Summations Only

I gave you the evidence several times and it does not depend on rates of mutation or dating or anything except the Bible stories themselves.Anyone today who is still claiming the Biblical Flood ever happened is just wrong.It really is that simple.Here it is yet again. Message 96

But... how do you know that?Mutate and Survive

You throw around this accusation too freely, its not a practical way to create "understanding through discussion", which is the purpose of this website. If the moderators don't mind this, its a reflection on them. Yes but those deal with recent ages (0-60000 years). For the really long ages all you have is radiometric dating and the assumption of slow processes. They are not that easy to find. I already provided evidence that the nature of Pangea during the Permian made the lower latitudes less habitable. The entire habitable region was covered by a thick layer of basalt. Its the only logical place for humans to live during the Permian, and those areas have disappeared under a thick layer of rock. So you are asking for miracles when I have provided logical reasons why those fossils have not been found. Look at the following list of anomalies, please notice that many of these anomalies are from Russia, here's just a few:Anomalously Occurring FossilsSpores Tertiary Pleistocene North Caspia, USSR
Pollen Tertiary Pleistocene Yenisei, USSR
Coccoliths Cretaceous Tertiary Crimea, USSR 214
Spores Cretaceous Tertiary Kazan, USSR
Pollen Cretaceous Tertiary Ural Mts., USSR 217
Pollen Cretaceous Tertiary West Siberia, USSR
Spores Jurassic Triassic Northeast Siberia, USSR 218
Pollen Jurassic Pleistocene Yenisei, USSR 168
Spores "Mesozoic" Pleistocene North Caspia, USSR 166
Spores Jurassic Permian Northeast Siberia, USSR 218
Spores Jurassic Cambrian Northeast Siberia, USSR
Pollen Carboniferous Triassic Donets Basin, USSR 84
Pollen Carboniferous Jurassic Donets Basin, USSR
Algae Precambrian Cambrian or Ordovician Verkhoyansk, USSR 205
Spores Precambrian Devonian Saratov, USSR

This has to be the craziest thing I've heard you say - despite heavy competition.I'll try again but it would be good if you didn't fire from the hip with your answer because it matters.God told Noah a year in advance that he would flood the earth. He told him to build an ark for the animals he would save. Before the flood he told Noah to gather the animals because he was going to flood the earth. So god says what he's going to do - "I will cause it to rain on the earth..." then he does it. What he does is flood the earth to 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain.Now I don't know how that can be anything other than a miracle.I'm not talking about the flood part - although I contend that the flooding the earth above mountain high would also require a miracle - I'm talking about god saying he'll intervene with the climate and geology of the earth in order to cause the global flood.Can you therefore explain to me what other 'detail' you need an/or what other possible explanation are there other than:1. It never happened
2. It was a natural disaster, God had nothing to do with it.Note that both 1 & 2 require you to admit that the biblical story of the flood is wrong.

So? Right. But mountains of supporting evidence do (insofar as proof is possible in science). I'l be there. I seriously suggest you do some research on the basics of radiometric dating: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective is sound. And the evidence for the constancy of decay rates: The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2, both by a renowned physicist, are a good place to start.Be aware that if you bring up the "three assumptions underlying radiometric dating" you will immediately brand yourself as an ignoramus.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You claimed "You have only the debatable theory of radiometric dating to support your long periods of time.". You know that's not true. If you don't want me making false accusations, then you should perhaps more precise in what you write, rather than making loose and inaccurate claims. Yes and we have already talked about biostratigraphy, which is not limited to recent times.I would be interested to know what dating methods you do accept. I don't think that's true. You say this as though this basalt were some sort of impassible barrier. It's not. There are plenty of exposed Permian rocks available, all over the world. This is a naive portrayal of how geology works. There are plenty of forces that expose underlying geology, the break-up of Pangea being a single pertinent example. This is no excuse for not finding the fossils. I understand that you honestly believe that you are providing logical reasons, but in reality, all you are doing is engaging in rationalisation. Instead of trying to explain away the lack of evidence, you need to actually provide evidence. Without hard evidence, you have no foundation upon which to build your claims. That has to be the starting point.Perhaps if you had some real positive evidence to show a P-T Flood, a few weaknesses in your supporting evidence could be excused. Instead, it seems as though every piece of potential supporting evidence is missing and all you can do is provide us with excuses for why it's not there. It's just not convincing. It is certainly much less convincing than the mainstream geological model. Those are mostly spores and pollen. Some algae. The Flood myth doesn't really mention algae. It does mention humans though, so if you want to place the Flood at the P-T, you have a human fossil problem.Mutate and Survive.

