rest of this"

eehm, these INDICATE the size required.

". Size isn't important to the text"

yes it is, if you want to reach the results in the text. but ok, tell me what you believe.

"of which you don't know where I stand therefore can't disagree with me as of yet"

ooooh, im just burnign with desire to hear your beliefs...

"it's more of the colored glasses by which you come to this discussion."

or the increadable snail pace you try to keep this discussion in.

"so you concede that your disagreement with my actual claim was false on your part? Great, if you do we can move on...my claim was that massive floods do occur since the appearance of man, you disagreed but not concede you were wrong, so now finally after all this time, we actually agree that massive floods do ocurr since man's appearance...yes or no?"

up, you placed a claim in my mouth i didn't make. the context was way to specific.

"you to be blowing smoke because you try to read into the claim what is not ther"

well you certainly made it in the right context and you certainyl did ignore my detailed description of which floods, existance i dismissed the existance of.

"the "results" of my claim are that from the text that all the different flood beliefs come from, we cannot falsify what is says by looking at the size of the flood. That is what is implied by the "results" of my claim."

and when we test for those results they falsify the text's claim.
we done now?

", that had nothing to do with my beliefs on the flood."

ya, but i HAVE asked you on your beliefs of the flood. and the flood IS a part for the majority of the people who adhere to any form of creationism, where god did NOT just create the first living things and let it evolve from there.

"You really do need to loose the venom and listen for a change."

you shoulc really just make a list of your beleifs and claims, that way it can;'t possible confuse me.

"exactly, at this point all I am offering is tests to your ability to listen so that the discussion is about what you and I believe"

you do realize that glarign paradox with this don't you? and the incredable irony with all this, that you could have EASILY surpassed all this "venom" if you had just come clean at the start.

"I am evidencing my claims every time I make one, but you still aren't listening to what I am claiming...you keep attributing claims to me that I didn't make then trying to blame me for not defending what is not mine. When that ends, we can talk about what you and I believe and how those beliefs differ, are similar, and what part of those beliefs are logical conclusions."

then i have the ideal solution.
one i already proposed in this thread.

clean slate.
you make a list.
and lets look at them.

so easy, so understandable.

"but my only claim on this topic was that massive floods have and do occur on the earth since the appearance of man. You disagree with that claim."

read what is aroudn the disagree part.

", massive floods do occur.

yes.

but none with the apparent size in the time line, the noachian results in the bible imply.

you know i already said this 5 posts back or so

"right, you are asking me to defend others claims (claims by people you hate) rather than claims I made. "

well you DID say you where doubting on the 2 sides (ID and natural explinations)
so ya, im aksing you to defend ID, if you have a problem with the ToE.

"Right, what I told you many posts back. "

ya, but the explinatiuons that are contianed in that theory ARE what you're gonna have to tell the kids.
things like how natural selection, genetic drift work.

"so now your on the peer review board."

in 2 years, ya. at least when it comes to the general articles.
for now i'll tkae my chances with Ken Miller and the like.

""The vicious circle you are in is that I refuse to address venom and that is all you offer.""

you don't even have to adress the venom, all you have to do is TELL ME WHAT YOU ALL BELIEVE!

 

[razzelflabben]

as in abiogenesis? ya, ToE doesn't deal with the formation of the first cell.
although you don't need that complex of a cell to have natural selection work in it.

exactly, outside the ToE just as flood theory is outside the ToC or creation account whichever you like.

"bet when it comes up, you belittle someone by claiming it isn't part of the ToE and bringing it up shows a lack of understanding of the ToE."

i damm well will, if you don't understand ToE only works with livign organisms, and not with non self replicators.

exactly the reason flood theory is not part of a discussion about creation. But that double standard comes up again.

btw, i will say, the moment you start to get into self replicating polymers, ToE will start to work witht he most basic mechanism, natural selection.


WHY, if you KNEW this was gonna happen, DIDN'T you prepare yourself and learnt the distinction?!!!

I know the difference, your the one denying the difference in this discussion.

actually, no.
there is only so much you gan get from simple audio and visual footage. and then again, that IS footage, not a recount of what people saw, which is what an eyewitness is.

but we can't use either one by your statments, which is a problem, because by your account, we can't be in the middle of a flood, and say, we saw evidence of a flood. News flash: observations are what science is all about.

1) for the "results: your claim implies, new orleans was by far to small. is it that hard to grasp?

my claims only imply that the text does not specify how large large is....that is the only claim and your argument was that we don't see massive floods since man's appearance on the earth. To show you wrong, all I have to do is evidence that we still have massive floods even today, of which I did. Now when you concede that massive floods exist on the earth since the appearance of man, we can discuss what the text says about damage and how large it would need to be in order for the results spoken of in Gen. but first you must concede that we have massive floods...unfortunately this who discussion is off topic, which makes me wonder why you say you want to discuss evolution, but hey a good discussion is a good discussion....

heres where the subjective nature of massive get abused by closeups.

but the only claim made is that massive floods have marked our world since the time of man and before...so your burden is to show that things like New Orleans and the tsunami didn't happen in man's time on earth...all I can say to you is good luck...

will you stop twsitign my words.
i said "THERE IS NO FLOOD THAT WHIPED OUT THE ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION TO A SINGLE FAMILY"

maybe now, but when I said that the text in question did not specify whether the flood was universal or massive local, you stood firm on your disagreement sighting that no such floods have occured since man's appearance on the earth....you problem here is that there are two options 1. either I am right and you aren't addressing my claims only the claims that satisfy your bias, or 2. you really don't believe there have been massive floods since man's appearance on the earth...I refuse to enter in a debate based on someone applying others arguments to me, thus totally ignoring what I am saying and asking me to defend anothers arguments which means that if 1. above is truth, we are done until you loose the venom or...if 2. above is truth, then you need to actually apply your beliefs to science and see that massive floods are indeed part of our world. Which way do you prefer?

demanding supratextual evidecne for an extraordinary claim is VENOM!?

applying your hate to what I am saying thus misrepresenting my comments, ignoring my actual comments and reinventing my comments is only getting your deeper into a quandry. If you loose the venom, address my actual comments without reinventing them to say something they don't, you might be surprised at how interesting this could get...especially since I am willing to discuss flood even though it is not part of creation theory...

"I never claimed one way or the other as to my personal beliefs on whether or not the flood recorded in scripture really happened"

you sure as hell implied that, but maybe if you would actualy outline your speficific beliefs on these things, WE WOULD BE HAVING THIS PROBLEM.

I was very careful not to suggest what my personal views are so that I know from experiments when you are ready for the tough stuff.

"what I said is that we can test the effects according to the text"

ya! and if we do that. we don't find em. like i said, no massive flood layer, and no genome patterns for most flora and fauna starting from a speficic time period in a specific region.

you also stated that there have been no massive floods since man appeared on earth, which we easily falsified, so not sure what you point is, without something concrete from the text to test for, your up a creek without a paddle friend....to point, the only thing we have discussed that can be tested is whether or not massive floods have occurred on earth since man's appearance...the evidence is without question, yes!!!!! Now to get you to admit it is a problem....but hey, they call that blind faith don't they?

"so saying, read the text, is cheap, do you not have access to a bible."

no, read again.
you claim to have evidence, so YOU bring it forth, instead of telling us to find it ourselves. btwm the mere bible wont be enough.

when my claim is what the bible says or doesn't say, the bible is the only evidence needed...we can look at a variety of translations if you like, but the bible is all the evidence required to verify what it does and does not specify.

"Are you really that removed that you didn't hear about thier flooding"
i heard enough about it to understand that it doesn;t support your argument, because the results form katrina where way different from the results (and the required mechanics) of the flood you implied to believe in.

i will reject any flood claim from the bible, or any other text when the "results" you ascribed to them, are added. on BASIS of evidence of their non existance, like the lack of evidence FOR their existance.

well two things, 1. that is your right, have at it and 2. unfortunately by taking that stand you show a total lack of respect for science and scientific process which is a problem for me because I like the scientific approach to things, and I certainly enjoy playing with the scientific model.

please do not ascribe emotions to me when you cannot see my face, let alone understand my emotions expressed in text layout.

you admitted early on hatred for the YECists, it has nothing to do with my injecting upon you anything you have not already stated clearly and simply.

"maybe that was wrong, maybe you were somewhere without access to the outside world when New Orleans flooded??"
please do not call me ignorant on these matters.

your the one who claimed that massive floods never occurred on the earth after man's appearance, I didn't need to do anything to make you look ignorant on these matters, you did that all by yourself.

