Summations Only

I was going to say something, but there's no actual need for me to do so, is there?

That isn't how science works. The one who is challenging the accepted theory has to back up his challenge.And what really separates the scientists from the creationists is that scientists test their own challenges before concluding that they are right and everybody else is wrong. You're the one who is challenging the entire body of biological knowledge. Yes, you do have to back up that challenge. And no, the world doesn't owe you a spoon-feeding of that knowledge first.

On the contrary my compressed dating shows that the Arabian plate lay on the edge of Africa, and was not joined to Asia yet. when populations got large, they had no where to go except Africa. Since the first deaths occurred only 300 years after the flood when populations were large, this is consistent with where the first human fossils are found, and the first source of large populations exists. ( Northeast Africa)As an imperfect analogy, imagine if the world's population started in Florida. It would be in Georgia and Alabama that the human population would start spreading. All populations would trace their ancestry to Georgia and Alabama because you would have to first go through there to get to the rest of the world. But florida would still show some signs of having universal DNA.The Middle East has the biggest range of DNA, shown by these types of mtDNA maps:
http://britam.org/MtDNAWorld.jpgYou see how the Middle East, going through to Egypt has the biggest range of core DNA types? So the out of Middle east hypothesis is correct, and yet so is the out of Africa hypothesis correct, because there was only one way to go in the compressed timeframes model, through Africa to the rest of the world.

Then your process is the worst one we know of for modeling reality. Your approach can't even get you out of The Matrix. That is, since you cannot prove that you're not in The Matrix, then we get to assume that you are. Have you ever hear of Russel's Teapot?

quote:

---

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872—1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.

---

A scientific approach is much better, as we know because of all the advances that scienc has given us: that is, assume that the evidence that we can find points to a reality that we are experiencing. Follow the evidence where it leads and let it speak for itselt.Your approach, "prove me wrong or I get to assume I'm right", is the worst way to figure things out. You can't even determine if you're just a brain in a jar or not. But I know that the ark story is impossible. The evidence that proves it is impossible is that the Earth has never been covered in water during a time when humans were alive. Then you are calling childish banter, the position that we are not living in The Matrix and that I am not just a brain in a jar. No, sir, that is chidish banter.

I don't get too philosophical about these issues. If someone says DNA disproves a recent bottleneck , they must show me the background to their thinking. Their avoidance of doing so speaks volumes.If someone says vegetation cannot regain a significant foothold after a flood, this is not self evident. Everyone knows vegetation is hardy. The burden of proof is on the one making the foolish statement, to prove it. Until then its merely an over exaggerated and unlikely foolish statement.If you wish to philosophise away the burden of providing evidence, it all looks pretty foolish to the thousands of visitors who may be religious and would really like to know if a flood can be disproven. not everyone works off the assumption that ancient books are incorrect until proven true, some believe an ancient book could be right until proven wrong. Whether that satisfies your logic or not, is irrelevant to making an impressive argument or your position, which is lacking. This is a fair argument, except the most likely place for humans to have existed is the Siberian highlands. If there has been as much research in that region as every other region, this would really strengthen your argument, but unfortunately central Siberia has been neglected regarding the discovery of Permian fossils. As is being blatant about strawman arguments Edited by mindspawn, : spelling

This is just plain nuts, on too many levels to even bother with.You have shown yourself to be absolutely impervious to evidence as well as logic.The Queen in Alice would be very jealous! She only believed up to six impossible things before breakfast.

Yeah, and then when people do show you the evidence, you make up a bunch of bullshit like 'what if time is compressed', or you could use the equally valid 'maybe we all live in The Matrix'. No, this is in the Science Forum section of this website. In this part, we use scientific evidence. That means that all your what-ifs have zero weight until you provide evidence for them. But by your approach, you can't even disprove that we live in The Matrix. So why should anyone care? Every single person who has posted in this thread believs that an ancient book could be right until proven wrong. Nobody cares if you're impressed. What you have show is that the only way to maintain a belief in The Flud, is to turn a blind eye to the evidence and make up a bunch of ridiculous what-ifs to prop your belief onto. No, that is not an evidenced conclusion, that is something that you made up. You might as well be claiming that we live in The Matrix.

