Summations Only

These are on the surface logical questions, but in the world of kofh2u, the ark is the central nervous system of Noah and the Flood is a vision of the evolution of man and animals passing through Noah's mind. See Message 96You are asking questions about the details of that vision...

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.

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.

This despite the fact that you've been asked for evidence multiple times? Why instead do you single out the poster(s) that are rude and avoid actually citing the evidence. (Which would still fall short, but at least it is a start. After all what about Kansas?)What is needed here is proof of a flood that covered every "high mountain" by at least 15 cubits. I' m sure everyone would accept evidence that extended part way up the tallest "high mountain". But instead all we've seen are preliminaries (e.g. claims "moutains weren't very high back in the day" without citing evidence", arguments that "something got wet so everything was wet").I agree that calling people liars simply because they claim to believe something the evidence suggests is ridiculous is wrong. I wish it would stop. Past experience is that pointing such things out to the moderators brings the whip down. In an effort to show some good will on my part, I'll make such a complaint right now.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Wrong dude. The burden of proof for showing that the flood even approached covering the peak is yours. And as has been pointed out dozens of time so far, you also have to provide evidence that the flooding in question occurred at a relevant time. That is at a time when humans existed.Evidence, has been presented that any flood at the P-T boundary could not possibly qualify. You don't accept that evidence but you haven't provided any counter evidence of your own.In short, you act as if it is our burden to convince you rather than to simply provide support for our own arguments.

Pathetic. If that was indeed your point, then your statements that it was your opponents responsibility to disprove that the floods covered the mountain peeks would not make much sense, would it?I doubt that anyone would have bothered arguing with you about whether there were floods in any era after the earth cooled.

You are understating the case, and I see that mindspawn is running with your acknowledgement.In fact there evidence is that the flooding mindspawn relies on happened tens millions of years ago.When people say that the Noah's flood has been refuted, there may be reason to quibble as mindspawn is doing IFF a OEC time frame is allowed.But when we thrown in the YEC time table, then we can make more absolute statements about what the evidence shows. And the positive evidence (i.e. not mere lack of evidence) that there was no world wide flood in the last 5,000 years completely refutes such a story regardless of any argument I've seen mindspawn make about the P-T boundary or fish surviving in freshwater. The possibility that the P-T boundary corresponds to a recent event is absolutely ruled out by multiple lines of evidence. Genetic bottlenecks, evidence of no flood in many locations, having enough people to build the pyramids, cave paintings in France, etc. all point to a YEC global flood being null and void.And of course for this discussion, that line of argument is off topic. If you aren't going to accept for the purpose of discussion, that a flood happened on the YEC time scale, then this is not the discussion thread for you.

I'll say this is uncanny. Somehow that common father actually had descendants that were born somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000 years before he lived.Or maybe someone is just making up silly stuff and calling it uncanny. As I have pointed out to you before, these conversion factors are not the same. 40 days = 40,000 years is a 365,000:1 conversion factor.I know. Why am I quibbling over these minor bits of silliness in response a message full of knee-slappers? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Except that you are kinda stuck with a very limited time frame. Humans simply do not show anything like an ark compliant lack of diversity.Does the human race show more or less diversity than would be expected if they were descended from the eight people on the ark, 4500 years ago? Let's also recall that three of those 8 were descended from two others of the 8 and thus add very little diversity if any. Recall that every species ought to show such a signature. Only a single example that you cannot explain is necessary (and I'll spot you the mice), while finding individual bottlenecks shows nothing.Maybe not in this thread, but I've certainly seen people providing pointers to evidence of cattle that have more alleles than could have been produced by just a few ark animals.

This is ridiculous, and is an example of why any evidence based discussion with you is pointless.Nobody is forgetting that animals were able to adapt quickly in hot, low oxygen conditions because such hasn't been established as a fact to forget. (And apparently adapt must mean something different from evolve) And when you talk about "rapidly adapting into subspecies after admitting to knowing next to nothing at all about biology, should we even take your arguments seriously? Which major predator did the salt-water crocodile evolve (er adapt) into?Apparently what makes sense to you is to make up any nonsense explanation however non Biblical, and then to insist that someone else has to demonstrate your made up stuff to be wrong using evidence. It is sufficient that humans or any other single animal doesn't show any bottleneck.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

More nonsense on your part.So what was the sharp reduction in the size of the population associated with Eve? Wasn't Eve present at a significant increase in the population? You participated in a thread in which evidence was provided that the current diversity in humans exceeded that which could result from the humans allegedly present after the flood, even accounting for mutations. That's evidence enough.

4500 years ago there weren't 7 billion people to work with.And your calculation is foobar anyway. The people on earth are diverse, but they aren't that diverse.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This would require that the mutation rate in the Y chromosome to be about 10 times the rate of the rest of the DNA in a human. Where do you get this number you are "considering"?

Except that the Bible as you read it places Noah at far too recent a date. I have yet to see a single estimate of the time frame for mtDNA Adam that is earlier than 40,000 years ago using mutation rates applicable for the Y chromosome and most estimates are three times more than that. That means that a factor of ten change in those rates are required to make Noah plausibly the correct ancestor.As for whether you'vw shown an impossible coincidence, well there are only two possible orders, and there is always going to be a most recent common paternal only ancestor and some most recent common maternal only line. So we are not talking about a huge coincidence, just a 50-50 chance.And despite what early data shows, the current data does not make the order all that clear anyway.

Define speciation.Identify some reptiles that could be former amphibians without macroevolution.