"Never hear anyone claim she was a clone from a man....interesting"

then apparently you do not understand the biological reprocussions of making another organism out of the host rib.

Be careful, the text does not imply a clone, only a part that was used...kind of like to make a baby we need a female egg and a male sperm doesn't make that child a clone of either parent...again your reading into the text what is not there, which btw makes it easy to falsify but is also very dishonest and removes hope of finding truth.

"and the bible predicts it, so where is the falsification? "
no the bible predicts 1 man and 1 woman, at the same time, fartherign all of the human race.

which is NOT what we find, and NOT what the mEve and yAdam tell us at all.
for starters there is a time difference AND there is the "only one genger will acuire the material" thing.

now your bringing time into the equasion of which the text does not specify a time at least on this level, so again you make assumptions based on bias that simply cannot be made.

no. how did you figure that?
mitochondiral DNA only goes from mother to child, the farther'(s) mitochondrial DNA could have been somehtign entirely different.

I was referring to the evidence of how closely we are related to the other speciest, but you are no where close to being ready to discuss this at the moment.

"to bad you can't just bring yourself to deal with what I am saying and leave your assumptions out of it"

-_- you do understand the irony, when you fail to see that your evidence doesn't support your conclusion at all, you still "craim victolly".

my evidence totally and completely supports the claims I have made, just not the claims your bias wanted me to make.

"you wouldn't be controdicting yourself before we even start discussion."

no. and if i will, so be it, i'll just have to say im wrong and chance my position.

well, your wrong, when will you change your position?

oh ya, it's the venom. your reluctance to actually state your own beliefs on this matter from the get go probably wouldn't have anythign to do with it, would they?

my belief is that the text and science mesh when we understand what it says and does not say. Therefore examining the text as I have been trying to get you to do rather than reinvent what I am saying is vital to my beliefs. If we look at the text, and figure out exactly what it specifies and what it doesn't, and science can falsify that I would love to know about it, just as many christians who believe that the bible and science are not at odds. Many of whom are scientists who love science and the scientific methods. But your too busy hating to understand that they are not at odds, to busy reinventing to hear what it really says, and unfortunately truth can never be found in that kind of bias.

"therefore, in order to discover whether or not the text holds truth, we need to test not for size of flood, but for results of flood."

OOOOOH ok. then this discussion is over. there is way to much variation to have the human population been reduced to a single family within one generation.

yet science can trace all mankind back to one woman...how big do you think the population was when that one woman was beginning the population if it was impossible for the population to be reduced to a single family within one generation? Very confusing thoughts on your part...I really wish you would stick to the logic of science and the scientific model, it would make this discussion so much more fun.

let alone the geopraphic probibility of them being hit by a flood in the territories they inhabited.

New flash....even if the one woman all mankind can be traced back to had 20 kids, they could all have been wiped out in New Orleans kind of flood. If those 20 kids each had 20 kids, we could easily have an entire generation wiped out in one massive flood, no problem...so your claims of impossibility are without merit. It is possible and very probable.

if you don't tell me what you think, i won't know what you think. duh.

when I tell you, you simply rewrite it to say something totally different which is why this discussion is stalled.

i don't even have the false security, i have the security that the "results claim" has already been tested and hasn't supported your position.

actually, the evidence supports my claim very very well, but in order to know that you have to deal with my claims (which btw are based on my beliefs) instead of the claims you want me to make.

oh yes, im a lier because i spend tiem debunking al sort of claims you could have possibly be making. but ok, call me a lier if you feel like i shouldn't have gone through the entire set of "creationist arguements" while you where unwilling to name your own precise beliefs.

your a lier because you reinvent my claims then call them mine... look even at this paragraph where you finally admit that you are arguing against claims I 'could have been making' rather than claims I did make. I named my beliefs, and all you could do was argue against YEC, attributing that argument to me instead of addressing me. When your ready, we'll tackle my beliefs and see what you can do with them.

oh ok.
now what where you going to claima after that? you really think that the word "evolutionists" didn't give anythign away regarding this. btw, your second claim isn't even a really good claim, there are skeptics for nearly everything, and even that doesn't reall prove anythign as it doesn't some how make the flood scenario from the bible any less factually incorrect.

first off, I claimed to be a skeptic from the standpoint of creation/evolution and you disagreed with me that I couldn't be a skeptic so I had to evidence for you my claim, to do that I showed what a skeptic was and that they do exist. therefore the only thing left to evidence is an intimate knowledge of who I am and since this is a public forum, it ain't gonna happen that way....secondly, since the flood is not part of the creation account, once again, it can't be used as evidence for or against creation. Now we have talked about this many times over but you still refuse of understand that these are two different things and subject to two different evidences and possibly beliefs.

so i am still acribing beliefs to you that you do not hold.
so just give your beliefs AND WE CAN BE DONE WITH IT.

on what, creation/evolution or the flood?

". That about covers the claims of the text, which really limits our ability to test, but we do have soemthing to test, "

ya, and we did, and we found that it did not support the text.

NEXT!

so still you are maintaining even after evidence that massived floods don't happen on the earth since man's appearance....if you are really that biased toward actual evidence I fear we will never be able to communicate because I do believe science can and does provide answers for us, we just have to accept the evidence when it is provided by science. Have a great day, hope someday you find that science isn't your enemy, that science can be cool and that science does provide us with answers if we are willing to accept them.....or are you still reinventing my arguments to be something you think you can defeat?

 

[razzelflabben]

no.
read again.
no floods that WIPED OUT THE HUMAN POPULATION TO A SINGLE FAMILY.
"The New Orleans flood shows you to be wrong."

I didn't make any such claim, didn't even talk about the bible's claim of such...so who is making this claim that you find it necessary to attribute it to me and how does this discuss the account of creation?

to the claim you ascribed to me...arguably no, New Orleans wasn't all that big compared to what is possible.

was it a massive flood? Yes...did it happen after the appearance of man on the earth? Yes...then my claims are evidenced because to date those are the only claims I have made about the flood, and technically, the only claims I made were that the text does not specify the size of the flood only the results, so I went above and beyond the claims to show you that you were wrong in disagreeing with me...Science supports my claims as does the text.

i wouldn't give a * about face. what i am trying to convey, is what im trying to convey, if people misunderstand that, i'll try and explain it to them better.

so far all you have conveyed is that you hate YEC ists and that everyone you deem not an evolutionist you will pigeonhole into YEC presumably so you can feel like the big guy on the block, but that is subjective reasoning.

if i think they are wrong, i'll say why i think so.
my position stands on the strength of it's arguments. not the strenght of my prestige.

only problem is your arguments aren't addressing the claims being made, only the claims you want to be made.

i can recall that was in the contexts of the results of the noachian flood.

the results are not yet entered into discussion because you can't yet accept that massive floods happen in our present world.

well you certainly made it in the right context and you certainyl did ignore my detailed description of which floods, existance i dismissed the existance of.

problem is, we can't move into the results or even size until you first understand that big, massive, huge floods do and have occured since man came on the earth...why is it so hard for you to accept the science on this issue...science is pretty clear, floods have been a part of this earth for longer than man has existed, and have not stopped since his existance...it's pretty straight forward science. Why do you struggle so with it?

and when we test for those results they falsify the text's claim.
we done now?

what results, we haven't yet looked at the text to discover the results.

ya, but i HAVE asked you on your beliefs of the flood. and the flood IS a part for the majority of the people who adhere to any form of creationism, where god did NOT just create the first living things and let it evolve from there.

how many times now have a clearly stated that I do not believe the flood to be part of the creation account...how can I state my beliefs on this any clearer? Yet you still label me and reinvent my arguments than blame me for stalled communciation.

clean slate.
you make a list.
and lets look at them.

start by dealing with the one's already provided....

well you DID say you where doubting on the 2 sides (ID and natural explinations)
so ya, im aksing you to defend ID, if you have a problem with the ToE.

actually I said I was a skeptic of both creation and evolution (theory that is), so once again you allow your bias to get in the way of your understanding...the very reason the discussion has stalled.

in 2 years, ya. at least when it comes to the general articles.
for now i'll tkae my chances with Ken Miller and the like.

but you have at least 2 years before you can make the peer review claim you did.

you don't even have to adress the venom, all you have to do is TELL ME WHAT YOU ALL BELIEVE!