So is the accepted theory that all vegetation dies off in a flood? No sir, that is not even self evident, a lot of folk would think that vegetation is hardy.Is the accepted theory that all animals do not have bottlenecks? No sir, actually even evolutionary theory favors some ancestral narrowing of DNA diversity, when a new mutation adds fitness and is therefore selected.So the burden of proof is on the ones making strange statements to back them up. Its funny how this conversation has become one of evolutionists making excuses for not providing evidence I'm enjoying this.

You are the one making all sorts of strange statements and claims without providing any evidence to back them up.For example, three whoppers----A global flood at the P-T boundary
--Humans, cattle, and grasses at the P-T boundary
--A time frame compressed about 57,000 times by some silly but unexplained changes in the decay constantsSo before you make any more strange claims, how about some real evidence for the ones you have already made?

where is your evidence that the first deaths occurred 300 years after the flood?Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Not "all" vegetation, "enough" vegetation. It is the accepted theory - supported by observations of small floods every year for the entire history of mankind - that floods destroy vegetation and it takes a while to come back. When rivers flood, herders have to move their livestock to new pastures for a while. Of course after the Big Flood there were no new pastures. You have that backwards. There only has to be ONE species with no bottleneck at the time of the Flood to disprove the Flood. If there is ONE species that didn't come from two (or fourteen) ancestors, the myth is factually wrong.Edited by ringo, : Splling.

Um ... then ... apparently ... you're mad?Unfortunately, you're also off-topic. So if you want us to consider your latest piece of deranged lunacy, then you should start a new thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

We are not talking theory, we are talking facts and conclusion.If any of the Biblical Flood stories were true we MUST see a 4500 year ago bottleneck event signature in EVERY living critter that is descended from critters on the ark.Every. Must. Do you understand those two words?If just one sample, one critter, one kind, one individual, one species that would have been descended from the critters on the ark does not show the signature of a 4500 year ago bottleneck event then the Biblical Flood stories are falsified.But wait, there's more.So far studies of not just one individual, not just one species but rather many individuals and many species have failed to show a 4500 year ago genetic bottleneck event in humans, goats, cattle, cows, chimps ...What is evident is NOT a theory, not an assumption, not a belief but rather a conclusion with a very very very high probability, so near a certainty that the only other possibility is some cheating God that fakes all the evidence, that none of the Biblical Flood stories really happened.Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real are not the animals that do populate the earth.

A category that clearly does not include you, as when I gave you the falsification that you asked for, you threw a little tantrum and put me on your ignore list. But you're not on my ignore list.Every time you come in here, pushing your already falsified theory of a PTB Flood, I'll be here, to remind everyone of just how mendacious your behaviour has been.To recap;You asked for an unbroken terrestrial PTB sequence with no sign of a flood.You have since been provided with multiple examples of exactly that.You took a single poorly argued attempt at knocking that evidence down, but failed.Now you are simply ignoring the falsification and continuing to push your PTB Flood fantasy as though nothing had ever happened.Everyone can see what you're doing. You are pushing a hypothesis that you know to be false. You are bleating about lack of evidence, but when shown evidence, you play dumb.You took umbrage when I accused you of lying, but frankly, your current his behaviour is worse than lying. Case in point; You know that the Flood cannot have taken place at the PTB. You continue to push that silly nonsense anyway.It's dishonest. It is sad that you seemingly can't see how badly your actions disgrace you.Mutate and Survive

Whether or not someone is religious has nothing to do with this thread or any of the replies or posts.What you are being given, graciously, is simply the truth.The truth is that many of us are religious, devoutly religious. I happen to be a Christian raised in a Christian family, educated in Christian schools, active in my faith, having helped start new parishes, build churches, having taught both youth and adult Sunday school and currently webmaster for several churches.It was people who believed that the ancient stories were true that collected all the evidence that you are being given; evidence that was so overwhelming that the only sane, rational and honest conclusion was that many of the ancient stories simply weren't true.Today, it is only the Christian Cult of Ignorance that denies the truth and reality.It is now up to you to explain why the life around us today is NOT the life we must see if the Biblical Flood stories were true.