Flood evidence

[EternalDragon]

First off, there was no flood.

Second, that means you need about 5 miles of water regardless. They might have been pushed up, lets be generous 100 meters due to magic flood action. Where is your evidence for a flood?

There are many areas that predate your flood date where we have evidence for large local floods. You are proposing a flood orders of magnitude greater and yet we see no geological evidence. And what's more, now that we understand genetics we know that there would be a universal population bottleneck due to the flood in all species. There isn't one.

So two totally unrelated sciences say there was no flood. All you have is a book of myths. Why would any sane person believe that?

I am not that educated in genetics. How would one go about finding evidence of a bottleneck in the genes anyway?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not that educated in genetics. How would one go about finding evidence of a bottleneck in the genes anyway?

You would have to study the genome of different species of animals. You measure how much diversity they have. Measure how quickly they are mutating. Measure how long a generation is. You can start by reading this article:

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[freezerman2000]

When Toba blew,it created a genetic bottle neck.
from Wiki:
Genetic bottlenecks in humans
The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, reducing the total human population to c. 15,000 individuals[44] when Toba erupted and triggered a major environmental change, including a volcanic winter. The theory is based on geological evidence for sudden climate change at that time and for coalescence of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[45] as well as the relatively low level of genetic variation among present-day humans.[44] For example, according to one hypothesis, human mitochondrial DNA (which is maternally inherited) and Y chromosome DNA (paternally inherited) coalesce at around 140,000 and 60,000 years ago, respectively. This suggests that the female line ancestry of all present-day humans traces back to a single female (Mitochondrial Eve) at around 140,000 years ago, and the male line to a single male (Y-chromosomal Adam) at 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.[46]
However, such coalescence is genetically expected and does not necessarily indicate a population bottleneck because mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA are only a small part of the human genome, and are atypical in that they are inherited exclusively through the mother or through the father, respectively. Most genes in the genome are inherited randomly from either father or mother, thus can be traced to either matrilineal or patrilineal ancestry.[47] Other genes display coalescence points from 2 million to 60,000 years ago, thus casting doubt on the existence of recent and strong bottlenecks.[44][48]
Other possible explanations for limited genetic variation among today's humans include a transplanting model or "long bottleneck", rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[49] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa human populations dropped to as low as 2,000 individuals for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to increase in the Late Stone Age.[50]

 

[EternalDragon]

You would have to study the genome of different species of animals. You measure how much diversity they have. Measure how quickly they are mutating. Measure how long a generation is. You can start by reading this article:

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Published estimates for ancestral population sizes vary from 100,000 to 1,000 -- you can find some of them as references in the paper by Li and Durbin (2012) that McBride cited. Why such a large range of ancestral population sizes? First, the epoch chosen for study matters. The further back in time one goes, the more confounding factors can intervene. Population bottlenecks, changing selection, inbreeding, migratory behavior, strong selection for one gene accompanied by hitchhiking of neighboring genes -- all these affect genome dynamics. Convergent evolution, parallel mutations, back-mutations, or gene conversion can obscure lineages and complicate tree-drawing. The method also matters. Linkage disequilibrium studies can't go too far into the past because the recombination signal is either too small (too recent) or lost by repeated shuffling (too old), whereas allelic polymorphism studies, like Ayala's, can go deep in evolutionary time.

But more worrying to me are the hidden assumptions in evolutionary models. Population genetics is a theory-laden subject, based entirely on neo-Darwinian assumptions. These assumptions, combined with over-simplifications required by current model building and/or mathematical analysis, can lead to erroneous claims about past genetic history.

Because of these difficulties, in my opinion it is an open question whether present genetic diversity provides sufficient information from which to draw conclusions about ancient populations. Determining events in deep human history may be beyond the reach of population genetics methods.
- See more at: On Population Genetics Estimates - Evolution News & Views

 

[Subduction Zone]

E.D. you cannot debunk evolution by going to articles form sites known for lying. Please use real science.

Your post failed since you copied and pasted an article that you did not understand and it was from a site with no credibility.

I thought that you wanted to learn why you were wrong. Dishonesty is very offensive to me and that is why I have a very short temper when it comes to creationist sites.

 

[lasthero]

[quoteBoth of those comes from volcanic action that pushed the ocean water up and caused volcanic action more than usual. Do you think a world wide flood could only come from rain? [/quote]

Volcanic action that pushed the water up and...caused more volcanic action.

What?

How would volcanic activity push the water up? What was triggering it all in the first place?

All the evidence, the ice age, fossils buried quickly, the grand canyon

And yet we've managed to come up with perfectly reasonable explanations for all of it that don't invoke a worldwide flood. Huh.

And answer me a question - why is always the Grand Canyon with creationists? You guys do realize it's not the only canyon in the world, right? The way you talk about it, you'd think that you did.

And the Grand Canyon is especially not evidence for a global flood. You really don't want to ride that train.

 

[EternalDragon]

E.D. you cannot debunk evolution by going to articles form sites known for lying. Please use real science.

Your post failed since you copied and pasted an article that you did not understand and it was from a site with no credibility.

I thought that you wanted to learn why you were wrong. Dishonesty is very offensive to me and that is why I have a very short temper when it comes to creationist sites.

I am using real science. Just because something disagrees with what you accept dos not mean they are lying. That is your accusation for everything and anything that is not naturalistic. It's getting a bit old and stale.

The citation I used is not even a creationist site.

Incorrect assumptions should worry you more than illusionary dishonesty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am using real science. Just because something disagrees with what you accept dos not mean they are lying. That is your accusation for everything and anything that is not naturalistic. It's getting a bit old and stale.