I have but you refuse to address it.

 

[random325nicaea]

"exactly the reason flood theory is not part of a discussion about creation. But that double standard comes up again.'"

that depends on how you think god created humans.

"your the one denying the difference in this discussion."

WHAT?

" News flash: observations are what science is all about."

simple human filtered audio and (constricted) visual data, isn't comparable to a reading from a detector.

OH SH** SATAN IS IN MY ROOM!
noo, im just lucid and dreaming, the camera tells me there is no satan in my room.

human testimony isn't all that powerfull, and no, testimonials aren't always pure observations.

"my claims only imply that the text does not specify how large large is"

YES IT DID.
large enough to wipe out a large part of the human and animal population.
with that characteristic, we can determine a rough size.

"that is the only claim and your argument was that we don't see massive floods since man's appearance on the earth"

READ the rest.

"all I have to do is evidence that we still have massive floods even today,"

right, but new orleans is nowhere near the size of the flood implied by the bible.
and THAT was the context in which you where making the claims.

"but first you must concede that we have massive floods"

I ALREADY CONCEDED TO THAT!
but you forgot to read the "BUT NOT OF THE SIZE THE TEXT IMPLIES" part.

".unfortunately this who discussion is off topic,"

guess whos keeping it there with keeping his position shrouded in mystery.

"which makes me wonder why you say you want to discuss evolution,"

like hell i do, just come up with your beliefs and claims already!

"but hey a good discussion is a good discussion...."

this isn't a discussion, this is me rantign on about various scenario's and you dancing around telling me your actual position on these matters, and their suportign evidence.

".so your burden is to show that things like New Orleans and the tsunami didn't happen in man's time on earth."

they did, and bigger, but they where never in the scale, tiemscale and geological region to fit the predictions from the bible.

ITS SO EASY WHAT I SAID. why do you keep dancing around this?

"but when I said that the text in question did not specify whether the flood was universal or massive local, you stood firm on your disagreement sighting that no such floods have occured since man's appearance on the earth"

yaaaa, and all those stood in the context of "capable of whiping out almost all of humanity" but you missed that didn't you?

".you problem here is that there are two options 1. either I am right and you aren't addressing my claims only the claims that satisfy your bias, or 2. you really don't believe there have been massive floods since man's appearance on the earth."

false dichotomy.

3) you didn't read the specifics, and ironically keep ascribing a strawman to me while accusign me of doing the same.

"I refuse to enter in a debate based on someone applying others arguments to me, "

THEN APPLY YOUR OWN ALREADY!

" ignoring my actual comments and reinventing my comments is only getting your deeper into a quandry"

lok who's talkign after reading: "NO FLOOD THAT WHIPED OUT THE ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION TO A SINGLE FAMILY"

"you might be surprised at how interesting this could get"

actually your not doing much better then the kent i know from freehovind.
at least he came up with his position up front.

"so that I know from experiments when you are ready for the tough stuff. "

WOOOO, that's suppose to entice me?
either you come up with your actual arguements and beliefs, stop hidign beihind a persocuter complex, or i will consider you no more then a little troll.

if you are confident of your position, you should be afraid of ridicule, loss, or disagreement and thus should have any problem with stating and defending your beliefs and opiniuon up front.

"you also stated that there have been no massive floods since man appeared on earth,"

WAY TO SKIP THE DETAILS! specially if you read them a few lines back.

"which we easily falsified, so not sure what you point is"

apparently you do indeed not get my point, as you didn't get the specifics of what i claimed.

"without something concrete from the text to test for"

8 HUMAN SURVIVORS.
150+ DAYS WATER COVERAGE.
olive tree before water fullly receded
all species went through a bottel neck (depending on how you enterpret "ALL")

PLENTY of solid claims in the story you can test.

"o point, the only thing we have discussed that can be tested is whether or not massive floods have occurred on earth since man's appearance"

no it's not......see above.

"the evidence is without question, yes!!!"

making such a general claim, one that i haven't denied btw (if you only bothered to read the specifics) and then claiming victory, isn't really all that convincing, specially not if you oversee the myriad of claims you can tests from the story, even if it was a local flood.

"ow to get you to admit it is a problem....but hey, they call that blind faith don't they?"

now you stop with this silly farce and put up your actual case.
you're tiring me with these games, i heard froma lurker you already got someone suspended for insulting, i get the idea this is just one big Illian trick.

"2. unfortunately by taking that stand you show a total lack of respect for science and scientific process which is a problem for me because I like the scientific approach to things,"

i can reject such claims BECAUSE of the scientific appoach i've applied.
you rly think im that stupid?
i already explained what we should find in the case of an accurate noachian flood.

"and I certainly enjoy playing with the scientific model. "
playing probably, applying it, i don't think so. at least not from how you're trying to defend your position.

"you admitted early on hatred for the YECists,"

yes and? are you a YEC? no, you said so yourself.
you have nothign to fear...yet.

"your the one who claimed that massive floods never occurred on the earth after man's appearance"

noo, READ THE WHOLE CLAIM.

" I didn't need to do anything to make you look ignorant on these matters, you did that all by yourself. "

pot.kettle.black.

"Be careful, the text does not imply a clone, only a part that was used."

so you're suggestign he only used the rib as a blueprint for the rib? dam....that must have been one helle of a immune reaction when god was done with eve..

it not beign her rib and all...

"kind of like to make a baby we need a female egg and a male sperm doesn't make that child a clone of either parent"

kinda, like. but horrible analogy.

you forget spermazia or hapliod, NOT diploiod....like a rib.

"again your reading into the text what is not there,"

no, im readign EXACTLY what is there and what that would mean if it where true.

unless god used a little of his magic to circumvent it all.

" but is also very dishonest and removes hope of finding truth."

no it doesn;t.
it's honest to analyze all the consecuences of claim. and i'ts only MORE hopefull to reject claims that are impossible after close inspection.
unless....magic.

"now your bringing time into the equasion of which the text does not specify a time at least on this level,"

yes it does.

smae genearation, or atleast withing a breeding time (14-45 years old for eve)
and the yAdam is several thousands of years younger then mEve

"so again you make assumptions based on bias"

no im making assumptions on observed biological fact. women cannot naturally concieve after menopauze. and the bible clearly places them in the same generation.

"I was referring to the evidence of how closely we are related to the other speciest, "

as in when we branched of from out commen ancestor with neanderthals (which goes back way further then mEve btw)?

"but you are no where close to being ready to discuss this at the moment. "

you never know untill you try.
im beginning to fear that was an empty threat.

", just not the claims your bias wanted me to make. "

yup, bias when your making "massive flood" claims in a biblical context...

"well, your wrong, when will you change your position? "

wrong on that strawman you assigned to me? yes.
wrong in my actual claim.
no.

" But your too busy hating to understand that they are not at odds,"

haha, no.

most christian scientist will adopt the "methapor" approach.

i'd like to hear your opinion on isiah and the shape of world btw.

". If we look at the text, and figure out exactly what it specifies and what it doesn't, "

well that is wonderfully difficult with such a vague and interpretable book like the bible.... i've seen it used as a cherry pickers wet dream, so im curious as to what you think is scientifically validated in the bible.

"and unfortunately truth can never be found in that kind of bias."

"bias"
the magic word.

"yet science can trace all mankind back to one woman"

WOW, and who where the mother(s) of her husband(s)? it seems you skipped a few there.

"how big do you think the population was when that one woman was beginning the population if it was impossible for the population to be reduced to a single family within one generation?"

probably within several family units.

but we cannot say how many mates she had, where they came from, or how many other descendants died in the course of time (other women bearing only sons). not to mention the fact that she could have had sisters (thier mitochondirlal DNA is almost the same as mEve's mitochondiral DNA).
bet you didn't see that coming.

not to forget even if there was a bottleneck, what makes you think it was a flood? why not a killer germ? or a volcanoe eruption?

"Very confusing thoughts on your part."

not at all.
it's just funny to see you try to use mEve to vindicate a part of genesis, when you fail to see how it actually doesn't support either adam or noah.

"I really wish you would stick to the logic of science and the scientific model, it would make this discussion so much more fun."

i really wich you would try the stale onld mEve trick on me.

