Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Creation Science at its best [View all]intaglio
(8,170 posts)27. Seriously, stop this you are just appearing more and more foolish
You claim that science has proven a negative.....and that is not what science does....so it can all be dismissed as science.No, the claim is that scientific study has shown that certain events would have been associated with the Ark story did not happen
1) There is no genetic bottleneck across all species that matches a great flood. There does seem to have been a genetic bottleneck in human development when the population was, perhaps, reduced to 15,000 individuals following the Toba eruption 70,000 years ago.
2) There is no single layer of deposits that would match the sedimentation produced by a singular world flood. Stratigraphy does show that there are a multitude of sedimentary deposits but they are not coordinated and they are not uniform in composition which would be the result of a flood.
3) There are no catastrophic erosion features that would match the draining of the flood waters in a short space of time. The Grand Canyon is impressive but it is one feature and cannot be modeled as being created in a single event.
3) There was no massive die off of all land plants in a single event.
4) There was no mass extinction of salt water fish species in a single event.
This sort of investigation is perfectly within the competence of science and demonstrates that the flood story explains nothing in the geological or genetic record, i.e. it is a failed hypothesis, just as the hypothesis of a luminiferous aether failed because it could not explain observational results.
Look at the obvious impossibilities in the story. The impossibly vast volume of water that would have had to be deposited, the impossible changes to the laws of optics so that a rainbow was first seen only after the flood and either the impossibly large number of creatures aboard the Ark or the impossibly rapid evolution that the transportation only of "kinds" would require.
Now add in that a deity that caused such a disaster is revealed as a vindictive and indescribably cruel being worthy only of hatred and loathing and the flood story is revealed as being deserving of all the ridicule that mankind can muster.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
211 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Hmmph! Nobody here seems to believe in antediluvian plushies, simply because
struggle4progress
Nov 2012
#82
Yes, I'd have to say that some of us DID evolve (or not evolve) from plushies......
HuskiesHowls
Nov 2012
#13
They "selective vision ..." They also have the adrenaline rush from the hate which unites them.
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#7
To paraphrase Cicero, how can they pass one another on the street without laughing out loud?
AnotherMcIntosh
Nov 2012
#6
I just have to step in here and say...you have not exhibited one iota of critical thinking.
Walk away
Dec 2012
#202
Critical thinking includes a commitment to using reason in the formulation of beliefs.
Walk away
Dec 2012
#207
So if you have no evidence to support that hypothesis, why do you hold it to be true?
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#99
What evidence goes unseen by the public? Produce it if it exists, zeemlike.
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#104
You are proclaiming you are privy to secret evidence that we have not seen
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2012
#109
lack of credible evidence is not an improvement for the global flood hypothesis
Phillip McCleod
Nov 2012
#121
"Well I don't know and don't give it much thought". Yes, that seems apparent.
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#122
Does any of the "evidence" you have put forward pass the test of the scientific method?
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#134
Your continued misrepresentation and mischaracterization of everything I post shows you are playing
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#140
Except that the only thing that said the flood existed is the Bible
Fortinbras Armstrong
Nov 2012
#84
Ahh, I see where the disconnect is! Science has not claimed that there was not a world-wide flood!
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#136
Saying "there is no evidence" is not the same as proving a negative
Fortinbras Armstrong
Nov 2012
#143
Basically you are saying the experts shouldn't be consulted, do you diagnose yourself...
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2012
#77
I was looking up similar evidence, that points to 1 year as well, to reach maturity....
Humanist_Activist
Nov 2012
#79
It would help your case if you can point to someone else referring to this 'hundreds of feet thick'
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2012
#74
Not really sure just what this is supposed to tell us regarding your world-wide flood hypothesis.
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#92
I don't get the feeling that zeemlike is impressed at all by these facts. Not even a little bit.
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#107
Or would have known of the over-one-and-a-half-million species of insects, or...
mr blur
Nov 2012
#36
Translation: I just had my ass handed to me so I will bloviate for a bit then slink off in a huff.
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#147
You should have just walked away when you had the chance. But you must be a glutton for punishment.
cleanhippie
Nov 2012
#149
"someone who deliberately posts ridiculous nonsense to get a rise out of people?
zeemike
Dec 2012
#174
If your intent was to learn, you would have stopped plastering nonsense after nonsense...
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#200
The tidal force from an object is inversely proportional to the cube of distance
muriel_volestrangler
Dec 2012
#192
Never called you a coward, but if you feel you are one, that is your problem.
cleanhippie
Dec 2012
#160
More on "Creation science is not only bad science, it is also bad theology."
Fortinbras Armstrong
Nov 2012
#57
Why would a flying opossum evolve *into* something that can't cross the road? n/t
lumberjack_jeff
Nov 2012
#20
Don't think anybody really knows, but the main competitors would be ants, termites,
dimbear
Nov 2012
#69
None of them appear to be anywhere near outweighing all the other put together
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2012
#72