Impreccable proof for the Biblical Flood

[Hespera]

Not a global flood, however apparently millions of years ago there was a global sheet of ice over the Earth, its called Snowball Earth hypothesis.

IF there had been such an ice sheet over the entire earth everything would be extinct but maybe some bacteria.

 

[Hespera]

1. I believe in what the Bible teaches - creationism.
2. I believe in polygenism.

I reject ToE on the basis of my Biblical interpretation, but also because i do not believe monogenism is scientific. I also already listed the holes in the evolution theory. Macroevolution has never been observed anyway, so for me to convert to an evolutionist is the same chance i start to believe in the tooth fairy...

Your "holes " in the ToE in no way falsify anything.

When are you going to get over thinking this "never been observed" is a valid argument?


Oh! You already did. So why do you keep trying to use it?

Originally Posted by Research1

It doesn't need to be directly observed, there are physical remains left, and these can be tested.
​

Let not thy left brain know what thy right brain doeth?

 

[AV1611VET]

We never observed a mounatins washed to the sea either.

Walking by faith, are you?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[Delphiki]

Tell that to Picasso: http://www.christianforums.com/t7543350-4/#post56969436

Fallacy - Equivocation. You're changing the context to avoid the topic of the conversation. As is obvious to anyone who isn't a moron, he means biblical creation.

 

[Skaloop]

A lot more observed it than you think -- like a few quadrillion angels?

And like I said in regards to God, if the angels count for having observed Creation, then they could also be counted as observers of macroevolution (under theistic evolution), therefore the claims that macroevolution has not been observed is bunk.

Please keep in mind that I am not trying to say here that evolution is Biblical or anything like that. Merely that if one believes in a being that observes everything that happens, the argument that macroevolution is unobservable is self-defeating.

 

[AV1611VET]

And like I said in regards to God, if the angels count for having observed Creation, then they could also be counted as observers of macroevolution (under theistic evolution), therefore the claims that macroevolution has not been observed is bunk.

First of all, this has nothing to do with the point I'm making, that angels did not evolve.

Second of all, I'm not a theistic evolutionist, so I disagree that angels witnessed macroevolution; although I do understand what you are saying.

 

[Skaloop]

First of all, this has nothing to do with the point I'm making, that angels did not evolve.

Nothing. My response was not to you, it was to Research1. You injected yourself into our little discussion about the observability of macroevolution. So don't go accusing me of somehow derailing your point.

 

[dad]

The prediction of a global genetic bottleneck is directly stated in Genesis, so long as you assume that God didn't go about creating more species or individuals afterward (which seems reasonable because otherwise taking them on the ark is pointless). A genetic bottleneck is by definition when the number of alleles is reduced drastically, and since an individual can only carry a certain number of genes a genetic bottleneck will be roughly equivalent to a population bottleneck. The genetic bottleneck will always be worse than the population bottleneck, because the population will probably contain some redundant copies of alleles, meaning the genes will be even more limited.

But men used to sleep with relatives...that would have certain genetic repercussions today. Men used to live many many many centuries...not so now. So how would we hold today's rules and extrapolations to apply to the past??

Yes, some assumptions are made about mutation rate and generation time, which can't be directly observed but are expected to be the same. First, the genes must be read to determine a distribution and rate of variation in an allele. The mutation rate analysis will give a number of generations, and the generation time of current species is used to turn that number into a number of years. If you go by the Bible, I'm guessing you'd predict that any deviation from what is observed now would be toward longer lifespans and less mutation, right?

No. I would not think it would be a deviation from what goes on today. I would think that the fundamental laws of the universe changed, and that the cells and etc were affected. The result is what we have today. We would be the change.

Reduced mutation rate will increase the number of generations required to explain variation, and a longer lifespan will mean the age calculated using current lifetime is an underestimate. Both these effects would mean the calculated bottleneck time would be even longer ago than calculated. Higher mutation rate and shorter generation times would have the opposite effect.

No. You calculate using how it now works as the basis! Doesn't apply then.

There's an additional measure of bottleneck, which is genetic drift. Genetic drift occurs in all populations but is by far more powerful in small populations. It is a result of the randomness of Mendelian genetics which you should have learned in school, and can cause alleles to be lost in a chance process because only a random half of an organism's alleles are passed on to each offspring. The final result is more commonly called inbreeding.

Doesn't apply to the deep past.

Both these processes are observed and accepted even by young earth creationists, and in any case are a mathematically necessary result of how we reproduce.

Of course...I accept them too......here and now! So?

Now then, do you want to find whether the literal flood happened? If it did, where are all those genetic bottlenecks that must have resulted, and do they match the date of the flood?

I do not need to find out if the flood happened. It did. God made that clear. To find when, one can not trace present genetics backward.

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by Research1

The Bible does not damage faith, only false interpretations do.
​

Ok. Correction. Bible Worshipers damage faith.