"New flash....even if the one woman all mankind can be traced back to had 20 kids, they could all have been wiped out in New Orleans kind of flood. If those 20 kids each had 20 kids, we could easily have an entire generation wiped out in one massive flood, no problem...so your claims of impossibility are without merit. It is possible and very probable."

do you even know where these tribes lived? central africa.
possible, yes.
probabe. no.

not to forget that all the OTHER women in her generation might have also had kids, who just...died out later on. you're not looking at al the possibilities, just the ones that suit you.

"you simply rewrite it to say something totally different"

k, that's probably just about the worst insult you cna trow at me.
i am by far not that low and spineless.

"actually, the evidence supports my claim very very well,"
no it doesn't, and i cannot understand how you still fail to see that.

"but in order to know that you have to deal with my claims"

give me your dam claims already, and no, mEve doesn't mean first couple, and it doesn't mean bottleneck, yes they can imply that, but to say that they actually are, and then validate a bit of genesis...is pretty weak.

since it wasn't a firt couple, so no adam and eve, and it wasn't a farming civilization yet, and no other 3 women where involved, so no Noah.

"your a lier because you reinvent my claims then call them mine."

no, i did NOT solely attribute all of those claims to you personally, i did use the word you in the sense of , "from this point one can assume".

"look even at this paragraph where you finally admit that you are arguing against claims I 'could have been making"

i was thinking ahead of you. i knowthat when we finally do get into the meat, i'll find lots of stale arguments, so i rather be safe and have them out of the way before we begin.

"' rather than claims I did make."

you made precious litte, but i also adressed those.

". I named my beliefs, and "

in the vagues and general possible sense.
you refused to go in on further detail, despite beign asked numerous times.

" all you could do was argue against YEC"

actually no, a YEC would have a 6000 year time frame, i never specified a time frame other then "while humans existed".

" When your ready, we'll tackle my beliefs and see what you can do with them. "

i've been read and impatient since my 2nd post.
i just got bored on the way.
bored with the way you seem content to keep this to a laughable farce of persocuter complex and vagueness.

make a list, and lets end this.

"first off, I claimed to be a skeptic from the standpoint of creation/evolution and you disagreed with me that I couldn't be a skeptic so I had to evidence for you my claim,"

if you are a skeptic on for creationism, that means you have fallen for some of their claims. i'd like to know which, and why.

"to do that I showed what a skeptic was and that they do exist."

a skeptic of ToE that considers creationism a valid alternative...well.....

"therefore the only thing left to evidence is an intimate knowledge of who"

not by a freaking longshot, unless you're really not that vocal about your beliefs.

"Now we have talked about this many times over but you still refuse of understand that these are two different things"

you have yet to specify what form of creationism exactly, i know they are different things, but even soem lenient form will stil require some sort of exstinction or super evolution to work.

"on what, creation/evolution or the flood? "

both, is a list so hard?

"so still you are maintaining even after evidence that massived floods don't happen on the earth since man's appearance."

again, READ THE ACTUAL CLAIM.

"if you are really that biased toward actual evidence I fear we will never be able to communicate"

-_- this is ridiculus.

"I do believe science can and does provide answers for us, we just have to accept the evidence when it is provided by science."

please stop this farce.
if you have even the least inkling of all the research we've done, and you still think gen holds even a little water....you've not done your research very well.

"or are you still reinventing my arguments to be something you think you can defeat?"

i feel pretty sure i can stomp em out without much difficulty./ lets try shall we?

"have a great day, hope someday you find that science isn't your enemy, that science can be cool"

do you have even the tiniest idea how funny that is to hear from a "skeptic" who considers creation an alternative.

no sir, im pretty sure you would love to learn the finer mechanics and scales of nature.

 

[random325nicaea]

"didn't even talk about the bible's claim of such"

well i'ts in there.
only 8 people survived.

"so who is making this claim that you find it necessary to attribute it to me"

the text you say only needs to be tested on the results.

"and how does this discuss the account of creation?"

that all depends on what you think god created.

"was it a massive flood? Yes"

not if you look at the bigger picture. not if you consider the circumstances.

".Science supports my claims as does the text. "

ofc you made sure to take the most general part from the text, ignoring all the nice little details.

" everyone you deem not an evolutionist you will pigeonhole into YEC presumabl"

if you still think that....dam are you stubborn.

" so you can feel like the big guy on the block,"

....that is almost insulting as the previous "you slicky editor" insult you made at me.

"only problem is your arguments aren't addressing the claims being made, only the claims you want to be made. "

i already conceded to your general claim don't you remember? i only cut you of when you tried to use that concient as support for gen.

apparently you're still not willing to let this go.

"the results are not yet entered into discussion because you can't yet accept that massive floods happen in our present world. '

above

"problem is, we can't move into the results"

yes we can, or else wt* are you even trying to accomplish. your posts have shadowed through that you see some light in a mass extiction of humans by flood (mEve) so why are you even trying to get into such a general claim? are you trying the old "agree with me first, THEN lets talk" trick?

"why is it so hard for you to accept the science on this issue...science is pretty clear, floods have been a part of this earth for longer than man has existed, and have not stopped since his existance...it's pretty straight forward science. Why do you struggle so with it?"

why did you ignore the part where i actually wrote taht i conceded but disagreed on what i anticipated you where gonna use it for?

"what results, we haven't yet looked at the text to discover the results. "

i have, way ahead of you. you are by far not the first whith whom i discuss this.

"how many times now have a clearly stated that I do not believe the flood to be part of the creation account...how can I state my beliefs on this any clearer? Yet you still label me and reinvent my arguments than blame me for stalled communciation."

you still fail to understand how it is important to know on what level you think god created anything, before the entire flood thing starts to lose it's importance.

"start by dealing with the one's already provided...."

where is your detailed list?

i can only find some general claims, a couple o vaguely specific onces.

"actually I said I was a skeptic of both creation and evolution (theory that is)"

and i'll ask this then.

what part about ToE doesn't explain soemthign yet, so that you must consider creation a valid scientific alternative?

"so once again you allow your bias to get in the way of your understanding...the very reason the discussion has stalled. "

no, you're the one who won't give me anyhtign to fiddle on.

you're not specifying your position.


"but you have at least 2 years before you can make the peer review claim you did."

NOO, i have 2 years before i can review any general article myself, but i can still evalutate the actual content of an article.
not only that, i can also whip up people who HAVE peer reviewed it.
btw, i don't need that much of an education on the subject to review layman's articles.


"I have but you refuse to address it."

i'll ask again.

WHERE IS YOUR DETAILED LIST?

 

[razzelflabben]

that depends on how you think god created humans.

the flood has absolutely nothing to do with how God created anything.

YES IT DID.
large enough to wipe out a large part of the human and animal population.
with that characteristic, we can determine a rough size.

not until we know how many were in that population at the time, something we aren't ready to discuss yet...

right, but new orleans is nowhere near the size of the flood implied by the bible.
and THAT was the context in which you where making the claims.

but so far, we haven't looked at the text to know how big the population was at the time, so we still don't have a clue how huge huge is....that is the point. It isn't based on yours, mine, or anyone elses assumptions, but rather on what the text specifies. So our next step, after determining whether or not massive floods happened after the appearance of man, is to see how big the population was at the time specified in the text. So again I ask, do you concede that we do and have had massive floods since the appearance of man?

I ALREADY CONCEDED TO THAT!

finally ! Awesome!!!! so now, how big was the population? Well we know that Noah was alive, and how old he was, you want us to believe you know this stuff, how old was Noah? How many generations of man are we assuming to talk about?

but you forgot to read the "BUT NOT OF THE SIZE THE TEXT IMPLIES" part.

got to first find out what "size" is implied by finding out how many people are presumed...requires math, you know, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing....

guess whos keeping it there with keeping his position shrouded in mystery.

my personal beliefs have been stated many times over now, if you can't read them because of the bias glasses you wear, I am sorry for you, but it is not my burden, but yours.

they did, and bigger, but they where never in the scale, tiemscale and geological region to fit the predictions from the bible.

first we need to know the predictions from the bible, which since you finally admit defeat on this issue, means we do some math...

3) you didn't read the specifics, and ironically keep ascribing a strawman to me while accusign me of doing the same.

The irony here is that you only added this part after you were shown to be lieing about floods. But according to you, no evolutionist lies, so be are back to the evidencde showing you wrong.

THEN APPLY YOUR OWN ALREADY!

have many times over, when you remove your hate glasses maybe you will be able to read it and understand.

