The TRVE history of the Flood...

The reason you can claim "creation wins again" is you are ignoring all the evidence and posts that show your claims and beliefs are wrong.Creation "science" as usual, eh?

I posted evidence and you ignored it, as usual.But then we all know you're preaching rather than debating, and that you have no answer to the evidence we present.

You should not be bragging about adding something to the debate, as all you do is preach and then proclaim victory. You don't address the mountains of evidence that shows you are wrong. You lack even a passing acquaintance with evidence, logic, and laws. Those are associated with science, and you are about as anti-science as they come. I have presented some of the evidence in a previous post that shows the flood at your "exact" date never happened, which you -- as usual -- have completely ignored.So here it is again:

--From my own archaeological research I have documented Native American cultures which existed and flourished from before to after the "exact" date you concocted for the global flood. If there was such a flood it should have wiped those cultures out. (Along with cultures in Egypt and a lot of other parts of the world.)

​

--From my own archaeological research I have documented Native American mtDNA of a particular haplotype persisting from before to after the "exact" date you concocted for the global flood. If there was such a flood it should have wiped that haplotype out, replacing it sometime later with a Middle Eastern haplotype. (Other researchers have found the same evidence throughout the world.)

These two lines of evidence from my own research, not to mention thousands of similar findings from around the world, disprove the global flood at the "exact" date you concocted. Not my field. I'm a specialist, having studied a few things for decades. This is quite unlike creationists who read a couple of creationists books or visit a few creationist websites and suddenly are world-class experts in all fields. Creation "science" at work, eh? OK, here it is. You're a fraud. A preacher. A third-rate shaman. The only reason we waste time with you is the entertainment value, and to let you demonstrate just how poor your research and arguments really are. Your nonsense is now out there on the web for all to see and never to be recalled. You have branded yourself a Class A crank all by yourself. Oh? And you are going to address the evidence I posted above? And in previous posts? Or are you just going to continue to duck, dodge, and weave -- all the while proclaiming victory?You are not addressing my evidence because you can't. All you have is bluster. Poor analogy, as could be expected. You have no data, no evidence, a massive ego and overweening arrogance, and delusions of grandeur.You might at least try for a two-week-a-year time share in reality.

I note you still haven't addressed the evidence I presented showing there was no flood about 4350 years ago.Until you can counter that evidence your numerology, bible quotes and claims are futile.ABE: Here it is again:

--From my own archaeological research I have documented Native American cultures which existed and flourished from before to after the "exact" date you concocted for the global flood. If there was such a flood it should have wiped those cultures out. (Along with cultures in Egypt and a lot of other parts of the world.)

​

--From my own archaeological research I have documented Native American mtDNA of a particular haplotype persisting from before to after the "exact" date you concocted for the global flood. If there was such a flood it should have wiped that haplotype out, replacing it sometime later with a Middle Eastern haplotype. (Other researchers have found the same evidence throughout the world.)

​

These two lines of evidence from my own research, not to mention thousands of similar findings from around the world, disprove the global flood at the "exact" date you concocted.

Edited by Coyote, : Added evidence from a previous post

You're still ducking the evidence I posted in Message 528.You have no evidence to show what I posted is wrong.You lose, we win. Same as always.

In the case of the flood, archaeological and historical evidence conclusively shows that the flood didn't happen as described. Same for the belief in a young earth.

The type of information I have been citing is found worldwide, and has been published worldwide for over 100 years. One example (not one of mine):Genetic analysis of early holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas - PubMedThis study reports DNA continuity in southern Alaska and the west coasts of both North and South America over a span of 10,000+ years.

I noted some references to questions I posed, so I'll repeat the information. It was at the beginning of this thread Message 3.I don't expect David to answer as he's been ducking, dodging and weaving for weeks now to avoid answering--as he has no answers, just the hollow claims of numerology.

I'm aware of your positions, but I was hoping David would at least address the evidence I posted.He's been ducking, dodging and weaving. He just keeps repeating his empty claims with no effort to debate.I predict he won't last much longer here.

Go to the top of the thread and select "Admin" and review all of his posts. He just said you have to support your claims with more than "the bible says so." You have been ducking, dodging, and weaving concerning the evidence I posted for a couple of weeks now. Other than hand-waving it away (never a very good counter to real-world evidence) you haven't laid a glove on it.You claim the flood was ca. 4350 years ago, while my personal archaeological research shows continuity of Native American cultures from before to after that date, along with continuity of mitochondrial DNA from before to after that date.My colleagues around the world have produced the same evidence thousands of times over.One example: Not far from you, in extreme southern Alaska, is a cave with a skeleton dated to 10,300 years ago. It has a rare mtDNA haplotype that has been traced to 46 living individuals in North and South America. This shows there was no replacement with Near Eastern mtDNA as would be required if there were a global flood around 4350 years ago.Faith disputes the dating, but at least she addresses the question. You just duck, dodge and weave.

John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym for a high school teacher named Jan Peczkis), in his article titled The non-transitions in ‘human evolution’—on evolutionists’ terms, posted on the answersingenesis.org website, has argued this very thing. He writes:

The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.

So Woodmorappe sees the change from modern man, i.e., Adam and Eve, to these four species of fossil man taking place since the Babel incident, which occurred after the global flood and in the range of 4,000 to 5,300 years ago.Homo ergaster is dated by scientists to between about 1.8 million and 1.3 million years ago, so the change from that critter to modern man took at least 1.1 million years. Now creationists propose a change from modern man to Homo ergaster in about 4,500 years (with instant fossilization and burial, along with a return to normal evolutionary rates). This post-Babel change from modern man to Homo ergaster would require a rate of evolution on the order of 250 times as rapid as scientists see for the change from Homo ergaster to modern man!Most creationists deny evolution occurs on this scale at all. Now creationists have not only proposed such a change themselves, but they see it operating 250 times faster and in reverse!No wonder creation "science" is considered joke!

In his own inimitable fashion, he's moderating the thread for us.

One little problem with your "exact" math -- real world evidence shows that the global flood never happened in spite of all the math you can conjure up.

Two scientists would let the evidence, not belief, decide their differences.

Isn't in telling that creationists all have to fudge on the dating issue?The dating issue alone disproves both a young earth and a global flood during historic times.Because creationists can't accept this, they have to come up with ever more ingenious (and erroneous) "just so" stories to fit their beliefs into the constraints of real world evidence. Mostly this ends up as simple denial--"I believe scientific dating is wrong somehow but I don't know how."As dwise1 said, "If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science..."Hmmmmm. Makes one wonder, it do.