The citation I used is not even a creationist site.

Incorrect assumptions should worry you more than illusionary dishonesty.

No. Clearly you aren't.

Real science relies on peer review. Flud science avoids it like the devil himself.

A real scientist, when he makes a discovery, lets the whole world attack it and if he is wrong it is withdrawn. The sites that you link to protect their idiot children. No real peer review. No criticism from the world of science afterwards.

And peer review is only the first hurdle that real science has to clear. After that every scientist in the world that disagrees with the scientist will try to show that he is wrong.

Real science filters out the nonsense. I don't request real science lightly. It is easy to be fooled by people that you want to believe. Peer review and further attacks by others separates the wheat from the chaff. Those are steps that your "scientists" strive to avoid.

And yes, Evolutionnews is a creationist site. Are you really that foolish that you could not see that?

 

[EternalDragon]

Volcanic action that pushed the water up and...caused more volcanic action.

What?

How would volcanic activity push the water up? What was triggering it all in the first place?

You know what forms mountains, right? Subduction. One plate moves under and pushes on another, pushing the first one up. Only this is at the ocean floor where there are lots of hot spots.

RUNAWAY SUBDUCTION AS THE DRIVING MECHANISM FOR THE GENESIS FLOOD

 

[HitchSlap]

I am using real science.

Stand back boys, he's sciencing.

 

[lasthero]

You know what forms mountains, right? Subduction. One plate moves under and pushes on another, pushing the first one up. Only this is at the ocean floor where there are lots of hot spots.

RUNAWAY SUBDUCTION AS THE DRIVING MECHANISM FOR THE GENESIS FLOOD

ED, can you summarize the paper you linked in your own words?

 

[Loudmouth]

And they do not. They represent 4000 years after the flood when the excess waters froze from the drastic change in climate due to the world wide flood activities.

That would not produce alternating layers of oxygen isotopes. That does not explain the ice record.

Ice layers are not annual.

We observe that they are. We can count back and find ash layers and chemical traces from known eruptions in the right layers.

Even today there are very warm weeks in winter and many snow falls and freezing, thawing going on within a year.

Not at the sites where the ice cores are taken. Also, this would not produce alternating layers of oscilating oxygen isotopes.

After the flood there would have been numerous super storms and the upper northern areas having many ice layers in a year.

That wouldn't produce the patterns we see either.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know what forms mountains, right? Subduction.

Obviously, you have not heard about Mauna Kea. It was not formed from subduction, and neither were other mountains and semounts that are part of the Hawaiian archipelago and Emperor Seamount chains. They were formed by the Pacific plate slowly moving over a hotspot over millions of years, and we have all of the evidence demonstrating this:

The Formation of the Hawaiian Islands

RUNAWAY SUBDUCTION AS THE DRIVING MECHANISM FOR THE GENESIS FLOOD

That is contradicted by mountains of evidence.

 

[EternalDragon]

ED, can you summarize the paper you linked in your own words?

So you can find something to accuse me of? No thanks. Read it yourself. It's not that hard.

 

[lasthero]

So you can find something to accuse me of? No thanks. Read it yourself. It's not that hard.

I did. I'm curious if you did.

 

[CabVet]

I did. I'm curious if you did.

I find that to be highly unlikely.

 

[lasthero]

I'll tell you what, ED. Since you read the paper and it's so easy to grasp, you should have no problem countering this critique of it.

http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/Runaway+Subduction+is+a+Sham

Or this critique.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH430.html

Or this critique.

http://www.unalmed.edu.co/rrodrigue...away Speculation Vrs_ The Laws of Physics.htm

Have fun.

 

[EternalDragon]

I'll tell you what, ED. Since you read the paper and it's so easy to grasp, you should have no problem countering this critique of it.

http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/Runaway+Subduction+is+a+Sham

Or this critique.

CH430: Runaway subduction

Or this critique.

Runaway Speculation Vrs. The Laws of Physics

Have fun.

Yes, the same old arguments I hear on these forums. The heat would vaporize the oceans, there wouldn't be enough time to generate the heat needed, yada, yada. Then they don't take in the consideration of deep, pressurized ocean water acting/reacting with the heat.

This is what you have to realize. That there is always more than one way to interpret data, to interpret evidence. So then we go back to the presuppositions, which goes back to eyewitness accounts, which goes back to faith. Which is why I call evolution a faith religion.

 

[lasthero]

The heat would vaporize the oceans, there wouldn't be enough time to generate the heat needed, yada, yada.

Be honest. You didn't read them. The first link doesn't even talk about at as a criticism.

Then they don't take in the consideration of deep, pressurized ocean water acting/reacting with the heat.

Okay. Show how this is significant and nullifies all their critiques.

I'll ask you a simple question.

Barry, in your link, presents a problem with his model

"One difficulty in making a connection between these calculations and the Flood is their time scale. Some 2 x 10^7 years is needed before the instability occurs in the second calculation. Most of this time is involved with the accumulation of a large blob of cold, dense material at the barrier created by the phase transition at 600 km depth."

Where does he solve this problem? Where does he propose an answer to it? Can you? Keep in mind, this is a problem HE presents in his own model. Not something from one of his critics, this is something that came straight from the man himself.

That there is always more than one way to interpret data, to interpret evidence.

Yeah, there's a right way and there's a wrong way. You're doing in the wrong way.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is why I call evolution a faith religion.

They aren't going to agree with you though, because they don't have a proper definition of faith.

Instead of researching it ... like a real scientist probably should ... many of them just use Mark Twain's definition.

(And I don't remember what it is right now.)

ETA: Just looked it up:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." -Mark Twain