That would be YEC Flood Geologists can’t agree. YEC says they use “science” to prove the flood but it looks like that doesn’t work.
Of course they would. They are YEC geologists after all.
I demand no such thing, but the YEC should be able to point to where in the geologic column the flood occurred, if it did occur. Basically the YEC geologists showed that when you considered a wide array of evidence the flood was not world wide.
Doctrine is not science. It is human and fallible.
And yet another TLDNR.
Edit to add: I notice you didn’t bother to dispute the actual geological arguments in the article.
You can assume anything you like. But since you asked, no, I’m not a biologist, but I do have a degree in natural science including ecology and evolution. I’ve also spent a lot of time over the last four decades researching evolution/creation related topics. Not that it matters, since qualifications of lack of them aren’t an indication of correctness.
No.
I’ve cited and quoted Wikipedia, but I haven’t been parrotting it and it’s not the only source I’ve used.
You haven’t cited any source, despite repeatedly being asked to.
You appear to be just asking questions of an LLM and posting the answers you get.
I’m not just regurgitating Wikipedia. You can tell this because you won’t find the text of my posts in Wikipedia.[1]
I don’t know if you are just regurgitating text from somewhere because you have repeatedly failed to identify any sources at all for your (false) claims. That’s extremely suspicious.
More than you, unless you have some other degrees that you haven’t mentioned. A PhD for example.
As for checking things out, I did check your claims out (and found them to be false) and I’d love to check out your sources for myself - but you won’t say who/what you asked or who/what offered the alternative explanations you posted, so I can’t.
Instead, you keep dodging the question.
Ok.
I’m asking questions. You’re refusing to answer them.
I’d like to delve into greater complexity, but it’s difficult because you won’t say where you got your information or what your sources were.
I’ve asked you four times for the source of the ‘information’ about giant pandas you posted, and four times you’ve failed to provide it. You haven’t even admitted to having forgotten, or said that there were several different ones, you’ve just dodged. It’s a straightforward obvious question, so there’s no reason not to answer it, unless doing so would make you look even more foolish than you claim I look.
Did it fall into a wormhole and reappear in the 1990s? Was it concealed in a Middle Eastern cave and excavated by archeaologists? Maybe it was lost because of the destruction of all British libraries during the Blitz and rediscovered through translations of Arabic works on the topic.
Or, more likely, it was available, but you didn’t look for it because to you (and maybe your college teachers):
I mean you are refusing to answer questions. I was focussed on the questions about your sources of information, which you are refusing to disclose, but having just checked I notice that you haven’t answered any question I’ve asked.
So since asking you anything is waste of effort, I’ll stop.
Yes when you ask the same question over and over and receive no answer then it is quite reasonable to stop asking this question. Congratulations on FINALLY figuring that out!
This certainly does not demonstrate asking me ANYTHING is a waste of effort.
There many examples to the contrary on this forum.
Furthermore … I actually did answer the question. I said that I put the question to an internet search and look at many of the answers which came up. But I notice you have a habit of ignoring answers you don’t want to hear.
Frankly, I suspect that you are simply hunting for specious victories of some sort. Petty and tiresome… but perhaps you can correct this impression with the honest answers to a few general questions.
Why are you here?
What do you want from this forum?
What do you want from the people here?
Looking into your history on the forum you seem to be really into getting admission of when people are shown to be wrong, even though I have yet to see any such admission on your part. Do you believe that you are never wrong? Ok, since you love admission you have shown someone to be wrong so much, let’s see if I can find an example in what I said in this thread.
this comes really close to being wrong…
The full story is that they are herbivorous as tadpoles, and then they become carnivores in adolescence, then as adults they eat mostly plant materials and thus are classified as herbivores …though they are carnivorous because they do eat invertebrates as well. So while what I said is technically correct, it is at at the very least misleading and so I admit that I was wrong. Did that make you happy?
Another example… this idea that the Giant Pandas became herbivores because of the loss of a gene that made meat taste better might be considered a myth. Attempts to verify this hypothesis showed it was more likely an adaptation to their change of diet which rather than causing the change of diet, thus making a return to a carnivorous diet less likely. So I can be considered guilty in helping to promote that myth by mentioning this without asking enough questions.
Oh… and look… I am not giving sources. why? Because this is not a professional paper and I simply have no responsibility to do so. But by all mean, if you are obsessed with such things provide all the documentation on whatever conclusions you wish.
Floods do not stratify victims of drowning. Floods jumble and disperse. So desperate is the allegiance to the 4500 year ago global flood, that YEC not only denies science, but lives in denial of common experience people can directly see for themselves.
I’ve hiked deeply into the Grand Canyon, and it doesn’t show anything supportive of YEC. I was on a backpacking trip down with a bunch that included a lot of YEC types, who were making jokes about the age of the canyon, and at one point I got tired of it and challenged one to explain just what about the strata indicated a young age. Every single point he claimed was just ludicrous! I asked another to randomly pick a section of layers and explain how it could have ended up in its condition in case of a flood, and he had nothing, so I explained just what – according to laboratory testing! – it took to form each layer, and being at just the right place to point it out, indicated a volcanic layer from a known eruption that could be dated using dendochronology to to over 7500 years ago, and reminded them of a similar layer higher up that dated to 6k years ago, also datable by dendochronology.
Then I tackled the silliness that the Canyon was carved out of soft sediments, dragging a civil engineering student in to talk about strength of deposited materials and angle of deposition; he conceded that the only way to get the formations in the Canyon was if they were carved slowly out of hard stone.
My audience wasn’t happy, but I did get some questions later in private from some folks who had never actually thought about it.
The original picture at the start of the thread is of phytosaurs, which were Triassic distant relatives of crocodiles and dinosaurs.
Only the earliest dinosaurs overlapped with phytosaurs.
Flood geology totally fails to credibly explain geological layers. To explain anything, a global flood model must give specific details about how the flood functions. What is the pattern of water movement - fast, slow, etc.? Salinity? What layers are during versus before versus after the flood? Then an honest comparison of what floods do versus other geological processes is necessary. Realistic assessment of the time involved is also necessary. Likewise, sound exegesis is needed to consider parameters for the possible flood model.
The Grand Canyon is a popular topic of young-earth claims, but actually checking the data shows that the young-earth claims are untrue. Sime of the rock layers show unambiguous evidence of being solid and eroded before the next layer was deposited, such as karst. The Coconino Sandstone has characteristic features of layers from wind-blown sand dunes, another point where young-earth sources make untrue claims.