Summations Only

Wait, wait. Are you saying that this god thing, whose words are supposedly quoted verbatim into the scriptures, did not know Earth was a planet when it used the hebrew word?orAre you now admitting that this whole global flud myth was actually just a local phenomenon greatly embellished by generations of re-telling before it was finally written down?

Yes, I understand that you fail to see that you are lying. Those who lie constantly, particularly to themselves do not see that they are lying.Lying is a basis of Biblical Christianity, particularly all those who claim to take the Bible literally.But if you substitute the word land for earth it changes nothing.The God character in both stories says "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth landmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them." or the God character says "Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth land for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth land every living creature I have made."You claim that you believe the Bible yet you constantly misrepresent what it actually says and deny what is actually written.You said: But the Bible says otherwise.In the stories the God character says that He will kill them all. Period.But wait; There's more...Now you also are telling me that the God you market is not very bright and really ineffective.First some birds escaped God's wrath by flying on the boat and second the God that just a few tales ago created the Earth didn't know it was a planet.No wonder folk leave the faith. Any kid with an IQ higher than a the number of his fingers and toes that listens to the stuff you post would have to say, "This Christianity being marketed is just bullshit. If they lie about all the stuff that's so easy to test why should I believe them about stuff that's hard to test?"

Several points:

• Those who ignore or misapprehend points force their correspondents to repeat them.
  ​
• Who is more rude, those who speak nonsense to people's face, or the people who call them on it? The Forum Guidelines are not a shield protecting those who speak nonsense. Participants are under no obligation to treat ridiculous ideas with respect. Moderators here are not potted plants with an understanding of the Forum Guidelines and nothing else. We can tell the difference between sense and nonsense, between rational and irrational, between a realistic and a fanciful interpretation of evidence. Members don't leave their minds at the door when they become moderators.
  ​
• Complaints about discussion problems or moderation should be taken to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread. Is there some number of times I have to tell you this before it sinks in?

I will issue a warning about one thing: Accusations of lying tend to distract attention from the topic. Participants can point out where people are wrong or mistaken or anything along those lines, but please do not accuse anyone of lying. The next accusation of lying will bring a suspension.

Well that's just stupid. There were no humans alive at the PT boundary. The Triassic layers hardly even contain mammals, let alone people.

Fair enough. I accept your explanation. But it brings up the quetions of what was the basis for even making a statement at all?Substituting the right number into the question kinda makes the rest of your message moot. The point then becomes a debate over genetics setting a number at 4500 or much greater followed by your claim that genetics is useless at showing such things at greater than a few hundred years.Because let's face it. When genetics shows some common ancestry back to anything like the time of the flood, your argument that no bottleneck can be detected at greater than 200 or so years is effectively shut down.And what about your failing to note the range of possible ages for the cheetah bottleneck? You claimed the article said it was a few hundred years. You could not have seen that number without seeing the rest of the numbers, and it is difficult to believe you did not see the information supporting a much higher number.Edited by NoNukes, : Fix some punctuation delete a tiny bit of testiness.

No, the thread is not about carbon dating. But that does not mean that dates established by carbon dating cannot be used in an argument. It means that if you want to continue the discussion beyond that point, the reliability of the dating methods will of necessity be on topic. Maybe we will end up in separate threads, but so be it.The same thing can be said for mutation rates. If you want to argue that our estimates of mutation rates are off, once the point has been made that they rule out any possibility of a recent global flood, then we can pursue them as ontopic discussion.The same can be said for any other dating method. You don't get a free pass to deny any and all dating methods if a claim is made that such dating methods rule out a Flood.In fact, an argument can be made that this debate really ended as soon as you began to rely on the K-T boundary as being the Flood. All methods of dating we can come up with including radiometric, geological, and biological all indicate that the K-T boundary dates from before humans existed, regardless of exactly how the bounday formed. Game over.ABE:It's been pointed out to me that you actually claim that the P-T boundary represents the Flood. I acknowledge my error, but note that it is even easier to rule out that as recent. Really? What a question.I get the bottleneck I'm sticking you with from Genesis 7:7 and Genesis 7:13. Are you arguing that there were more than 8 people on the ark? What are you really asking me?Edited by NoNukes, : add so be it.Edited by NoNukes, : Correct about a dating error

Its even sillier than that. The K-T boundary is about 66 million years ago.Mindspawn has been arguing that the flood occurred at the P-T boundary, some 252 million years ago!

