Evidence of a Global Flood

>>8991130
No TerryA.Davis there was no period when the planet was filled with water that got away somehow magically.

1. there was also no period when all animals were sick and inbread
2.all fish didn't die because of the mixing of salty and normal water
3. No animal would survive in an altitude of higher than mountain everest
4. I am pretty sure i am not inbread
5. Who da fuck made the pyramids? 12 people?
6.i beleive the minoans and some chinks are older than the estimated time of creation

BTW About fish:
If the waters got mixed and then seperated and the fish that exist now in normal water cannot live in salt water then that means they definitely evolved in a way that does not allow them to exist in salt water like their ansestors.

Also get a book on evolution it's not that hard to understand you deepshit

File: dog-kinds1.jpg (88KB, 458x346px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 458x346px

>>8991145
>was filled with water that got away somehow magically.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/13/earth-may-have-underground-ocean-three-times-that-on-surface

>1. there was also no period when all animals were sick and inbread
>2.all fish didn't die because of the mixing of salty and normal water
>implying their genetic/environmental state was the same now as then

>3. No animal would survive in an altitude of higher than mountain everest
A source for that claim would be nice.

>4. I am pretty sure i am not inbread
As with 1 and 2, our genetics are more degraded now than they were then.

>5. Who da fuck made the pyramids? 12 people?
>not knowing Biblical history

>6.i beleive the minoans and some chinks are older than the estimated time of creation
What methods were used? Ones that would only date over 6,000 years ago I bet.

>If the waters got mixed and then seperated and the fish that exist now in normal water cannot live in salt water then that means they definitely evolved in a way that does not allow them to exist in salt water like their ansestors.
>implying God didn't give them a large amount of variations, and that now they've most of that due to degradation and entropy, a byproduct of the fall

>Also get a book on evolution it's not that hard to understand you deepshit
I did, they convinced me that such things are merely the morbid fantasies of godless humans.

File: 456.jpg (95KB, 500x620px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x620px

>>8991152
Also, on the topic of races.

>>8991159

Human is a genus not a subspecies you fag.

in any case it would be the sapiens subspecies.

>>8991145
All those things were red herrings planted by G*d to test your faith.

>>8991130
have you seen the sunken cities?

File: nxDSC_2813 (1).jpg (43KB, 346x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 346x400px

>>8991172
I understand that, but creatures such as "homo" habilis and rudolfensis should be stricken from the human line. All other members of homo are fully within the realm of human variation, or are the result of deformation, be it natural or artificial.

>>8991185
Bearing false witness is a sin, anon.

>>8991186
They didn't have cities in those days, only nomadic tribes who utilized iron.

>>8991191
>They didn't have cities in those days, only nomadic tribes who utilized iron.

I wasn't referring to the biblical account of the great flood.

I was referring to OTHER events that change the level of the ocean.

>>8991236
>""""""global warming""""""
Liberal gibs, nothing more.

>>8991273
>Liberal gibs, nothing more.

The one that occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago.

AGW is a global tax.

>>8991152
>no new information added
That's just not true. Spontaneous mutations have been observed in nature. They're happening as we read. >>8991185
Galileo taught that we can interrogate nature by observation and experiment. Then "facts which at first sight seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which had hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty." Are not these facts, available even for skeptics to confirm, a surer insight into God's Universe than all the speculations of the theologians?

File: IMG_9505.jpg (43KB, 370x544px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 370x544px

>>8991130
That's not how sequence stratigraphy works. Oil drilling companies rely on accurate knowledge of epicontinental assemblages. When you drive to church, the gasoline in your car is many tens of millions of years older than the erroneous scriptures you "worship" when you get there. Scripture isn't literal truth, but a reflection of the rudimentary science which prevailed at the time of its writing.

File: IMG_9507.png (173KB, 800x659px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 800x659px

>>8991130
Nobody is suppressing your opinions, they're being ignored because they aren't independently verifiable.

>>8991523
This. Creationists are the ones who'd love to suppress opinions they don't like. You aren't being persecuted, merely ignored and occasionally made fun of.

