"A FLOOD of NONSENSE! - Global Flood or Mass Extinctions?"

[Miles]

.


A delightful explanation of why the notion of a global flood---the Noachian Flood---doesn't make any sense.




................



Question: Is any of what Forrest Valkai, the host, said, wrong? If so, what and why?


.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #39]

What you will never find is a human who is not capable of thinking.

That might be debatable, but animals can "think" at various levels depending on their brain capabilities. My dog can think ... but he's not going to be solving any calculus problems. He's smarter than a lizard, which is smarter than a worm. All of these animals have brains, and their thinking ability is a function of their brain capability.

Humans are that basically because of their mind, not because of their bodies. You, by assuming that humans originated from apes, are looking for humanity in apes' skulls, because you do not realize that humans have a unique ability that did not arise naturally, but was given to us in the moment we were differently created: with an intellectual dimension.

I don't "assume" that humans evolved from apes. This is demonstrated by the fossil record and by genetics, which you apparently ignore for the sole reason that it does show that humans evolved from apes. You don't want to believe it for religious reasons, not because you can refute the science (which you can't, nor can anyone else). This is common. What does "looking for humanity in apes' skulls" mean? I can't translate that into anything meaningful. Human intelligence is a function of the encephalization process that occurred starting early in the Homo line. Brains got progressively larger and more complicated in structure and this led to high intelligence capability. You can measure braincase volume in fossils and see this very clearly. It isn't some assumption. Our intelligence, compared to say a chimp, is a matter of degree. You can read all about it here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3812990/

Your problem is that known reality supports the biblical story of the origin of human race while you try to find ways to justify an alternate reality to deny it. I'm not saying that there are discoveries or studies that need answers... but the point is that those discoveries need to be interpreted correctly and not directed on purpose to favor only a predetermined agenda.

Science doesn't have a predetermined agenda ... that's religion. Science arrived at the current consensus on human evolution because that is what the fossil and genetics evidence led to. It is in stark contrast to the biblical story of creation that science has shown to be definitively wrong, both in the mechanisms and (especially) the time frame which is out by nearly a factor of a million!. The bible story does not support what is observed ... just the opposite.

And NO, I won't give my mind to your myths. I need the most room of my brain to think objectively.

You're not thinking objectively in any way. You're accepting stories from an old religious book despite the advancements of modern science showing they are clearly wrong, with only your own incredulity as justification. Fortunately, this kind of blind acceptance of old myths can no longer stop science from marching on like it did in centuries past (maybe in Afghanistan or similar places, but not in the civilized world).

[brunumb]

... there isn't nearly enough water on Earth to cover the entire planet to the tops of the highest mountains (as described in Genesis). This alone torpedoes the entire myth ... there is no source for all the water that is needed and you can find examples of the calculations all over the web, including some by religious people who realize the story is just that .. a story.

https://reasons.org/explore/publication ... y-possible

From the article:

"Without limiting what God can do, it seems more prudent to recognize that the Bible describes a flood that judged all humanity but did not cover the entire globe."

It didn't happen.

About this, to be nice I can think in some factors without going too deep on it:

1) ice on earth
2) groundwater
3) the relatively constant amount of water evaporated into the atmosphere

... maybe the calculations are not that exact as some think.

We don't just believe based on faith.

The deepest ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, where the very deepest ice cores extend to 3 kilometers (over two miles) in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records extend to 130,000 years in Greenland, and 800,000 years in Antarctica. None of those ice cores contain any evidence that should have been there if the catastrophic biblical flood was a real event.

[Eloi]

...
I don't "assume" that humans evolved from apes. This is demonstrated by the fossil record and by genetics, which you apparently ignore for the sole reason that it does show that humans evolved from apes.
...
Science arrived at the current consensus on human evolution because that is what the fossil and genetics evidence led to.
...

Some of you repeat so many times the same that you really believe it.
I don't refute facts, but the way you interpret it. Do you know the difference?

Tell me: how many normal people can understand a scientific article? It is very easy to summarize a discovery in a few words for ordinary people, and explain in a simple way how the facts naturally lead to certain conclusions. But the way all of it is exposed to the public is practically indecipherable. Do you know what I think about it?

Other way
1) you would stop impressing impressionable people,
2) you would be giving up that dependency you have created in normal people so that they feel compelled to accept your own conclusions,
3) the information would be clearer for ordinary people and they could take their own understanding of the facts , and finally
4) the monetary value of the discoveries and related institutions would fall...

So no, don't come selling me more pages of scientific institutions and their researches. I won't take that bait.
Give me the facts ... no how you want me to interpret them.

PS: I assume the Biblical record as testimonies. I don't mind what you think about that.

[Eloi]

It is not the same to say

we found a piece of skull that seems to belong to a Homo X,

...than saying

there was a community of Homo X in this area 300 million years ago, and they got together to sing to the sun, and they would dance and get drunk until they were exhausted, and the next day they would go out hunting mammoths, so they would kiss the wife and baby goodbye just in case they didn't come back from the hunt.

... some of you use to do this, inventing conclusions out of the facts that have nothing to do with them, to compelled others to believe what you want.

But do you know the difference of both ways? The first is a fact ... the last is fiction. Evolutionists would make very good fiction writers.

You don't tolerate when someone doesn't take your myths as realities.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #43]

I

don't refute facts, but the way you interpret it. Do you know the difference?

