A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
LittlePig
Sage
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:51 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

Post #1

Post by LittlePig »

otseng wrote:
goat wrote:
otseng wrote:
LittlePig wrote: And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.
Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either. ;)
Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.
Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.
Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?
"Well thanks a lot, Plato." - James ''Sawyer'' Ford
"Don''t flip ya lid." - Ricky Rankin

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Contact:

Post #1191

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 1182 by Neatras]

If you are referring to extinction by genetic entropy, then yes this has been observed.

Conclusions
While there have been numerous adaptations within the H1N1 genome, most of the genetic changes we document here appear to be non-adaptive, and much of the change appears to be degenerative. We suggest H1N1 has been undergoing natural genetic attenuation, and that significant attenuation may even occur during a single pandemic. This process may play a role in natural pandemic cessation and has apparently contributed to the exponential decline in mortality rates over time, as seen in all major human influenza strains. These findings may be relevant to the development of strategies for managing influenza pandemics and strain evolution.

A new look at an old virus: patterns of mutation accumulation in the human H1N1 influenza virus since 1918
Robert W Carter1 and John C Sanfordcorresponding author2

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Contact:

Post #1192

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 1183 by DrNoGods]

Oh my goodness, why do you keep grasping at straws? There had to be millions or even billions for evolution to continue at least for the evolutionary theory to be somewhat internally consistent. Unless your are saying now that you do not believe in the fairy tales that evolution tries to pawn off as fact.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Post #1193

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 1185 by EarthScienceguy]
There had to be millions or even billions...


Millions or billions of WHAT? That was my question which you seem to have missed completely. What are you defining as a "prehuman"? Without that defined your comment has no context, and you didn't define it in post 1179. Tell me what a "prehuman" is. If this is the same as an archaic human (all members of genus Homo from habilis to sapien) then your comment is wrong.
Unless your are saying now that you do not believe in the fairy tales that evolution tries to pawn off as fact.


Evolution is not a fairy tale (that would be religion). It is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly confirmed, via observation, to be valid. This is called science and it has proven to be a very successful endeavor. You should try it sometime!
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Contact:

Post #1194

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]

You tell me what pre human's are it is your theory not mine. I believe that man was specially created. Now if you are asking me when modern man begins. Using brain size as a criteria everything from Homo rudolfensis to Homo erectus. Homo habilis is not well enough defined to evaluate.

Creationist would say homo rudolfensis to homo erectus are all modern man.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Post #1195

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 1187 by EarthScienceguy]
You tell me what pre human's are it is your theory not mine.


"My" theory? The ToE is not anything I came up with so it is not "my" theory.

I'm asking you a very simple question that you don't seem able to answer. What is a "prehuman"? Give a definition. This is not a formal evolutionary term as far as I know, but you don't even seem to know yourself what this term means because you are evading the question and not providing a definition.
Now if you are asking me when modern man begins. Using brain size as a criteria everything from Homo rudolfensis to Homo erectus. Homo habilis is not well enough defined to evaluate.


OK ... since you won't answer the question directly I can only infer from this comment that you are defining the term "prehuman" to mean anything from rudolfensis to erectus. If so, then there is nothing related to ToE that implies the existence of "thousands of millions" (a.k.a. billions) of such creatures living at any one time. That certainly was not the case.

Cumulatively (the total population of all such creatures that ever lived), is much less improbable. To get a minimum of 2 billion such creatures (you used plural "thousands of millions"), over a time span of ~2.2 million years (date of the oldest rudolfensis fossil found to date, to last known erectus fossil), you'd need an average population at any one time of 2e9 / 2.2e6 ~ 900. And this population would have to be maintained continuously for the 2.2 million year period, evolving from rudolfensis to erectus along the way. I don't know if anyone has done estimates for this sort of thing, but a total population of 900 creatures living at any one time isn't outrageous, although presumably the population started small and grew over time as usual.