WOOOO, that's suppose to entice me?
either you come up with your actual arguements and beliefs, stop hidign beihind a persocuter complex, or i will consider you no more then a little troll.

consider me what you want, I told you up front many times now my personal beliefs, and you keep reinventing my comments to say something else.....Hum, furrowed brow...what is that called on this forum?

if you are confident of your position, you should be afraid of ridicule, loss, or disagreement and thus should have any problem with stating and defending your beliefs and opiniuon up front.

I fear none of this, I only desire debate based on my beliefs not someone elses. When your ready to do that we can proceed.

no it's not......see above.

we haven't yet looked at the text to quantify those claims...when we do, then we can test.

now you stop with this silly farce and put up your actual case.

I have and am with painstaking patience.

you're tiring me with these games, i heard froma lurker you already got someone suspended for insulting, i get the idea this is just one big Illian trick.

you would be mistaken.

i can reject such claims BECAUSE of the scientific appoach i've applied.

testing before knowing what you are testing for is scientific approach???? How, when did they change the rules?????

so you're suggestign he only used the rib as a blueprint for the rib?

read the text and see what is specified, that is what I have repeatedly asked you to do and what I believe makes the difference. To bad you haven't yet read my words

no it doesn;t.
it's honest to analyze all the consecuences of claim.

you got to have claims to analize first.

and i'ts only MORE hopefull to reject claims that are impossible after close inspection.

got to have claims to inspect close up first....

no im making assumptions on observed biological fact. women cannot naturally concieve after menopauze. and the bible clearly places them in the same generation.

who are we talking about now? you've confused me, we only stated that if one or two generations existed, a massive flood the size of New Orleans or the tsunami either one could wipe out the entire population and from that you are talking about woman and menopause and same generations? I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

i'd like to hear your opinion on isiah and the shape of world btw.

I've been warned for being off topic before, I'm surprised this thread hasn't been reports so far since the flood is not part of creation theory, so I think, even though you are sure to try to goad me, that that will have to wait.

well that is wonderfully difficult with such a vague and interpretable book like the bible.... i've seen it used as a cherry pickers wet dream, so im curious as to what you think is scientifically validated in the bible.

that is why it is important to understand what is specified and what is not. But hey, that is what I have been trying to get you to understand.

not to forget even if there was a bottleneck, what makes you think it was a flood? why not a killer germ? or a volcanoe eruption?

at this point, we are looking what we can make predictions off of, nothing more. We test after we can make predictions.

not at all.
it's just funny to see you try to use mEve to vindicate a part of genesis, when you fail to see how it actually doesn't support either adam or noah.

You must be responding to someone else again, why not just respond to little old me?

not to forget that all the OTHER women in her generation might have also had kids, who just...died out later on. you're not looking at al the possibilities, just the ones that suit you.

we aren't looking at any of the possibles so far, thanks to you.

give me your dam claims already, and no, mEve doesn't mean first couple, and it doesn't mean bottleneck, yes they can imply that, but to say that they actually are, and then validate a bit of genesis...is pretty weak.

I have many times over, read the claims already so we can move on...

i was thinking ahead of you. i knowthat when we finally do get into the meat, i'll find lots of stale arguments, so i rather be safe and have them out of the way before we begin.

it's amazing how many people think they know what I believe but when forced to listen instead of attack find out they were way wrong. (both sides)

if you are a skeptic on for creationism, that means you have fallen for some of their claims. i'd like to know which, and why.

actually, I'm a skeptic of creation because Gen. is not a scientific treatise and should not be used as one...I am a skeptic of the ToE because there are too many leaps of faith that I simply am not comfortable making.

a skeptic of ToE that considers creationism a valid alternative...well.....

except that if you read my posts you will see I am a skeptic of both...

"on what, creation/evolution or the flood? "

both, is a list so hard?

I provided many times over now, my beliefs on both....is it really that hard for you to read what I type and consider it for it's own merit not someone elses? You have a beautiful opportunity to convince me of your way of thinking being that I am a skeptic of both creation and ToE but all you do is unleash venom and try the usual attack methods rather than to adress what I believe and why...for example, continually bringing in the flood instead of talking about creation/Toe

 

[razzelflabben]

well i'ts in there.
only 8 people survived.

right, but we don't yet know how large the population that died was...that is something we need the text to tell us before we can test for it.

that all depends on what you think god created.

ofc you made sure to take the most general part from the text, ignoring all the nice little details.

I'm patiently and anxiously waiting to discuss the details but I really would rather talk about creation/ToE

yes we can, or else wt* are you even trying to accomplish. your posts have shadowed through that you see some light in a mass extiction of humans by flood (mEve) so why are you even trying to get into such a general claim? are you trying the old "agree with me first, THEN lets talk" trick?

see previous post.

you still fail to understand how it is important to know on what level you think god created anything, before the entire flood thing starts to lose it's importance.

important...like how the single celled population came into being....part of the creation account, not even close, just as how the single celled population came into being isn't even close to the ToE.

what part about ToE doesn't explain soemthign yet, so that you must consider creation a valid scientific alternative?

my basic problem with the ToE is that where it assumes no Creator, the creation account assumes a creator...when we start our assumption with we don't know if there was a creator or not, then all the "conclusions" change. Suddenly there are other viable explainations...therefore not just one viable. This is a basal problem from the scientific standpoint. An unbiased approach leaves us with not one viable conclusion but two or more.

NOO, i have 2 years before i can review any general article myself, but i can still evalutate the actual content of an article.
not only that, i can also whip up people who HAVE peer reviewed it.
btw, i don't need that much of an education on the subject to review layman's articles.

like everyone else, you claim tried to make you stand out somehow, a claim that by your own admission is another false statment made by an evolutionist.

WHERE IS YOUR DETAILED LIST?

READ MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[random325nicaea]

"the flood has absolutely nothing to do with how God created anything."

yes, because it depends how much speciation is required after god created life.

"not until we know how many were in that population at the time, something we aren't ready to discuss yet... "

something which can be calculated. or at least gathered from archeological data, we don't need to discuss this, just to research this.

"but so far, we haven't looked at the text to know how big the population was at the time, so we still don't have a clue how huge huge is....that is the point."

the text implies generations after adam and eve, i'm pretty sure you can calculate a rough number and check their geological distribution. using archeology.

not only that, the text implies it was when man possesed the technology to contsruct a ship of the size of the ark.

that put up a time scale as the resources needed for that weren't always available to huntergatherers.

" but rather on what the text specifies."

the text specifies very little, we gotto fill that in with the bigger picture in the entire story.

but then again, the text does give details, like the ability to build such a massive boat.

"So again I ask, do you concede that we do and have had massive floods since the appearance of man?"

R.E.A.D

"finally !"

lots of post ago is finally in your eyes?

" you know, adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing...."

you know, finding genomic patterns in organism that indicate a 2 induviduals bottleneck for animals and an 8 person one for humans.

"first we need to know the predictions from the bible, "

again, did you NOT think i haven't read the text yet?
what fools doesn't take the advice of "know thy enemy"?

"The irony here is that you only added this part after you were shown to be lieing about floods."

no it was there all along, read back.

"But according to you, no evolutionist lies, so be are back to the evidencde showing you wrong. "

you know, you'll just accuse me of going back and eidting it, so i'll just quit trying.
live on in your little bubble.

"when you remove your hate glasses maybe you will be able to read it and understand. "

how many times will you play the victim cad before you actuall clearly outline what you beliee, instead of stalling endlessly.

"| I told you up front many times now my personal beliefs,"

only VERY generally, but you refused to go into any further detail.

oh and btw, comments like" something we aren't ready to discuss yet..."

don't really indicate that you came clean with it all up front.

"I only desire debate based on my beliefs not someone elses. "

well then your doing a dam bad job at giving them.

"we haven't yet looked at the text to quantify those claims."

i have.

"I have and am with painstaking patience. "

no you have not, i've asked for a clear list a few tiems now, and you have yet to take the courtosy, to make one and clearly outline the what and why's.

all you gave is vague "skeptic" and that you treat creation as an valid alternative.

"you would be mistaken. "

then i'll see if i am.
research.... AWAY!

"testing before knowing what you are testing for is scientific approach?"

i know what im testing, i read the text.

i do not know your exactl claims on this, so i cannot test for your claims.

"? How, when did they change the rules?????"

how did you think mee foolish enough to have not already read the text.