>>8991506
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/the-origin-of-oila-creationist-answer/
http://www.icr.org/article/chemistry-oil-explained-by-flood-geology/

File: Misconception-Feature.jpg (87KB, 445x265px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 445x265px

>>8991489
>That's just not true. Spontaneous mutations have been observed in nature. They're happening as we read.
Degenerative mutations, as everything after the fall would be.

>>8991523
>>8991534
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2489

>>8991130
>/sci/ - Science & Math
>1.All science and math related topics welcome.
>2.Homework threads will be deleted, and the poster banned.
>3.No "religion vs. science" threads.

go away these garbage threads are rules violations.

File: large_creationist_tracts (1).jpg (85KB, 392x600px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 392x600px

>>8992080
But it's not explicitly a "religion vs science" thread. If flat-earth shit can stay, then I can stay.

>>8991130
the funny thing is those "evidences" are not supressed (I don't even know how you'd do that.) those are observation that are commonly used in the process of recreating and understanding earth's history.

The only thing is that, when you actually use a bit more than two neurons and a half they don't point to a global flood.

>>8991130
Even if there were a great flood that covered the earth (there wasn't) why would it matter? I mean geologically it would be impressive, but its not like theres any evidence that your imaginary god made it happen.

>>8991992
>This suggests that a third alternative is needed, especially as neither model fits into a young-earth scenario.

that's not how it works. If you got an observation that doesn't fit into your model, you modify the model, not the observation.

>>8991191
>They didn't have cities in those days, only nomadic tribes who utilized iron.

according to the biblical chronology of James Ussher, the Noah flood happened in 2348 BC.

The city of Jericho in palestine dates back to 9000 BC, Byblos to 6500 BC, Aleppo 4300, Sidon 4000 BC, and that's only for the somewhat biblical cities.

I'm not even christian, and yet it feels like I know the bible better than you.

>>8992430
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-history/chronology-wars/

File: plate-movements-ppt-9-728.jpg (114KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 728x546px

>being so deluded that you can't understand plate tectonics and how mountains are made.
>tfw never seeing the fossil record of the dino cities

>>8992529
that's criminally oversimplified and impressively false. Yet better and more accurate than most of the OP "papers"

>>8992509
very nicely written. Except we nowadays have a bit more material than Sir Isaac Newton had.
Namely we don't rely on dubious texts and records, but rather on archeological evidence. the datation of those cities is rather well constrained and coherent.

Furthermore, the way of thinking is, again faulty.
The Bible is not "assumed to be inaccurate right out of the gate." but it isn't assumed to be accurate either, which would be a humongous bias.

>>8992027
>how would natural selection drive evolution if evolution didn't happen?
These comics are moronic

>>8992027
also , the presence of random events doesn't mean the whole is random. for example, if you give small random impulses to a marble on a inclined slab, you can still see it rolling in a non random direction.

Hence, even if the impulses at the base of evolution (mutations) are random, it doesn't mean the result of it is fully random.

>>8992027
>Degenerative mutations, as everything after the fall would be.
Richard Lenski observed a strain of E. coli spontaneously acquiring the ability to metabolize citrate in the presence of oxygen. If that's not an addition of information, what is?
And of course there's all times that resistance of antibiotics or herbicides has arisen. How do you explain those?

Creationists never actually have an answer for this question. They either pretend it never happened, or claim that it's somehow a loss of information despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2489
>waaah! those mean evolutionists aren't letting me teach public school students something that has no evidence to support it! how """open-minded""" are they if they only listen to claims that have a basis in fact?

>>8992090
>unironically posting a Chick tract

File: BM-BD-HalfTruth.jpg (102KB, 1016x466px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1016x466px

>>8992617
>that it's somehow a loss of information
Because it is.

>>8992629
your ability to see in multiple colors comes from a replications of a gene responsible for light sensitive receptors, followed by mutations, which leaded to three different types of receptors, each sensitive to three different wave lenght.
Redpill me on how that is a loss of information.

>>8992637
oh, and BTW, two points : technically speaking, the amount of information comes from the total number of nitrogenous bases in the DNA, so the amount of information hasn't changed in those bacterias.

