"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?


.

[Eloi]

You may think I haven't read up on the theory to try to understand how they come to these conclusions, but I have, and realized that what they say doesn't follow from what they've unearthed. It all seems like a big lie made to lull babies to sleep.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #50]

To realize that the evolution of humans from apes is a lie, it is not necessary to believe in the Bible.

Sure, but it is necessary to refute 150+ years of scientific research that includes many thousands of published papers and books that present analyses of the research for everyone to scrutnize. And it has been scrutinized thoroughly, leading to the present day understanding of the subject. It is no different from any other area of science ... that is how the process works to create scientific consensus on a given subject at any time.

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.

What makes you think young university students don't question anything (or virtually anyone else in a science field no matter what the subject is)? If someone makes a claim without any scientific foundation they would be challenged by everyone with demands to produce the goods, and papers they submitted to journals would be rejected and never published. If "independent rational thinking" produced an argument against any scientific claim (evolution, or any other subject), then that argument could be presented to see if it has any merit. Of course you'd be expected to demonstrate that it has merit beyond simply stating it as a personal opinion, which is where I think you'd fail miserably with what you've presented in this thread so far (which is basically ... "I believe the biblical narrative and anything that conflicts with that is a lie.").

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

If the theory of evolution were shown to be false, or replaced with a better explanation, then evolutionists would certainly need to find another line of work. The fact that this has not happened after some 150 years of many naysayers trying to shoot it down should tell you something.

[Eloi]

Trying to prove evolution of humans from apes is as far off a goal as it was when the idea was invented.

Today differences are that today there are more inocents dragged into the lie, more interests involved in the matter and the frauds are more secret. The proof of how desperate they are is that they hire retired university stuff, and others, for a desperate mercenary campaign on religious forums on the web.

[Clownboat]

Trying to prove evolution of humans from apes is as far off a goal as it was when the idea was invented.

Today differences are that today there are more inocents dragged into the lie, more interests involved in the matter and the frauds are more secret. The proof of how desperate they are is that they hire retired university stuff, and others, for a desperate mercenary campaign on religious forums on the web.

What mechanism do you propose in place of evolution that better explains not only the animals we find in the fossils record, but all the millions (around 8.7 million) of species we have on the planet now?

Did Noah have 8.7 million species on his ark, or do you in fact believe in some super evolution that got us from the ark to 8.7 millions species within just some thousands of years? Wouldn't it be odd for you to complain about evolution (gradual changes within a population over time) while invoking some form of Super Evolution?

[Eloi]

The fact that living genera have been created in specific groups does not mean that there is not a wide range of diversity for each specific group. This diversity is programmed into the genes and is so impressive that even with the same DNA the characteristics of two individuals can change, as in monozygotic twins who are physically different. Microevolution is a genetic characteristic instituted by the Creator of each living genus.

Macroevolution is the false belief that one genus originates from a different one. In the Bible it is said that each genus was created separately, and that explains why scientists have questioned the famous vertical evolutionary tree so many times, since it is known that in the same layers of the ground there are genera that were not supposed to coexist, because according to the predictions one had to arise from the other millions of years apart.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #53]

Trying to prove evolution of humans from apes is as far off a goal as it was when the idea was invented.

You missed the boat ... this has been demonstrated to a high degree of certainty, despite your recent ranting in several new threads about the same subject. We get it ... you don't believe in the theory of evolution because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, not because you can refute any of the science (which you have not yet even attempted on this forum). This is no different than any other anti-evolution religious person.

The problem is (for you) that evolution has reached the status of formal scientific theory specifically because it has been supported sufficiently by analysis of the fossil record, and the last 4-5 decades of genetics work. It has survived all the scrutiny and challenges thrown at it, so saying it is a "lie" carries no weight. You clearly don't understand how it works, or know about all the work that has been done for well over a century to reach the present day understanding of it.

Humans did evolve from a great ape ancestor ... this is a fact. How does your simplistic biblical view explain this 1.6 million year old find?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkana_Boy

or any of these finds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_h ... on_fossils

It can't.

[Eloi]

There are more than just defenders of evolution on internet. Get this

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Eloi in post #57]

There are more than just defenders of evolution on internet. Get this

Seriously? The internet is full of countless viewpoints from all sides, including flat earthers, Q-anon supporters, and conspiracy theorists of all kinds. So no surprise there are many anti-evolution videos. Kent Hovind alone has probably produced hundreds (he thinks the same way you do, and is just as demonstrably wrong). Surely you can put in a little more effort than this. To keep it simple, explain how the biblical creation view explains the Turkana Boy fossil set linked in post 56 (just a tiny subset of the fossil set described in another link from that post). What have you got?

[Eloi]

The video that I shared shows the frauds with which the theorists of evolution were trying to defend it... It demonstrates the ill will of most of its defenders, so the ones putting faith in the theory or in those who try to defend it by making apology of it are fools.

That video reveals some tricks that evolutionists in charge of the matter use to keep the theory alive: they fake bones belonging to other animals, they degrade old human bones to make them believe they belong to apes, and they try to make believe that monkey bones are bones of humans. Even in the other parts of the full video, specialists who criticize the methods and falsehoods of their colleagues are mentioned.

Evolutionary myths masquerading as science is not going to make me believe them, in the same way that you don't believe that the Flood happened even though you instead believe that glaciation did happen before.

As the Bible says:

Is. 2:22 For your own sakes, quit trusting in mere man,
Who is only the breath in his nostrils.
Why should he be taken into account?

[Eloi]

In an article about the island of Malta I found this interesting information that can be considered as proof of the Universal Flood:

Among Malta’s major industries today is tourism. The islands are attractive because of the sun and the sea. There are also places of special interest because of their connection with the past. One of these is Ghar Dalam.

It is a cave situated at the bottom of a dry valley. It is not the stalactites and the stalagmites that are of special importance here, but the bones of animals. These are one big heap, right from the entrance all the way to the very far end of the cave. Bones of animals that do not inhabit the island—hippopotamuses, pygmy elephants and red deer—can be seen here. Interestingly, no one complete skeleton has been discovered at Ghar Dalam, indicating that the carcasses of these animals were evidently crushed together as they were washed down a onetime torrent valley. When? The only explanation that fits the known facts links it with the flood of Noah’s day.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101979770

In another article I learned that this type of accumulation of bones of non-endemic animals has been found several times in excavations, which may be proof of the force with which the flood waters carried animals far away:

A cave near Palermo, Sicily, was filled with many tons of remains, including the fossilized bones of deer, oxen, elephants, and hippopotamuses of various ages​—even a fetus. In fact, 20 tons of fossils found their way onto the market in the first six months after the site was discovered!

In Southern England, paleontologist J. Manson Valentine discovered fossil beds containing massive deposits of splintered bones of many of the same animals as well as of hyenas and polar bears. What is the reason for these large beds of fossils in such diverse places?

Some scientists believe that the circumstances in which the animals died are consistent with a natural catastrophe. Whatever the cause or causes of such mass extinctions, their effects were felt over a large area that included mainland Europe, the British Isles, Siberia, and Alaska.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009169

When the information is more complete, the conclusions are closer to the truth. Scientific institutions have become means of profit rather than collectives of people seeking the truth. Wise people carefully analyze all the facts before accepting any conclusion.