False. The constancy of decay rates is not an assumption. It's a conclusion, again based on mountains of evidence. See the links in Message 205. There is no evidence of unknown ways of affecting decay rates, that's why they would be unknown if indeed they do exist. Scientists deal with the evidence we have, not the evidence that doesn't exist except in your mind.Radioactive decay is well understood. Scientist have attempted to affect decay rates in many different ways. No decay rate used in geochronology has been affected by any significant amount in any experiment other than 87Rb, and the decay rate was only affected significantly when the temperature was high enough to vaporize the Earth many times over.Again, the consilience that you ignore is key. There are three major and very different modes of decay, and there are many variations on each mode. If you want to invoke accelerated nuclear decay, you need to explain by what mechanism it was accelerated and how all the very different modes were accelerated by exactly the amount needed to have different dating methods show the observed consilience. And where did the heat and radiation go to (your comments are welcome and on-topic in Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay).Plus, for the third time, the Earth was well-known to be much, much older than a few thousand years long before radioactivity was discovered, and the ToE does not rest upon the validity of radiometric dating. I won't bother to post the link again, you'll just ignore it again.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Seriously? A few unknown ways in which decay rates can be affected. How did you count them? (Rhetorical question. We both know that at least that part of your statement is total nonsense. You don't know of a few unknown ways to do anything. That would make the ways known.I also believe that your entire claim is nonsense. Name one known and relevant way to change the decay rate of C-14. I expect your answer to be something that could plausibly change the result of C-14 dating.

And how much water was that? Today the total icecaps and glaciation are about 1.8% of the water in the oceans (How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?). In the last ice age, there was enough water locked up in glaciers to drop sea level about 400 feet (Ice, Snow, and Glaciers: The Water Cycle). Still obviously not enough to cover mountains.(If you wish to invoke catastrophic mountain building, please include your estimate of the heat released by the process).

Many times I have pointed out that scientists knew that the Earth is much, much more than a few thousand years old long before we discovered radioactivity. I can only conclude that you are deliberately ignoring this fact and lying through your teeth. Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.pdf. Read it and respond. No excuses.

{duplicate}Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

It's also worth pointing out that the highest daily rainfall on record in the world is 1,825 mm in 24 hours (which I think we can all agree is one seriously bad day to forget your umbrella).Even assuming the worst rain on record, on every square inch of planet earth, for 40 days and nights, solid, you get to 73 metres of coverage.I know Mindspawn plucked out of the air the assertion that mountains were smaller back in Noah's day, but taking into account the 15 cubit coverage requirement, the highest mountain in the world would have been 66 metres high.And I haven't adjusted downwards for the curvature of the earth, though I'd be prepared to do the maths for giggles.

Using nature against specific targets is a miracle. If a guy gets hit by lightning that's just nature; it can happen to anybody. But if he gets hit by lightning right after saying, "May God strike me dead..." that's a miracle.So, if the flood was a miracle it was a really bad idea because of all the collateral damage. Individual targeted lightning bolts would have been better.

You are demonstrating a level of obtuseness that requires dedication to the task.When sea levels rise, more land becomes flooded, however land that is above the new sea level, or that is protected from flooding by some blockage does not get flooded. So flooding does not mean world wide flooding.What you have just demonstrated is that global flooding versus localized flooding are not the only options. And given that you yourself have admitted that the flooding you allude to is not a Biblical sized flood, I have to wonder what it is you think you have accomplished. We are after all debating about whether the Genesis flood ever happened.And after all of that, you still have to show that this flooding occured during the time when men walked the earth. Simply saying I don't believe in dating does not demonstrate anything at all. If every from of dating ever presented were completely bogus, you would still be left with the task of providing some evidence that humans were caught in the P-T transgression. We know you don't have any such evidence because of all the time you have spent making made excuses for why you have no evidence.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

haha, well I just said the bible doesn't provide detail. If you think that's crazy.....The actual Hebrew just says "I will rain or "I rain" so its very vague. Does this mean "I will allow rain". Or I foretell rain? I will use the rain? I will create rain? Who knows. Maybe he set tectonic movements in place thousands of years earlier, that eventually resulted in volcanic induced rainfall? I really don't know. I can give no better answer. I believe it was a natural disaster that God used to carry out his will. God could have triggered off that natural disaster, I don't know. So I believe its 3 & 4
3. It was a natural disaster , God used it.
4. It could have been triggered by supernatural intervention, maybe not