Ah ... the standard "interpretation" argument. Facts don't need to be interpreted. If they did they would not be facts. Science doesn't work in facts, but in making hypotheses and then supporting them with as many observations, measurements, experiments, analysis, etc. as possible to ascertain whether or not the hypothesis is valid. It there is sufficient support then the hypothesis may reach the status of theory. The heliocentric model of our solar system is an example. There are people who refute that the planets orbit the sun, or that the Earth is an oblate spheroid and they argue it is flat, and stationary. This it at odds with all observations. Belief that Adam and Eve were real people who were "created" 6000 years ago, that a global flood happened 4400 years ago, that evolution is false, and that humans didn't evolve from a great ape ancestor, are all similar examples of things that are so at odds with modern science that they can be legitimately discarded.

Tell me: how many normal people can understand a scientific article? It is very easy to summarize a discovery in a few words for ordinary people, and explain in a simple way how the facts naturally lead to certain conclusions. But the way all of it is exposed to the public is practically indecipherable. Do you know what I think about it?

Not everything is so simple that it can be explained to a layman in a few words. If you can't read a science article and understand it, then you can't possibly argue for or against the results it presents. Things like evolution have been explained in relatively simple terms (for many decades) that anyone can understand as far as the general concept and mechanism, but unfortunately there are people who don't even bother to learn the subject at even a rudimentary level and simply discard it because if conflicts with their religious beliefs, and for no other reason. You appear to be solidly in that category based on your comments.

So no, don't come selling me more pages of scientific institutions and their researches. I won't take that bait.
Give me the facts ... no how you want me to interpret them.

It isn't "bait" ... it is how scientific information is disseminated. If you can't understand it and won't bother to learn it (or can't learn it), then you simply won't be able to interpret the results yourself. In that case by all means believe information in a 2000+ year old "holy" book written when science was so young people had no idea what stars and planets were, why storms, earthquakes, famine and floods happened, that microorganisms existed and could cause disease, etc. etc. They made up gods to explain nature, and how things came to be. But as scientific knowledge progressed most of these ideas were shown to be completely false, yet there are people who still believe the old myths and stories and even take them literally. It isn't about telling people how to interpret things ... it is about arriving at interpretations that explain the actual data regardless of whether it conflicts with stories in some old religious book.

PS: I assume the Biblical record as testimonies. I don't mind what you think about that.

Obviously. Anything that conflicts with the biblical narrative is wrong by definition in your world, no matter how much physical and other evidence there is to support it. That's why it is always pointless to debate such a person in a forum like this. Your arguments are not based on science or any considerations of what has or has not been demonstrated by scientific research and observations ... they are based on simply denying anything and everything that contradicts the bible regardless of the evidence. That is how all biblical literalists work.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #44]

... there was a community of Homo X in this area 300 million years ago ...

There was no Homo anything 300 million years ago. At least get your orders of magnitude right. Dinosaurs ruled the animal kingdom 300 million years ago. That's 3 orders of magnitude older than the first Homo sapiens.

You don't tolerate when someone doesn't take your myths as realities.

Now that's rich coming from someone who denies the fossil record and claims Adam and Eve were real people. Good example of projection though.

[Eloi]

Well, the difference between you and me is the following:

I assume the biblical record as testimony but I am always open to discoveries to increase my knowledge in relation to what I believe because I consider true science and facts as part of my biblical beliefs, on the other hand, you are locked in a box where you don't want to even consider what disproves your beliefs...acting like a religious fanatic much more than me.

The existence of primitive men hundreds of thousands of years ago is a belief. No bone tells what went through the brain of an ape. And the shape of the bones doesn't tell how smart the monkey was. Be real.

On the other hand, the fact that you have attended a university and you have believed everything that they have told you about the origin of humans, does not mean that you are a better thinker than me ... much less if you consider yourself an animal.

[Eloi]

AND I don't deny the fossil record, so stop making false accusations against me. What I deny is the invented stories that you tell out of a few fragments of bones.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #47]

I assume the biblical record as testimony but I am always open to discoveries to increase my knowledge in relation to what I believe because I consider true science and facts as part of my biblical beliefs...

A rather empty statement given that you don't accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution is a valid theory and that humans were part of that process. This is "true science" that you reject purely because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. Your mind is very closed on the subject, obviously.

...on the other hand, you are locked in a box where you don't want to even consider what disproves your beliefs...acting like a religious fanatic much more than me.

I'm happy to consider what disproves my beliefs. Do you have anything that disproves the theory of evolution as it is understood today, including the evolution of humans from apes, besides just a statement that the bible says otherwise? If you do, let's hear it. The bible isn't a science book and is some 2000 years old.

The existence of primitive men hundreds of thousands of years ago is a belief. No bone tells what went through the brain of an ape. And the shape of the bones doesn't tell how smart the monkey was. Be real.

It is accepted because it is supported by lots of fossil evidence, artifacts, etc. These archaic humans did not just vanish into thin air without a single trace of their existence. We know they made arrowheads and tools, could make fire to cook food, traveled great distances, built shelters, boats, etc. These things tell us something about what "went through their heads." All apes aren't "monkeys."

On the other hand, the fact that you have attended a university and you have believed everything that they have told you about the origin of humans, does not mean that you are a better thinker than me ... much less if you consider yourself an animal.

I didn't learn anything at all about evolution in a university. I was not in departments where that was taught. But education doesn't stop (or shouldn't) when someone finishes college. Most everyone can read these days, and a good book on how evolution actually works would help you a lot.

I'm a proud member of the animal kingdom (and therefore an animal, just like you) ... it means I'm not a plant or a bacterium, or a rock.

[Eloi]

To realize that the evolution of humans from apes is a lie, it is not necessary to believe in the Bible. Any person with independent rational thinking would realize that evolutionists make up too much without enough scientific foundation for their stories. I wonder why young university students have to accept what they are told about it without questioning anything; If I can realize that related facts never lead to the conclusions they say, why don't they reason better? Surely there are more mundane causes for that.

Perhaps without the theory of evolution many would be out of a job... who knows?