But we do have a fine thread on carbon dating, which you have been ignoring for a couple of months now.

And yet not one of them thinks their studies point to a global flood. And they also claim to know just how far inland the transgressions came, something that you're ignoring. Perhaps you'd like to explain how it is possible to have a lacustrine environment or an overfill during a global flood.---Your whole argument requires that geologists can't recognize an overfill, they can't recognize a lacustrine environment, they can't recognize aeolian sandstone, they can't measure the extent of a transgression ... etc, etc ... that they're a bunch of bumbling idiots who, despite having devoted their professional lives to geology, know less about it than you do, and that geological science, the basis of their conclusions, is fatally flawed. This is not "embracing geology". It's rejecting it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

By reading the literature that you search for...Here we have a paper that discusses a method for researching where bottlenecks have occurred within a species. Note that in the conclusion they state that: So, in other words, the easiest bottleneck signature for scientists to locate would be when a population of animals suffers an extreme population bottleneck, which would have been the case for all animals, should a worldwide flood have occurred. This would have caused an Extreme Bottleneck in all species, which according to the paper, are the easiest types to spot with using the markers evolving under the infinite allele model (IAM). And yet, we do no see this signature of the easy to find bottleneck in all species at the same time. SourceLikewise, one of the major bottlenecks in human evolution occurred after the eruption of the Toba volcano around 70,000 years ago, which would have caused widespread devastation to the world and decimated a large proportion of the human population. Huge reduction in population, means we should see a signature of a bottleneck at this time using markers evolving under IAM, and guess what.... We do! So, we know how to read these markers and place bottlenecks in time, especially extreme bottlenecks. This leaves you having to explain how your God managed to wipeout nearly every species to near extinction and yet not leave a signature mark on their genetics. A mark which is left on and easily readable in species who suffer enormous losses to their population counts. SourceAdded by Edit: Fixed the error I was speaking of in this message. Thank you Dr. A for the help! Subscript is now where it should be.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

N_eView in peek mode to see how it's done.

Yeah, I knew that. I suppose I forgot just how ridiculous his argument was.

Focusing in on: When I saw this, I was boggled by what he meant. So, thinking it was a pretty minor point, I PMed Granny Magda about that sentence. I will take the liberty of quoting his PM response: I think you are mostly wrong. I suspect the "near to the sea" water tables may well rise. More inland, I doubt there is a simple sea level/water table elevation relationship.This message, in part, posted because of a message in another topic: So here I am, "policing" the evo side.Moose

Haha, I enjoyed your comments. Remember even in the English language we did not have a word for the planet earth a few hundred years ago, the word "earth" meant soil or land, much like the Hebrew and Greek words for the same concept. Unfortunately more recent translations have not adjusted the English bible wording to reflect the changed use of the word "earth" in the English language over the last 100 years or so.We get the concept of a worldwide flood from other wording in Genesis 8, from the complete destruction of humans and land animals (requires widespread flooding over highlands because humans and animals rush to the highlands when there is a flood)
The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits(the word "heavens" basically means "sky", all the mountains/hills under the sky were covered)

You are completely misunderstanding the context in which I said those words. You should rather try journalism than science - haha just joking with you I have always agreed that all the birds on the land were killed off by the flood, I am just saying that its possible some extras sneaked into the ark, other than those planned. This is not only possible, but quite likely with birds and rats and mice. Birds fly in, before and at the beginning of the flood, mice and rate creep in before the flood. This is what happens on ships. And I don't see why the ark would be excluded from this normal activity.The bible says all the land animals and birds were killed and only those in the ark were left. This is what I am saying too."Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."