And secondly, why does the amount of information matter at all?
(and according to your logic being trisomic is a gian of information, and hence an evolution and a good thing)
less information doesn't mean "devolution"

He found in Java a piece of
a skull, seeming by its contour to be smaller than the human. Somewhere
near it he found an upright thigh-bone and in the same scattered fashion
some teeth that were not human. If they all form part of one creature,
which is doubtful, our conception of the creature would be almost
equally doubtful. But the effect on popular science was to produce a
complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details of
hair and habits. He was given a name as if he were an ordinary
historical character. People talked of Pithecanthropus as of Pitt or Fox
or Napoleon. Popular histories published portraits of him like the
portraits of Charles the First and George the Fourth. A detailed drawing
was reproduced, carefully shaded, to show that the very hairs of his
head were all numbered No uninformed person looking at its carefully
lined face and wistful eyes would imagine for a moment that this was the
portrait of a thigh-bone; or of a few teeth and a fragment of a cranium.

>>8992695
We talk very truly of the patience of science; but in this department it
would be truer to talk of the impatience of science. Owing to the
difficulty above described, the theorist is in far too much of a hurry.
We have a series of hypotheses so hasty that they may well be called
fancies, and cannot in any case be further corrected by facts. The most
empirical anthropologist is here as limited as an antiquary. He can only
cling to a fragment of the past and has no way of increasing it for the
future He can only clutch his fragment of fact, almost as the primitive
man clutched his fragment of flint. And indeed he does deal with it in
much the same way and for much the same reason. It is his tool and his
only tool. It is his weapon and his only weapon. He often wields it with
a fanaticism far in excess of anything shown by men of science when they
can collect more facts from experience and even add new facts by
experiment. Sometimes the professor with his bone becomes almost as
dangerous as a dog with his bone. And the dog at least does not deduce a
theory from it, proving that mankind is going to the dogs–or that it
came from them.

>>8991130
>Why are the uniformitarian evolutionists actively suppressing evidence contrary to their worldview?

They aren't. The on again off again argument over a "steady state" view of speciation and a more catastrophist punctuated equilibrium is revving up again as we type bait at each other on 4chan.
Whichever side wins , for now, the evidence is being argued about, not suppressed.

>>8992430
To be fair, "the Biblical chronology of James Ussher" is not quite the same thing as "what it says in the Bible."

Ussher made a lot of assumptions, interpretations, etc.

Some of us who are Christians but not antagonistic to science would contend that Ussher's fundamental error was taking a parable from the Bible meant to reveal a spiritual truth, and using it as a science text book.

>>8992629
Not sure why that matters. New species arising by adapting to new conditions, whether through "adding information" or "deleting information,: in either case you have speciation happening in response to changes in the environment.

Even if you continue to maintain that the world was created relatively recently, you still are admitting that species are not immutable, and can evolve into new ones.

>>8992863
of course, I know, being christian doesn't stop from being clever. And actually, there are even some creationnists that can be rather rational and based.
But the OP is obviously none of the above, and that's why I used the Ussher chronology, which is in line with his ideas to prove him wrong.

>>8991130
>evolution doesn't rea-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sne1uO6RxLE

File: Gary+quot+what+the+did+you+just+say+about+undocumented+_50a04d7c436982a1ff7887f54bdf44a3.jpg (195KB, 1000x663px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1000x663px

>>8992430
>Aleppo

File: smug anime face.png (67KB, 215x295px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 215x295px

>>8992629
I suspected you would post that stupid misinformed comic, and I was not wrong.

Antibiotic resistance does not arise through the LOSS of the antibiotic's target. Think about it for maybe five seconds; if the action of the antibiotic interfering with the enzyme is enough to kill the bacterium, how would losing the essential enzyme entirely allow the bacterium to survive?
When resistance arises, it's generally through one of two mechanisms: either the target is modified in such a way that it retains its function but no longer interacts with the drug, or a DIFFERENT enzyme is repurposed to break down the drug.
This is observed over and over and over again; you are fundamentally ignorant of how resistance works.

Like I said,
>Creationists never actually have an answer for this question. They either pretend it never happened, or claim that it's somehow a loss of information despite all the evidence to the contrary.
And you've done the former in the case of the Lenski experiment, and the latter in the case of resistance. Thanks for walking right into it.