"read the text and see what is specified, "

"v21 So the *Lord God made Adam sleep deeply. While Adam slept, God took one rib out of Adam. (A rib is a bone in the top part of someone’s body.) Then God closed up the place where that bone had been. v22 The *Lord God made a woman from the rib (bone) that he had taken out of the man. Then God brought her to the man."

and? he made her FROM the rib.

"you got to have claims to analize first. "

i got the text's claims, now all i need are yours.

"who are we talking about now? you've confused me, we only stated that if one or two generations existed, a massive flood the size of New Orleans or the tsunami either one could wipe out the entire population and from that you are talking about woman and menopause and same generations? I don't have a clue what you are talking about."

i was talkign about adam and eve, since the flood stroy detail 4 women, and thus mEve can not be supportign that point.

" so I think, even though you are sure to try to goad me, that that will have to wait."

this thread has been of topic since we hijacked it.
but it was regardign your comment of science agreeing with what is said in the bible, so i'll ask again.
what is you opinion on isiah and the shape of the world?

"that is why it is important to understand what is specified and what is not."

and you think i haven't read the texts yet?

" We test after we can make predictions."

you know, you can test for ALL those predictions.

" You must be responding to someone else again,"

wasn't it you who used the "but still we are all decended from 1 woman" thing?

"we aren't looking at any of the possibles so far"

well i was, you weren't when you made used the mEve in regard to your position of seeing creation as a valid alternative.

"I have many times over, read the claims already so we can move on..."

well then i'll ask them to clearly state them in a list...again...

"it's amazing how many people think they know what I believe"

well im still makign guesses because you keep hiding behind your victim card.

"I am a skeptic of the ToE because there are too many leaps of faith that I simply am not comfortable making. "

FINALLY! somehtign i can work with.
ok, WHAT are these "leaps of faith" ?

"I provided many times over now, my beliefs on both.."

not clearly enough.

is a list that hard?

"You have a beautiful opportunity to convince me of your way of thinking being that I am a skeptic of both creation and ToE but all you do is unleash venom and try the usual attack methods rather than to adress what I believe and why."

well you have done a extremely poor job at outlinign yoru exact beliefs. by hidign behind a victim card and only giving general points, while not wantign to go into them on further detail when being asked.

"for example, continually bringing in the flood instead of talking about creation/Toe"

fine, i'll shut up about the flood.

now give me your grievences with ToE. and why you would even consider creation (i'll read ID here) an alternative.

 

[random325nicaea]

"right, but we don't yet know how large the population that died was."

doesn't matter when backtracking.
point is we have a bottleneck. that's all we need to test for.

but lets stop about the flood.

"I'm patiently and anxiously waiting to discuss the details but I really would rather talk about creation/ToE"

then do, make a list in a fresh post, and we can start.

"important...like how the single celled population came into being"

not evolution, that's abiogenesis.
your beef is with organic chemistry then, not ToE.

ToE only deal with when life is already replicating, not when it has yet to form.

" just as how the single celled population came into being isn't even close to the ToE."
well its not even part of it.

you should look into the abiogenesis hypothesi.

"we start our assumption with we don't know if there was a creator or not, then all the "conclusions" change."

no.
when natural means can explain it, you don't need to employ a supernatural entity.

it's that simple.

"Suddenly there are other viable explainations...therefore not just one viable."

"god did it", is akin to "pixies did it".

" This is a basal problem from the scientific standpoint."

science onyl deals with the natural world. not gods.

". An unbiased approach leaves us with not one viable conclusion but two or more."

you're callign the very approach of naturalism a BIAS?!

i would LOVE to see your test for god.

"a claim that by your own admission is another false statment made by an evolutionist."

? elaborate plz

"READ MY POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

no list
and it's only getting steadily less vague.

 

[razzelflabben]

yes, because it depends how much speciation is required after god created life.

it is not any more important than where the first single celled population came from, but the ToE refuses to address it, so why not allow creationist to refuse to address the flood? BTW interesting that you accept that speciation is part of the ToC since most don't see it as such...awesome

something which can be calculated. or at least gathered from archeological data, we don't need to discuss this, just to research this.

oh good, finally you are beginning to address me, and not your bias....so let's do a bit of research WikiAnswers - How many generations between Adam and Abraham

This would list us at 10 generations see if we can confirm this...THE GENEALOGY OF THE ROYAL LINE FROM ADAM TO NOAH
again, ten generations are listed...

We know from the text that Adam and Eve had 3 sons, which is all that we can "know" but let's speculate they had more. Let's say that Adam and Eve had a healthy 6 kids. Each of those 6 had 6 etc. This would allow for those we know with fewer and those who we know to have had more to balance out and give us a good estimate.

generation 1-2 people
2-2+6+8 people
3-8+(6*6)=44
Now keep in mind that people will also be dieing, of which we are not calculating, so the numbers we are putting out should be on the high side of things.
4-44+(36*6)=1584
5-1584+(216*6)=2880
6-2880+(1296*6)=3732480
7-3732480+(46656*6)=4012416
8-4012416+(279936*6)=2082032
9-2082032+(1679616*6)12159728
10-12159728+(10077696*6)=72625904

So, if everyone had 6 children (which we know they didn't) and everyone survived, no one dieing from age, disease, etc. (which we know they didn't) we would have 72,625,904 people in existance in the time of Noah. Let's see if we can confirm any of this....A much more complex forumla puts us at 9,000,000 which as you can see is a much lower number....World Population Since Creation

Note the argument here which takes into account many more factors than just numbers, and puts the population way below the above 9,000,000
Bible Study - March 2005

Note this site which also questions the actual population in the millions My Bible Studies, World Population Prior To The Flood of Noah? and the reasons given.

So, in summary we can expect the population to be between 10,000's to 10,000,000's

Not very close, but something to work with....with modern equipment, all kinds of help, etc. What kinds of death numbers from floods can we find?
Remembering we have modern equipment and warning systems they didn't have
Taiwan flood death toll could top 500: president

Floods take a toll on life, kill 169 in south China -- china.org.cn

Here we see death tolls in the thousands
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/the_deadliest_us_floods/

some of these run into the millions
http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/the_worlds_worst_floods_by_death_toll/

Here's yet another reference, wouldn't want accused of not providing evidence...List of deadliest floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore, scientifically speaking, it is possible that a flood could have wiped out the entire human population at the time of Noah, except of course for the family of Noah. So the first line of evidence is not complete. The story of Noah is scientifiically possible. The next question is whether or not it is probable, but I'm sure you will disagree with this and have some nonsence argument I didn't make to argue with yourself over for a few pages, so we will stop here till you are read for the next scientific exploration into the probabilities...

the text implies generations after adam and eve, i'm pretty sure you can calculate a rough number and check their geological distribution. using archeology.

Noah vs Archeology I especially love this passage from the article...the Quran however, in agreement with both modern science and archeology, affirms that the flood during Noah's time was a local event.

The rest is pretty controversial, but we can look at it if you like remembering that at the moment all we need is a possible, we can be pretty sure it is possible...

not only that, the text implies it was when man possesed the technology to contsruct a ship of the size of the ark.

back up, we aren't ready for those details yet, as hard as it was to get you to admit there were present day floods, I think we need to deal with the above for a while...let science sink into your brain before moving on. Be patient, we can get to this if you are only willing to deal with what science says and what I am claiming.

all you gave is vague "skeptic" and that you treat creation as an valid alternative.

I also specified why I am a skeptic...it's all there...clearly stated...waiting for you to deal with it, not what you want me to say....

i know what im testing, i read the text.

but you didn't understand it because you assumed a universal flood not either a universal or massive local....big difference...

"v21 So the *Lord God made Adam sleep deeply. While Adam slept, God took one rib out of Adam. (A rib is a bone in the top part of someone’s body.) Then God closed up the place where that bone had been. v22 The *Lord God made a woman from the rib (bone) that he had taken out of the man. Then God brought her to the man."

right, now show what part says the woman was a clone of the man.....be specific....treat the text as the scientific treatise you want me to treat it like....

and? he made her FROM the rib.

yep, and my husband and I made 5 children, does that make all five clones? Who are they clones of, me or my husband? Remember, if it is not a scientific treatise, you can't treat it as if it were, you can try which is what I'm asking you for since you insist that it says Eve was a clone, what you lack is evidence to support your claim.

this thread has been of topic since we hijacked it.
but it was regardign your comment of science agreeing with what is said in the bible, so i'll ask again.

so far you haven't even shown an understanding of what the text actually says which is why the painstaking attempts to get you to deal with the actual claims I have made.