But I don't see how this relates to your comment in post 1179 where you simply give total human population estimates going back to 2000 BC, then add this: "The assumed existence of thousands of millions of “prehumans� is both physically and scriptural unrealistic." Since the last erectus died out about 140,000 years ago, what does the population of "prehumans" have to do with modern populations from 2000 BC to the present? There were no "prehumans" around at 2000 BC. Are you trying to argue that billions of "prehumans" are required by ToE? Explain that one.
I believe that man was specially created.


Yes, many religions have stories like this to create the idea that humans are special animals. Unfortunately, the evidence shows otherwise and confirms that modern humans evolved from "archaic" humans, who evolved from the great apes, who evolved from earlier mammals, etc. Stories of human "creation" in religious texts have no basis in physical reality ... they are myths.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Contact:

Post #1196

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 1188 by DrNoGods]

Yes, that is the point. "Observational Science" tells us that modern man only goes back to around the time of Noah. 2000 BC. Which is what we would expect because all other humans were wiped out during the flood.

Your hypothesis has a time gap problem of over 100000 thousand years.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9911
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1194 times
Been thanked: 1573 times

Post #1197

Post by Clownboat »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to DrNoGods]

You tell me what pre human's are it is your theory not mine. I believe that man was specially created. Now if you are asking me when modern man begins. Using brain size as a criteria everything from Homo rudolfensis to Homo erectus. Homo habilis is not well enough defined to evaluate.

Creationist would say homo rudolfensis to homo erectus are all modern man.
Are these the same people that would claim that a snake and a donkey once talked? Or that a man lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days or that hundreds of dead bodies got up out of their graves and walked the streets of Jerusalem?

Just trying to nail down the type of source for such a claim to help determine a level of credibility/believability.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Post #1198

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 1189 by EarthScienceguy]
Yes, that is the point. "Observational Science" tells us that modern man only goes back to around the time of Noah. 2000 BC. Which is what we would expect because all other humans were wiped out during the flood.


And what "observational science" would that be? Radiometric dating, a highly accurate and reliable method of dating, proves that there were modern humans around as much as 300,000 years ago (recent Homo sapiens from the Morocco find):

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06 ... nd-morocco

This is actual observational science, not based entirely on 2000 year old hearsay.

And if you're claiming that rudolfensis and erectus are also modern humans (that isn't correct, but just to play along) then you're back to about 2.4 millions years ago. So I'm afraid it is your imaginary story from a religious text that is 3 orders of magnitude out. Plus, we know that Noah's flood is positively a myth which has been debunked countless times over by actual science and common sense, from so many different angles it is laughable that any educated person in the 21st century actually believes that it is a true story. It is even more ridiculous than flat earth stuff, if that's even possible.

But don't let science get in the way of a good story.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Contact:

Post #1199

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 1190 by Clownboat]

Really, any one who does not believe in a creator God has to believe in one of the following.

1. Everything we see is nothing more than two dimensional random energy on the face of a black hole.

2. We are nothing more than random energy inside a Boltzmann brain.

3. Or my personal favorite, we are nothing more than a computer simulation from an advance group of aliens.

Wow that has a lot to do with the reality.

At least for all of the events that you mentioned, Christians have a cause. Any one that does not believe in a Creator God does not only have to believe in one of the above but they also have to live in an uncaused universe. Everything has to have a cause at least that is what SCIENCE has determined.

If some people want to believe crazy things like the ideas above it is fine with me. That does not mean I have to be illogical and believe things like that.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Post #1200

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 1192 by EarthScienceguy]
Really, any one who does not believe in a creator God has to believe in one of the following.

1. Everything we see is nothing more than two dimensional random energy on the face of a black hole.

2. We are nothing more than random energy inside a Boltzmann brain.

3. Or my personal favorite, we are nothing more than a computer simulation from an advance group of aliens.

Wow that has a lot to do with the reality.
None of these things have to be believed for someone who doesn't believe in imaginary gods. Not one. The discussion was about evolution and "prehumans", not how or when the universe was created. Start at 4.6 billion years ago when the earth formed, and nothing you list above has anything whatsoever to do with ToE or human evolution. You've done the standard creationist "move the goal posts" when cornered, and hopped to a completely unrelated subject that has nothing to do with the discussion. Whack-a-mole again.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply