Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end?

The discovery that there are koalas, kangaroos, echidnas and other strange creatures and plants in Australia.

You are providing a good example of the thread's theme: you don't want scientific inquiry into your beliefs, and simply refuse to believe any scientific facts contrary to your beliefs.I have provided examples of discoveries that show the flood never happened as described.

--From my own research I have a skeleton in the US dated to 5,300 years ago with mtDNA matching living individuals in the same area. There is another such skeleton dated 10,300 years ago in southern Alaska matching living individuals all along the west coast. If there was a global flood, with only eight survivors in the Middle East, there would be a replacement of mtDNA types between these early individuals and living individuals. We would have Middle Eastern mtDNA types in these two areas instead of the same mtDNA types that were there earlier.

​

--Taking this same idea farther, there should have been a genetic bottleneck at the time of the flood and all peoples around the world should have mtDNA traceable to about 4,350 years ago, and unrelated to earlier mtDNA types. The pattern we see does not match this at all. Rather we can trace mtDNA back to the original Africans who left that continent, and can even determine what part of Africa the original peoples came from. We can track the changes over time by marker mutations, and this tells the direction and timing of the mutations as well as shows the pattern of migrations.

​

--Lastly, we do not find evidence of a flood in deposits around 4,350 years of age. It takes only one such instance to disprove the global flood. I have tested over a hundred sites spanning that time period and there was no evidence of a flood--erosional discontinuity or flood sediments--at the appointed time period. We had continuity of deposition, human cultures, and fauna and flora.

Conclusion: no global flood about 4,350 years ago.Of course, you won't accept this conclusion, as you won't accept much of science. I suspect you would rather science just went away or became, as the Discovery Institute wants, a science "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." In other words, the exact opposite of real science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Once again your very words prove that the Biblical Flood never happened.Look at the part YOU highlighted from that quote. The words you highlighted support the fact that there was never a Biblical flood.You quoted:

quote:

---

if the population is very large and random mating is taking place, allele frequencies remain unchanged (or in equilibrium) over time unless some other factors intervene.

---

I have to ask. Have you ever read the Bible myths about the Flood?IF they were true, then the populations were not very large. Even using the most forgiving, most favorable of the two mutually exclusive accounts all that would be left were eight humans, fourteen of each clean kind or bird and four of each unclean kind.It really is that simple.IF the Biblical Flood was true then the populations would not be large and random matings would not be happening.The Biblical Flood has been refuted. Edited by jar, : left a few words out, fast fingers

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The point is what the individuals who came up with the global flood myth thought. Any flood covering a major portion of Mesopotamia would be assumed by these ignorant humans, ignorant meaning uninformed,
as covering the entire earth. Stop trying to read mythology through 21st century eyes and trying reading it through the eyes of the story tellers.Edited by bluescat48, : missing verb

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

in general answers coyote is wrong and his 'research' means nothing and nwr's post is not proof against the flood fo rit is simple to provide a reasonable and valid answer to that result--someone or more than one could have transported the animals there just after the flood.no one knows how they got there but guess what--God wanted them there so there they are. evolution doesn't provide an answer at all and is far less valid and more ridiculous than that one possibility i gave.

wrong again and that answer is based upon assumption coupled with emotionalism and bias not fact nor evidence. all the people would have to do is move, notice how only a few pakistanis were killed and trapped by a local flood--so it would have been in Noah's time.you people just do not want the truth nor accept it.as i said before, most true christians are not opposed to science, we are opposed to the lies that secular science produces and tries to brainwash children with. the flood happen regardless of the assumptions made by secular scientists and their disciples.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

Sounds like the tenet of this thread is true: you care nothing for scientific inquiry.And my research means nothing, eh? Sorry. Until you can show where the evidence I provided upthread is wrong, the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago is disproved--from my research alone. Then there is the research of tens or hundreds of thousands of other scientists going back 200+ years that also disproves the flood. You have to deal with that evidence too.It is your unevidenced denial that means nothing.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You have made that claim many times but never answered the examples that refute your assertion.Do you believe that the Bible in Chapters Genesis 6&7 actually describe what the flood was like?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Which is exactly what your beliefs are. That is all any of your posts show, assumptions coupled with emotionalism and bias not fact or evidence. The evidence from numerous sources shows that there was no global flood ~4500 years ago. Biological, Geological, Physical and Chemical evidence shows there was no flood. None is total by itself, but when coupled together the evidence for the global flood is that there was not one.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

So we should just stop doing scientific research, right? You claim that you already have the answers, so we should just stop doing science and close up all those labs.

how about doing it right and realize that scientific research is hampered and hindered by so many mitigating factors. you cannot disprove a global flood and there are several reasons for this:1. do you know what the global flood evidence looks like? if not, how would you identify it?2. how deep does one dig? wooley went about 90 feet before discovering virign territory and was forced into renouncing his claim of finding flood evidence.3. if found would it be accepted? wooley is a good example that it would not be.4. construction of cities, wars, local floods, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, tornados, earthquakes, erosion and so on, all have their hand in destroying evidence, thus we are back to #s 1 & 2.
{for erosion effects see Kitchens The Bible in Its world, pg. 10; fo rthe rest read your history books}5. secular science is so limited that it cannot tell someone what they had for breakfast last week let alone what took place 3-4,000 years ago. the tools are faulty. [qs]You claim that you already have the answers, so we should just stop doing science and close up all those labs. just the ones going beyond their authority and scope. as i have proven by quoting dever (Did God Have A Wife), secular science is NOT objective thus anything it does violates its own principles that suppoedly guide its work.then since secular science is NOT about truth (another poster said this to me in a discussion on this very board) then any findings by scienc eneeds to be rejected for they are not true. according to him secular science is a big waste of time so yes, you probably should close up shop and shut down all secular scientific labs, they are not producing anything of value to te humans who inhabit this planet.

again you are wrong and distort all my words and posts. the only people without fact or evidence are the evolutionists and their supporters. post the evidence and i will show you where they are wrong. keep in mind that GOD does NOT operate BY secular scientific rules, His work is SUPENATURAL

Well, if that is the argument then nothing can disprove the flood, you could just say "God made it look that way", this however does make god a bit of a deceiver.

I don't have to supply any more evidence than what has already been put forth in this and other related topics. I will state 2 of these.No genetic bottleneck 4500 or at any other period in modern man's history ~10000 years.
No evidence that a global flood occurred at this or any other time from geological evidence. Whether supernatural or not, it will leave physical evidence or else as Huntard states, your god is a deceiver.Edited by bluescat48, : missing word

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

So you are saying that we should not do scientific research because it is hampered and hindered, right? We do know what flood deposits look like. They are large layers of large comglomerate material with large grain size. This is in contrast to layers that are produced by calm water over longer time periods where you see very fine grained sediments and annual varving. The picture below is a perfect example with flood layers that sandwich seasonal varves. Two separate floods of Lake Missoula produced the flood layers on the top and bottom of the photo while the middle represents 21 years of annual varves. You can read more here about the Channeled Scablands and how catastrophic flooding is detected in the geologic record. It is the evidence that does exist which points to an ancient Earth and no global flood layer from a recent global flood. This evidence includes hundreds of thousands of years of ice layers and lake varves which are not produced by floods and would be interrupted by a flood. They are not faulty at all. You just reject the evidence because it is inconvenient for your dogmatic religious beliefs. How is secular science not objective? Truth is for philosophers and theologians. Science tries to figure out how nature works and what happened in the past, two tasks that it has done really well.