"I am a skeptic of the ToE because there are too many leaps of faith that I simply am not comfortable making. "

FINALLY! somehtign i can work with.
ok, WHAT are these "leaps of faith" ?

I've said it many times over and you just now come to reading it...that only means the evidence shows your hatred colors what you read or don't read, which is what I am waiting for you to discard...

Most all of it....

"I provided many times over now, my beliefs on both.."

not clearly enough.

is a list that hard?

you understood it above, pretty much word for word what I said several times now.

fine, i'll shut up about the flood.

just when we were actually making progress, you give up...why? Are you finally done with the hate issue and ready to listen?

 

[razzelflabben]

doesn't matter when backtracking.
point is we have a bottleneck. that's all we need to test for.

we first need to know if it was possible.

not evolution, that's abiogenesis.
your beef is with organic chemistry then, not ToE.

I was pretty sure I keep specifying TOE not Evolution...did I miss one.

" just as how the single celled population came into being isn't even close to the ToE."
well its not even part of it.

exactly, just as the flood is not part of the ToC.

no.
when natural means can explain it, you don't need to employ a supernatural entity.

right, but there is much not specified, and so we approach the topic with "i don't know, maybe a supernatural force was needed, maybe not...what does science tell us about the possibility of a supernatural force?" That is when and where we find truth.

it's that simple.

science onyl deals with the natural world. not gods.

right, and when "gods" intervene in the natural world, evidence can be found.

 

[random325nicaea]

"I was pretty sure I keep specifying TOE not Evolution...did I miss one."

??
ToE explains how evolution happens.

"what does science tell us about the possibility of a supernatural force?""

nothing. only that when we can explain it with natural means, we don't magic.

"and when "gods" intervene in the natural world, evidence can be found."

why do we need to assume it was a god when we can explain it with natural means?

 

[razzelflabben]

"I was pretty sure I keep specifying TOE not Evolution...did I miss one."

??
ToE explains how evolution happens.

right, and yet they are not interchangable as you seem to think they are.

"what does science tell us about the possibility of a supernatural force?""

nothing. only that when we can explain it with natural means, we don't magic.

But first, we have to look to science as determine what evidence there is for the supernatural touch on our world before we can draw a scientific conclusion...your conclusion is one of bias not science....what scientific evidence is there that the supernatural does not touch our world? Show the scientific evidence to support your claim....Does science know how everything in our world works? if so, why do we still do science? Your claim and I quote, "only that when we can explain it with natural means, we don't magic." Thus indicating that the unexplained are evidence of the supernatural...I disagree, Science can test for the touch of the supernatural, it doesn't have to be simply if this isn't explainable then there must be a god....use science to defend your argument, I thought that is what we were here to do...

"and when "gods" intervene in the natural world, evidence can be found."

why do we need to assume it was a god when we can explain it with natural means?

Can explain, and evidencing are not always the same thing...consider this, I can explain to my children how Santa comes down the chimney bringing toys, but that doesn't make it truth....the same is true here, just because we can explain it with natural means doesn't mean it is truth...the other thing you seem to be missing is the difference in the two theories and how closely they are related. Creation deals with where the "single cell population" came from so to speak...(wording it for someone whose only interest is evolution) it is how the whole thing started. The ToE doesn't deal with that at all, only how it changed after it's appearance. So you could say that creation goes further back than the ToE. The only acception to this is the overlap with where to start....creation ends with the existance of every species, ToE starts with a single celled population. Therefore, the evidence for the most part supports both, and both can coexist...as long as we leave each with thier own beginnings and ending. That is not to say that theistic evolutionists have it right, but rather that the two theories are not opposites of one another as you and others try to pretend them to be.

 

[random325nicaea]

"t is not any more important than where the first single celled population came from, but the ToE refuses to address it,"

BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

"BTW interesting that you accept that speciation is part of the ToC since most don't see it as such...awesome"

it doesn't have to be,
like i said before.
you can spread the creationism line, REALLY wide.
you can believe god created the first cell and let it roll from there, or that he created all living species.

both of these can be called creationism.

"
Here's yet another reference, wouldn't want accused of not providing evidence...List of deadliest floods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

i am glad you're providing evidence, but you shouldn't be looking for numbers but percentages.

"
Therefore, scientifically speaking, it is possible that a flood could have wiped out the entire human population at the time of Noah, except of course for the family of Noah."

ofc it is, but from the data, the inescapable conclusion is that it didn't happen.

"I especially love this passage from the article...the Quran however, in agreement with both modern science and archeology, affirms that the flood during Noah's time was a local event."

then the flood never whiped out everyone but noah, as humans where already spread far and whide by the time husbandry and farming where adopted.

"but we can look at it if you like remembering that at the moment all we need is a possible, we can be pretty sure it is possible..."

everything is possible, question is is it probable, and did it happen?

do we see a large bottleneck in almost all land species (including humans) in a certain region that all coincide at the same time period?

no.

"as hard as it was to get you to admit there were present day floods"

i never even contested that.
did you even read my entire posts?
i said i contested specific flood scenario's.

again, any random huge flood =/= evidence for you particular version.

"let science sink into your brain before moving on"

don't patronize me again please.

" Be patient, we can get to this if you are only willing to deal with what science says and what I am claiming."

-_- there wasn't a moment i wasn't willing, it's just you wheren't willing to supply me.

"I also specified why I am a skeptic"

that is irrelivent to what i siad.

as the very fact that you could treat creationism as a valid alternative, sias more about what you actually know on the science, then anythingelse.
don't try and spin this inot one of those "bias" replies, you'd be insulting all the hundreds of scientist out there formign the working models.

and if your main squable with ToE is the "first cell" thing then you're poorly informed on ToE.

"but you didn't understand it because you assumed a universal flood not either a universal or massive local."

i ram both sencario's, and i know what both the supportign data sets would look like.

" now show what part says the woman was a clone of the man."

HE MADE HER FROM A RIB.
he made her from a piece of adams tissue, ADAM'S TISSUE. that's how you make clones, you splice the cells of and then cultivate them till they've matured.

"treat the text as the scientific treatise you want me to treat it like"

this text cannot be treated as such, ever, it's just not written that way.
what IS made here, is a claim, that when interpreted literally, would mean eve was clones from adam's rib.

"yep, and my husband and I made 5 children, does that make all five clones?"

please.....please pick up your biology book again, this is just embarrasing to hear from someone.

a rib=/= gametes.

"Who are they clones of, me or my husband?"

in essence they are a mutated clone form both of you. but the process by which they where created isn't the same as implied in the text.

or in other words,
since when was sex the same as tissue cultivation from a rib?

"asking you for since you insist that it says Eve was a clone, what you lack is evidence to support your claim."

the evidence is right there in the literal interpreation.

ofc, that doesn't mean you cannot interpret it like a methaphor in which case, she's not a clone, but niether should we assume she was created by a god in full form.
in other words, why not assume god let several billions of years of natural processes go on, knowign it would produce humans, and thus "making" them, in a sense.

"so far you haven't even shown an understanding of what the text actually says"

now you're playign the interpretation card.

it sais what is sais.
what it means, that's a different question.

"I've said it many times over and you just now come to reading it."


no you have not.
all you told me was the first cell argument, which is a misconception of what ToE sais.
and you told me the "to complex, must be designed" argument.

nothing more.

"you give up...why?"

because YOU wanted to talk about ToE, and not the flood.

 

[random325nicaea]

"right, and yet they are not interchangable as you seem to think they are."

????
evolution happens, ToE explains how.
when i tell you something evolved, i use ToE to explain it.

EG:
natural selection is a mechanism by which ToE explains evolution.
just like gravity is a mechanism by which general relativity explains things.

"what scientific evidence is there that the supernatural does not touch our world?"

first of all, none.
science sais nothing about the supernatural.
second of all, you make the claim of existence, YOU bear the burden of proof.

i simply say: "the evidence doesn't require a god, so i'll assume there isn't one"

"Does science know how everything in our world works?"

they are working on it, and they already explain quite a bit, like you how PC works.

"Thus indicating that the unexplained are evidence of the supernatural."

NO! unexplained is simply unexplained.
it's rational suicide to claim unexplained things as support for supernatural (untestable) claims.

"it doesn't have to be simply if this isn't explainable then there must be a god"

WHY must a require a god when i can fully explain it without him? sounds to me like youre jamming god into places he doesn't need to be.