This is why I stop listening to anyone who tries to speak for it.

I'm done with them. Completely.

And not a one of them ever has it occur to them that maybe THEY are the ones reading it wrong... or that there isnt any correct reading.

it does seem tho if there were some way to cross check, maybe they'd want to look at it. They love it when archaeologists confirm some detail from the bible.

When tho, science shows that something isnt being read right-like, say, noahs ark-why they they go into denial! CANT BE!!! Strawmen, ad homs, dark hints of satan deluding the minds of the researchers; falsehoods, quote mining, equivocation, anything anything at all but look at themselves and see if maybe just maybe they (gasp shudder oh epiphany that it would be) are not infallible!

how hard is that? For our members of the brotherhood of theocreologists it seems impossible.

 

[AirPo]

And not a one of them ever has it occur to them that maybe THEY are the ones reading it wrong... or that there isnt any correct reading.

it does seem tho if there were some way to cross check, maybe they'd want to look at it. They love it when archaeologists confirm some detail from the bible.

When tho, science shows that something isnt being read right-like, say, noahs ark-why they they go into denial! CANT BE!!! Strawmen, ad homs, dark hints of satan deluding the minds of the researchers; falsehoods, quote mining, equivocation, anything anything at all but look at themselves and see if maybe just maybe they (gasp shudder oh epiphany that it would be) are not infallible!

how hard is that? For our members of the brotherhood of theocreologists it seems impossible.

And here's an excellent example of that, from the post just above yours.

I would think that the fundamental laws of the universe changed, and that the cells and etc were affected.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

The data has to exist. What I want to know is whether anyone gathered it, and whether anyone analyzed it to check the prediction I made. If not, someone should.

The data does exist and there is no bottleneck where you would predict.

Itinerant Lurker's Argument Archive: Genetic Bottlenecks

Enjoy.



Lurker

 

[Research1]

And not a one of them ever has it occur to them that maybe THEY are the ones reading it wrong... or that there isnt any correct reading.

it does seem tho if there were some way to cross check, maybe they'd want to look at it. They love it when archaeologists confirm some detail from the bible.

When tho, science shows that something isnt being read right-like, say, noahs ark-why they they go into denial! CANT BE!!! Strawmen, ad homs, dark hints of satan deluding the minds of the researchers; falsehoods, quote mining, equivocation, anything anything at all but look at themselves and see if maybe just maybe they (gasp shudder oh epiphany that it would be) are not infallible!

how hard is that? For our members of the brotherhood of theocreologists it seems impossible.

Well YEC + ToE are both the same...

Both Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists are religious fundies. Both never question their own beliefs in the slightest, and if there is evidence against there theory they shut their eyes or ignore.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Well YEC + ToE are both the same...

Both Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists are religious fundies. Both never question their own beliefs in the slightest, and if there is evidence against there theory they shut their eyes or ignore.

You truly have nothing to offer except "I know you are, but what am I?" is that it?

 

[Hespera]

Well YEC + ToE are both the same...

Both Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists are religious fundies. Both never question their own beliefs in the slightest, and if there is evidence against there theory they shut their eyes or ignore.

evolutionists are religious fundies

A remarkable thing even from your fairyland, where the entire scientific community of every country on planet earth, as well as the educated classes of all nations are all religious fundies. Everyone but members of your particular cult of old earth creationists!

Will the weight of your bull ever crush you?


Its ok, go along on your way, you live in a world of projection and fantasy where you can make up anything you like about anyone, and pronounce it true, and be satisfied.

You live somewhere beyond the reach of reality.

Good luck.

 

[rjc34]

Well YEC + ToE are both the same...

Both Young Earth Creationists and evolutionists are religious fundies. Both never question their own beliefs in the slightest, and if there is evidence against there theory they shut their eyes or ignore.

Oh darn! I guess the jig is up! I must repent my Darwin worshiping ways! For all this time I have been so wrong. How could I have been so wrong?

Please help me oh humble Research1! Show me the way to enlightenment!

 

[hillard]

change the word God for Thor and it means just as much,

To whom?

Any one with half a brain in their head, all those who are not afraid or desperate to believe or have not been indoctrinated into believing in myths and fantasies.

Why would you even begin to think that your myths and fantasies are any better than any of the thousands of others?
is it because the one that gets to you first makes all of the others wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

change the word God for Thor and it means just as much,

To whom?

Any one with half a brain in their head...

No argument there.

 

[Philothei]

Mod hat on


Thead underwent a clean-up. Many posts were deleted for being off topic to the subject and dealing with the poster rather than the post.

Please do not derail the thread.

Mod hat off​

 

[rjc34]

No argument there.

So are you going to answer the question that was posed to you?

Why would you even begin to think that your myths and fantasies are any better than any of the thousands of others?
is it because the one that gets to you first makes all of the others wrong?

 

[AV1611VET]

So are you going to answer the question that was posed to you?

I'll pass.