"use science to defend your argument,"

no, you're bearing the burden of proof remember, YOU have to come up with the backing.

" just because we can explain it with natural means doesn't mean it is truth"

it doesn't mean it's done by magic either.

"the other thing you seem to be missing is the difference in the two theories and how closely they are related."

you believe me to be too ignorant.

"Therefore, the evidence for the most part supports both, and both can coexist."

nope, only in the minds of a theist.

"but rather that the two theories are not opposites of one another as you and others try to pretend them to be."

you're just abusing the streachiness of the term "creation"here for a cheap try at win.
that and you're telling me something i already knew

 

[razzelflabben]

BECAUSE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

exactly!!!! Just like the flood has nothing to do with God's creation of life

i am glad you're providing evidence, but you shouldn't be looking for numbers but percentages.

Wow, you are really grasping for straws aren't you????

ofc it is, but from the data, the inescapable conclusion is that it didn't happen.

we have to look at the data before we can draw that conclusion...from the beginning you have used all kinds of excuses for why it isn't possible, from universal flood to this now, but before anything can be determined by science about the flood, we have to know what we are looking for...soo, let's look at geographic area and whether or not a missive flood did occur there in the time frame we are talking about.

History of the world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now we know from the text that man was at this time wearing clothing, so we can dismiss any arguments about where life began based on questions of whether or not the remains studied are indeed human, these references take us to the west bank are Early Human Evolution:  Early Transitional Humans

Mesopotamia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clothing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Neolithic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus dating the first humans that fit the discriptions listed in Gen. modern humans 900-1880

So human habitation during that time period is
Evolution of Modern Humans:  Neandertals
Evolution of Modern Humans:  Early Modern Homo sapiens

so again, we see that science could support the flood story...but what of flooding....
The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation
Mesopotamia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://mythprojects.wikispaces.com/Origins+of+Flood+Myth
Mesopotamian Farming
The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | NCSE

The only viable conclusion then that we can draw is that the Gen. flood is possible but science cannot conclusively falsify it's claims....the next step then would be to look at bottlenecks....when you get this far, we'll talk again, this time about population bottlenecks....

then the flood never whiped out everyone but noah, as humans where already spread far and whide by the time husbandry and farming where adopted.

not according to archeology, see above. When we look at the possible population numbers, it seems highly unlikely that homosapians were as spread out as you are trying to make them...when we remove the questionable archeology and plug in only those homosapiens that display the traits of humans as listed, we see that the population but 1. most likely centrally located and 2. most likely in the Tigras and Euphrates crecent

everything is possible, question is is it probable, and did it happen?

which is exactly how I finished my sentence if you had been fair enough to quote it.

do we see a large bottleneck in almost all land species (including humans) in a certain region that all coincide at the same time period?

not even close to ready to deal with this question, we're still waiting for you to catch up to the evidence presented.

"I also specified why I am a skeptic"

that is irrelivent to what i siad.

you specifically asked me what I believe, why I am a skeptic falling into that answer. So yes, it is relavent to what you asked of me.

as the very fact that you could treat creationism as a valid alternative, sias more about what you actually know on the science, then anythingelse.
don't try and spin this inot one of those "bias" replies, you'd be insulting all the hundreds of scientist out there formign the working models.

bias????? not following you here, more false assumptions I guess...

and if your main squable with ToE is the "first cell" thing then you're poorly informed on ToE.

boy you really don't read what I am saying do you?

this text cannot be treated as such, ever, it's just not written that way.
what IS made here, is a claim, that when interpreted literally, would mean eve was clones from adam's rib.

It not being a scientific treatis is exactly why I am a skeptic of all the common creationist answers....you act like this is a novel understanding when I mentioned it days ago...because it is NOT a scientific treatise you cannot assume Eve was a clone, only that she was a part of Adam...

ofc, that doesn't mean you cannot interpret it like a methaphor in which case, she's not a clone, but niether should we assume she was created by a god in full form.
in other words, why not assume god let several billions of years of natural processes go on, knowign it would produce humans, and thus "making" them, in a sense.

who here suggested it couldn't....to be a skeptic of both, I must question all, assume none, and ask the evidence for answers....that means, currently science cannot verify or falsify either...including but not limited to the new one you specifically mention and I hinted at days ago.

no you have not.
all you told me was the first cell argument, which is a misconception of what ToE sais.
and you told me the "to complex, must be designed" argument.

wow, you really are bad at this reading thing...correction 1. I did not argue anything about the first cell, only that to include the flood in creation is like the creationist using the first cell argument on Evolution. Correction 2. I said nothing about complexity, nothing at all... and correction 3. I said nothing at all about "must" being anything, in fact, I was very clear that I am a skeptic, meaning I don't hold to any "must" when it comes to the science of orgins of species....See, I know you don't want to hear it again, but your venom is what is fueling this, it colors your eyes to what I have really said and stiffles communications.

because YOU wanted to talk about ToE, and not the flood.

yet I'm talking about the flood, how about if you talk to me about where the single cells came from, tit for tat as it were....

 

[razzelflabben]

????
evolution happens, ToE explains how.
when i tell you something evolved, i use ToE to explain it.

"speciation", "change (evolution)" are predicted in Gen. What is not predicted is how they happen....so in order to falsify Gen. you can't focus on evolution/change, but rather on the ToE which is the problem you have with creationists, they believe it happened a different way than you do....no one is denying change/speciation/evolution....therefore acting as if that is the same thing as ToE is more evidence that some evolutionists lie...

first of all, none.
science sais nothing about the supernatural.
second of all, you make the claim of existence, YOU bear the burden of proof.

no problem, when you actually deal with what I'm saying here and not what you want me to say, we'll get into it....when the supernatural (note the word includes natural, meaning they are related) it can be tested...that is science.

i simply say: "the evidence doesn't require a god, so i'll assume there isn't one"

which removes any hope of knowing truth on the issue of God's existance.

they are working on it, and they already explain quite a bit, like you how PC works.

that isn't what I asked...I asked is we KNOW how EVERYTHING in our world works...why not answer the question?

NO! unexplained is simply unexplained.
it's rational suicide to claim unexplained things as support for supernatural (untestable) claims.

if they fit the predictions we would make for the existance of the supernatural, they are absolutely scientific evidence for that existance. It's all about the scientific process, you know, we get an idea, check to see if it is plausible, make predictions, test, change as needed, (rinse) and repeat....maybe that is to simple for you to follow, try this one Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WHY must a require a god when i can fully explain it without him? sounds to me like youre jamming god into places he doesn't need to be.

so your back to your claim that science knows all the answers now????? Shame on you, you of all people should know better...if something unexplainable, is tested based on the predictions made for the supernatural, and the test varifies that supernatural, it's evidence of it's existance, not hard...what did you say you were studying again? Maybe you should reconsider your field.

 

[DaisyDay]

"speciation", "change (evolution)" are predicted in Gen. What is not predicted is how they happen....so in order to falsify Gen. you can't focus on evolution/change, but rather on the ToE which is the problem you have with creationists, they believe it happened a different way than you do....no one is denying change/speciation/evolution....therefore acting as if that is the same thing as ToE is more evidence that some evolutionists lie...

Where in Gen is evolution (speciation over time through random mutation and natural selection) predicted?

Falsifying ToE doesn't not do a thing for Creationism; it wouldn't win by default, but by its own merits.

You may not be denying change/speciation, but since other people have and do, it is false to say "no one is denying change/speciation/evolution". The ToE is the explanation of how change/speciation occur.

That some evolutionists lie doesn't falsify the theory.

when the supernatural (note the word includes natural, meaning they are related) it can be tested...that is science.

The words are related, but supernatural means not natural or beyond natural. How do you test for supernaturality other than by ruling out naturality?

I asked is we KNOW how EVERYTHING in our world works...why not answer the question?

We don't know how EVERYTHING in our world works.

if they fit the predictions we would make for the existance of the supernatural, they are absolutely scientific evidence for that existance.

That's part of it, but you also need to state what would falsify the prediction. What would you expect to see and what should you not be able to see?

if something unexplainable, is tested based on the predictions made for the supernatural, and the test varifies that supernatural, it's evidence of it's existance, not hard.

If something is "unexplainable" (or do you mean "unexplained"?) then if testing yields an explanation (ie supernatural), then it is not "unexplainable", is it? I don't understand what you mean to say.

And if the test fails, then what? Would that be evidence that the supernatural does not exist?